Melbourne Captain 2014

[Gysberts2Bate]

My gut feel is that we will have three skippers due to the fact that Roos has suggested many times he likes this idea. Chunk and Garlo are our spiritual leaders and are looked up to as such by the playing group. (I'd put Mitch in here but I think he needs to focus on getting on the field.) Grimsey has done nothing wrong in the role, learnt so much through the adversity he's been through and deserves to remain a leader. Chip is the smokey.

This is not what I would do with our captaincy. This is just my take on our current situation.

Frawley as captain would be interesting. You'd think there'd have to be an ulterior motive, to give him extra reason not to leave the club through FA.

 

[Tough Kent]

Frawley as captain would be interesting. You'd think there'd have to be an ulterior motive, to give him extra reason not to leave the club through FA.

It would be hard for him to look elsewhere if he's a co-captain. But only give him the gig if he deserves it. The players will determine that, with the help of Leading Teams.

 

[GY!BE]

As a non Melbourne supporter on the outside it would be a massive shock if Nathan Jones was not captain. I know all club supporters have favourites but talking about things like co captains and the like I think they should just keep it simple. One leader that you and other teams respect.

 

[Tough Kent]

As a non Melbourne supporter on the outside it would be a massive shock if Nathan Jones was not captain. I know all club supporters have favourites but talking about things like co captains and the like I think they should just keep it simple. One leader that you and other teams respect.

I agree completely mate. But we're trying to read into what the Roos' regime is thinking. I also think Grimes would be stiff to be removed from captaincy calculations. Time will tell.

 

[GY!BE]

I agree completely mate. But we're trying to read into what the Roos' regime is thinking. I also think Grimes would be stiff to be removed from captaincy calculations. Time will tell.

That's true especially if Grimes wants to retain captaincy, I just would think a clean slate would be best.

 

[Gysberts2Bate]

Grimes and N Jones for captains, Garland for vice.

 

[Tulip]

Maybe it's the traditionalist in me, but I hate the idea of co-captains.

Every dressing room, at every level, has different personalities within it.

The point of a captain is to be someone who can hold his own views, but to be a strong enough leader to simply guide their mates to a common objective. He's meant to be the face of a united club to the fans and in the media.

Picking 2, or even 3, captains would in my opinion be a shocking move. Even if we improve with them at the helm, I won't necessarily be citing them as the reason for it.

 

[GY!BE]

Maybe it's the traditionalist in me, but I hate the idea of co-captains.

Every dressing room, at every level, has different personalities within it.

The point of a captain is to be someone who can hold his own views, but to be a strong enough leader to simply guide their mates to a common objective. He's meant to be the face of a united club to the fans and in the media.

Picking 2, or even 3, captains would in my opinion be a shocking move. Even if we improve with them at the helm, I won't necessarily be citing them as the reason for it.

Agree with every point.

 

[Sprout]

Maybe it's the traditionalist in me, but I hate the idea of co-captains.

Every dressing room, at every level, has different personalities within it.

The point of a captain is to be someone who can hold his own views, but to be a strong enough leader to simply guide their mates to a common objective. He's meant to be the face of a united club to the fans and in the media.

Picking 2, or even 3, captains would in my opinion be a shocking move. Even if we improve with them at the helm, I won't necessarily be citing them as the reason for it.

A "shocking" move? Pretty emotive. What would be so shocking about it? They share media duties and together are the face of the club. Together they steer the differing personalities towards a common goal. And...what? The club implodes? Nothing you've said really provides a strong case.

Roos prefers co-captains. He has won a premiership under that model. Reading between the lines of his latest interview, it appears all but certain there will be at least a couple of captains. I'm more than happy to place faith in that. Just because the last two years of failure have been under co-captains does not mean it is faulty by nature.

 

[Topkent]

A "shocking" move? Pretty emotive. What would be so shocking about it? They share media duties and together are the face of the club. Together they steer the differing personalities towards a common goal. And...what? The club implodes? Nothing you've said really provides a strong case.

