I agree with a lot of what you said but you are incorrect with your belief re Jones. People within the club have said it this year publicly and I have heard it from my contacts within the club, that despite Jones' on field performance he was not and did not act like a captain off track (this isn't disparaging, I'm not saying he misbehaved just that he didn't lead). However in the past 6-9 months both he and Garland have stepped up this leadership off field.

It is possible that this combination of on field performance and newly developed of field leadership makes Jones The most suitable captain next year. But not at the time of choosing.

Interesting, that is exactly the opposite to what I have been told and was told in 2011.

As was i.

Not a "partyer" just a damn good, loyal bloke with lots of hobbies.

Ever heard of lead by example? Not all Captains need to be charismatic.

As was i.

Not a "partyer" just a damn good, loyal bloke with lots of hobbies.

Ever heard of lead by example? Not all Captains need to be charismatic.

There's a hell of a lot more to leadership and being captain than just "leading by example."

If that's the only string you have to your bow, then you're fit for a spot in the leadership group, and maybe a vice captaincy gig.

I heard great bloke, strong trainer but maybe not someone who was interested in how others trained etc. Ie he may have ran harder than the rest but he also didn't encourage others to push themselves harder and if others went putting in that was their business not his.

In the past 9 months however he has stepped up to really lead the players, and this was reflected in the promotion. As a result it wouldn't surprise me if he was captain next year and I am very happy to see him continually developing.

Leadership encompasses a range of skills and qualities other than personal performance. Different leaders are also required for different circumstances (are the evolutionary v revolutionary change thread).

Re Grimes I disagree with anyone who claims Grimes isn't a leader - there is a reason why Successive coaches awarded him successive club leadership awards.

Re Trengove he was thrust in the position too young given we have such a crap team but if we are genuinely trying to change the culture of the club, both on and off field, it makes sense to appoint someone as leader who embodies the new culture, and leads by example (offfield). It is just a pity his onfield form hasn't kept up.

There's a hell of a lot more to leadership and being captain than just "leading by example."

If that's the only string you have to your bow, then you're fit for a spot in the leadership group, and maybe a vice captaincy gig.

Please refer to my other previous posts on N. Jones and his attributes in future.

YES!

I heard great bloke, strong trainer but maybe not someone who was interested in how others trained etc. Ie he may have ran harder than the rest but he also didn't encourage others to push themselves harder and if others went putting in that was their business not his.

In the past 9 months however he has stepped up to really lead the players, and this was reflected in the promotion. As a result it wouldn't surprise me if he was captain next year and I am very happy to see him continually developing.

Leadership encompasses a range of skills and qualities other than personal performance. Different leaders are also required for different circumstances (are the evolutionary v revolutionary change thread).

Re Grimes I disagree with anyone who claims Grimes isn't a leader - there is a reason why Successive coaches awarded him successive club leadership awards.

Re Trengove he was thrust in the position too young given we have such a crap team but if we are genuinely trying to change the culture of the club, both on and off field, it makes sense to appoint someone as leader who embodies the new culture, and leads by example (offfield). It is just a pity his onfield form hasn't kept up.

I don't think they are reasons not to appoint Jones captain.

For example, that doesn't sound any different than Ablett Jr whilst he was at Geelong, yet when thrust the captaincy at the GC - he has risen to another level.

Jones and Ablett share similar hobbies and they are just quiet blokes who lead by example.

I've never heard a bad word spoken about Nathan Jones.

I don't think they are reasons not to appoint Jones captain.

For example, that doesn't sound any different than Ablett Jr whilst he was at Geelong, yet when thrust the captaincy at the GC - he has risen to another level.

Jones and Ablett share similar hobbies and they are just quiet blokes who lead by example.

I've never heard a bad word spoken about Nathan Jones.

I've never heard a bad word spoken about Jones either.

Your comparison with Ablett is an interesting one that I hadn't before considered - the idea that if thrust into the position Jones would be forced to develop those leadership characteristics.

I suppose the difference being that we apparently had two young blokes who were already doing and capable of steeping into that leadership style, and Nathan Jones wasn't required to adapt like Ablett was forced to.

There are so many different types of leaders and we see this in business all the time - some leaders are great at building from scratch. Others are great at taking a group the next step. Some are great at continuing a culture and continuing to drive it and maintain it.

