Karen Carney and Leeds United

 Watching this unfurl on Twitter is fascinating. A very simple interaction branches off into many different directions of arguments, counter arguments, insults, and gaslighting. Sport and social media provide great insights into the human psyche. It is said that modern debating is like two people having a game of tennis, from two different courts, constantly smashing serves over the net, that are never returned, with both thinking that they are winning.

We've all seen this, right? People love to share it on their feeds, especially during periods of tense debate in the public discourse, of which we have had much in the last five years. But it's just simply not true. If your only defence of your opinion is that you are allowed to have opinions, then your opinion is pretty flimsy, and will rightly be scrutinised. What I'm hoping, is that more people have seen this one...

In a lot of cases, someone is actually wrong. Even if there is not enough evidence to suggest one way or the other, a correct answer is out there somewhere, despite the absence of proof. Take theology for example. How did the universe start? Plenty of theories, only one correct answer, and those theories may not even touch the correct answer. Some are more backed by evidence, and some are more backed by rhetoric and feeling. In reality, only the Flying Spaghetti Monster knows the answer to that one.

I also wish to avoid any "both sides" comparisons. It's lazy, and done way too often by people looking to absolve themselves of criticism. The idea that "you're both stupid" is one that rampant centrism in the USA is allowing many to back out of having any kind of strong opinion that can be ridiculed, simply allowing them to do all the ridiculing. It may help you win an internet argument, but it does nothing to move society further. Sure, Biden is creepy and old, has a dodgy record on policy, and is likely nowhere near as progressive as is needed, but he's not a genocidal maniac that has killed hundreds of thousands of citizens through his own passive neglect. There is no "both sides." There's terrible and less worse. There's a step forward and a step backwards.

A meme paints a thousand words.

When observing an argument online, try to view it through the lens of one or potentially all parties, not in search of truth, but in search of an abstract moral high ground, from which they can cast aspersions on others. The first one we have seen in this furore is the reaction to a woman being publicly criticised. Media personalities within football are currently a very sensitive topic. Sky binned a handful of old farts, and replaced them with younger, blacker, more feminine pundits. Out went Tommo, Le Tissier, and Charlie Nicholas, and in came Alex Scott, Micah Richards, and many more. Somehow, Paul Merson survived the purge.

This move from Sky was welcome by many, but attacked by others. I agreed with it for two main reasons;

1. They were terrible pundits. Dinosaurs. Absent of analysis, full of matey banter and clichés. The modern game requires modern mindsets. Richards and Scott, having recently finished playing, are more familiar with the demands of the game nowadays, than players who haven't been paid to kick a ball for decades. Look at how much the game has changed from 1999 to 2020. The newcomers to punditry will be more clued up on the practices, tactics, and actions within the dressing room.

2. If you can't see someone that looks like you doing it, how do you know you can do it? I believe representation is important. Football is for everybody, but for so long, it has been run by white male gatekeepers, who served their own agenda of self-preservation. This isn't shoehorning someone into a role so they can tick a box on the diversity checklist, as that would imply that Richards and Scott are not good pundits.

My own opinion is that punditry across the board is terrible. I enjoy some of the MNF show when Carragher and Neville get into it with top players and managers. It can often be undone by the likes of Roy Keane providing soundbites, such as suggesting he would make his goalkeeper walk home. Fans in their armchairs love the pashun, as they are too emotionally involved and far too shortsighted to see how ridiculous such suggestions are. Some defend it as jokes, when it's closer to hubris.

Far too many pundits speak in lazy clichés, and haven't done their research. Too many top players don't understand the game beyond their role in a small corner of the pitch. They lack the ability to think and speak in abstract terms. Compare the insight provided by someone like Klopp compared to Jamie Redknapp, who has been stealing a living as a pundit. This is why I stopped listening to TalkSport and 5Live years ago, as it is just nonsense fan talking points. Should DeGea leave Man Utd? Should Arsenal sack their manager? Should England switch to 442? Who is better; Hazard or Salah? It's not at all interesting or intellectually stimulating, but has the phonelines full of fans barking like crazed dogs. It's why there's a corner online dedicated to more in depth football discussion, such as on Total Football Analysis, Spielverlagerung, Coaches Voice, and all the fantastic podcasts out there. It's lowest common denominator viewing, but as football evolves, the pundits have to evolve too, or the younger audience will not be able to relate to them. Next time you're watching or listening to a game, try to identify who you think is either out of touch (Glen Hoddle), or intellectually incapable of providing anything worth listening to (Joe Cole).

It is hard for us to turn off our fan glasses. Football is game which elicits deep emotional responses. As a Rovers fan, our only real exposure in the media these days is the Rovers legends with punditry jobs. And, disappointingly, most are terrible. Shearer oversimplifies everything, and has little knowledge outside his bubble. Savage goes off on pointless grandstanding campaigns, and deliberately gets the wrong end of the stick to weaken his opponent's points. Souness has it in for Pogba for some reason. Sutton isn't too bad, but can be a bit arrogant. Tim Sherwood, the heroic captain, is now a joke. Honestly, some of the bollocks that Robbie Savage says makes me cringe.

