The England Captain

I think Don Fabio will appoint Ferdinand as his captain for one reason: I get the impression that Terry thinks he's the boss.

Don Fabio obviously wants someone who'll do his bidding and follow his instructions at all times.

I think Terry, believing that he's the main man, is more likely to disobey Don Fabio's instructions.

Or.... Capello doesn't overly rate Terry, and as a result can't commit the captaincy to a player he doesn't feel has a relatively certain place in the team.

Today is not exactly the best day to be calling for Ferdinand to be captain.

gerrard

hes the perfect captain for pool, and i think a captain from midfield has more influence

Captains in football have an importance but captains in football are overrated

forza_rossi wrote:Captains in football have an importance but captains in football are overrated

No, they aren't. All WC winning sides had a great captain / leader, without exception.

If a football player has a militairy rank of captain..would he become automatically become captain of a football team

I vote Gerrard btw, that guy is amazing!

blutgraetsche wrote:

forza_rossi wrote:Captains in football have an importance but captains in football are overrated

No, they aren't. All WC winning sides had a great captain / leader, without exception.

Is this really true? Was Cafu so important as a "leader of men" in 2002, rather than as a largely honorific role given his vast experience? And even Maradona in '86 – wasn't he more of a talisman and an inspiration than a true "leader"?

In Germany's case for instance, Ballack, fair enough; but when he's not on the pitch the armband will automatically pass to the player with the most caps. (Not, for instance, to Lehmann, more obviously a "leader" than Klose.) In Italy too the most experienced player generally wears the armband, and in France too more often than not.

I don't see that the role of captain in football has anything like the inherent importance it carries in, say, rugby and cricket, even if leaders able to take responsibility and inspire on the pitch are always going to be important, and even if some teams (like, say, Arsenal with the young Tony Adams) pick someone out even at a young age to make a statement.

As for Gerrard, he's not (been) a good international player, so that counts against him I think. I can see the clear case for Rio even after his classy behaviour at the weekend.

Hargreaves hands down

Who "will be", not who should be.

I cannot read Capello's mind

if he has any intelligence it won't be Terry, the deluded, Gerrard, the hopeless (in international games) or Ferdinand , the prankster

alte Zöpfe müssen abgeschnitten werden

he needs a REAL fighter who is intelligent, averse to hype , eloquent and a break with the past and virtually undroppable

if Capello does not see this, I cannot help him

v problematic after this weekend

gerrard hardly covered himself in glory the other week with all his amateur dramatics v blackburn

rio has not done too well this weekend

hargreaves neither

terry too well documented

@Allez

Even if Cafu was given the armband due to his "a largely honorific role given his vast experience", which I don't think is necessarily true (his inspiring and neverending runs down the flank, pushing the team forward (he basically never got tired), leading by example), it still won't take anything away of his importance for the team. Experience and matureness are some of the most important criteria of a captain.

And while Ballack may be replaced by others as captain when he is not playing, having a strong leader / character(s) (one isn't enough usually) does make the difference in tight, important matches. You may not need an inspirational captain against San Marino, but you sure as hell need someone to lead the team when they are behind in a World Cup final against strong opposition.

Some players are 'natural leaders', and don't necessarily need vast experience to lead a team, but those players are rare. Still, experience always helps, it's often necessary to get the respect of the team mates, and should be one of the main criteria of choosing a captain if a 'natural talent' is not available.

I notice no one has offered Terry some credit for Chelsea's surge at the end of the season. He played very well on Saturday. And wednesday for that matter. With no histrionics.

Imagine if Terry had made that mistake instead of Carvahlo. He would have been crucified.

Captain for me though should be Gerrard or Ferdinand. End of

Terry is nowhere near as nad a player as people make out tbh. he makes mistakes but who doesn't given his lack of pace it shows he must read the game reasonable well. carvalho made a bad un but in fairness he saved them on numerous occasions

blutgraetsche wrote:@Allez

Even if Cafu was given the armband due to his "a largely honorific role given his vast experience", which I don't think is necessarily true (his inspiring and neverending runs down the flank, pushing the team forward (he basically never got tired), leading by example), it still won't take anything away of his importance for the team. Experience and matureness are some of the most important criteria of a captain.

