A recent piece by Sir Clive Woodward in the Mail on Sunday, the retirement from international football of Steven Gerrard and the recent struggles of Alastair Cook have all posed a philosophical question about the role of the captain. Dan Zeqiri examines…
Of all of the solutions offered by commentators to help ease the burden on Alastair Cook, an article by Sir Clive Woodward was the most profound. He suggested that English cricket needed to re-consider its long held orthodoxy regarding the role of the captain. This orthodoxy dictates that the captain must play a key role in team selection, be the source of tactical plans when in the field and in more recent times, be the face of the team in front of an ever growing media. This is not to mention the numerous other off the field issues the captain must deal with; from massaging inflated egos within the dressing room to organising social events. Woodward argues that the time has come to transfer some of this power away from the captain and towards the hands of the head coach.
Given that Woodward has spent much of his professional life as a coach or technical director; it is not a great surprise that he likes the idea of a powerful team manager. His suggestions were certainly novel, though those within the game of cricket would more than likely label them problematic. Woodward argues that a tipping point has been reached, due to the saturated media coverage of Test cricket as well as social media’s minute by minute trial. Such scrutiny, Woodward claims, results in the captain (Cook) floundering amongst a barrage of conflicting expert opinion. This burden restricts his ability to perform at his best and score runs which is, after all, his primary job. Moreover, by giving the captain powers of selection his relationship with his teammates is compromised. Woodward says that such tensions and problems could be diffused if the coach was given some of the responsibilities typically reserved for the captain.
The article certainly provoked a lot of naval gazing from those ‘expert pundits’ Woodward pointed out. It also caused commentators to think more holistically about the role of England Cricket Captain. Many, unsurprisingly, were sceptical. Nasser Hussain looked to contest the notion that social media has increased the pressure on the captain; he argues that the pressure on captains is an inward pressure that is derived from their own standards and expectations. Michael Atherton was uncertain about how a coach could influence proceedings to the extent that Woodward suggested when a team is in the field for five or six hours. This separation between the dressing room and the field, Atherton argues, naturally leads to the captain assuming responsibility. Despite a mixed reception, the questions posed by Woodward were well worth asking and are relevant to the analysis of power structures within all sports.
Woodward argues that a tipping point has been reached, due to the saturated media coverage of Test cricket as well as social media’s minute by minute trial.
Football contains a central paradox. Despite players possessing immense power over their employers, which manifests itself in huge wage demands, the technical side of the sport remains firmly autocratic. The football ‘manager’ (not coach, there is a difference) presides over all facets of the club. Anybody who read Sir Alex Ferguson’s autobiography would have noticed how you couldn’t get through more than about four pages without reading the word ‘control’. It is a style of management that presumably Sir Clive Woodward would advocate.
Consequently, the football captain possesses a symbolic, almost ambassadorial, role and not much more. Yet in this country we are obsessive about our nation’s footballing captain and this has resurfaced since Steven Gerrard’s retirement and the vacancy he leaves behind. As many have said, there aren’t many outstanding candidates. That’s possibly because supporters and pundits expect too much of England’s captain. They want a snarling, growling, blood stained and bandaged warrior, who can talk to the media, lead by example and be a good ambassador. Oh, and they must also have a squeaky clean private life. Spain and Italy have a far simpler system; whichever player has the most caps out of the starting eleven captains the team for that particular game. Leadership and communication are indeed crucial in football, but these can be collective virtues not just attributes possessed by a totemic captain.
If there is one lesson that must be learnt from the World Cup, it is that English football as a culture places far too much importance on pride, passion and motivation. It is all too easy to put defeat down to players not caring enough or not having as much ‘passion’ as England players of the past. Why? Because pride and passion are completely intangible and nebulous factors and so it is easy to defend your argument by using them. No doubt the tabloid pundits, you know who they are, who fret about players singing the second verse of the national anthem or speaking to the parents of deceased soldiers, would have been moved by Brazil’s rousing rendition of their anthem prior to the Semi-Final. All the pride and passion in the world however, could not compensate for their tactical and technical deficiencies as they were swept aside 7-0 by Germany.
Football contains a central paradox. Despite players possessing immense power over their employers, which manifests itself in huge wage demands, the technical side of the sport remains firmly autocratic.
Motivation is another overstated factor, and closely linked to our perception of England’s football captain. Terry Butcher, Tony Adams and Stuart Pearce are brought up as examples of great motivators, which doubtless they were. However, if a player puts on the England shirt and is not motivated then either the wrong player has been picked or the system is not producing the right type of player. I personally, am in no doubt that England’s players in Brazil were fully motivated and cared a great deal about their country, the team, the supports and their own performances. Tactical and technical frailties were the true cause of failure and that is what must be focused on.
Sir Clive Woodward might be premature in his calls for the England Cricket Captain’s responsibilities to be diminished. Yet it is high time for English football to drop its habit of resorting to blustery rhetoric, which includes the cult of the captain, and think upon the real causes of failure which are far more complex and subtle than how loudly the team sings the national anthem.
Dan Zeqiri
You can follow Dan on Twitter: @DanZeqiri
Follow Impact Sport on Twitter and Facebook
Image courtesy of thetimes.com
Well written piece and I totally agree with your summary on the captains and formations
Until England review their same old formation and consider an alternative formation approach with young men with energy and skill the results will remain the same.