Questioning Crowe

From Andre Nash, United Kingdom
Martin Crowe was a leading batsman and inspirational skipper in his time. However, his emotional take on Virender Sehwag's captaincy ("the worst he's ever seen') during the recently-concluded 2nd Test in Napier has brought into question his abilities as commentator.

By all accounts, Sehwag did not have an impressive match. Having failed to inspire India and be pro-active in the field, both his batting dismissals reeked of irresponsibility. However, he cannot be entirely blamed for the toothless nature of the Indian bowling, or for Yuvraj flooring key catches off Ross Taylor and James Franklin early in their knocks. The strokeplay and resilience of the NZ middle-lower order should also be commended. All this too on a docile track that enabled India to notch up nearly 500 in their 2nd innings without breaking sweat.

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.