Captain Indifference

Per the suggestion of Jason Davis from Match Fit USA, this afternoon's post is going to take a look at the USMNT captaincy, its relevance, and who's deserving of the title.  For obvious reasons, captaincy has been discussed a lot today, but mostly in regards to what's going on across the pond with Mr. Terry.  As I do, I'll take the USMNT-oriented focus on this topic, looking specifically at what the US captaincy means, who deserves the title, and if it's even worth more than a second thought.

I'll start this rambling post with an anecdote from my youth soccer days (which I'm sure you're all familiar with, based on the extensive coverage it receives on ESPN Classic).  Back in my elementary/middle school days, my club soccer coach had a simple way of choosing the captain: rock-paper-scissors.  A new game, a new captain, giving one lucky kid the chance to do nothing more than call the coin toss and talk to the ref on the field.  Did we expect little Bobby Substitute to lead us on the field?  No; we just looked at him as someone who represented our team for the little formalities that accompany any game.  As I got older, the real spirit of the title never changed much; the captain was someone who was the face of the team in the eyes of the officials, but there were a group of leaders on the team without any arm candy who led in a number of ways that were essential on the training field and in games.

So let's not waste any more time: is the captaincy important, or is it nothing more than an honorary title bestowed upon a player who is a good ambassador for the national team?  I'm inclined to lean towards the latter.  Is Carlos Bocanegra any more of a leader than Landon Donovan or Tim Howard?  Is he more respected in the locker room than either of the other veterans?  I don't know for a fact, but I really doubt it.  

Soccer is different from other sports in that it doesn't really provide "rah-rah" opportunities where a captain can rally his troops or really let everyone know that he's going to take control.  Football has huddles and timeouts, basketball has timeouts and countless stoppages, and hockey has a lot of bench time and TV timeouts, all of which provide a captain with a pulpit for inspiration or instruction.  Soccer?  You've got halftime and maybe the chance to get together in the event of a extended stoppage due to injury.  Otherwise, the free-flowing play and spread out personnel make leadership more apparent through actual play, as opposed to verbal instruction.  In that sense, anyone can lead, from the grizzled back line veteran going in hard on a tackle to the young winger playing with emotion and fire. 

When I watch a USMNT game, I can tell who the leader is on the field, and he's not wearing the armband.  It's hard to argue against Landon Donovan being the driving force behind the team's performance and confidence, and we saw in November just how different a team the Yanks are when he isn't in the lineup.  Does that mean Landon should be the captain?  After all, some folks don't even think Bocanegra should be in the starting XI (which I disagree with, but that's beside the point), so why should he be annointed the team leader?  Because Boca is a class act who for the most part plays very level-headed, allowing him to have respectful interactions with whatever awful referee may be officiating the match.  He is also literate, allowing him to adequately read the pre-match anti-racism stuff that FIFA gives him.  In that sense, Bocanegra is a good ambassador for the team both on and off the field, and he does a very good job of fulfilling the duties of his position. 

Could Donovan be captain?  Sure.  But so could Tim Howard or Michael Bradley or Oguchi Onyewu.  But ultimately it's something fairly inconsequential in what actually goes on on the field.  So why even bother having a debate over who deserves the title?  Why spend a whole post talking about something that I think doesn't really have a huge effect on the team itself?  Well, one, because I needed something to write about, and two, I think it's a title that's overly scrutinized and I wanted to get my opinions out on the matter.  Did the 1998 team suffer because they lost their "Captain for Life" or because they had some locker room troubles and missed the contributions of a talented player?  You'd be hard pressed to convince me that it was the former. 

It's just an armband folks, and whatever arm it's on really doesn't have a discernible impact on what happens when the ball's in play.  So let's not lose focus of what's going on with the Three Lions; they'll suffer from some trust and unity issues in the locker room, which will likely carry on to the field.  But a change in captains?  That will soon be nothing more than an afterthought for a team with a lot more on their minds.