Tactical Porn: Is it warping our expectations of reality?

Usually when I write an article, I claim to have, or at least suggest some answers. In this one, I am simply asking a question. I'm not sure where the line is drawn.

Many human problems can come down to one simple concept; gratification delay. Porn is quick, easy, and on demand. It doesn't have to be worked for, and the viewer can see pretty much whatever they like.

The Rules of the Internet have been around since before the dawn of time. 95% of internet users won't understand 90% of the references within this list above. Anyway. Without testing the theory of Rule 34, one can reasonably assume that there is a considerable amount of truth behind it. Like my points that I continuously make about modern music, you don't have to earn it, deserve it, or be good at it. It can be made or found instantly.

Learn about gratification delay here.

I'm not here for a moral debate about porn. I'm merely using it as a parallel to illustrate my points. Most of the articles or research about porn and the effects come from very biased points of view, usually from people with an axe to grind.

Now. The experiment to explain gratification delay is a scenario involving children and food. Children are offered one cookie, which they can consume instantly. Or, they can wait while the researcher goes out to complete an errand, and be able to consume two cookies. It's one positive now versus two positives later. It's why we stay up late watching trash TV rather than getting a good night's sleep. As a species, our biggest setbacks come from valuing the now rather than the later. Like I have mentioned in other articles, it comes as a clash between two well-known mantras of life that are juxtaposed; "you only live once" versus "great things come to those who wait". "Live for today" versus "you get the chicken by hatching the egg, not by smashing it." To me, "you only live once" means to be wise and consider the future when choosing your actions, as a mistake could mean you never reach the future. It certainly doesn't mean snapbacks and selfies #YOLO.

Love a bit of that gegenpressing.

In football, we see that many top flight managers barely have the paint in the letters of their name dry on the door before they are replaced. Fans and directors demand instant success. A team like Southampton, who were nearly ruined by their owners, and went down two divisions, made a meteoric rise back to the Premier League. Two successive promotions, and creating a wave of young talent that now heavily represents the England team. Large sponsorship deals, cup finals, and European runs. They even reached their highest ever Premier League finish of 5th the year before last. Still, many fans were saying then manager, Ronald Koeman was boring and needed to be replaced. That the club wasn't ambitious enough because they kept selling their best talent at inflated prices. Southampton, on the brink of extinction, is not a distant memory. They have been back in the Premier League for about six seasons. And even if the club were able to afford hundreds of millions on star signings, that works infrequently. Chelsea and Man City are consistently bankrolled by hundreds of millions each season. There's no way clubs like Southampton can afford that, yet the clubs fans moan. There really is no pleasing some people.

I would suggest, as I frequently do, that many fans are deluded, angry, disappointed with life, and link their feelings of self-efficacy with the success of their football team. It's a dangerous game to play; to put your faith into the results of something you have no control of. Listen to any football radio call-in, and the grumpiest fans are often the ones of the most successful teams, like they've been spoilt. Nobody has sympathy for Manchester United or Arsenal fans complaining about finishing outside the top four. Nobody.

Ultimately, football is a results business, and the fans, as long term investors, have a lot of sway. It's not necessarily the season ticket holder, thirty years man and boy, but the ability to sell shirts in the Middle East, East Asia, and North America. This means that many clubs, on the football side of things, view it as a means to an end. Win trophies to sell shirts. And that produces short-termism. We're scared of failing, of falling behind, that we neglect the future. They are spinning plates, and when one falls, it can be catastrophic.

Fancy some juego de posicion constellations?

The short term thinking plagues the English game. We have changed it at the lower levels, and we're seeing some great success with the England youth teams internationally. Sadly, many of us succumb to the unfortunate reality that most of the young England stars will fail to manifest, and this success won't be replicated at senior level. We'd love it to happen, but it probably won't. Premier League teams will always buy a mediocre, but dependable foreign player, as opposed to a nineteen year old with potential, but who needs a bit of work. Between eighteen and twenty-two, Dutch, German, French, Spanish, Belgian, and Portuguese players, play four times as many games as our boys do. This summer transfer window has seen a few of our young English talent go abroad in search of game time. Something I have been suggesting for years.

At the top, the managers don't have the time or patience to build a team and develop players. Like our politicians, their primary concern is to get re-elected, not necessarily the well-being or development of the people in their care. Premier League managers need to keep their job. They won't be prepared to give a game to a seventeen year old. This means a lot of the managers play functional football. Any kind of intricate game model comes from abroad, and is usually brought into England to be implemented immediately. Foreign managers like Pep, Klopp, Conte, and Mourinho might be given six months or a season to implement their game model, but if they're not running away with the league and cup double in their second season, they run the risk of losing their job.

English coaches, and therefore English teams, aren't on the crest of the wave of tactical evolution. We're always a few years behind. Always catching up or responding, never leading the way. This naturally affects our players. Not all English coaches and players are tactically dim. That's an unfair generalisation, but it does ring true for a majority. I have had advanced tactical discussions with armchair fans in other countries. In England, the armchair fan is only concerned with football gossip.

"That Rooney's not very good, is he."
"He's leading goalscorer for club and country."
"But he's ugly, stupid, and comes across as arrogant. And he likes grannies!"

Fair enough.

The reason for this article came from a dilemma that was being discussed a few months back. Working as the development coach, at the end of training, the first team manager, myself, and a few others with inactive social lives, would then spend a long time dissecting the session, the game, and the interactions. We're not obsessed. Obsessed makes it seem like it's a hobby. We need a stronger word. One night he was talking about how his players just didn't get, what seemed to us, like a simple concept. These are decent players playing in tier three of the female game in England. I could get it, he could get it, why couldn't his players? Some of them simply couldn't conceptualise it. Their brains lacked the capacity to understand it. Others could see what was being asked of them, but didn't value it.

They were being asked to press the ball in a way which is unfamiliar within English football. It's quite popular on the continent, particularly in Spain. We were reeling off teams and coaches that had used it, and how it was a good system. From my conversations with the players, I had never got the sense that too many were into watching football. A few were. Most just loved playing it, and were good at it. They hardly even watched Match of the Day, let alone had any intrigue towards Borussia Dortmund v RB Leipzig or Sevilla v Atletico Madrid. And this is where we were drawing our inspiration from. We're hooked on this stuff. As more than obsessed coaches, we watch multiple games on television per week. When there's no games, we watch recordings, highlights, and YouTube. We are looking to enhance and expand our knowledge of football. In those hours of games, we may pick up something, maybe even one thing, that brings us closer to helping our team and players achieve success.

This is where the question then entered my head. At what level should we pitch it? Are we wasting our time teaching old dogs new tricks? Should we be trying to enhance their knowledge and understanding of the game? Should we just be working with what we've got?

Love watching two Spaniards go at it.

We both decided that under no circumstances were we ever to be okay with simply "settling" for simple, direct, English 4-4-2. It was alright for Leicester City though. Is that snobbery? Is that arrogance? A lot of it depends on the role. As development coach, I worked with mainly teenagers. They were still a lot more malleable and receptive to change. They're still ten years or so from the finished article. In the first team, the players are a bit older, though we did have a fairly young squad. The players can still learn, improve, and adapt at their age, but the club might not be so kind to afford such time and space to grow. If the results aren't coming, it won't matter that their passing is looking crisp and fluid. The players, the fans, the board want to win now. They don't want to wait for next season.

As I can see it, there are two main schools of thought; make the best with what you have, and develop your players to become better footballers. I'm not saying that both can't be done together, just that one is always a priority over the other. With young footballers, we're not looking to win today as much as we're looking to win the game in fifteen or twenty years. A win at U9 level means nothing if it doesn't translate to a win when the player is in their twenties. And as coaches, it is our job to take them from where they are, and transport them to a higher level of football ability and understanding. We do that by challenging, pushing, extending. We throw at them things that are difficult. We make them do things that they can't yet do. They struggle at first. We can't always do that in a first team environment. Our main concern is getting the job done at the weekend. If we're 3-0 up with ten minutes to go, we might give the kid some minutes. We're going to play in the way that is best for us and for the team. It doesn't matter who is left out.

What I think a lot of the friction comes from is us, as coaches, viewing these games as spectators, and witnessing the gegenpressing, or the juego de posicion, and wanting to replicate it with our teams, when in reality, that might not be what they want, nor may it be the best thing for them. Much like watching porn and then wanting to replicate what has been seen with a valued and consenting adult. The thing you're seeing is not everyone's cup of tea. What is being viewed is being performed by highly trained professionals that dedicate a lot of time and effort to being able to perform that way. Is it selfish of me to want to play like Barcelona with a team more suited to playing like Stoke? Is it devaluing them? Making them feel unappreciated? Does it leave them wondering if I think about other teams when I'm with them?

Or is it ambitious?

If you want better and can achieve better, go and pursue better. If you're in a situation where you're locked in, perhaps you have to do the best with what you've got. Winning a trophy with a 4-4-2 is still a trophy won. If you don't want to play direct football, you don't have to, but if your team doesn't or can't effectively play the way you want to play, you need to find a new team or be happy with what you've got.

We know this one. As players become older, the emphasis moves away from the development of the player to the success of the team. As their age increases, the amount of time and effort the coach will place on their development will reduce Therefore, somewhere along that line blue line is where we move from challenging and extending the individual, making the transition into making the best with what we've got. A lot of the when and where will depend on the demands of the region and the philosophy of the club.

Let's look to refine the real question underneath all this. It pertains to competitive, first team environments. When you are in charge of a group of players, you owe it to them to make them better. By the time you leave, they should be richer for your time there. Their technique and understanding will have improved. Yet this can't always be done with every player, and a one-size fits all approach inevitably leaves some neglected. Naturally, if you come in mid-season to a club in trouble, your job is to steady the ship. There's no time to prepare and to extend. Results are needed immediately. On the other hand, coming into a safe club midway into the season can be like an extended pre-season. There's no pressure to perform just yet, and the coach won't be judged until the following year. That allows time for the development of a game model.

When creating and implementing a game model with a group of players, adults competing in a first team environment, what needs to be considered before deciding upon the strategy? It's not an exact science - it rarely is in football.

• The ability of the players at your disposal.
• The ability of the players in the wider context of the competition.
• The tactical understanding of the players.
• The effectiveness of those tactics within the wider context of the competition.
• The resources available to you; coaching staff, facilities, equipment etc. to help prepare the team tactically.
• The patience and support of the stakeholders.

Most players are concerned with two things when presented with a new way of playing; can I do it? And will it win us games? If the third question of "is it hard work?" is asked, then remove such lazy players from your team. It doesn't matter what system you play, they're not prepared to fight alongside the team in the trenches.

Cover me in your shadow.

And remember to do right by them. What is best for your players? Adapting principles of juego de posicion to enhance the understanding of your youth team can be a good thing to do. Forcing a group of tanks to play intricate football is probably more for the ego of the coaches than it is for the benefit of the players. Still, I stand by what I said. I'm not happy to just play direct, simple, football. I want to improve and to experiment, and I want to be in environments that allow me to achieve success with creativity, rather than forcing it with function. Probably best I stick with development players.

What do you think?

Deconstructing the Thought Process of Game Changing Decisions

According to Marcelo Bielsa, there are five reasons that a team wins a game of football. Guardiola shoves in one more. The five are within the control of the team, yet we know there are some things outside of our control in football. Luck is not some kind of mystical force that punishes those with bad karma. Luck in football is to benefit from an incident that is outside of your control. Steven Gerrard slipping against Chelsea was bad luck. Chelsea did nothing to force that, and there was no way that anyone could have foreseen or predicted such an incident. But it happened, and it changed the game.

As football is a low scoring game, each goal has huge ramifications. A goal can come at any second. There are no rules or absolutes to predict football. Even the trends and the correlations can only tell us about the past, and not the future. The difference in goals scored between two teams is often only one, yet it means a huge amount. Two teams can have almost identical performances, yet gain half a yard on one opportunity, which is enough to score the winning goal in a game where the two teams were otherwise inseparable.

It could even be that by performance metrics that the losing team far outplays the winning team. In 2012, Barcelona were far better than Chelsea in the Champions League semi-final, yet Chelsea outperformed Barca in the one category that counts; goals. We know this happens a lot in football, yet that game was the extreme.

Entertain the idea for a while that football, in some alternate universe, rewards teams differently. In our current universe, the tiniest difference in performance can be rewarded richly or punished brutally. How about, in this alternate universe, the points earned from a game reflect the goals scored? A draw is worth one point, as it is in our current universe. In the alternate universe, the points for a win are directly related to the goal margin. A team that wins 1-0 gains one point. A team that wins 4-0 gains four points. A team that wins 4-3 gains one point. The losing team gets nothing. As most wins are decided by just one goal, the league would look a lot more even.

The team that wins the league is obviously far better than the team that finishes bottom. Yet the difference between the two is often exaggerated by the way the points system works (unless it’s Sunderland). Don’t misunderstand me; I’m not belittling, disliking, or wishing to change the points system in football. I think it’s fine. As a coach, I am merely pointing out that the difference between winning and losing in football comes down to the inch, and then the difference in rewards for this inch is a chasm between the winning team and the losing team.

How do we win football games? Us English will tell you that it is guts, determination, sweat, perseverance, and everything else that we associate with the lovable loser. It’s true that there are times that your desire will get you over the line, but it doesn’t make you a better player. A pub team could play Bayern Munich, and be so psyched up for the game. They’re at a big stadium, with all the fans, and it is the best day of their lives. The Bayern players would see it is an inconvenience, and would likely not try very hard. The difference in motivation levels could be huge, but it pales in comparison to the difference in quality. Bayern would destroy the pub team, even if the pub team were fighting for their lives. The English passion we believe we have is a myth. Other countries are equally as passionate as we think we are. The difference is we don’t actively encourage diving, and somehow through cognitive dissonance, makes us think we’re tougher than the Spanish or Argentinians.

Anyway.

Let’s quantify these. Some are fairly simple and largely self-explanatory. Some may overlap a little.

1.      Tactically – I often refer football tactics to the game of rock, paper, scissors, merely for the ideals of simplicity. You got rock, they had scissors. You win. Easy. Football is far more nuanced than this in reality, and tactics are not the be all and end all of games, but simply a framework for the team’s performance routine. One coach could outsmart the opponent, and the game is won.

Even this is nuanced. Good or bad tactics may not be enough to win the game by itself. A team could have an inhibiting tactical setup, and still find themselves winners, due to the technical quality of their players. A team may be superior tactically, yet will need to be superior physically to make it effective. Allardyce teams are traditionally long ball, challenging aerially. They try to shape the game to their parameters. To be effective at this game, the team needs to be tall and strong. Height and strength are not the only important physical factors in football, but if you are to play long ball, then they become vital. It’s necessary to have dominance in these areas if you are to be successful by the parameters of the game you insist on playing.

2.      Technically – I talked earlier about Bayern v the pub team. Rarely will we find such genuine discrepancy between two teams. Often it happens in cups that are played between different divisions, yet the teams are not as far apart as the aforementioned extremes. The team with the better players should win, unless the tactics are used in such a way that nullifies their threat. Or even having a player that is technically excellent, who can suddenly make the difference at any moment.

