NRL: Storm goes for rotation

[DeeGan]

Storm goes for rotation
By Karl deKroo
January 25, 2006

MELBOURNE Storm is set to follow the lead of AFL premier Sydney and rotate its captaincy in 2006.

Following the departure of experienced captains Stephen Kearney in 2004 and Robbie Kearns last year, Storm coach Craig Bellamy has recognised the need to develop a new leadership group.

"We have a very young group here and thought it would be good to spread the leadership a bit wider than just one person," Bellamy said.

Queensland State of Origin hooker Cameron Smith had been widely tipped to take over the captaincy from Kearns this year. Test back rower David Kidwell, winger Matt Geyer, pivot Scott Hill and halfback Cooper Cronk are other leading candidates.

Herald Sun

A leadership group at training is a great idea though I would like to think (if I was a Melbourne supporter) that we had the one man with a (c) next to his name on game day which went unchanged for the whole season.

Rotating the captaincy through out the season is not an idea I agree with at all.

DeeGan

[Dakink]

Nope me neither - you want you leader running the show from the front

[Titanium_BD1103]

I would agree with you here.. except that as a Sydney Swans supporter.. I saw how it worked and I actually reckon it is the smartest option around.. :)

It works on the old adage that 2 heads are better than one.. Sydney had a leadership group of about 6 players this season.. all of who were made captain.

Now I know the people above have stated that you need a leader running the show from the front.. but if the Storm use the system the way the Swans did.. it will work.. for these reasons.. ;)

- It takes pressure of the captain and allows him to focus on his game more knowing that he has the support of the others who also understand the role and can help out if the captain needs help..:)

- It means during crucial decisions and plays in a match, the captain has the knowledge that he can ask those around him for ideas and support as they will understand the situation

- It makes the senior players take more responsibility, and with more responsiblity comes more discipline and a stronger team ethos.. which means the team is more likely to gel.. :D

- Most importantly though it gives everyone a chance to be a leader, to realise their importance in a team and to work towards giving their all, instead of just thinking they are there to play for themselves.. :D

As long as they don't get in the way of the captain and the captain gets final say.. I reckon this is an idea all clubs should look into, especially to create pride and responsibility.

It may all seem a bit strange but remember 2 heads are always better than one.. I was not a big fan of it when Sydney first did it.. but having seen it win us a premiership.. I know that it works... and wish Melbourne all the success with it in 2006... :D :D

[Super Cronk]

Hmm...im not a big fan of the idea myself. I dont see how exactly the team will benefit from it. I would like to see cam smith given the captaincy and it be left with him. But with that being said...it may not have any stand out benefits, it doesnt have any stand out faults. I dont think it wil impact to much on the teams performance.

[DIEHARD]

I'd rather just have one captain.

[Queenslander]

I will start with this quote "Too many chiefs and not enough indians" Its always good to have leadership qualities in all your players but there should always be just one man to lead from the front. Sure only one person will be nominated as captain per game but we dont wont all of the leaders sitting around trying to work out what to do.

[Ipswich Fan]

I'm another that doesn't see any merit in the idea, one captain is all you need otherwise you have everyone running the show & all it will do is cause confusion amongst the younger guys as to whose advice they should listen to. Just because it worked in AFL doesn't mean it will work in rugby league as they are completely different games.

[Queenslander]

I'm another that doesn't see any merit in the idea, one captain is all you need otherwise you have everyone running the show & all it will do is cause confusion amongst the younger guys as to whose advice they should listen to. Just because it worked in AFL doesn't mean it will work in rugby league as they are completely different games.

Thats right AFL is rather different to rugby league. AFL covers far more ground so its far more efficient to have leaders at either ends of the field (forward line and back line i think they call it ;) ) Whilst in league the team is always together and communication is easier thus no need for more than one "leader"

[Super Cronk]

I dont think it will cause confusion. They arent 10 year olds. The storm have always had a "leadership group", normally consisting of the senior players or players that are the future of the club, but have always just had the one guy on the day running the show- that being kearns(recently).


Just say the captaincy is shared between cam smith, geyer and hill. During the game players like slater and inglis are going to listen to these blokes anyway, even if they are captain or not. So really i cant see how this is going to have a bad effect on the team. Im not a fan of the idea but if no harm is going to come from it then it doesnt bother me.

I can see the good side to it, that players will develop as leaders and be more mature players, so in that aspect its a good idea.

[Queenslander]

I dont think it will cause confusion. They arent 10 year olds. The storm have always had a "leadership group", normally consisting of the senior players or players that are the future of the club, but have always just had the one guy on the day running the show- that being kearns(recently).


Just say the captaincy is shared between cam smith, geyer and hill. During the game players like slater and inglis are going to listen to these blokes anyway, even if they are captain or not. So really i cant see how this is going to have a bad effect on the team. Im not a fan of the idea but if no harm is going to come from it then it doesnt bother me.

I can see the good side to it, that players will develop as leaders and be more mature players, so in that aspect its a good idea.

Yeah i see your point about how all the players will still listen to each other no matter as to who is captain. But will it develop the players more as leaders? Thats if they are already "leading" in their own way. I can see Storm fans walking to the game thinking "Who will the captain be today?" ;) The (c) beside a players name used to mean something. But with the Storm throwing the (c) around to different players it just seems from the outside (i.e. not being a storm fan) that the club doesnt have the right person to lead from the front. I would have thought that Cameron Smith would be the right man to be the next long term captain but i was wrong.

[Super Cronk]

Yeah i see your point about how all the players will still listen to each other no matter as to who is captain. But will it develop the players more as leaders? Thats if they are already "leading" in their own way. I can see Storm fans walking to the game thinking "Who will the captain be today?" ;) The (c) beside a players name used to mean something. But with the Storm throwing the (c) around to different players it just seems from the outside (i.e. not being a storm fan) that the club doesnt have the right person to lead from the front. I would have thought that Cameron Smith would be the next long term captain but i was wrong.


Well i used cam smith, geyer and hill in my example. If say Cooper Cronk was given the captaincy then he most definately would mature as a player and as a leader. And Bellamy did say in the article he was looking to spread it around the young sqaud.

The storm are just trying something different, i cant see anything bad happening from it at all.


I can see Storm fans walking to the game thinking "Who will the captain be today?"

Well actually the team's are named during the week, so the captain would be known before the weekend ;)

[Queenslander]

Well i used cam smith, geyer and hill in my example. If say Cooper Cronk was given the captaincy then he most definately would mature as a player and as a leader. And Bellamy did say in the article he was looking to spread it around the young sqaud.

The storm are just trying something different, i cant see anything bad happening from it at all.

Yeah i can see the merit of giving a younger bloke a leadership chance in order to build those types of skills. But as long as when they are given the (c) they are slowly guided by the senior players so that they are not left out there in the dark. Or worse still they are given the (c) and they dont do any "leadership" type things as the senior players are still doing it!



Well actually the team's are named during the week, so the captain would be known before the weekend ;)

Hehe. touche super cronk ;) Hopefully Melbourne fans can find info about their team in the newspaper amongst all the AFL news ;).

[Super Cronk]

Hehe. touche super cronk ;) Hopefully Melbourne fans can find info about their team in the newspaper amongst all the AFL news ;).


Yeah amongst the AFL and every other sport on the face of the earth that gets put in there over rugby league.

I dont think they will be sharing the (C) with like 13 different players...it will only be around 3 players i would imagine.