Co-Captains???

[00Stinger]

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/sport/a...o-captains-model/story-e6frf9jf-1226250832578

We are being tipped to opt for co-captains.

Moloney, Trengove, Grimes & Frawley. I would say either 2 or 3 from this group, Moloney being 1 in my opinion

 

[Chip_]

Not a fan of it, even less if one is Green. Either back him or sack him, no middle ground on this one.

I'll go back to the old "you shouldn't need a title to lead". Moloney will be a leader regardless, as should Green with his experience. Rivers is the experienced head in defence. Davey does off field with the indigenous boys & should do more on field.

I could maybe cope with 2 young co-captains, with a view that in 2 years one would've stood up as the dominant one to be made solo captain.

Trengove/Grimes or Frawley, takes some of the pressure of giving it to Trengove if that's the decision they want to make but they have some hesitation.

 

[Crimson Azure]

One captain please!

I would rather keep with one & if need keep Green in the position for another year whilst grooming Grimes or Trengove for the role.

 

[ThePuppetMaster]

I think we need to make a long term decision with this captaincy, just because it isn't traditional doesn't mean it won't be effective under the right guidance.

I think a forward, midfield and back might be a good option.

 

[tasmanlvr]

Co-Captains are just WRONG, WRONG, WRONG! It doesn't work well often and it shows that we can't trust one capable leader.

Seriously, what does the club have against naming Moloney as captain? He screams out leader and yet the club are hugely reluctant to name him as captain. If it was for the drinking incident last year that's just silly...

 

[Biffinator]

Hate it. One captain please

 

[pjfairbairn]

With the formalisation of the leadership group over the last decade, the idea of co-captaincy is all but redundant.

If Trenners is the man they want to lead the charge to the next flag, they have two choices:

1 - Keep Greeny as captain for one or two more years and train Trenners up with increased media commitments, a key role within the leadership group and perhaps the captaincy if Green misses a game

2 - Back him in now, and ensure that the leadership group contains the right people. Little bit older, respected at the club. Moloney, Jamar, Jones, Grimes, Rivers/Frawley, Green.

Davey is the type to get down on himself. If he is (as expected) bumped out of the leadership group, I would like him to be given a formalised role involving indigenous leadership and club promotion.

 

[Logger]

I tried to type this in the Banter thread but the internet ate it.

That article, even if it turns out to be correct, is one of the most laughable I've seen:
Point One: Melbourne hasn't announced it's captain yet.
Point Two: There are multiple contenders.
Point Three: Other clubs have had multiple captains in the past.

1+2+3+Herald Sun Journalist=DEMONS LIKELY TO OPT FOR CO-CAPTAINS MODEL

 

[RandB]

I don't like the principle of this but if the future is Grimes/Trengove/Frawley rather than say a Moloney then I'll tolerate this for at least 1 year.

If we say gave the captaincy to Trenners it isn't just his development we need to think of but his confidence and standing. I think back to 186 and that was just a ****en debacle. Whatever we think of Neeld and co. they can't just iron that out in one year. Our leaders were pathetic and the collective think tank and performance was a disgrace.

I would like to see Neeld have a year to sort out this list and then put a player like Trengove in charge. I don't want to see a promising kid thrown into it and then let down by a pathetic bunch of mid/seniors who play on their own terms.

One of my theories on Clark/Sellar/experienced rookies isn't just that they are developed and could fill a hole but also IMO Neeld is trying to dilute our list a bit in the mid range and break up that collective think tank that saw us capitulate on 186. I think there are some players in our playing group who still have too much power and having a 20 yr old kid as captain in that climate is a recipe for disaster.

Secondly, if you follow the mantra that a captain/s are an extention of the coach on the football field (which I believe in to a degree) then it comes down to how Neeld believes he can make the biggest impact in his first year as coach. If he believes co-captaincy is the way to go then strategically speaking I'll go with it.

Admittedly there is no quote or evidence in the article about co-captaincy but I wouldn't be surprised one way or the other on this.

I think it would be a much worse situation if we had 3 senior co-captains like Green/Davey/Rivers - that would be embarrassing as it shows we have no leader, with kids we at least know we are grooming a leader for down the track.

 

[00Stinger]

Co-Captains are just WRONG, WRONG, WRONG! It doesn't work well often and it shows that we can't trust one capable leader.

Seriously, what does the club have against naming Moloney as captain? He screams out leader and yet the club are hugely reluctant to name him as captain. If it was for the drinking incident last year that's just silly...

What if the club believe trengove is the long term future, but he isn't 100% ready to do it himself. Therefore they name Moloney & trengove as co-captains for 2 years until Moloney is about 30 and steps aside for trengove to do it himself.

The main reason that holds Moloney back from being the captain is his public speaking. Lets be honost the captain of the club has to be media savy and be well spoken as much as he needs to lead the troops.

This way Moloney leads the boys on field and Trengove does most of the public speaking (which he does anyway).

 

[Jordie_tackles]

Although im not for or against co-captains at this stage,

The benefit of it is to build a group of leaders on the field, and the fact is that we lack leaders of all sorts atm.

This might be a method to build and change the culture of our club, before giving the Captaincy to one of Grimes Trenners ect in a year?

we will see

 

[maxmustard]

Well said logger, garbage opinion + sub editor = that article. For what it's worth I don't like the idea of co-captains. However, thinking it over for a while, I can't think of anyone on our list who would be suitable at this stage. The decision will surely create some heated arguments on here... will be interesting.

 

[Crusty Demon]

I don't like the idea either, but we really don't have anyone at the club who ticks all the boxes to be captain. Until we do, we might have to go 2-3 co-captains. I'd guess Trengove, Grimes and Frawley. Watts might come into the equation in another couple of years. Molonely might have blown his chance with his indescretion last season, albeit a minor one. But he did say he has a drinking problem. Hard to ignore. Plus he's still too inconsistent on the field.

