(Submitted by Stani Army in response to my article, Zola is too weak to win)
Because football is a team game, individual medal hauls, or lack of, are largely a result of circumstances a player finds himself in, and there are a number of examples that demonstrate this to us. I don't think it is an accurate method of judging the achievement or desire to succeed of an individual player, however good they are.
Take Stephen Gerrard for example. I think we can all agree that he should have won more medals than he has but it's not because of his personal underachievement or lack of will to win. Conversely, we have Clarence Seerdof who is the only player to have won three Champions leagues with three different clubs. Is Gerrard that bad and Seedorf that good? Or is their individual medal haul largely a result of circumstances (the club, league and specific period of time) they found themselves in?
Take an example closer to home, Paulo Di Canio. In 2002, Alex Ferguson wanted to buy him but due to his failure to offload Dwight Yorke, and our £3m price tag, the deal fell through. Now had Di Canio gone to Manchester United at the time, he would have had 3 league titles, 1 FA cup, 1 League cup, 1 Champions League to his name had he stayed there until his retirement in 2008. Now for two comparatively incidental or common footballing reasons (above), Di Canio lost out on that medal haul. But to say it was because of his personal underachievement or desire to succeed, I think is inaccurate.
I do believe that Gainfranco Zola, both the player and the manager, are winners. I think he has an underlying will to win that is not always immediately obvious. The fact that he has not resigned, I believe, is evidence of this. Some would say that him not resigning is because of his inability to recognise his inability, as it were. But I believe that it is that very reason to carry on which demonstrates to us that he has this inner belief and desire to succeed. Had he not had it, he would not have pushed himself to be so good purely as a footballer.
He is a rookie manager and we should not deny him this right to learn from a situation he has never found himself in before. Are we in a that much better a situation as a club than he is as a manager, to do so? We can all agree that he will come out of this a better manager so why not reap the benefits of this rather than letting him learn his trade here, but go somewhere else for others to benefit. If we do believe that one day he will be a very good manager, why don't we let that day arrive with him here. This is the same manager that many of us who are now calling for his head, feared that he may leave for Chelsea just last year.
15 comments:
Tony Pulis: "It will be interesting to see what backing Gianfranco gets. The chairman of West Ham has said he will back Gianfranco. He needs backing now. This is when you show your real colours and character, This is the time he needs that backing
Stani - there's no two ways about it mate - GZ will be a good manager one day - whether that is with us or someone else remains to be seen - personally I'd like to give him more time....
nice article, however I may to disagree. I don't think we can afford to let Zola have the experience of relegation battles, because we should never have been in this position before. My lack of feeling/emotion after the Stoke game sums it up for me, it was always going to happen. Any manager who fails to dumfound any expectation could never make a great/good manager in my opinion. I personally, and pretty certain HF too, is very concerned about recent decisions he has made, basic footballing errors, and that for me is not good enough and not something I can see changing. I have written us off already under Zola, in hope that we will play better under a new/experienced manager or Di Canio who will be respected and play basic simple football.
He is NOT learning from his mistakes! That should be obvious by now. He is totally clueless. He simply hasn't got what it takes to be a good manager. He lacks the personality and the strategic mind to organise a winning team. Why is this so hard to understand? To read articles like this when we are at the edge of the cliff is totally pathetic. I am sorry Stani, he should have gone 3 months ago. But even now it is better to go if we are to try to salvage something against the odds. He stays, we go down. It is a certainty. He leaves then we can have a go (just as Hull are actually doing against the odds right now).
I agree Savvakis.
1038 I watched Pulis on the touchline driving his team on! I saw Zola looking bemused. Stoke played with a fire in their bellies, we again played 90 minutes without collecting a yellow card!
Amazing!Zola has found a cure for all their problems a three day break!says it all really, and Stani I have seen nothing from Zola that would indicate him being a good manager, coach maybe but even there a lot of players are now playing worse under his stewardship than before he got hold of them, and since when have West Ham been in the business of paying managers 1.9mil to learn the job!
