Why Can't he?

Don't expect a coherent answer any time soon, Jeff. I suspect Wigan Pie Man thinks the team captain evolves strategies, makes decisions re. game plans, etc.

Ah. I think whoever gets the nod on any given week, aslong as they shout at people under the sticks they will be called the greatest captain ever - this seems to be the consenus on here with some people!

People react differently when given responsibility. Maybe this idea could uncover someone with, as yet, undiscovered leadership qualities. It's too easy to sit back and let someone else take the responsibilty but if you are told "your in charge" then you have to stand up and be counted.
This will keep at least five players on their toes for a season. Good idea and is worth a try at least.
Plus no-one will want to get beaten whilst they are captain

This is not something I had thought of but adds another interesting twist on it. Of course there will be banter around the team if when you are captain and the team loses. This is an excellent point of view to take and may put an extra 15-20% of effort from whoever is the captain.

The only downside I can see is that if the 5 "chosen ones" distance themselves from the team and two groups form within the one team. Can't really see this happening though.

I don't see that happening. I suppose it's possible, but, the players who get selected will be selected for their leadership qualities and thus wouldn't allow that to happen.

imo a good move by MM, takes the steam off one bloke. and liek has been said gives that banter between them with regards to win losses and points scored.

It has been said for some years that ours is a quiet dressing room with quiet players. Perhaps this is one way of getting the senior players to speak up and provide that leadership and support for the team and its captain.
Will we now have a club captain? Lockers?
My five would be - Lockers, Fielden, Deacon, Gleeson & Bailey.

Well thats 3 leaders for a starters and he's only naming a group of 5 so he's not far off want you want to see.

A captains role is over-rated imo. Unless you have an absolute beast of a leader like Farrell you need to have more then one man in your side who's willing to roll his sleeves up and show the way.

Could be a lot, lot worse for us;

[urlhttp://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/mobile/rugby_league/super_league/hull/8452678.stm[/url

Poor Hull

looks like he has settled in there. good luck to the pr1ck

I agree with the choice above and the point you make regarding a quiet dressing room.

It is something innovative and new that I am looking forward to seeing how it works. TBH on the field (if anyone pays attention) many players chip in when they're behind the posts. Most noticeably Riddell and Bailey. Fielden always seems to be one of the players constantly talking as well. We all know Gleeson has captained England before (not sure about Wire). Deacon obviously being the Bradford captain for a number of years. Although having said this is something new I think it is common in every Super League team to have numerous senior players chunnering away behind the sticks and in the dressing room. At Leeds you have to imagine Jamie Peacock and Keith Senior have their say, but are never named as captains. I think all we have done is make it official that those type of players have that role.

I don't like it, obviously senior players will provide valuable experience and take weight off a captains shoulders but IMO you still need an official leader. It's a gimic that won't last.

Who will lift the cup at Wembley/Old Trafford?

Me, me, it's my turn, gerroff.

Great idea let the new coaches decide what they want even lockers thinks it is great for the club

love it.

The Person who is named captain for the day!

If you were a young player would you take a captain seriously if you knew he wouldn't be captain next week? Having 5 captains will feel more like having no captain IMO

if i were a young player yes course i would take any of the senior players seriously

It could end up a bit like The Apprentice after a defeat.

So your saying young players like Mossop,Farrell only take the captain seriously ? And not players like carmont and bailey

its not 3 leaders...its 2 at most.

1 skip whos job it is to enforce the coaches game plan, and lead by example.
a vice skip just in case he has to leave the field.

and a pack leader, or enforcer if you like (summat weve all been crying out for for ages.
fielden was brought in for that role, but hes not up to it these days.
gaz hock would have made a good one, but im looking at Joel tomkins as a future pack leader.
Somebody who isnt scared to get stuck in when a thug takes out our players.
ok..so most of the time last year he was looking after his kid brother, but hes well suited to the role.
few years time.........Greg Burke maybe from what ive heard of him from my lads.

these extra 4 "captains" should be passing their knowledge on to the younger players anyway, without the extra title.

anyone ever heard of a puffball team with more than 1 captain?
thought not.
take chelski...terry skip..but who does it all to make the team tick? Lampard.

Does that not give some weight to Maguire naming a team of leaders instead of one though?

Why should one guy have the weight of leadership on his shoulders and take the flak that comes with that especially given that we don't have a leader in the mould of an Andy Farrell.

This way shares the responsibility around and and offers the opportunity to a number of players to lead the side. It'll hopefully keep guys motivated both in the group to get the armband and from outside of that group to try and get into it when a position becomes available.

No but I think it will confuse matters a lot, they will pick and choose which senior players they respect but everyone has to listen to the captain.

I'm not sure about this - makes sense off the field to share the duties around, but it seems a confused approach to leadership on the field, seems like MM wants a more vocal leader but couldn't make the likely unpopular decision and ditch Lockers completely from the role.

The reason why you have a single leader in the first place is to have a clear direction for the team - what if senior players develop different ideas and agendas? The captain is the on field coach and this appears a disaster waiting to happen. Hope I'm wrong.