I will use the example of Thierry Henry for the Red Bulls. Accumulatively, 11v11, Red Bulls would be only slightly better than their opponent. Randomly pick a 1v1, 2v2, or 3v3, and include Thierry Henry, whichever side he is on will be stacked. Speaking in terms of FIFA ratings for video games, the average MLS player would be between 60/100 and 70/100. Henry, even when older, was still above 80/100. In a 1v1 versus the defender, Henry is more likely to win. In a 3v3, although being just one sixth of the personnel, his superior quality would make the difference. Not every time, but enough times. It only needs to work once to win the game, and with technically superior players, they are more likely to make that once count.

3.      Physically – A team that dies after eighty minutes is giving their opponents a ten-minute advantage. Can we score more goals in eighty, than you can in ninety? Or, for the last half an hour, we’re only going to play at 70% capacity, because we lack stamina. It’s amazing how many teams do that to themselves, by not being able to go the distance.

We’re not just concerned with stamina though, as that is one facet. We should also consider the physical attributes and how they relate to the technical and tactical attributes. Are your players tall and strong, but lacking with their feet? Play the game in the air. Are your players small but technical? Keep the ball on the ground and master possession. Managers like Pulis, Hughes, and Allardyce recognise that their players are huge brutes, and so use that physical advantage.

4.      Mentally – We have to give some credit and responsibility to the players. They may be able to figure it out on the pitch. They may come up with a solution to a small problem or frequently occurring play. An intelligent player may have sussed out the runs or positioning of an opponent, and thus taken a different strategy to exploit that side of their game.

The mental side of the game is more about mental strength in this regard. Confidence, self-efficacy, motivation, toughness, arousal etc. We frequently see teams panic and blow their chances, often an underdog who was never been to the top before, or we see big teams that underestimate their opponents, take their eye off the ball, and are punished by smaller teams. The latter happens each year in the FA Cup. And we should also factor in responses to in game occurrences. How do you deal with being 2-0 up or down? An unjust sending off? An own goal? Missed penalty? Goalkeeping error? Elbow in the face that goes unpunished? You can’t change what happened, and it takes a lot of strength for players to not mentally crumble, or to go crazy and start looking to fight everyone. Keep your cool and remain focussed.

5.      Preparation – This factor concerns different aspects from above. A terrible warm-up means a team is not prepared physically. Not scouting the opposition means you are underprepared tactically and can be caught out. Teams and individuals have to give themselves the best chance from the start. Fail to prepare, prepare to fail. Many players underestimate that, and are stuck in second gear until the opposition are a goal or two ahead (Mexico at the Confederations Cup).

6.      Luck – As mentioned before, luck is benefiting from something that is outside of your control. A bad call, a slip, a deflection etc. No description necessary, only this video.

How did Chelsea come out of this game alive?

Barcelona outperformed Chelsea in by every metric. Chelsea had ten players, and Messi missed a penalty. The Torres goal at the end came from him being in the right place, after missing a tackle, and strutting off in a huff. A clearance then happened to land at his feet, while he was completely isolated. If it happened in a movie, we’d walk out for it being too absurd to believe.

Let us now examine the thought process that is behind substitutions. This isn’t one of those early round cup games where the coach plays the kids, and is quite happy with being eliminated to avoid fixture congestion, and so at 1-0 down may replace the better players with the less experienced. No. This is 1-0 down on 70 minutes in a game that you desperately need to win.

What needs to be considered? We’ll work backwards.

• ·         Luck is not a strategy. You’re just as likely to benefit from luck without making a change. You can’t influence the officials or the likelihood of Slippy G. You can make a change of some kind that would otherwise have your players in the opposition’s area more often, meaning that if the referee were to give a penalty for no reason, it would likely be for you. Still, it’s unpredictable, and outside our sphere of influence.
• 
  
• ·        We cannot prepare at this point. There are no timeouts. The best we have is live instructions. Some coaches take a substitution to bring a couple payers over and give information, pass around notes, or tell the sub to pass the message on. Very difficult to prepare at this point, unless we know it could go to extra time, but we’d still need a goal to happen first.
• 
  
• ·         How determined or resilient are your players? At this point in, there’s no opportunity for Al Pacino type speeches. Bringing on an influential player may have an impact. At 1-0 down, I can imagine players like Roy Keane and Alan Shearer coming off the bench being able to give players a mental boost. It may squeeze an extra 10% out of each individual. Unless there’s an injury that they are recovering from, these players rarely start from the bench.
• 
  
• ·         Will the players be able to compete? Can they dig in? Do they have anything left in the tank? Barring some miracle juice, there’s nothing more the coach can do for the players physically at that stage. If the players are tiring, or the opposition is tiring, there can be tactical changes that mask or exploit that. A substitution could work positively if, for example, the opposition left back is exhausted, but won’t be coming off. Bring on a fresh right winger, and go at the left back with speed. Or conversely, subs are made for injury or fatigue, to avoid a negative rather than create a positive.
• 
  
• ·         Are there any improvements that can be made? Is someone having a bad game? Do you need a different type of player in such a position? Perhaps you have identified that the opposition can’t defend crosses, and need to bring on a striker that is able to win headers.
• 
  
• ·         If making such a sub, consider what you will gain and what you will lose from that change. In the above example, the striker may be better at winning headers, but not so good at the high press, thus allowing the opposition to play out from the back better. If the opposition can build their attacks, they become more of a threat. They would also have more possession, meaning you may get less opportunities to cross.

Lastly, we’re going to look at a tactical change, and there are three things to consider here;

• ·         Do you need a sub?
• ·         Does your team have the knowledge/ability/experience to successfully enact and implement this plan?
• ·         What are the chances the change will work?

At Bayern, Pep would make changes that were risky, and borderline insane. His players were physically superior, technically superior, and more intelligent. They would also be better prepared. A lot of teams have a Plan A and sometimes and Plan B. Bayern would have about five or six plans, and although they would work extensively on this during training, due to their intelligence, the plans would work better and more effectively in the game than if any other team tried them

Counter-attack is the way to win the game, but do our players understand how to play in the necessary formation, and do we have the speed to hit the opponents on the break? Bayern always did. Other teams might not.

The opposition are apparently susceptible to long balls over the top. Do we have a target man? Do we have defenders with long accurate passes? Do we have fast wingers able to make the runs in behind to receive the diagonals? We can identify the solution, but might not have the tools. Much like car failure. This part has failed and needs to be replaced. Step one. But that doesn’t help you if you don’t have the part, and can’t get hold of one. Pep’s Bayern seemed to always have the part.

When considering the chance it will work, look at the scenario. There are twenty minutes remaining, you are 2-1 down, so two goals are needed to win the game. In seventy you scored zero. How likely are you to score two in twenty? It’s highly unlikely. There’s only 22% of the game left, and if you score two goals, that will account for 67% of the game’s total goals being scored in that 22% of time. That’s a hard ask.

So we have identified that crosses are the answer. We have brought on our big powerful forward, and we are going to launch balls into the box. In the Premier League, it is roughly sixty-six crosses per goal. You could score with the first cross, the tenth cross, the sixtieth cross, or the hundredth cross. You could even score from two crosses. We just don’t know. With the other team looking to hold onto their lead, will they sit back and park the bus? With your forward coming on that can’t press, does that allow the opposition more possession? How many crosses can you put in during those twenty minutes? How many of them will be good? Especially against a parked bus defence. How many does your striker need to attack in order to score one goal? Two goals? If it were that easy to identify and change our plans, football would be a lot higher scoring than it is.

What do you know about your opponent? To be able to judge whether any of your tactical changes will work, or whether any of your subs will make the difference, you have to know how the opposition will respond. If you put on that 6’5’’ striker for the last twenty minutes and launch crosses into the box, we have to consider how the opponents might react, and if this has a knock-on effect in other areas. They themselves may have used all of their subs, but have a tall striker of their own. All game they have been playing long looking for their striker to win headers, and then capitalise the second ball. They might decide to move their striker into defence to nullify the threat of yours, by having someone tall to compete aerially. Doing so would alter their plan for an out-ball, so do they have a way of adjusting their attack in order to compensate for the missing target player? Do they feel they need to? They were playing 4-4-2, and for twenty minutes will now be at 5-4-1, with that extra defender. Perhaps they believe they can defend effectively like this against what you have for twenty minutes.

As a coach we must evaluate the following;

Opposition strengths and weaknesses
Your strengths and weaknesses
View it all within the context of the game

Context of the game includes factors like momentum, form, referee, and weather. Could you switch to a slick passing game if the pitch is muddy? Is it reasonable to play a high press during a scorching hot afternoon? Should you try to rough up your opponents if the referee is card happy? You may have a genius creative midfielder on the bench, but in the last five games, they couldn’t hit a barn door. You want your keeper to sweep, but they have recently had a personal tragedy, and their mind is elsewhere, so it’s probably not best to pass the ball backwards to the keeper when under pressure.

If we recognise their strengths and weaknesses, and our strengths and weaknesses, and we can apply this during the context of the game, there are then a series of questions we need to answer to evaluate if this change can and should be implemented;

• ·         What is the negative v the positive of the change? In what way does it strengthen us? In what way does it weaken us?
• ·         What is the change likely to cause? In a tight game, any adjustment risks exposure. By changing to expose the opponents, how much do we expose ourselves?
• ·         What is the frequency of such an action? We have identified the outcome that is likely to happen as a result of our change. Do we just want it to happen once, or a lot more?

·         On average, how many times does it need to happen before it is successful? We have brought on the creative midfielder, thinking they can slip the striker through on goal. If it is only going to happen once in twenty minutes, how certain are we tat the striker will score that chance? Does the striker need roughly four chances before a goal is scored?

·         How long will it take the opposition to realise the plan? Some changes we make are obvious, whereas others are more subtle. For very shouty coaches, the opposition will know right away

·         How likely are the opposition to be effective and stopping your plan? They have identified what you are trying to do, but can they do anything about it? . Knowing and solving the problem are two different things though, as we all know Robben will cut inside and shoot, but very few can stop him.

All of the above is difficult to quantify. It’s all rough estimates and gut feeling. I have had my teams boss games, creating chance after chance, with my keeper not touching the ball, but won 1-0 in the last minute. I have also had games where my team created as many chances as the opposition, and the game looked quite even, but we won 6-0. There are trends, but it is never an exact science. The stats and the averages can only tell us about what happened, and we can obtain an idea of what is likely to happen, but it doesn’t provide us with any rules. Like the sixty-six crosses. On which of those sixty-six are you going to score your goal? And just because it is an average of sixty-six, doesn’t mean that you won’t score four goals from your next thirty crosses. Everything we do in football, we are not quite rolling the dice, as we have some influence, but there is always a gamble, always a risk. My team might score more frequently from crosses due to; the quality of delivery, the quality of attacker, and that we are playing early low crosses, rather than high long ones.

As coaches, we all hold certain beliefs, preferences, or even biases. This can shape and distort our views. Just because something worked in the past, doesn’t mean it will work now. And just because it worked, it may not have worked for the reasons the coach thinks it did. It can sometimes be completely unrelated. Have you ever known a sub to come on the field, and not be involved in the process of the winning goal, yet will cheekily claim “We only won that because of me. Game changed when I came on.” I’m certain I have said that myself.

As usual, here are a series of pictures thrown together from a Google search that illustrate the point.

Tactical changes come with context. I wrote earlier about how we may have identified the solution, but do we have the tools to pull it off? Remember when I said Pep’s Bayern had all the tools. These were extremely talented players that could understand, process, and implement just about any adjustment Guardiola threw at them. Not all coaches have that luxury.

Have you worked on it before? You think it would make sense to switch from two forwards to three forwards. Does everyone know what they will be doing? Build-up, pressure, positioning, constellations etc. You believe they know it, but are they any good at it? How good? Can it be successful? That also depends on the opposition. How well do you know your players? How well do you know the opposition? Is it a stab in the dark? Is it a roll of the dice?

We look at the Risk v Reward within the context of our expectations from the players, units, team, and match. It happens rarely, but it does happen, to figure out the solution, but not have the players with the technical ability or tactical understanding to pull it off. Then we are powerless to watch the remainder of the game, hoping for the random factor or luck.

Coaches should also try to be aware, or the team of coaches should try to be aware, of unconsidered or undervalued circumstances. In your league games, your team plays with a soft Nike football. Now they are playing with a rock solid Jako ball, like they use in the Conference. It’s a small difference, but over distance that adds up. A twenty-five yard free-kick with a Nike ball bends into the top corner. The Jako ball doesn’t give enough, so the curl is less exaggerated, and goes straight to the keeper. Or maybe the player is having trouble at home, and the coaches have been oblivious. This means that after eighty minutes, when the game is looking lost, they unconsciously switch off and think about their personal problems. The coach screams at them for not trying hard enough, and the player is pushed to the brink of breakdown. There are so many factors such as this that are beyond the tactics of the game. We can’t prepare or anticipate all of them, but we can heighten our awareness and understanding.

There are many variables that we don’t consider, see, or value. The opposition plays with a high line, so the coach feels the correct form of attack is to counter. Upon initiating the first counter it turns out that the defence are lightning quick. That had not been evident before until it was tested. The coach then traps the opposition backline into committing an extra defender to join the attack. The defender takes the bait, the ball is hit over the top into the gap left by the defender, and the onrushing sweeper keeper comes out to calmly defuse the situation. Now what? We didn’t know this before. How do we deal with it?

It’s time for the second scenario.

That is a lot of information before we have even begun to dissect the match tactically. We will do that shortly. So much of this is psychological, and that determines how we apply our tactics in the second half. What can we figure out?

• ·         It’s a twenty team league, meaning it’s probably a fairly high level. Money is at stake.
• ·         We’re playing away, so won’t be surrounded by our adoring fans. It could be hostile and uncomfortable.
• ·         We are sixteenth, meaning we could be trying to avoid a relegation battle.
• ·         The opposition are second, and probably gunning for the title. It also means there are plenty of league places between us, and likely a lot of quality.
• ·         We are winning by two goals, which is probably unexpected for them and for us.
• ·         It is half-time, so we have a chance to evaluate and implement a plan for the second half. So too does the opposition.

·         In our previous game we lost 4-0 to the opponents, at home. That would have hurt. Are we being spurred on by the thought of revenge? Does the opposition believe we are pushovers? Have we learnt from that game? And because it is the second leg, chances are that it is towards the end of the season.

Our strengths and weaknesses, their strengths and weaknesses, within the context of the game.

Form: Were they first and have dropped down to second? Were we in the bottom three and have been clawing our way up?

Under appreciated variables: Have we bought a new signing from the French second division, who is having the most amazing game on their debut? Did this catch the opposition off-guard?

Unexpected: Has their star player been exposed in the national newspapers and is now in the wrong frame of mind? Did their first choice keeper gain an injury during the warm-up?

Luck: Have they missed two open goals? Was our first goal offside? Should the referee have given them a penalty?

Preparation: Were we better prepared? Mentally, physically, and tactically, were we up for this game? Did our scouts do a good job? Did the coaches get the training right in the days leading up to the match? Did the players watch the presentations with real intent and purpose?

Mentally: Did we see this as an opportunity for revenge? Are we motivated by avoiding relegation? Do we play better in the bigger games? Have our own fans become hostile, so we enjoy playing away? Have the opposition underestimated us and put in too many kids into their line up? Are these kids now bricking it because they are losing against a weaker team, in front of their own fans, during their chance to shine, and are scared they won’t make another first team appearance? Are the experienced players going to pull together and come out fighting in the second half? Do they have a cup game or European game midweek that they have half an eye on? Would our manager accept a draw right now if offered it? Are we going to try to go for the third goal? Will we crack under pressure? Do we have some cool heads and experience on the bench?

