It depends on the sport, surely?
Who the captain is in football (and possibly to a similar extent, rugby) is pretty much irrelevant. John Terry was made captain based on his ability to shake hands, swap pendants, and escort a mascot to the centre circle at the start of a match. Coupled with the fact that he is good enough that he is pretty much a certainty in any England side (injuries permitting).
In cricket, on the other hand, the captain has a lot of tactical responsibility - until the end of each session, he's the guy out there making the decisions that really do influence the match. Ian Botham, for example, was a great player but a lousy captain; Mike Brearley was an excellent captain, but otherwise probably wouldn't have been selected for the side. Andrew Strauss is yet to really prove himself tactically - in South Africa, in particular, he looked a little lost at times.
So, in answer to your original question: possibly.
-
Captaincy in sport - does it matter?
Bare with me. When all the John Terry rubbish was going on some people, especially foreigners, were saying it doesn't matter who your captain is. For example:
Fabio Capello (England's Italian footy manager) said he did not understand the importance put on the captaincy role in English football.
"In Spain or Italy, the captain is the oldest player or the one with the most caps," the Italian said.
This got me thinking. Is placing greater importance on having the right leaders why the British were able to build a large worldwide empire from a small island outpost in Europe, become the cradle of the industrial revolution, and be better than most at winning wars?
Leave a comment: