Fabio Capello, in his apparent lack of interest in his own job, has re-appointed John Terry as England captain. While some of us fume about the decision, Suhail Seedat argues that it merely clouds our views of the bigger picture. Does a captain add any value? More successful football nations than ours seem to think not.
Just when the newspapers had forgotten about English football and its dire predicament, up cropped a story which illustrates the mentality of the English with certain facets of football.
Fabio Capello has received an absolute shoeing since the forlorn World Cup campaign in South Africa, and this episode doesn’t really help his case. Being a foreign manager, Capello was always on the back foot trying to win over a crowd which often feels it has a divine right to achieve World Cup glory after decades of disappointment. When Steve McLaren was made England manager, he made the captaincy issue his first priority and selected John Terry as the successor to David Beckham; in hindsight, that has caused more harm than good.
Capello didn’t understand the fuss and perhaps still doesn’t. After all, it’s just a piece of elastic on a bicep. When it comes to the crunch, what difference does having a captain really make in football?
The official role for a captain according to the Laws of the Game is to oversee and participate in the coin toss before kick off and, should there be penalties, the captain chooses the end. Besides that, the captain has very little say in how the game is officiated or how the tactics and strategy of the game should be developed.
In contrast, the cricket captain is pivotal to the match proceedings. The captain has a say in who is selected in the team and which order they go in to bat. They make the decisions as to which bowler is going up against which batsman, and at which end. Furthermore, the captain positions the fielders to ensure catches can be made and runs prevented.
It’s fair to say the level of shrewdness and tactical acumen required to be a cricket captain vastly outweighs that of a football captain. There is genuine reason as to why there should be debate among ex-professional and members of the media about this matter, because picking the right captain is fundamental to the success of the team.
A captain, in English football theory, is the embodiment of great will and determination, a leader among men. He’s the man who is the manager’s eyes and ears on the pitch. This, however, is simply not the case.
The level of pressure on a football manager to deliver results from the start means a manager is unlikely to entrust important details to a player who doesn’t have the know-how to tactically out-think the opposition, and the game doesn’t work in a way conducive to that in any case. The dictatorial manner of a manager means a captain is merely just another player.
It is argued among ex-professionals, none more than Alan Hansen, that a captain is someone who a team look to for inspiration, should the team be down in the dumps. Hansen commented after Arsenal’s League Cup defeat to Birmingham, “Why is Van Persie being made captain? A striker should not be made captain. It should be a defender who can see the whole picture.”
Why? Because Arsene Wenger, like Capello and most of their continental contemporaries, sees little relevance in captaincy. The thinking, especially within Spanish and Dutch, is to empower each player as an equal and to banish any thoughts of a hierarchy within the team. The individuals’ judgement and quick response is valued more highly than the ability to take instruction or bellowed encouragement from a team-mate.
The image of Bobby Moore holding the Jules Rimet trophy is arguably one of the factors that hold England back from developing into a football nation that can compete for honours. Italy, the four-time World Cup winners, hand the strap to whoever possesses the most caps, suggesting that the importance of the captain really is non-existent.
At a time where English football is considering its development programme with a ‘root and branch’ change of its structure - or lack thereof - it’s the mentality which needs to be re-evaluated first. Insular football personalities governing the game, and many possess little insight into how neighbouring European countries are developing and markedly improving the standards of their youth development and coaching; the philosophy is unlikely to change any time soon.
This issue is a mere distraction spun by the media, disguising their lack of knowledge and nuance of the intricacies within the game. To some extent, the media have to be blamed for what is a nothing debate. The huge emphasis placed on this matter perhaps illustrates why England, as a football nation, has continuously failed on the big occasion. The focus should instead be on the tactical decisions and patterns of play rather than decisions which have little bearing on the overall result.
An England captain is deemed to have the heart of St George and moral fibre of Mother Teresa. It is exactly this romantic, out-dated and unrealistic view of footballers that exemplifies what is wrong about English football culture.
