I have zero idea, I'll give you that one. Not sure that says much though? You're just trying to prove that most teams do it, tradition, the way it's been done, etc...not sure I could argue that. And I'm not sure that proves anything, except everyone likes to follow the leader. I'm not clamoring for a new captain every game. I'm simply saying we don't have the team, and haven't probably since Boca or Cherundolo retired, where we should ink someone in as captain for every single game, and every single camp. We just inked MB every game and we suffered for it (no matter what extent you think, it clearly did not work). I'm fine having one captain per tourney. Gold Cup next year? Sure, get everyone into camp, choose a captain, roll with it. The issue is everyone trying to find a captain for the next 4-8 years. We don't have that player, and until we have a Lloris or Lahm, it's silly to me, and I think, detrimental to team performance. You can't even name two players who will be on the field in 2022, assuming we get there.
Maybe, just maybe, it's done by teams because if you pick a good captain, it's effective. Just because we chose a bad captain last cycle doesn't mean that there shouldn't be one chosen (and it doesn't have to be for a full cycle just not by committee).
oh you think france won the world cup because they named lloris captain? why didn't it work in the euros? is there a time table in which it works but it sometimes doesn't work but if you name the captain exactly x years before a tournament it works. that is zero proof naming a captain works...the us named a captain...did it work? their upswing coincided with the appointment of a single captain...or it could've been kante/mbappe/pogba.etc that make it happen. I also hear they changed the toilet paper in the changing room so that could be it.
It's an interesting point. Thing is, not everybody is a utilitarian, so for many people (myself included) the first question that pops into our heads is not "what is the use of it?" What is the use of having a Mother's day? What is the use of getting married, now that the law gives common law couples identical rights? What is the use of living, if in the end the universe is going to die of entropy? Etc. This is a case where it's just done because it's a tradition. Teams have captains. They bring in an uncertainty factor, of course, since you have some extra-pressure to play the captain even when he's not in good form. That's the way many of us like life, though. With a good dose of randomness and a bit of stupid risks included.
You bring up a good one. Marriage. It's tradition. And slowly it's becoming less and less of a requirement as people realize there is very little benefit to it. Kinda fits right into my point. Tradition is fine, until it messes with a better way of doing something. Tradition was picking a long term captain, which was a reason, to what extent can never be known, that the US missed a wc. Without a requirement to play MB every single game, who knows what happens. And since we both have seen a place where having a captain directly, and negatively, impacted my favorite team, it makes me think "Hmmmm let's try something else to eliminate these negative possibilities". Especially since I have seen no legitimate positive outcome, unless we miraculously get lloris or lahm in goal and a team of the world's best players. Stupid risk, absolutely. Randomness however, would be closer to selecting a new captain as the team's performance, and the player's performances as well, dictate. Again, at least we're arguing now, which is one of my intentions. At least think about whether this should be a discussion, and what benefits are being achieved. Is marriage required anymore? Or is living together as an unmarried couple better now? Do you want to have a big family like families did 100 years ago, because of tradition? Times change. I like McKennie but I'm not interested in him being handed a spot for the next 12 years just because you guys like randomness and stupid risks.
I think we can wait on this conversation until we have a new coach and are preparing for the Gold Cup. Sarachan is just the interim and has been focused on youth. We don't know who are going to emerge from these youth players and we don't know which vets the new coach will keep around/bring back. There's more uncertainty right now as to long term team composition than I can remember, and the few guys who are more or less locks I'm not sure are captain material or are probably too young for that responsibility.
I think we should consider playing with only 10 men. We lost with 11 on the pitch. There are lots of other traditional things we've done we could relook at since we failed: having a keeper, etc.
Yeah, name a captain for the Gold Cup and see how it goes from there. We don't need a big formal gesture right now when the next competitive game is nine months out, especially since some of the young names being suggested have enough on their plate as far as maintaining their club places.
Ah yes, not inking in starters in permanent marker and attaching the armband to them = playing with 10 men, or without a GK, etc. You're right.
Some of the most bizarre arguments for selecting a captain. Just completely irrelevant to what is a legitimate debate. If you have no other reason or evidence that having a captain is useful, just say that. Just say "every other team does it, we should too" which is really the sole argument that can be made. And frankly, I'm not even sure that's true because I don't know anything about other national team captain choices.
I'm going to wade in, partly in an effort to turn the thread in a different direction. I think a good choice for captain is a leader and hard worker, not the best player necessarily. Someone who brings the team together. Someone the team listens to. He doesn't have to start in my book either. He does have to be on the same page as the manager but with the backbone to disagree and the acumen to get his point across without pissing off said manager. I know I'm labeled an MLS hater but I really like guys like Trapp for this role as of 2018. Assuming he makes the squad. He looks everyone in the eye and moves players on the field. He's smart, and not abrasive. Down the road, I like the magnetic personality of McKennie. Who could hate that guy? And let's see how all the young guys coming up mature.
It's also a symbolic position of sorts. IMO it should be Cameron, at least for a couple of years if he can't make it to 2022, but for some reason he wasn't on the list.
You mean the guy who was causing problems within the team right before the most important WCQ when he was told that he wouldn't play because he wasn't fit enough? He also had a tendency to underperform for the NT compared to his club form (like many). His NT career is probably over. He's now 33, and his club career is going downhill, as well.
I didn’t know about the locker room problems but he always seemed like an extremely solid player at the NT level to me. Only player since Donovan who I’ve worried about in USA MX games. Wouldn’t mind having him at my club at all.
Danny Williams showed great leadership vs Portugal as the DM. Funny how fast he gets forgotten to get MB90 back in the fold somehow.
On MLSsoccer.com; Tyler Adams has his “eyes set” on the US captaincy. From listening to his interviews and watching his play, that seems like a good fit. But, at 19, is he still too young?
Wore the band but I don’t it’s settled on him. I suspect we see Trapp or Bradley continue to wear it.
Bradley is too old for this shit and should retire from the USMNT. Trapp is not an International starter material. I can see him occasionally wearing it, but he should not be the full time captain.
There are 3 good young candidates and maybe more but I lean towards McKennie. Always positive, works his butt off and has international success at an early age like CP. CP, McKennie or Adams for me with Weston ahead. I give up if it's Bradley or Trapp.