News Port Adelaide announces co-captains - Ollie Wines and Tom Jonas

[dav3]

You reckon the co captains will hold hands as they lead the team out to oval before games?

They will also toss a coin to decide who attends the coin toss.

 

[El_Scorcho]

lol's at comparing NFL leadership to AFL.

You're going to need to elaborate. Both are elite level sporting organisations full of teams trying to win a championship. One is okay naming 6 captains. What's the difference?

 

[LFC2010]

You're going to need to elaborate. Both are elite level sporting organisations full of teams trying to win a championship. One is okay naming 6 captains. What's the difference?

No i don't, it's already been explained as to why in a number of posts.
So sick of people trying to compare american sports with australian ones, they so different it's not even funny.

 

[chiwigi]

You're going to need to elaborate. Both are elite level sporting organisations full of teams trying to win a championship. One is okay naming 6 captains. What's the difference?

Completely different sports and leader requirements, not to mention squad and game day sizes.
Anyway the De Facto captain of every Gridiron team is the QB regardless.

 

[Forzaport]

You're going to need to elaborate. Both are elite level sporting organisations full of teams trying to win a championship. One is okay naming 6 captains. What's the difference?

It could be a matter of definitions. With 6 captains, is there a leadership group or is the leadership group the 6 captains hence their 'captain' is our 'leader' and there is no captain as we define it?

 

[Janus]

You're going to need to elaborate. Both are elite level sporting organisations full of teams trying to win a championship. One is okay naming 6 captains. What's the difference?

You do realise that the concept of having a team captain was introduced by the NFL in 2007, right?

Team captain is nothing more than a leadership group. The starting quarterback is always the de facto “captain” of the team in the way we would think of a captain. And there’s only ever one starting quarterback.

 

[El_Scorcho]

No i don't, it's already been explained as to why in a number of posts.
So sick of people trying to compare american sports with australian ones, they so different it's not even funny.

You're right, American sports are way ahead in professionalism in just about every relevant metric.

Maybe we should look at the way they do things and borrow ideas instead of sticking to 150 year old traditions just because.

The only Port Adelaide tradition that really matters is success.

 

[Willsy10]

my thoughts are that we just bite the bullet and pick Wines if he is the long term option and Jonas is only going to be there for a couple of years, Wines will grow into the role. I don't particularly like the idea of Jonas being a somewhat "caretaker" captain or co captain until Wines is ready to go it alone. Throw him in the deep end with Jonas & Hartlett Vice captains and be done with it.

 

[Magpiespower]

 

[bomberclifford]

Exclusive footage of the first PAFC team meeting of the year...

 

[Jason K]

Just talking to a Freo supporter at work and he said it looks the same as when Pav gave up the captaincy. Fyfe wasn't ready, so they gave it to Mundy and Fyfe had to step up and take it for himself. Thats what I want to happen. Give it to Tom and if Ollie wants it, he can step up and make it a no brainer.

 

[chachi11]

That movie scares the shit outta me..

 

[Doctor Feel]

That movie scares the shit outta me..

This is what will happen if we don't appoint a single captain. So you had better get campaigning campaigner.

 

[manureid]

You're right, American sports are way ahead in professionalism in just about every relevant metric.

Maybe we should look at the way they do things and borrow ideas instead of sticking to 150 year old traditions just because.

The only Port Adelaide tradition that really matters is success.

Like the Free Agency model and the fact that contracts are pretty farcical in that nobody ever seems to get paid what the contract states and/or stays the length of it. Plenty of things not to copy from the NFL, and I love the NFL. Zero fcks given or player loyalty when it comes to your club. Is all about 'Show me the money'. Sure, players are in the AFL to get paid also, but the financial differences are out of this world.

 

[Tibbs]

Has the Oprah "You're a captain and you're a captain!" meme been posted yet?

 

[raptalia]

This will come a shock to some but I do not give a rat's what happens in the NFL it is what happens in the PAFC that concerns me. As I understand it the NFL is full of individually owned franchises anyway and the wishes of the rank and file supporters do not count. If we appoint Co Captains despite the undercurrent of opposition among our supporter base we will get what we deserve- another plastic franchise like the Crows.

One Club, One Captain- We Are Port Adelaide.

 

[chachi11]

This is what will happen if we don't appoint a single captain. So you had better get campaigning campaigner.

