Ten Thousand Hour Misconception

The Ten Thousand Hour Rule receives a lot of hate these days. It's not true that if you practise for ten thousand hours that you will become an expert in your field, and it has never claimed to be a rule. It was a title given to those that tried to conceptualise it. It's more a guideline or a rule of thumb, demonstrating the importance of practice. As a concept, it was always too broad to be applied specifically. and if you are someone that sought to apply it literally as a rule, then it's your own fault you are disappointed by it.

There are many aspects we need to consider, and I will try to use diagrams where possible. The first thing to bare in mind throughout all this is the often repeated phrase, which is totally wrong; "Practise makes perfect." No it doesn't. If you are working on the wrong things, not training with intensity, or completing tasks with poor form, you will not be perfect. Instead, practise makes permanent. That's the soundbite. There is obviously a correlation between amount of practice and skill development (quantity). Two people in the exact same circumstances, with the only variable being their amount of practice, the one who works more will improve more.

Quite simply, the more you work, the better you become.

And we know that's not the full story. It's not even the tip of the iceberg. The idea of ten thousand hours comes from a study of elite violinists, who estimated their amount of practising over the years. Some went onto become leads, some concert violinists, and some were good, but only good enough to teach it to others.

Those familiar with my previous articles will remember one before about the CEO of youth sports. That's coaching, environment, and opportunity. If it were solely down to quantity of practice, it would be entirely feasible that a kid from Fiji could spend ten thousand hours improving his or her football skills, and then go on to play for a big club in Europe. That's not the case, and this is where the gross over-simplification of this idea begins.

The next aspect to consider is the quality of practise. It would be the same graph, just quantity replaced with quality. So instead, it we will further it along.

Skill development comes down to not just repetitions, but also the value of those repetitions.

In the above graph, it takes the yellow player longer to become as good as the blue player, and the determining factor here is that the blue player had better practice. The graph isn't brilliant, I know that, and it's about to get a whole lot more complicated. Let's pretend that the two young players are still entirely equal, but the only difference being that Blue has a better coach, plays in a better team, gets more game time, has better facilities, and plays tougher opposition than the yellow. It could also be that Blue simply trains harder, or pays more attention, not just showing up for training and going through the motions. Now we suddenly have many more variables, and we've only considered two aspects. It goes beyond my ability to be able to put this into an equation, as it's hard to quantify how much effect each coach, team, opposition, or environment has. We just know it has an effect.

How much does the ability to understand, evaluate, and compartmentalise new information help development?

So next, manipulating the variables yet again, we take three boys of the same age, in the same family, and the same team. They are seven year-old triplets, yet the only thing we're going to change about them is their ability to learn. I'm not sure how that works without either genetic engineering or special classes, but Yellow is very much able to learn, red is the control kid, and Blue has lost some of his ability to learn. Yellow picks up the new skills and tactics pretty easily, whereas Blue struggles. Sometimes Blue needs it to be repeated three or four times, and broken down into the smallest chunks. With the same level of coaching, in the same environment, the three differently abled learners will develop at different rates. Yellow becomes a better player, and Blue is left behind. In the real world, such a situation would lead Yellow to being scouted, pushed up into the A team, given extra opportunities, and Blue would infuriate the coach, who would eventually start to ignore Blue, and give Blue less game time. The effect this has on each of them mentally would influence their motivation and their confidence.

Some are given a head start in life, and some are held back, through no fault of their own.

The next thing we need to consider is their start point. It's part of the natural talent delusion, again, something I have written about before. Why do some appear more naturally talented at young ages? Could be that they grew quicker, and so are physically faster and stronger, or it could be that they have done more similar work, and thus have transferable skills. In this example we will take three four year old girls who are embarking upon their first ever football classes. Four is an age many kids will start, but most of us will neglect what has happened to them up until that age. They are not the blank slates we think they are. Yellow has developed the most after six weeks, Blue is average, and Red has struggled. Each has shown signs of improvement, but Yellow has improved the most. Let's evaluate their individual circumstances.

Yellow has two older brothers of five and seven. They are both quite active, and include her in their games. Yellow's mum is somewhat sporty, and enjoys running, yoga, and casually plays netball with some friends. Yellow's dad is very supportive of her two brothers playing football, and has extended that to his daughter. The family run around in the garden together, and go to the park a lot. It may be Yellow's first class, but she has been running, jumping, kicking, catching, competing in silly games with her family, sweating, busting her lungs, for about two years. She's already kicked more footballs than a lot of girls ever do. She has good running technique, and can change direction pretty well.

