Questioning Crowe - Inbox at Cricinfo

Was it really all Sehwag's fault that India were under pressure? The failure of nightwatchman Ishant Sharma on the 2nd evening was also mooted as a leadership letdown. Yet did Vettori get the same flak for Kyle Mills' duck in the 1st Test? Or for his rigid, mechanical policy of rotating his bowlers in 6-over spells in the same match? Crowe's analysis of Sehwag's leadership was probably more influenced by his modes of dismissal, rather than actual decisions as skipper. Injudicious strokes in both innings certainly cannot be termed as 'leading from the front'. Yet this is the method that has enabled Sehwag to collect tons on subcontinental dustbowls as well as grassy decks in South Africa and Australia, averaging over 50 in under 65 balls every time he occupies the crease.

Crowe even wondered aloud 'how many more Tests Sehwag will captain', suggesting that his vice-captaincy should be revoked. Instead, he claimed VVS Laxman was better-suited to the role, citing his 'wealth of experience', declaring that the vice-captain should be someone 'sure of his place in the side'. On several levels, this assessment is flawed.

Barring a brief spell in 2007, Sehwag has been a fixture in the Indian Test XI since 2001. He is also no spring chicken, standing only 9 Tests away from representing his country at Test level as many times as Crowe did in his entire career. Crowe carped on, arguing that Laxman demands the respect of team-mates and opposition alike (implying that Sehwag doesn't). Both are proven match-winners, but with his destructive style and more Test centuries already than Laxman, does Sehwag also not command respect?

This is not to promote/defend Sehwag's leadership ability, or to doubt Laxman's batting record and captaincy material - my point is merely to question Crowe's vice-captaincy criteria and analysis. When Craig McMillan suggested Gautam Gambhir as a possible choice, Crowe immediately (and almost angrily) dismissed him by referring to lack of experience. By Crowe's regimented thinking, MS Dhoni would never have been allowed to captain in limited-overs and eventually Tests. Up until now at least, we all know how that has turned out.

I hear what you're saying, but let's face it, Sehwag's captaincy was poor. Some of his field placings were innovative to the point of being bizarre; similarly,it would have made more sense in every way to have at least one of his regular bowlers bowling at all times. Using two part timers together for a long period sends at the least the message that you are just waiting for a declaration or Providence. It is also generally accepted that Laxman is an excellent, thinking captain who understands the game better than most (many felt he should have taken over from Ganguly). I'm a huge fan of Sehwag the batsman (though his hoicks in this game do him no credit), but Captain? No.

I personally didn't find anything wrong in his assessment of Veeru as captain in the test match.At 23 for 3 NZ was on the mat on a very good batting track.Yet he maintained a sweeper cover right throughout the match to save the boundaries played against bad bowling.His field placing was absolutely ridiculous to say the least.The gaps he provided in the slip cordon ensured that all edges went through it. Yuvraj has never fielded in the slip cordon. Fielding is slips is a specialised skill and requires great amount of training.You cann't expect a player to just fill in the gap. That was the biggest mistake committed by Veeru on the first day.Veeru himself is a very good slip fielder. Why was he not in the slip cordon? Giving away 351 runs on the 1st day after setting defensive fields is just not done.The NZ ist innings folded immediately after tea on the second day when Ishant was handed the ball.For almost 2 hrs between lunch and tea on the 2nd day part timers like veeru and yuvraj were

I completely agree with you Andre. I think the idea that somebody can bat in such a swashbuckling fashion in a Test Match is preposterous for quite a few cricketers including past greats. Clearly it was not the best game by Sehwag's standards but then these were exactly the same methods that won India the Chennai Test recently. As far as captaincy is concerned, it is actually in India's favour not to have Sehwag as a captain (given the kind of pressure the job exerts) so that he can focus on doing what he does best.

The author's comments are well made, because it appears that Crowe is merely trying to drive a wedge in the Indian team by playing off two key batsmen against each other.

Sehwag was merely a stand-in captain for one test, and to try to discredit his captaincy talents on a flat wicket which had nothing for the bowlers on either side seems like overreaction.

As a Kiwi, Crowe might be better served by wondering if New Zealand has made the right choice in appointing Vettori skipper, given that NZ do not look anywhere as competitive as they did under Fleming - even a test win against Bangladesh, for instance, was earned by hard toil.

The article also is a good point to start debating if commentators are now guilty of the kind of bias and lack of balance one would associate with rabid supporters of a team, because it appears that commentators today sound enthusiastic or otherwise based on their nationalities and that of the teams playing.

There is some merit in Crowe's remarks. India is aspiring to be the # 1 team and with three wickets down cheaply, no such team should be having a sweeper cover! The onus is on India to attack. It can become a no # team only when it wins test after test, series after series. With this team, there is no reason why they should not be able to achieve that. Just like the Aussies did, when they twice won 16 test matches in a row. Can team India aspire to or overcome those levels? If it intends to do so, it cannot become a defensive team, sitting on its lead, as Sehwag attempted to do. Let us not blame the wicket for NZ's recovery in the first innings. Yes, the lower order batted beautifully; but thoughtful, aggressive captaincy might have helped.

I have to agree fully with the analysis above. Despite having the greatest respect for Crowe as a batsman, I feel that he has let us down with his short-sighted view on Sehwag's captaincy. Although I don't dispute the fact that Sehwag may not be the right man to captain India, the reasoning that Crowe gives is flawed to say the least. It is very unfortunate that Sehawag, one of most respected, destructive and proven match-winning batsmen in the modern game, should have such unfair criticism thrown at him. However, knowing Sehwag and his lack of interest in what the media says about him, he will respond in the same way he always does - with the bat.

