There should be one commander-in-chief.

Mark Kneeld

Mark Kneeld

I understand all must Kneeld before Neeld. Perhaps 'Field Commander' is more apt.

The argument against it is that bucks got to stop with someone in an organization and having two official joint leaders can create confusion. In a worst case scenario, cliques can and often do form.

I'm not a fan of it. There should be one commander-in-chief.

Can and often do form?

Wanna provide examples?

Joint captaincy at the Lions didn't do that, nor the swans.

In fact, the closest thing I can think of that arguably didn't "work" at the highest level, is the rotating captaincy at St Kilda.

And even then, they played in consecutive grand finals shortly after, so you could argue it was successful.

Their chronic off-field issues were mostly once a singular permanent captain was selected under a new "commander-in-chief" who demanded his playing group adopt a questionable siege mentality.

Quite simply: there's a lot of criticisms and concerns, and I can understand many of them, but at the end of the day there's not actually a shred of evidence to back them up.

Edited January 23, 201213 yr by Lutz

The argument against it is that bucks got to stop with someone in an organization and having two official joint leaders can create confusion. In a worst case scenario, cliques can and often do form.

I'm not a fan of it. There should be one commander-in-chief.

Cliques form without co-captains...

And on the field there should plenty of 'commanders,' if we have multiple commanders it will be a hell of alot better then our usual - none.

I understand all must Kneeld before Neeld. Perhaps 'Field Commander' is more apt.

That must be why he's got Leigh Brown on the team. He's going to be Neeld's heavy and enforcer.

An Enforcer....Now that is something we have not had for a long time...one who imposes......It's Time.

Can and often do form?

Wanna provide examples?

Joint captaincy at the Lions didn't do that, nor the swans.

In fact, the closest thing I can think of that arguably didn't "work" at the highest level, is the rotating captaincy at St Kilda.

And even then, they played in consecutive grand finals shortly after, so you could argue it was successful.

Their chronic off-field issues were mostly once a singular permanent captain was selected under a new "commander-in-chief" who demanded his playing group adopt a questionable siege mentality.

Quite simply: there's a lot of criticisms and concerns, and I can understand many of them, but at the end of the day there's not actually a shred of evidence to back them up.

RR is referring to a particular concept which is as follows: "Everyone's responsibility is no-one's responsibility". I can expand further if required.

There's much merit in only having one person as captain, but life is also about compromise and in this instance I favour a co-captaincy. Nine times out of ten I wouldn't.

An Enforcer....Now that is something we have not had for a long time...one who imposes......It's Time.

Too bad he's an assistant coach...

Too bad he's an assistant coach...

That one is yes, but there are others out there....

If Green remains captain I will accept and understand it, but it will mean that we have a leadership vacuum to Grimes and Trengove and some serious issues with our 'senior players' but we knew that already...

..........not necessarily a leadership vacuum, IMO, maybe just fine tuning the timing.

If the option is to appoint, say, Moloney for a year then one of the young Jacks, or retain Green for that year, I think in the interests of stability keeping Green would be the best option. Accept that he, like the whole team, had a crap year 2011.

To appoint Moloney for one year, then drop him in favour of a Jack would be a hell of a kick in the guts to one of our hardest mids.

Sure, appoint the Jacks as joint vice captains, which will state clearly our future intentions of generational change....the likes of Moloney (&Davey etc) will then know without doubt that their time will not come, and they can get on with the game.

Edited January 24, 201213 yr by monoccular

..........not necessarily a leadership vacuum, IMO, maybe just fine tuning the timing.

If the option is to appoint, say, Moloney for a year then one of the young Jacks, or retain Green for that year, I think in the interests of stability keeping Green would be the best option. Accept that he, like the whole team, had a crap year 2011.

To appoint Moloney for one year, then drop him in favour of a Jack would be a hell of a kick in the guts to one of our hardest mids.

Sure, appoint the Jacks as joint vice captains, which will state clearly our future intentions of generational change....the likes of Moloney (&Davey etc) will then know without doubt that their time will not come, and they can get on with the game.

I wish we would stop caring about how players would accept the captaincy to be taken off them...

The highest honour is to be a captain of the MFC and if you it for 12 months or 5 weeks - you are a blessed individual.

If Brent is captain for 2012 and only 2012 then he can be very proud that he managed such an achievement.

I wish we would stop caring about how players would accept the captaincy to be taken off them...

The highest honour is to be a captain of the MFC and if you it for 12 months or 5 weeks - you are a blessed individual.

If Brent is captain for 2012 and only 2012 then he can be very proud that he managed such an achievement.

Not all players feel the way we think they should feel RPFC. I would imagine if Moloney, regardless of how passionate he is, had the option of either being Captain of the MFC for 12 months or to win a premiership, I know which one he'd take. If he got to the end of his career and had no flags and 12 months Captaincy, yeah sure, he'd feel blessed. A premiership would be his number 1 priority though.

