The Long Ramble - Culture Club or Crazy Gang?
With pre-season in full flow, after a break for us to recharge the batteries and focus on other things, football once again dominates the thinking. And whilst we may have new ideas and strategies for the upcoming season I’ve been thinking about something which never changes, yet is elusive and quite often illusive on top. People in sport talk about “culture” all the time, but if any were asked to truly pin down what they mean I wonder how many would be able to do so coherently.
There will be some key phrases that all clubs/teams/coaches will use to describe their culture - intensity, determination, respect - but are any of these synonymous with a certain team, or are they simply key tenets of the game that are required in order to be successful? Are they just the byproducts of playing football at a high level? What actually differentiates Paris St Germain from Arsenal? Or even Arsenal Men from Arsenal Women? Is culture something that comes from the head coach (and thus would change with every appointment), the club as a whole, or maybe external stimulus such as the fans or location?
So what actually is “culture”? Is it in our control, or are we subject to it? Can we truly be a part of a club if we don’t match the culture? And how much does it underpin any success that we have? In that lay my search for what culture really means.
Culture - noun: The ideas, customs, and social behaviour of a particular people or society.
Just before I set out writing, during the time I compile ideas, videos and articles, a very specific example of culture popped into my head. Possibly the most famous example in English football history. On 14th May 1988, the inimitable John Motson announced to the world “The Crazy Gang have beaten The Culture Club!”
Wimbledon won their (at time of writing) solitary FA Cup when they defeated the all conquering Liverpool at Wembley in the unlikeliest of outcomes. The rough and tumble Wombles, led out by the one and only Bobby Gould, never changed what made them “them” in a final where they interestingly played like a modern day Premier League side; 1-4-3-3 in formation, high press reverting to low block, long tactical throw ins, centre midfield attacking support from Wise and Sanchez, the tactical foul most famously from Vinnie Jones on Steve McMahon. Yet back in 1988 they were archaic.
It was unthinkable that they could win, but their rise from Division 4 to Division 1 in four years hinted that there was merit in being yourselves no matter what others said. This was most obvious in the fact that the aforementioned Bobby Gould, the most characterful character in himself (rumour has it after winning the FA Cup with West Ham he knicked a policeman’s helmet and still has it… a rumour that he himself spread), wasn’t the manager for their monumental rise. It was instead Dave Bassett, a name still synonymous with a “certain style” in English football today.
Not many clubs could ride a wave of success like three promotions, change manager, and still maintain a culture that sets them apart from absolutely every other team unless it is fully engrained within the club. And to go on and beat the best team in the country in the FA Cup Final at that. The irony of Motty’s words is that The Dons were the real Culture Club. Liverpool had a culture of winning yes, but Wimbledon had a culture of being Wimbledon. One doesn’t mean anything unless you win. The other doesn’t need to win to mean something.
Watching England play Wimbledon-esque long ball football in the Euro 2025 quarter final against a Sweden team who were (bar a 180 second spell) resolute in their ironically “English” style it made me question just what the culture of English football really is. It’s never been something people can unanimously pin down. There’s never even really been significant groups of agreement. Having asked some friends their thoughts, some spoke of the large pyramid system, others spoke of single leagues or things specific to their own clubs, but it was difficult to really say with any certainty - or even anything remotely close to that - what made English football “English”.
However a brief throw away comment with friend and co-coach Mike raised the interesting question on whether the English culture is still heavily reliant on physicality, on running and playing hard rather than on the calm, cerebral understanding of the game state? Huff and puff as they used to say.
The moment that personified this possibility for me was Lucy Bronze launching a throw-in from her own third, into an area occupied by a lone Swedish player who headed it back from whence it came, only for Bronze to become frustrated when the resulting second throw-in was delayed because another ball wasn’t available. The “now” vs the “wait and see”. The irony being that the slight delay allowed her to reset and search the game in front of her for the best option, rather than the aimless launch she probably would have tried with quick ball.
But actions such as this gentle outburst and her (almost hit and hope) rifled penalty in the shootout - one that drew comparisons with Stuart Pearce, another culture case study for another day - earned her heaped praise in a sub-standard overall England performance, her full name garnering much publicity - Lucia Tough Bronze. Yes that’s her name. Full force nominative determinism from the English maternal side of her parentage, when she could just as easily have played for Portugal.
