The Art of Captaincy – part 1: The attributes
By Bruce J Rankin, 20 Nov 2007 The Crowd is a Roar Guru
The following article is the first of 4 by Bruce J Rankin which analyse the Art of Captaincy in rugby union.
Last month Roy Masters wrote an excellent snippet on captaincy as part of a larger article on the next Wallabies coach, which read:
Captaincy in the football codes is one of the most undervalued variables of success. South African coach Jake White acknowledged the role of his captain and senior players immediately after their tense win over Fiji. That victory was secured only in the last 20 minutes. “There’s no preparation for pressure, there’s no way you can practise that,” he said as he compared South Africa’s win with the losses of the Wallabies and All Blacks the previous evening. “The difference was the last 20 minutes and the role of the captain and senior players holding the side together”, he said.
It’s no coincidence that the six Rugby World Cup winning teams were led by outstanding captains: David Kirk, Nick Farr-Jones, Francois Pienaar, John Eales, Martin Johnson and John Smit.
Nick Ferris contributed a first class article to The Roar on whether there should be a new Australian captain, which was followed by a number of very good comments from The Crowd. His examples of the successful World Cup and international captains need no further embellishment.
Yet one thing I feel is missing from these contributions is “what are the attributes that make a successful captain”? If you’ll excuse the self indulgence, my father Jack Rankin (a 1936/37 All Black) was chief selector and coach of the Canterbury (NZ) province for 7 years (1948-54), which lifted the Ranfurly Shield twice and held it against 9 successive challenges in 1954. He was also South Island selector for 3 years (1955-57). He was passionate about rugby tactics and the crucial role of the captain and wrote the following article for the press at the start of the 1966 season – 41 years ago!
CHOOSING CAPTAINS – Rugby Season Begins
Now that a new Rugby football season has begun, considerable thought must be given to the selection of those who will captain the many teams, from the seniors down to the five-stone sides. Coaches should give the following points careful thought:
1. The person selected for this position need not be a brilliant or popular player, but, rather, one who can lead and give confidence and inspire his team mates.
2. He must be able during the course of a match to make decisions to change the type of play and to change tactics according to circumstances. [emphasis mine here and below]
3. He should be able to rally his team when the pressure is on and consolidate the position.
4. He must not allow his team to panic.
5. He should be able to sum up a position rapidly, being able in close play to open it up again, vary the attack, and reorganise cover defence.
6. Once a team goes on the field the captain is in complete control. A coach cannot go on the field during a game – neither can the captain hold up his hand and say, “Please, Sir, what do I do next?”
7. A coach can teach general tactics and advise on the policy of a side – but the captain has absolute control once a game begins. Everything is up to him. There is no remote control radio to direct him – nor should there be. [Comment later!]
8. It is just as much a coach’s responsibility to train players to think for themselves as it is for him to school a captain to assume his responsibilities and lead his side.
Thinking back to my coaching days I can recall only a few captains who measured up to the foregoing requirements. First R C Stuart who captained Canterbury and the 1953/54 New Zealand tour of England, Scotland, Wales, Ireland and France. He was an inspiration to any side – he led well, expected loyalty and a 100 per cent effort from all his team mates – and he got what he wanted. He changed tactics and play many times during a game without reference to the coach. Getting loyalty and co-operation from his side made him a “great captain”. Other outstanding captains were P B Vincent and R H Duff. Both, like Bob Stuart, led their sides with equal ability and success.
Remember, a captain has to steer a ship through both good and rough weather. Be sure, then, of selecting a man capable of steering your side as skilfully. – J G Rankin
At the end of the gruelling 1954 season when Canterbury had successfully repulsed all 9 provincial challenges (playing Saturdays and Wednesdays!) he had this to say in the Christchurch Press review of the season: “We have won every hard game, since 1950, with tactics based on blind side play. We have been lucky to have such capable men as Doug Herman, Bob Stuart and Pat Vincent to hold our side together during this period in Canterbury football. No coaching is of much use without a captain able to change tactics on the field. We have played to a set plan for each game, and that has been successful so far.”
Even though those views are now 41 and 53 years old, are they obsolete? Maybe they are obvious and common sense today. Perhaps the one missing ingredient today – rarely mentioned in my experience – is the critical ability of the captain “to change tactics and play many times during a game without reference to the coach.”