Tags: Captains, Fabio Capello, John Terry, Rio Ferdinand
But it seems we’re appointing Terry to get some consistency. Which means we have to consistently pick him now. He might not even be getting in the Chelsea team by next season…
You’re quite right about cricket captains having way more to do, but a football captain still has responsibilites to cajoule, to lead and to motivate. These are genuine skills. Look at Arsenal and how they flounder without someone who’s any good at this. Yes, you could argue that if Arsenal had one good leader it doesn’t matter if he’s wearing an armband or not. But at least if he is, then nobody says “oh, player X is undermining captain Y by calling all the shots”.
I don’t particularly agree, but it’s an interesting take. My dad asks me the same question all the time, what’s the relevance of a captain in football compared to cricket where they’re effectively the manager. My brother always says the football captain’s job is to be at the front of the queue of players surrounding and harassing the referee. I can’t really disagree with that.
You’re using Arsenal as an example as a team that prospers without having a proper leader. Arsenal aren’t successful. They were successful with Adams as captain. Manchester Utd were when they had Keane, Chelsea with Terry and ultimately England with Moore. Arsenal have no-one that takes responsibility, and that’s why they don’t win anything. They lost to Barcelona and Birmingham because they don’t have the bottle.
I accept you don’t need to have the captain’s armband to be a leader or take responsibility for stuff. Look at Abdoulaye Meite yesterday for WBA. But Arsenal don’t have any characters within their team at all who you’d want to emulate. Wilshere comes closest. Giving the armband to someone should put the onus on them to lead by example (they should be doing that anyway I agree), and provide the rest of the team with someone the manager trusts to put in the desired effort and performance consistently.
I do think England captain matters, I don’t want it to be John Terry. You’re right to an extent about the distraction, media, mentality etc, but that doesn’t mean a captain is irrelevant. Capello is a plank, and deserves most of the stick he gets, apart from the stupid tabloid sensationalism which has nothing to do with football. His management of this situation has been appalling, just like with Green and Upson in the WC.
Does a captain really have to cajole, lead and motivate? Shouldn’t the players be self-motivated to do this anyway? You look at Barcelona, potentially the greatest club side ever, you don’t see Xavi (deputising for Puyol) doing this. He just gets on with it. This over-emphasis on a leading figure above others is what leads to divisions within the camp, and too damage morale as we are seeing with Ferdinand and Capello.
It’s a nothing issue which could damage any slim hope of England winning the European Championships next summer.
I think Terry will still be a regular at Chelsea, NTA. He’s not perfect, but like ‘fat’ Frank, people criticise him because they simply don’t like him, not because he’s not a good player.
See what Samuel Garuda makes of the whole shebang at FF:
http://www.footballfarrago.com/2011/03/rant-captain-capellos-mandolin.html
I’d actually look at the role of the captain in rugby when comparing sports. The captain is the coach’s eyes and ears on the field, responsible for leading, conveying instructions and organising. Again Ireland at the weekend, Nick Easter did not have a good game, and the whole team struggled.
Football is probably a little more forgiving (in terms of on-pitch action) if the captain has a bad game, but for me, the principles are roughly the same.
saadab makes a good point about harassing the ref.
how about only the captain speaks to the referees and anyone else who does gets carded like is done in the amateur leagues?
i GUARANTEE you that after a few weeks the players will get the message… the dumber ones will need more time.
the most embarassing part of the game isnt a few dives here and there its the constant scums whenever a referee makes a call.
it looks like an ice hockey game where every whistle is met with jostling, preening and posing
except here its done towards the referee.
Respect my fanny.
I have yet to hear someone stand up and say enough is enough with this constant and embarasing whining.
So give the captain relevance in a game, only HE can speak to the ref.
After a few yellows, players with big mouths will all want to be it.
and by the way, you took the extreme case of whiffleball for your debate about captaincy in sports.
most sports have a captain with also limited role.
your description of a cricket captain sounds more like a coach. does cricket have them and what the hell do they do if the captain does their work?