Is the role of captain overrated?

February 6th, 2010 | by: Rob |

CaptainsArmbands I’m guessing you’re probably tired of hearing about the whole John Terry situation by now. I know I’m beginning to be fed up of it being seemingly the only news story around.

To some extent, I have to wonder quite why such a fuss has been made – afterall it is only the armband that’s been taking away from Terry as Daryl rightly pointed out. Nothing else.

When England go into the World Cup in South Africa, just like every other nation they’ll need plenty of on the field leaders. It won’t matter that Terry doesn’t have the armband, there will still be moments where he is needed to put an arm around someone, to fire someone up for a match, to give a rousing talk etc.

It makes me wonder – does it matter who is captain, at club or country?

I noticed today that UEFA has a celebration of all those captains that have lifted the European Cup. It sure is an impressive list of names – Beckenbauer, Platini, Deschamps etc, but would it have mattered if one of their teamates was wearing the armband? I doubt it.

In something like, Rugby, the role of the captain serves some kind of purpose – its only the Captain who is allowed to speak to the referee for example (to cut out these kind of scenes) and that makes sense.

I know some countries don’t worry about who is Captain and just give it to the player with the most caps. To me it does seem a bit of a formality, but it must mean something to someone, or else there wouldn’t be this fuss about Terry.

I just think that on the pitch, especially at international level, you’re going to need all your players to stand up and be counted. If you’re relying on one player to try and get them in the right frame of mind, you’re in a bad place to begin with, aren’t you?

Tags: Beckenbauer, Captain, England, General Banter, Italy, Michel Platini, Terry

World Cup Soccer – South Africa 2010 RSS Feed

Jean-François

I also agree with lenses, it is important for organization. For some nations a captain is very important, culture plays a lot into it.

However, I would like for captaincy to be optional. Mainly because some teams simply do not have a leader to assemble around. Take my team for example, France, Thierry Henry is a great figure in world sports, but he really isn't team captain material. He does not make decisions on the field often for other players. Our previous captain, Zidane, was a natural leader, and France rallied around him, so he was easily the best choice for captain. And everyone saw what he did for and against our team.

More specifically, this whole story about John Terry is just a media tabloid. They exploited Thierry Henry first, then John Terry, who is next? Anyhow, all these things must be set aside, because for footballers, everything else is secondary to the world cup.
lenses14

I think the role of captain is important to the organization of the team. Most people naturally look up to the captain, even if someone else is motivating everyone and doing all the talking.

(About the media explosion, I understand...the people in the US went through it with the Tiger Woods scandal. And that was before Christmas, so "family values" was even more emphasized!

And as I am sure you're aware, it wasn't just in the sports programs! Everyone had an opinion on it, or a joke about it...even some college professors)
David

These are cultural differences we're talking about. England idolizes Bobby Moore, and it seems there's a deeply-ingrained cultural belief that they need another Bobby Moore figure to win any major tournament. At least some of the captaincy hysteria owes itself to a nation wanting another Bobby Moore. Terry was a polarizing figure to begin with--and with club footy there being the stuff that creates enemies amongst friends every weekend--how can they possibly find a player they can all rally behind? In short, they never could, which makes this debate all the more aimless and silly.

Think about the NBA for a moment. Was Michael Jordan the Bulls captain? Who knows? Was he the captain of Team USA at the Olympics? Who cares? Point is, leaders will do what they're inclined to do: they lead. JT doesn't need an armband to be a leader. And if England shock the world and win the WC, Rio will hold the trophy. Does this means he's their modern-day Bobby Moore? Of course not. A snapshot doesn't change the reality that he too is a divisive figure.

It's all a big waste of time and energy.
Cece

I'm with Francesco, the role of the captain really depends on the league/country
sscouser

Correctio: First sentence should read: when I used to be a captain of a soccer team
graham

perhaps it matters more when a team is struggling in some way and looks to the captain to lead by example? so man utd's recent success serves as an example as they seem to rotate the armband at will depending on who is playing?
sscouser

When I used to be a captain of a soccer team captain:

Powers, Responsibilities and Duties:
1.Functioned as the team captain in all soccer games: approaching the center official with a small degree of advice, information and questions on behalf of the team.
2.Ensured that my team members exhibited only the highest level of sportsmanship on the field, including honesty, fair play, competitiveness and respect for the opposing team, officials and team mates.
3.Ensured on and off the field, that players represented our club with dignity.
4.Recommended to the team manager to hold a disciplinary meeting regarding any member of the team that did not exhibit the type of sportsmanship expected.

Back to the fuss about John Terry. Is it because he plays for Chelsea (you either love or hate Chelsea)? :D
Andrew

The captain needs to be someone the team respects as a person and as a leader. If that doesn't happen, when things are going bad, it is very easy to get discouraged.

I also think it benefits a team to have a very intelligent captain; if there is someone smarter than the person making the decisions there can be questioning of leadership ability.
Jose76

That's along the lines of what I would say. How much who the captain is matters really depends on the team.
Francesco

I think it's a culture thing. In some football cultures the captain is valued more than others. In Italy most of the time the armband isn't given to the player that is the best leader but just to the player that has been at the club the longest. It's a seniority thing. Take Milan for example. After Maldini's retirement, the big debate was whether to give the armband to Ambrosini or Gattuso. Sure Gattuso seemed a slightly better choice because of his fiery personality and how he gives 110% on the pitch, but Ambrosini was given the armband since he was at the club longer. There are exceptions of course like in all things (like Totti getting the armband for Roma at a young age). On the Italian national team it works based on caps like you mentioned. The most capped player (currently Cannavaro) is the captain, and when he is absent the armband goes to the player with the second highest caps (usually Buffon).