Terry named England Captain

I have a rather simple view on captaincy.

Personality wise, which is most important, a captain should be a natural leader, his sheer presence on the pitch should signal confidence, vigor and determination, he should be able to inspire his teammates, especially in difficult situations.

Footballing wise, it makes sense to make the player with the most ball contacts captain IMHO, the player who controls the game, the mastermind. Usually, it's a midfielder.

That's why Gerrard would have made more sense IMHO, but that's just me.

S4P wrote:Indeed not. Defenders such as Carlos Alberto, Bobby Moore, Paolo Maldini, Cafu have never won anything at either international or european level?

My point is Gerrard can still be just as effective, just as influential (although excluding Germany 01, imo he has never done this for England, even pre-Lampard) on the pitch for England, but the captain should be someone who speaks more, someone who picks players up by the scruff of the neck and gets their ar*e in gear so they don't ever get into that position (the one Gerrard has been on quite a few occassions). Terry for me is the better captain, but this doesn't stop Gerrard being just as influential.

S4P

I couldn't agree more those defenders you posted were inspirational when driving their countries to success. However do you HONESTLY believe Terry will be in a list with those legends ?

Secondly look back at each of those and ask yourself who actually inspired that country to do so well, was it that particular captain ? or somebody else who excelled to win those trophies, did they drive those teams to win, or was it Pele ? or Geoff Hurst ? or Baggio ? or Romario/Ronaldo, Maradona.... the list goes on

Im not doubting the ability to lead from the back, organising the defensive is vital, however when the chips are down and you need something special to get back into a game, you really think Terry can do that ? better than Gerrard ?

blutgraetsche wrote:I have a rather simple view on captaincy.

Personality wise, which is most important, a captain should be a natural leader, his sheer presence on the pitch should signal confidence, vigor and determination, he should be able to inspire his teammates, especially in difficult situations.

Footballing wise, it makes sense to make the player with the most ball contacts captain IMHO, the player who controls the game, the mastermind. Usually, it's a midfielder.

That's why Gerrard would have made more sense IMHO, but that's just me.

Not just you. Ideally the captain shoudl be a midfielder and preferably one of a holding midfielder, or a playmaker. THose decide the tempo and the plays.

@ genius

I just showed you those players because you hinted that a defender couldn't be a great leader. Do I think Terry's as talented as any of those? NO WHERE NEAR. Do I think he's as good a leader as all those? Indeed I do. And that's what matters most.

I think there is a huge difference between putting in inspiring performances and inspiring others to put in performances. No doubt Gerrard has put in inspiring performances when Liverpool have needed him (although I feel there is no need to go on about what I think about some of his performances as it'll probably bore everyone again)

However, who would I think will be more inspiring to the other team mates? i.e.: more vocal (including the half time team talk and stuff): John Terry, and we must not forget that football is not a 1 man team, hence why I'd chose Terry over Gerrard as captain.

Indeed, as I've said before, this shouldn't change anything about Gerrard's game. Like Roger Hunt said, this isn't cricket where it really is down to the captain to make all the decisions, which basically affects in a way how everyone's playing.

Distinguished Dutchman wrote:

blutgraetsche wrote:I have a rather simple view on captaincy.

Personality wise, which is most important, a captain should be a natural leader, his sheer presence on the pitch should signal confidence, vigor and determination, he should be able to inspire his teammates, especially in difficult situations.

Footballing wise, it makes sense to make the player with the most ball contacts captain IMHO, the player who controls the game, the mastermind. Usually, it's a midfielder.

That's why Gerrard would have made more sense IMHO, but that's just me.

Not just you. Ideally the captain shoudl be a midfielder and preferably one of a holding midfielder, or a playmaker. THose decide the tempo and the plays.

That doesn't necessarily make them the better leader though. More effective, but not the better leader.

Quite often the better leader's are defenders, due to the fact that they tend to be more vocal, and tend to be better readers of the game. I do really doubt there is anyone in that England team who reads the game better than Terry (this is really what makes up for his lack of pace)

parks lives wrote:Teamspirit.

Simple choice (I would of picked Neville like you) who would you pick between Terry and Gerrard?

Gerrard with Rio as Understudy.

Gerrard does have a shot at being in my 1st XI, and Rio is the best English player.

Rio doesnt seem captain material to me...I dont think he could get the respect.

TeamSpirit wrote:

parks lives wrote:Teamspirit.

Simple choice (I would of picked Neville like you) who would you pick between Terry and Gerrard?

Gerrard with Rio as Understudy.

Gerrard does have a shot at being in my 1st XI, and Rio is the best English player.

I think the way Rio has been completely overlooked (not saying he should of been picked but at least considered) given his performances at the last two World cups is criminal.

He's a gangster though.

borocooper wrote:Rio doesnt seem captain material to me...I dont think he could get the respect.

To be honest with you, after the whole drugs scandal, I'd be amazed if he ever did become a club/international captain. (I know it was a couple of years ago now but it'd still be a bad move imo).

I'm still not totally convinced by Rio. He had a great world cup, but his concentration really does tend to go missing at times.

But you know the funniest thing/biggest Irony about all of this?