Today I would add the following criteria for successful captaincy:
9. The Captaincy is indeed a position in itself and the captain should be picked first when the team is selected. (Nick Ferris point). Why? Years ago I asked my father how he went about selecting a team. His answer was simple and instructive: “First you decide what type of rugby you want to play; second you pick as your captain the one who is best capable of executing the strategies and tactics for that type of play (and obviously agrees with the style of play!); third you pick the team members with the skills and experience suited to that type of play.” By default captain and coach work hand in glove together.
10. The captain must be an 80 minute player. (Nick Ferris again) The last 20 minutes of a game are when tight games are won or lost – when it is vital that the captain’s skills, experience and tactical nous are present to rally the side and to make tactical changes that will win the game. Jake White’s point above, examples from Nick Ferris and many other legendary examples of great captains leading their teams to come from behind and win in the last few minutes.
11. The playing position of the captain is indeed crucial and should be from 1 to 9. (KF point) In my view the ideal positions are half back, No 8 and side row forwards as they have the best perspective as play develops, compared to those in the tight five or engine room. They have more visibility from the side/back of the scrum and lineout, while the half back has most visibility of all. However there are many outstanding captains from the tight five: Eales, Fitzpatrick, Smit, Johnson. In contrast the fly half or first 5/8th is the chief play maker and, in my view, should not be appointed as captain. He has to read the play, initiate set moves (talking to the captain, halfback and inside centre etc), have the vision to make instantaneous decisions and is often the principal goal kicker. These are more than enough responsibilities to shoulder, without the added burden of captaincy and all the off-field roles of press conferences, interviews and various speeches etc. A classic – and unfortunate – example was the Welsh captain and British Lions captain to New Zealand in 1977 – the brilliant fly half Phil Bennett. He had all those responsibilities, it proved too heavy a burden and he had a miserable “winter of discontent” in losing the series to the All Blacks. Mark Ella and Michael Lynagh would not rank highly as captains for similar reasons, albeit both were great players and Ella an instinctive tactical genius. It is rare to find a successful captain from inside centre outwards – the only examples that come to mind are Andrew Slack and Tana Umaga. As KF says they are too far away from the seat of the action, thus limited in their ability to determine tactical changes and communicate decisions. Proximity to the referee is valuable but I feel a relatively minor consideration compared to the others.
12. “Shared leadership” is considered an important factor in corporate management today and I feel is equally applicable on the rugby field. It’s instructive that Jake White talks above, not only about the captain, but also the importance of the “senior players” and the role they play. It is a key role of senior players to keep exchanging vital information and suggestions with the captain, so that he may make the necessary changes to play and tactics.
13. Now that the use of remote control radio is a reality (see point 7 above!) its use by the coach via water carriers, doctor etc to control or make changes to on field play and tactics should be kept to an absolute minimum. Otherwise the captain’s control and on field leadership could be undermined and detrimental to his confidence. Unless they have been clearly discussed and agreed beforehand, the coach’s ability to make tactical substitutions during the game can also be unsettling to a captain – and the team.
Like management, successful captaincy is not an instantaneous thing. It takes time, inevitable losses, hard lessons, lots of tactical experiences, ongoing leadership skills development by the coach, not only in the captain, but also in the senior players in the team. A key responsibility is that the coach must train the captain and all players to think for themselves on the field. (Extension of point 8 above)
In the following articles we’ll look at examples of how Australian and New Zealand Super 14 and international captains have measured up to these attributes:
Part 2: Rugby Tactics – the ability of the captain “to change tactics and play many times during a game”
Part 3: Australian Captaincy – assessment and selection
Part 4: New Zealand Captaincy – assessment, selection and five failed World Cup campaigns
Recommend this story.
We're hiring. Find out more.
- Explore:

November 20th 2007 @ 11:05pm
Garth Hamilton said | November 20th 2007 @ 11:05pm | Report comment
Great article, Bruce. Looking forward to the rest of the series.
November 21st 2007 @ 6:06am
spiro zavos said | November 21st 2007 @ 6:06am | Report comment
This is a dissertation on captaincy that my ancestor Aristotle, the great pragmatist philosopher as opposed to Plato the visionary, would have been proud of if he’d been a rugby man. I was particularly taken with the notion that the flyhalf or first five-eighths should not be made captain because he has enough to do as the playmaker. I think this may be a telling insight. Former fly-halfs often make great coaches, Carwyn James and Fred Allen, are cases in point. But I am searching for a fly-half/five-eights who was a brilliant captain. Certainly Fred Allen, a great five-eighth, was as unsuccessful as a captain as he was successful as a coach.
