Gareth Southgate's philosophy on captaincy is the kind of evolutionary approach England are crying out for

It was something that had been discussed among the England players, and so many people around them, for so much of the week. Jordan Henderson spoke about it. Harry Kane spoke about it. Jermain Defoe spoke about it. All of the media, meanwhile, naturally asked them about it.

It was of course inevitable that Gareth Southgate would also be asked about it too, since he is the man charged with the decision, but that was not why he spoke about it with much greater reluctance than anybody.

When the question was finally put to him about when he would name a permanent England captain for the World Cup, he indulged the issue, but also subtly tried to end it. “It's on my list of priorities… not high,” the manager said.

open image in gallery

Southgate even indicated he may not choose a captain for the tournament at all. That would be a huge break from tradition… but also a refreshing attitude, if an understandably rare one.

It’s easy to comprehend why the role still means so much to players like Henderson and Kane, why they can’t help allowing a little bit of excitement to lift their voice as they discuss the possibility of wearing the armband. They would have grown up with a proper prestige attached to the position, with some of the country’s most famous and successful players having worn.

The role was always imbued with an importance deeper than other international sides, but then it wasn’t so much a role as a confirmation, a representation, a signifier - that you were the most influential player in your country; that you had that maturity and seniority. It was one of the pinnacles of the game to reach.

It is precisely for that reason, though, that Southgate is right to take that attitude; to start to change some of the very discussion around this side.

open image in gallery

Because, over the past few decades of underachievement, one of the most frustrating things about England has been how so many old-fashioned but relatively trivial issues get built up into massive talking points… only to mean absolutely nothing as the side suffer the same old, same old: a disappointingly early elimination from a tournament as they are ultimately outclassed.

The issue then is not so much to dismiss the historic importance of the role, but to modernise the overall outlook of the England team, to concentrate on issues that do have concrete importance as to how they perform.

What’s more, for all the talk of developing an England DNA that reflects traditions, what is the point of being wedded to traditions that have had little true importance? Why allow issues like this to consume so much mental space?

Southgate deserves recognition in this regard, because it is the correct approach.

open image in gallery

“Developing more people who can step up and influence, getting the bond of team really strong, so we stand together is far more important than putting an individual in a position where, if they're the only one we're looking to – and that's been the case in the recent past – we won't get the best out of the group.”

Kyle Walker also backed up his manager on this, offering direct experience from the pitch.

“In recent squads, we always looked up to Wayne and he took the negatives for us. I think it's good to share it around. It's a team game who goes up there, win or lose, taking the positives or negatives.”

Again, none of this is to say this is the solution to England’s issues - as a turgid display against Malta proved - or that it shows Southgate is undeniably the right man for this job.

There is nowhere near evidence of the latter yet. This, however, is evidence of the kind of evolutionary approach that is required; to cause a difference in thinking; to get this squad and everyone around it concentrating on what’s actually important - rather than just what used to be important.