Modern discourse has this effect on people where we cannot concede good points if they are against our side. We feel personally attacked. That's why there are whole industries based on how to effectively give criticism, but even with such guidance and training, there's always going to be 10% who will burrow their heads further into the sands of ignorance.

Twitter is full of idle accounts when the user disappeared after providing a terrible opinion in a public forum, and was then given multiple well cited rebuttals. The improvements in technology have made it easier to provide citations, and although many choose not to do so, switching the burden of proof, many are shocked when someone does "bring receipts." It happens to Republican politicians with a large degree of frequency. A brief search on Lindsay Graham will suffice.

So let's dive in to what actually happened with Karen Carney and Leeds. This will not be a straight path. It will diverge down the many tangents.

It started with this Tweet: https://twitter.com/LUFC/status/1344027568484343814

During the analysis of Leeds' 5-0 win versus West Brom, ex Chelsea and England star Karen Carney (one of my favourite players, btw) made some comments that Leeds took a disliking too, as referenced in their Tweet. Was the tweet malicious? Let's see:

- It did not attack or reference Carney's ability as a pundit.

- It did not infer Carney was stupid or incompetent.

- It did not make any reference to gender.

Karen Carney provided her opinion, and Leeds provided a rebuttal. That seems simple enough. Sadly for Carney, she didn't make her point very well. I think she is typically a good pundit, and everyone is capable of muddling their words a little bit. I do it all the time, which is why I tell people that I'm only funny on Twitter. She was asking the question as to whether Leeds can maintain their intense style of play for an entire season, briefly referencing the past two Championship seasons. The first where Leeds arguably ran out of steam towards the end, and the second where Leeds were resounding champions, following a break in the season due to lockdown. Where she fumbled was saying "I actually think they got promoted because of Covid." Leeds are allowed to take exception to this, and they did by pointing out the large margin by which they won the league. Several Leeds fans have taken to the comments to point out the run Leeds were on before the break, and how it was maintained after the break.

The break may have helped Leeds recharge their batteries. Whether this will be a valid argument to make in the Premier League, with six fewer games per season, an increased transfer budget, and a better equipped backroom staff, that is the debate I would like to be having. Carney may have been onto something, as graphs produced just a few weeks ago showed than Leeds players, on average, ran so much per game, that it was like having a twelfth player. Is that sustainable in the Premier League? Let's discuss. Wait, we can't, because people are terrible.

First come the White Knights.

More than two categories of White Knight exist.

Each tweet by a White Knight sparks further argument in the replies, and inevitably, the trolls appear, with their tried and tested rebuttal...

The reason why this method is so effective is because there's no easy way to argue back against it.

"Yes she will!" or "I don't care!" are equally stupid.

Also seen here is the defence that it's only her opinion.

Not really a defence of the opinion, though, is it? As a pundit, she is paid to provide opinions, and as viewers, we expect those opinions to be backed up and well informed. The fact that it wasn't isn't a dig about Carney in particular, but more to do with the very low standards of football punditry. If she says what said, and then follows it up with numbers, figures, and even a bar chart, then it's an opinion worth listening to, as it is properly researched and backed up with facts and figures. Any ass from the pub can mouth soundbites into a microphone, such as "Leeds only won due to Covid."

"It's only her opinion!" Right. And Leeds are only giving their opinion. Awful, awful defence.

Here comes the moral high ground. Ironically, this is a guy who works for TalkSport. Owned by Rupert Murdoch's News Corp. Piers Morgan is a regular guest.

This White Knight, like many others, then turned it into a debate on sexism.

Comments like Mark's are indescribably unhelpful.

I can understand the caution here from Jess Fishlock, but in the threads I've been diving into, I'm not really seeing any sexist backlash. So far, there have been no comments across my feed about how she is incapable of doing her job due to gender. Having said that, I know those people are prominent on Twitter, and there is no place for them in the game.

Then people go and say stuff like this. By far the least helpful and most wrong reply I have seen in all this. When I see posts like this from people, it often makes me wonder if they are new to football. By new, I mean only started paying attention mere days or weeks ago.

There is currently a legion of Leeds fans patrolling Twitter for this type of comment, armed with such receipts.

And then this happens. She is leaving Twitter for a while, because Leeds fans are attacking her. What are the attacks?

9:42PM Dec 29. That's thirty minutes before her post about not seeing this kind of treatment towards male pundits. 

At the time of writing, Hannah's tweet about male pundits has 85 replies: https://twitter.com/cfcwhannah/status/1344043714856050690

None of which attack her, or Carney, for being a woman. Some have called her clueless, but the vast majority have been people providing evidence of her being wrong, and telling her to do her research.

