Mitchell and Hodge should be dual captains at Hawks
Roar Pro
By Justin Rodski, 28 May 2010 Justin Rodski is a Roar Pro
- Tagged:
- AFL, Dermott Brereton, Hawks, Hawthorn, Jeff Kennett, Luke Hodge, Sam Mitchell
Hawthorn captain Sam Mitchell (L) and vice captain Luke Hodge lead the Hawks onto the ground at the start of the AFL Round 04 match between the Collingwood Magpies and the Hawthorn Hawks at the MCG, Melbourne.
Amidst a week of intense scrutiny and public debate surrounding the Hawthorn captaincy, the positives and negatives of dual leadership in modern football have again come into question.
Many believe the tradition of sole captaincy in any team sport is crucial, while others say it’s actually become outdated.
In AFL football, we’ve seen both leadership structures work within different team environments, but in Hawthorn’s case you have to now wonder if they chose the right one?
President Jeff Kennett firmly believes he did, but for a club that’s shown such progressive leadership off the field, on this occasion, I think they got it completely wrong.
The whole issue could have been easily avoided had Sam Mitchell and Luke Hodge been appointed joint skippers of the club like they were supposed to be.
It was revealed this week Hawthorn’s board vetoed a decision by players and coaches to name the pair as dual captains, with Kennett insisting in his time at the helm there would only be one captain.
But hang on a minute, the entire football department could not split two champions of the club, however the President has the big headedness to make them go away and create an unnecessary divide by choosing one of them. Does that seem wrong to anyone else?
The Hawks 2008 premiership alone in many respects suggests the sole captaincy has been a major success, however is the decision starting to come back to haunt them?
It always had the potential to become an unwanted distraction and with the team struggling to keep its season alive this year, that unrest has come to fruition.
Who knows what kind of influence this can have on the psyche of the players?
Sam Mitchell yesterday was supposed to be launching Hawthorn’s themed Kokoda game against Sydney, but instead of talking about the team and the tough trek towards September, he was forced to fend of speculation his own team-mates secretly preferred Hodge to him as club captain.
Right from the outset it was clear nothing could camouflage his disappointment about the issue, but with his usual tilt of the head, slight smirk and obvious confidence, Mitchell decided to hit back, taking particular aim at club legend Dermott Brereton.
“Everyone has to be a leader at some point and that’s probably changed over the last 20 years. People that played 20 years ago might not understand that”
Brereton originally said, “Everybody knew from the start, that cliché, the spiritual captain, has always been Luke Hodge.”
And that might be well and good Derm but everyone in football knows Brett Kirk has been the spiritual leader at Sydney for years, and in that time he has never been sole captain, in fact the Swans have had a successful rotating captaincy with three players let alone sharing it between to clear standouts.
Mitchell himself even admitted vice captain Luke Hodge would be a fine leader of the club.
“I’m sure there are players within the group who think that Hodgey should be captain, sometimes I think that too because its just the way he is; he’s such a fantastic leader and he does some exceptional things.”
Basically they are both exceptional leaders and the Hawks are fortunate to have them, they compliment each other superbly on and off the field, which is why they should be joint captains.
Mitchell believes past players from different eras don’t understand the dynamics of modern leadership, but maybe Hawthorn’s outspoken President doesn’t either?
Enjoy sports? Enjoy a bargain? All Sports Online has your favourite sporting brands at up to 70% off. Online only, premium quality sporting goods and merchandise at discounted prices. Get a deal now.
The Crowd Says (8) | Page 1 of Comments
Have Your Say
Do you have what it takes to become a sports writer? Write for the roar
AFL articles
- More rugby league players to defect to the AFL? (160)
- Mobile madness: Optus decision bad news for codes (153)
- AFL divisions are the way of the future (106)
- Foxtel’s AFL coverage is nirvana for footy fans (89)
- AFL’s most hated club turns 120 years old (78)
- Israel Folau now ready for AFL (76)
- Optus ruling actually a good thing for AFL fans (52)
- Ling holds hope for club loyalty in AFL
- Andrew Krakouer given four weeks leave from Collingwood
- Giants inspired to prove doubters wrong (32)
- Malthouse not fazed by assistant issue
- Richo says look out for the Tigers in AFL
- AFL clubs’ leadership groups getting out of hand (17)
- Who’s to blame for the Majak Daw beat-up? (32)
- AFL clubs’ leadership groups getting out of hand (17)
- AFL divisions are the way of the future (107)
- Crows changing, but will this AFL preview change your life? (2)
- Is Heath Shaw the right leader for Collingwood? (11)
- Could a female coach succeed in the AFL? (36)
- Demons’ two captain Jacks the right leadership choice (5)
- Mobile madness: Optus decision bad news for codes (153)
- Explore:
- AFL, Dermott Brereton, Hawks, Hawthorn, Jeff Kennett, Luke Hodge, Sam Mitchell
deft touch said | May 28th 2010 @ 3:45am | Report comment
I am not a hawthorn fan but have been watching this whole debate unfold with some interest. Personally I don’t see what difference in having either player, or both as you have suggested, as captain would have to the success of the club. Hawthorn have far more significant problems than the person who tosses the coin
Both Mitchell and Hodge are undoubtedly leaders within the playing group and both have influence as leaders within a side. In my experience, as an amateurfootballer, australian rules footy teams rely on a group of leaders to bring them forward successfully. The size of the field and the nature of the contests means that teams need a number of players, in key positions and at the base of packs, to lead. Successful teams that I have been a part of have at least had a general in defence telling defenders what to do as well as a ballwinner in midfield to supplement the leadership on the captain.