Physically: Our players have worked like beasts in the first half to gain this lead, can they sustain the energy levels? Will our opponents tire if they keep having to throw the kitchen sink at us? Will the pressure make our players feel like they are in double gravity? Can we out-run them? Are we physically stronger than them? Do we have a physical advantage that we can use effectively in attack or defence? Do we have any injuries or fatigue? Do they have any injuries or fatigue? Do we need to bring on fresh legs?

Technically: Are we better than the opposition in some areas? Have we got technical strengths that have led to the two first half goals? Are they going to respond to that? If they are going to make changes, do we need to combat those changes? Are we looking to maintain the course to victory, or use these two goals as a shield to prevent defeat? Do we need an extra CDM? Have we seen any weaknesses on our side or theirs that will likely be exploited in the second half? Who are their magicians? Which players can make the difference?

Tactically: Did we get it right? Did they get it wrong? Were we creating overloads? Were we being overloaded? Do we go high, medium, or low press? Send them inside or outside? How will their changes make them play in the second half? Where did our goals come from? How did they create their chances? Are there any players that need man-marking, and will that create holes in our system? Does our backline need to drop or push? Are we too narrow or too wide? Does our construction need to be more patient or more direct? More vertical or more horizontal? Which of their players will the look to get into 1v1s? How do we press, cover, and mark their key players? How do we restrict access to danger areas? Are there any parts of the field we feel safer when out of possession? Will we look to be more cautious in our set-pieces?

Game management: Are we going to risk yellow cards for feigning injuries, arguing with the referee, time-wasting, and diving, in order to slow the game down and eat away the time? Will we be able to use any subs tactically? Are there opponents that we need to target with some rough treatment to provoke them, and take their mind off the game? Take an extra five seconds to get the ball? Take ten seconds longer to restart play? Change corner or free-kick taker once or twice after the players have already lined-up? Kick the ball long into the corners? Smash clearances way up into the crowd? Keeper to dive and fall on every loose ball? And never forget to have cramp. Do we wish to kill their momentum, or use it against them?

By the time players and coaches reach adulthood, they are already familiar with many of these concepts, and do most of them automatically. The thought processes detailed in this article don’t suddenly run through the mind like a computer conducting a virus scan. Most of it is contextual or subconscious. Often the circumstance will limit or even force our reaction to the game. It can be obvious, or done without thinking. We don’t need to consider every example listed here, just the small number that are relevant to our own unique situation.

Our brains during matches operate like a running commentary, with multiple tabs open in the browser. With experience, we learn how to easily switch our focus between certain relevant streams of information. As principally a development coach, I know that one of my weaknesses is monitoring the opposition. I struggle to focus on that and the technical and tactical performances of my players, as well as their physical, mental, and social well being. Technical and tactical of my players are often my main concern, so I have my assistant look primarily at the opposition. Can my assistant figure out what they are doing, looking for strengths and weaknesses, how they might beat us, and how they are responding to our attacks and how they are looking to break through our defence? We work like a good team. The assistant will make an observation about the opposition with a suggestion about what course of action we could take. I filter that information through my brain of how we could do that and who we can use. My assistant supplies part one, I supply part two, and together we have come up with an adjustment to make.

There have been games where my players have been running on empty, and I haven’t noticed until one of the player points it out. “Will, she needs to come off, she can’t run!” Then I look over to see a player limping, and suddenly it becomes clear she’s been doing that for the last five minutes. When you’re by yourself, you have to focus on everything, and naturally some areas will be neglected. Because I usually work in development scenarios, my main concern is the development of my players. It’s the Plan-Do-Review process. I’m not completely blind to what the opposition are doing, it’s just not my main focus. In training we worked on building out from the back, so I need to see how we are doing that today. Is the keeper distributing well and making the right choices? Are my defenders positioning themselves right and creating the correct support network? Are the midfielders receiving on the half turn? Are the strikers making movements to pull the opposition apart? How are we doing, who is learning, who is demonstrating the technique and decision making, who needs extra help? Next week we’re working on something different, so I’ll have one eye on whichever concept that is, and how well we do it.

Videos do help from many perspectives, especially development, as we get a second look, or can come back again looking for different clues. It’s hard to be opposition scout, head coach, physio, and psychologist all at the same time. When we’re coaching on our own, that’s what we have to be doing. It’s also why when we’re on our own that we need to give our players a little ownership and responsibility. You’re still boss, but there are eleven sets of eyes on the pitch, all with valuable insight into how the game is being played. It would be silly to ignore them. “Coach, we’re being overrun in the midfield, should we turn our triangle the other way around?” Information goes into the coach’s brain, the brain processes the idea, runs the checklist, evaluates the options, considers the positive and negative of such a change, looks at the likelihood of it leading to success, failure, or indifference, and then forms the opinion.

“Yes, good idea. Let’s tell X to drop back and cover… allowing Y to…”
“No, as that will leave X in a difficult situation without support from Y… and little cover for Z…”

In my experience, players appreciate a little bit of input. As long as the barrier is respected and lines not crossed. We’ve all worked for bosses who don’t listen, who never change, and never consider our opinions, even when we’re 100% right. Don’t be that boss. Don’t be the pushover either, but then you already knew that. In a team of two, three, or four plus coaches, we have more analytical eyes, and can be more autocratic, but never completely. Players aren’t as stupid as many think. It helps to know what’s on their mind to know how they see the game, and to see if your decisions or actions will be effectively understood.

Especially as a development coach, it is paramount to have discussions. At half-time, simply ask the question; “What have we seen out there?” “Left back keeps pushing up, Coach. Leaving plenty of space in behind. I reckon if we win it and the chance is on, hit some diagonals into that space.” “Brilliant. X, if you win it in your zone and see that Y is making the run behind the left back, launch that ball in front by about ten yards to give them something to run onto before crossing. W should then make an early front post run, V, to the back, and Z to hang around for a late entry into the box.” The player to have made the suggestion feels valued and appreciated, the players feel more open to idea sharing, and the coach has still maintained the respect and authority of the team because of the advice and decision making. People switch off if it’s a one-way conversation. That’s why my blog posts are so boring.

I believe it is important to examine our thought processes. To see if we have any biases, or to see if we are leading ourselves to barking up the wrong tree. We also need to constantly be looking to streamline or automate processes, without sacrificing quality, to free up more brain processing power for the more important observations and decisions. Football is like a complex but random game of chess, where we look to apply structure within a chaotic environment. Quick and informed decisions can make the difference between life and death.

Talentless Millionaires: How idiots are becoming famous, and how the rest of us our annoyed it's not happening to us

Picture the scene:

A concert hall with about twenty thousand screaming teenage girls, and a surprising number of middle aged women clinging to their youth. There's a stage with a vast array of flashing lights, and large screens surrounding it. In front of the stage sits a panel of four judges; Paul Merson, Jamie Redknapp, Danny Murphy, and because Michael Owen was unavailable, Keith Andrews takes up the seat in the last chair. Each former footballer has a large red buzzer placed in front of them. To an ear-piercing fanfare, a teenage boy enters the stage. The shows theme music pounds the ear drums of the screaming fans, and the light display is enough to trigger an epileptic fit. The kid, weedy, and with floppy hair, introduces himself with one of those made up names that didn't exist before 1995, like Kai or Jadon (which of course can be spelt Jaydon, Jaden, Jayden, Jaiden for extra individuality points). The kid also has some tragic sob story, like he lost both his parents in a car park, or that he's from Wales, and he's wanted to be a footballer since, like... forever! He loves football so much, so much so that he uses the word football three times in one sentence to tell us how much he loves football. His playing experience and knowledge of the game seem rather minimal for someone who is appearing on national television, telling us how much he loves football, but the screaming teenage girls don't care, because OH MY GOSH HE LOOKS LIKE (insert literally any boyband member from the last ten years, as they are all interchangeable).

The audition begins. Of course, the viewers at home are only going to see an edited version, which lasts for thirty seconds, and is replayed so many times throughout the show as filler, that one wonders why on Earth they didn't just show the whole performance anyway? Backing dancers suddenly emerge, and perform distracting and unsettling hip thrusts, which are polarised by their constipated facial expressions. The boy begins his routine. What we see are ten keep-ups, alternating between right and left foot. The ball is then flicked up onto his head, where he performs five small headers without dropping the ball. He then lets the ball bounce to the floor, and hurdles it. With his trailing foot, he flicks the ball up into the air again, and manages to perform eight juggles on his right thigh, with each contact sending the ball higher up into the air. As the eighth drops back down, the boy leans forward and bends over, deftly catching the ball on the back of his neck. A risky, but well executed technique, allows him a brief grin, before wiggling his neck to one side to release the ball, which he then catches on the toe of his right foot. Performance done. Backing dancers freeze with their jazz hands, and the audience gives their twelfth standing ovation of the evening.

All four judges have stated, via a light display on their desk, that they have been impressed by the boy. Jamie Redknapp is on his feet, pointing at the boy, and making gang signals with his hands, as if to tell us he thought the performance was "dope." One could assume that Redknapp is pretending to have some kind of affinity or bond with the boy. We definitely couldn't surmise that he is in fact responding the hype in the audience, and pretending to do an "I spotted him first", latching onto the perceived talent of the boy.

The reviews begin. Paul Merson; "Yeah, well, I fink everyone in here enjoyed that tonight [interrupted by solicited applause and screaming]. You can kick a ball good, and even showed that you have a head which works. If I 'ad a team, I'd sign you up right away!

The remaining twenty seconds of Merson's slot is filled with more fan screaming, as the camera pans to twelve year olds looking like they're going to faint. Lucky for Merson, as he only knows about three more words on top of those ones, and was close to having to repeat himself.

The applause subsides as Jamie Redknapp and his skinny tie begin their eulogy; "Yeah, I fink I gotta agree wiv Merse there... [faint applause, but hushed as the teenagers want to hear Redknapp's compliments] You definitely got feet, and an 'ead, and you even used your knee a few times! [Applause erupts once more, as the fans completely lose it when Redknapp states the obvious and briefly summarises what we all just saw]. If you keep usin' dem feet, and dat 'ead, you will definitely 'ave a future.

Now it's time for Danny Murphy, whose dour expression tells us he's playing the Simon Cowell role. We've had two positives, and are set up for a negative from the third judge, but it's okay really, as the final judge will go back to positives. Young people's egos are so fragile that we have to conduct feedback reviews in such a way as to protect their feelings. Murphy begins; "Yeah, it was alright, but Stevie G was doing that when he was two. If you want to be successful like me, and come close to winning the league at Liverpool, and then further that career by playing at stellar clubs like Charlton, Spurs, Fulham, and Blackburn, then you really need to buck your ideas up. [Boos start to emanate from the audience, responding to the negative tone of Murphy's statement, but not acutely aware that did not criticise anything the boy did, because that would be helpful]. When I was at Crewe, they used to tell us, that if you ain't gonna eat, sleep, live, and sleep football, then you got no chance. BUT!... I've seen something in you that reminds me of my old mate Dietmar Hamann. Which is why you get my vote for the next round."

Seven reasons the X Factor needs to be cancelled.

Light applause breaks out. No one's really sure why, but the tone of voice used by Murphy sets a calming and realistic mood. The boy did do his keep-ups, but he's no Didi Hamann yet. Then, for diversity, we move along to the remaining panellist, the Irish Keith Andrews. Keith is somewhat of an enigma. All four judges have played in the Premier League, but Andrews holds the distinction of being able to do so without having any talent. Truly an amazing achievement. He is the Alesha Dixon of the group. Andrews serves as an inspiration for all those out there with minimal talent. If he can be lucky enough to be selected to play for his best mate's team, anyone can!

Andrews begins. His Irish accent comes across as a gimmick, a bit like all those years ago when David Walliams used to be funny, and is now unfunny, yet still possesses the same expressions, vocabulary, and mannerisms. As is tradition for ex-footballers with roles on television, he starts his sentence with 'yeah' despite not being asked a question; "Yeah, for me, I got to agree with Merse and Jamie. I tink dat Danny's bein' a bit harsh on ya there like [The audience releases a mixture of boos and applause, to scold Danny Murphy, and to show their agreement with Andrews]. But I got just one question for ya [which he's not going to let the boy answer because he'll keep talking]... do you want it? Because if you want it, then you gotta get it. And if you get it, it's because you want it. If you don't want it, you won't get it, so make sure you want it, or else you won't get it."

The profound words from Keith Andrews spark further applause, with some screams. The boy is then taken off stage, and has been cornered by Ant and Dec, who weren't actually invited, but seem to always make their way onto these shows. They thrust a microphone into the boy's face, talking at him in their sped up geordie accents. The boy tries to answer, but the other one jumps in with comedy's biggest crime; a pun. The most we hear from the boy in this sixty second exchange between him and Satan's jesters is a "yeah", which has him well on his way to sounding like a footballer. The 'interview' is the over, and the boy discarded backstage, with a concerned look on his face, as Ant/Dec (whichever is least funny) told him he'd be one day good enough to play for Newcastle United.

The above is a football themed parody of those intrepid talent shows that have plagued British television since the early 2000s. People who achieved nothing, voting for people who will achieve nothing. Why don't we pick our football teams like this? There have been attempts, but there is quite a simple and obvious flaw. In music, talent can be masked, manipulated, or even completely non-existent. In three minutes, you can be convinced, by edited and enhanced sounds, that a singer is brilliant. Coaches are well aware of the YouTube player. Any coach with a LinkedIn profile will have been sent videos of players from a whole range of backgrounds. What they have done is filmed themselves playing, completing drills, or performing skills, cut out the best bits, and stuck them together for a three minute video. I have enough footage of myself playing football to make myself look like a world-beater. Most of us do. If you play six games of football, record all of it, you will be able to find three minutes that make you look like Pele. A couple weeks ago, playing a pickup game with some mates, I scored a goal similar to Paul Gascoigne against Scotland in 1996. My next shot flew over the fence. The fence was higher than the length of my distance to goal. It's selective, so that I would not include the woeful miss in my video, but would include the Gazza goal. This is information bias at its finest.

Why The Voice has nothing to do with voices.

Talent becomes increasingly evident in sport. Let me just define the concept of talent. It's not just your skills and abilities with a ball, but your fitness, mental strength, decision making etc. A talented player that has poor decision making is not a talented player, they are a player with some high level abilities that is ultimately a bit thick. Wherever an individual's strengths and weaknesses lie, they will be exposed eventually. How quick and to what extent is unknown, as we can only imagine the effects of replacing one Chelsea player with a Sunday morning pub footballer. That stepover that a player once did in training may impress the coach enough to get into the team, but that player has to consistently produce the goods if they are going to remain in the team, and excel at their job. If they don't, no amount of PR is going to be able to hide their lack of talent (or their loss of form, as everyone has bad days).

Think of Barcelona v Real Madrid. Thousands in the stadium. Millions watching on TV around the world. The game is being broadcast in multiple languages on all continents. There is no hiding. There is no escaping. The players, for all intents and purposes, are completely naked. They are exposed to the world, and their ability as a player, or their ability to be able to function accordingly for their team, is all that we are going to judge. The manager cannot defend them. Autotune will not correct their bad passes. Backing dancers cannot distract us from their mediocrity. The best will prevail. If Barcelona win 4-0, there will be no one defending Real Madrid by saying "but their warm-up routine was so much better" or "what really counts is that Real Madrid's kit is much classier." No one cares. Talent wins or loses games. It is raw and unapologetic.

