Who should be the next England Captain?

Who should be the next England Captain? Simples

Choose the Candidates based on Players suggusted in the Steven Gerrard has retired from international football Topic (link below), England news reports since the world cup and articles i've read in the subject today

https://www.606v2.com/t54827-steven-gerrard-has-retired-from-international-football

The next England captain will be guaranteed a spot in the starting eleven for at least the next two years; they will become undroppable.

Therefore, Rooney, who should be gradually phased out of the England team in that course of time, must not get the captaincy. I expect he will, but such a move will hinder England's development over the next two years.

If we look at the team presently, we must ask ourselves who are the guaranteed starters purely on merit? The answers to that are Joe Hart, Gary Cahill and Daniel Sturridge, plus, if he comes back, John Terry. No other players have truly cemented their positions.

Now for my money, Daniel Sturridge is a little young and inexperienced to hold the armband, and I would never vouch for giving it to a striker either. So let's discount him.

The man of leadership and authority is John Terry, and if he returns from the international wilderness as I dearly hope he does, the armband is his. His defensive partner, the slightly younger of the two, can be vice-captain. They can, hopefully, be the central defensive partnership that we sorely missed at the World Cup.

But if, as one expects, Terry remains retired, I would favour giving the armband to Gary Cahill, who would grow into the role given time, with Hart as vice-captain.

Please not Rooney, though.

I expect John Terry to be retired from football within two years. He definitely shouldn't come out of international retirement, if he does, he shouldn't be selected and if selected not given the captaincy. He's past it, he can keep up his form in the Chelsea side because of the amount of protection he has and the fact that they are a big club who rarely face better sides than them. This would not be the case for england.

John Terry allegedly has the attitude required for England to rise above foreign nations.

John Terry, no matter his age, is still better than Jagielka, Jones or Smalling.

Having the best Premier League central defensive partnership, in Terry and Cahill, would be an enormous advantage for England and would help Hodgson's cause vastly.

I really don't see how having a captain makes the slightest bit of difference to any team in football, at least in rugby, they are the ones that address the referee, football is a free for all in those regards and a captain doesn't appear to do anything of any note, and instead of having just one "leader" on the pitch, how about they actually have 11 people who can act as if they belong to a team and who can be pro-active.

Duty281 wrote:John Terry, no matter his age, is still better than Jagielka, Jones or Smalling.

Having the best Premier League central defensive partnership, in Terry and Cahill, would be an enormous advantage for England and would help Hodgson's cause vastly.

No it wouldn't. John Terry has got one, possibly two years left at this level, after that I would expect him to retire or move abroad. He would just about make it to Euro 2016. Even then using the Terry/Cahill partnership would mean that England would have to accomodate Terry in the way Chelsea do by structuring the side around his age, lack of pace and diminshing athleticism. It would not represent a good move for England in any way shape of form. I could just about understand those saying Terry should have gone to the World Cup in that he had just come off a good year and was involved, albeit briefly in the qualifying process but as a long term option he is not even close to the answer.

Those players mentioned are only going to improve if given the chance and I am not sure Terry is actually better than Jagielka at all. He's just offered a lot more protection at club level and in a team that does not have to defend as often as Everton or England will have to.

In addition John Terry walked away from the international team himself and I am not sure that is the kind of attitude you would want from your international captain.

He's obviously better than Jagielka individually and anyway, as is the case with central defenders, it's not about the individual components, it is about how the partnership fares. Terry-Cahill is far superior as a partnership than Cahill-Jagielka.

The lack of pace is overstated for me as well; Jagielka isn't exactly a Theo Walcott in that department either. Plus England's natural tendency off the ball is to have a deep defence. If we were employing a high line and a offside trap, fair enough, Terry shouldn't be selected. England don't do that, however.