Looking at the Hawthorn situation I would guess that both hodge and mitchell fulfill leadership roles. Mitchell provides the leadership around packs and stoppages as he is most often the one with first hands on the ball. Hodge plays more of the quaterback roll; receiving the ball around half back or being the running playing through the middle.
I find it absolutely ridiculous that anointing one or both of them as ‘captain’ would make a difference on how the team is performing. It is quite clear that Hawthorn’s problems stem from the fact that they do not have a key position backman who can run off his man and set up teammates (like o’brien, scarlett, fletcher, duffield, grundy do for their respective teams), nor do they have enough running midfielders who can get away from their opponents. Also, they have no ruckmen which makes mitchel’s job all the more difficult.
Not wanting to have a personal go at you justin, because I think your article is well written, but I think the afl media too often chooses to wax lyrical on issues which other afl media personalities have commented on previously. It appalls me that so few people have looked at the dysfunctional nature of hawthorn’s structure and have instead chosen to debate who should be their captain. We don’t debate whether Chris Newman should be captain of richmond because richmond’s problems are obviously greater than just the leadership. The fact that no key position player outside of hawthorn’s forward half can play in a decisive manner and no player can run the lines should be far more serious a debate for hawthorn, and football, fans.
Should both players captain? Who cares if the team cannot make the eight.
James said | May 28th 2010 @ 3:47am | Report comment
I think there are some pretty big egos in the Hawks camp, and they’d need two captains to control Buddy’s ego alone!
Redb said | May 28th 2010 @ 7:56am | Report comment
Good article.
It strikes me that Presidents of clubs should stay out of the Captain decision. This should be up to the players with some input from the coaches.
Kennett is a smart bloke and leader, but his mouth runneth way from time to time.
James said | May 28th 2010 @ 1:59pm | Report comment
Especially that President! Way too vocal and public with his views.
mattamkII said | May 28th 2010 @ 5:37pm | Report comment
Dual skipper is a stupid idea…so are ‘leadership groups’. Evey time I hear someone mention them it makes me cringe.
Stephen said | May 29th 2010 @ 1:30am | Report comment
Better in terms of tradition and effectiveness to have a single captain-look at St Kilda’s failed experimentation under Grant Thomas of rotating leaders.
sheek said | May 29th 2010 @ 10:46am | Report comment
I’m all for empowering players &/or employees, giving them “ownership” over their actions. Delegation is very important & when done well, very effective. But the buck still stops with one guy, at each level of the chain of command. You can’t have dual leaders.
Dual captains is such a stupid idea. The beginning of the end of the Roman Empire began when they divided it into East & West.
It didn’t work then, it doesn’t work now…..
This is how I might run an AFL team. There are broadly 3 sections on the field – defence/rear third, centre third, attack/forward third. If the captain is in the defence, his first vice-captain might be in the centre & the second vice-captain in the forward line.
Each is immediately responsible for the players in their third of the field, but the captain remains the overall leader. Furthermore, each section has a deputy to help the leader of the group. This comes in handy when one of the sub-leaders are rquired to move from one section to another.
You could argue about treating the ruck/rovers as a 4th group, but we will leave it a 3 sections for the moment.
This helps spread the responsibility among the players while retaining a clear chain of command. I agree that ‘leadership group’ is silly & sounds elitist. Every player should feel empowered to lead by example. Simple really…..
Charlie Austin said | June 7th 2010 @ 10:12pm | Report comment
I disagree, Justin.
Whilst Luke Hodge is the ‘spiritual’ leader of the Hawthorn Football Club I think a dangerous situation is set when you appoint two captains. There are obviously behind-the-door reasons to why Hodge isn’t the captain. He appears to be the obvious leader, however, it’s apparent that Hawthorn insiders think otherwise. Sam Mitchell has shown himself to be a mature, collected leader who, whilst not having the same impact as Hodge, shows himself to be more in control of his emotions.
Having multiple captains has been tried with Sydney and whilst it certainly didn’t fail, it certainly didn’t have a great effect on the team. We’ve also seen the rotation system under Grant Thomas at St Kilda and this experiment failed miserably.
One of the major individual benefits of having a captain is that you’re giving them the opportunity to develop their own leadership and thus help improve the team’s overall off and on-field performance. I think by only giving them one year and then moving on to a new captain you’re not allowing the captains to develop to their true capabilities as a leader.
The danger with having two captains at the one time is that you’re sharing the responsibilities. This may sound like a good idea in theory, however, where do the two captains draw the line? I believe we will see a situation in which their is in fact a power struggle between the two captains as confusion is created.
Keep the one captain. It’s worked for the past 100 years and continues to succeed in the AFL. Why change this?