We're being force-fed this idea that anyone can achieve high levels of success. I'm not disputing that one bit. What I'm suggesting is that people are being lied to, and due to this, think that it is easy. And I would also suggest that people want to be famous more than they want to be good at what they do. We have seen this with athletes, when studies have shown that many would resort to drugs and steroids, if they could be guaranteed success, and that no one would find out. Those kinds of people are obsessed with what others think of them, and how they are perceived by people that are not important to them. It's shallow and vain. Just like the selfie culture, where a person can look like an idiot in front of their friends and family as they stand there and pose with a stupid face, and out of thirty photos only find one that makes them happy, but that is irrelevant, as they will get likes from strangers on Instagram.

In the coaching world, we've very aware of players that act big time before they have even made it. It's the colourful boots, the expensive haircuts, the studded diamond earring, the dabs, and even the slang that they use to interact with their peers. They think that if they look like Neymar, they will become Neymar, somehow forgetting to put in the work, dedication, and sacrifice that top players put in. They are image obsessed. They need knocking down a few pegs before it goes too far. I think Cristiano Ronaldo is a narcissistic showboat, who is so self-absorbed that he runs the risk of running out of oxygen, with his head firmly between his own bum cheeks. The difference between Ronaldo and the flash kid from the U14s, is that with Ronaldo's success, he can act however he likes. When you're that good, you have earned the right to do whatever you want. Until then, try talking, dressing, and behaving like a responsible adult with a brain.

On that point, although we see all the tattoos and haircuts in world football, there's far more players like James Milner, Andres Iniesta, Gareth Barry, Jordan Henderson, Thomas Muller etc. who are normal, everyday, down-to-earth guys, who just happen to be incredibly good at football, than there are all the Flash Harrys and Fancy Dans. We can compare the music industry and football world once again, when comparing the perceptions of Susan Boyle to Franck Ribery or Carlos Tevez. We just knew Ribery and Tevez were good footballers that were ugly. They had accidents when they were young, and conversations went no further than "Why does he have that scar?" "Oh it's because..." "Oh, I didn't know that." No asterisk is placed beside their name in the football history books that say *And he achieved all that, despite being hideously ugly. Their talent shines through because that is all we care about. On the other hand, Susan Boyle does come with that asterisk. That could be a feminist issue as well, but right now I am focusing on the differences between the industries. The gossip is that she's done exceptionally well for herself, even though her face makes babies cry. To quote Terrance and Phillip, when describing their friend Ugly Bob, said that his face looks like "someone tried to put out a forest fire with a screwdriver." Adele is another one, who has done really well *despite being a bit of a fat lass.

Corporations use image to try and make money off of us. I think that's why a lot of men in the UK struggle to be warm to David Beckham. I worked with a coach in Canada who was obsessed with Beckham, and told me not only was Beckham a good player, but he was also a good looking man. Man to man, I can't see how my former colleague could honestly think that was something to mention when trying to convince me that Beckham is deserving of respect. Let's apply such vain rationale to other areas of life.

• I'd like to send my kid to that school because the teacher is really attractive.
• I'd like to have that person as my doctor because they are really attractive.
• I hope that person is our waiter/waitress because they are really attractive.
• I hope my kid makes friends with that kid, because the mum/dad is really attractive.
• I hope I get pulled over by that police officer, because he/she is really attractive.

See how ridiculous that is? Yet you will have said that many times throughout your life. You will have let that rationale influence your decision making. It's stupid and it is unfair. I'm going to try that on my girlfriend and see how long we last. "Let's go see that movie, the actress is really attractive." "Let's wait in this line, the attendant is really attractive." "Let's hang out with your friends, that one is really attractive." I think I would only have to do it once before she became very angry and screamed "What's that got to do with anything?" as well as being rather jealous that I had acknowledged that I found someone else attractive. It hurts more in this instance, because it is direct, but it's still just as bad in other scenarios.

So where we struggle with Beckham is that his fame has very little to do with his playing achievements. Paul Scholes and Ryan Giggs were in the same Man Utd team that won all those trophies, but have only a fraction of the fame Beckham has. If there were statues of Scholes and Giggs in China, and the two of them had fragrances named after themselves, and the talentless kids of Scholes and Giggs had millions of Instagram followers... even the idea seems crazy. So we know his fame is not for his footballing ability, and yet to me, that's all I care about. Many would suggest Scholes and Giggs were better players, as they did it in tougher competition for longer. I think what really gets us is this; David Beckham was playing football for a team he supported since he was a boy. That's all any of us football fans want to do. We'd give anything to be able to win trophies at the club we love. And then to play for England on top of that? WOW! To play at World Cups, to captain our country, to play at Wembley! How can it get better than that? To marry a pop star (even though she looks like a rake, with a less interesting personality) is just too good to be true. Beckham then went abroad and achieved success there too. This is now beyond our wildest dreams. The only way we can come close to that is to cheat on FIFA career mode. And yet that wasn't enough for him. All top players will have sponsors and endorsements, so adverts for Adidas and Pepsi are just being part of a footballer. What did it was the haircuts, the tattoos, the media attention and exposure for someone who is as articulate in English as my cat is. Then there was the model shoots, and the women's underwear, being in touch with his feminine side. I never ever once cared about that stuff, yet it was rammed down our throats. I can name all four of his kids, despite not caring about them, or his wife, or even the man himself beyond what he does on the football pitch. How and why is that possible? And the fact that such fame and adulation has been awarded to a couple of such minimal intelligence, that they looked at a new born baby girl, smiled in unison, and thought naming it Harper Seven was a good idea. How has the human race come to this?

Would you still do it if you couldn't post it on social media? I'm someone that is constantly looking at other opportunities for work. Even when I am happy. Even when I have long term ambitions with a club or organisation. It's interesting, it gives a sense of what I am worth and what I can achieve, and mostly, it's because I am a dreamer. I have an ambition to coach on each continent on this world. In Africa and South America, that would be hard to do, as finding employment is difficult in such poor regions. So the solution is to coach as part of a volunteer programme. I'm fairly clued up on these, yet I still have not embarked upon one. Volunteer tourism is a big industry now, and it seems like Instagramming Toms wearers, white guys with dreadlocks, selfie-taking middle-class girls, and a whole variety of this ilk are beginning to dilute the work force. The volunteer organisations are experiencing problems with self-obsessed and work shy millennials. They will go to a poor village faced with the task of teaching English, building huts, or establishing irrigation systems. That's hard work though. They didn't know it would be so hard. And so hot too! There's also a lack of Wi-Fi, and no 24/7 McDonald's which satisfies the need for late night McNuggets. Crisis!

What's being exposed is that too many of these volunteers are doing it for purely selfish reasons. They don't care about famine, poverty, inequality, disease, genocide etc. They never did, and after experiencing it first hand, they still don't. They wanted a vacation in an exotic location, interspersed with feel-good trips to local impoverished areas, where the locals would stroke their ego and tell them how wonderful it is that they went all the way to their village to help them. Aw shucks, well you know me, Mr. Nice guy here. These people are not bringing any kind of useful skill with them, are hardly contributing, are annoyed at the lack of comfort, and begin to cause more problems than they solve. That's why quite a few of these organisations now are attempting to screen the applicants a little better. Essentially anyone with money can do it. A bit like running for government office. Yet unlike a real job, they can't say no, as these places are desperate for help, and thrive off of the work of good volunteers. The service they provide is invaluable. So many have provided checklists, aimed at exposing those that aren't in it for truly altruistic reasons. There are questionnaires, pertaining to a temporary reduction in hygiene, a lack of Western food, but most tellingly of all; Would you still do it if you couldn't post pictures of it on social media?

WHAT?!? BUT THAT'S THE WHOLE REASON I'M GOING!!!! WHAT'S THE POINT IN SHARING A SPECIAL BOND WITH DONGO BONGO FROM UNGO BUNGO LAND!!! HOW WILL MY FRIENDS KNOW HOW SELFLESS AND WONDERFUL I AM IF I DON'T POST DAILY PICTURES OF ME CUDDLING WITH STARVING BLACK KIDS!!!!

I would put money on this, not that it could ever be proven, that there will be a small handful of volunteers who would have spent £2,000 to volunteer for a month in Ghana, as a response to having once been labelled a racist for saying something like "I'm just not that into black guys."

If you've got it, why not flaunt it? No one likes a poser, though most of society is working furiously to become one. Having a pretty face is luck, not skill, and so we reward those who were blessed with pleasing features, yet they've done nothing to earn it. This makes everyone want to be pretty, which has led to the very real situation of WOMEN SHAVING THEIR EYEBROWS OFF AND THEN PAINTING THEM BACK ON!!! In what universe is that a logical or justifiable thing to do? It's insane. Sex sells, and the target audience is teenage girls. Society has created a world where it is not only okay to be shallow, vacuous, vain, and self-absorbed, but you're also rewarded for it.

Let's do a quick comparison. From time to time, I find myself in a situation where I am, against my will, exposed to modern music. With that, comes the music video. I am shocked by what I see and what I hear.

Drake - Started From the Bottom, is by far, the worst song I have ever heard. Who listened to that in the studio and thought it was worth producing? Which executives heard it and thought they could sell it? Which radio DJs thought it was good and that the world should be subjected to it? It's horrendous on so many levels. It's not even catchy. One has to really exert oneself to make the melody stick in their head.

Britney Spears - Toxic. At least this song is catchy, but she gets no credit from me, as the only thing she gave to the music was her voice, before it would have been polished in the studio. The video itself reaches that line of the most flesh one can expose, before it becomes pornographic. What's the message here?

Rachel Stevens - Sweet Dreams My LA Ex. It's a catchy song, but remember; AIDS is catchy. How many people would have collaborated on this three minute masterpiece? A lot more than Rachel Stevens, if she ever was included. The whole purpose of this video was to see Rachel roll around a glass box in her underwear. There must be some deeper meaning other than to induce erections. Surely, they can't be that vain? Surely it doesn't work that easily?

Enrique Igleseas - Bailando. This is literally every pop song ever recorded in Spanish. You don't need to hear the others, as this one covers all possible variations. It would appear to me that songwriters who write music in Spanish get extra points for using the words; bailando, contigo, corazon, siempre. Obviously, it features in this song a lot, but for all my exposure to these different songs, I am not aware of one that doesn't have similar themes. The translations are; dancing, with you, heart, always. The same could be done in English. If you want to write a pop song, you need those four words, and maybe around ten more in order to frame and link them. Job done. Then invite fifty of your best, and richest friends round to collaborate on your masterpiece, with their gang signs, and potentially a bit of rap in there too. Shoving rap into a pop song doesn't make the song appeal to black people, it makes the song appeal to teenagers who wish they were black. Kudos to the awful keep-ups displayed at the start of the video, which would have been similar to how my theoretical Jaydon kid would have performed in front of Merson, Redknapp, Murphy, and Andrews. That made Enrique and his homies more congenial in a World Cup year. The video features tons of dancing, and as none of us viewers are dancers, we believe that it is incredible. The song gets away with it because it is called "dancing", but it is exactly like 99% of the videos out there.

Twenty One Pilots - Ride. This is one of those new bands that try to look like a rock band, to seem different and cool, when compared to the mainstream Biebers and One Directions, yet they are exactly like them, with the difference being that they are making us think they can play instruments. In the video we see two men, one with drums and the other with a guitar. Amazingly, we don't hear either in the music. There are drums, but it's a drum machine. Don't know that that is? Get your kid's keyboard and press play. I was struggling to find a guitar sound. It could have originally been a guitar, but like Darth Vader, it's more machine now than man. These guys are absolute posers, and should not be allowed within one hundred yards of a guitar.

To contrast these splendidly dull videos, I'm going to display three from when I was young, I hardly watched much music television when growing up. I think music is supposed to be listened to, and too much input from the eyes only distorts what it is you hear. Even channels like Kerrang, which played some of the stuff I liked, was full of posers.

Nickelback - Someday. Hardly a musical revelation. It's a standard catchy pop song, performed by Canada's finest, yet the video is intriguing. It's got a Sixth Sense element about it. The clues were there when we were young, but originally we missed them. Then upon reflection, it became so obvious. The song is okay, but the video is a million times more interesting that the four I have linked previously.

The White Stripes - Fell In Love With A Girl. This is a band that is not everyone's cup of tea, but I do own all of their albums. They had quite a few hits for a duet. The song was criminally covered by Joss Stone in what was a truly awful rendition. How she still freely walks among us shows that our justice system does not care about the devaluation of art. The video itself is actually quite cool. It is an interesting concept that is fun to watch. It doesn't necessarily need to be deep. Jack and Meg are made out of lego. That's somewhat entertaining. What if Britney or Rachel Stevens were to roll around in their underwear... made of lego?

Red Hot Chili Peppers - Can't Stop. It's a catchy rock riff, with a funky rhythm, and a melodic chorus. A typical Chili Peppers song. Yet, as we're comparing music videos, this is by far the most interesting one on here. I can't remember the guy's name, but they collaborated with an artist for the video. It's strange imagery, but is interesting and entertaining. No, that's not Will Ferrell on the drums, and yes there are resemblances to Andres Iniesta and Sacha Baron Cohen.

Red Hot Chili Peppers - Californication. One of their greatest hits, and one of the best songs of the decade. The video itself, like many of theirs, was very interesting to watch. This kind of video shows a group that really cares about their work. They are weird and wacky to an extent, but their image and style is quite clearly coming across visually. I think it helps the viewer understand them and their message a bit better, as opposed to dancing with their homies, and sipping on branded alcohol, wearing the latest fashion. You may not have to agree with or like the message, but at least there is one, unlike the marketing campaigns of modern music. There's also four talented musicians in this video. Virtuoso musicians who have honed and perfected their craft over decades, starting when they were very young. The same can't be said about Drake, Britney, Rachel Stevens, Enrique Igleseas, or Twenty One Pilots. The talent there is functional, not virtuoso.

In football terms, would you be willing to pay £300 to see the World Cup final? 2014 was between Argentina and Germany. Would that price be justifiable? And would you pay more than £10 to see Aldershot Town v Tranmere Rovers? Would you even want to go? This is where music has gotten to. The Beatles, Queen, Jimi Hendrix were incredibly talented performers, musicians, and song writers. They are the World Cup finals. Britney, Drake, Bieber, Rhianna are functional performers, and have no talent in music or song writing. Sure, Drake writes his own songs, but much like I have this blog, which to some may be entertaining, I am not up there with Shakespeare, Hemmingway, or Dickins. We are the Aldershots and the Tranmeres. Better than most, but a long way from the best.

Drake is dreadful, but at least he performs music, yet that is not a sufficient argument to explain his success. Just because the vast majority of people don't, won't, or can't perform, doesn't mean that someone who actually can is any good. The vast majority of people I don't know, cannot play guitar, or any instrument for that matter. Now, because I can do a functioning version of Eagles songs, does that make me talented? Would you pay money to see me perform? You can't do it, so surely my ability is worth paying money for, right? Of course not. I'm not that good. I can play to around a grade five level, which is fairly average. So why aren't I selling out concert halls across the world? There's many reasons, one being that the modern music consumer doesn't want to listen to a man with a guitar (Ed Sheeran is not a man, nor is that guitar music he plays. I could fire rubber darts at my guitar, but that doesn't mean I am playing it, nor does it mean the sound is worth listening to). But also, what do Drake et al have that I don't? I have written more songs than the members of One Direction, and I have performed live more than most of what we see in the Top 40 charts. When I say live, I mean no backing dancers, no effects, no autotune. Just a person/s and instrument/s. What is offered today is nothing more than a 3D music video. If what you're hearing sounds exactly like what it does on the album, you have wasted your money, and you are not listening to real music.

