Captain...one Captain!!!
Collapse
X
-
How long have I been saying that for?
Goodesy for captain.
B2 in the vice squad.Wild speculation, unsubstantiated rumours, silly jokes and opposition delight in another's failures is what makes an internet forum fun.
Blessed are the cracked for they are the ones who let in the light.Comment
-
Yep, get back to the good old, one captain, one vice captain and a couple of deputy vice captains.Does God believe in Atheists?Comment
-
My guess is at least 5 years.
+1.
Give it too Goodes for his last few years.
By then young Hanners will be well and truly ready to take over."Fortunately, this is the internet, so knowing nothing is no obstacle to having an opinion!." Beerman 18-07-2017Comment
-
Change for change's sake.
I never liked the idea of multiple captains, but it seems to have worked well for the Swans, so why change now?The difference between insanity and genius is measured only in success.Comment
-
Why not? If Longmire is more comfortable with one true leader, and he is our new coach, why not??
Has to be Longmire's team, so if he likes 1 captain only, I doubt I would call that change for change's sake.Comment
-
Not really. If nobody else fits the bill for a full-time captaincy role, and Bolton's body is considered too much of a worry, then leaving Goodes as sole captain would seem the logical step. Promoting two more players would be three captains for three captains' sake.
Horse is a new coach, this is a new phase for the club. He will do whatever he feels is best for the club. If that means changing the captaincy structure, then that's his call, and it will be for a reason.Officially on the Reid and Sumner bandwagon!Comment
-
Not if the reason for having three captains in the first place was to share the load and to take advantage of complementary skill sets required in captaincy.
I don't particularly care if we have one captain, three captains or 47 captains - but I don't think it should be assumed anything is done just for the sake of it.Comment
-
Of course. But if it wasn't deemed necessary, then maintaining it would be maintaining it for its own sake. I'm not saying that if two more players are promoted, that will be the case, but going back to one captain wouldn't be for its own sake either... if you get what I mean. Basically, whatever happens with the captaincy will happen for a reason.Not if the reason for having three captains in the first place was to share the load and to take advantage of complementary skill sets required in captaincy.
I don't particularly care if we have one captain, three captains or 47 captains - but I don't think it should be assumed anything is done just for the sake of it.Officially on the Reid and Sumner bandwagon!Comment
-
If we don't have one person on our entire list who isn't capable of being the sole captain then it's a sad state of affairs.
Kirky should have been the sole captain after Maxfield retired and Goodsey should take up the mantle now. This shared captaincy is a copout and cheapens the position.
Imagine Paul Kelly or Bob Skilton needing a co-captain
Comment
-
Right on!!If we don't have one person on our entire list who isn't capable of being the sole captain then it's a sad state of affairs.
Kirky should have been the sole captain after Maxfield retired and Goodsey should take up the mantle now. This shared captaincy is a copout and cheapens the position.
Imagine Paul Kelly or Bob Skilton needing a co-captain
Wild speculation, unsubstantiated rumours, silly jokes and opposition delight in another's failures is what makes an internet forum fun.
Blessed are the cracked for they are the ones who let in the light.Comment
-
I always felt the 3 captain arrangement rather diminished the position of captaincy. The fact that you had to check and see who tossed the coin in order to work out who was running the outfit that particular day was at best unsatisfying.
Men like Kirk, Goodes and Bolton are easily capable of being sole leader, and any team needs leadership onfield. There are others there who are as capable, I believe.
I also have the belief that many players' games grow with that responsibility..Maxwell at Cwood a prime example.
Of course, the old 'if it ain't broke....' may well apply here, but i think Longmire may be wanting to establish the new order a bit..this could be a comparitively painless and effective way of starting.Comment

Comment