Not only is Simon wrong (apparently another person who only recently started paying attention to football) but in his desperate attempt to White Knight, he patronised Carney by referring to her as "this poor woman." Not to class myself as the Arbiter of Offence, but that's got to be way more offensive than the people telling her she is wrong. Simon is then inundated with replies pointing out examples of Sherwood and Agbonlahor, yet his tweet remains up, because remember, it's not about truth, it's about moral high ground.

Rovers legendary captain Tim Sherwood gets it all the time. The stuff he says is embarrassing.

Here's a video of Tim Sherwood suggesting Arsenal don't bring on Danny Welbeck.  https://twitter.com/lukeybaby1/status/1344001750756446208

Welbeck left Arsenal eighteen months ago, and has been at two clubs since.

Here's a video of Tim Sherwood as Aston Villa manager spouting clichés like it is what is keeping him alive: https://twitter.com/FootballRemind/status/1343973606095777793

Here's a video of Tim Sherwood predicting that an English team will win the Premier League: https://twitter.com/KingTebz/status/1341719595649011717

Here's the now infamous clip of Tim Sherwood during Liverpool scoring a corner against Spurs: https://twitter.com/betconnect/status/1339506608796217345 This was December 17th. Carney's comment was December 29th. This is why I believe so many people upset are new to football.

Here's a thread dedicated to Michael Owen: https://twitter.com/UtdHaaanz/status/1341041730376744961/photo/1

Type in the name of literally any pundit, and you will find plenty of very recent negative comments. Much of it is laughing at their opinions and predictions. Some of it is talking about how terrible they are as pundits. Carney is being criticised for her opinion, not for being an awful pundit, and not for being a woman. Surely this is the kind of equality that we want?

There are some, in my subjective opinion, terrible female pundits too. A sign of equality is that a woman doesn't have to be better than a man to get a job. In fact, Soccer Saturday has shown that women can be just as incompetent as men, and still keep a job. One of the biggest strides in women's football was when the discussions on TV went from how bad the football is in comparison to the men's game, to discussing the tactics. Teams, players, coaches etc. were criticised on footballing terms, not on gender terms. Which is what happened to Karen Carney.

Some are saying that it is beneath a club to respond via Twitter. That they shouldn't have a go at pundits. Again, I'm lead to believe these people are new to football. here's Jurgen Klopp taking issue with something Roy Keane said live on Sky Sports: https://twitter.com/SkySportsPL/status/1310688416674312192

It definitely had nothing to do with Keane's gender.

Football is full of people having a go, and then others having a go back. Lokomotiv fans held up a banner thanking West Brom (the one with the banana in it) for taking their black player. West Brom fans responded by holding up a banner thanking Lokomotiv for selling them a good goal scorer. The West Brom fans rightly called out the Russians for their racism. Remember when West Brom cancelled the season ticket of a racist fan on Twitter?

These are the kinds of people the game needs to be rid of. As we have seen recently with the banner flown over Burnley, and the Millwall fans booing BLM, we still have a lot of work to do. Sexism, homophobia, and racism tend to come from the same group of idiots. There is much overlap between the offenders. We should absolutely be vigilant in the fight against sexism. But this wasn't it. It has been turned into an issue by pearl clutching journalists like Sam Matterface, White Knights like Simon, and people playing the victim card like Hannah. All this does is detract from what should have been a reasonable debate about the stamina of the Leeds team, and further muddies the waters in regards to sexism. By over reacting to non issues, it makes real issues become even more tense. People feel like they are walking over egg shells when there is no need.

When you say stuff in public, back it up.

Remember to always follow the Ten Commandments of Logic.

There's a lot of ad hominem taking place against Leeds within these threads on Twitter. And the defence of Carney is post hoc. Because of the rampant sexism that occurs online and within football, and the well documented harassment of female users of any platform, it would be natural for people to be overly sensitive and immediately go on the defensive. Sexism in football is very real, and despite the great strides made, it is still prevalent. It's no wonder many have been conditioned to believe that criticism of a female equates to criticism of someone because they are female, because many have been on the receiving end of baseless criticism simply for their gender. This wasn't it.

Karen Carney was a good player and is an insightful pundit. She's not a "poor woman" and doesn't need Simon the White Knight to come to her rescue. She was tough and tenacious, and will be able to deal with this, no problem.

What Working In A Primary School Has Taught Me

If you enjoy my content and want to express gratitude, I would be so happy if you made a contribution towards my Argentina trip in the summer of 2021. The plan is to go there for four weeks and look at everything football, development, coaching, and culture. Any amount helps. I won't be upset if you ignore this message, as I produce this content purely for the enjoyment of it. Here is the link: http://fnd.us/c1en5f?ref=sh_98yL48

At the beginning of writing this piece, I am now two weeks into working in a primary school in England. My job is to take PE lessons in the afternoon. They are outsourcing their sporting needs. In the past, I have spent a lot of time delivering sport in English schools. Now, I am in a far more prevalent role, and interact with every child in the school, not just those who register for clubs. These children are 6-11.