The power of Wines compels you

 

[PepeSilvia]

I'm not really getting the outrage in this thread and I wholly agree with El_Scorcho re the #1 tradition being separate to the convention of having a single captain. Personally, I'd probably prefer we stick with one captain, but I also wouldn't be unhappy if we decide to test co-captaincy.

For mine, this thread is simply debating something that is immeasurable (like many threads); we can't measure the effect a sole captain has on the success or lack thereof for a team, nor can we measure the difference in effectiveness between a single captain and co-captains. Yes the majority of premiership teams have only had one captain, but a) that's clearly skewed by the majority of all teams only having one captain and b) correlation does not imply causation. If those making the decision feel that co-captains is the better option, I genuinely don't see the harm in trying it.

The Arizona Cardinals had 7 captains and won 3 games all season it really works!

Sure, but the majority of clubs in the AFL have only one captain and every year, all but one (or occasionally all) of those teams fail.

 

[Tibbs]

... For mine, this thread is simply debating something that is immeasurable (like many threads); we can't measure the effect a sole captain has on the success or lack thereof for a team, nor can we measure the difference in effectiveness between a single captain and co-captains. Yes the majority of premiership teams have only had one captain, but a) that's clearly skewed by the majority of all teams only having one captain and b) correlation does not imply causation. If those making the decision feel that co-captains is the better option, I genuinely don't see the harm in trying it.


Sure, but the majority of clubs in the AFL have only one captain and every year, all but one (or occasionally all) of those teams fail.

Then why change it?

I am not flipping my lid over this like some .... but if there is no quantifiable reason to change, then it makes no sense whatsoever to do it! Especially in view of the Port Captain #1 tradition, and that they know it is going to peeve off half the supporter base.

To me it smacks of denial by the football department. They should he looking at the coaching and game plan .... "Nah, nah, the problem is with the players, lets fix it and appoint 2 captains, after all, 2 is better than one isnt it?"

 

[PepeSilvia]

Then why change it!

I am not flipping my lid over this like some .... but if there is no quantifiable reason to change, then it makes no sense whatsoever to do it? Especially in view of the Port Captain #1 tradition, and that they know it is going to peeve off half the supporter base.

To me it smacks of denial by the football department. They should he looking at the coaching and game plan .... "Nah, nah, the problem is with the players, lets fix it and appoint 2 captains, after all, 2 is better than one isnt it?"

If the club opts for co-captains, I would assume it's because they think we're more likely to be successful with co-captains than with a single captain. I don't know why the decision-makers would think this, I'm sure they'd give various reasons.

Why can't we have co-captains with one of them wearing #1?

 

[chiwigi]

If the club opts for co-captains, I would assume it's because they think we're more likely to be successful with co-captains than with a single captain. I don't know why the decision-makers would think this, I'm sure they'd give various reasons.

Why can't we have co-captains with one of them wearing #1?

Ok, let's say that is true, then how come between all of us here (and all communique from the club so far), there hasn't been a single justification that has come close to convincing people that it is worth doing.

Even the Crows who have already done it haven't managed a proper justification (the only one is that they don't want Tex to do it, but wont sack him). We have already sacked Boak so that can't be used here.

The burden is on those wanting to change it to convince us it is for the best. There has been zero attempt at that by the club, so if they do go ahead it will be without any prior justification, which is awful management.

 

[Contested Marx]

lol's at comparing NFL leadership to AFL.

I want our quarterback Hamish to be Captain

 

[Enviable Tradition]

If the club opts for co-captains, I would assume it's because they think we're more likely to be successful with co-captains than with a single captain. I don't know why the decision-makers would think this, I'm sure they'd give various reasons.

Why can't we have co-captains with one of them wearing #1?

I have a feeling we will get a detailed explanation of the process and the reasoning on Saturday.

Lets hope it's as good as they think it is.

Sent from my SM-G960F using Tapatalk

 

[Boxx]

Fukk it - just let Gupta decide...

 

[chiwigi]

I have a feeling we will get a detailed explanation of the process and the reasoning on Saturday.

Lets hope it's as good as they think it is.

Sent from my SM-G960F using Tapatalk

If it was, every club would be doing it.

If they aren't then it's either:
a) There's nobody good enough or
b) There are factions in the playing group (Crows).