Isn't tactically defensive captaincy legit?

[harsh.ag]

It's aggressive because Warne's thinking of batsmen who are leaving all those balls with a vengeance so as to strike terror in the hearts of the fielding side as they imagine the horror of the coming grind out.

 

[Burgey]

It's not unusual for people who are sporting genii to be less than adept at commenting (or coaching for that matter) on that sport. Warne is a good example

 

[Black_Warrior]

I've always thought in the sub-continent, 'defensive' captaincy is a requirement to win Test matches. When India had dominating positions against England in winter they still set basically in/out fields, because they knew that period of the game was going to be them holding England in place for when they took wickets later on.

That's correct and the way I would look at it, our perception of 'aggression' is just based on specific conditions - say Australia or England where the ball carries at a decent bounce for up to 4 days and you need fielders in catching positions if you want to take wickets.

But if you apply the same philosophy - take wickets in subcontinent, especially in places like UAE where it doesn't even turn sharply nor does it carry to slips, the way to take wickets would be to block runs, take away the batsman's scoring opportunities and force him to get uncomfortable and make a mistake.

That's aggressive too, it's just that the way you reach there takes longer and requires having 'defensive' fields and often bowling 'defensive lines'