I've always found the concept of a nightwatchman strange, you'd think a batsman would be much more adept at seeing an over or two out than a bowler, but it does seem to me that wickets are more likely to fall in pairs towards the end of the day, though thats based on nothing more than an impression I seem to have from watching rather than any analysis.

He did

I may be wrong here, but didn't Alex Tudor once get 99 as a nightwatchman for England? I seem to recall he was not out as well.

Yup

Yes, his county teammate Graham Thorpe was partnering him at the time and hit the winning runs rather than block out the over and allow Tudor to complete his century to win the match. I think it was at home to NZ in 1999, and we won the match easily with plenty of time to spare and loads of wickets in hand. At that time it was the highest ever score by a nightwatchman in Tests, but was soon eclipsed by Mark Boucher for SA, who became the first nightwatchman to score a century. And of course Jason Gillespie ultimately scored a double century performing the same role for Australia against Bangladesh.

I don't know if it's just me but nightwatchmen don't seem to be used so much in Test cricket any more. Personally I think it's trying to be too clever by half and is just as likely to work against you. Psychologically I think the whole ploy represents a distraction to the team using it.

we're having a bowl

Bresnan in for Finn as well.

A strange one really. OK so he's been our most expensive but also the highest wicket taker? Let's hope it doesn't backfire.

COME ON ENGLAND!!!!!!!!

indeed, come on England.

After watching the first over this is going to be a draw

Grassed by Collingwood already