But it wasn’t just Bronze in the match. For a game that utilised long periods of playing onto or beyond with not much success outside of the tireless Alessia Russo chasing lost causes, the Lionesses began to find a bit more joy when able to play through the middle and exploit width, technical players like Walsh getting the rare opportunity to use their abilities rather than watch the ball sail over their heads. Yet when backs were to the wall and goals were desperately needed on came the big target player in Michelle Agyemang and onto and beyond came back into focus. Whilst the frantic search for something, anything, led to success that didn’t seem likely in the 80 minutes previous, it definitely made me think… “Is English football, at its core, lump ball football?”
I guess that’s a little unfair in the connotations of “lump ball” since there was also genuinely good technical play involved at times, but for a team that should probably 8 times out of 10 win a game on technicality alone I wonder how much of a need there was to reduce the technicality to actions of sheer speed.
I hear it so much when coaching and when observing other coaches, that things need to be done “quicker”. “Reduce the touches so that it moves quicker”. “Up the intensity, it’s all a bit slow”. Etc. Etc. Now outside of the fact that in training we should be building competency in order to effectively use the affordances in a game, and that isn’t always doable when whipping players to go faster, faster faster… I also question whether quicker is actually better than slower?
I’m not one to shy away from the fact that I take in a lot of opinions and thoughts from other coaches, there is always gold to be stolen even if you spend hours panning and only come up with a minute speck - the more specks you acquire the more you can melt down into the eventual gold bar. It’s also no secret that I am a big fan of The 3rd Circle podcast with Jamie Hamilton and Martin Rafelt. Revisiting their episode ‘Identity Crisis’ after setting off on this tangent, their talk on game models raised some really good points for us as coaches to be wary of.
Game models are simplified versions of the game, in short they’re the blueprint for your on pitch “identity”, how you look to play and the actions needed from your players. But as Martin says, whilst every team needs to be synchronised in their communication, a game model is almost limited by the players’ abilities to execute it. If a player makes the right decision and executes it successfully 70% of the time on her own, the game model has to be perfect to be a better option - in theory it will work 100% of the time; in practice this isn’t the case. The only time when 100% solutions arise are those that aren’t effective in the scheme of the game - think how many times you’ve berated your team (maybe even England teams in the past) for making too many square or backwards passes. These are the 100% successful options that arise when the game model requires you to “retain possession” (think, counter to this, a Jesse Marsch side who will actively look to progress the ball and expect to lose it, because they believe it’s better to counterpress. Both have different approaches and both have their own flaws).
What I found really interesting was that a player’s ability isn’t restricted to giving them instructions that are too difficult. When you have players such as Harry Kane or Leah Williamson their understanding of the game probably far exceeds any strict game model you can give them. “The competent action vs the structural action […] the better your competent action is, the harder it is for the structural action to be better than that” - MR. Simply put, once your players reach a certain level of game understanding, strict rules and models will only hamper them - you wouldn’t expect El Fenómeno to pass backwards…
Thus, are quicker actions competent actions, or are they structural actions? I would argue that by the very nature of being told to do something quicker from an extrinsic influence (coaches) it can only be a structural action as it ignores the intrinsic influence (the players perception of the game and of time). But I guess you may ask what on earth this has to do with culture.
One of the big lessons I think I’ve learned during my coaching so far is to be a little wary of conditioning players too much in one aspect or outcome. I prefer my players to be able to have a view of the game and to use any plan that we create within the game structure in front of them. It’s why I’m not a massive fan of limiting touches in training, and being pretty fundamentally against it in every single session. Conditioning players to play one- or two-touch every time will only make them play one- or two-touch in matches, even when they don’t need to or worse when it isn’t the optimal choice.
Think about a left back receiving the ball under heavy pressure, their simplest options are two-fold; try to beat the pressure or release the ball quickly. Now a semi-decent pressing setup will know that releasing the ball quickly will almost certainly lead to an opportunity for even greater pressure on the next receiver. The greater the pressure on the ball, the higher chance of a forced pass, the lower the competency of that pass. When you know this, as a pressing team you can easily compound these effects with each pass by reducing the time your opponent has to be competent.
