HYS: Should Harry Kane be England’s World Cup captain?

Gareth Southgate’s policy of rotating the England captaincy certainly hasn’t done him a disservice so far. Since long-term skipper Wayne Rooney was dropped in March this year and subsequently decided to retire, Gary Cahill, Jordan Henderson, Joe Hart, Eric Dier and Harry Kane have all worn the armband for the Three Lions and Southgate has lost just two fixtures in that time – friendlies against Germany and France.

But when the World Cup in Russia comes around next summer, Southgate will need to choose a permanent captain for the tournament itself. Football FanCast take a look at the arguments for and against giving that honour to Tottenham’s Harry Kane – before giving our readers the chance to decide.

Pros – Key Player and Consummate professional

In regards to prior England captains, perhaps the most obvious Kane comparison is David Beckham. By no means the loudest voice in the dressing room, but always leading by example through consistency of performance, industriousness, integrity and professionalism.

Indeed, Kane is very much the head prefect of the England camp; you won’t see him in the newspapers for the wrong reasons and although he’s not exactly the most engaging character, he always gives a humble account of himself in the public eye.

On top of that, Kane is perhaps the only player in the England setup guaranteed a starting berth at the World Cup, simply because he’s the Three Lions’ biggest goal threat by a significant distance and arguably their most talented player. Some, however, will view that as a bad thing in regards to the captaincy, which brings us on to…

Cons – Not a natural leader, not in a captain’s position

Some believe strikers shouldn’t be captains, simply because they rarely view the game with the same tactical perspective as those behind them and they’re usually pretty far away from the action, leading the line rather than getting involved in the midfield battle.

On top of that, there is an argument that scoring goals is already enough responsibility; that armband could serve as an unnecessary weight, adding only further pressure to perform and distracting Kane from his primary duties. On top of that, it’s clear Kane isn’t a natural leader in the mould of John Terry or Steven Gerrard.

While that’s not necessarily a bad thing (neither of those guided England to success at major tournaments) there are perhaps more obvious leadership figures within the squad who’ll more proactively challenge team-mates, such as Cahill and Henderson.

So, should Kane wear the armband in Russia? Let us know by voting below…


Switch to Snack Football to browse all blogs, videos and new featured content
snack football unit grey closesnack football unit green-tick