I think it is clear now that Zola is being forced out and I’d be surprised if he carries on. There is only so much someone can take. Whether he goes or stays, he’ll be blamed anyway.
But what was he given to work with? Which other manager in the league had to make do with his squad made up of so many youngsters? Zola has been forced to use and rely on Collison, Noble, Tomkins, Hines and Stanilas far too often without being able to blood some of them in. He's also been hindered and held back by waiting for Curbishley's men to get fit.
The criticism he receives in regards to playing Stanislas on the left and Diamanti on the right is just hyperbole. I am certain all of us here have played football at some level. We should know that you do not become ineffective by playing on the opposite side of the pitch. I hear the arguments about width and getting the ball in but why are our players not able to do this even if they play on the other side of the pitch? Come on! They are professional footballers!
In regards to Stanislas. I would just like to make it clear that he is a left winger. Yes, he is right-footed but he is listed as a left winger (probably because he wants to be) and has played left wing all his short professional career. Whether the manager has talked to him about playing on the right and whether he preferred not to, we don’t know so we cannot speculate. This does not mean he cannot be effective, example: Ashley Young. It is funny that we were close to buying Young; had he come to us and been playing on the left, would we have had a problem with that? No, because Young is a better player and that is my point, we over-rate ours.
Simply, our players are not as good as we think. If we go down, I think it will be because of the players mostly, and not the manager.
T.I.S
Sure mate, but that is where I think we have got it wrong. I have come to the realisation that our players on not that good and we deserve to be where we are. Look through teams around us and you will see players with more ability, more cunning and more heart.
Savvakis
Which mistakes are the ones you feel he is not learning from mate? If you are referring to the wing issue then please see my point above. The primary reason for us being in trouble cannot be because we have a right footer on the left.
To organise a wining team, you have to have the players to do it. He probably has just Parker and Cole. You need the tools.
Gone 3 months ago? Was you supporting him then or asking for his sacking? Whatever happens now, if he stays or goes and we still go down, you will blame him anyway. If a new manager comes in and has no effect, you will still blame Zola.
Why is it “pathetic” to read an alternative opinion? Why are you so irritated because someone thinks differently and without getting angry?
John
“since when have West Ham been in the business of paying managers 1.9mil to learn the job!” If you’re suggesting that Zola is the complete manager or Duxbury hired him as such (therefore paid him handsomely) then that is incorrect. I also did not mention what Duxbury decided to pay him and I have not used it for or against my argument because it will not make a difference either way. We all know he is a rookie manager and if Duxbury paid him too much, then that's Duxbury for you.
Stani,
I am not irritated reading an alternative opinion. I respect other people's views. My comments were not directed against you for saying what you think is true. They were just showing my despair in what is in my opinion a case of almost total and complete incompetence which is now proven by the results. I have been very consistent in my views as I am sure HF will testify with my comments in the past few months. I don't want to win any prizes for guessing correctly. All I want, like every other West Ham fan, is to give my team a chance - even in this very late instance. What is pathetic is denying us having this last chance to stay up because we feel that "poor" Zola should be given even one more go at it! I have seen more than enough. I don't care what happens to Zola. I care what happens to West Ham. I don't think we have the luxury to keep things as they are. This formula has failed beyond any reasonable doubt. It is high time we try something else.
Mate, I'm frustrated too. I am just as depressed as everyone who wants Zola out.
I would love to know the answer but to say that Zola is mostly to blame is totally wrong.
I think we can try something else, but I do not think it will work with the ingredients we have on the pitch. I hope it does. It's just that if we consider that these players are not playing for a man like that, who are they going to play for?
I see your point. But we won't know unless we try.
You are missing the point about the wing issue Stani. We coped with Collison and Ilunga paired on the left because Collison could slip inside whilst Ilunga could overlap on the left - defenders were still left guessing. We have got away with it on the right on occasions for the same reason when Faubert is playing, there is still the option to go down the outside of the defence even though Diamanti will always pull inside. When Stanislas has been paired with Daprela, who has not moved beyond the half way line, or Spector, who being right footed always comes inside himself, it is too easy for the defenders - they simply show Stanislas or the full back inside, and all momentum from the attack is lost.