I am actualy very surprised by Mr. Crowe's comments. I thought he did a pretty good job being a neutral commentator. But in this series he seems to have really polarised opinions about everything. Even the Zaheer Khan comment was totally uncalled for. This form of 'mental disintegration' doesn't really suit the Kiwis, the Aussies are better at it and I think it should remain that way.

I admire Sehwag for what he does, and does effectively. He thinks clearly and attacks instinctively. It has worked for him and that is his success mantra.

I was unpleasantly surprised about how Mr. Crowe's interpretation of Rahul Dravid's comment on responsible batting as a jibe directed towards Sehwag.

My question to Mr. Crowe is, had Sehwag slog swept his way to a double hundred on this pitch and had India won the match, would his captaincy be questioned then?

I think we all know the answer to this question.

I agree completely here with you Andre.

In fact I was getting pretty agitated when Crowe was going on and on about Sehwag. I also think it is unfair to question his dismissals in this test match. I know both the shots were horrible to which he got out and both shots were preceded by boundaries in both the innings.
However I genuinely believe that even in the second innings Sehwag was thinking that we can win this game. It was the same attitude in Chennai earlier this season why India won. His theory was 17 overs lets get to 100 runs this evening. I guess Crowe did not see the Chennai test match.

Why is it these days that whenever someone is prepared to openly speak whats on their mind without sugar coating it people think it is the end of the world? All crowe was doing was giving his opinion on Sehwags captaincy tactics, which by general consensus here most people tend to agree with him. But then isnt that part of the job of a commentator, to generate talk on the game. Just becoause you dont agree with what they are saying doesnt mean they shouldnt have said it.

The NZ commentators would not be out of place on the terraces of a football match in the Premier League. One of them literally spelt out the view that Sehwag was d-u-m-b! In a previous game,another reckoned Jesse Ryder would come out on top in a physical fight with Ishant Sharma!
New Zealand cricket followers would appreciate knowledgeable analysis and comment on the game being played, not ranting derived from the innate prejudices of some.

I have no problem with support for Sehwag to stay as captain. There are many ways to look at it. I took the view that if India want to be no 1 they won't under Sehwag, he is too much of a maverick. On the other hand he is the most destructive batsman in world cricket today and that is where he should focus. This I have said often. Its funny you know, I would make say 100 comments and 95 would be positive about India and rightly so, but boy make just 1 comment that is critical about India and up goes the flames! My point about vice-captaincy having gone through it all myself is that you must pick the 2nd best Test captain available. I'm not talking T20 here, Sehwag is perfect for that, while VVS isn't. But VVS is one with credibility, knowledge and adaptability. Dhoni has more experience than Gambhir, but lets face it, Dhoni is a genius.
I have never seen worse tactics or shots just when the team needed leadership with the bat from their captain so to me it was an easy comment to make.

I think that Martin Crowe was using hyperbole in relation to his comments picked out by Andre Nash. Crowe was right to question Sehwag's continued use of "strange" fields such as having 3 slips with wide gaps in them (players were set to stand at 1st 4th and 7th slip, then another hole for one and at times two gullies). It was all very interesting and a bit like how he bats. The cover sweeper before lunch on the first day when NZ were 23 for 3 was just absurb, and something even a First XI schoolboy captain would not do. Therefore I share much sympathy with Crowe's comments.

I don't think Sehwag is the best captain as he is not the role model you want in your batting line up. Sure he is the most aggressive and arguably most exciting Indian batsmen ever - however he has proven himself to be not the best captain.

Crowe's average of 45 in test cricket (would have likely been over 50 if he were Indian, thanks to NZ's green pitches). He was a better batsman than commentator.

I am a most ardent admirer of Sehwag,the batsman.
I did notice that his captaincy was sluggish. Signs of it were apparent even in IPL.Much better leadership was expected from the street smart Sehwag, but inexplicably he did not do justice to himself. Mr. Martin Crowe is perceived as being more than harsh on Veeru.More so, as judgment is based on a single match as a stand in captain on a docile wicket where two early catches were dropped and finally Sehwag as the captain wrangles out a draw from Vettori.Comparisons with VVS as captain is odious as VVS has not captained at international level. VVS unfortunately has never secured captaincy favours but it is too late now in his career.Sehwag has the potential
to raise his levels in captaincy.And any captain can also have an off day.

I am bit tired of the politically correct, give no offense style that modern commentators are wont to adopt. And of cringe-inducing South Asian commentators like Imran, Shastri and Gavaskar, the less said the better. So no, both as a cricket lover and an Indian fan, Crowe's remarks did not offend me at all. In the first test Crowe was lavish in his praise of Dravid and Tendulkar. Far from being a secret NZ weapon, I think Crowe wanted the Indians live up to their star billing and vented his frustrations on Sehwag when they did not. I love Sehwag, both for his cricket and his forthright statements but you cannot deny that the Indian team under his command was unrecognizable. And let's not forget that Dravid publicly criticized Sehwag at the end of Day 4, albeit for his strokeplay. Perhaps if we asked Sehwag, who is his own harshest critic, he would agree with Crowe's remarks.

Martin Crow’s comment on shewag’s captaincy “ is the worst he has ever seen” is a bit harsh. Shewag may not be the best captain but for a stop gap captain it’s a bit exaggerated judgment.

I also suspect it may a strategy before the all important and decisive final test match to disintegrate Indians, even Glen Turner NZ’s chief selector says that Indian team is not consistent, this after NZ taking a 4-1 beating and trailing by one test. We will see how Indian team responds to these mind games. I am sure Shewag must be raring to go.

But I agree with martin crow that VVS is a better choice, i have heard this from many foreign players and experts before. By the way I always liked and respected martin crow as a player and I couldn’t find any thing offensive in his comments on shewag’s captaincy.