Blue is an only child of a two parent family. Mum isn't so sporty, and Dad has a mild interest. Blue has participated in a few kindergarten play groups like Gym Tots. The family have a dog, and sometimes she plays with it, running at the park, and throwing balls for fetch. Mum and Dad are okay with their daughter trying new sports. If she likes it, they'll keep taking her. If she doesn't, they'll stop.

Red is an older sister to a newborn baby of a single mum. Dad shows up every other weekend. Red is starved of attention with the new baby, and doesn't understand why she can't see her dad as often as she'd like to. Mum is under a lot of stress, trying to keep it all together for the kids. While she is cleaning, cooking, or tending to the baby, Red is left to watch television or play on the iPad. Red cries whenever she is left with someone that isn't Mum, Dad, or one of her grandparents. She walks kind of funny for a four year old, having not really exercised much in her short life. She's still very infantile for her age, retaining some habits of a much younger child. Whenever the baby cries, it gets attention, even if it was supposed to be just her and Mum playing a game or watching a cartoon together. Red starts to cry at anything that goes wrong, just so her mother will come running. Mum thinks that playing some football will get her out of the house and meeting other girls. Dad isn't keen on the idea and has told his daughter on a number of occasions that football is a boy's game.

It's obvious which one of these three girls will take to water like a duck, and which one will sink like a stone. Yellow already has motor skills, knows the basics of kicking a ball, and is quite fast. She has no confidence issues, and is able to interact well with others. Red keeps missing the ball, and when she does, cries her eyes out, and needs to be consoled by Mum. The other girls are all faster than her, and appear to be learning much quicker. Some can even already do the skills. Red cannot handle losing as it makes her feel silly and embarrassed, so will often give up and not try. Within the same session, with the same coach, teammates, and quantity of practice, it's Yellow that is developing the quickest. She already understands a lot of what the coach is telling her, and wants to compete and show what she can do. Red wants to go home. She's no good at this, and in the back of her mind thinks that it's stupid that girls play football anyway. Red will eventually learn some motor skills if she keeps at it, but will take at least six months of hard work to be where Yellow was when Yellow was only two years old. After three months of classes, the head start that Yellow got has made her three times the player Red has become.

Such deviations, although seemingly small, are massive. It gains traction, like a snowball rolling down a hill, or like river erosion. A river cuts through the rock not due to its strength, but its persistence. Each interaction could be a nudge in the right or wrong direction. Everything in life prods us in one way or another. Sometimes it speeds us up, sometimes it slows us down. Sometimes we're nudged back on course, and sometimes we're nudged off course. Yellow, although, like the others, had never had a formal football session before, think of all the undocumented, unstructured, hours of play she had gotten. This gave her agility, balance, and coordination, and a massive advantage over the other girls in her group. What appeared natural was simply hours of informal practice.



The question we then ask from here is would it then take ten thousand hours of practice for these kids to make it as professionals? Not quite, although it is a target they should both be striving for. If we're looking exclusively at football in England, and compare two twins, a boy and a girl, with everything else being equal, the two kids would have different entry requirements. We have to consider where "The Top" is, if they were to be professionals. Let's say they were both going to play for Manchester City or Chelsea, whose male and female teams are both very strong and are leading their gender. From someone who knows both sides of the game pretty well in this country, the best WSL sides cannot compete with the best Premier League sides. It is my opinion that if transferred to the men's game, for comparative skill level, the WSL would be below even the Vanarama National League. That's right; I believe Aldershot Town would defeat Man City Ladies.

It's like being able to get into Oxford University or Southampton Solent University. Oxford is at the top, with the best of the best, whereas Southampton Solent is near the bottom, with idiots like me listed as their alumnus. That's not to say that players like Carli Lloyd and Toni Duggan aren't fantastically skilled players, they are, and this is going to sound incredibly sexist, and anyone who has read my blogs will know that's not the case, but Carli Lloyd and Toni Duggan are good... for women. By men's standard's, they're not that great. And that's not a criticism of them, that's down to massive inequality within our sport.

The skill level at the top of the female game in England is drastically lower than the male game at the top in England. Therefore, one does not need to be as good to play in the WSL as in the Premier League. That's due to the female talent pool being shallower and weaker, than the male's deeper and more potent talent pool. That is as a result of coaching, bias, misogyny, sexism, discrimination, privilege, opportunities, support, gender roles etc. Assuming that everything was equal (which it definitely isn't) one might be able to say that it takes at least ten thousand hours for a boy to make it to the Premier League, whereas it takes a girl around six thousand hours to make it to the WSL.

