'Sometimes it crushes you': Ex All Blacks manager on Barrett's captaincy
Former All Blacks manager Darren Shand has added fresh perspective to the captaincy conversation, suggesting the responsibility may be doing Scott Barrett more harm than good. In a role that amplifies scrutiny on and off the field, the question is not just whether Barrett is the right leader, but whether the captaincy is the best thing for him and for the team right now.
Leadership under the spotlight
Captaincy at Test level demands far more than coin-toss duties and post-match words. It shapes how a player prepares, interfaces with referees, manages pressure moments and carries the team’s public voice. For a forward in the thick of the physical battle, that extra bandwidth can be a heavy lift. Shand’s remarks tap into a growing view that the All Blacks need the best version of Barrett as a player first — and that the armband can sometimes blur that priority.
The weight of the armband
“Sometimes it crushes you” captures the emotional and mental toll that prolonged leadership can impose. When form, discipline, and decision-making are under the microscope, the captain’s jersey adds layers of expectation. The cumulative effect can show up in small moments: a rushed call at the lineout, a misread at breakdown time, or tension in referee exchanges that ripple through the team’s rhythm.
Pathways forward
- Shared leadership: empower a robust leadership group to shoulder media, strategy and on-field communication.
- Role clarity: let Barrett focus on his core game while others handle touchline conversations and tempo control.
- Well-being first: prioritize mental recovery and support structures around the captaincy burden.
- Selection flexibility: retain the freedom to adjust the captaincy based on opposition, venue and squad balance.
- Succession planning: build experience in alternate voices to protect continuity.
Why the debate matters
The All Blacks’ standards rest on clear minds in big moments. If the captaincy enhances that clarity, it stays; if it clouds it, the team must be bold enough to recalibrate. Shand’s intervention doesn’t close the discussion — it legitimizes it — and frames the decision around performance, person and team before tradition.
