Apologies for the close proximity of this thread to the “Gawn as co-captain 2020” thread, but I’m more interested here about the concept in general. Just read that GWS have scrapped it and are reverting back to the traditional model. 
 

I’m keen to understand what the genuine benefits are of the co-captain thing. I personally struggle to understand the concept. It seems the potential to cause an imbalance amongst the team is heightened when two players are expected to address the players in huddles/discuss issues with the umpire/talk to the press/communicate the game plan to the other players during match-time. Any disparity between the two captains could easily be the source of confusion and frustration, to a potentially result-altering end. What if the players felt one was clearer than the other? Wiser? More trustworthy? Is the risk of factions forming a hysterical or realistic concern? 
 

Personally, I would like to see MG as the sole captain. But I’m wondering if anybody here can convince me that having two-captains (any two-captains) is a positive thing.
 

 

Would like to see Max have it on his own time to give away the co captain idea, last year showed that, Jones did the right thing so should Viney.

I've never been a fan of the Co-Captain Model. I'd prefer a sole Captain. With Jones stepping aside it's the perfect opportunity to either make Viney sole Captain or make a clean break and install Max as the lone Captain. 

But the benefits? I’m curious to know what the logic is behind any team doing it. The purpose it’s supposed to serve is genuinely lost on me. 

13 minutes ago, Mel Bourne said:

But the benefits?

I don't know, maybe lesser the burden. But if that's the case, are said co-captains truly ready for the captaincy?

I think I remember Goodwin wanted Viney AND Jones as he thought the younger players connected with Viney better, he felt Viney would represent the views of the younger generation a bit better?

In terms of game day I think most sides have forward mid and back leaders.

Captain to me is more about setting the standard outside the 2 hours on a Saturday. First to training, last to leave.

At the end of the day for 5 days a week these football clubs are work places. Some live for it, some can't wait to get out. 

Co-captains are too confusing. Select a single outstanding on field leader and let him loose.

Can have many vice-captains or particular function captains but only one leader for others to follow.

TMac for me.

 

I'm always confused about how strongly people feel about it. I couldn't give a toss one way or the other. 

What does a captain do in footy? (Rhetorical). Why can't two people do that? And lessen the burden/double the impact? 

A lot of the drawbacks mentioned by the OP exist in another manner under one captain. 

At work, would you prefer one bad boss (in the broadest of senses) or one bad boss and one good boss? 

I mentioned elsewhere that one of the world's leading strategy consultancies recently elected co-CEOs

Last month, Indonesian decacorn GoJek went the same way - with each CEO focused on different areas.

Maybe that's how our model operates as well - being on the outside, we just don't know.  

 

It’s worked for one team the entire history of footy hasn’t it? Max sole captain - Viney vice or I’m cancelling my membership 

There should be three line leaders - backs, mid and forward so for me it'd be Lever, Gawn and McDonald. Be happy with Gawn as C and the other two as VC's.

I absolutely hate the co-captain concept. Jones and Viney did not rev up the troops in 2019, i thought to myself these so called captains have no guts to rev up their team mates. Who does what when the teams is down?(viney or jones ). They probably they have not received a job description on being a captain. I would say no to Viney, he needs to concentrate on being a beast. Max would be my sole choice.

Give it to Gawn outright. 

2 hours ago, Soprano661 said:

It’s worked for one team the entire history of footy hasn’t it? Max sole captain - Viney vice or I’m cancelling my membership 

That's a bit dramatic Tony

I’m not a fan but Roosy did win a flag with co-captains.  Shared leadership model is basis for it.  A much bigger job now for one captain.  Cutting up your membership over it is a pathetic approach to it in my view - real supporters would not even think that way! Overreaction to be nice about it.

2 hours ago, Soprano661 said:

It’s worked for one team the entire history of footy hasn’t it? Max sole captain - Viney vice or I’m cancelling my membership 

So a co-captains model is a reason for Melbourne not winning a flag and you are going to spit your dummy if it's not to your liking. 