At Melbourne, in my opinion, we need leadership that is prepared to change the culture from that which was formed in the late 1990's and early 2000's onwards. The culture that let Robbo jump fly but not chase, Yze always kick but never handball, White never impose on a contest, Trapper was laconic at the best of times. This was ok onfield while the list also included Neitz crashing packs, the Febey's running hard etc. but when that old guard left, the next group came through soft - Bruce, Green, Sylvia et al, were the next senior generation and none were great leaders or able to set a good example at work ethic. This has resulted in a downward spiral at the club. It happened to Hawthorn, but they caught it when they had a few old heads available to help instigate change. By the time we tried to change it we had Moloney left, and he was about himself, not about the club. We didn't treat some senior players well (Junior) but others held us to ransom (Davey, White, Yze, Bruce), all part of that culture.

In my opinion the decision to appoint Trengove and Grimes was about culture change. We had two young leaders who were the right type of leader to start instigating culture change, start setting a minimum standard with the young brigade. It is great that Jones and Garland have stepped up. I think that Dawes and Clark fit into that as well, and would like to see those 6 players moving forward as the leadership group, I have no doubt that together they form the nucleus of good leadership and will set good examples.

Given the existing culture at the club, I'm not sure that the Ablett/Jones "grow into leadership" would have been the right choice. At GCS, Ablett has set carte blanche the training standards, the culture etc. It was Ablett and a bunch of kids - everyone just looked up to Ablett, they were all new to AFL and had no expectations, and as a result he had a very easy group to mould in terms of developing culture. At the MFC developing a culture is a hard slog, long turn around. There is/was resistance to change i.e I've worked this hard for 5 years, why do I need to run harder now? Also, Jones was part of that culture, even if he sat separate from it - Ablett moved fresh to a new environment. Would Ablett have developed into the leader he was today if he had stayed at Geelong and was made captain?

I'd suggest that what we did was the short term pain approach to culture change - remove what was perceived as bad influences, pick young culture change captains, [censored] the players by an authoritarian coach. This obviously didn't work due to the psychological effect, but it wouldn't surprise me if this is the quickest approach in the long term - particularly after we removed the authoritarian coach after using him to do the hard yards. The next coach is coming in with a list closer to what the GCS has 2 years ago: young kids and older players who want to be there and who will be receptive to change and rebulding, not resistance.

Yes, Jones could have been captain, but I can't see a clear cut argument for why he was the only choice, or a better choice.

Our two captains have been a failure, that is all we really know for sure.

Our two captains have been a failure, that is all we really know for sure.

No we don't. All we know for sure is that the captains haven't been in great form bit even that is offset by good form From Grimes pre injury, serious injuries to both captains and a very obvious defensive work rate from Trengove that results in high numbers of tackles and team efforts.

What we do know is that some people seen to think that captain means on field performance will automatically jump and increase an elite level and don't seem to understand that the 2 hours we see on the weekend is but a part of the role of a captain.

I am a firm believer that the LG and the captain should be selected (read re-selected) every year.

I don't care if there are new names and as BH says - it's more important who is in the LG.

As a captain, I will not just accept the captaincy because I had it the year before.

As for the MFC - far more important that the LG has these names - Trengove, Grimes, Clark, and Jones. Jamar, Frawley, and Garland are fine additions to the LG but are not the all-round leaders that those 4 guys are.

I still believe this.

Re-select every year and if people get their noses out of joint because others have moved past them in others perceptions - then train them to take that the right way and work hard and continue leading.

Maybe its Jones or maybe its Jones-Grimes or Trengove-Jones-Grimes but get the leader from the group for that year.

The siutaion is fluid.

In more ways than one...

Jones may be the best player & trainer but if the team is not willing to follow him as a leader what's the point of appointing him as captain. The players identified both the Jack's as candidates that they trust to lead them this year. Next year it may be Jonesy.

Also if you think that leaders don't need charisma then you are mistaken because charisma is the ingredient a leader uses to convince others to follow them. The ingredient that gets people motivated when the going gets tough.

Sure there are leaders who have no charisma in todays society but usually they have power over there followers both tangible and intangible.

My question in this topic is this. Have the players complained about the captains leadership? If it ain't broken why fix it?

Jones may be the best player & trainer but if the team is not willing to follow him as a leader what's the point of appointing him as captain. The players identified both the Jack's as candidates that they trust to lead them this year. Next year it may be Jonesy.

Also if you think that leaders don't need charisma then you are mistaken because charisma is the ingredient a leader uses to convince others to follow them. The ingredient that gets people motivated when the going gets tough.

Sure there are leaders who have no charisma in todays society but usually they have power over there followers both tangible and intangible.

My question in this topic is this. Have the players complained about the captains leadership? If it ain't broken why fix it?

An experienced coach would never of let an inexperienced playing group pick their captain, so we can rest assured this debacle won't happen again.

Btw, who said anything about Charisma? It's not a political candidate, it's a football captain FFS.

