Right. I need someone to explain this to me like I'm five years old. Because I've just read a headline from the BBC that says "Is success crucial?" in relation to picking the Premier League player of the season, and I genuinely thought my internet had broken.

Is success crucial. IS SUCCESS CRUCIAL. What kind of question is that? That's like asking if goals are important in a game of football. That's like asking if the ball matters. In my day, if you wanted to be player of the season, you had to do one very simple thing. You had to win something. Or at the very least, you had to be the main reason your team were in the conversation to win something. Nobody was handing out gongs to blokes putting up nice numbers while their side finished ninth.

But apparently that's where we are now. BBC Sport have assembled their finest experts to have a proper chin-stroke about whether the best player in the league actually needs to have, you know, succeeded at anything. Incredible scenes.

Don't get me started on the modern obsession with individual stats. Expected goals. Progressive carries. Passes into the final third per 90 minutes. You know what my stat was when I was managing? Points. Wins. Clean sheets. Trophies if you were lucky. I once had a centre-half at Stevenage who couldn't pass water, but he won us eleven games on the bounce with his head alone. Nobody asked about his progressive carries. Nobody cared. He was player of the season because we went up. Simple.

That's the problem with modern football. We've turned everything into a content piece. Everything's a debate now. Everything needs a panel and a podcast and seventeen hot takes before breakfast. The player of the season should take you about four seconds to work out. Who's been the best player on the best team? There. Done. Go home. Have a biscuit.

But no. Now we've got to factor in "context" and "individual brilliance in adverse circumstances" and whatever other nonsense they've cooked up to justify giving an award to someone whose team finished in the bottom half. Listen, I've got nothing against a player who drags a poor side through a tough season. I've been that poor side. I know what it looks like. But player of the SEASON? The best in the entire league? Pull the other one.

You want context? Here's your context. When Cantona won it, United won the league. When Henry won it, Arsenal went unbeaten. When Ronaldo won it, United won the league AND the Champions League. Nobody sat around asking "but is success crucial?" because the answer was so blindingly obvious that asking the question would've got you sectioned.

Now I'll grant you, there's been the odd year where someone from outside the title race has had such a ridiculous season that you can't ignore them. Fine. But that should be the exception, not the starting point for a philosophical discussion on the BBC website. We're not debating Plato here. We're picking the best footballer.

The whole thing stinks of a sport that's lost its way. We've got so obsessed with analytics and narratives and engagement metrics that we've forgotten the fundamental point of this game. You're supposed to win. That's it. That's the whole thing. Everything else is just decoration.

In my day, if you'd asked a room full of football men whether success was crucial, they'd have laughed you out of the building and into the car park. Now it's a feature piece with expert opinions and a comments section.

Is success crucial. Honestly. I'm going to make a cup of tea and pretend I never read it.