November 21st 2007 @ 6:37am
Jerry said | November 21st 2007 @ 6:37am | Report comment
To be honest, I think the captaincy of both Smit and Kirk is inflated by the fact that they lead World Cup winning teams.
Smit’s Springboks have put in some dire performances over the last 4 years and have a tendency to give up when things are not going well (see 2006 vs the All Blacks in Loftus Versfeld or the 49-0 capitulation vs the Wallabies). They’ve twice lost games in the dying minutes in NZ (one of which cost them not only the game but the Tri-nations title) and have put in some very ordinary performances on NH autumn tours. They played extremely well in the World Cup and deservedly took the title, but that doesn’t change the fact that they’ve often played stupid rugby.
Kirk in 87 was in charge of a team that was simply on another level to any other side at the time. His captaincy in 86 with the Baby Blacks was exemplary, but I don’t think he was sufficiently tested in his 11 tests as captain to be classed as a great.
November 21st 2007 @ 7:11am
Sam Taulelei said | November 21st 2007 @ 7:11am | Report comment
Agree with Jerry about David Kirk. He only became captain in 1987 with the injury to Andy Dalton and wasn’t popular with the returning Cavaliers in 1986 because of his decision to turn down the invitation to tour SA. He was in the uncomfortable position of not being respected by many legends of the game and having to skipper them in the last two Bledisloe tests in 1986. Unlike John Kirwan, Kirk wasn’t perceived to be a great player and guaranteed of a spot in the run on side. Kirk was the ideal poster boy for NZ rugby in 1987, he was fresh-faced, intelligent and articulate.
Spiro, I think you’re right about former flyhalves becoming good coaches. Grant Fox was an outstanding backs coach of Auckland together with Wayne Pivac when they returned the provincial side to the top of the tree as well as winning the Super 14 in 2003 with an exciting brand of attacking rugby, unfortunately they both stepped down at the same time and didn’t seek reappointment. Ironically Graham Henry was their technical adviser.
November 21st 2007 @ 11:16am
Sam Taulelei said | November 21st 2007 @ 11:16am | Report comment
Another thought, as a lad growing up in NZ there was a belief that captaining the side from loose forward was the best position and there are many fine captains of NZ rugby who played there eg. Brian Lochore, Andy Leslie, Graham Mourie, Wayne Shelford etc.
Nowadays it’s seen as a disadvantage with the number of penalties they concede and that they are more often caught at the bottom of rucks to see what is going on around the field.
Is the way we play rugby today limiting the positional options for selecting a captain, or do we pick the best person for the job regardless of where they play?
November 21st 2007 @ 7:13pm
Dublin Dave said | November 21st 2007 @ 7:13pm | Report comment
Agree with just about everything you say, Bruce. Great players don’t always make great captains. Close to home for me, Biran O’Driscoll is an exemplary player but not a good captain, especiallly when the chips are down which is where they are most needed. When things go wrong for his team he just gets frustrated where a more bloody-minded but less talented player would work out the best course of action and make sure that everybody implements it.
When his team is right on top of the situation, though, he can be inspirational, rewarding his forwards graft with scintillating breaks and reinforcing their confidence with tough defence, but if somebody gets the better of his team tactically, as just about everybody did at this World Cup, he doesn’t seem to be able to react.
Classic example in the HC this weekend. Playing away to Toulouse his team Leinster were well beaten but as injury time approached Toulouse had only scored three tries and so had not attained a bonus point. Leinster were tryless so a more hardnosed captain would have thought, “OK we’ve lost today but they haven’t won a bonus point and nor will they” and kept things tight. But no. A quixotic attempt to get a solitary consolation try by running from their own 22 was turned over and Toulouse secured a bonus point at the death. Shades of Mr Campese vs the Lions about 20 years ago.
As for positions, I think in general it’s fair to say that players closer to the coal face are best placed to be captains. Maybe Lions tours are not the best examples to give of winning teams but if you look at the players who have captained them since the war there have been one out half, one flanker, two outside centres, three full backs, three hookers and six locks (counting Johnson twice).