And once the FA issue a grovelling apology for their continued slander of John Terry (stripping him of the captaincy after some unproven tabloid allegations, before the other incident which I won't mention in great detail), he would come back into the England fold. I certainly don't blame Terry for retiring rather prematurely given how much rubbish the FA threw at him.

super_realist wrote:I really don't see how having a captain makes the slightest bit of difference to any team in football, at least in rugby, they are the ones that address the referee, football is a free for all in those regards and a captain doesn't appear to do anything of any note, and instead of having just one "leader" on the pitch, how about they actually have 11 people who can act as if they belong to a team and who can be pro-active.

I agree. I don't see why such importence is put on captaincy. Will England be a better team if they pick the right guy for captaincy instead of the wrong guy? Unlikely imo.

Stop making the England captaincy such a circus. Just give it to the player who has the most caps in the team.

John terry for captain? Not even the best English John there is #johnruddy

Who in their right mind would argue John Terry should be captain? The guy walked away from the international team. If he cared about England he would have made himself available for world cup 2014 but instead he decided he wanted to go on holiday.

Just to add JT will be approaching 36 at Euro 2016 so he would be well past it anyway.

So irrelevant, regardless of who takes on the meaningless role of Captain, nothing will change, they'll still be a second/third tier nation in tournament football, they'll still not know how to play international football, they'll still be a disparate disjointed team, and they'll still look as if they can't be bothered to play international football, and they'll still play with little or no passion or skill.

So why give it to anyone? I've never seen any team have any tangible benefit from someone having a captain's armband on. Why not just have a team without a captain?

If you play good, you play good. No one plays good simply because they are captain.
A captain in football in particular is a completely superfluous and needless role and carries prestige for no reason at all.

All they appear to do is the coin toss/pennant collecting. Big bloody deal.

every player should act like a leader and communicate on the pitch ,not just one, singling out one person is stupid.

Why even have a team.

Wayne Rooney set to be named captain today.

I hope the media have got this wrong as this will be an awful, awful decision that grants Rooney two guaranteed years in England's starting eleven. Something which would be highly undeserved.

If Hodgson chooses to persist with his 4-2-3-1, as I think he will, then I feel the best front four would be Sturridge at nine, Oxlade wide left, Walcott wide right, and Sterling at ten.

But no, England shall carry Rooney for another two years whilst the media circus grows ever more. And a much hungrier, younger and, dare I say, better player will miss out....probably Sterling, maybe Walcott.

Hope the media are wrong.

I wouldn't worry Duty, firstly being Captain is a pretty pointless and superfluous accolade, secondly, regardless of who is Captain it is unlikely to make them better or worse.

super_realist wrote:I wouldn't worry Duty, firstly being Captain is a pretty pointless and superfluous  accolade, secondly, regardless of who is Captain it is unlikely to make them better or worse.

Well the one thing it does do is guarantee the holder of the armband a place in the starting XI; something that Wayne Rooney does not deserve.

Duty281 wrote:

super_realist wrote:I wouldn't worry Duty, firstly being Captain is a pretty pointless and superfluous  accolade, secondly, regardless of who is Captain it is unlikely to make them better or worse.

Well the one thing it does do is guarantee the holder of the armband a place in the starting XI; something that Wayne Rooney does not deserve.

See Gerrard, S

Duty281 wrote:

super_realist wrote:I wouldn't worry Duty, firstly being Captain is a pretty pointless and superfluous  accolade, secondly, regardless of who is Captain it is unlikely to make them better or worse.

Well the one thing it does do is guarantee the holder of the armband a place in the starting XI; something that Wayne Rooney does not deserve.

And that being the case super realist then it does make a difference if people feel a player who should be replaced in the side is guaranteed a start because he is captain and so lessening quality in the team.

Not as if he's keeping out someone better.
Nobody turns up for England duty, who cares whether it's Rooney or someone else?

Easiest way round it, is not to have a Captain at all. It's a useless role.

The captain, or guaranteed starter if you like, should be Hart or Cahill as they have both clearly cemented their places in the side.

Rooney has not. I feel Oxlade, Sterling and Walcott should all start ahead of him.

I'm not sure why any player should be guaranteed a start especially in a team which has no standout players.

If you absolutely must have a captain for traditions sake, then decide it on the night. They don't do anything of any note anyway that makes any player a better candidate than any other.