And while Ballack may be replaced by others as captain when he is not playing, having a strong leader / character(s) (one isn't enough usually) does make the difference in tight, important matches. You may not need an inspirational captain against San Marino, but you sure as hell need someone to lead the team when they are behind in a World Cup final against strong opposition.

Some players are 'natural leaders', and don't necessarily need vast experience to lead a team, but those players are rare. Still, experience always helps, it's often necessary to get the respect of the team mates, and should be one of the main criteria of choosing a captain if a 'natural talent' is not available.

I think I'd perhaps say that players who lead and play by example are vital for a successful team, but who actually wears the armband is less so. i.e. for England, if Gerrard is not captain surely he should still be doing exactly what he does for Liverpool at his best, leading by example.

At Villa, we have ReoCoker who's been captain at previous clubs and though he is not captain now, is still by far the biggest vocal presence on the pitch - it doesn't make a difference that he's not actually got the title
(the actual captain, Barry, is a more quiet 'lead by example, step-up to take last minute penalties' type, which compliments nicely).

You have problems if you have nobody with this leadership quality, but so long as you have some players who can do this (and with Gerrard, Terry, Barry, Ferdinand, etc. England really shouldn't be short in this sense) - I don't think it's a big deal who among them is given the armband.

You don't have to be 'loud' to be a great captain, a lot of poeple seem to get this wrong. Yes, the likes of Effenberg or Matthäus were great leaders, but that's definitely not the only way to lead the team. Actually, very few players have the authority to lead like that, most look simply foolish when they do it.

Most great leaders lead by example. If they lead by example and give their team mates a hairdryer treatment every time it's needed, they become legends.

This may be a controversial statement of mine, and I probably will get a lot of flak for it, but one of the reasons (definitely not the only reason) why the so called 'Golden Generation" of English football has been so disappointing in the last few years is the lack of hierarchy in the team, the lack of a true, undisputed, quality leader. But that's just my opinion.

blutgraetsche wrote:You don't have to be 'loud' to be a great captain, a lot of poeple seem to get this wrong. Yes, the likes of Effenberg or Matthäus were great leaders, but that's definitely not the only way to lead the team. Actually, very few players have the authority to lead like that, most look simply foolish when they do it.

Most great leaders lead by example. If they lead by example and give their team mates a hairdryer treatment every time it's needed, they become legends.

This may be a controversial statement of mine, and I probably will get a lot of flak for it, but one of the reasons (definitely not the only reason) why the so called 'Golden Generation" of English football has been so disappointing in the last few years is the lack of hierarchy in the team, the lack of a true, undisputed, quality leader. But that's just my opinion.

I didn't say that - if you're aiming that at me? - I said ReoCoker is vocal and makes his presence felt in that way, while Barry (the captain) is quieter and leads by example, and that this compliments.

The point was more that ReoCoker does this despite not being the nominal 'captain' - which is what Gerrard etc. should also do even if they are not named captain.

Wasn't really directed at you, just a general statement of mine as a reaction to that example of yours.

Having more than one player who can take responsibilty in crucial moments is essential indeed, but there has to be some kind of structure in the team, some kind of hierarchy.

I think there has been a hierarchy in the England squad, just not necessarily a healthy one. The big-name players seemed to hold something of a clique under McLaren based on reputation but not necessarily performance on the pitch. And to be honest I'm not sure if a lot of them would give enough respect if a lesser-name player was given the role.

My own feelings are that the captaincy in football is less important than in other sports because of the lack of tactical responsibility. As long as a team has players who take command of situations it doesn't matter if they are captain or not. For me a captain may lead the team, but there may well be other players who gee up players when they are down, others still who calm situations down, and others who organise the team at set pieces. Obviously the captain will be responsible for some of this, but as long as there are a couple of strong, positive characters in the team I don't think the captaincy is especially important.

I agree with Allez and debaser. A trophy winning side will contain at least one or two players who lead by example on the pitch, through their quality and commitment. But I don't think a strong captain, a captain who is at the centre of the team and who acts as a real leader, is a vital or a regular component of a trophy winning side, at international or at club level.

I think Allez's Cafu example is a good one of a successful captain who wasn't a real leader - I'd agree that he led by example on the pitch with his work rate, but he wasn't the most skillful of Brazil's players, wasn't the most talkative, didn't play in a traditional 'captain's position' in the centre of the field, and from what I understand, he wasn't hugely supported back home in Brazil. He seemed well liked within Brazil's squad, and he had seniority, and that was enough for the manager to give him the captaincy, and it worked out well.