Before considering how many hours it takes to get to the top, one must consider; where the top is, the skill level necessary to reach the top, the level of competition, and the talent pool. I've given the example before of how my college ultimate frisbee team, a team full of kids not good enough to make it into other sports teams, were crowned with a bronze medal at the world championships. That took them about one hundred hours of practice. Also consider the head start effect, in that by the time they started playing ultimate frisbee, they already knew how to run, jump, throw, catch, and had built-up agility, balance, coordination, and understood creation and exploitation of space. They knew that stuff from their experience in other sports.

Ultimate frisbee is a relatively new sport, so "the top" has not been pushed very high yet. Not many people play it, so the talent pool is shallow, and very few dedicate their lives to it, so the talent pool is also weak. If I invented a new sport right now, which was underwater cheeseburger chess, by default, I would be the best at it. A chess table is setup underwater, and each contestant has a platter of cheeseburgers by the side of the pool. We're combining several skills here; eating, swimming, holding your breath, and chess. Eating and swimming are two things that don't go well together, as is thinking through complex decisions while being out of breath. On top of that, it's hard to eat cheeseburgers while you're out of breath.



It works like this. Like the chess pieces, we'll go white and black. As is customary, white goes first. White is underwater at the chess table, while black's head is above water, about to begin the eating of cheeseburgers. Both players have their own chair under water, as well as their own platter of identical cheeseburgers on the side of the pool. A drink of soda is available, as well as ketchup, mustard, barbecue sauce, mayonnaise, and even burger sauce, if they so wish to use it. While white is down making a decision of which piece to move, Black is up top eating as many burgers as possible. Each player has as long as necessary to make a decision, with the only limit being how long they can hold their breath underwater. There is one point for every burger consumed. Double points for every extra burger consumed in one go, while the opponent is still below the water making a decision.

As soon as the player has made their move, they have to get above water. If they fail to do this in three seconds, they are disqualified. Once the head of the opponent appears above the water, the burger eater becomes the chess player, and vice versa. The burger eater turned chess player, has three seconds to now get underwater, and then an unlimited amount of time to make a decision, based on how long they can hold their breath. Points will be assigned for each chess piece the player can eliminate. Pawns are worth one point, bishops and knights are worth three points, rooks are five points, and the Queen is worth nine points. To eliminate the king instantly wins the game regardless of burgers consumed or pieces eliminated. It's a mentally and physically demanding game that can often end in stalemates, so we will cap it at ten or fifteen minutes. Whoever has the most points, burgers consumed + burger combos + pieces eliminated, wins the game, unless the king has been eliminated in that time.

What an amazing game that is. So the first few world champions establish the subjective expert level. It combines the skills of swimmers, eaters, and chess players. The best swimmers will not play this game, nor will the best food eaters, and certainly Garry Kasparov will not show up, even as a chess grand master. Instead, contestants will possess a mild ability in each of the three skills, and their strength will be combining the three, Chess with a time limit is different to normal chess, which is different to chess underwater with the time limit being the capacity of young lungs, while having to chew and swallow cheeseburgers.

If it was only ever myself and three friends that played it, it wouldn't take long for a fifth player to be able to join in and compete. Within only a few months, we would not have been playing long enough to establish expert strategy. We would only have been able to figure out what works better and what doesn't, Should I focus more on the burgers or the chess? We wouldn't have been playing long enough to understand how much coke we should drink with our burgers, whether we include mustard, and what the best chewing/swallowing techniques are. Nor would we have been able to think if it's best to try and eliminate as many pieces as possible, or to try and trap the king in a checkmate?



