The Captain does he matter in the modern game?

How do you pick a Captain,pick the team first then pick him from that,or pick the Captain first.?
In the past on many occassions the captain was picked for other tha his playing skills.In 1959
on the Lions tour to NZ.Ronnie Dawson was Captain and hooker,the other hooker Bryn Meredith
was rated one of the best 3 in the World.Dawson was captain Dawson played most of the big
matches.Wilson Whineray was a very talented forward,and a good Captain in the modern game
he would have excelled.Cross kicks,drop goals,running with the ball,the ultimate "Seagull"
BUT a class Prop he was not Piet du Toit gave him a hell of a time in the Scrums 1960.
Those are just two examples,today it seems the Captain ,tosses the coin,makes after match
speeches,and at functions.But has`nt the nowse on the field to change the coaches game plan
when things are going wrong.Consulting via wire on penalty decisions to kick for goal for instance.
In the RWC,at least one team is fielding a player considered a great Captain,but is no longer
worth his place as a starter in his chosen position.Is not qualified at test Level in the only alternative
position.
Do you start him or leave him on the bench as a non-playing Captain,being skipper of a great side
it is a lot easier than one which loses a lot of matches.Thoughts?

Don't know if you pick a captain first,or pick the other team first, or pick them and then pick the captain after.?
sometimes it seems that team has to be picked first and developed and then try otu a captain and if he doesn't work
then you pick another one and hopefully he works out but if he doesn't then drop him completely from the squad and pick
someone who has been around a longtime and would be regarded as senoir.On the other hand, you could have someone in the
position for ages and they've earend the respect of the team ands from other teams, and you've won a few games and
that obviously helps a lot andf you contineu to opick him until you start losing and then people wonder whether you shoudlget
anjother captain but would it be discouraging to morale to do so particluarly close to a worlkd cup, however it might be an inspired
choice if your team then bbeats say New zealand, and ont he other you lose to austrlaia and south africa or you finally beat your
old nemeis and it seems to be an inspired choice. someocaptains seem to have no especial part in the game except for the position
they play and there are plenty of other leadfers aorund them which helps like england in 2003, or in reland in 2009 yet someone
like smit seems to be impervious to pubic opionion and his poor performances BUT is still picked because he played tiddlywinks
with the guy who is the real leader in the team and can jump. the captain has to be in part inspirational, lead from the front,
set a hard example, enourage the underpefofmrers, deliver an outstanding performance, pick a coin toss, wear blazers, make speeches,
appear in lots of photos, and get to handle the trophy first if they win anything.if he can do all of that from the bench then pick him every time.

aaa

I dont think it matters having a captin rather having an on field leader such as POC for Ireland very presense can win matchs so I think thats more importent then an armband.

I'd say Bismarck led by example against the ABs, he was always leading from the front there and others followed despite him not being skip. The important thing is the senior players stepped up in that game. The armband I think should go to someone sure of their place in the first XV, and Smit isn't it.

The role of the captain has changed hugely I think, in no small part due to injuries. In the past the captain was the experienced head, the old campaigner who knew all of the tricks, could look after the younger players, had the confidence/experience to influence the ref and was respected by the opposition too. These players took years to build the necessary experience to gain these key captaincy attributes, and others would find it hard to oust them from the team.

In the modern game injuries are so frequent, especially in the forwards where captains often play, that it is hard for a captain to get a long run in the game, and is easily ousted due to injury. Therefore, nowadays a captain needs to be good enough to get back into a team after an inevitable injury occurs. So pure ability has to be high on the criteria. Also, a team needs a number of leaders/vice captains who can step in when need be. Looking at my team, Wales, we've had a huge merry-go-round of captains lately due to injury. Ryan Jones was captain but got injured and then was off form so Matthew Rees was captain but got injured so now we have a 22 year old captain who has loads of ability but only a few years of pro rugby, so he can't be ticking the 'experienced' box. He is obviously thought of as a good leader though.

So for me, with the modern game and the inherent injury problems, I think a captain needs to be picked from the best leader out of those available, able to hold down his place under competition and win it back after injury. But, more importantly, the whole team needs a group of leaders to step in where needed. A captaincy team, if you will. This is where Wales has struggled for a number of years because good leaders come about rarely for us and we end up with players filling in who are either not up for it (Martin Williams - asked to be relieved of captain duties as it was affecting his game), picked for leadership skills when off form as no one else is good enough as captain (ryan jones recently) or is given the captaincy and relieved of it again soon after just to fill the role (Gethin Jenkins, Stephen Jones).

I guess you're referring to John Smit in your post emack? For me, the boks need to find a new leader and play Bismarck du Plessis as long as Bismarck is the form hooker out of the two. That's just my view on captaincy though.