Flash posted:
I would like to correct this, if I may, and say 'he didn't play your idea of a captain's role. There is a difference. As I posted elsewhere, he made 30+ tackles, took the ball up as well as anyone, made several line breaks and put a couple of good kicks in. What you mean is he didn't shout his mouth off.
What he didn't do was organise the team the best example being the commitee meeting requied to decide to take a shot a goal for a penalty.
Bringing it back to rugby and our own team, different fans want to see different things from a captain. Some are only happy if he seems to be shouting all the time, others are happier to see commitment to the cause in terms of effort and workrate. Players also want different things from a captain. I have nothing but my own obsevations to back this up, but I would think that the likes of Fletcher, Orr, Logan, Feka, Hock wouldn't respond to someone giving them an ear bashing wheras other players perhaps would.
They probably would not respond to a young player like Lockers giving them an ear bashing which is a big reason why he was not the right choice in the first place. You have to earn the respect of players senior to yourself in order to be able to order them around never mind dish out an ear bashing and Lockers simply has not got the experience to command such respect.
That was one reason why it was a mistake by Millward to give the captaincy to Lockers but Noble is stuck between a rock and a hard place in deciding whether to leave him with the job.
On several occaisions last night it was Fletcher who queried the refs decisions so just who is our captain?
For my own part, I prefer a captain that combines the Churchillian with the lead by example approach (Hanley comes to mind), but I am equally willing to accept that that is just my opinion.
I think you will find everyine does and that the critism of Lockers is he only has the "lead by example" part sussed out.
The other approaches have been just as successful across many different sports. I do think it's true, however, that O'loughlin's captaincy 'style' would not be coming into question if we were trouncing all before us.
If we were trouncing all before us those players not delivering the goods on the pitch would not need chastising or encouraging to do better would they?
So it stands to reason we would not be complaining about his style.
The team has been crying out for direct leadership all season given the situation we are in. If it was winning every week then it seems obvious Lockers would need to say very little.
The question we should be asking is whether it his his style, or poor performances from the team as a whole, that is responsible for us being where we are. I know which one I feel is responsible.
Of course its the teams poor performaance but that is no excuse for him to not try and get them to perform better or organising the team.
Noble said in his post match interviee "Radlinski's comments helped me at half time" or words to that effect.
What with Fletcher talking to the ref and Rads doing the half time team talk its about time people accepted Lockers is not playing a captains role.
Dave
