Captaincy

[NMWBloods]

Originally posted by Schneiderman
imagine if Ben Mathews got the permanent role now. Sure you think Kirk is great right now, but what if it turns out he regresses within a few weeks, especially because he gets the role. And what if Kirk gets it and next year he gets injured so Bazza or Goodes have to fill in, and they do something spectacular as a result? What do you do then?

Isn't this the case when choosing any captain? Why didn't we rotate it when Maxfield was given it?

[Sanecow]

Originally posted by Schneiderman
a worthwhile experiment that can be afforded by the unique situation we are in.

What is unique about our situation?

Originally posted by Schneiderman
This experiment will sort the men from the boys, and even if it doesn't, what have we to lose really?

Shouldn't the coaching staff have a very good handle on who in the team has the abilities and aptitude to make a good captain? It is their job to run the club. Right now the leadership group is elected by the players and it seems that the Captain will be one of those players. A footy club isn't a democracy. Someone outside the players has to be in charge and make an appointment that will benefit the club regardless of whether it will upset anyone.

[Newbie]

The whole affair is a farce. Roos does not just coach the team, he captains it as well. This is the reason he is so scare to appoint a stand-alone captain. The idea of larger leadership group was Roos's from day one. Simply this is because Roos does not want any influence in the field except his own. He cannot tolerate other people ideas. Appointing some many lieutanents who could keep others in check, means the total control stays with Roos.

The exception is Maxfield who Roos could control everything.

@@@@@, I sound very much alike to footyhead .

[Sean]

Originally posted by Sanecow
What is unique about our situation?

I guess not too many captains stand down mid season. Happens because of injury a lot though I suppose.

Shouldn't the coaching staff have a very good handle on who in the team has the abilities and aptitude to make a good captain?

The problem may be that we have two very good choices and possibly the best choice (Hall) may be a bit of a risk. I wouldn't be surprised if they also consider B1 to be a good choice. Interestingly, he often seems to be our best player when we lose - not sure if that helps or hinders his chances.

As long as the players are happy with the decision, I can't see it being a bad thing.

Also, are we perhaps placing too much importance on the role as captain? I remember a few weeks ago that Dermie referred to Hamill as being the "spiritual leader" at St Kilda and it really didn't matter who was actually named captain. If you look at Melbourne, Neitz wouldn't actually get a chance to speak to most of his players during the match - he and Rivers seldom cross paths for example.

Don't know the answer myself - just putting it out there.

[liz]

Originally posted by Newbie
The whole affair is a farce. Roos does not just coach the team, he captains it as well. This is the reason he is so scare to appoint a stand-alone captain. The idea of larger leadership group was Roos's from day one. Simply this is because Roos does not want any influence in the field except his own. He cannot tolerate other people ideas. Appointing some many lieutanents who could keep others in check, means the total control stays with Roos.

Not sure if you're taking the piss but I'll take it at face value.

There is no evidence to support this assertion. Most clubs have extended leadership groups nowadays - there is nothing special about the Swans.

Much of the moderate success of the past couple of years - not a flag but generally an improvement on the previous couple of years - was put down to empowerment of the players.

Many players have stated not just how influential Maxfield has been to them, but other senior players too. This is formally organised via the mentoring programme but I am sure manifests itself in other ways around the club.

The persona that Roos exudes is anything other than that of a control freak.

I hate this rotational decision as much as anyone else but I reckon you're way off the mark with your reasoning.

[mocaholic]

Originally posted by Schneiderman

... imagine if Ben Mathews got the permanent role now.

AAARRRGGGGHHHHH!!!!! AAARRRGGGGHHHHH!!!!!AAARRRGGGGHHHHH!!!!! AAARRRGGGGHHHHH!!!!!AAARRRGGGGHHHHH!!!!! AAARRRGGGGHHHHH!!!!!

Sorry. I'll cool down and read it again.

AAARRRGGGGHHHHH!!!!! AAARRRGGGGHHHHH!!!!!AAARRRGGGGHHHHH!!!!! AAARRRGGGGHHHHH!!!!!AAARRRGGGGHHHHH!!!!! AAARRRGGGGHHHHH!!!!!

[Chiasmus]

I'm still trying to get over how matthews was chosen over willo. I agree with earlier comments - poor willo! I know its at the end of his career etc.. but sstill. I wish it was the end of matthews' instead. cringe.

[Barry Schneider]

Originally posted by Chiasmus
I'm still trying to get over how matthews was chosen over willo. I agree with earlier comments - poor willo! I know its at the end of his career etc.. but sstill. I wish it was the end of matthews' instead. cringe.

The nominations are all members of the leadership group minus Ball and Willo.The players must see something in Mathews that very few supporters do to have voted him into that group

[NMWBloods]

Maybe he always buys the first shout...

[Mark]

Originally posted by GoBloods
are tou serous ?

Is this a clever play on the murder of Julius Ceasar by his "Teammates" ?

[NMWBloods]

Nice!!

[Tuesday]

Originally posted by liz
Many players have stated not just how influential Maxfield has been to them, but other senior players too. This is formally organised via the mentoring programme but I am sure manifests itself in other ways around the club.

I must agree. Maxfield was/is a great leader of the Swans, and I respect him for putting his family first.

Contrary to my initial opinion, I can see there are benefits to the rotating captaincy option as I don't believe a single person should necessarily (and in all circumstances) be the only leader of a team. That said, though, I am not entirely sold on the idea.

Whilst I am no Swan, I think of all the teams I have played with and there have been very few people who were born to be captain. Most success came when the elder, more experienced players stepped up and led by example. Sydney have such a unit in place to make the general leadership and mentoring of the team more evenly and diversely applied, and I agree wholeheartedly that is the most effective way to structure a team. But I realise amateur sport is a different ball game to professional sport.

Though, for all their general redunancy in amateur sport, I must concede that captains do have a significant role in professional teams. They are necessary, and have certain responsibilities that cannot reasonably be shared: press conferences, presentations, meetings, on-field identification etc etc etc. One part of me would like to see one person appointed as captain and be done with it. How much can you really demonstrate in two games? They nominated Kirk as captain last week for a reason. He stood up and did the job well, I thought, and was a breath of fresh air. Why not keep him? Whereas another wishes to toe the party line and give each kid a go. But I do agree we are not playing U-10s: it's about what's best for the team.

I am fully aware of how much an honour and privilege it is to be appointed captain of such a great club, and how a rotational roster of captains could devalue the position, but I am putting my heart (and head) in the hands of the Swannies decision makers. I just hope it was faith in the ability of the Leadership Group to rise to the challenge, and not simply indecisiveness...