3 Captains

[Piobaireachd]

Originally posted by Charlie




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?

.

You're begining to sound like F/head Charlie

[SimonH]

Wow, take away the occasional 'we won the cup' reference and this must be just what RWO late 2002/early 2003 was like! Devastated that I missed it.

For what very little it's worth, congratulations Leo, BBBH and Kirky. And CBolt.

[Charlie]

Originally posted by Schneiderman
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 take your point - but can you point me to examples where you have strongly disagreed with the club? I can't remember you doing it.

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.

No, there isn't. But you come across as if that's the only acceptable argument. You may not intend to, but you do.

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.

Ok. This is substantively different from your original post, but states your point more clearly. Thankyou.

[Charlie]

Originally posted by Piobaireachd
You're begining to sound like F/head Charlie

I'm wounded. You take that back!!!

[Sanecow]

Originally posted by Schneiderman
But dont tell Sanecow because his hatred clouds his perception.

Did I miss whack-a-cow day?

[ScottH]

Originally posted by Sanecow
Did I miss whack-a-cow day?

Raw Hide?

[mocaholic]

In the mind of Lou Christie:

Three Captains have I
Ee-Yiiii
Yi, yi, yi, yi, yi-hi-hi, ee-yiiey
I...ee-Yiiii
Yi, yi, yi, yi, yi-hi-hi, ee-yiiey

Three Captains have I
One forward, one mid and one back
Three Captains have I
And ...
...we're gonna go back-to-back.


In the words of Duleep Mendis, I going now.

[Schneiderman]

Originally posted by Charlie
I take your point - but can you point me to examples where you have strongly disagreed with the club? I can't remember you doing it.

Thats because I didn't post anything during the second half of Rocket's reign. Couldn't stand the man and suggested he should have been punted years earlier. Disagreed VERY VERY strongly with the suggestion of appointing Wallace (I know its not something the club did). I thought the move to Telstra Stadium was a bad idea at the time, and refused to go to the first couple of years of games, even though I had tickets. And I was only lukewarm about Barry Hall - I always thought he was a talented thug, and feared he would be a failure under Eade.

Its hard to criticise a successful club mind you.

No, there isn't. But you come across as if that's the only acceptable argument. You may not intend to, but you do.

Well that's just the way I think. I wont apologise for not being the supreme diplomat

[Nico]

Originally posted by Charlie
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.

If in the history of the game only a handful of teams have experimented, then surely this is far too small a sample to say that it can't work. We know that only 1 side wins the flag each year, but how many went close and who were the sides and when. Just because a few few sides dabbled doesn't mean it was wrong.

Roos got it right last year by rotating captains and the Saints came third with a 1 year captain system. To follow the theme with a variation of 3 co captains looks to be a refinement, with some very deep thought put into the decision. Roos's rationale for such is very plausible and made perfect sense to me.

The game is evolving on every front at a rapid rate as teams look for an edge, and to ramp up the development and education of their players. It shows by our flag and very different style of game that many of our players changed how they played over the past 3 years (just watch footage of when Eade coached).

To have 3 captains martialling the troops on the ground during a match to me is an advancement on the 3 or more positional coaches addressing players before and at breaks during a game.

[TheHood]

Looks to me to be a continuation of accountability that was achieved with the rotation system last year. Then there is the added advantage of their positions on the park.

If you're responsible for your ship, then you will fight to save it or go down with the ship and accept responsibility. We have men who are willing to take those roles.

No one accepts the challenge in the forwards like Baz, like Kirky in the midfield or Leapin' down back.

I am excited by the possibilities.

[NMWBloods]

Do you write management motivational books...

[TheHood]

Originally posted by NMWBloods
Do you write management motivational books...

Nah, and havent even read one (Management Book) for over a decade.

In fact, most of them are written by people who have never managed to cook toast let alone lead a team of adults.

I think we all know that accountability was the difference between the Sydney Swans and the other 15 contenders in 2005.

No other team did their job on their direct opponent with greater commitment for more minutes of every game of every round of the season.

[Matt79]

Re: Three captains

Originally posted by Old Dragon
Yuk. Sounds like pure jerk off stuff to me!!

One team, one captain, one boss. Do what you might you can't deny that in any sporting team.

Make a decision Roos don't be a fence sitter.

Sheeesh, some people are hard to please! Roos lead us to a premiership so I am more than happy with his decisions whatever they may be!

[cowcar]

i think it is a weak decision, but ultimately the correct one! Weak as a team needs a leader. A figurehead if you will. Correct as the decision might have caused problems around the club, and this way it is equally shared.
For my mind, i am in the kirk camp, but can understand the Hall perspecitive.....

[Nico]

Originally posted by cowcar
i think it is a weak decision, but ultimately the correct one! Weak as a team needs a leader. A figurehead if you will. Correct as the decision might have caused problems around the club, and this way it is equally shared.
For my mind, i am in the kirk camp, but can understand the Hall perspecitive.....

Roos is the figurehead the captains are his deputies.

Watch the English Premier League and you will see the focus is always on the Manager/Coach. Wouldn't know who the captains are.