Yes Maxy will make a great Captain but whether it's with Jack or stand alone it's the team g we barrack for not an individual.

25 minutes ago, Jack Russell said:

I’m not a fan but Roosy did win a flag with co-captains.  Shared leadership model is basis for it.  A much bigger job now for one captain.  Cutting up your membership over it is a pathetic approach to it in my view - real supporters would not even think that way! Overreaction to be nice about it.

At one point half the Sydney starting 11 were co captains

 

Edit: Starting 18, bloody cricket season

Edited December 3, 20195 yr by Josh

Like the majority, I’m not a fan of co- captains. It worked for the Swans. Good for them. Why WE need to persist with trying it I’m not entirely sure. Having that one strong leader the whole group can get behind appeals far more.

My preference is Gawn as sole captain but if not then just go with Viney and back him in.

For the record, the way Goodwin was talking on SEN, I think Viney is a lock and Gawn likely to be co-captain alongside him. We seem wedded to this stupid co-captain thing.

32 minutes ago, 58er said:

So a co-captains model is a reason for Melbourne not winning a flag and you are going to spit your dummy if it's not to your liking. 

Yes Maxy will make a great Captain but whether it's with Jack or stand alone it's the team g we barrack for not an individual.

Watch me spit it if we don’t beat west coast round 1 ?

Appreciate the input here. 
 

It’s noteworthy that nobody has really listed anything definitively in it’s favour, save for perhaps an overall lessening of the burden of captaincy. I do hope that isn’t the reason behind it though, as that would mean the club has viewed sole-captaincy as a “burden” for the better part of eight years, when most other teams haven’t seen it that way. 

 

It means nothing and won't be the difference between winning and losing.

That said, if I was guessing, I'd say there is very little chance of Viney being pushed out. He'd have to step down of his own volition. 

10 hours ago, Soprano661 said:

It’s worked for one team the entire history of footy hasn’t it? Max sole captain - Viney vice or I’m cancelling my membership 

Bravo Soprano. In just 25 words or less you've probably put yourself in the frame for some sort of Demonland triple-award - the shortest time between signing up and threatening to cancel your MFC membership, coupled with the most trivial matter prompting such a threat and perhaps the greatest first-post failure of logic. 

6 hours ago, Mel Bourne said:

It’s noteworthy that nobody has really listed anything definitively in it’s favour, save for perhaps an overall lessening of the burden of captaincy. 

Rather than the work-load burden, I think this was a more pertinent contention: At work, would you prefer one bad boss (in the broadest of senses) or one bad boss and one good boss? 

By good or bad, I mean whoever the employee finds most effective as a leader, for whatever subjective reasons. I indeed have two equal-level bosses, who I've learned to individually consult depending on the matter at hand. 

If you shift your focus from top-down to bottom-up, would it not be better for some kid like Luke Jackson or Kysaiah Pickett to enter the club and have two leaders to look up to,  and then the option of leaning toward whichever one suits them best? 

No matter the skill of the communicator, some people gel on an oratory and interpersonal level more than others - is it not better that we have two leaders who can get the message across in different ways? 

Your original post focuses on the potential negatives of miscommunication. If they are both strong leaders - even if in different ways - then they should both be on the same page, and certainly not allow factions to develop. 

If not, they shouldn't be leaders of our football club. And while all of the above can still be achieved by having a captain and vice captain(s) structure, it comes back to a matter of what is the difference. 

Anyone else suspect that Soprano was just extracting the urine with that post or is just me?

2 different personalities doing 1 job. 

3 hours ago, demonstone said:

Anyone else suspect that Soprano was just extracting the urine with that post or is just me?

I went fishing but seriously I hate the co captaincy model - I didn’t cancel after 2019 and don’t plan on. 

2 minutes ago, Soprano661 said:

I went fishing but seriously I hate the co captaincy model - I didn’t cancel after 2019 and don’t plan on. 

Yes let's hope we upset the Coasters in Round  1