England have had a love affair with the hard-nosed, neanderthal shouthind "get stitches in my cranium" Centre-back for, like, eternity. Butcher, Adams, now Terry will carry on this "distinguished" legacy.

All the More amusing seeing as the player who led England to their only WC victory, Bobby Moore, didn't fit the image at all.

S4P wrote:

borocooper wrote:Rio doesnt seem captain material to me...I dont think he could get the respect.

To be honest with you, after the whole drugs scandal, I'd be amazed if he ever did become a club/international captain. (I know it was a couple of years ago now but it'd still be a bad move imo).

I'm still not totally convinced by Rio. He had a great world cup, but his concentration really does tend to go missing at times.

Not in a major International tournament though.

We had Beckham for years....he wasnt that sort of player.

I just dont think Rio would get it....there was the drugs thing, there's the opinion he loses concentration....then there's the whole "murked" thing. Too much of a plonker in my opinion.

parks lives wrote:

TeamSpirit wrote:

parks lives wrote:Teamspirit.

Simple choice (I would of picked Neville like you) who would you pick between Terry and Gerrard?

Gerrard with Rio as Understudy.

Gerrard does have a shot at being in my 1st XI, and Rio is the best English player.

I think the way Rio has been completely overlooked (not saying he should of been picked but at least considered) given his performances at the last two World cups is criminal.

He's a gangster though.

Milkybar > Cadbury Milk.

borocooper wrote:We had Beckham for years....he wasnt that sort of player.

I just dont think Rio would get it....there was the drugs thing, there's the opinion he loses concentration....then there's the whole "murked" thing. Too much of a plonker in my opinion.

I don't think he should of got it, however I'd like to of at least seen his name put forward, especially when Lampard's has.

On performances alone, he's Englands best player for England imo.

TeamSpirit wrote:But you know the funniest thing/biggest Irony about all of this?

England have had a love affair with the hard-nosed, neanderthal shouthind "get stitches in my cranium" Centre-back for, like, eternity. Butcher, Adams, now Terry will carry on this "distinguished" legacy.

All the More amusing seeing as the player who led England to their only WC victory, Bobby Moore, didn't fit the image at all.

TS, you have to admit though that whilst neither you or I remember 1966, the stories suggest we had the best team in the world back then, with world class players like Bobby Charlton, Jack Charlton, Gordon Banks, and other great players like Roger Hunt, Alan Ball, Nobby Stiles, Geoff Hurst etc).

borocooper wrote:We had Beckham for years....he wasnt that sort of player.

I just dont think Rio would get it....there was the drugs thing, there's the opinion he loses concentration....then there's the whole "murked" thing. Too much of a plonker in my opinion.

Indeed, plus I don't think he's a great leader.

For captain, you need leaders, rather than players who can just change games (although I've never seen Gerrard change a game for England, even pre-Lampard), which is why I'd give Terry the nod over Gerrard because a) he's the best leader in the team and b) he's the best reader of the game in the team too imo.

TeamSpirit wrote:

parks lives wrote:

TeamSpirit wrote:

parks lives wrote:Teamspirit.

Simple choice (I would of picked Neville like you) who would you pick between Terry and Gerrard?

Gerrard with Rio as Understudy.

Gerrard does have a shot at being in my 1st XI, and Rio is the best English player.

I think the way Rio has been completely overlooked (not saying he should of been picked but at least considered) given his performances at the last two World cups is criminal.

He's a gangster though.

Milkybar > Cadbury Milk.

I hear you.

parks lives wrote:

borocooper wrote:We had Beckham for years....he wasnt that sort of player.

I just dont think Rio would get it....there was the drugs thing, there's the opinion he loses concentration....then there's the whole "murked" thing. Too much of a plonker in my opinion.

I don't think he should of got it, however I'd like to of at least seen his name put forward, especially when Lampard's has.

On performances alone, he's Englands best player for England imo.

He is a good player for England no doubting that, I know Lamps name was put forward, but I dont think anyone really considered it did they?

perhaps mightylampard

borocooper wrote:

parks lives wrote:

borocooper wrote:We had Beckham for years....he wasnt that sort of player.

I just dont think Rio would get it....there was the drugs thing, there's the opinion he loses concentration....then there's the whole "murked" thing. Too much of a plonker in my opinion.

I don't think he should of got it, however I'd like to of at least seen his name put forward, especially when Lampard's has.

On performances alone, he's Englands best player for England imo.

He is a good player for England no doubting that, I know Lamps name was put forward, but I dont think anyone really considered it did they?

perhaps mightylampard

<laugh>

@ S4P

Judging from what My Grandfather and his friends have told me - I'd only have Banks, Moore, Bobby Charlton, & Jimmy Greaves a definite World Class players.

Stiles & J.Charlton were butchers, Ball was a youngster on a adrenaline rush (like Eboue in the CL) and Hurst was a solid forward that played above himself for one month. A lot of the credit must go to Alf Ramsey, who was mocked by the general press because he had a far different footballing philosophy.

Besides, it's widely accepted than the 1970 team (Alan Mullery etc.) was better.