I feel I should begin by first acknowledging my privileged upbringing. How many of us are truly aware of the fortune granted to us at birth? On paper, you might be aware that your childhood was not typical. For instance, my childhood might be portrayed as normal, but it's not the average experience of kids across the country. Let me list some of the normalities I experienced;

Two parent family. I always had two loving adults that were present in my life.
Big house. Not necessarily massive, but I had my own space.
Garden. I had space out the front and the back to run around and to play.
Vacations. As a kid, I learned about the world beyond my own neighbourhood, and beyond Butlins holiday parks.
Safe area. We lived in an area of low crime. I could meet my friends, and be outside on my own.
Well fed. We always had food on the table. The quality of food would have been high.
Sports clubs and activities. In the evenings and on weekends, I could play football, and had opportunities for other activities, like guitar lessons.
Parent play. My parents were busy, but there was always one of them around to engage with me, listen to me, and play with me.
Toys. Not spoiled in the sense that I had every console and game imaginable, like many of my classmates, but I certainly had enough at home to keep me occupied, and to stretch my imagination.

There's probably more that I have neglected too. I have wondered why some of the kids are the way they are, and realised that many of them aren't getting too many ticks on the above list. Some of them struggle to hold conversations, but then maybe their parents aren't around, nor are they as intelligent and engaging as mine. A lot of these kids really struggle with basic agility, balance, and coordination. Out of a group of thirty, there will only be three kids who can likely do more than five or even ten juggles of a football. That's understandable if they have no garden at home, can't go outside to play, have limited parental engagement, and the family has no money or means for the child to participate in extra curricular sporting activities. They struggle to catch. They struggle to perform actions while moving. They struggle to assess a situation and change their mind in the moment.

Please don't view this as me ripping on the kids. They are the way they are. What I'm trying to do is to assess that, figure out what is causing it, and then try to combat it. This pieces is me thinking out loud and asking questions. Another example is that their fitness is incredibly low. The majority of them struggle to be active for even short lengths of time without needing a rest. Some of that can be the pandemic, and how they have been inactive for six months, but I think even without the pandemic, they probably don't have many nutritious meals, aren't playing or competing much in their spare time, and might not have the best environment at home to rest and recuperate. If your diet is bad, your recovery bad, and you don't exercise much, stamina will not increase.

The experience of these kids is completely different to mine. They enjoy school. I loathed school. They love their teachers. I hated my teachers. These kids are built up, protected, encouraged, and enabled. We were ridiculed, intimidated, humiliated, and scolded. From 3-16, I can count the teachers I had any warm feelings for on one hand. We were at a strict private school, rather old fashioned, that felt like it was run by people who hated kids. What I'm sensing nowadays, is that the kids see school, especially their teachers, as an extended family. Some teachers are like a second mum or dad to these kids, or even, sadly, a first mum or dad.

When I think back, separated parents in our school was very rare. If it occured, it happened when the child was a teenager. A lot of the kids I'm working with have absent parents from very early on in their lives. These kids are poor, and lower working class. At my school, everyone was upper working class or middle class. So much learning occurs via peer-to-peer interactions. Our home lives, and the privileged situations we were afforded at birth, made us generally brighter pupils. Therefore, the quality of our peer-to-peer interactions would have been significantly higher. I was a kid, so had no way of measuring this, but I remember them saying how we were two years ahead of kids who didn't go to our school. Maybe with that in my mind, I looked for it, and had that preconceived bias confirmed, but the number of genuinely thick kids was very low. And they didn't last long. Needless to say, our environment was one of elitism, whereas for the majority of children across the country, their environments are being shaped towards inclusion.

Typically, there are two main problems when dealing with the groups of kids at primary school age. The boys struggle to listen and focus. The girls make up injuries to avoid playing. I always believe this to be a societal cause, not a biological one, because girls can be sporty, and boys can listen. It comes back to "boys will be boys" being an excuse to enable certain undesired behaviour. If girls were to act in the same way, they would be scolded, and reminded those actions are not very lady like. This creates a strange divergence between the mortal enemies of the playground; Boys v Girls. When I meet a class and talk about expected behaviour, I joke that it's always boys that can't listen. The boys are deeply offended by this, and one of them pipes up in defence with he feels is a real "Gotcha!" "But you're a boy!" he will exclaim. The whole group of boys collectively sigh in relief as I am reminded of my gender, like it disproves the claim. "Yes, and that's how I know" I reply. Panic stations. The boys now scramble as they look for another method of defence. Many concede defeat, but two have gone nuclear, almost resigned now to the validity of my claim, but still wanting me to take it back. They resort to loyalty, something boys are programmed from birth to believe in. They label me as a traitor. It's all said in jest, and we have a good laugh about it, but I do believe it to be indicative of how society shapes boys to view the world. The position relays that we have committed to a stance, and we will persevere with that stance, even in the face of contradictory evidence, because our loyalty to each other is more important than our loyalty to the truth.

