Captains...

Attractive Nun

All this talk of the new England captain has raised a question in my mind. Does it actually matter at all who the England captain is? In rugby, for example, the captain is given privileged access to the referee, but in football, they do very little in reality. Is the role of captain a redundant job, or does it make a real difference that the right person is chosen for the role?

casanova_kid

I think it does, a captain should lead by example, order his teamates around, make sure the right decisions are made. For instance, Keane's captaincy for United, you can't say that wasn't important to their sucess.

mike65

Its not a techical role merely a presentional one, like being King rather than Prime Minister!

Ironicly this means its rather important as the captain sets the tone, which is why England were so poor (given the players) under Beckham. He simply was'nt a leader of men.

Mike.

Attractive Nun

How different would Roy Keane's influence be if he wasn't captain, though? Would the fact that he wasn't given the title mean the players would be less inclined to follow his leadership?

Guy:Incognito

Attractive Nun wrote:

How different would Roy Keane's influence be if he wasn't captain, though? Would the fact that he wasn't given the title mean the players would be less inclined to follow his leadership?

No he was a born captain. He woul;d have asserted himself regardless. But the fact of the matter is, he was always going to be captain.

leeroybrown

I wouldn't say it's redundant at all. It's a good way to acknowledge a player who sets an example on the pitch, in the dressing room and has a good influence on the rest of the team. It also places them in a position where they should automatically be seen as a leader by other team members.

Fanny Cradock

Attractive Nun wrote:

How different would Roy Keane's influence be if he wasn't captain, though? Would the fact that he wasn't given the title mean the players would be less inclined to follow his leadership?

it's a fair point, but as Stekelly said, he would have naturally asserted himself. if he wasn't captain then i'd imagine that this would have caused conflict within the team. in every group/organisation etc. a natural leader will eventually emerge or is appointed. this is essential - i can't see how it is any different for football.

cournioni

Best example of a captain in the world today is Cannavaro. He pretty much sums it the word up in soccer terms. Roy Keane was the best captain of all time though IMO.

PHB

How different would Roy Keane's influence be if he wasn't captain, though? Would the fact that he wasn't given the title mean the players would be less inclined to follow his leadership?

Remember him when Cunningham was a captain though, he still was the captain on the field.
I think the named captains are irrelvent, some players lead by example, some don't. Beckham used to lead by example for United at times, but he never did it consistantly, only in big games. Keane led by example at all times, and a great captain lifts the team, but I don't think a poor captain weakens the team.

Pigman II

PORNAPSTER wrote:

Best example of a captain in the world today is Cannavaro. He pretty much sums it the word up in soccer terms.

Yep Cannavaro is what it's all about. Eamon Dunphy (for once) summed it up nicely when he said "Cannavaro is the kind of guy you'd want to go into a war with".

You want a guy who'll lead by example, who'll put the foot (and the head) in for the cause and who'll drag you across the line when the chips are down.

What you don't want is some wimpy-ass, tackle-shirking, throwing-up-on-the pitch, crying-on-the-sub-bench, wants-to-win but doesn't have a clue how-to-win assclown like ....... oh i don't know ....... let's say "Beckham" for example.