Excellent thread. As mentioned in the other thread, the conversation around captaincy gets dominated by stupid tropes like "defensive/aggressive/ because there isn't much to go on with.
So when these 'experts' are asked to assess captaincy, they can't go beyond that.
If you dig a little deep, it's so clear how flimsy a construct this is. It is completely based on certain beliefs based on very specific playing conditions and resources.
A recent exchange between Jayawardene with a dumb fan on Twitter highlights this .Fan goes to MJ and asks him "why Angelo Matthews lacks aggression as a captain" and he responded "what do you want him to do? Punch the opposition". I understand amateur fans resorting to hyperbole like that but its frustrating when experts who get paid for their opinions and analysis cannot offer anything more.
A very good example, Misbah-Clarke and the 2014 series in UAE.
Clarke is considered the personification of aggression, pro active, funky fields, and is widely considered one of the best captains of his time by these experts.
Misbah on the other hand, is the dour, boring, negative, reactive, defensive captain who just stands there and doesn't react and lets the game go on.
Clarke set his aggressive, funky fields for Johnson, Starc and Siddle, 3 slips, gully, point, the fields he would set in Australia for them. Pakistan did not touch the ball outside the off stump, new ball didn't swing or carry, and once the bowlers were tired, Pakistan milked them.
Misbah on the other hand, did not set what would be considered an 'attacking field', instead focused on blocking their scoring option, frustrated the Australians through that and got them out.
Australia never took 20 wickets in a single match, but got bowled out in every innings. It wasn't even a square turning SC pitch they would experience in Sri Lanka or India
Chappell would write eulogies on how great Clarke is and how Misbah, Dhoni, Cook are **** captains and need to be sacked.
I don't think Misbah was a defensive captain (at least not in his view of the game). For him, blocking runs is an attacking move. This just doesn't match the conventional wisdom about how we understand 'aggression' is. He would always have a Third man because he feels if a batsman gets an outside edge and is beaten, he should not get 4 runs for it.
A popular TV pundit in Pakistan kept berating Misbah throughout his career for having a third man and how it was such a defensive move.
Ultimately it's how best you make use of your resources given the opposition and the conditions you're facing. If being defensive is what works for you given your resources, then I don't see what's wrong with it.