Mind you the victorious teams were led by two of the locks (McBride in 1974 and Johnson in 1997) the flanker (Calder in 1989?) and an outside centre (Dawes in New Zealand in 1971, the greatest victory of them all).
I suppose you could say though that he had some seriously wise old heads in the forwards (McBride, Dixon, Taylor and Thomas) as well as the most talented backline that ever left these islands in Edwards, John, Gibson, Gerald Davies, Bevan, Duckham and JPR Williams.
And if New Zealand had a cool headed captain in this world cup he might have made the right choices in the game against France and they would have won that match.
November 22nd 2007 @ 10:52am
stillmissit said | November 22nd 2007 @ 10:52am | Report comment
Wonderful article Bruce and how timely. I believe that the Wallabies lost their game to the Poms due to poor captaincy in allowing a flawed strategy to continue on the field without comment. You could also argue that we havent seen a team change tactics, during the game, against the coaches plan for a long time. Often they don’t play to the coaches plan but, there is no thought that goes into that, they just seem to run off the rails. Maybe NZ’s loss was due to a similar situation.
Unfortunately modern rugby players all want to agree with one another and I often have to instruct captains that they must make a decision on their own there is not time to run off and consult with other players everytime a decision is to be made.
Maybe it is a part of the make up of modern players that they look for someone else to be responsible for Tactics and that person will take the heat of failure but they always want to have their say. Then there seems to be some players who won’t buy into the tactics if it doesnt agree with what they personally think. Something of a contradiction really.
What Rod McQueen did with the Brumbies was to get a concensus (with his ideas) from all the senior players and then put those tactics on the field. Unfortunately that power evolved into a ‘lets get rid of the coach’ and brought down Nucifora.
The tough part in trying to re-introduce a captain who leads on the field will be trying to get the right balance between the coaches plan and the captains thoughts. A close relationship or respect between the two seems essential.
November 22nd 2007 @ 11:04am
Nick said | November 22nd 2007 @ 11:04am | Report comment
Terrific article Mr Rankin, I’m glad this topic has got another airing, as I feel it is one area we are suffering in. As you say it’s pretty much mainly common sense, but it seems to be wise words easily forgotten today, just as ball handling skills seem to be another obvious thing easily overlooked. Kurtly Beale said earlier this year that “Rugby is a simple game”, and if you have a respected and talented captain in charge it can be. Successful too.
One area not mentioned here is the more recent idea of a “captaincy team”. A group of experience players nominated to take the leadership role between themselves. I think this is more about using the bench, as it’s difficult to make one of your forwards a captain if you have plans to “interchange” him, and a way of making not making one player indispensable. Even possibly also making it hard for one player being able to overrule the coaches plans. As we have seen in coaches don’t like independent thought, aside from their own, thus making robot like players incapable OF making their own decisions. We saw the results of this against England in the QF, a bunch of lost sheep not knowing where to turn, not knowing how to stop the wave of English forwards, and looking for leadership.
Jerry, I think you are being a bit hard on John Smit. I think he has shown in this recent World Cup his leadership skills are one of the main ingredients that got them the cup. But just look back at the game Australia had in Sth Africa this year, I think I mentioned this before, John Smit was injured in that game and Australia got the upper hand and nearly won in Sth Africa but for a brilliant field goal from the sideline. Also the Super 14 table was won by John Smits Sharks, and narrowly lost the final in a game which you could say the Sharks were the better team, and a great game it was, a shame that this style of rugby wasn’t played at the World Cup.
The prop is a specialised position, as is the 5/8. We don’t expect them to excel in other positions. We must realise that the Captain is also a specialist, and should be selected first, and the rest of the team around him.
November 22nd 2007 @ 11:28am
Jerry said | November 22nd 2007 @ 11:28am | Report comment
Nick – I won’t argue that this year Smit’s captaincy has been superb. However, he’s been captain for four years and in that period (particularly in 2005 and 2006) his captaincy – as evidenced by the Boks failing to close out close games and playing like headless chickens on occassion – has often been found wanting.
My point is I don’t think one great year out of four makes a “great” captain, especially not when compared to the likes of Nick Farr-Jones, Francois Pienaar, John Eales and Martin Johnson.
November 22nd 2007 @ 2:36pm
onside said | November 22nd 2007 @ 2:36pm | Report comment
Do Roar contributors have examples of really good captains that played for sides that were not so strong.
It must be far more difficult being a captain of a side that despite giving everything, is not quite up to it.