They have and it's Maguire.

Why do you need one leader on the pitch?

What a pity there are even one or two who aren't prepared to adopt this rational approach before reaching for the suicide button.

Imo it's a case of MM coming over, seeing that Lockers is bloody hopeless as a leader, but for some reason, too popular to demote outright.

I agree with others and think that a team needs a leader, someone to whom they can look and seek direction when things are going wrong in the game. Of course a team benefits from experienced players adding their views but at the end of the day there can, and should, be one voice that sets the rules.

Maybe after a "trial" period, the best captain will emerge?

Maybe by the end of the season our captain will have picked himself?

If it's a short term thing so that a captain will emerge it's fair enough, but I don't like it as a permanent way of doing things.

pretty much every sport in the world has one captain per club, why do wigan think 5 will work better

Rubbish idea.

Having a leadership team on the field may of may not work but i think its fairly safe to assume from this that there is definatley an issue with Sean O'Loughlin as Wigan captain.

And before i am accused of being negative i would like to point out that this is in no way a slur on Sean O'Loughlin who i think is an importnat part of the team and who does lead by example, particularly with his defence.

If the current system isnt working then why not try something new - another good move from Madge imo which will allow senior players to have more control without feeling that they are undermining the current captain.

wouldn't surprise me at all if similar didn't happen in the past only we didn't have fancy names for it then. I would suspect in the days of Hanley, Bell, Greg and Giz etc they all had a bit of input!

If it was an issue with Sean O'Loughlin being the current captain why not just speak to him, take it off him, and give it to someone else? MM doesnt seem like the kind of guy who would díck about and cover something up with this just because he see's Lockers not fit for captaincy.
Its nothing like that, its just MM trying something new - personally i cant see a negative side to it. If it works then fantastic but if it doesnt, its not going to change anything in a bad way.

I seem to remember the St Helens 'messiah', Alex Murphy, asking similar questions of Wigan's decision to start using game-plans. But it wasn't long before the messiah had gone and Saints were doing exactly as Wigan were.

For me the 5 would be Lockers, Bails, Tommy, Deacon, Tomkins

Swap Tomkins for Fielden would be my choice, will be interesting of whom MM selects.

the players voted on it not mm

....It messes up our start to the season, undermines O'Loughlin's authority and McGuire's honeymoon period ends abruptly.

For me the captaincy is what tomkins needs.....Hes a natural captain and a natural leader and the player to take on the captaincy for the next 10 years IMO

Was that the offical statement?

but maybe not neccessary what happens in reality.

A few teams in the NHL have changed their captain every month during a season but i've never heard of a top sports team change their captain every game.

O'Loughlin, Bailey, Leuluai, Deacon and Riddell.

No need to burden him yet imo.

He'll be Wigan captain one day though without question imo.

Glad Coley is in. I really feel something like this could kick him on a level.

They're the 5 I probably would have picked tbh with my only close choice being between Leuluai and Gleeson.

I see Captain material in joel. theres abit of the farrell in this lad hes always one of if not first to get stuck in and help his team mates.. i like that in a captain

I highly doubt it's "just a way of not demoting O'Loughlin from the captaincy role fully".

MM and SW are all about a tough culture etc. if they'd wanted to remove O'Loughlin from the captaincy and appoint someone else I'm sure they would have done without needing to tip-toe around.

From reading this thread I haven't seen much mentioned about the fact this was something which was discussed between MM and O'Loughlin. O'Loughlin likes the idea and if the players buy into it then I can't see what harm it can do.

It'll ease the pressure off of O'Loughlin and will encourage the other four selected to up their games when named as a captain for that game. The role of the captain is to convey the gameplan and ideas of the coach on the field and whilst the players might have differing styles in conveying this message, they should all be pulling in the same direction, which is the coach's direction.

IMO it won't cause any problems and if the correct players are selected it strengthens the presence of the Wigan ethos on the field.

I think people overate the amount of impact a captain can have really and people also forget that most of their influence will be every day. Therefore, surely having more than 1 captain can only be a good thing, as long as there is a 'go to man' on the field. This will probably still be Lockers. I'm pretty sure he will still lead the team out.

It had to end sometime.

Congratulations on being the one who's called it - three weeks before the first match of the season.

People on here really do talk sh*te. How the hell can not knowing who your captain is be a good thing for the other players or the so called leadership team? Lockers is captain on the opening day. We lose. The week after Lockers isn't captain. What effect does this have on Lockers? Granted it could see him raise his game, but it could also see him question himself and become less self confident.

Saying that - the new regime brought it in so it must be the next big thing.