9 Rounds In, Who's your Wallabies Captain

[boyo]

I like the pairing Moore (c) and To'omua (vc), but I think you probably need to give at least one tah player a letter next to their name, otherwise the nsw players will rise up and destroy the team from within

A player-power thing?

 

[Teh Other Dave]

With that said, coach, captain and vice captain are what's required IMHO. You can't have too many voices, but you can have guys who set the right example every day they walk out on to the training paddock or into a game.

Agreed. This is the Australian Rugby Team, by rights there should be 23 leaders. But within this there should be a core of senior players, who should set the example at training and on match day, and keep the chat up until the captain or coach have the floor. Not rocket surgery. The trouble comes when we try to formalise the 'leadership group', which smacks of 'high school prefect', or when the senior players reinforce poor culture - mums on twitter, etc. It looks like we've fallen into both traps.

 

[Brumbieman]

The military have a chain of command, for a reason.

Captain, VC, that's it. Senior players will naturally be looked up to, regardless of titles.

 

[Braveheart81]

Part of our problem last year was that when Moore went down injured, Hooper was a fairly obvious choice to become captain.

It says quite a lot about the other 14 starting players that a 22 year old who had played less than 30 tests was the next best option.

It should be a no brainer that a 32 year old Stephen Moore with 90 odd test caps should be a better choice for captain than Hooper.

The question of the vice captain is important as it is clear that Moore won't be on the field in the last 20 minutes of the match. Hooper could still be that person as even if we decide to play both Pocock and Hooper, their skillsets suggest that for better balance, Pocock is probably the starter.

In terms of Pocock, I think people conflate his excellent character off the field with his captaincy ability. As it stands we've seen very little evidence on the rugby field that he is a good captain.

One of the biggest things working in Hooper's favour is that so far he's been very robust and always been available for selection. It surely weighs on the mind of any coach when considering people for leadership positions who have a tendency to get injured often.

If all the likely parties are healthy, I'd bet on Moore as captain and Hooper as vice captain.

 

[Westie]

A player-power thing?

Again?

 

[Brumbieman]

Part of our problem last year was that when Moore went down injured, Hooper was a fairly obvious choice to become captain.

It says quite a lot about the other 14 starting players that a 22 year old who had played less than 30 tests was the next best option.


In terms of Pocock, I think people conflate his excellent character off the field with his captaincy ability. As it stands we've seen very little evidence on the rugby field that he is a good captain.

It is a worry, yeah.

RE Pocock: I think the first quality of a captain is his team mates respect, and his overall character.

Learning when to take a shot on the field is something you can learn, being a natural leader is much harder.

 

[Viking]

In terms of Pocock, I think people conflate his excellent character off the field with his captaincy ability. As it stands we've seen very little evidence on the rugby field that he is a good captain.
.

The way he addressees the Ref's outlines he would certainly manage the Ref well.

Game management on the other hand - no evidence of that yet.