3 Captains

[Charlie]

Originally posted by Schneiderman
Clearly in a sport where there are 36 players and three umpires (not to mention a veritable swarm of runners and coaches on the field at various times), one 'captain' is insufficient.

I'm happy enough to wait and see how it works out, but this is really very stupid.

You say it is 'clearly' the case that one captain isn't enough. Ok, so why is it that in the history of the game, only a tiny handful of clubs have experimented with co-captains? Why is it that none of them have won a premiership with co-captains? You'd think that if it was self-evident that a club needs multiple captains, that it would be common practice. Well, it isn't.

If the club had appointed no captain, you would have been here arguing that the position is completely irrelevent and only causes distraction for the player.

[NMWBloods]

Originally posted by ScottH
Whiger.
Sook

You just wish you were a whiger sook!

[timthefish]

what this really breaks down to is

captain - paul roos
vice captains - hall, barry, kirk.

roos is the main strategist, motivator and match-day manager. the three "captains" will be responsible for making sure his game plan and changes go the way they should.

i like it.

[NMWBloods]

No reason he couldn't have achieved the same thing through a captain, vice and deputy.

[ScottH]

Originally posted by NMWBloods
You just wish you were a whiger sook!

LMAO.

[ROK Lobster]

Originally posted by timthefish
what this really breaks down to is

control freak - paul roos
vice captains - hall, barry, kirk.

roos is the main strategist, motivator and match-day manager. the three "captains" will be responsible for making sure his game plan and changes go the way they should.

i like it.

[timthefish]

Originally posted by NMWBloods
No reason he couldn't have achieved the same thing through a captain, vice and deputy.

what would be the advantage of giving titles of false hierarchy?

does anyone really care about photos and coin tosses? it may not suit every team but the majority of todays captains are completely subordinant to the coach and share the significant roles of leadership with a number of other players within the team.

what many are arguing for when arguing against this model is a figurehead, not necessarily a leader.

[timthefish]

Originally posted by ROK Lobster
control freak - every coach in the afl
vice captains - every "captain" in the afl

[Schneiderman]

Originally posted by Charlie
You say it is 'clearly' the case that one captain isn't enough. Ok, so why is it that in the history of the game, only a tiny handful of clubs have experimented with co-captains? Why is it that none of them have won a premiership with co-captains? You'd think that if it was self-evident that a club needs multiple captains, that it would be common practice. Well, it isn't.

So why even have a term like 'revolutionary' in the english language? And just for the record, it isn't only Roos or I who think three captains are better than one - the entire club is suppporting the idea and the board have approved it. The fact that other clubs haven't made it work is completely irrelevant. In fact the current way to get around the inadequacy of having only one captain is by using runners.

In fact the real truth is that Roos seems to be the only one willing to empower his players to make on-filed decisions. By appointing three captains he is moving further away from the 'coach calls the shots' model than ever before. But dont tell Sanecow because his hatred clouds his perception.

If the club had appointed no captain, you would have been here arguing that the position is completely irrelevent and only causes distraction for the player.

Now we have moved into 'stupid' territory for sure. Leadership is a basic requirement of human sociological structures, and sport is an obvious example. There always have been and always will be on-field leaders. Its just that the Swans are experimenting with a different one. It still requires the right people and they still need to work together. And its not necessarily the way of the future, or something that will be copied.

[Charlie]

Originally posted by Schneiderman
So why even have a term like 'revolutionary' in the english language?

Relevence?

And just for the record, it isn't only Roos or I who think three captains are better than one - the entire club is suppporting the idea and the board have approved it.

Forgive me Father, for I have sinned. I have dared to suggest that something the club has done is not guaranteed to cure cancer and make the blind see. How do I obtain absolution?

Seriously - so what? Does this make it any less of a gamble? Is this supposed to support your argument that it's 'clearly' the case that one captain isn't enough? Because I hate to break it to you... but it doesn't.

The fact that other clubs haven't made it work is completely irrelevant. In fact the current way to get around the inadequacy of having only one captain is by using runners.

LOL. I'm confident that the runner will be out on the field just as often in 2006 as in 2005.

In fact the real truth is that Roos seems to be the only one willing to empower his players to make on-filed decisions. By appointing three captains he is moving further away from the 'coach calls the shots' model than ever before. But dont tell Sanecow because his hatred clouds his perception.

Apart from the Sanecow part which is just pure nonsense, this is the only contribution to this thread in which you have made any sense.

Now we have moved into 'stupid' territory for sure.

Oh really? Let's take a look at your suggestions for the captaincy before you saw what the club did and fell into the party line:

http://www.redandwhiteonline.com/for...hreadid=12650- close with the 'attack' and 'defense' vice-captains, but apparently one captain wasn't yet 'clearly insufficient'.

http://www.redandwhiteonline.com/for...threadid=11402 - the only time you have advocated more than one captain. Still happy enough, though, for a traditional captain/vice captain arrangement.

http://www.redandwhiteonline.com/for...0&pagenumber=3 - no indication here that you thought one captain was 'clearly insufficient'.

http://www.redandwhiteonline.com/for...&threadid=9037 - none here, either.

http://www.redandwhiteonline.com/for...&threadid=9148 - I'm starting to notice a trend... the 'clearly insufficient' sole captain's model appears to have your support.