It seems straight forward, but think of the above left back in training, constantly being told “play it quicker; one or two touch”. In this scenario, under pressure with little time to assess the affordances available to her, she will always pass as a natural default even if in the back of her mind she knows “this is just going to make it more difficult for my teammate”. Martin Rafelt explained it brilliantly in a different episode of The 3rd Circle, saying that passing the ball when under pressure doesn’t escape it, it just moves it onto your teammate instead - you are still, collectively, under pressure. And now think about if the left back’s instinctive pass is to their centre back partner. Suddenly you are in a much more dangerous position to lose the ball. That, for me, is conditioning.
England at the moment seem to be a team made up entirely of quick actions. The bounce pass, the wall pass in wide channels, the quick snap shot. All can be very effective but their go-to this tournament has seemed to be the direct quick action, Williamson or Greenwood often playing quarterback and looking to hit the forward line quickly (or the space in behind). What’s perhaps a little frustrating is that there doesn’t often appear to be much of the slower action, no pause (no “la pausa”) where individuals can assess what it happening in front of them, the only real time we got a chance to see it was in the blowout 6-1 against Wales. So when the quick action is disrupted by some resolute defending and the competency of the action isn’t 100% it is almost bound to fail.
Not to mention that if all you do is the quick action, very quickly the opposition can get into this flow. It’s not necessarily that you only play long ball football but even if you try different things all at the same rhythm then you allow your opponent to react. Martin Rafelt loves to talk about synchronisation and desynchronisation; defenders want to synchronise to your actions, attackers want to desynchronise to maintain an advantage, get in step or in time with you whilst you try to break that step or time. To get back to the point, sometimes the slower action helps to desynchronise and find the breakthrough. (That’s a lot of typing “synchronise”)
In the end, the same action for England worked… but only just - it still wasn’t enough to win them the game against Sweden and they were given numerous extra lives in the penalty shootout that another team wouldn’t have. Quick and direct worked but it almost went at near breakneck speed, so the real question is “is it sustainable?” We saw a similar pattern at the 2023 World Cup - some unconvincing results in the group stages, a penalty shootout victory against Nigeria, close game in the quarter finals before finally meeting their match in the final against Spain (to give you an idea of how long it takes to write these, the Euro 2025 final is now set - a repeat of the 2023 World Cup final as the Lionesses face La Roja once again). The main difference between the two is that at the World Cup, England still finished the group with 9 points despite two shaky results. This time they came second despite 4-0 and 6-1 wins, perhaps somewhat fortuitously avoiding the heavy hitters’ side of the knockouts.
The issue I kind of have with writing these things (apart from the fact they take ages and no one reads them) is that if England win the final against Spain people will say “well everything you’ve written is a load of shit”. I’ve spoken about results-driven thinking before so won’t go into it here, but the question still remains “what exactly is the football culture for England?” Do we have one that we can draw on, or are we heavily reliant on the game model of the current coach? Is our identity in crisis itself, or is it just a product of the collective actions made on the pitch?
Is England’s model to play beyond as much as possible, identified by the same late substitutions, in a culture of playing quicker and quicker when up against it? I still don’t actually know, but I’m still trying to get closer to an answer.
Perhaps it’s a symptom of the richest pyramid in world football, enticing both playing and coaching talent from across the world that have been raised in various other football cultures, that our own culture has struggled to materialise - or to be precise is hard to pin down.
As someone born proudly in West London, raised by parents who themselves were raised at opposite ends of the country, educated in the English game… I’ll admit I’m not really an England “fan”. I culturally identify as the polyglot Austro-Irish-North/South Divide Brit that doesn’t really come from anywhere. If I don’t identify necessarily as “English”, what is it that means people do? It can’t simple be where they were born or else I would fall into that category. In the same way what makes someone identify as a Chelsea fan, or Newcastle, or even I dare say Fulham? Is it simply that your parents take you to games, or is because you share a common culture as family members? You both inhabit the same way of life that means the team hits you the same way? Yes lots “support their local” but the English pyramid is deep and I didn’t end up a Hampton & Richmond fan (Up The Beavers!)
My ideas for the game aren’t the answer, they’re just my ideas but they are built on foundations of numerous aggregates; watching decades of Brentford, Wear-Tyne and Old Firm Derbies, Football Italia on Channel 4 and of course the Champions League on ITV. It’s not a particularly groundbreaking football upbringing. It’s likely the very same that a lot of fans across the country have had (with different clubs involved here and there) but as I’m now firmly into my 35th year of existence following Ireland and Austria in the Nations League (due to very rarely qualifying for actual tournaments) I do often wonder why I don’t feel that connection to the national team of my birth like I do those of my heritage?