Key areas we lack as a club, just so happen to be the best attributes of Nathan Jones, hence why he stands out like a beacon - on and off the field.

Jones is such a logical choice that it's just hard to fathom why he isn't already captain.

The Jacks won't be captain next year and anyone who agrees otherwise is kidding themselves.

Players pick their captain one way or the other.

What about Gilles or Pedersen?

Maybe even co captains.

What about Gilles or Pedersen?

Maybe even co captains.

I think that would be unfair on Nicholson

What about Gilles or Pedersen?

Maybe even co captains.

some people will have you think the number of runs made equals leadership?

so if we send these 2 to india they might get enough runs to equal leadership

some people will have you think the number of runs made equals leadership?

so if we send these 2 to india they might get enough runs to equal leadership

If they don't get enough runs, they won't even make it to India - to get the chance to lead.

Sometimes the attributes that make players great players - also make them great leaders #KingCarey.

I would say to those who say that the players picked the captains that they should remember Stalin's old line about counting votes. It matters not how many people vote, it matters who counts the votes. I find it pretty hard to believe that the players wouldn't have picked a more senior player if the vote was an up and down thing. The question is: What criteria were the players made to consider when putting votes in for captain? There is a strong possibility that the players were asked questions like: 'Who is most likely to lead this club in ten years time? Who is the strongest trainer at the club?' rather than 'Who is the person you look up to the most in the club?' 'Who is the best leader?' or even given a straight up 'Who should be captain?'
I don't want to sound too conspirational but I get the feeling that the captaincy questionnaire was designed in such a way that those seen to be opposed to a certain club administrator were never in with a shot at the captaincy. That's my ten cents.

I would say to those who say that the players picked the captains that they should remember Stalin's old line about counting votes. It matters not how many people vote, it matters who counts the votes. I find it pretty hard to believe that the players wouldn't have picked a more senior player if the vote was an up and down thing. The question is: What criteria were the players made to consider when putting votes in for captain? There is a strong possibility that the players were asked questions like: 'Who is most likely to lead this club in ten years time? Who is the strongest trainer at the club?' rather than 'Who is the person you look up to the most in the club?' 'Who is the best leader?' or even given a straight up 'Who should be captain?'

I don't want to sound too conspirational but I get the feeling that the captaincy questionnaire was designed in such a way that those seen to be opposed to a certain club administrator were never in with a shot at the captaincy. That's my ten cents.

Jones is a quiet bloke who just goes about his business, it's no surprise the players didn't vote for him, they probably thought he was a bit unapproachable.

Yet, had Jones of been thrust in as captain, they would've seen a completely different side of him.

Anyway, no biggy, I've met Nathan a few times, he's humble, quietly spoken and just a top bloke, just goes about his business.

Pretty happy we even have Jones at our club for blokes like Viney to learn off, it's a blessing.

Even know we lose every week, I love the MFC, wouldn't want to barrack for any other club:)

In some ways it's great that we are able to have this convo. The fact that we have Jones, Garland, Trengove, Grimes, Dawes, Clark offering leadership in some form or another is better than where we were 18 months ago.

Add to that sine leadership from the old blokes of the field (Rodan) and that it seems that a couple of the younger blokes have some leadership coming through too including Max Gawn and Jack Viney.

Perhaps next year we can have a genuine leadership group instead of just naming people because we have too?

I was never in favour of swapping captains, but after tonight Nathan Jones has to be made captain.

He is hands down our best and most influential player, he leads by example and he actually plays consistently well each week.

He is the player I want our other players to follow. If everyone had Jones' attitude, we'd be far better off.

I was never in favour of swapping captains, but after tonight Nathan Jones has to be made captain.

He is hands down our best and most influential player, he leads by example and he actually plays consistently well each week.

He is the player I want our other players to follow. If everyone had Jones' attitude, we'd be far better off.

From Matthews right down to Parkin have commented at times that Jones should be captain, so it will sort itself out.

Hasn't hurt the Jacks to experience leadership, but you'd think the next coach will do the logical thing and appoint Nath captain.

Another bluey in the bag for Jones, good on him, bloke has a real dip.

Uh...yeah. Duh.

http://www.afl.com.au/news/2013-08-28/the-washup-melbourne

Luke Darcy and Damian Barrett both want Jones captain. That's plenty enough reason for me not to pick him.

But seriously I have heard from informed sources that Jones isn't really a great leader. That he'll do his own thing and muck around with Magner at training but he isn't really in with a lot of the group.

I would've thought that a real leader would be one that the guys want to be around.

Jones may well still be the best that we've got but I'm not sure he's the standout leader we all think.