Without huge sponsorship, the prizes aren't going to be worth much, and so we wouldn't devote much time to winning. We'd have jobs of our own to concentrate on. This removes the dependency factor, like a poor child playing football in a third world country. Without a stream of income, we couldn't give up work to become good at it, and thus our devotion to practice would be minimal. We'd not be striving to get better, and there would be no incentive other than beating our mates. Suddenly, if it took off, and fans started showing up, we got a TV deal, and players all over the world started playing it, the bar for expert level would be raised much higher. There would be coaches, physios, sports scientists. Rather than wearing our shorts, we'd have body suits, goggles, and perhaps flippers. The bread, burger, and condiments would be routinely tested for performance improving substances, and would be under close scrutiny. Would McDonald's or Burger King be interested? Then we'd need to have debates about whether gherkins and onions should be allowed in the burgers. Does that depend on the player? Is it fair? We'd have teaching for breathing technique, and also how to chew and swallow underwater, to maximise our burger eating, and we'd have training from top chess players in fast-paced environments to make our chess decision making and strategy much better. Doubtless, before too long, there'd be some kids in China at age eight that have been locked in a swimming pool with a chessboard, and burgers on a conveyor belt. These kids would be Underwater Cheeseburger Chess champions. The UCC would govern the world game. Each continent would have it's own confederation, like UCCEA, and there would be each nation's equivalent, with the English one being simply referred to as The Underwater Cheeseburger Chess Association, since it was invented in this country, it wouldn't need 'England' to make it distinguishable from all the rest. We'd just know.

What would have started out as some friends being idiots for bragging rights, requiring minimal thought and practice, would have turned into an industry of its own right, with vast sums of investment, and an even larger field of study behind it. Everything would then push that bar further and further, and the required level of good practise to make it as a UCC world champion become higher and higher. In football terms, Uruguay were the first team to win the World Cup in 1930. Not everyone played it, and global football was hardly the monster then that it is now. Does anyone think that the Uruguay team of 2010 that finished fourth would struggle to beat that team? If we could transport Suarez, Forlan, and Cavani back in time, would they not be football gods back in 1930? Football has developed exponentially since then. Of course they would be.



In guitar terms, think of how much the instrument was brought along by the basic rhythmic riffs of Chuck Berry, to the virtuoso symphonies of Jimmy Page and Ritchie Blackmore. Led Zeppelin and Deep Purple were infinitely more skilled than Chuck Berry, but would not have become the great bands they became if not for the pioneering work of Chuck Berry. In probably one year of learning guitar, you could be as competent as Chuck Berry, when it would probably take you about ten years to play like Jimmy Page. I don't just mean being able to play every note of Stairway to Heaven, I'm also talking about doing it flawlessly, night after night, in front of thousands of people, while also having the creative genius to come up with the songs he did. I can break down and teach some Ronaldinho skills to kids. Some can do them competently. Until they can do it for Brazil in a World Cup, they are not worthy. Until they begin to make up their own, even better skills, they cannot be considered in the same breath as him.

"The top" is determined by many factors, but also for consideration is the window of opportunity. Most gymnasts are at their best as young teens, being at their most flexible. Their required number of hours practising begins when they are about two years old. If they start at six, they have missed four years of development, and lose that head start advantage. Not only that, but the body will have changed and adapted too much by then, that they would struggle to claw it back. They would struggle to become a world class gymnast, so have to practise intensely from a very early age, as they peak in their teens. If we take something less physical and more mental, it's possible to begin to specialise a lot later. You could probably pick up the guitar at around ten or eleven years old and still make it to world class, but as a gymnast, you must start as a toddler.

In addition to the window of opportunity, we have to consider the range of techniques and decisions that need to be made. A guitarist may only use two hands that do two distinct jobs, but each finger has its own special, and delicate role. These are incredibly fine motors skills that have to be perfected and crafted over many years. And then there's the chord patterns and the scales. And to this point, it becomes rehearsed routines. As an established band with a setlist, you play the same songs, and it's about playing those songs well to your audience. No new decisions are being made, only perfection of repeated performance. In Florida I once saw a band cover AC/DC's entire Back In Black album. As a massive AC/DC fan, I could have been convinced it was really them. Close your eyes and focus on the music alone, it sounded as if someone had put the disc into the CD player, and the musicians were just miming. It was perfect. But they were doing a copy. As great as that copy was, it was a rehearsed and perfected routine. They have the skill of Angus Young, but they don't have his creativity. That separates cover bands from the real thing. And what's the difference in practice quality or quantity? How much extra do the bands do to develop their song writing talent on top of their performing talent? It's hard to quantify that.

Sports like NASCAR and track cycling require little decision making. Instead, endurance sports, like track cycling and long distance running, they are known as "big engine" sports. To pedal a bike or to run does not require an incredible amount of technique or decision making, What is required here something else, which is mental. How long do you think it would take to be able to pedal a bike well enough like Bradley Wiggins? It's just one skill, so you could learn it a lot quicker than football, tennis, or basketball. How about the decision to know when to overtake? Again, there's not many variables to consider here, so it shouldn't take too long. What will take a long time is to develop the leg muscles, and the psychological strength of perseverance through pain and boredom. I hate running, because my mind is not being activated. The arms and legs move pretty much on autopilot. Once I have found my speed and got into a rhythm of steps and breathing, my mind is left to contemplate the universe. The skill of the action could be learnt fairly quickly, but the skill of competition could take years to master.