As a coach who has been through the course structure of England Football and has taken something useful from every level, there definitely feels a lag, a backlog to what is encouraged of prospective coaches and the game at the very top level. Learning the game from observation of the Premier League, WSL, or the Champions League allows us to absorb football at its most successful… but are we learning the English game to develop future English players? Or are we taking notes from the teachings of France, Spain, Germany, Portugal, and Holland?
When only three of twenty Head Coaches/Managers in the Premier League are English (and only two full-time out of twelve in the WSL at the time of writing) are we developing a national game, or compiling a scrapbook of others? This is also at a time when neither the Men’s nor Women’s National Team Head Coaches are English either, although admittedly Tuchel is building on the foundations set by one as “English” as they come, and Weigman has already delivered championship wins. Southampton have recently appointed Football-Manager-enthusiast-turned-actual-football-coach Will Still for the season back in the Championship, a coach that everyone labels as "English" despite being arguably more Belgian (and definitely more Belgian when it comes to football, being born and raised in the country and spending his entire football career there outside of the last three years in France).
Now this isn’t “little Englander” rhetoric. Players often retire into coaching positions at clubs they have become synonymous with, regardless of nationality, because they understand the club and its approach fully. They are as much part of the club furniture as anything else. And it’s not the first time there have been foreign coaches in the national teams, plus it likely won’t be the last. But with the ever-increasing homogeneity of world football how do we set the next generation on a course to have success in a way that will be concrete and lasting? How do we say “this is how England play football” in a way that it will ring true in 50 years from now? How do we translate those “ideas, customs, and social behaviour[s]” into a football identity that will stand the test of time? Game models be damned, what makes English football “English”?
Not that long ago England released the England DNA. About a decade later, all mention of that DNA is gone.
If Pep Guardiola learned the Barcelona way as influenced by the likes of Paco Seirul·lo, and has himself influenced the likes of Mikel Arteta and Enzo Maresca, are we observing the English game at the very top levels or just the game models of a singular school of thought, perhaps just a little diluted by each coach’s (probably quite similar) personalities? But then again, Pep learned it from an Englishman, so who started it all?
Culture
Synonym: way of life
I guess this whole venture was sparked by a clip I saw a few weeks ago.
Before the days of being perennial Six Nations favourites there was a time when a genuine question was raised before every tournament: “Which France is going to show up?” Would we see a chaotic, haphazard display as they fell short once again, or would we see the Gallic flair in all it’s pomp as they carved through defences? It was always a question that was asked but only because we knew how France could decide to flip the switch and be “France”.
There is something quintessential about their style, that even during an era when they were more likely to finish with the Five Nations wooden spoon (before they were challenging for a Six Nations Grand Slam) they could score tries “from the end of the world”.
In the same way you look at footage of Mexico 1970, Pele held aloft as we look on through the goal net in all its wonderfully iconic, muddy, Zapruda-esque grainy colour and we get the sense of Brazil, the clip above of France against New Zealand could well be taken from any era of French rugby. When we ask “which France is going to show up” this is the one we hope for. The Adidas jerseys are a little baggier, the pitch isn’t as lush but beyond the three decades of elapsed time there isn’t much different - the is even an Ntamack in both (Romain following in father Milou’s footsteps representing his country).
There is an indelible Frenchness to each clip, “Liberté, Égalité, Fraternité” - especially Fraternité - writ large as wave upon wave of quick ball is always met with French support and the echoes of La Marseillaise from Rick’s bar ringing through every offload and hit gap. "We’re brilliant, but even when we weren’t we were still France."
I get that when I write up these rambles I often miss the most important part - how does this actually affect me when I coach? It’s all well and good wondering about the national psyche but when I make plans for the upcoming season, when I decide on my own way of playing the game, where does culture come in? Is culture conscious, or is it born from your technical and tactical beliefs? Is it synonymous with “uniqueness” or is there shared culture? Can you even foster or create culture, or does culture create you?
Culture - verb (Biology):
Maintain (tissue cells, bacteria, etc.) in conditions suitable for growth.
Etymology: colere - to till the land, to cultivate, some instances “to worship”.