See Brexit, Harvey Weinstein, Jeffrey Epstein, Donald Trump, Boris Johnson, Republicans, Conservatives, and the case of Football Fans v The Referee.

Sorry. Everything is political.

Another factor that I believe we took for granted is the wide range of kids within one class. I'll try and explain that better with a diagram.

Everything is an interaction between the organism and the environment to complete the task. The organism (individual) is the kid, with their personality, their mood, their physical and mental state (tired, annoyed, happy), their physical traits, their attributes, their biases, preferences, and their decision making frameworks. The environment is everything external, from teammates to opponents, including the surface of the playing area, the referee, the weather, and so many more factors. The task is what they are supposed to do, whether as an individual as a team, small and compartmentalised (take up this position when you see this picture, or throw the ball like this) and big and broad (score more points than the other team to win the game).

I've established that I believe the individuals at my posh private school were quite different to typical primary school kids around the UK. That means the individual is more adept at the tasks (organism), and the environment is saturated with other individuals that are also adept at the task. I think not only were the numbers in our school much smaller (our typical class size was between ten and fifteen) but that also the range of different characteristics was significantly more narrow. Last week, in one class, I had a class of nine-year-olds, where one boy plays academy football at a professional club, and another girl can't speak in full sentences, and has been known to "Moo" at her teachers when greeting them. That's a considerably wide range of kids within that one environment. And, I am not stating a preference for working with one type of kid or the other, nor am I saying that one kid is more deserving of my time and attention. What I'm hoping to convey is the difficulties associated with working with that broad a range of kids. 25-30 of them, versus 10-15 of us when I was growing up. Smaller numbers and a narrower range of kids made classroom management significantly easier for my teachers, and as a result, bad behaviour was incredibly rare.

Let me just clarify something real quick. I don't believe that a kid who is acting out is a bad kid. The actions they are performing don't necessarily have bad intentions behind them. Not listening, calling out, not standing in line, fidgeting, bouncing balls etc. are just behaviours of kids who aren't able to behave in the desired ways in those moments. A great post on Twitter this morning talked about instead of viewing kids as "attention seeking" try to view them as "connection seeking."

Another difference, which has put me way outside of my comfort zone, is that although I have twelve years of working with kids on three different continents, for well over 90% of it, I have worked with groups of half this size, and in environments where they want to be there. Kids register for football, they come to me to improve. It's a much simpler dynamic. A lot of the kids I'm dealing with now, aren't that bothered about me or what I'm going to be doing with them. They could take it or leave it. Some of them don't like it at all. I'm used to working with around ten to fifteen players, who want to be there, who want to learn, and know that listening to me is required, due to the dynamic of our relationship. In a school setting, probably less than 30% of kids in the class feel the same way about me, or hold those similar motivations to my regular footballers. The rest all have different levels of motivation and desire, and thus, their behaviours are affected by their motivations. This is a big part of the "range" I'm talking about when it comes to kids in any given environment.

It is my ambition to change how we do sport. Sport can bring so much joy and meaning to a person's life. Whether it is team sports, winning, achieving, improving, being part of a group, keeping fit, there's so much in it for everybody. At the youngest ages, we have to teach basic fundamentals that will help develop an athlete for life. We're giving them tools they can take with them. For too many kids, they don't have positive associations with sport. For me, it was first playing with my dad. Then my cousins. Then my mates at school. Then in teams. It all built from an initial love of the game, which came about through interaction and connections. It's fun to run around, to compete, to learn new things, and to bond with special people. I don't know if that is the experience that enough kids are able to have. Perhaps they haven't had the opportunity to build those positive associations, and therefore view sport as a chore, or a distraction. Maybe even something to hide from, as they don't want to be exposed.

All this factors into my ambition. It would be great if England, or whatever country I happen to be in, win something at the top level. Even more important, though, is that we have a generation of adults that are mentally and physically healthy. They need to be active, and they need to be interacting. Sport helps us belong, and it gives us something to strive for. I want our young kids to have the opportunities to be whatever they want to be. If they just want to play for fun and be with their mates, that's great. We should be able to offer that. If they want to push on, take it seriously, and try to develop into something special, that's also great, and that should be on offer too. And everything in between.