TeamSpirit™ wrote:@ S4P

Judging from what My Grandfather and his friends have told me - I'd only have Banks, Moore, Bobby Charlton, & Jimmy Greaves a definite World Class players.

Stiles & J.Charlton were butchers, Ball was a youngster on a adrenaline rush (like Eboue in the CL) and Hurst was a solid forward that played above himself for one month. A lot of the credit must go to Alf Ramsey, who was mocked by the general press because he had a far different footballing philosophy.

Besides, it's widely accepted than the 1970 team (Alan Mullery etc.) was better.

I didn't say they were all world class players mate, I said the latter lot were great players with banks, the 2 charltons and moore being world class players. That team was indeed better than any other since 1970 (which like you, I've been told to believe this was better than 66)

Jack Charlton was never World class.

From what I heard the 2 Bobby's and Banks were the great players and Greaves although he was strangely left out.

My Dad always raves about Stiles as well.

& I'm sure Alan Ball was MOTM in the World cup final in 1966 despite Hurst scoring the hatrick.

Nobby Stiles butchered Eusebio in the semi-final, and got away with it

That's his claim to fame for me.

TeamSpirit wrote:Nobby Stiles butchered Eusebio in the semi-final, and got away with it

That's his claim to fame for me.

& marked him out of the final in the European cup final in 1968.

parks lives wrote:

TeamSpirit wrote:Nobby Stiles butchered Eusebio in the semi-final, and got away with it

That's his claim to fame for me.

& marked him out of the final in the European cup final in 1968.

Probably didn't want to go anywhere near him after the first experience.

Favoured Gerrard for Captain a while back. Terry is a good choice even if he is not a good a player as Gerrard I think his team mates will prefare him as there captain. Gerrard does not play that great for England either so I can see him getting dropped also if he does not perform. Another way to look at it is England for most part lose there games in midfield. This is where McClaren needs to work some magic.
Beckham, Gerrard, Lampard screwed up in WC2006 they were all average and looked like they were playing for themselves but not as a unit ....... On the final big WC game Terry outplayed them and I think consistancy will be Terry's trademark and as good as Gerrard is he cannot beat Terry in this department. To pick a captain from midfield Gerrard would have to have the endurance of Hargreaves continuely bossing the middle he does not have this ability. Scoring a goal here and there does not set you above the rest of the team. McClaren made a good call me thinks.

TeamSpirit wrote:Nobby Stiles butchered Eusebio in the semi-final, and got away with it

That's his claim to fame for me.

Stiles was like Essien..... He was not an evil player just stuck to his job. Eusebio was use to players giving him more space .

If the captaincy was given by performance then Joe Cole and Rio would be the choices but it was b/w Gerrard and Terry , I would have preferred Gerrard but Teery is good for me too.
My only concern is that it will make him irreplaceable and aother CB playing better then him will be on the bench.

Distinguished Dutchman wrote:

blutgraetsche wrote:I have a rather simple view on captaincy.

Personality wise, which is most important, a captain should be a natural leader, his sheer presence on the pitch should signal confidence, vigor and determination, he should be able to inspire his teammates, especially in difficult situations.

Footballing wise, it makes sense to make the player with the most ball contacts captain IMHO, the player who controls the game, the mastermind. Usually, it's a midfielder.

That's why Gerrard would have made more sense IMHO, but that's just me.

Not just you. Ideally the captain shoudl be a midfielder and preferably one of a holding midfielder, or a playmaker. THose decide the tempo and the plays.

Not only you two. I would also have a midfielder. A defender can read the game from the back, but cannot influence it as much as a midfielder.

Plus Gerrard is England's only world class player, and can play in a variety of positions due to his superior footballing brain. Terry has now become undroppable, and I would have had King before him.

For those who say that a captain doesn't influence the manager's decision of who is picked, what about the players missing from the argentina squad at the world cup?

Terry is ok, but I see nothing changing for England. I am pretty sure that lampard will be playing in the next matches.

110% wrote:

Distinguished Dutchman wrote:

blutgraetsche wrote:I have a rather simple view on captaincy.

Personality wise, which is most important, a captain should be a natural leader, his sheer presence on the pitch should signal confidence, vigor and determination, he should be able to inspire his teammates, especially in difficult situations.

Footballing wise, it makes sense to make the player with the most ball contacts captain IMHO, the player who controls the game, the mastermind. Usually, it's a midfielder.

That's why Gerrard would have made more sense IMHO, but that's just me.

Not just you. Ideally the captain shoudl be a midfielder and preferably one of a holding midfielder, or a playmaker. THose decide the tempo and the plays.

Not only you two. I would also have a midfielder. A defender can read the game from the back, but cannot influence it as much as a midfielder.

Plus Gerrard is England's only world class player, and can play in a variety of positions due to his superior footballing brain. Terry has now become undroppable, and I would have had King before him.

For those who say that a captain doesn't influence the manager's decision of who is picked, what about the players missing from the argentina squad at the world cup?

Terry is ok, but I see nothing changing for England. I am pretty sure that lampard will be playing in the next matches.

Gerrard is as thick as a plank of wood. he has not got a brain. Terry is a better defender than King. Its just all the anti chelsea once more... Seriously find another team to have a go at