It’s funny that when searching for the definition of culture there was one that completely slipped my mind. Beyond social norms and collective way of life, beyond the outcomes of community there is a much more base, much more scientific definition. “To culture”. From the Latin “colere” - to till the land. Literally, the process of creating the environment to grow something.
NBA Superstar Nikola Jokic was once asked about how he dealt with the boos from the crowd in the NBA. His response was simple: “I played in Serbia brother”.
I heard it said once that the hottest fires forge the hardest steel, and Jokic has proved throughout his storied career that his steel is of the very highest grade, forged in the red hot crucible of Serbian basketball. But I guess the question is, would he be as good if he hadn’t played in Serbia… brother?
In the chaotic arena of elite sport, where milliseconds matter and the affordances available to a team or an individual are limited by the range of your perception, maybe developing in the fire of 20,000 screaming Serbs was the perfect environment to culture an elite talent, one that would cast off a stream of boos as a simple Tuesday.
I’ve often thought about what my style would be described as, what sets it apart from others? Jürgen Klopp famously played the “gegenpress” style, coordinated heavy pressures after losing the ball to regain control and exploit the opposition defence switching off thinking “job done”, a system which has been bastardised into a generic “high press” in football talking circles. But beyond this it’s also a system that pre-dates him (through guys like Rangnick) and was even used by his rivals (notably both Pep and Heynckes). But despite being the foundation for how he played Klopp’s football was never known as “gegenpress”. It was “heavy metal”.
What an honour that is! A moniker that transcends the technical and tactical processes of what you’re doing on the pitch, things that often other people are doing, and having something that is entirely yours. Others were playing the gegenpress at this time. No one else on the world stage was playing heavy metal football (at least not in a way the media captured). In a similar yet admittedly much less sexy way, Jesse Marsch’s approach was quickly dubbed “Red Bull style”. It was gegenpress, but it wasn’t heavy metal. It was Red Bull - words that conjure their own high octane images.
I think teams strive to be known by something like this, but try to get there inorganically. The recent background work at Manchester United is a fantastic case study in this, with reshuffles, hires and very public fires trying to hit on a formula that is still proving elusive. Evidently the marginal gains at British Cycling aren’t working at United for Dave Brailsford, but why would one set of cultural principles work in a completely different environment and a completely different sport? (There are even clouds over whether they even worked at British Cycling/Team Sky when Therapeutic Use Exemptions were rampant amongst its top stars). I wonder how many United fans imagined that the marginal gains would be removing complimentary cup final tickets or making tea ladies redundant? Or even the expensive hiring and short lived employment of Dan Ashworth in his five months as Sporting Director? To sum it all up as they chase a winning culture shift is the recent redeployment of Head of Player Wellbeing Michael Farrell into the newly formed role of Head of Football Culture and Development - the first role of its kind at the club, and one where “it has not been revealed yet what his specific responsibilities will be in his new role.”
The constant chopping and changing of staff, all designed to shape the environment, misses out the key component of the definition of culture: “MAINTAIN in conditions suitable for growth”. How does a culture develop if it has no time? How does it develop if it has no consistency? Biologist don’t culture samples by constantly prodding and poking them, exposing them to varying conditions and forcing them to change every day. They monitor and maintain in a controlled environment. As coaches, if we view our own club and decide we need a culture change then we must be honest about it - what needs to change, because chances are it’s not just the players; we can’t simply say “we need them to buy into the culture”. Chances are that the environment, the conditions for growth, are the reason your culture is what it is. It is always possible that you are what needs to change.
In other words, are you strong enough to say “we need to change how we train”. Maybe even be brave to admit we need different staff as well as players, or at least their approach needs changing. Perhaps even changing your style of discipline - if training is lax, it needs calling out; if you’re a shouter, maybe it needs a more conversational approach. But if something needs changing, we have to change it. One way or another, understand what makes the team unique and change to suit it.
This article has taken a while. An awfully long while. For context I began thinking about it in the group stages of the Euros and the puzzling Lionesses. They’ve now won the tournament - which people will probably use as justification that I’m talking waffle! - and we’re at the kick-off of the new EFL season. But it’s also raised another point on culture, and as ever I return to my bread and butter at Brentford FC. Tumultuous summer break. Manager gone. Top scorer gone. Captain… gone. Relegation fodder for all the faceless “name and bunch of numbers” social media commentators.