Maybe so much of it comes from not questioning our mindsets and our establishments. Something that travel has brought me is perspective. People from different cultures, do things differently. Only experiencing limited parts of the world limits your perspective, and makes it harder to think outside the box. That's why it's hard to get governing bodies to switch to more age appropriate versions of football, and why it is hard for futsal to catch on. I'll reference the 3v3 tournament I did in Missouri. 3v3 is not uncommon, and is often used as a gimmick money grab. We did it for cheap, and the competition format was a ladder. It's novel, but it kept the kids playing, engaged, and always gave them something to strive for. Experience as a player, ref, and coach, has given me multiple perspectives from which to view how we do sport, and I think that helps in my quest to make player-friendly, engaging formats. It surprises people, because they might view my background and education and think I'm Mr. Serious, which is not the case at all. I am serious about football and about my education, and what that has taught me is that; learning is more effective with a smile, and playing sport without a smile is a waste of time.

If we make it more fun, we retain participants for longer. Kids, then adults, stay in and contribute to the game, for much longer. But that's not all, as fun is essentially intrinsic motivation. If people enjoy it, they'll care more, and take it more seriously. I've worked in environments with high level players, and we would all think it's 100% serious all the time. That's not the case. Professional athletes love sport, and they have a lot of fun doing it. And as Tom Byer says, if we raise the floor we raise the ceiling.

I definitely need to do a lot more studying and observing. I'm starting a master's tomorrow in Football Coaching, and will hopefully do a PGCE next year. I'm currently leaning towards secondary school. I need to spend some time in that environment. I need to get to know modern kids a bit more profoundly than I do from just my football perspective. I need to know what makes them tick. That's when I can help shape environments to be more appealing to them, that are better suited to their needs. For a long time, I've thought that I would like to run after school clubs on the following sports; futsal, volleyball, badminton, handball, and basketball. Those sports are great fun on their own, with the added benefit being the transferable skills to a whole range of other sports. They are fantastic sports, while also acting as gateway sports to a whole wide range of other physical activities.

Something which concerns me greatly is the amount of schools who have banned ball sports during break times. Depending on the timetable, that could be thirty to sixty minutes of physical activity per day removed. Sure, not every kid would play, but I think the option should be there for them. I would even love to help facilitate that. There's enough responsible adults around during break times. Excuses I have heard are that there is an injury risk = coddling. Another is to avoid conflict = coddling. We used to argue about whether the ball was in or not when it was shot over someone's bag that we were using as a goal post. It was annoying at times. But it taught us to argue, debate, compromise, negotiate, and deal with hurt feelings. These are all learning opportunities. I get it, though. Parents are a nightmare, and with most people in schools feeling stressed and overworked, they may simply be taking the path of least resistance. 

Some will say that kids can still do sport, like having races, but that is deathly boring. Who wins? The fastest kid. Want to race again? No thanks. We know who will win. That's not fun for kids. In the sports I mentioned earlier, children can have a whole range of advantages and disadvantages, because of how dynamic the games are and the variables associated with them. One kid might have a size advantage, but the other kid has a technique advantage. One kid might be faster where another might be stronger. One kid might be disadvantaged in this area, but could be really intelligent, and reads the game well. In team sports, everyone feels like they can contribute in some way. And if the game gets too one sided, kids take charge, and will mix teams or change rules. They become the agents and the drivers of their own play. How often might you hear of children who struggle to entertain themselves without an electronic device? That might be because we're taking away opportunities for them to learn how to play in unstructured ways.

In another article I have been working on recently, which should be finished soon, I ask where the future is coming from. That's aimed more at professional football. I have definitely noticed a change in the atmosphere at grassroots football games since I was last in England. It will certainly help keep kids in the game for longer. I really want to know what we can do in schools. And I need to learn more about the national curriculum, and see how much could or should be applied to a school on an individual basis. As I said earlier on, the school I am working at is completely different to the school I attended as a kit. There needs to be some core principles to learn on a national scale, but maybe what, how, and how much, depends on the individual school during any specific moment.

I'll report back more as time goes by and I learn more.

Football Competition Concepts

If you enjoy my content and want to express gratitude, I would be so happy if you made a contribution towards my Argentina trip in the summer of 2021. The plan is to go there for four weeks and look at everything football, development, coaching, and culture. Any amount helps. I won't be upset if you ignore this message, as I produce this content purely for the enjoyment of it. Here is the link: http://fnd.us/c1en5f?ref=sh_98yL48

Good evening. Thanks for joining us. Here's some ideas I've had, and many of which have been played out in real life. If you're looking for new and exciting ways to do competitions, engage players, and add a bit of incentive or ingenuity, maybe these could be of use.

Football Threesome

This one came from talking to my dad about a session I did the other day. Many people have tried some way to get three teams to compete in a game of football. The pitch usually is a weird shape, with three goals, and the team in possession is always overloaded. That doesn't look too fun. So let me draw what I've come up with.

Picture your typical British 5v5 game. Indoor, or on turf. Walls. Small goals. Similar size to a futsal court. So not a typical American 6v6 pitch which is a converted ice hockey rink, where the game becomes about running. No. We want to do football, not athletics.

