How can his style of captaincy be as good as any other if it is inadiquate in the situation we are in? Farrell didn't shout at the team for the sake of it when it was doing well but when things went a bit wrong he would get vocal.Flash posted:
Dave, if I quoted you this would be the longest post in history, so I'll do my best to answer your other points without a ny quotes. As for the above one, then we are agreed. His style of captaincy is as viable as any other. The difference determining whether it is good or bad is soley based on whether we are winning or losing.
A team scoring tries for fun almost captains itself but it is when things are going wrong you need the captain to step up to the plate with some leadership as opposed to "just" makijng 30+ tackles a match.
The entire east stand was urgung the team to go for two points at half time and yet it was some time before the decision was made. You could argue the coach made it in the end but really if Lockers had the confidence to be captain he'd have taken one look at the clock on the big screen and told Dobson to kick for goal. The fact he waited for the coach to tell him just shows he has not got the confidence to make decisions without relying o someone else. That one didn't need to have any input from the coach.As for the situation regarding the 2 points. You know as well as I do that this decision is largely taken off field in the modern game. It is accepted that the players can over rule this decision in some instances, but in 90% of cases the coach makes the decision. In this instance Dobson made the call, which as half back he was perfectly entitled to do. I'm not sure how any accusations can be made against Lockers regarding this...
The Dobsin one says it all though as it was Dobson who decided what to do when he received no direction what so ever from anyone else including Lockers.
I think you are being deliberately obtuse here. Just because someone says he ought to bollock the players doesn't mean they want him to do iut all the time to the exclusion of all else. We aren't lawyers using precise language.Most people on this board don't want the mixture of qualities I said I preferred. Most of the accusations against him have been because he "doesn't shout at the players" (sic).
I don't know what job you do but I think sport is a bit different to working in IT which is what I do! If I screw up I expect to be told so but hardly with a rant frm the boss.I work in a profession where self motivation is paramount and I, personally, don't respond or need people shouting at me in order to work to the best of my ability. That's why I don't like ranters as I described them as captains and purposefully left that charactoristic out of my ideal captain. Perhaps others on this board do need a good b*llocking to get anything done and therefore think that it is important. I don't know. It's for each to decide.
Unless they are in the situation we are in I can't see how you can generalise. Hanley was not very vocal and you could say he was the best example of the lot for leading by example but look at who he had around him as players.You say that he only has the 'lead by example' part sussed. As I posted here and elsewhere on this board, this part has been more than enough for numerous captains across numerous sports.
Well I for one beleive that all those sportmen would, if they were captaining a team in our position, get very vocal.For my own part I would like something extra, but I still maintain that each style can be equally successful. Unless you want to argue against Joynt, Peacock, Bobby Moore, Freddy Flintoff or for that matter, the aforementioned Ghandi and Nelson Mandela!
None of them were ever in our position so how you can say Peacock and Joynt prove the point I don't really know.
WHy would you conclude that? There are other reasons he would leave things as they are, especially if he sees Fletcher doing Lockers job on the pitch. The problem is that given that appears to be the case it leaves Lockers open to critisim.I don't think Nobby is between a rock and a hard place as you describe. He doesn't seem to me to have any problem making the hard decisions. If Lockers is still captain you have to conclude that, for whatever reasons, it must be because he is the best man for the job from within our current team.
I can't remember what Feka said but wasn't it you who said older players would not stand a talking to from a younger one? If so that is a problem as it means Lockers can't give out a talking to to the older players.Also you mention that a young captain needs to earn the respect of the other players. I refer my learned friend to Feka's comments of a few weeks ago....
Dave