Roos prefers co-captains. He has won a premiership under that model. Reading between the lines of his latest interview, it appears all but certain there will be at least a couple of captains. I'm more than happy to place faith in that. Just because the last two years of failure have been under co-captains does not mean it is faulty by nature.

I'm probably wrong but the basis of his point seems to be that a captain is a figure head, someone who stands out above the rest and isn't necessarily influenced by others an sticks to his own convictions

It's almost like having 2 coaches , except not

Get it ?

 

[Sprout]

I'm probably wrong but the basis of his point seems to be that a captain is a figure head, someone who stands out above the rest and isn't necessarily influenced by others an sticks to his own convictions

It's almost like having 2 coaches , except not

Get it ?

I get that point, but where's the evidence of that always being to the greater benefit of the team?

I'm not strongly aligned either way, but to label co-captains a "shocking" move, where are the examples of it having failed spectacularly, or is this a matter of guesswork about the inner workings of a professional environment?

We know it has worked under Roos. He's won a flag with it, and I've not read or heard any complaints from those involved over confusion of convictions or direction.

 

[Topkent]

I get that point, but where's the evidence of that always being to the greater benefit of the team?

I'm not strongly aligned either way, but to label co-captains a "shocking" move, where are the examples of it having failed spectacularly, or is this a matter of guesswork about the inner workings of a professional environment?

We know it has worked under Roos. He's won a flag with it, and I've not read or heard any complaints from those involved over confusion of convictions or direction.

Fair point
I think the only thing that changes is you devalue the fame of being named captain if there is multiple ones

 

[Tulip]

At the end of the day, appointing co-captains just defeats the purpose.

What's the point of having a captain if you're going to let a number of blokes do one mans job? Same goes for some of the leadership groups that span more than a quarter of the list.

Not every leader needs a title, not every kid needs a medal.

 

[Black Dynamite]

At the end of the day, appointing co-captains just defeats the purpose.

What's the point of having a captain if you're going to let a number of blokes do one mans job? Same goes for some of the leadership groups that span more than a quarter of the list.

Not every leader needs a title, not every kid needs a medal.

I guess some would see spreading the load as being necessary when that one man is not standing out like a beacon.
However to be fair I am ambivalent to the whole single/multiple captain argument, as these days the position is as much a ceremonial figurehead as it is a spiritual / on field leader, and I don't mind the media duties being shared.
Whatever's seen as best for the club is fine by me.

 

[Sprout]

I guess some would see spreading the load as being necessary when that one man is not standing out like a beacon.
However to be fair I am ambivalent to the whole single/multiple captain argument, as these days the position is as much a ceremonial figurehead as it is a spiritual / on field leader, and I don't mind the media duties being shared.
Whatever's seen as best for the club is fine by me.

This is more or less my view as well.

 

[00Stinger]

Jones, Grimes & Garland

 

[Bluelegs]

Co-captains only if they alternate the role like the swans do. One captain per game but maybe they alternate between games.

 

[Topkent]

Co-captains only if they alternate the role like the swans do. One captain per game but maybe they alternate between games.

Totally disagree with this
Complicating a simple thing , a captain is a leader
I'm not against having 2 but they are both captains then not alternating captains

 

[MAXIMUM GRUNDAGE]

http://www.afl.com.au/news/2014-01-06/garland-an-unlikely-captain

Garland's leadership skills are rated-highly by those inside the club, meaning he is a chance to assume a leading role.

However, the Demons defender does not consider himself as the first-choice candidate.

"I don't think I've probably got the personality to be a captain," Garland told AFL.com.au.

 

[Theseventhhamster]

Col's pretty much the same leader as Grimes. We need at least one vocal on field captain.

 

[d33my]

Col is doing a fine job as VC. No need for a promotion, and doesn't sound like he wants it in any case.

 

[Topkent]

Col is doing a fine job as VC. No need for a promotion, and doesn't sound like he wants it in any case.

I don't think the captain would say he thinks he does or doesn't want it

A captain IS a captain