Nightwatchmen Not Wanted

From CI:

For some reason India continue with their practice of using a nightwatchman, in perfect light, and perfect batting conditions. And that too a fast bowler who has just finished bowling 27 overs. Ishant Sharma couldn't survive the last six overs. At least India are consistent there: they sent in Ishant against Australia too, in Delhi last year, with the same consequence. Gary Kirsten said then: "Certainly, in all the cricket I have played in my time, and it's no different here, we always ask the No. 3 or 4 batsman if they want a nightwatchman. And it was requested that a nightwatchman be used. This is what happens every single time, in every situation, and there are very few batsmen who don't want a nightwatchman."

Er, why ask the batsmen? Why not, as captain, just tell them to go in according to the batting order? Why not, that is, ask them to do their jobs? Batsmen are, to use an old, but still delightful phrase, a bunch of laadsaabs, (derived from Lord-Saheb, I'm sure), used to sitting around in the pavilion, drinking chai, dipping in the odd biskoot, and occasionally ordering pakoras. Tell them to get off their round backsides, and go in and bat. That's what they're getting paid for. It wouldn't hurt to remind them of the silliness of it all when a nightwatchman's wicket falls. One more wicket down, and nothing to show for it.