Is the captain that important? The curse of the armband

Today saw John Terry lose the England captaincy for the second time... Yet again the discussion turns to the armband. In England, the captaincy is one of the highest honours that can be given to a player. A leader of men, the manager's voice on the pitch, and the one who could be immortalised as the next Bobby Moore, lifting a trophy on the shoulders of men, wiping his hands on his shorts before meeting a faceless bureaucrat.

In reality, is there much more to the role than a glorified pennant exchanger? The man who leads the handshakes at the start of the game?

John misheard Vinnie's instructions for Stayin' Alive

Cricket captains make decisions that affect the game - who bowls, who fields where, who goes first... It could never work in football, the manager is king. But why single out one player to lead the team? One of the (many) accusations aimed at Arsenal in recent years is that they don't have enough leaders on the pitch, harking back to the days when you could count on most of the eleven to dish out a bollocking, not just the man with the armband.

So if John Terry continues to play for England between now and his trial, will he be expected to just shut up and play? Steven Gerrard looks likely to be next to inherit the role, but other than a change of dressing room music (Phil Collins perchance?), not much will change.

(David) Seaman Stains? Roger (Hunt) the Cabin Boy?

Of course the role of captain is one we all think of when we see the great teams of history, and those moments when they lift the cup. Beckenbauer in 74. Maradona 86. Casillas 2010. The captain is the symbol. Maybe the rule-makers could enshrine the role: allow only the captain to approach the referee. Perhaps that would punish John Terry the most, having to bite his lip...

Maybe the armband makes people do crazy things. That was this chap's excuse anyway...

Borrowed from his grandad's wardrobe...