Saturday, 13 March 2010
Zola In Complete And Utter Denial - The Score Was Unfair Apparently!
Oh dear God, Zola becomes more ridiculous by the minute! Not content with leaving out Diamanti and Cole, reverting to 4-3-3 with Ilan wide on the right, leaving Spector with no protection and failing to make any changes to half time, he now has the brass to claim the scoreline was unfair! Unfair! It was a bloody travesty because Green made a brilliant save, Lampard hit the post from inside the six yard box and Daprela made a world class last ditch clearance to prevent yet another goal. Chelsea could have had seven at least!
What did we offer in reply? Two shots on target in 90 minutes of football and only one of those from inside the box! Chelsea had 19 shots to our 5 and Chelsea had a further 12 blocked shots to our 2. So that is a total of 31 Chelsea shots to our 7. Chelsea had the ball for 60% of the game to our 40% and the territorial advantage was 60:40 too. Chelsea had 11 corners and we secured a grand total of 1 in 90 minutes. How, exactly, was the result unfair?
But listen to Zola and you would think the game was pretty even. Asked if the result was just, Zola replied: "I think not because I think it is too much for my team. For the way we played, the way we worked - 4-1 doesn't in my opinion reflect a fair result."
He continued: "Probably they deserved to win because obviously Chelsea is a good team and they produced some good chances, good football, but 4-1 I think is too much for my team."
Would somebody please point out to Zola that effort is not enough! Football is about creating chances and scoring goals. How much football did we actually play?
So why did we lose? Did it have anything to do with Zola's team selection? Did his tactics work? I offer you the tactical genius again: ""Looking at the result I would say no but I think some were necessary and for a while I think it worked quite okay. I don't think the difference was the changes that we made, I think it was the fact that the second goal came at a moment where, in my opinion, we were playing better than Chelsea, and that second goal killed everybody."
Well, why was I able to predict EXACTLY how that second goal would be scored at half time then? My half time report merits quoting again here:
"We are horribly open down our right frank. With Ilan playing wide right and unwilling to perform defensive duties, Spector is finding himself one against two time and time again. Zola has to change this at half time somehow. I think we should keep the same personnel but go 4-4-2, with Behrami detailed to protect Spector more. That instruction should have been given by now and, in truth, we are lucky that we are not behind at half time. Chelsea have tried to walk the ball in on a number of occasions, with Drogba, uncharacteristically, trying to set up team mates rather than heading for goal. If the change isn't made, sooner or later Malouda is going to tee up Drogba, Anelka, Ballack or Lampard... We may still be stuffed if we leave the right flank open."
So Zola's tactics and team selection were not at fault but I was able to say exactly how the second Chelsea goal would be scored. Interesting. I wonder how Zola would explain that then? What a total twat the guy is! Why was Ilan left on for so long for pity's sake? Why wasn't the right flank shored up at half time?
And how exactly were we playing better than Chelsea at the time they scored their second goal? I don't remember us having the ball in the Chelsea box in the second half before they scored. If playing better means passing the ball sideways and backwards, then for five minutes we may have played Chelsea off the park, but if it involves penetration - into the Chelsea half never mind into their box - then Zola was watching a different game to me if he saw us playing better than Chelsea at any point in the game. Even Parker's goal was a bit of a freak - a throw that looked suspiciously like a foul throw and Parker letting fly, no doubt more in hope than expectation. That's his one goal for the season then!
Zola talks as if even being in the game when playing Chelsea is an achievement for West Ham. Bollocks. As West Ham fans know, we have a tradition of punching above our weight against the big boys - but not any more it seems. We have a fly weight manager and we have become a fly weight team under his stewardship. The heavyweights Man Utd, Chelsea, Arsenal, Tottenham, Man City and Liverpool have scored 25 goals against us so far this season and we have replied with 8 - we are whipping boys now, just like Burnley and Hull City.
In King Lear, Gloucester complains, "As flies to wanton boys are we to the gods, They kill us for their sport." Well I know how he feels! But like Gloucester in King Lear, Zola, it seems, is totally blind to what is going on.
Posted by Hammersfan at 19:18