Personally, I would make Trengove captain with Frawley and Grimes as co-vice captains. Green, Davey, Rivers, Jones & Moloney can make up the leadership group.

 

[Rudeurrection]

Hate the idea to begin with but the more i think about it the more i think we need something like this.

Our 'leadership' is piss weak, seriously pathetic. Trengove isnt quite ready yet so im beggining to think something like this could be a good idea. Trengove, Moloney and Grimes would be my ideal three.

Neeld not having been here for six months and already knowing Green is a garbage captain says it all really. I applaud him on taking a tough stance, for far to long we have towed the conservative line, its about time someone shook things up around here.

 

[rhaz]

At first i thought idea was terrible, but i'm warming to it. Personally i think way too much emphasis is placed on a captain - there are 22 players on the team playing each week ffs, they should all be in it together. 3 captains for this year, then next year pick the best from those.

 

[Spirit of 39]

At first i thought idea was terrible, but i'm warming to it. Personally i think way too much emphasis is placed on a captain - there are 22 players on the team playing each week ffs, they should all be in it together. 3 captains for this year, then next year pick the best from those.

I'm with you Rhaz. Way too much emphasis placed on this position of captain. We should have 22 leaders out on the ground every Saturday.

Forget leadership titles. Work on a leadership culture.

 

[SuburbanMe]

I agree that brad green should go. Having green being captain only feeds his gigantic ego. If you haven't figured it out yet - I'm not really a big fan of Greens. Sure he's got a good kick, and is an all round sportsman - but time and time and time again you see green taking the selfish option and failing instead of what's good for the team.

I like the idea of Beamer and Trenners. Beamer is one of the best pickups the club has had in YEARS and being named co-captain with Trenners would be the exact thing we need to help put some more balls in the team.

I like how no-one has mentioned colan Sylvia - and yes I meant colan - cuz he's just such a pain in the ass. Frawls could be a VC - The guy is awesome on field - I don't see why he's not an option.

But as the last couple of guys have said - too much emphasis is placed on the captaincy - how about we pay more attention on getting vocal supporters to the games so the guys know they have ample support behind them.

 

[Eth]

I tried to type this in the Banter thread but the internet ate it.

That article, even if it turns out to be correct, is one of the most laughable I've seen:
Point One: Melbourne hasn't announced it's captain yet.
Point Two: There are multiple contenders.
Point Three: Other clubs have had multiple captains in the past.

1+2+3+Herald Sun Journalist=DEMONS LIKELY TO OPT FOR CO-CAPTAINS MODEL

First thing I thought of as well.

 

[Syrus]

For 150 years this club has ever had 1 captain/leader and up until recently they were all leaders (Flower, Barassi, Smith, Lyon, Neitz, etc). If this club appoints co captains it will show that it is piss weak and the boys needs someone to hold their hand.

You will never see the likes of the Collingwood, Carlton, Essendon or Richmond ever appoint co captains, because their supporters wouldn't allow it, but it seems as though some of our supporters like the idea. Appoint co captains and all this stuff about tradition etc, will be dead.

Pull your head out of your arse MFC and have the balls to annoint 1 captain, the way it has been for 150 years.

 

[Supermercado]

Hate the idea, hoping it is a media beat up and nothing else.

 

[lose]

I love Beamer guys so don't jump down my throat after I say this.. but for mine he is much to one way to be captain for mine.. he's piss weak at manning up and chasing his man when the opposition has the ball, pretty poor defensively to be honest.. and he still gets shut out of too many games.. I no its not all his fault because he gets stuff all help in the midfield, but I don't think he should be made captain.. especially as he's confessed that he has an alcohol problem..

it really sux that grimes has had such a bad run with injuries because he is the obvious choice.. they still might gamble on him I reckon, he's just a born leader

 

[Tulip]

For 150 years this club has ever had 1 captain/leader and up until recently they were all leaders (Flower, Barassi, Smith, Lyon, Neitz, etc). If this club appoints co captains it will show that it is piss weak and the boys needs someone to hold their hand.

You will never see the likes of the Collingwood, Carlton, Essendon or Richmond ever appoint co captains, because their supporters wouldn't allow it, but it seems as though some of our supporters like the idea. Appoint co captains and all this stuff about tradition etc, will be dead.

Pull your head out of your arse MFC and have the balls to annoint 1 captain, the way it has been for 150 years.

McDonald and Bruce co-captained, remember

 

[syl]

Let me join in the chorus and say I hate the idea. At this point, it is nothing more than an off season media beat up.

The rest of Neeld and his cohorts decisions have been bold and strong. I hope this one will be te same as well.

I would rather Green again than going with co-captains...

 

[00Stinger]

Let me join in the chorus and say I hate the idea. At this point, it is nothing more than an off season media beat up.

The rest of Neeld and his cohorts decisions have been bold and strong. I hope this one will be te same as well.

I would rather Green again than going with co-captains...

Why???

Can someone please give me a good example of why 2 co-captains will not work?

And please don't give me the 'it's piss weak' or 'other clubs don't do it' crap. If it is pissweak, why is it pissweak?

 

[syl]

Why???

Can someone please give me a good example of why 2 co-captains will not work?

And please don't give me the 'it's piss weak' or 'other clubs don't do it' crap. If it is pissweak, why is it pissweak?

I am in the same boat Spirit of 39 and rhaz when I am more about having 22 responsible players out on the field and that all of the 'senior' players should be leading on field.

That being said, co-captains will not work the same way co-managers doesn't work in an office, either someone should lead and be responsible or there is no point having a captain at all.