ling was the safe choice. i'd personally have preferred selwood as i'd love the cats to have a 10 year captain in the mould of hird/voss/buckley etc, but with a team still in its premiership window ling is a very safe bet and he's led the team often enough that the captaincy won't be a burden at all.
to those saying ablett should have been captain, he would have struggled to make my top 10 candidates. and to those suggesting that it has any relevance to him not being there next year, the choice was an entirely player-driven process
The problem with 10 year captains is that they become a bit too important in defining a club. What happens when that player retires or gets forced out of the game? A period of loss of identity and confusion can set in. Also, what happens if this player who the club revolves around goes through a form slump or has a long term injury? Are you somehow obliged to pick a captain of 8 or 9 years because he is so important to the club's culture? If yes, it's bad for the team. If no, it's destabilising.
I think it's better to have roughly 3-4 year captains. With constant turnover, the captain doesn't become too central to the workings of the team. The captain's role should never become too important. Also, ten year captains have to start off very young and probably won't have earned the respect of the older members of the team. A captain should have unquestioned seniority in the team.
Just my 2c..