Listening to people furiously debate whether Stuart Pearce was right to name Scott Parker England captain against Holland on Wednesday made one thing clear – namely, that nothing is clear. Everyone seems to have an opinion as to who should get the armband but no one is sure how it is assigned. Players, media and supporters all appear to perceive the captaincy differently, and the resignation of Fabio Capello suggests that even the England manager and Football Association are not on the same wavelength. Now is a perfect time for the FA to set out transparent criteria.

That would serve three purposes. It would help the FA to avert any further Capello-style crisis by enabling them to tell whoever they intend to appoint as full-time manager: "You can choose whoever you want as long as they meet these criteria." Second, it would mean that everyone would know what they are talking about with one of the most talked-about positions in England; as it stands there is a void that a lot of people fill with hot air. And third, defining the captaincy's meaning could enhance its value.

From a player's point of view, club captaincy and national team captaincy are very different. At clubs, captains are more involved and play a daily hands-on role whether they are playing in the team or not. When I was club captain at Chelsea – at a time when Dennis Wise wore the armband because he was team captain – I, Dennis and Gianfranco Zola served as the conduit between players and management. We represented the players when it came to negotiating bonuses, making travel arrangements, raising issues about training facilities, all sorts of things that took place outside the public eye.

The England captain does not have to do much of that. Indeed, the squad get together so infrequently that I really do not subscribe to the view that an England captain must be appointed on a long-term basis. So much can happen in the time in between squad meetings that a manager is to an extent making a rod for his own back if he names a permanent captain, particularly given all the drama that follows any decision to replace him.

That drama does not come from the players. There is a contradiction about the England captaincy: everyone would love to be given it, but few are aggrieved if they do not get it, nor do they begrudge the person who does. The reason they are not bothered is because they know that, unlike in other sports such as cricket, the identity of the person wearing the armband makes little difference to what happens on the pitch.

Yes, some players are more inspirational than others but their influence is neither enhanced nor diminished by being captain. Tony Adams was a great leader when I played with him for England, as was Kevin Moran when I first went to Blackburn, but that would have been the case regardless of their captaincy status because they transmitted their message by the tackles they won and their vocal rallying style.

Similarly, Paul Scholes was a tremendous inspiration even though he was never captain: he was the quietest person in the dressing room but on the pitch, where it mattered, he never hid, he was always available to receive the ball. That is what leadership is: taking responsibility and setting high standards. That is how you inspire others to do likewise.

The thing about England, of course, is that by definition it brings together the best players in the country so it is a given that most of them apply high standards as a matter of course.

You will often have four or five club captains in an England squad and the ones who are not chosen to wear the England armband will be no less committed as a result. So does the captaincy matter at all? Should we just scrap it? No, that would be going too far.

We see the England captaincy through the prism of history and the recognition you get and this gives it some residual value. It is still an honour for a player to be given the armband. Every player should have the incentive of knowing that if he plays well and handles himself properly, he could be captain, even if just for one game.

I thought it was an excellent decision to make Parker captain (and not just because Pearce had already decided that Gerrard would play for only 45 minutes, a possibility not considered by many who were intent on condemning the so-called snub of the Liverpool captain). The decision encapsulated the criteria that I think should be used to assign the armband. I saw it as a reward for Parker's club form, his commitment and his humility off the pitch. He may never captain England again but it was right that he was recognised with the honour at some point. And that is the way the captaincy should be attributed: as a reward for good form.

Since form varies, the captaincy should be rotated on a match-by-match basis. Then the incentive is always there: almost every player knows he could be captain for the next game.

I would apply this flexibility both to friendlies and qualifiers. But I do think it would be worth appointing a single captain for the duration of a tournament. That is a much more condensed period, with the players seeing more of each other for a few intense weeks than they do for the rest of the year combined, so it makes sense to have a certain stability in that context and minimise change. Let everyone concentrate fully on winning the trophy. If England win, the players won't really mind who gets to lift it first.

Follow me on Twitter at @graemelesaux14