Tendulkar right to decline the captaincy

Sachin Tendulkar was right to decline the Indian captaincy. It may well be the case with marriage that it's better the second time, but not necessarily cricket captaincy.

If you go purely by record, Tendulkar's second stint as Indian captain was a disaster: one win in eight attempts. However, as bad as those stats are, they don't reveal the full story.

Tendulkar tried to micro-manage in his second stint at captaincy. He would often talk to bowlers a couple of times an over - and not just a few words of encouragement either, more like a coaching lesson. It would be the equivalent of his batting partner giving Tendulkar advice two or three times each over.

Now this has the same effect on bowlers that constant chatting between balls would presumably have on Tendulkar's own concentration and his rhythm as a batsman. It also hints at a lack of faith in the bowler's ability. He's been selected, he's attended the team meeting, so let him bowl. An occasional suggestion or a quick natter about field placings before an over is acceptable, but not a coaching lesson every third ball.

Imran Khan was one of the better international leaders and he believes a good captain should "understand bowling". Tendulkar definitely comprehends bowling when he's facing it, but from his actions as a captain he doesn't appear to understand bowlers.

The Indian selectors wouldn't have done Tendulkar any favours by appointing him Test captain a third time. His first assignment would have been in the toughest environment: Australia have lost just six Tests at home since the start of the 1995-96 season. In addition, during his first two stints as Indian captain he was at his peak as a player. Now he's no longer a dominant batsman.

Tendulkar has saved the selectors from what could've been not only an embarrassing decision but also a costly mistake. If he had accepted the captaincy and India went on to lose the series badly to Australia, it could have hastened his retirement.