Sunday, 27 September 2009

Zola Is A Big Part Of The Problem


If we lose tomorrow night, we will have one less point after 6 games than we had at the equivalent stage in the Great Escape season. We lost the last of those 6 games to Man City away, the score 3-0.

It was not too many months later that Pardew lost his job. He was roundly blamed for the run of results that saw us in the bottom three, just one point off safety, when he was sacked, even though his plans had been shattered by the injury to Ashton and the failure of the Board to invest sufficiently in the development of the squad.

However, Zola seems to have the full backing of the fans but, apart from the fact that he replaced Turds and anybody was going to be an improvement on that, I can't understand why. When you look at the facts, Zola is a large part of the problem!

Yes he is a lovely guy and yes he wants to play football on the ground but, beyond that, what is there to say positively about his performance as a manager? To begin, he is a push over for the Board, backing Duxbury, the owners, anybody and everybody, when he should be standing up to them and demanding their backing instead of vice versa. Why did he just accept the sale of Collins when we were all given assurances that no first team players would be allowed to leave? Why does he keep reiterating the nonsense that the financial situation is not as bad as people are claiming when that patently is not true? Why did he back the signing of Savio when we obviously needed an experienced striker when Bellamy was sold? Why did he dilly and dally waiting for Neill instead of telling Lucash to take a running jump or sign? Why did he give Faubert the impression he wasn't wanted, then leave himself with Faubert as his only option at right back? Why wasn't he jumping up and down about the lack of cover for left back and the absence of a goal scorer in his squad? Imagine for a moment 'Ary's reaction in this situation! He would be using the papers to embarrass the Board and force their hand one way or another. Is Zola just looking after number one, playing the game and singing from the Board's hymn sheet to stay on their good side, so avoiding the tin tack? Look at his best pal act with Duxbury! Could anybody climb further up the arse of their CEO?

Then there are the tacics! Remember what happened last season when Zola tried to play 4-3-3? We struggled, so badly that we found ourselves in the bottom 4 facing a relegation struggle. Then Zola changed tactics, reverted to 4-4-2 and suddenly we started winning. So, what does he do this season? Reverts to 4-3-3 and what is happening? We are losing again and find ourselves in the bottom three! And what is worse, we are now signing players to fit the formation which means we may not be able to revert back to 4-4-2 to retrieve the situation.

Then there is this perverse business of playing his wide midfield players on the wrong flanks. Last season, it was Boa Morte on the right and Stanislas on the left, now it is Diamanti on the right and Hines on the left. I don't know what his thinking is because it defies all logic. If defending, the out of position player has to use the wrong foot to takle with, and when attacking, the defender finds it easy to show inside, into the scrum in the centre on the edge of the box. Crazy, bloody crazy.

And finally, there is the lack of communication with Ashton. Zola admits he has barely spoken to the guy and isn't sure what the position is because Ashton has only shown up at the ground once. What the hell is going on? Hasn't Zola heard of mobile phones? What about making Ashton feel part of the group if he is ever going to return?

We average one goal a game for every game played in the Prem since Zola has been in charge; that is pathetic. His record of wins and draws to games played is no better than Curbishley's and no better than Pardew's either. In fact, it is no better than Roeder's!

In Zola we trust? In Zola we should have some doubts based on the evidence so far!

10 comments:

Anonymous said...

Dean Ashton is finished.
Does it matter if Zola speaks to him when he's not going to play for us again? If the club hadn't botched the initial operation then we'd be claiming on the policy by now.

Ultimately by concentrating on the players he has, he can make a difference there surely?

I notice that in order to make a point on Zola you dropped the 'Beano' comedy tag you usually dismiss Ashton with and suddenly he is of value.
Hypocritical.

Anonymous said...

I read about the first paragraph before I identified your problem. You think these are the days of Clough when the manager has control over alot more things at the club. Or maybe the Hollywood studio system when a 5 year contract actually meant a 5 year contract. Times have changed, Duxbury is now responsible for nagging the board, which he understandably sees no more point in doing. It seems you do not fully understand the debt the club has, and no matter how many people you find to blame for that problem the fact remains that it is there. Franco apparently was funded by Duxbury and Nani themselves (by the way you have not mentioned). I think you should stop the blame game, it appears obsessive and pointless.

Anonymous said...

not commenting on the reports that Dux & Nani apparently bankrolled the purchase of Franco themselves?

Anonymous said...

Are you a west ham fan? if so get behind the team and stop slagging them.

Scott said...

Zola's job is to coach and manage the team. It is obvious that it was Nani and Duxbury's fault that players like Collins were sold and no strikers were brought in. It's their job to sign players, and only Zola's to recognise them.

Seecondly, Zola is still learning as a manager, that is WHY he's acted as he has. Do you expect him to be competent in every department after a year of management? He will be the first to admit he is still learning and whilst this may not be ideal, it explains the WHY's you want answers to.

Zola has made mistakes and will continue to do so, which is unfortunate considering the margin of error in this league, but in my opinion, the main problem has been Duxbury not delivering on his promises.

John V P said...

All good points well made HF.Like you I have been very worried since the lack of activity in the summer.
we surely could have afforded a Tuncay or even a Nugent to support Cole instead of the two "unknowns".
My initial judgement on the "diamond Geezer" is that he is not up to the Premiership.He looked knackered against Liverpool and woeful against Bolton.
Tevez may be kind to us tonight but you can bet that Bellamy won't!!!

A very worried season ticket holder.

Deane said...

Just a few thoughts to muse on I reckon as long as we have more points at the end of the season than 3 other clubs I'll be happy as long as one of those doesn't conjure up some excuse as to why they should have stayed up instead of us and get a huge payout for some unfathomable reason

I would rather Zola toes the line as in any confrontation he, and cosequently us, will lose The board is going nowhere until new owners come in, at least and as for 'appy 'arry he is so far up his own arse these days he's in danger of dissapearing altogether I suspect it's only down to size of the brown evelope that prevents it and what would he have done sounded off and walked away certainly not have battled with what he had esp if he couldn't do a few (a lot of) deals If the board had the stomach for a fight they would have interviewed Di Canio for the post at least
I think it makes sense to bring in players to suit his (Zola's) system as thats the way he's determined to play and what he had obviously are not up to it (I've got to say I've done it myself the whole this is the way I'm doing it thing I'd rather die by my sword as they say) and Zola is obviously determined to play down the middle and then Zola's record there is someone that his record is better than namely that other Chelsea man Ron Greenwood
Funnily enough I agree with all you say but debate is good. Did you notice the nice shade of green the sky is at the moment

Anonymous said...

Terrible blog.

Twat

Anonymous said...

Oh, wonderful!
You've had it in for Duxbury and Nani from the start. You've derided poor Steve Clarke. You've pretty much ripped through the entire squad and now you pitch in against Zola.
Who's next FFS, the ball-boys?
As far as I'm concerned all of the above grow in stature for having been the subject of your petty spite, malice and total failure to even recognise the difficulties under which the club is operating. And no, the credit crunch is not attributable to Scott Duxbury.
Go and write about your beloved Tottenham and leave our club alone you objectionable little troll.

Hammersfan said...

The credit crunch is attributable to the Icelandic banking system however.