Almost finished this lads.
- Status
Pugwash ?
Let's have a look at these new signings (So long as they speak English) It may be that one of them is captain material. It's easy to plead for
Coleman whilst the team is poor, but Coleman isn't the man you want, he can't cross, His goal shooting with either foot is poor, he loses the
ball regularly when attacking (These days it's fatal against counter attacking teams) and I don't know about you but I have palpitations when
he tackles in our box. But if you want us to finish perpetually 7th, then Seamus is your man.
Coleman whilst the team is poor, but Coleman isn't the man you want, he can't cross, His goal shooting with either foot is poor, he loses the
ball regularly when attacking (These days it's fatal against counter attacking teams) and I don't know about you but I have palpitations when
he tackles in our box. But if you want us to finish perpetually 7th, then Seamus is your man.
APN_EFC
Player Valuation: £25m
On reflection I don't think we need a captain who is a screaming aggressive guy, and there are plenty of examples in life of quiet leaders, but I feel it's more that we need a bit more visible passion, someone for the new players to rally around, and also mainly because Jags might not be an automatic pick.
I dont want to get down the Mourinho or Man U route where there is clear influence on refereeing decisions , but it would be nice to not be a pushover team!
Being a captain isn't just about the ability as a player but as a leader which takes personality and drive in to account, Coleman has large amounts of each. I don't know a single evertonian who wouldn't want him as captain.
Also everything you said bar the fact he can't cross is absolute wham.
Younger players look to captains when its not going well in a game. You’re hardly going to be inspired to glory looking at Jags’ meek expression.
We need an Optimus Prime to inspire.
We need an Optimus Prime to inspire.
New breed of captain shows that leadership now comes from the sidelines
What do Eden Hazard, Paul Pogba and Mesut Ozil have in common? Aside from abundant talent, legions of online devotees and lucrative sponsorship deals, all three could captain Chelsea, Manchester United and Arsenal this season.
The thought of this trio as heirs to Terry, Keane and Adams is enough to make a certain caste of fan turn puce with rage, but more importantly reflects football's changing attitude to leadership.
Hazard, Pogba and Ozil have each had their character publicly questioned - be it for downing tools on a manager, insufficient focus or pusillanimous big-game performances. None of which would traditionally be considered suitable leadership material, though Pogba's tub-thumping dressing room speeches for France have changed perceptions.
Leadership though, is one of those dastardly intangibles beloved of football pundits. To say a defeated team lacked leaders is the perfect example of an unfalsifiable statement, a hypothesis that cannot be disproved. There are no Expected Leaders numbers or leadership heat maps to summon in rebuttal, and there is yet to be an example of a team said to have *too much* leadership.
Not everything that counts can be counted, however, and there is anecdotal evidence to suggest that successful teams tend to have a recognisable and charismatic captain. Their effect on results, however, is likely to be what we now call a marginal gain.
English football's fetishisation of the arm-band is a well-worn story, refracted through images of Terry Butcher's blood-soaked bandages. The comic series Roy of the Rovers was a fine example of the embedded notion that totemic individuals can win games through force of personality, that the course of history can be changed by Great Men.
Modern coaches take a different approach. Although Harry Kane was England's official captain at the World Cup, Gareth Southgate made sure he was supported by a core 'leadership group' that included Jordan Henderson, Fabian Delph and Ashley Young. The absence of any cult of personality around any individual player was cited as a key component of England's relative success. Arsenal's new head coach, Unai Emery, has organised something similar, choosing a pool of five captains of which Ozil is one.
Emphasising the collective over the individual is reflected in coaching as well as team culture. Arsene Wenger and Jose Mourinho - managers who give players autonomy on the pitch and rely on their intuition - have suffered. Pep Guardiola, Jurgen Klopp and Mauricio Pochettino - with their positional systems, choreographed attacking moves and repetitive drills - have prospered and enhanced their reputations.
None more so than in the development of young players, who now favour more prescriptive coaching with clear instruction rather than being left to fend for themselves in high-pressure situations. This is what football people mean when they say 'there are no leaders anymore' or that young players no longer take 'responsibility'.
