Coloccini: Defending the Defensible

I should start off by saying this article isn’t a populist response to Coloccini’s recent excellent performances. While I, like many others, have been critical of the captain in recent years – I have felt this way for sometime. In sum: this article suggests that the sustained criticism of Colo has been unfair.

Let’s assess the main accusations. The first – the biggest – is the charge that he doesn’t act/behave/play like a captain. The definition of captain here seemingly refers to the roll your sleeve up, feisty individual capable of scaring the living daylights out of his colleagues. As an aside, this conception of the captaincy is undoubtedly specific to national context. The English are fond of their rugged heroes, and, perhaps unlike the continent, such character traits are sometimes preferable to those fancy foreigners that are all tricks and no substance.

Clearly, Coloccini doesn’t fit this mould. And he has suffered for it. But there are two things to say here. First, Coloccini never sought the captaincy. It was given to him by Pardew as a response to the loyalty he showed by remaining with the team in the Championship, as well as apparent abilities as a role model. He has carried the captaincy since, and it often seems to have been a burden. But, while questions over his leadership are valid – he can hardly be blamed for not displaying traits he does not possess. If Newcastle need a Roy Keane – then it’s the manager’s prerogative to find one – not Colo’s to become one.

Second, as much as we speculate, we don’t actually know that Colo is a bad captain. One key narrative that has come to explain Newcastle’s generally poor form through the last three years is the lack of leadership. But the noises coming from the club throughout is that Colo is well-respected, supported and actually performs as a good leader. Is it right, then, to blame Newcastle’s uselessness solely on Coloccini? If Jack Colback, or Daryl Janmaat had been captain: would things look any different?

A second accusation is that, well, he hasn’t been very good. In some respects this is true. He’s seen red cards at particularly inopportune moments. He’s been part of a defense that has been fragile and leaky. While critiques of the times he has been poor are, of course, fair – there has been plenty of times when Coloccini has performed excellently. The last few games are indicative of this. Sadly, however, his status as captain has meant that good performances tend to go unnoticed – and bad ones receive considerable scrutiny. Clearly, this is unfair.

Indeed, I’d wager that most defenders in the Premier League would look inept playing alongside Mike Williamson for three years. The basic fact is that Coloccini has been sometimes bad – but often, quite good. But like a lot of Newcastle’s “good” players – he has been a victim of circumstance. He’s played in a succession of bad teams – under a series of bad managers.

I suppose, in summary, what I’m suggesting is that criticisms of Coloccini are valid, but they should be placed in a context that acknowledges a) the contributions he’s made; the loyalty he’s shown; b) the fact that he genuinely does care for Newcastle, and, for the most part, does “try; and c) that criticisms of him are amplified because he is a captain who doesn’t spend most of his time shouting and screaming. If after these considerations, you still think criticism is warranted: go right ahead.