Captaincy

[Sean]

Originally posted by Barry Schneider
I read something about the low 5.I think(poor memory) it said Davey did something special but then kicked a point.The writer asked would he have congratulated him if he kicked a goal.

Probably not. I think it may have been after the tackle on McVeigh.

[Barry Schneider]

Originally posted by Sean
Probably not. I think it may have been after the tackle on McVeigh.

http://www.theage.com.au/text/realfo...462102220.htmlhttp://

We were both right.
I read about it in another article but this explains it.

[Sanecow]

There are about 50 listed Aboriginal players in 2005 spread across all the teams with the exception of Geelong

Interesting about Geelong!

[mocaholic]

We're getting off topic a bit.

And I'm happy to reload and fire off another shot from my whinge cannon (thanks schneids - there's only one thing worse than being talked about....).

We've got six leaders with two games each: 12 games. Add that to the 7 played gives us a 19 game season. Whoops. What's gonna happen from round 20 - 22? Do we play at all? Yes it's petty but it demonstrates that this hasn't been thought through very well. (Oh alright, I'm a petty, anal obsessive freak. I admit it.)

Yes, I believe it is in our best interest to select the correct captain. That's a given.

BUT....It is embarrassing, and imo it is gutless. For these reasons:
1. As pointed out earlier, we have had a history of strong, and good captains. This process I feel demeans the position.
2. And, I believe it demeans the club by saying that we can't decide. I also think the club is trying a little too hard to be innovative when it's not that hard an issue.
3. I feel the season itself is now secondary to the captaincy issue, ie: players are 'on trial', and focus will be on the captain rather than the team and the result. God help us if Kirky loses both and Mathews wins both!
4. How is their success measured? Kirky in the article states that he was much better in his second game than first. And you'd have to think better in his third than second, and so it goes. So probably, two games is not enough.
5. Will the players play more for one captain than the other? Not intentionally, you'd hope, but these guys are only human. And what would be the result if our players' minds are just that little bit 'off' when one bloke is captain and it's a must win game? We've seen that all it needs for a team to lose a game is to drop intensity for just a tiny tiny bit.
6. What about the pressure on that individual on the two weeks that they're captain? If you say then that that is what this process is all about, and that they should lift their game accordingly, then what about the ten weeks when they're NOT captain? Is it OK to slack orf? Obviously no. So why just focus on the two weeks then? And if the answer to that is 'well of course they are measured over the whole period', then my response is to beg the question why this process is there in the first place.
7. St. Kilda have had to battle for cred on the revolving captaincy issue. I don't want us to go down that path. Again, imo, they should have a captain - I reckon Hamill - and just retain their leadership team. Plus I also think that their leadership group quality - ie pure talent - is a little bit better than ours. And if all the captaincy is is 'tossing the coin' a la Fraser gehrig's statement, why go through this process at all?

Bottom line is, for me, I reckon we have a vice captain who is performing. Give it to him for the rest of the season yet state that the job is up for grabs next year. This means that we are a stable unit on the ground, the captaincy issue is effectively off the agenda for the year, all players will be assessed on their performance as players and leaders around the club for the rest of the season rather than "What I Did On My Captaincy Days".

To me, there are too many negative points. Far too many. I'd love to be proven wrong, but I don't think it will be. Bottom line is that this will not make the captaincy selection process any easier, and have a negative effect on the team on the paddock.

Anyhoo, that'll about do me. The more I think about this, the worse I feel about it. Sorry again Schneiderman. Feel free to rant and rave about this (and me), but basically I rewrote the whole post to amend it to the flavour of "this is how I feel about it and why" rather than "it is wrong".

Yes I'm passionate about my club. Yes I've been whinging this year. And I'll probably go ahead and do both of these things for the rest of my shabby life.

Cheers all.

moc.

PS....BEN MATHEWS??????

[Schneiderman]

Originally posted by mocaholic
(thanks schneids - there's only one thing worse than being talked about....).

What? Talking about yourself? :P

As to your other points, I agree with most of them and the general drift of it. I dont think its an embarrasment at all, but a worthwhile experiment that can be afforded by the unique situation we are in.

Most importantly, the issues you raise point to exactly why the rotation may provide some insight and benefit. Your fears may well be the reason they did this... 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?

Every poll on RWO so far has not conclusively answered who should be captain. I'm sure the playing group and coaching staff are as divided as we are. Surely the intelligent thing to do is find a fair and logical way to clarify the situation. And who gives a rats arse what the other clubs or the media thinks?? I dont.

I just want a good captain who inspires the team... like Kelly and Maxfield did. This experiment will sort the men from the boys, and even if it doesn't, what have we to lose really?

[NMWBloods]

Originally posted by mocaholic
We've got six leaders with two games each: 12 games. Add that to the 7 played gives us a 19 game season. Whoops. What's gonna happen from round 20 - 22? Do we play at all? Yes it's petty but it demonstrates that this hasn't been thought through very well. (Oh alright, I'm a petty, anal obsessive freak. I admit it.)

Oh really - I thought that was just so obvious. 3 games to go, 6 players in the group - each will get to captain for half a game. It fits so perfectly I can't believe you didn't see it...

4. How is their success measured? Kirky in the article states that he was much better in his second game than first. And you'd have to think better in his third than second, and so it goes. So probably, two games is not enough.

And if Kirk doesn't get it, are they going to say, well yeah, you were really @@@@ at being captain so we decided to give it to someone else.

Bottom line is, for me, I reckon we have a vice captain who is performing.

Why have a vice captain if he doesn't step up to become captain?

Anyhoo, that'll about do me. The more I think about this, the worse I feel about it. Sorry again Schneiderman. Feel free to rant and rave about this (and me), but basically I rewrote the whole post to amend it to the flavour of "this is how I feel about it and why" rather than "it is wrong".

Yes I'm passionate about my club. Yes I've been whinging this year. And I'll probably go ahead and do both of these things for the rest of my shabby life.

You're just shabby. Where's the love? We need some good vibrations and lots of positive sentiment. We can only get better.

[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...