You can see the forwards check and hold their runs, if they don't, they run offside. Only by the guy delivering the ball after going beyond the fullback, can the forwards get anywhere near the six yard box and remain onside.
Yesterday, virtually every ball into the box in the second half was played from five to ten yards outside the box. Stoke maintained a disciplined defensive line so our front two had five to ten yards of pitch to operate in only. When challenging for the ball in the air, they were around about the penalty spot at best. How are we going to score from there? Everything was so compressed because every time, the player with the ball stopped, turned inside, and then delivereed the cross. Once, in the first half, Dyer crossed from wide and Mido should have scored. Twice Behrami got down the flank, once on the left and he could not screw the ball back with any pace because it was on his wrong foot and once on the right when he made a hash of it anyway. They were the ONLY times Stoke looked stretched.
What I don't understand is why Zola doesn't even switch his wide men in mid game. At least that would ask different questions. But no, it isn't working but he doesn't change it. Why? Explain that. Why?
HF,
I don't disagree with your first paragraph.
Our players should surely keep in mind the option that the player on the flank may cut back before crossing no?
For Mido's miss, that cross was awful from Dyer, I have to say. He had all the time in the world and he crossed it slightly behind him. He made the header near impossible.
I'm not saying we shouldn't try switching more often and I don't know why he hasn't but I'm sure he does know why as he's obviously closer to the players.
Surely the lack of effect and productivity our wide players have are not simply because they're playing on the wrong side of the pitch?
I just feel it is being exaggerated as one of the reasons why we are in such a bad state.
Doesn't a good manager seek to eliminate possible causes of underachievement. You think this is being exaggerated but I don't. So why hasn't Zola experimented with Stanislas on the right? Correct me if I am wrong, but didn't we beat Birmingham and Hull with a left footer on the left and a right footer on the right? Coincidence? They were our last two victories!
You still miss the point Stani. The forwards cannot compensate if the defence hold their line. The idea of getting round the back of a defence on the flanks is that you play everybody on side by pulling the ball back. When the cross comes in from in front of the defence, there is no where for the forwards to go, if the defence hold their line and the margin of error for a ball between penalty spot and keeper is very small. Of course great crossers of the ball, like Beckham, can deliver with minimal margins of error, but ordinary mortals find that more of a challenge.
As for the Dyer cross, I believe you. I was a long way away, at the other end of the pitch, so judging these things live at the game is difficult. That's why it is easier to evaluate a game watching on the box or the internet!
HF
Of course a good manager does and I believe he is trying. But how much can we tell from the outside?
So he has tried a left footer on the left and a right footer on the right? :) If it is obvious to us it worked then there surely must be a reason we do not know about why Zola is not trying it? Don't tell me you think he's that bad?
I do understand the point you are making about the forward men and the offside. Generally, I don’t think our players get into the box fast enough or with enough numbers even when our wide man gets around the outside. Parker’s cross along the six yard box…think it was against Blackburn at home, no one was there. We just don’t get people forward fast enough regardless. That is why there is no link between our midfield and attack and our play is so awful to watch. No one wants to move forawrd.
I see Man Utds midfielders lay a pass off and burst a lung to get in the box. It is so easy to do, commit and trust in your fellow player but our lot don’t do that. Look at Lampard. He would no way have as many goals as he does if he did not commit and trust that those behind him would cover should his runs into the box not lead to a goal or an opportunity.
I'd just like to add; I think the injured players Zola has inherited, not only meant that he could not use them, but the fact that they took up a squad place and a salary, and the hope of them returning from injury, meant that Zola couldn’t realistically go into the market to replace them….even if we did have money. I think the above effect through Zola’s reign has been under-mentioned.
You still haven't explained why he hasn't tried switching Stanislas mid game when things aren't working. That is senseless.
Post a Comment