There may be something to rue there, but the toothpaste is not going back in the tube. Is hands-on, diagnostic coaching a reaction to the personalities of a new generation, or are the new generation of players shaped by hands-on, diagnostic coaching? We're into angels on the head of a pin territory.
So what of Hazard, Pogba and Ozil? There are obvious commercial benefits to giving a superstar like Pogba the armband, or giving Hazard an incentive to stay at Stamford Bridge or prompting Ozil to more warmly embrace his role as Arsenal's best player.
Giving the captaincy to a star player has long been considered a terrible idea - we might call it Ian Botham Syndrome - but the role is little more than ceremonial now that leadership has been transferred away from the pitch. Where are the rabble-rousing, organisers like Keane, Terry or Adams today? In the dugout.
What do Eden Hazard, Paul Pogba and Mesut Ozil have in common? Aside from abundant talent, legions of online devotees and lucrative sponsorship deals, all three could captain Chelsea, Manchester United and Arsenal this season.
The thought of this trio as heirs to Terry, Keane and Adams is enough to make a certain caste of fan turn puce with rage, but more importantly reflects football's changing attitude to leadership.
Hazard, Pogba and Ozil have each had their character publicly questioned - be it for downing tools on a manager, insufficient focus or pusillanimous big-game performances. None of which would traditionally be considered suitable leadership material, though Pogba's tub-thumping dressing room speeches for France have changed perceptions.
Leadership though, is one of those dastardly intangibles beloved of football pundits. To say a defeated team lacked leaders is the perfect example of an unfalsifiable statement, a hypothesis that cannot be disproved. There are no Expected Leaders numbers or leadership heat maps to summon in rebuttal, and there is yet to be an example of a team said to have *too much* leadership.
Not everything that counts can be counted, however, and there is anecdotal evidence to suggest that successful teams tend to have a recognisable and charismatic captain. Their effect on results, however, is likely to be what we now call a marginal gain.
English football's fetishisation of the arm-band is a well-worn story, refracted through images of Terry Butcher's blood-soaked bandages. The comic series Roy of the Rovers was a fine example of the embedded notion that totemic individuals can win games through force of personality, that the course of history can be changed by Great Men.
Modern coaches take a different approach. Although Harry Kane was England's official captain at the World Cup, Gareth Southgate made sure he was supported by a core 'leadership group' that included Jordan Henderson, Fabian Delph and Ashley Young. The absence of any cult of personality around any individual player was cited as a key component of England's relative success. Arsenal's new head coach, Unai Emery, has organised something similar, choosing a pool of five captains of which Ozil is one.
Emphasising the collective over the individual is reflected in coaching as well as team culture. Arsene Wenger and Jose Mourinho - managers who give players autonomy on the pitch and rely on their intuition - have suffered. Pep Guardiola, Jurgen Klopp and Mauricio Pochettino - with their positional systems, choreographed attacking moves and repetitive drills - have prospered and enhanced their reputations.
None more so than in the development of young players, who now favour more prescriptive coaching with clear instruction rather than being left to fend for themselves in high-pressure situations. This is what football people mean when they say 'there are no leaders anymore' or that young players no longer take 'responsibility'.
There may be something to rue there, but the toothpaste is not going back in the tube. Is hands-on, diagnostic coaching a reaction to the personalities of a new generation, or are the new generation of players shaped by hands-on, diagnostic coaching? We're into angels on the head of a pin territory.
So what of Hazard, Pogba and Ozil? There are obvious commercial benefits to giving a superstar like Pogba the armband, or giving Hazard an incentive to stay at Stamford Bridge or prompting Ozil to more warmly embrace his role as Arsenal's best player.
Giving the captaincy to a star player has long been considered a terrible idea - we might call it Ian Botham Syndrome - but the role is little more than ceremonial now that leadership has been transferred away from the pitch. Where are the rabble-rousing, organisers like Keane, Terry or Adams today? In the dugout.
- Status
Welcome
Join Grand Old Team to get involved in the Everton discussion. Signing up is quick, easy, and completely free.
Shop