The picture to the left was the UK charts last week. How many of those names do you recognise? For me, I know three. And how many of them will still be performing, famous, or relevant, in five, ten, fifteen, or twenty years time? Good has no age or time limit. Yes, music evolves, but it seems like this is a downward spiral, a race to the bottom. With technology these days, any idiot can make a song. Some of them will be catchy, but catchy doesn't mean good. Barbie Girl was catchy. If you read the following, you will have a song stuck in your head for the rest of the day; A Pizza Hut, a Pizza Hut, Kentucky Fried Chicken and a Pizza Hut. Catchy, but not good. Two different things.

My biggest gripe about this picture is; why are they all featuring someone else? Someone else has asked this question on Quora. None of the answers given provide anything I couldn't surmise myself, and the answers don't fully satisfy. That might be what they tell us, and that might be what they believe they think, but I am sure there are further underlying influences at hand.

An article from The Guardian asks if pop has finally run out of tunes.

I've seen arguments that criticise the crowd, of which I include myself, that are not keen on singers that don't write their own songs. I think the term musician is perhaps too broadly applied, and artist has always been a strange one to me, as artists paint and make sculptures, whereas musicians perform and sing music. Selena Gomez is not a musician in the same way Sir Paul McCartney is. Sir Paul can play a variety of instruments, and has been writing songs for decades. The fact they both get behind a microphone and sing, does not mean they are the same, or even similar, and thus the term musician should only be applied to someone that makes or plays music. "Singer" is acceptable for Selena Gomez or Miley Cyrus, but not musician or artist. Even singer is a bit dubious, as it's not really them. It started off as their voice, in that similar sounds once emanated from their mouths into a microphone, but what we're hearing is a manipulated and a polished version. It's not done in a way like Peter Frampton did on Do You Feel Like I Do, or in a way that turns James Earl Jones into Darth Vader. We know that there are effects at play with Frampton and Vader. It's obvious, and they are not trying to pull the wool over our eyes. With Gomez and Cyrus, the majority of listeners don't know that it has been manipulated. It's not obvious, and was intended to be subtle. So what's wrong with that? It's like stuffing your bra full of tissues. Who are you trying to impress or deceive? And why can't you just be honest? Because society has told us that talent (or substance or personality) is not as important as image. It doesn't matter than Miley Cyrus is a horrendous person, it only matters that teenage girls buy her music and appear at her concerts, which they will do, if they are successfully manipulated by the strong marketing campaigns.

The argument that comes back is in regards to actors. When you watch a movie, you know that it's not real, and it doesn't bother you when the actors perform lines written by someone else. That's true, and here's a few reasons why;

• Actors are not looking to deceive. We all know it's a movie.
• Their performance is more than just repeating lines. They have to convey a whole range of inorganic feelings and emotions.
• A good movie can take you far away. You are lost in the drama and the story. For two hours, you are an observer to their journey. That's not the case for a three minute pop song.
• Movies, even The Green Lantern, is far more profound than "work, work, work", "cake, cake, cake", "all the single ladies, all the single ladies", "stawded from da boddom na wi heer", and "you don't know you're beautiful."

They're all insincere, talentless, lying posers. It's also not fair that any of them are exceedingly wealthy. The money does not match their contribution (and yes, I feel the same way about footballers).

Here is a video of a top ten list of people who are famous for no reason.

25 People who are famous for doing nothing.

What you are about to see below is a list of top songs by incredible performers throughout the years. These are all live. No one here is hiding behind autotune or backing dancers. All the instruments are being played by someone you can see there in the flesh. This is naked talent. They are exposed, and cannot hide. The first one is just a brief clip from Deep Purple's symphony orchestra in 1969. Yes, that's right. One of the world's best heavy rock bands actually wrote a symphony, and then performed it, with a full orchestra and conductor, around the world. It was the inspiration of keyboard/organ player Jon Lord. Lord died in 2012, which meant he wasn't around for their world tour, which I was fortunate enough to see in Mexico in November of 2014. The performer on the organ that night was Don Airey, who I swear has eight arms. There's no other way that a human could have played like he did.

Even more impressive was that this symphony was done a THE START of their musical careers. They were that talented WHEN THEY WERE YOUNG. Fancy that. Would Justin Bieber be able to do anything like that?

Deep Purple - a sample from their 1969 symphony orchestra.

The Eagles - Hotel California

Lynyrd Skynyrd - Free Bird

Queen - Somebody to Love

AC/DC - Let There Be Rock

Jimi Hendrix - Voodoo Child

Guns 'n' Roses - Sweet Child o' Mine

Led Zeppelin - Stairway to Heaven

Black Sabbath - War Pigs

Status Quo - Live Aid performances of Rocking All Over the World, Caroline

Aerosmith - Walk This Way

Elton John - Tiny Dancer

Foo Fighters - Times Like These

Motorhead - Ace of Spades

Red Hot Chili Peppers - Under the Bridge (Acoustic)

Iron Maiden - Two Minutes to Midnight

ZZ Top - La Grange

George Thorogood - One Bourbon, One Scotch, and One Beer

Boston - More Than A Feeling

Thin Lizzy - The Boys Are Back In Town

Journey - Don't Stop Believin'

The Rolling Stones - Jumpin' Jack Flash

Dio - Holy Diver

Chuck Berry - Johhny B. Goode

The Beatles - Twist and Shout

Creedence Clearwater Revival - Bad Moon Rising

David Gilmour (Pink Floyd) - Shine On You Crazy Diamond

Amazing, isn't it? How did they all get so good? We'll discuss that shortly, but first, a picture to apply some perspective.

My ranking system has been inspired by 1990s arcade games. It is entirely subjective, and almost impossible to prove scientifically. Perhaps I am being biased, but I do believe it is something similar to this. Today's pop stars are only slightly better than your average idiot. The difference is that they are malleable in a way that producers and executives can market them. Your average boyband still looks twelve, even as they reach thirty years old, which is usually eight years after they were dropped by the record label. Why choose grown men with weak chins, narrow shoulders, and floppy hair? Because most people only look like a teenager for a small number of years. I only looked like a teenager for two years, and that was between ages eight and ten. I've looked about thirty-two since my fifteenth birthday.

But can you believe it? I think many born after 1990 will struggle. Freddy Mercury wrote his own songs, performed the instruments on them, and was even able to play and sing live! In front of an audience of thousands! The singers and musicians in the above videos were virtuosos. Chuck Berry's guitar playing is primitive, but he was the best at the time. No one had done what he was doing. The Beatles' songs in the early 60s may have been four chord pop songs, but again, no one else was doing that like they were. And they had all shown, as a band and as individuals, that they are filled to burst with talent. Just because Harry Styles can sing better than you or I, doesn't actually mean that he's good, nor that he should be worth the millions that he is. Being a pop star nowadays is like being the best player at your local five-a-side league. They're better than you, but they're nowhere near the limits of human greatness. Every played Sunday league with a guy who "once had trials for [insert pro club here]"? His touch is a class above everyone else on the team, and his game intelligence is quite apparent, but he's closer in ability to your average pub player than he is to a Premier League player. In football, we don't throw money at these players. Marginally talented doesn't get you into the top teams, whereas marginally talented in music, with a sex appeal marketable to teenage girls equals millions of dollars.

Observe some of the front men in the bands above. Hardly underwear models. Lemmy, Elton John, Bon Scott, Ozzy, Freddy Mercury, Steven Tyler. These men are ugly as sin. They're not quite Susan Boyle, but they are not aesthetically pleasing. In rock, that doesn't matter. What matters is that you have the honesty to be true to yourself, the integrity to put on a good show and not bow down to record labels. and the ability to make feet tap and heads nod. There's something electric about a live performance. In just one hour, you are seeing the culmination of years of hard work, sacrifice, and dedication. How does Jimmy Page play Stairway to Heaven so incredibly well every time? Years and years of rehearsal. You don't practise until you can get it right, you practise until you can't get it wrong. I can play parts of Stairway to Heaven. Most guitarists, after a little while of playing, set themselves the challenge of being able to learn it. It can take months and years. And just because I know some of the sequences, doesn't mean I don't make mistakes. Let's say that someone of my level makes a mistake every fifty notes. I'm getting the parts I play 98% right. More than most people on the planet. Yet Jimmy Page will make a mistake about one in every billion notes. It's muscle memory, it's being in the zone, which comes down to years of dedication and practice. How many concerts would Jimmy Page have to play before he makes even one mistake? Compare that to someone like me, that would be fluffing up 2% of each song.

That spine tingling sensation doesn't happen just anywhere. I have seen good football in the Conference, MLS, Championship, and even Sunday mornings in pub leagues. A good bit of skill, an intricate move, a stunning goal. It can happen anywhere. Why doesn't it get us out of our seat? Because it's only 98% good. There are some genuinely good goals at these levels, but too many of them have just that ounce of cringe. Anyone involved in women's football will be able to recognise this. A player thirty yards from goal smashes it in the top corner. It looks great. Then you see on the replay that it was fairly central, and only went in because they keeper is quite short, and relatively easy to score against if the ball is struck high. In MLS, there's usually a catastrophic defensive error in the moments before the goal. The finish was good, the skill was great, but that mistake, slight as it was, just takes the shine off the goal a little bit.

Examine the two above videos, showing the best goals from MLS and the Premier League. There were some phenomenal strikes in MLS, and some wonderful bits of skill. I'd be thrilled if me or one of my players scored a goal like that. Yet, it persists. There were too many, sometimes subtle, sometimes glaringly obvious mistakes. In the Premier League, the mistakes that lead to the goals were not as noticeable. The positioning and the body shape is wrong by centimetres, and in the MLS it's wrong by a yard or two. The difference is tiny, but those inches are important. In the grand scheme of football, comparing the best to complete novices, both Premier League and MLS are lightyears ahead of Sunday morning football, but when looking from the perspective of the top end, there is a chasm between the Premier League and MLS in terms of quality. Could we quantify it as the Premier League being 2% better? Whatever it is, it's minute. The untrained eye might miss it. Seasoned football fans can see it. It's glaringly obvious that the Premier League is so much better than MLS. Could a kid see that?

And that's the question. We like to make fun of kids when on summer camps. We're encouraged to joke and bond with them. Making fun of the latest pre-pubescent effeminate male singer to top the charts is a great way to get a rise out of kids. It's obvious right away that they would defend them to the death. Young girls have been deluded into believing that Harry Styles is the greatest ever thing to happen to music. What they don't know is that in five years, whoever it is that they have posters of on their wall, will be irrelevant. As they fade into obscurity, copies of Sergeant Pepper, Back in Black, and Thriller will keep being sold.

Your average teenage girl will know very little about music, so as long as it is catchy, you can convince them to buy it. Think of how politicians appeal to the thickest of us all, attempting to win the vote with the lowest common denominator, by repeating phrases such as "Make America great again", "Strong and stable", or "Put the Great back into Great Britain." At this point I'd like to link to a comedy bit by Jim Jeffries, but it is too offensive. Jim insinuates that some people would vote for Trump and his wall because they can relate to it; "I have a wall at home!" Modern music isn't out to change the world, and it's not out to entertain, it's out to get your money. That's why songs are about texting, selfies, and going to the club and getting drunk. The topics and often lyrics will have been decided upon by committee, and the music videos carefully scripted to appeal to and manipulate the young and impressionable.

You might be reading this and claim to be someone who likes different types of music. "Hold on a second there, Will. I like both rock and pop!" These people often like the catchy rock songs that are not particularly heavy or guitar based, or are excessively catchy. Under Pressure, More than a Feeling, anything by The Beatles. They like elements of rock songs that are common across most songs that are popular. Most people around the world like some form of chocolate or candy. Is one necessarily better than the other? Do people really love it as much as they say they do? Or is it the sugar? That's the common theme, and we all love the sugar. If you like rock, then you want to see Angus Young perform a guitar solo with his tie. If you don't, then you just like the catchy elements of rock.

People like songs that are like this:

• Catchy tune - then it gets stuck in their head and they can enjoy it even when the music is switched off.
• Simple lyrics - they lack depth, and are repeated profusely. You'll struggle to find more than eight unique lines in a pop song. That way, it takes two minutes to learn, and is done with no real effort. That has two benefits; the first being that you can sing along to it quickly, and convince yourself and others that you like it, and the second being that it makes you feel intelligent. People love that feeling. If you speak another language, teach a friend or relative to count to ten in that language. Look at how impressed they are with themselves.
• Relatable lyrics - Gone are the days of sex, drugs, and rock 'n' roll. Sex and drugs are often sung about in modern music, but it's straight up obvious. Instead of being subtle like Mr. Tambourine Man, we get lines like "your sex takes me to paradise." The listener then doesn't have to figure it out, so they feel intelligent. There's also no songs about space, philosophy, man's struggle, sticking it to the man, vikings, Lord of the Rings, Heaven and Hell. It's about texting, not fitting in at school, selfies, makeup, or brags about wealth and status. Incredibly vain.
• Singable lyrics - you don't commonly hear people singing high or low pitched vocals, such as You Shook Me All Night Long. They might tap their foot to the tune, but as Brian Johnson goes high and leaves the rest of us mere mortals down here on Earth, instead of being awe at his ability, the average person will switch off. What's in it for me? Compare that to Drake mumbling "you used to call me on your cell phone." Even your autistic friend can sing that line. Compare The Darkness' I Believe In A Thing Called Love (JUST LISTEN TO THE RHYTHM OF MY HEART) which very few people can do, to "I'm an albatroaz" (albatross? trous? trose?)
• Lack of instruments - not to mention that very few sounds you hear are real, there are very few instrumental, or instrumentally melodic sections of songs. Think back to Don't Stop Believin', and even though the lyrics are prominent and catchy, the guitar and piano are also catchy, and really help frame the song. We like to hum along to the instruments in our favourite songs, with our best "do do doo" sounds, to mimic whatever instrument it might be. Nowadays, that's replaced with vocal sounds. Any Beyonce song. Any of them. "Oh oh oh, oh oh oh." Why? BECAUSE I CAN DO THAT PART OMG <3 BEYONCE!!!
• Built up crescendo - after a few runs through the same four lines, and some "oh oh oh", the song kind of gets stale. So we need to break it down. But not for too long, or else the listener loses interest. I have seen people change the radio station no more than a minute into a song that they were actually singing along to. "I'm bored of it now." Don't think that these multi-billion dollar corporations won't know that. And so the interest of the listener is yet again captured by a crescendo, to whom many incites mimicking the sound, 

Lasgo - Something

This is the kind of rubbish I'm talking about. It has everything. It was honestly the first song I found on YouTube when typing in dance tune. It starts off with the sound of hitting two pipes together, and includes a drum machine, rather than real drums. The vocals are easy to sing, and with only twelve unique lines, with an average of four words per line, you'll be able to sing it as well as the singer before the song is even over. With a bit of help from autotune that is. It really is a boring, nothing, bland song. It's fairly old, but I'd say that pop or dance hasn't really evolved much.

