There's Only One England Captain, Right?

I’ve made a conscious effort to avoid the news recently due to the worldwide destruction dominating the headlines. Despite this effort, the name ‘John Terry’ and the words ‘England captain’ have made their way onto my radar. If you take the current situation at face value, it should be simple really - manager appoints a captain, team accepts decision. However straightforward this decision should be, the relationship between the armband and its wearer is a unique one. 

For the life of me I’ve never understood the press’ preoccupation with the England squad or its captain so I decided to broach the subject with a group of seasoned football fans at the pub before the Chelsea v Kobenhavn match.

According to the lads, the role of England captain gained reverential status because of a certain golden haired skipper by the name of Bobby Moore who guided England to victory in the ‘66 World Cup. Apparently, there was something about the image of Moore wearing the red England kit and holding the cup victoriously that touched a nerve in the England fan and caused them to immortalise the skipper role. The role of the England skipper is held in such high regard that it could be argued that no other national team captain is revered as highly or under as much scrutiny.

No pressure, eh?

Judging by the number of fans at Stamford Bridge singing ‘There’s only one England captain’, it seems like England fans want more football and less politics. If a players suitability for the skipper role is measured with a morality stick… good luck naming one in time for Saturday.

I can’t tell you who should captain the squad, but what I do know is that this is yet another inappropriately timed debate that if not settled quickly,  will only serve to distract and hinder the squad – again.

What’s Tougher – Rugby or Football?

Photo credit Gerald Lynch and jaywashere.com

It is not the first time this question has been asked, nor will it be the last and for good reason. Although the two games share similar characteristics, it’s their differences that so strongly divide opinion. Usually, your country of residence or birth determines what camp you are in. Anyone from England, Wales, Scotland, New Zealand, Australia, South Africa, Italy, France, Ireland will be quick to endorse rugby as a real man’s sport. Anyone from one of America’s 50 states will argue differently.

With Six Nations rugby and the Superbowl having dominating the weekend, it should have been easy to line the two sports up side by side and make a comparison. 

The obvious difference – padding – is what tends to make people believe that rugby is the superior of the two. Every hit/tackle/takedown that was delivered with conviction made me cringe this weekend – padding or no padding. 

The difference in the fluidity of the game is another argument that the rugby camp use in their favour. I can’t argue that one to be fair.

However, when you break down the sheer skill needed to play the sport, the way I see it is that rugby players are like all rounders while American football players are specialists. Furthermore, don’t be fooled by the size of some of these American giants. It is not uncommon for a 6’3”, 140kg athlete to be able to run 40 yards sub 5 seconds.

This debate is like a tin of worms that is not likely to be contained in the near future. It’s a tough pill to swallow but it seems that sports require the same amount of athleticism and output but for different reasons.

I’m still left with questions though and would appreciate it if anyone could shed some more light on this topic.

Comments/arguments are most welcome!