So apart from one post that I found, where you offered up wishy-washy support for multiple captains (and only two, not three), you haven't been all that supportive of the 'clearly' necessary co-captaincy model, have you? At least... not until Paul Roos gave it his seal of approval.

Leadership is a basic requirement of human sociological structures, and sport is an obvious example. There always have been and always will be on-field leaders. Its just that the Swans are experimenting with a different one. It still requires the right people and they still need to work together. And its not necessarily the way of the future, or something that will be copied.

Oh! So now you admit that a) it's an experiment and b) not necessarily the way of the future! Interesting. If one captain was 'clearly insufficient' you would think that other clubs would be making the same gamble more often than they are, or at least intending to copy it if it works for Sydney.

[liz]

Originally posted by Schneiderman
So why even have a term like 'revolutionary' etc

Your post indicates a confusion between the concepts of leadership and captaincy, not to mention the roles of coaches, captains and runners.

Furthermore, I suspect you would struggle to support your assertion on the relative levels of empowerment at the Swans versus at other clubs.

If you listen to what current coaches and players say about today's game compared with those of 20 years ago, there certainly seems to be far more player empowerment nowadays. But to suggest that the Swans are the only club that has empowered players to make some onfield decisions is one-eyed at best.

[Schneiderman]

Originally posted by Charlie
So apart from one post that I found, where you offered up wishy-washy support for multiple captains (and only two, not three), you haven't been all that supportive of the 'clearly' necessary co-captaincy model, have you? At least... not until Paul Roos gave it his seal of approval.

So because I didn't openly state that "I want three captains" I have wishy-washy support?? What a ridiculous assertion.

My point, consistantly made by the way, is that we have multiple candidates for the captaincy, that there was nothing wrong with the rotation model if it developed the players, and that I would support a model that would effectively mean more than one 'captain' on the field. And if you deny that having three captains at once is 'revolutionary' then you are doing so simply for the sake of an argument. Just because 'no-one has ever done it before' is a lame reason not to try it when the opportunity presents itself.

As for Liz's assertion that I confuse the concepts of leadership and captaincy, I think the confusion is yours. Captaincy is a formalisation of a leadership structure, and it should be flexible enough to support the situation at hand. And the 'roles' of coaches, captains and runners aren't exactly set in concrete. Every club uses them very differently. You only have to have a look at Essendon and the way Sheedy uses John Barnes, and already you have an extremely different approach to the other clubs.

And I fail to understand why I have to 'support my assertion' that our players are more empowered. Its simply an observation and opinion. But for what its worth: We won the cup, and it is clear to me it has a lot to do with player bonding and on-field leadership. You cannot effectively have leadership of that calibre across so many players without a significant level of empowerment. I only have to compare our never-say-die attitude with pretty much every other club to see that we do a number of things very differently.

Every club can say they empower their players, but action speak louder than words. And having three captains is a clearer action in this regard than pretty much anything else I've ever seen in AFL.

[Charlie]

Originally posted by Schneiderman So because I didn't openly state that "I want three captains" I have wishy-washy support?? What a ridiculous assertion.

My point is pretty simple. You seem to regard criticism of the club as disloyalty, and you go to great pains to rationalise everything they do as the self-evident only correct thing to do. Such as in this case, where an idea to which you paid scant attention was suddenly blindingly obvious as the best thing to do.

My question is... why? What is wrong with daring to disagree with the gospel according to Paul Roos. I don't have a strong opinion in this case, but I often do. You seem to regard that as heretical.

My point, consistantly made by the way, is that we have multiple candidates for the captaincy, that there was nothing wrong with the rotation model if it developed the players, and that I would support a model that would effectively mean more than one 'captain' on the field.

Yes, and that's fair enough.

And if you deny that having three captains at once is 'revolutionary' then you are doing so simply for the sake of an argument. Just because 'no-one has ever done it before' is a lame reason not to try it when the opportunity presents itself.

This is illogical. Why would I deny that it's 'revolutionary' if I've pointed out that it has very rarely been done before? My point is that revolutions are very risky things. They can break new ground, but they can also fail... spectacularly.

[satchmopugdog]

I'm sure Geelong had three captains one year.

[Schneiderman]

Originally posted by Charlie
My point is pretty simple. You seem to regard criticism of the club as disloyalty, and you go to great pains to rationalise everything they do as the self-evident only correct thing to do. Such as in this case, where an idea to which you paid scant attention was suddenly blindingly obvious as the best thing to do.

My question is... why? What is wrong with daring to disagree with the gospel according to Paul Roos. I don't have a strong opinion in this case, but I often do. You seem to regard that as heretical.

So you can have a strongly held opinion that disagrees with the club, but I cant have a strongly held opinion that disgrees with you? Your opinions are intellectually critical, whilst mine are religiously zealous? Please.

I dont regard criticism of the club as a disloyalty at all, but then lets not tar people who happen to support some of the clubs innitiatives as being some sort of fan-boy cult. Just like there is nothing wrong with disagreeing with Roos' 'gospel' there is nothing wrong with supporting it.

As to your point, I have always believed that AFL was far too fast-paced and had too many bodies on the field at once, to be properly strcutured with just one captain. And it has gotten more so in the past ten years. I have always supported a 'leadership group' (and I know its not unique to us) and consequently any new strategy to innovatively combat the problem. The problem has always seemed obvious to me, the solution naturally has not.