For a laugh, have a look at songs that have ripped off others. Let's be honest, with the first song, the Kinks ripped off the Kinks.

Perhaps musicians are running out of ideas, or perhaps they're not good enough to come up with new ones. There are a number of tried and tested chord sequences that everyone knows and likes that are prominent in many rock and pop songs. There's even a site to help you, if you think you have heard something similar before.

Top 10 Music Sellouts

If you run out of material, try going down the pop route. When you lose your anger, or have been softened by top of the range hotels, private jets, and beach front property, it's hard to tap into what made you famous in the first place. It dries up. So source in some help from song writers and producers, change your image, and play a more bland sound. You either die a hero, or live long enough to see yourself become the villain. I think what helped Led Zeppelin and The Beatles is that they weren't around long enough to become bad. Everything they did was loved by the fans. The transformation is clear. Most my age know Aerosmith for I Don't Want To Miss A Thing, yet in the 1970s, they were brilliant. The same with Maroon 5, who were quite funky on their first album. One that I really enjoyed. Now, with their transformation into people pleasing pop music, I'm ashamed to say I own an album of theirs. Teenagers love Maroon 5, but are unaware that little over ten years ago, they used to play guitars. They include guitars in their recent music videos, but nah, that's all completely fake.

I get that a lot of it is subjective. We all like different types of music. That's fine. My main argument is that modern music is so insincere. Even the bands that pretend to be rock are fake. They're not sticking it to the man, they're sticking it on their Instagram to gain cash. I feel insulted that producers and record labels think that I would be stupid enough to fall for all this, yet when I look around me and see idiots dancing to Moves Like Jagger, I don't blame the record labels any more. They are in it simply to make money. Musicians pretend they're in it for their love of the music, but that is becoming less and less true with every passing generation. It used to be that they had a story to tell, or a message to display. Now, they want to be famous.

So if you claim to like both pop and rock, you don't. Rock conflicts with pop. The true spirit of rock and roll is that you don't do what people tell you, and that you're true to yourself. Pop music will repeat that message, while at the same time milking the listener dry of their money. Like playing football, becoming rich is a byproduct of being good at what you do. Musicians used to make millions because they were good, and they were good because they loved music and wanted to perform and create. That drove them to absolute dedication. That's not the case now. No one is prepared to put the work in. Why would you, when you've got only two possible options? One; be born good looking and marketable, or Two; don't. Being good and working hard in music is no longer an option. Kids don't have the attention span to become virtuoso performers, and the consumer doesn't want to listen to that. They want to hear the same churned up rubbish they've been listening to for the last twenty years.

And if you're someone that claims to like pop and rock, but are concerned that there are no good bands any more, YOU'RE PART OF THE PROBLEM!!! If you have ever given your money to a pop musician, seen a show, bought a t-shirt, downloaded their music, watched them on TV, didn't turn off the radio immediately when it came on, YOU HAVE BECOME A STATISTIC THAT IS COLLUDING IN THE DEATH OF MUSIC. They see your money, which reinforces their idea that they can inundate the world with conveyor belt nobodies from awful talent shows. That means that good bands don't get signed or promoted. They don't create. They don't perform. They don't inspire. That has a knock-on effect. Each generation inspired the last one. Muddy Waters inspired Chuck Berry, who inspired Beatles, Led Zeppelin, Stones, Black Sabbath, Deep Purple, who inspired Queen, AC/DC, Boston, Aerosmith, who inspired Guns n Roses, Metallica, Chili Peppers, Nirvana, who inspired Green Day, Offspring, Oasis, Blur, who inspired The Darkness, Franz Ferdinand, Kaiser Chiefs... and then what? Nicky Minaj? Ed Sheeran? This dire dross that plagues our eardrums.

These bands, this good music, will not come back, because too many idiots are reeled in hook, line, and sinker. The amount of branded stuff you can buy nowadays is insane. One Direction fragrance? Why? And that's usually the sign of someone who has come to an end. Very few female singers with talent are promoted. Instead, it's the minimally talented, but exceptionally good looking. Inevitably, their use-by date expires. They can happily ride off into the sunset with their millions, or they can keep ramming themselves down our throats. And they call this "branching out." What that means is trying their hand at other stuff, including reality TV, minor acting roles, panelists on talent shows, or becoming a fashion designer. Two things hit me straight away that are offensive. Acting and fashion design takes talent. A failed singer gets an inflated sense of self-worth because now they're a millionaire and think they can do anything. Acting and fashion design take years of (like any skill or ability) failure, rejection, sacrifice, dedication, practise. Going on Big Brother or being a judge on X Factor is easy. Literally anyone could do it. And anyone does. How must it feel to be an actor or actress hoping to win a big part, but you're snubbed at the last minute because some failed pop star wants a go, and the executives are willing to do it as a publicity stunt. Or as a fashion designer, having your place on the runway stolen by some talentless noboby, that is a household name. Your years of work go unappreciated and unnoticed, while the audience fawns over some generic styles that a singer lent their name to.

All pop music sounds the same.

How to make a hit song without talent.

How singers cheat.

Famous singers with and without autotune. Some are still okay. Others not so much.

Couldn't you sound like they do with twenty hours of lessons?

Even a cynic like me can admit that the tunes are catchy, but I have several issues with this. One is that they are taking short cuts. Like cosmetic surgery and Photoshop, they have not actually earned their acclaim, yet have provided the illusion of talent. We don't take short cuts in football, and players or coaches that try to, do not last very long. Music is an act, where a machine can make one look good, but in sport, you cannot mask a lack of talent. It's like those ab toners that provide electric shocks to the abdominal muscles. It works as about 120 sit-ups in twenty minutes. That many sit-ups would take a person no more than three minutes. Do you really not have three minutes in your day? In addition to that is the Catch 22; if you have too much body fat, then the electric shocks will have little effect on your muscles, and even so, you're still too fat for abs to appear, yet people that regularly exercise and eat right will probably already have low body fat and prominent muscle tone. We all look for more effective techniques, and try to get any advantage we can, but these are shortcuts.

The other thing that bothers me is who the credit and the fortune goes to. Modern day singers are worth millions, though I don't think their talent warrants such rewards. As we can see, the real work is done by the producer in the studio, and the often anonymous song writer. Swimmers, runners, boxers, tennis players etc. all give thanks to their coaches and backroom staff. Rhianna et al. try to pull the wool over our eyes by explaining how emotional they can get in the studio, and that the song truly reflects a piece of who they are. What utter rubbish. I'd have a lot more respect for these people if they just said that the majority of work is done by others, and that they deserve the credit. Even when a person can honestly proclaim "it was all me, I did it myself" they still don't, for fear of losing their humility. Maybe it's a British thing, but I naturally play down any success that I have. I realise I am part of something much bigger than I am, and although in the role of coach, I can be quite an influential cog, I am still just one cog in a much larger machine. And if my cog were to be replaced with another of equal or greater value, the machine would likely still have performed well.

And then there's the sob story. It seems like there isn't one pop star or reality TV show contestant that doesn't have a sob story. Again, I find myself in disbelief. Most of the time, the story, although sad, isn't actually any worse than any other person. Take anyone. You, me, your mate. If we relayed our life story to others, but only included the negative and the depressing, we could all make someone cry. The deaths, the breakups, the betrayals, the disappointments, the setbacks, the struggle. We've all had those. Some, and that is very few, are much, much worse than the average, but most that we hear, really are run of the mill, atypical, life stories. And what if coaches were to pick their teams with this in mind? Imagine holding trials for an academy side, and considering the sob stories of the auditioning kids. We'd first get rid of any middle class kids that have two loving parents. Start looking for those with one or zero parents, and quantifying the sadness of the circumstances. We can also evaluate health, school, home, and any potential signs of oppression or abuse. Actually, skip all that. We'll just contact the NSPCC for a list of their cutest kids, and the pick a team from there.

Why don't we? Because none of that matters when we consider the talent or potential of a young player. I've had decent players from all sorts of backgrounds. It's true that there are some environments and circumstances that are more conducive to the creation of talented footballers, but I do not intend to go trawling the streets of Buenos Aires and ignore the good children of Hampshire and Surrey. "Hey kids, I'm a scout. Which one of you has the most tragic sob story?" It really means nothing. I know they do it so that the audience can become emotionally invested, but I think that is superficial and vain. These talent shows are there to judge talent. Nothing else, other than the performance and the ability of the contestant should be considered.

Orchestrating impartiality.

Considering the experiment on blind orchestra auditions, we saw that the panelists had their ability to be prejudiced removed. From behind a screen, you don't know if they are male, female, straight, gay, black, white, rich, poor, attractive, or Susan Boyle. And so none of those factors can influence your perception. The only prejudice you will have is of a good performance or a bad performance. Your only bias will be towards those of more ability. Moneyball exposed the myth about baseball players that "just look like a good baseball player." Didn't need stats, only that Brad the baseball player is white, tall, lean, and with a strong jaw. In what way does looking like American Dad mean you will be a better baseball player? In England we know that black kids, and white kids with blonde hair, are more likely to be noticed during trials. They naturally stand out, and so we see more of them. We would traditionally make the same mistakes as baseball by picking only youngsters that look like footballers. It's widely accepted that if Xavi and Iniesta played in the UK or Ireland, they would never have made it as professionals, because their size would have deterred coaches. We know that is nonsense.

So why don't talent shows have performers behind a screen? For some reason, music has become a visual experience. Like I have said earlier, the performers of old did not need a light show or backing dancers because THEY THEMSELVES WERE THE SHOW. When I saw Deep Purple, it was just a few blokes on stage. Occasionally the lights would change colour. When I saw AC/DC, apart from a large bell and an even larger Rosie, the show was simply the performers on the stage, demonstrating their talent. The reason the show is called the X Factor is because Simon Cowell and his trousers are looking for someone with that unquantifiable, intangible, but clearly evident, special something. It could be the charisma, their look, their presence. Something a producer can look at and think "I could use them to make millions out of teenage girls."

Some of the best performers I have ever seen will never make millions. They will not grace the big screen or the grand stage. They will go forever unknown. And that doesn't deter them. They love what they do. That's what drives them to practise, and to sacrifice. They are intrinsically motivated, and love the feeling of doing a good job. As long as we're living, we're fine. I don't intend to make a fortune from coaching. Less than 1% of us ever will. It would be nice, but that isn't why I do it. I do it because I love it, and as long as it pays the bills and puts food on the table, I will do it. The journey of a campaign, or the joy of seeing players overcome obstacles and grow and shine is far better than any sports car or house with a pool. If I'm not out there making a difference, loving what I do, belonging to something bigger than myself, any material possessions or status symbols are completely worthless. A big TV to watch my favourite shows means nothing to me if I have the coaching itch going unscratched.

It's that true love of what we do that drives us. Those who give up and the first hurdle never truly wanted to do it in the first place. X Factor contestants in their twenties are not talented, committed, dedicated, or sacrificed. If you start playing or singing at five, absolutely love it, and practise for maybe twenty hours per week, you will have been practising for 15,600 hours. That's 650 days of pure practice by the time a person reaches twenty years old. That's why Jimi Hendrix, who died at twenty-seven, had been able to make such incredible music. These incredibly talented musicians didn't spend their childhoods just messing around, and then one day in adulthood decide to be famous. The grinded away every single day, improving and honing their craft.

Remember the 10,000 Hour Rule? It may be more or less, depending on what skill it is you are attempting to learn, what the level of the world's greatest is, and how good your practice is. How many hours do you think one-hit-wonder Carly Rae Jepson had when she irritated our ears with Call Me Maybe? If she was good, she'd still be around. What about Bieber? He wrote some songs and put them on YouTube! He's a real musician! I'm not disputing that, but I will ask if you think he would have been practising singing, guitar, and song writing, for two or three hours per day, since the age of five? Is that reflected in his music? Remember how modern technology can make anyone sound good? And that Photoshop can make anyone look attractive?

It's disgusting to look at, but it proves my point. His head is smaller on the right, in order to make his shoulders appear more broad. Pecs and delts have been enhanced to give him a frame. Biceps have been inflated. Bum has been rounded. They even added a penis, which wasn't there in the original photo.

How is this not illegal? Perhaps the world has bigger fish to fry. Maybe when we're done with ISIS, disease, famine, racism, all forms of bigotry, war, and the mass amounts of lone-wolf, mentally-disturbed, white, irresponsible gun owners that shoot up schools and cinemas in the US, we can start to crack down on this stuff. It really is false advertising. Unless it's true that wearing Calvin Klein makes your bum more muscly, and increases penal girth. I wouldn't know, as I don't buy Calvin Klein, because I don't want to be associated with twelve year old Canadian boys in their underwear. What effect does Calvin Klein underwear have on women? Does it make them grow a penis too?

How embarrassing must it be to be such a weed, that when you model underwear, the company decides that you are too similar to an eight year old, that they need to digitally enhance your muscles, and award you a penis? I speculate that most normal people would have their self-esteem damaged beyond repair. As an underwear model, after a few photos, the photographer comes over and says "Here, mate, we can't see your knob, so stuff this cucumber down there" you would be deeply offended, and walk out. So why can it unashamedly happen with Photoshop?

Do people like being lied to? Observe behaviour in restaurants that has patrons exhibit massive hissy fits and become violent and aggressive when their order is slightly wrong. It's not what they asked for. It's nothing like it said it would be. Yet your favourite singer can't sing, he or she has never written a song in their life, the instruments in their songs are not real, and you will throw money at them until they YOLO your brains out. Why accept this?

I'm not saying for a second that every time I listen to music, I need it to be Bohemian Rhapsody, or some provocative Pink Floyd masterpiece. No. Sometimes I want to listen to a three chord Status Quo boogie, or the simple powerchords of AC/DC, or the four chords of The Beatles with their childlike melodies. Sometimes I do want to switch off, and let my brain wonder along easy street, listening to easily digestible music, that is catchy, shallow, and not thought provoking in any way. Sometimes I want to blast out Motorhead or Black Sabbath. But never, ever, ever, ever, will I accept a lie.

Is it wrong that I have these standards? I'll refer you back to my argument earlier about football quality. I'm not going to take you to see Aldershot Town v Tranmere Rovers and try to convince you that it's Chelsea v Man City. At best, it's insincere. At worst, it's a lie. If you are brain damaged enough to enjoy One Direction, don't try telling anyone that they are good. Would you try to convince anyone that McDonald's or Burger King is quality food? Of course not. It's cheap, easy, and tasty. But don't try telling Gordon Ramsey or Jamie Oliver that they are bigoted snobs because they won't eat at or endorse McDonald's. Don't try telling them that "Actually, it's really good. They've reduced the salt content, and the ingredients are fresh."

Because I'd rather listen to Paul McCartney than Drake, does not make me a snob, in the same way that I'd rather go to Disney World than Blackpool. Yes, Disney is more expensive than Blackpool, BUT ALL MUSIC COSTS THE SAME. A Rolling Stones album costs the same as an Ed Sheeran one. Only one of them will destroy your soul, and it's not the band that features Jack Sparrow's father.