Nevertheless, these leagues usually have a lot of restrictions in their games. This would be no overhead height, only keepers allowed in the box. For me, the game should be as similar to football, and as simple as possible. The keeper can come out of the area, and everyone else can go in. You can pass to the keeper as often as you want, but like in football, they cannot pick it up.

How do we make it a threesome? Three teams, play for one hour, winner stays on. The games are a maximum of five minutes. You have to win to stay on. As soon as a goal is scored, the waiting team enters, and restarts the match. If there have been no goals after five minutes, the team which has been on the pitch for longest leaves.

Simple. One goal, winner stays on. Max five minute games.

Can this be turned into a league? Absolutely. Here's how.

One league of twelve teams. Those three teams play each other for an hour. Every win is worth one point. Let's take Pitch 1.

Wednesday get 7 wins
City get 4 wins
Arsenal get 2 wins

That makes Wednesday the winner. They won that game, with City and Arsenal being losers. What happens if two teams get the same number of wins in a night? The winner is decided by who won the first game between those two teams. That's the decider. These one hour fixtures happen every week, and then we apply weekly promotion and relegation. This is done so teams are always grouped with those they can compete with. To demonstrate, I will apply some results.

The teams in red have been promoted to the next bracket, while the teams in blue have been relegated. The league is separated into four brackets; gold, silver, bronze, and wooden spoon. The league will change every week. After these results, next week's games will look like this...

These are next week's games. Do a ten week season or whatever. How do you decide the two teams that start the game? The two bottom teams in each bracket. It will almost work like a ladder. The team who wins the gold bracket on the final day of the season is the team who wins the league.

When it comes to working with kids, I like them to have more wider age brackets. Like 13-16. Great mix up, and fantastic for the social and physical corners. I like kids making their own teams, being inclusive, mixing boys and girls, being relaxed with registration so we don't waste time with cards and forms, so we can get kids in playing quicker. As for kit, provide the league with two colours, and the league will see if there's a clash each week. As demonstrated below.

Simple enough. What's your team name? What two colours are you wearing? Great. We'll highlight your colour each week. It's not about making money. It's not about looking flash. Keep it simple, and get them out there playing.

Futsal Tournament

This was an idea I had for a futsal tournament to use in Missouri. It was supposed to be the last thing I was doing before leaving, and then some FBI raids happened in some offices in Boston, and they asked all the visa staff to leave a little earlier. But I can still share the slides and the concepts I had. Even bought trophies for this, and everything.

Cool poster, bro! Six teams compete over three hours. Kids sign up and are assigned a team. It's wide age ranges, and for girls and boys. Most of the kids signing up, we would have known fairly well, so would have been able to make somewhat even teams.

Kids register and are randomly assigned a team. Their team is named after a country, and they have to wear the colours of that country. That already, to a kid, makes it interesting and exiting. Futsal rules have been simplified, and we added in some random intervals of music, in which goals count double, to add more excitement, and another dynamic of gameplay. This tournament never happened, but the template is a good one. Six teams, over three hours, play one game against each team.

I really believe in mixing ages and genders. I also like the image conveyed of representing teams. Kids get to play for France or Brazil. Some of them had the shirts of these countries, and were excited to be able to wear them. Assigning what colours to wear ahead of time also allows the kids to personalise their experience. You may not have a red spain shirt, but you have a red Manchester United shirt you want to wear. Too much of the US experience is uniformed, literally, as we sell them endless amounts of training kit. Rarely do we see them in their own skin (Fortnite reference), being who they are, showing us who they want to be.

The idea of random music meaning two goals are scored adds an element of panic and excitement. It could be thirty seconds. It could be two minutes. Picture being a goal down, and hearing music. How might you then play? Or being ahead by two goals, with only a minute remaining? Quick sub and change of strategy? Kids would have to figure this out, and will learn from the trial and error. Another benefit was that all the games were on the same pitch, one after the other. When we had done similar things on camp, in the form of tournaments, the kids not playing got really into it. They watched attentively, and cheered for the teams they needed to win, because it affected their own chances of winning, as were shown on the live table.    

3v3

This one I actually got to do for real, and it was a great success.

This is how the pitch looked. If there's a wall, play off the wall. If the ball goes over the line, then put the ball on the ground, and either kick or dribble in. Every restart is direct. Just make the rules as simple as possible, to stop wasting time and remove arguments. Play for three minutes, and the winners move up, the losers move down. You want to get to pitch one and stay there. The team to win the final game on pitch one is the winner of the tournament. That's how ladders work. In one hour, of three minute games (with one minute rest after three games, so nine minutes playing, one minute drink from every ten minutes), that makes for eighteen matches. In theory, a team could lose the first fourteen games, win the final four in succession, and be champions. If there's a draw for any game, it was the team who scored first that would be seen as the winner. In the event of a rare 0-0, it was one of rock paper scissors (essentially sudden death).

