Originally Posted by BeeGee
Can't stand night watchmen. Ludicrous idea.
Sport has always been about giving yourself the best chance of success in any situation. So please explain to me in what situation does tail end batsman have a better chance of survival at the crease than a top order batsman?
Well i recall a stat that Ojha averages more balls survived per wicket than Sehwag...
Seriously, i think this argument about the "better batsman" is flawed. First of all it isn't simply about "who has a better chance of survival?". The point is that survival is more important for the better batsman, so you want to try and avoid the risk of exposing him.
Secondly it isn't ridiculous that a lower order batsman could have a better or even chance of survival. Being a good batsman is about more than just having a good defence (indeed there are some 'good' batsmen who are known for having a ropey defence or for being particularly poor starters). Being a good batsman is also about scoring runs. A tailender can work night and day on their defensive technique to the extent that they can probably at least equal the defensive ability of a proper batsman, especially if they have a good eye and basic ability. Remember that many tailenders would look like reasonable batsmen if they dropped down a couple of levels - you will find many will have scored runs for their school, clubs etc.
The art of batsmanship is being able to break away from "block balls on the stumps, leave the rest" to actually expand their game to try and score. Also the ability to concentrate for long periods. Not something required of a nightwatchman. (How many tailenders seem to get out the moment they play a couple of nice scoring shots, and get over confident from starting to 'feel' like they are a batsman?)
In many respects i think the best arguments against nightwatchmen focus not on what happens the night before, but what happens the following morning and the potential effect later down the innings. But it is a balance.