Humans love dopamine. That is a chemical that is released every time you experience something positive. It's not hugs you love, it's the dopamine that is released as a result of them. Humans also like to feel intelligent. That's feel. Feeling is different to being. When I go to Mexico I feel really tall, but I'm actually only six foot. Pop music has this amazing ability to make people feel intelligent, because of the catchy tune, the predictable melodies, and the easily replicable vocals. A listener can learn the entire song before the song has actually finished, that's how predictable it is nowadays. So that makes us feel intelligent. And in a world where everything is instant, we are losing our ability for gratification delay. That's one of the biggest things that separates us from animals. Experiments with kids show that far too many do not have this skill. I can give you one cookie right now, or you can wait five minutes and I will give you two. Obviously waiting five minutes is the better option, because you get double. But people can't do that. They want it now. They take the one cookie, enjoy it, and then, in about a minute and a half, they are cookieless, with the experience complete, and no more cookies to look forward to. Despite having had a cookie, that's not enough, and the people want more to satisfy that desire.

I use the term "loss averse" in order to describe humans and human behaviour. Two positives equates to one negative. We have to have two positive experiences to make up for the bad one. We have to win two games to get over the defeat. Due to our diminished sense of gratification delay, we can't wait. We can't be patient. We want it now. So we rush the experience because we are desperate for the positive feeling, and that dopamine hit. And then it's over too soon, so we need another one. In 2017, the ways to get cheap dopamine hits are infinite. Get your phone out, take a selfie, upload it, and wait for people to tell you how gorgeous you are. Share an article you didn't read about the devastating effects of climate change, and very soon your followers will marvel at your conscientiousness for Mother Earth. If you miss talking to people, go on Twitter and write something at a popular hashtag, and responses should come in pretty quick. Go on chat rooms and converse with other internet users. Want some physical contact? Simulate that by instantly watching porn. Not real enough? Visit the thousands of cam sites, where the viewer can interact with a whole variety of performers. What are you into? Black? Asian? Blonde? Ginger? It will take you two minutes to find what you're looking for. No need to go speed dating, trawl through pubs, ask friends for set-ups. I wish to see a woman that looks like this, doing this to her body. A couple clicks and it's up on my screen. I don't have to leave my chair. And if that's not good enough? There's Tinder. Sign up now, and quench your thirst in twenty minutes. In thirty minutes, you'll be back downstairs, watching your favourite TV show from where you left off, alone. You never have to see that person again. You don't need to know their name, or even if they are in a relationship.

With this insufferable need for ego boosts, people go to extreme lengths to get likes from others. This sometimes stretches into the realm of downright lies. Like the Bieber Photoshop. The just got out of bed selfies, which follow two actions; get out of bed and apply makeup, then get back into bed before taking a filtered photo of yourself. Select the best one and upload it. "OMGZ!!!! WOW!!!!! U R SO HOT!!!!! CNT BLV DATS NATURAL!!!!" Having seen that, and then peering at your own reflection in the mirror, moments after waking up, you look like a gorilla that was assaulted in its sleep. That now makes you feel bad. And to get back to normal, we need two positive outcomes. How can we get those? Here's a good one! Condemning something everyone hates is a good way to get some likes. "I FKN HATE PEEDOFILES!!! WE SHOULD KILL THE LOT OF THEM!!! CUT THERE DICKS OFF!!!" This shows that the author is passionate, caring, sensitive, and also a bit of a tough guy that isn't to be messed with. And how can any red blooded mammal scroll through their news feed and not like a post about hating paedophiles? You better like it, because if you don't, other people will think you're a paedophile! Suddenly the likes come flooding in. There's one positive. We need another. So then we employ the pretend to be at the pub selfie. It's you, with a bottle of drink, making a stupid face, and posing next to a wall. "Pub with the lads. Top banter forecast for tonight's events." Inevitably the lads catch on and ask who you went out with last Friday night. "Oh, just some of my other mates. A few guys I used to work with."

See beach selfies, hot dog legs, toes at the end of a sun lounger, legs crossed with a beer in hand (which can be by the beach or in front of the TV). "Settling down after a long hard week at work." "This is what Fridays are made for." "Relaxing in time for the big game." You know the type. It says "I'm having more fun than you [lie] and need you to know it." And it works. We see these selfies, get jealous at their good time, and feel bad for not also having a good time. And how to we respond to it? By repeating the cycle.

We love a good photo filter. It's bad enough to use Photoshop to hide your flaws. Why settle for being ugly when you can lie to people by digitally enhancing your image? It's one of those things that most people will criticise, and yet still do. When looking at a model "You can see clearly that it's been shooped!" yet it is done without applying the same standards to OUR VERY OWN PHOTOS WE UPLOAD TO FACEBOOK AND INSTAGRAM!!!! Hypocrites. I think it's even worse when I see one of those stupid Snapchat filters, like the dog ears. When I encounter one of those photos in my feed, I feel an impending sense of drudge for having once respected that person. It's like feeling let down or disappointed. Being completely honest, those photo filters are not funny. They are 0% funny. There is not one funny thing about them. Unless you're stupid. Then, apparently they're hilarious. If this was 1990s technology, the first three or our photos with that filter would have been mildly amusing. Now, seeing one, we learn two things about the offender; they are boring. So boring. Literally so boring that they had to waste five seconds of our time by uploading a picture of themselves with computerised dog ears because they are that boring that nothing else about their personality, abilities, or worth as a human being can entertain us. So boring. And secondly, it tells us that they have a need to do the thing that everyone else is doing, because everyone else is doing that thing. Not only are they boring, they are also sheep. Easily manipulated, with little to offer humanity.

These people, surprisingly, aren't lobotomised morons that live in the sewer, only coming above the surface after dark. No. They are people with families and people with jobs. Imagine having to explain to your kid one day why you thought it was funny to take a photo with a filter that superimposes dog ears onto your head. It's not like an offensive prank or something stupid you did when you were young that perhaps others shouldn't know about. No. This is you, having to explain to your child, what is funny about such a photograph.

"Mum, why did you do this?"
"Everyone else in 2017 was doing it."
"So?"
"I needed some likes from my followers."
"But there's nothing funny, clever, or interesting about this."
"What do you mean?"
"I mean you wasted time taking, posting, and responding to likes and comments."
"How is that a waste of time?"
"How were you allowed to have children?"

You're right. This is not the worst thing in the world. It's just a symptom of it. Stopping people from taking stupid selfies won't suddenly turn the planet into a harmonious Utopia. Making such a change to our planet, however, will greatly reduce the amount of selfies, photo filters, and like fishing posts on our social media. Let's attack the route of the cause rather than the symptoms.

Something else which bugs me, and as you can see, it's quite a lot, is the lack of credit that song writers are given. People that try to defend the pop stars say that the song writers are good. Evidently so. The songwriters are doing something which causes them to make a lot of money. But picture it like a group project. Who actually did all the work? And who is getting all the credit? Sure, the songwriters are paid handsomely, and if I was making millions each year, I wouldn't care that no one knew who I was. It's still the principal of it. A man or woman is up on stage, basking in the glory and affection of the crowd, yet they owe it all to someone else entirely, who is never, ever given a mention.

Imagine Bieber halfway through a show saying "Thank you everyone, thank you, I truly appreciate your applause. None of this would have been possible without some middle aged Swedish man that I have never met, who writes these songs alone in a room somewhere. Big applause for him, please. Without his talent, I wouldn't be able to pretend that I have any, and wouldn't be able to rip you off of your hard earned cash." Or something like that. It's just not going to happen, is it. We like the goalscorers that appreciate the assist giver. We like the coaches that applaud the crowd. It's just nice to see some true thanks and appreciation once in a while.

A lot of these performers don't actually know what it's like to suck. Even though they do. How many times have they tried and failed? Truly tried, giving their all, treating it like life and death, and truly failed, with catastrophic, life changing failure, from which there appears to be no escape from the dark abyss of despair. They might get a bad review, some jokes from a celebrity on Twitter, and occasionally booed at a show. But if an audience of 20,000 boos you off, you're quite far from failure. The fact that you got to that stage and that you will continue to sell out large venues means that you have already surpassed anything that can be described as a failure.

Being told by Simon Cowell that you aren't good enough is failure in the same way that my application to NASA to lead the first manned mission to Mars was rejected. The people on these talent shows aren't putting their heart and soul into it, even though their backstories might try to convince you otherwise. They took a few days off work to sing in front of a TV audience. Were they singers before? Had they invested their life savings into trying to make it as a singer? If they don't make it, will they be crushed, or return to their humble 9-5 life? Look at the team that loses the World Cup final. A once in a life time opportunity. The culmination of their life's work. The hope of a nation. They are on their knees. They are beyond despair. They are stunned. Shocked. They want the ground to open up and swallow them whole. They have given everything to get there, and not been good enough. They have been practising for this moment from when they were five. They have had disappointment, heartache, rejection, sacrifice, every day, going headstrong against the odds of 0.002% they would even make it is a professional footballer. They have become one of a few hundred to ever set foot on the grass at a World Cup final. Approach them right there and then and you will not hear "Thanks, Ant and Dec, I had a really good time tonight, guess it just wasn't to be." No. They are speechless. They are devastated. And the wounds will never disappear.

We all have our own World Cups. We all have our own crushing failures. Unless you're hand picked for your good looks.

What I mean is, ever heard that guy say "Calm down, mate. It's not the FA Cup final"? Very few of us will ever get to that stage. That doesn't mean that we won't put our heart and soul into trying to achieve our very best, whatever our best may be. I don't know where my career will take me, but I am fighting tooth and nail for it to take me somewhere. Failure is not an option. Failure is not something that I can or will contemplate. My hopes and dreams are entirely within my own hands though (although life is largely circumstantial, I am still an architect of my own destiny within the parameters that my circumstances have afforded me). My hopes and dreams don't rest on being selected by a record company because I have the potential to make money for them by being targeted towards teenage girls. The realisation of my aspirations depend on my talent and my effort, both of which are within my control. My effort improves my talent, which improves my chances of being good enough to make it. I can't get to the FA Cup final, or to the World Cup by faking it, by playing up to image, or by doing things that would make people like me. It may help, it may grease the wheels a little bit, but no matter how much I brown nose, my bosses won't like me if I'm not actually good at my job. My players won't improve or win championships if I'm not actually a good coach. I can make gang signs, pose for photos, take selfies, wear snapbacks, wear t-shirts with stupid slogans on them, and the public may adore me, but that means absolutely nothing if my talent doesn't produce results. Which is entirely different in pop music, because that lack of talent can be easily masked.

Failure hardens a person. It strengthens their resolve. It makes them question their motives and evaluate their actions. A person learns a line from a victory, but an entire page from a defeat. I've you've never sucked at something, why are you doing it? If you have been at the lowest you can possibly be, and gone even lower. If you've been fired, rejected, betrayed. If you have been criticised, slaughtered, and had your character assassinated. If you have been left friendless and alone. If you have given it your all. If you have invested all your time, money, and effort, and it's all gone horribly wrong, and blown up in your face. If you have hit rock bottom, and yet you try again, you persist, you dust yourself off and keep going, then you will be much more likely to achieve long term sustainable success. Why? Because you have been pushed to the edge, and you kept going. Because you have stared death in the face and persisted despite your fear. Because in the face of insurmountable odds, where no sane, logical, rational person would continue, you kept going. You are deluded enough that you will succeed. You are driven by something deep inside of you. You have a passion that very few have, and even fewer will be able to understand.

Remember the ten thousand hour rule? Of course you do. Whatever it may be for your own pursuit or level of excellence, you won't get anywhere near the top without putting the work in. Unless that pursuit is music and you have a face that can be marketable to a teenager. Let's pretend for a second that the ten thousand hour rule is applicable to the music industry. Realistically, how many hours of practice would Robin Thicke have put in, compared to Sir Paul McCartney at the same age? Are they working hard to be good at what they do, or are they working to be good enough to be spotted? Find these modern singers at a young age, tell them they suck, and you won't see them again. Even if they do have the motivation to continue, that's not the driving force here, it's the market force. If it looks like no one is interested, record companies won't sign, and they won't advertise.

For some of the older readers of this, trying to understand the behaviour and the motives of us millennials, consider it like this; to most people of and around my generation, it means more to them to be perceived for having competence, than it does to actually have competence. People would rather be famous than talented. They want to be highly regarded, but aren't willing to put in the effort or sacrifice to actually be worthy of such accolades. Amazing, isn't it. Just like those people who go to concerts to see some guy play a laptop.

People actually pay good money for this. Insane. The times I have been unfortunate enough to be exposed to this type of thing, I have listened intently. Between songs, the laptopists (is that what we should call them?) tell the audience how much they love them and how grateful they are to be able to perform. Then, they will press play on their laptop, as some rehashed and recycled familiar tunes that were made famous by some other artist blazes out of large speakers. Meanwhile, the laptopist, who is now free for three minutes before he has another task to complete, is able to make some arthritic signals with his hand, and occasionally grunt "uh" or "yeah" into the microphone, to give the appearance of being live. If the laptopist truly loved the audience, they wouldn't be bleeding them dry of their cash, while pressing play on a machine that plays bits of other people's songs mixed together. If you have ever been to one of these, I am very sorry, but that $100 or however much it was, was essentially flushed down the toilet. Apart from a whiff of bad smells, and an insight into how ecstasy works, you gained nothing from the experience.

I'm sat typing at my laptop right now. There is nothing interesting about me in this precise moment. As this is a particularly long article, I have been writing it in England and in Mexico. Throughout May, June, and July. In many different chairs. That's still boring. Still more exciting than a live laptop show.

Here's a little insight into how pop music works. Four chord songs are nothing new. They have been used for around sixty years now. Pop music now is McDonald's music. Like I have said countless times before. It's alright to enjoy McDonald's now and then. Just don't try telling me it is Gourmet. I occasionally get Katie Perry songs stuck in my head. And why not? They are catchy. Just like jingles for commercials. They are designed to stick in our mind, which then breads familiarity. Initially, we think telling someone they are a fire work is an absolutely stupid thing to say. A firework? Really? But because it is catchy, it grows on the listener. Like Happy by Pharrell. Catchy, yet annoying. It was designed to stick in your head. But a room without a roof? Please don't try and pretend you're cool when you write lines like that. If you soiled your pants at work, you couldn't then go in the next day and pretend everything was normal. When your lines are that bad, you shouldn't be attempting to cover up your mistakes by spending a fortune on your appearance and pretending you have style. Sadly, this works.

So the catchy song, which has bread familiarity, has now got the listener singing it. The lines are easy to remember and easy to hear, so we can now sing along. So we feel intelligent. We were enjoying that song, but it finishes. And then another song comes on, which is also quite similar. In fact, the beat and the sound are so much like all those other songs you like. I'm not pretending this doesn't happen in other types of music. I can think of many times that a song I like from one group sounds like a song I like from another group. There are even examples of a band having multiple songs without much variance (this was said a lot about Status Quo, yet after sixty years, they were still writing new material, and performing international tours, because they have talent and care about the fans. "But they make money from their tours!" Of course they do, but they are old men that are currently rich beyond their wildest dreams. Why do they still go out on stage? Because they love it). Even though a lot of these bands would sound similar, of have many similar sounding songs, there never has been an era of music where so many of the leading groups or singers sound exactly the same. I think every female voice is Rhianna. Each song, each voice, each sound, is crafted in a way to be similar to what people are being told they like. It's the same thing, with slight differences.

