Have England ever previously used a nightwatchman to open the innings?

[afinetickletoleg]

Genuine question (not a pop at Jennings).

[JasonP]

I don't think so.  If there was more than one over left then I guess you'd need two nightwatchmen so for any more than one over you probably wouldn't bother.  Seeing as Burns has taken the first ball in all 3 innings this series and Leach was never going to get off strike it was more him that was being protected than Jennings anyway.

[Andy]

Not sure. Usually opening bats prefer not to hide behind a night watchman - at least in the era when we had proper openers. I do know that this is the first time since 1974 that we’ve bowled a side out and none of the wickets went to seam...Stuart Broad must be crestfallen at not playing.

[Slogger]

Was 74 game the one in the West Indies when Greig bowled them out with off spin?

[Perov]

Not sure about England, but in the Third Test of 1937 at Melbourne,  Bradman reversed his batting order, and the numbers 11 and 10 opened in the second innings.
He batted at number7.

[Andy]

Not sure about England, but in the Third Test of 1937 at Melbourne,  Bradman reversed his batting order, and the numbers 11 and 10 opened in the second innings.
He batted at number7.

That was a typical 'sticky dog' wicket.  I think Hammond might have done something similar in the same match - or at least put Hutton in at 7/8.

[bwildered]

It will never happen , just like a seamer not taking a wicket for England in a game . Next you will be saying a Colchesterian, not playing for the county of his birth,  score a hundred for his country .