In general, there are a range of qualities that would go to make up an ideal football captain, and it is very rare for a player to possess all these qualities. So in practice, managers tend to pick their captain from a few possibilities, and they don't always pick based on who is likely to be the best leader of men, or the most inspirational member of the team - they don't go for a sort of ideal captain - the choice is often a compromise, or made for a specific reason, made to benefit the club at a specific point in time.

At Newcastle this season, we have had three captains - we started with Geremi because he speaks a variety of languages, he is very experienced, and he is well liked in the dressing room; we moved to Smith, who is, in theory, competitive and the type of player who fires his teammates up; now we have Owen, a quiet guy who is supposed to lead by example on the pitch, and who is a big name. At the start of the season, I considered as potential captains Given, because he has been at the club a long time and has consistently performed; and Solano, because he was well liked at the club, and because he was more able on the ball than any other player.

All of which is just to show the range of factors involved in choosing a captain, which to me suggests that the choice is a complex one, a balancing act, but one that ultimately isn't crucially important. I think it may be the case that a bad captain can detract from a team much more than a good one can add to a team.

Bashmachkin wrote:I think it may be the case that a bad captain can detract from a team much more than a good one can add to a team.

I think it's more or less the same. I've seen inspirational captains lifting their team to new heights, beating much stronger opposition (at least on paper; more often in club than international football though), and I've seen teams filled with individual talent collapse under pressure because there was no real (or healthy, like gunner puts it) hierarchy, no true leader on the pitch.

Ideally, the captain is an 'extension' of the manager on the pitch. He should not just be a great motivator and be leading by example, but have tactical and strategic understanding as well.

But yes, good / excellent captains are a rare breed, especially these days.

On England, I agree with both Blut and Sheffield's points. I think the England squad has been cliquey for far too long, first with a Man Utd bias, which has led to Man Utd players - for instance Butt, Smith, Brown - getting undeserved caps; more recently with a clique centred around Gerrard, which, for instance, produced the absurd attempts to postpone Carragher's retirement last year. As well as meaning that some players receive caps undeservedly, this also makes it harder for newcomers to settle in the squad or to win a place in the starting eleven. And I think it has produced an atmosphere in which the more powerful players in the squad see themselves as untouchable - they play for themselves too much, lap up any hype, remain oblivious to any criticism.

There has been a broad and damaging hierarchy in the England squad under Eriksson and McClaren, without an undisputed leader who is free and willing when it comes to criticising certain players or changing things for the better. Maybe that will change with Capello in charge.

I like the idea of having an intelligent captain - I think the type of captain who simply shouts at his teammates, 'gees them up', acts as though in a war, builds up a sort of seige mentality - I think all this is very limited. But England don't have much to choose from at the moment. Hargreaves strikes me as an unexceptional player, as a pretty dull individual, and I don't know that he is worth his place in the England squad; Gerrard has been rubbish for England for a long time, and for me he has been a very selfish member of the squad; Terry has been tried, and neither he nor Barry are sure of a starting place. I think Ferdinand is probably the best, and the safest bet at the moment, mainly because is one of England's two or three genuine world class players, but he also plays in a suitable position, he communicates, and he seems a decent guy despite the moments of idiocy. I think Owen is a possibility, because I think he still has a key role to play for England, and he is leading Newcastle well at the moment. Then Rooney is an interesting option, considering that, by and large, I think he is a more responsible and level headed player now than he was a few years ago; the captaincy might make him even better in this respect; and then he is arguably England's key player.

I think your points on the cliques are interesting, however I see that phil neville, alan smith etc were still getting caps under mcclaren (also ex-manu) and that carragher retired because he never got to play, even the useless wes brown was ahead of him. If he was in some kind of lique with gerrard surely he would have got to play? After that there was chelsea with swp seemingly ahead of bentley and lennon, and they could even have swapped cole over to the right side and had downing or young but mainly played joe cole and swp. And on top of all that when lampard was fit and in the team he played in his natural position while gerrard played defensive midfielder behind him, on the right, on the left, and behind rooney etc. If he had any power surely he would have played his favoured position?

It seems to me that the chelsea clique took over from the manu one, or they both had a certain amount of power. Gerrard seems to be the odd-one out.