It was great to watch. Some teams moved all the way up and all the way down multiple times. A real rollercoaster of emotions. We didn't anticipate just how popular it would be. It's an hour 3v3 tournament in a shed. I should have known. Americans bring everyone. There were probably three other people per kid, all crammed into this small viewing area, moving up and down to try and view their kids as they ascended or descended the ladder. The parents got really into it, and the noise was deafening. It was crazy how seriously people took it, but it was a really fun and interesting concept. Different to the usual money grabbing nonsense. This was $20 per team. We didn't make much money on it, because that wasn't the point. Just cover the field and trophy costs, and get kids out there having a great time.

I wish there were more space for this kind of event. It was a bit of a hard sell at first, particularly as Americans view cheap as inferior, and fun as a luxury when it comes to the sporting experience and general mental wellbeing of children. 3v3 tournaments are not uncommon, but their format is completely different to how I structured this one. It costs upwards of $100 per team. You're guaranteed three or four games, that are usually fifteen or twenty minutes. And the games are spread across the weekend. Like how they do normal tournaments. Mine was quick. One and done. All at the same location, one after the other. Show up at 8:45, you're back home by 10:30. Youth sport has a monopoly on families' time. I want to give them that time back. Parents with reduced time become stressy. Stressy parents should at their kids on the field, because they expect a performance for their donation of time and money. The kids play with fear and without joy. The coaches then pander to the parents because it's the path of least resistance. The clubs and organisations love it, because they will play on the fear of missing out. They FOMO these parents to death. "Well, if you're kid's a serious baller, you'll sign up for this incredibly expensive, incredibly time consuming tournament..." 

Bollocks. The kids at our 3v3 had way more fun, way cheaper, the parents were considerably less inconvenienced, and the atmosphere was one of fun and creativity, but still taken seriously. Adults forget that kids are naturally competitive. Give them a way to score points, and kids will go to war. All we need to do is to facilitate that. We don't need to be on top of them telling them to knuckle down and take it seriously. Incentivise their performance, and they will take it seriously. And that's how you facilitate fun.

The kids got to make teams with their friends, pick their own names, and choose their own colours. So much autonomy. Yet most parents are of the opinion their kids can't wipe their own arses. Or the lives of the kids are so busy, the parents end up waiting on them hand and foot.

Two Games Simultaneously

I've talked about this kind of thing before. First, I will explain the idea of the game. Then, how to turn it into a tournament.

It's one 9v9 game divided into two pitches, or two separate games. The players can cross into the other game at any moment. You can put all defenders or all attackers on one side. You can run across to defend a free kick and then come back. You can assign more players to the pitch in which you are losing, in order to bring the score back, or more players on the pitch you are winning to consolidate the win. The strategy is entirely up to the team. The only players who can't move pitches are the goalkeepers. In theory, you could have two games of 8v1. You choose how much you want to commit to the overload.

How does it work? Let's say it's fairly standard in terms of indoor or futsal rules. Handball, free kicks etc. Preferably it would be two indoor courts with walls, but it works just fine outdoors too. I prefer SSGs to have walls nearby so we're not forever chasing balls, and the game is continuous. The game lasts for half an hour. There are four points total available. Two for a win, one for a draw, zero for a loss. If you win both games, you are awarded four points. Win one, draw one, three points. Draw both for two points. Draw one, lose one, only one point. Lose both, and it's zero points.

More is at stake. More can be gained. If you're losing heavily on one side, should you just forget about that game and try to gain something from the other side? If you have nine players, the team cannot split evenly, so there will be plenty of overloads occurring all the time. This makes for great attacking and defending scenarios.

A league format would be pretty standard. The team with the most points at the end of the season is the champion. What I like about this and all these games is that it makes the emotions of football happen quicker. We want to expose our kids to as many different scenarios as possible, to best prepare them for the adult game, and for adult life in general. These formats encourage them to think, to analyse, to strategise, to communicate, to weigh up options. Like in video games, the consequences of your actions are rewarded or punished quickly, and there's plenty of chances for do-overs.

If we do it right, all of the decision making will be placed onto the kids. These formats create the right environment, or apply the right constraints, that now the kids have to think about how it is going to work, and they have to think on their feet and solve problems for themselves, without our interventions. The constraints have forced them into the kind of scenarios we want them to face. These are really fun, engaging, kid friendly formats. I want to take the game away from egotistical and money hungry adults and give it back to the children. We have the resources, we have the facilities, we have the know-how. We shouldn't be looking to generate profits off of their hopes and dreams. We should be providing rich experiences for them to learn, grow, discover, experiment, develop etc. These formats provide so much trial and error, in small, fast-paced environments. Having tried these kinds of games a lot over the years, I have seen how much the kids enjoy it, how seriously they take it, and the many ways it challenges them. I would love to have done stuff like this as a kid. And to me, that's the way we should be approaching how we design activities for children; "I would love to have done stuff like this as a kid."