If those that think Moloney should be skipper for 12 months and then see one of the Jacks take it over, I'd rather see Moloney not worry about the Captains role and concentrate on teh 1 single thing that ALL footballers play for, a premiership. If he can unoffically lead us to a flag and win a Normy doing it, he'd be blessed at the MFC for ever!

I wish we would stop caring about how players would accept the captaincy to be taken off them...

The highest honour is to be a captain of the MFC and if you it for 12 months or 5 weeks - you are a blessed individual.

If Brent is captain for 2012 and only 2012 then he can be very proud that he managed such an achievement.

I contend that no-one in their right mind would ever accept being a "care-taker" captain knowing that 12 months down the track you are going to be, in effect, made redundant; this would be he same as being told "there's someone we think will be a better captain than you, but we want to get another year's worth of experience into him first, so you'll have to do in the meantime." - that would be a kick in the guts to someone as passionate about the club as Moloney is. If the club considers him good enough to be captain of the club this year, then he should hold that position for as long as he proves himself effective.

I contend that no-one in their right mind would ever accept being a "care-taker" captain knowing that 12 months down the track you are going to be, in effect, made redundant; this would be he same as being told "there's someone we think will be a better captain than you, but we want to get another year's worth of experience into him first, so you'll have to do in the meantime." - that would be a kick in the guts to someone as passionate about the club as Moloney is. If the club considers him good enough to be captain of the club this year, then he should hold that position for as long as he proves himself effective.

I thought that when the coaching positions for Port Adelaide in 2011 and Melbourne in 2007 came up that successful aspirants were mad because they were on a hiding to nothing. There is a real risk that the winner would take a crud a list and never enjoy real success within their coaching tenure. There is always those that want the experience no matter for how long.

I completely disagree that Beamer holds the job while he is effective. He gets the job because he is the best person for the job and he gets assessed every year. It should be the same for all on and off field positions at MFC.

I completely disagree that Beamer holds the job while he is effective. He gets the job because he is the best person for the job and he gets assessed every year. It should be the same for all on and off field positions at MFC.

But that is what I am saying by "proves himself effective". Obviously if his form declines and he is assessed no longer good enough to hold the captaincy, then he loses it...however, the club would be making a very big mistake if they gave him a "caretaker" role (even more so if they did that without first informing him); I would seriously see such an offer as having a detrimental effect on his desire to perform. But let's face it, such an offer is unlikely to transpire and I'm probably getting worked up over nothing :-)

He could still be effective but MFC may view Trengove as ready to be captain in 12 months time. I agree that a caretaker role may not result.

But that is what I am saying by "proves himself effective". Obviously if his form declines and he is assessed no longer good enough to hold the captaincy, then he loses it...however, the club would be making a very big mistake if they gave him a "caretaker" role (even more so if they did that without first informing him); I would seriously see such an offer as having a detrimental effect on his desire to perform. But let's face it, such an offer is unlikely to transpire and I'm probably getting worked up over nothing :-)

I'm of very similar view to you Hardtack. If Beamer were to be made Captain, I'd be looking at it as a potential 3-5 year thing. But coming off one of his best years, if he were to put in a horror 2012, does that mean we strip him immediately? Would he not "deserve" 2014 to redeem himself?

I guess where I'm coming from is that Green has been a very good clubman for many years, has held the captaincy for 22 games, not all of which were below standard, yet some are still wanting his head.

I'll throw the question to everyone in this manner, let's assume Grimes or Trengove are made captain in 2012. What happens if Grimes plays 8 games for the year (due to injury) and/or Trengove's form drops off? Do we sack them after 12 months in the job? I think not.

The only chance Moloney has of being captain is in a shared capacity.

The only chance Moloney has of being captain is in a shared capacity.

Unless you are Neeld, I don't think you are in any position to say this with such certainty.

Here's a novel idea: pick the best leader(s) as captain(s) every year.

If there are consecutive years of the same captain(s) then so be it, if not - then grow up.

..........not necessarily a leadership vacuum, IMO, maybe just fine tuning the timing.

If the option is to appoint, say, Moloney for a year then one of the young Jacks, or retain Green for that year, I think in the interests of stability keeping Green would be the best option. Accept that he, like the whole team, had a crap year 2011.

To appoint Moloney for one year, then drop him in favour of a Jack would be a hell of a kick in the guts to one of our hardest mids.

Sure, appoint the Jacks as joint vice captains, which will state clearly our future intentions of generational change....the likes of Moloney (&Davey etc) will then know without doubt that their time will not come, and they can get on with the game.

I agree with this. If there is no real stand out stick with Green because it will be much easier to change at the end of the season. Many have forgotten his leadership two seasons ago, hopefully he can step back up this year.

Here's a novel idea: pick the best leader(s) as captain(s) every year.

If there are consecutive years of the same captain(s) then so be it, if not - then grow up.

A little too simple really.

A little too simple really.

The most elegant solutions are usually simple.

The most elegant solutions are usually simple.

Especially when they work!

That one is yes, but there are others out there....

Oh you mean On-field, do you mean Seller, is He our 'Leroy Brown'... Is that why we went for him, big, strong, aggressive???