We're getting a lot closer to some grand unifying theory, but in reality, we've only scratched the surface. We're still miles off. There is no ten thousand hours rule, just know that you've got to practise a lot, and really hard, in order to get anywhere in life.

This is my best attempt at a schematic, and it is not an exhaustive list. Pretty much everything here interacts with everything else. There are too many links and variables to know what is more important than anything else. How much does one affect another? Which one is the most important? There are going to be many factors that I have missed or have understated. How do you even begin to put all this into a theory or an equation? Franck Ribery isn't very bright and struggles to learn new concepts, while Philipp Lahm is fascinated by the game and talks about it like a professor, yet the two are both incredibly successful for the same team. Some players come from middle class backgrounds, others are working class, and others are from poverty. Some had a head start by playing lots of football, while others played a bit of football and some other sports. Some players are more confident than others. We all have many differently influencing coaches and teammates along the way. It's too big, too vast, and too random to explain it easily. My best attempt on PowerPoint does not do it justice. This was simply an idea to give those of you out there who are unsure of skill development, some kind of idea into how difficult it is to measure and accurately predict how it will work based on everything that can nudge or prod an athlete's development, either positively or negatively.

One aspect alone is not the deciding factor. They all interact and depend upon each other. Without one factor, it could be crucial, yet another factor may make up for the loss one. Don't apply the ten thousand hours rule to your profession literally. Consider what is needed to get to the top, and map it out.

There's Nothing Wrong with Huddersfield's Selection

Last weekend, as Rovers fought against Aston Villa, relegation rivals Birmingham entertained Huddersfield at home. There was a two point gap between Blackburn and Birmingham, and both teams won, maintaining the distance, with Birmingham just outside the relegation zone. Both teams winning managed to drag Nottingham Forest into the mix.

Initially, it appeared Birmingham would have the tougher fixtures, until Huddersfield qualified for the playoffs, and could afford to take their foot off the gas and rest a few players after a long season, before going into the playoffs, looking to get into the Premier League. Huddersfield made ten changes to their lineup for the Birmingham game, leading many to accuse them of not playing their strongest squad. I know nothing about Huddersfield's squad, so cannot judge whether it was a strong lineup or not. Many others have a similar knowledge of Huddersfield to me, yet feel qualified to judge.

The Football League are investigating Huddersfield's team selection and are considering a fine. Apparently all teams have to play their strongest side available, as per league rules. What we struggle with here is who determines that? Perhaps if they had fielded their U9s, I could see a problem, but I'm struggling. All the players who played that day were professional footballers, signed by Huddersfield, with the intent to play football for Huddersfield. A lot of Rovers fans think Jason Lowe is useless, yet he keeps getting played. He's the captain. Does this mean that Rovers are not fielding their strongest team with him in it? It's entirely subjective. What if the manager has decided to play with only one striker instead of two or three? That means leaving a good player on the bench. Is that illegal? It's something that is hard to determine and hard to set a precedent for.

The stats from the game showed that Huddersfield clearly did give it a good go.

Before we move any further, it must be noted that Blackburn were at home to Aston Villa, Birmingham's biggest rivals. Villa beat Birmingham the week before in a hotly contested derby. The fans saw it as Villa's mission to relegate their city rivals. They wanted to beat Birmingham and then, the following week, lose to Rovers. They took thousands of fans to Ewood Park, who were urging their team to lose, because it would hopefully put Birmingham in a bad situation. Villa played like they were already on the beach. Two games remaining, no chance of relegation or promotion, and fans chanting, cheering, and singing for their own team to lose, in order to hurt their rivals.

Tony Mowbray understands. Rovers have to look after themselves.