And yet no-one at the club has any real cause for concern. We trust how the club is run. We’ve seen the fruits of our labours, a top 10 finish last season and never once sitting in the relegation zone in our time in the Premier League. So whilst the appointment of Keith Andrews raised eyebrows and had fans of other clubs saying things like “relegation incoming” or “I give him until Christmas” Brentford fans have been cautiously optimistic for a season of real change.
Because we know the culture of the club. People still say Moneyball - even though we’ve explained why that isn’t accurate - they still say we’re a selling club despite the fact every club is a selling club, but very few take a broad, objective look at what we do in much detail. We are a club that, whilst not one of the big hitters, still maintains control over everything we do - be it setting prices that we don’t budge on, utilising set pieces, or simply playing to our strengths with adaptive tactics. We often reinvent ourselves without ever actually changing - Hogan's goals were replaced by Watkins, whose goals were replaced by Toney, replaced by Mbeumo, now to (hopefully) be replaced by Igor Thiago.
We’ve always been a small club, we have a history of losing players to bigger clubs at inopportune times, of unscrupulous owners wanting to move to Woking or trying to sell off our historic Griffin Park home for a few bob in their pocket. We haven’t forgotten those things even now in the good times, where our fan-turned-owner has got us into the richest league in the world, in a brand new stadium 500 yards from our old, with a recruitment policy and coaching approach that sees us challenging any team out there (we have beaten every team we have faced in the Premier League, apart from Sunderland who we will face for the first time in the top flight this year). That history has shaped us, as WWF superstar Dusty Rhodes once said “hard times” connect people.
There’s no more buckets shaking outside the gates at Brentford. There’s no more cut price transfers to keep the books in the black until the end of the season. We have done things our own way to get here and been unapologetic about it, scrapping the academy for a B Team, hiring a former finance analyst as a Head Coach, employing PE Teachers as scouts, pioneering the “set piece coach” and all because we don’t believe in “the way things are done around here”. We are the masters of our fate, we are the captains of our soul.
Out of the night that covers me,
Black as the pit from pole to pole,
I thank whatever gods may be
For my unconquerable soul.
In the fell clutch of circumstance
I have not winced nor cried aloud.
Under the bludgeonings of chance
My head is bloody, but unbowed.
Beyond this place of wrath and tears
Looms but the Horror of the shade,
And yet the menace of the years
Finds and shall find me unafraid.
It matters not how strait the gate,
How charged with punishments the scroll,
I am the master of my fate,
I am the captain of my soul.
Invictus
William Ernest Henley
If our past informs our now and helps to shape our future, what can we really do to change our culture? And for what purpose? Are we in a repetitive, losing battle to alter our fate, to change our soul, or should we look at what makes us “us” and use our own beliefs and backgrounds to strengthen that to move us forward?
I’m finishing this post mere hours before the Premier League season kicks off as champions Liverpool host AFC Bournemouth, a incredibly long time since the opening salvo on the England Lionesses smash and grab against Sweden and the questioning of “what are they even about?” Over this time, through all the rambling, there’s a poignance that’s been uncovered - it was England vs Sweden. Two nations that share far more of a history than a lot of people even realise, dating back to the days of “English Roy and English Bob”. For a nation that emulated German football until the arrival of Roy Hodgson and Bob Houghton, Sweden became transformed into a football culture that took England to within a few minutes of a humbling quarter final exit.
Where the English game ventures into a more European model, it’s more universal ideas and training methods aping those in places like Spain and Germany in search of desperate success, the past rang out with impunity as I watched the ball launch through the air into the space beyond Russo time and time again. Playing forward faster and more direct in search of answers as the game model became less and less important, Roy Hodgson’s fingerprints were all over the game albeit not in the nation he helped shape. I’ll leave his Wikipedia entry to say it all:
“Besides zonal marking, the defence pressed hard and maintained a high offside line.[24] Their teams counter-attacked with long passes played in behind the opposition's defence.[24] Instead of playing with a team that was very spread out from one end of the field to the other, with a libero who stayed in his penalty area and a centre-forward who never tracked back, they set up a system of zonal defence, a back four, players pushing up and getting the ball forward into the final area much more quickly.[24][27]”
Sometimes we just are what we are, and maybe rather than trying to change a cultrue, we need to let the culture change us.
Comments