Capello could try to sort it out but it's difficult as he is reliant on manu and chelsea for most of his players. Choosing rio or terry gives either clique a bit more power, so again the logical choice for captain is gerrard.

You must be getting agent fee's for this.

Parks lives wrote:You must be getting agent fee's for this.

thanks for your great one-line contribution to this discussion

if you have no point then why bother posting? and is this how you got to 20,000 posts? just realised it is 30,000

Parks lives wrote:You must be getting agent fee's for this.

Got to admit this was a genuine

Some seriously good posts here, though I stand by my initial point – the role of captain in football doesn't carry the inherent tactical position of individual responsibility for the team that it does in some other sports, and while of course it's essential that you have inspirational "leaders" in a situation when, say, your team is losing in a crucial game, the name of the captain is not necessarily of any great importance in itself.

Interesting ideas about the England hierarchy – I think the "hugeness" and virtual celebrity status (in fact it isn't "virtual" at all, these guys feature in the gossip pages of the London freebie papers constantly, for instance) of some of the players with their clubs hasn't really helped to form a team at international level at all.

Bashmachkin wrote: And I think it has produced an atmosphere in which the more powerful players in the squad see themselves as untouchable - they play for themselves too much, lap up any hype, remain oblivious to any criticism.

There has been a broad and damaging hierarchy in the England squad under Eriksson and McClaren, without an undisputed leader who is free and willing when it comes to criticising certain players or changing things for the better. Maybe that will change with Capello in charge.

Beckham was captain during Sven's time and that led to him trying to be a hero on the pitch. Though he probably would've done so regardless of his captain status.

Bashmachkin wrote:
I like the idea of having an intelligent captain - I think the type of captain who simply shouts at his teammates, 'gees them up', acts as though in a war, builds up a sort of seige mentality - I think all this is very limited. But England don't have much to choose from at the moment. Hargreaves strikes me as an unexceptional player, as a pretty dull individual, and I don't know that he is worth his place in the England squad; Gerrard has been rubbish for England for a long time, and for me he has been a very selfish member of the squad; Terry has been tried, and neither he nor Barry are sure of a starting place.

Barry has started both of the internationals and as pointed by others is the sort of player Capello likes. Has Capello actually said anything about Terry or are we saying his silence speaks volumes.

Bashmachkin wrote:
I think Ferdinand is probably the best, and the safest bet at the moment, mainly because is one of England's two or three genuine world class players, but he also plays in a suitable position, he communicates, and he seems a decent guy despite the moments of idiocy.

Unfortunately his moments of idiocy are quite big

Bashmachkin wrote:
I think Owen is a possibility, because I think he still has a key role to play for England, and he is leading Newcastle well at the moment. Then Rooney is an interesting option, considering that, by and large, I think he is a more responsible and level headed player now than he was a few years ago; the captaincy might make him even better in this respect; and then he is arguably England's key player.

If he is better now than he was before he should have been in jail. He is a thug

Best. Sig. Ever!! I was just about to post it as my contribution to the discussion but then saw it was already there.

Restecp.

Allez les rouges wrote:

Parks lives wrote:You must be getting agent fee's for this.

Got to admit this was a genuine

Some seriously good posts here, though I stand by my initial point – the role of captain in football doesn't carry the inherent tactical position of individual responsibility for the team that it does in some other sports, and while of course it's essential that you have inspirational "leaders" in a situation when, say, your team is losing in a crucial game, the name of the captain is not necessarily of any great importance in itself.

Interesting ideas about the England hierarchy – I think the "hugeness" and virtual celebrity status (in fact it isn't "virtual" at all, these guys feature in the gossip pages of the London freebie papers constantly, for instance) of some of the players with their clubs hasn't really helped to form a team at international level at all.

The thing is whilst I agree a Captain hasn't got any real tactical value as a fan I feel it is quite important. This is the guy who if England ever win a trophy will be lifting it and leading celebrations, the guy who is the representative of the team to the media and the world. And from a tribal point of view the representative of the country. So its kind of a big deal to me and a few others.

That's why I can't stand Ferdinand as Captain. I haven't really forgiven him for missing a drugs test to go shopping. For a professional sportsman to miss a mandotary requirement of his profession is ridiculous. I remember at the time another player missing a test because he had to go to pick up someone at the airport. But the player still went to the nearest hospital to have a test and made every effort to help the testers.