The situation is very similar to something which occurs in the top European leagues quite frequently, and has done for many years. Your team is a side struggling at the bottom of the table. You're out of the cups and you don't play in Europe. The team you're playing against on Saturday is doing very well, competing near the top of the table. They have done well in the cups and in Europe. You will only be playing forty games this season, whereas your opponents are approaching sixty. Before your game against them on Saturday, they have a Champions League semi-final on the Wednesday, three days after playing on a Sunday. Inevitably there will be tired players. There will be rotation due to fatigue, and there will be injuries. A big side like Bayern, Barca, Chelsea, Real Madrid, Juventus, Man City etc. should be able to beat Ingolstadt, Granada, Sunderland etc. even with quite a few second string players on the field. If you could select five players to have in your team, and your choice was between the Sunderland starting lineup, and the Chelsea bench, from which place will you be recruiting your players? It's obvious. Huddersfield at the top should have enough quality to beat Birmingham at the bottom. Some will cite the effect the new manager at Birmingham will have, good old 'Arry Rednkapp. Some will say that although it was Huddersfield's second string, there will be players in there looking to impress in order to gain a place in the playoff starting eleven, with a chance to play at Wembley.

We accept it. We sometimes hope for it. There are injuries, fatigue, suspensions, losses of form, and even rotation due to congested fixture lists, and shuffling of teams as managers juggle priorities. We love it when we find out the opposition's top scorer is injured, their captain suspended, or their first choice keeper is being given a rest. Birmingham were given an advantage, but I don't think it was an unfair one, just a lucky one. Look at the idea of suspensions, and how it doesn't hurt the current opponent, but the next one. If a player receives a red card late in the game, or a yellow card that accumulates to a suspension, the opponent of that game doesn't see to much benefit from it, but the next one, two, or three, will. That's football, and every team understands the rules, and the chances of benefiting or being punished by those rules.

Huddersfield Town have had a great season, and deserve to be in the position they're in. They deserve the right to not have to care so much about their last few games. They deserve to be able to rest or rotate players. They have been a credit to themselves and the league, and they have the points tally and table position that truly reflects their output. It's not their fault that Rovers, Forest, and Birmingham are in the situation they're in. It's not their problem, and it's not their priority. Those three teams are near the bottom because they deserve to be. It is self-inflicted.

In the case of Rovers, it has been down to poor players, Owen Coyle, but overwhelmingly, it is the owners that have caused this situation. The decline of Blackburn Rovers has been steady and disappointing since 2011. If Rovers are relegated, it's because of what Venky's have done to the club, and not because of Huddersfield or anyone else. The fact that the team is in this position; going into the final game in pole position for relegation to the league below, should be a wake-up call to Venky's. Steve Kean's results, the PL relegation, and the years of terrible football and results to match, should be enough. If Rovers do pull off a miracle and manage to stay in the division, it doesn't paper over the cracks. The club is not suddenly fixed. The squad is still awful, the football still terrible, and the owners still the worst ever. It changes nothing other than whether Rovers are in the second or third division next August.

Put yourself in the position of Huddersfield fans. If your team was to put out a perceived strong team against Birmingham, win the game, but maybe pick up an injury or two, or jade a couple players who are close to exhaustion, and that then jeopardises your playoff chances, at no point will you be consoled by that warm glowing feeling of "We may have lost the playoffs due to fatigue, but at least we were fair to Blackburn and Forest by making sure we gave Birmingham a good game!" You would be annoyed and questioning the priorities of the manager.

One of the problems with football fans is that we judge, and form heavily weighted opinions, on just one decisive issue that is often on a knife-edge. Aldershot just lost 3-0 at home to Tranmere in the first leg of the Conference playoffs. Does that mean they are a terrible team? Does that mean Tranmere are better? If you only base it on that, then you could make that argument. But consider that Aldershot recently drew 2-2 away at Tranmere in the league, and beat them 3-1 at home, and also that Aldershot have obtained the second most points in the league since the start of the year, clearly tonight's result was uncharacteristic. Yet it is decisive. Out of all those facts, 3-0 to Tranmere is the most important.

So if Rovers do dramatically stay up, or go down, and it is by one goal, does that mean that it was Huddersfield's fault? Or who else is there to blame? Blackburn have conceded plenty of stupid late goals. Shane Duffy scored three own goals in two games before leaving for Brighton. Some fans are far more annoyed at that than they are Huddersfield. In reality, if Rovers had got themselves in order, it wouldn't matter what Huddersfield do. If you want to be successful, you don't rely on others. You can benefit from their actions, but your success is entirely down to your own talent, hard work, and perseverance. There's been little of that from Blackburn.

The fixture list and the circumstances surrounding each individual game are often luck of the draw. That's just the way the cookie crumbles. But if after forty games, you find yourself in a relegation dogfight, it's your own fault, and definitely not the result of a game between two teams that are not your own.