It happens in modern film too. In six months we have had another Transformers movie, another Kong remake, a Baywatch remake, a Wonder Woman remake, Cars 3, another Spiderman, a Mummy remake, and even Rogue One, which technically was an original story, but it was the five minutes leading up to the first ever Star Wars movie. It was new material, with all the cool stuff we wanted to see; Darth Vader, X-Wings, lasers, Death Star etc. And Princess Leia, cool! And Tarkin, cool! We are so desperate for the same thing being served to us again and again, that we honestly cheered seeing the computer generated faces of dead actors. Don't get me wrong, I get the point of view of continuity, as it is a very intricate and detailed story, and I thought the technology was brilliant. We still saw the computer generated faces of dead actors for our amusement.

Simply, humans are idiots. We don't want anything deep and meaningful, we want to be able to switch off and enter some fantasy land where problems don't matter and life is great. I would estimate less than 10% of people I have met in my entire life are capable of having a genuine and honest conversation. You don't necessarily have to be close to someone to figure this out. Monitor how long they can stay on the same subject. How deep can they go? At what point do they move on? Do they have lots of words and energy, yet struggle to tackle difficult subjects? If they are pressed with a question or two, do they squirm and look for a way out? Do you truly know what they are thinking and feeling? Some of the deepest chats I have had with people are ones that I knew for a very short time, or had known only briefly at that point. Many people I have known my entire life, we have never got beyond superficial conversation. It's not about the strength of your relationship, or the trust or bond you have. Some people cannot talk about feelings, desires, philosophy, fears, religion, science, psychology, and the wonder and the intrigue of the world. Probably why celebrity gossip is so popular. If these people were to stop and question their existence for just a moment, they wouldn't like what they see. Maybe that's why they never let a conversation get too deep.

So we like what we know, and we stick to it. We crave the familiar, under the guise of something new and interesting. Information becomes social currency. If a person knows the new song coming up, they seem cool to their friends. It's a competition. It doesn't look like a very good one. It's not very fun, and the only potential gain is social currency? What's the point in that? Because looking good is important. Appearance is paramount. Other people's perceptions can be so important to some people. This is a very damaging, and very limiting spell. Don't let yourself fall into this trap.

Music producers don't produce music that makes you think, because you don't want to think. You don't want to engage with your demons. You want to high five your bros, get some likes on your selfies, and get so drunk that you forget your problems.

Really, why is David Beckham far more famous than his former Manchester United and England teammate, Paul Scholes?

They both came through the youth teams at United at the same time. Both became club legends. Both won every prize in England at club level. Both regarded as hugely talented and successful players. Both scored magnificent and memorable goals. They are both incredibly boring to talk to. It's down to looks. It's because Paul Scholes looks like that angry little ginger kid that used to steal sweets at school.

For some reason, good looking people get far better treatment than the rest of us. There's good looking, where people are attracted to them, there's normal, and then there's ugly, which is repulsive. I have several friends on Facebook whose mere photos make me cringe in disgust. I know I'm hardly an Adonis, but I am not repulsive. My face may not open doors for me, but it doesn't get me escorted out of the room, either. A lot of very good looking people are given this special treatment, and they are completely unaware of the benefits of it.

As usual, South Park gets it 100% correct.

No one wants to admit they're ugly.

8 Scientifically proven reasons life is better if you're beautiful.

Why beautiful people are more successful.

Beautiful people have a totally different experience of life.

It seems like it all comes naturally to them. And of course, because they're all so good looking, we're going to forgive them. Silly how humans work. It amazes me how many people will say "It's what's on the inside that counts" and then choose a partner with their looks being one of the most important things. That's natural. There needs to be that physical connection, but why are we extending it to people who are way out of our league, and that we will never meet? 

This article tries to explain it a little. It loses me when it compares young girls screaming at pop concerts to young boys screaming at football matches. There's a few things wrong with such a comparison;

• Having been to a fair few games at different levels on different continents, it's very rare to encounter screaming boys of any kind.
• In fact, screaming doesn't really occur at sports matches. There is plenty of shouting, which is different to screaming, in that words are actually formed.
• The shouting at sports is predominantly middle aged men. They're the only ones that can afford ticket prices these days anyway.
• The author of the article links girls screaming at concerts to young girls discovering their sexuality in a safe, and non threatening environment, and asks "What's wrong with girls doing it when boys do it at football matches?" apart from the fact of "no they don't" the difference comes in the exploration of sexuality.

If boys were discovering their sexuality at football matches, you could be pretty sure that their fathers would soon put a stop to that. Remember that there's no gays in football, and that's the way football likes it. I don't get screaming. I don't get shouting either. I'm not really a noisy person. It seems to me that people that make these noises don't actually know what they are feeling, or are unsure how to express it properly. Anyway. The article also talks about young girls smashing into shopping malls to meet One Direction, or fighting with Police Officers to see The Beatles. Have you ever known a group of 10-14 year old boys to do that about Kylie Minogue, Beyonce, Miley Cyrus? That may seem a little rapey if it were to happen. Look at those Twilight Moms. The thought makes you shudder. Yet that is far more acceptable than if a group of grown men were to obsess over the latest teen actress sensation. Imagine a group of dads going to a movie premiere with their signs, dressed in costumes, begging... I don't actually know. I've had to resort to Google to find a teen actress, and I don't know any of the top suggestions.

Still, this article is rather helpful. Most beautiful teen actresses (Under 18). And damn. Some of them are way younger than eighteen. And to top it off, there's no black ones. Is this acceptable? I have been physically repulsed by former colleagues of mine who have rated teenage female players by their looks. Once in a McDonald's, after obtaining the freshly printed player cards, a fellow coach organised the girls in the team, and ranked them on attractiveness. That is grotesque. And yet, somehow, I don't think this article would be likely to upset anybody.

Species of screamers.

Remember; it's on the inside the counts, and never judge a book by its cover. Beauty is only skin deep.

And also remember; have a look at the hottest teen actresses!

Cognitive dissonance at its finest.

Is modern music desensitising kids to sex? "Hey rude boy is you big enough? Hey rude boy can you get it up!" Songs have always been about sex, at least they were far better at hiding it, or parents didn't let their kids listen to it. Aren't lyrics just awful in general these days?

Isn't this all just the same recycled rubbish? There's nothing new coming out as it is all too dangerous. Like I said before, it's all the same in Hollywood too with the movies. And it's all the same with the people in Hollywood. Just look.

And here is evidence to suggest that despite all the different names for movie stars, there are in fact only nine different men in Hollywood. The Bieber Cyrus meme was very good. They are the same person.

Does it happen in football? Well I already made the Beckham and Scholes comparison. I'll give one more example. Franck Ribery says the third player shouldn't show up to the Ballon d'Or if Messi and Ronaldo are there. This isn't to say that Messi and Ronaldo aren't phenomenal players, just that they still seem to win the award even when another player had a better season. Franck Ribery should have won in 2013, and Manuel Neuer should have won in 2014, yet Ronaldo won both of those. In 2013 Ribery won the Champions League as part of a Bayern team that won the league, cup, and Champions League. One of the best ever seasons for a club side in Europe, and Franck was huge for them that year. Franck came third, with Ronaldo's Real Madrid finishing 2nd in Spain. Messi's Barcelona finished 1st in Spain. Ribery won three trophies, and Bayern were unstoppable in Europe, yet came third. Messi won one trophy and came second. Ronaldo won zero and came first.

The following season, Manuel Neuer was huge as Bayern won the league and cup double, got to the Champions League semi final, and Germany won the World Cup. Neuer came third behind Messi in second place, whose Barcelona had an awful season. Messi did happen to make it to the World Cup final, losing to Neuer. Ronaldo's Real Madrid may have won the Champions League and the Spanish cup, but they were disappointing in the league. And Ronaldo's Portugal were horrendous at the World Cup that year. They were eliminated in the group stage. It's also wrong that in all of Barcelona's years of dominance, neither Xavi Hernandez or Andres Iniesta were rewarded with a Ballon d'Or

Why do you think Franck Ribery doesn't have his own fashion line, and isn't used as heavily in adverts as Messi and Ronaldo?

Andres Iniesta and Xavi Hernandez clearly didn't have enough star power. A few La Ligas, some cups, world club titles, some Champions Leagues, a couple Euros, and a World Cup. Far greater than what Beckham ever achieved. They're not much of a marketable pair. They look a little like Flea from the Chili Peppers and Ted Mosby from How I Met Your Mother.

Why does Ronaldo always pose? Why does he always look pristine? It's because he is the most followed, photographed, and watched footballer on the planet. His multi million dollar deal with Nike has to have him looking great. He needs to be selling their products, and he won't do that, apparently, if he has a hair out of place. Such is the power of image.

Has fashion become more important than image in music?

The thing about talent is that it is yours and you can do what you like with it. Without it, you're stuck doing what others tell you. You're a puppet. Perhaps a very rich puppet. Just listen to this song, one of the best of the 1980s, a time when music was rapidly going down hill. Imagine being able to make that sound with your own fingers. That guitar riff came from you. Mark Knopfler may look a little like Jerry Seinfeld, but is that important? Enjoy the guitar.

People don't want music that makes them think. Everything needs to be spelled out clearly. It needs to be 100% relatable, which is why it is vague and bland. Check out the inspiration behind The Who's Baba O'Riley. Can't imagine Will.I.Am and Britney collaborating to come up with a song like this.

I know I have repeated myself, not just in this article, but in others, and in real life too. Do we have a generation of entitled, lazy, and narcissistic people? Let's wrap things up with this famous video of one of my favourite author's, Simon Sinek, explaining millennials today.

We (and I say we, as although this is about millennials, I still see that millennials as parents are repeating the same mistakes with their own kids) have told our kids that they are special, and that they can have anything they want in life. That's just not true. Statistically, we know it is impossible. Not everyone can be the best. If we all grew up wanting to be president, an astronaut, a singer, a professional athlete, an actor, it just couldn't happen in reality. Each country only has one leader, and they will be in power for several years. It's highly unlikely you will make it. The first thing you do is do not tell your kids they are special. If you have Facebook, and you hate seeing how mundane and boring everyone else's kids are, yours are just as boring. Those kids are not special, and your kids are not special. Don't lie to them, and don't lie to yourselves. Tell them you love them unconditionally, tell them you will support them no matter what, tell them that all you want for them in life is to be happy. That is good parenting. Telling them they are special is not, and this is why.

It is my job to identify and to develop talent. I believe that about 95% of the kids I come into contact with have, or had, the ability to achieve whatever they wanted. Whether it was coaching, opportunities, or environment that hindered them, something inevitably does. I believe that 100% of kids I come into contact with are capable of massive improvements and changes in their lives. As are 100% of adults. I am not special. You are not special. Your kids are not special. To tell us that makes us believe it, and this manifests itself into a lazy, entitled, quick-fix mindset.

THAT'S JUST YOUR OPINION!!!! MY KID IS SPECIAL!!!!

Do you believe your kid is genuinely in the top 1%? That means out of 100 people that read this article that have kids, you have the absolute best kid. Your kid is better than 99% of a random sample of kids. Even if your kid is in the top 1%, if we apply that on a global scale, that means there are 70,000,000 people just as good or better. Hendrix is special. Messi is special. Neil Armstrong is special. Obama is special.

Yes, I do believe we all have the power, or had the power before we were corrupted by an ineffective schooling or coaching or parenting or cultural process, to be whatever we want to achieve. Truly. But you do not get there without hard work. I wrote before about the naturally talented delusion. In this sense there are two main themes which are applicable here. The first is what you perceive to be special, may be the manifestation of a hidden advantage, such as relative age bias, rapid growth, or some kid of leg-up which gave the kid a head start over another. Such a head start, which you may not identify, acknowledge, or appreciate, can make it look like your kid was born to do the thing. The second theme is the praise. Don't ever praise talent. Recognise it, but never let a child define themselves by their talent. They are defined by their work ethic, their character, and the dedication of time towards certain priorities. I am not a coach because I was born to be a coach. I am not a coach because I am highly qualified. I am a coach because I am constantly reading, studying, analysing, writing, talking, practising, watching, and developing. I may be Coach Willy, but that is because of what I devote my time and effort to, not because of who I am on the inside. Identify the talent; "You have a very good shot" and finish it by praising the effort "You must have worked really hard to have developed that." Everyone wants praise. If they are praised for talent, they will seek to be identified by how good they are, and when they fail or struggle, they will hide. Praise their commitment and effort, and they will persevere through the bad times.

We want endless praise, but don't want to work. We want the feeling of success without earning the success. We want to look great, but aren't prepared to sweat for it. We don't mind if others perceive us as greater than what we are, as long as we can continue the charade. Image means more than substance. We all believe we are special, want others to perceive us as special, and are upset that deep down, we're really not that special. We know we aren't great, but if we pretend long enough, perhaps that feeling goes away. Perhaps having others believe we are special will eventually make it true. It can be the case in music, but not so in football. I could join a rock band and hope to become good some day by hanging around with the musicians, but if I have a poor few gigs because I am a limited guitarist, then my days in the band are over. If I have a great haircut, expensive boots, and do all the freestyle tricks, it may make me standout more and get me a trial at a club, but if I can't produce the goods where it counts; in the game, I won't get the contract. In pop music, if you have the generic, bland, pop look, and you're willing to cut your hair and change your name, you can become a success, but you're a puppet. The performances aren't live, which means your lack of talent remains hidden. Backing dancers and light shows will fill the stage, which is necessary, as you have the body of a timid teenager. You don't need instruments to make music, which saves you a whole lot of time learning how to be good at something. Other people write the songs for you. If you make a mistake in the studio, it's edited out. Your lack of pitch will be corrected by the computer. As will your amateurish timing. And your weak voice will be double or triple-tracked to provide the illusion of a strong voice. And why? Why would you sell your soul like that? Why would you agree to be a marketing tool for a large corporation that makes millions off of idiots? Because you want to be liked. And it doesn't matter that those screaming twelve year-olds don't actually like you, they like the record company's image of you, because you can delude yourself into thinking it's real.

As we don't know what is after death, we need to make the most of it while we're here. Egyptians used to make pyramids. Many civilisations have made sculptures and statues. The royals requested to be painted. People nowadays take bathroom selfies with duck faces as their means to avoid being forgotten about. It's the obscurity and the irrelevance that people fear. People won't remember you after you're gone. Make the impact you have on the world a positive one. Make it a better place. The historical figures and people of significance that we remember from days gone by actually did something important and profound. Some of them were selfish idiots, like King Henry VIII. Da Vinci will always be remembered for incredible artwork. Freddy Mercury will be remembered for electrifying music. Neil Armstrong for being the first human on the moon. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr will be remembered for his civil rights work, and the struggle for equality and acceptance. Marie Curie will be remembered for her work on chemistry and radioactivity, which lead to a greater understanding of cancer.

You probably won't achieve what they did. Neither will your kids. Nor their kids. But you can have a positive impact on the world. You can be remembered by the people around you after you were gone. Life is too short and often insignificant. Do something positive with your time on this rock. Don't measure your achievement or worth by the amount of likes you receive on a selfie, but by the amount of lives you touched, the change you inspired, and the way you made the world a better place.

It's quite apt to finish with three Marie Curie quotes:

"Have no fear of perfection; you'll never reach it. Nothing in life is to be feared, it is only to be understood."

"Be less curious about people and more curious about ideas."

"One never notices what has been done; one can only see what remains to be done."

And please, be wiser with your time, effort, resources, money, and adulation. Love your kids, love yourselves, and stop making stupid people famous.