Sunday, 23 May 2010

Hammer Hero Hurst Says Zola Had To Go

Interesting to read Sir Geoff Hurst lining up with Duce Di Canio by supporting the sacking of Zola. The Italian's backers made a lot out of the support given to Zola by Dicks and Brooking, but now we have two greats on the other side of the scales.

Hurst makes a lot of sense when he says: "“The appointment of Gianfranco was wrong. Nobody admires him more than me as a man and a player – but from assistant manager of the Italy Under-21 side to manager of a Premier League club was flawed. I was sorry to see Franco move on, but it wasn’t a good appointment. He had very little experience.”

That is honest and to the point. This isn't a man with an agenda, this is somebody who likes and respects the Italian but who understands that he was, quite simply, out of his depth. As Hurst says, "It’s just madness. You can’t come off the shop floor and be a managing director. It was inevitable that what happened was going to happen.”

Hurst is also very clear on why Zola failed. I quote: “You have to move people out of the way who are going to be an obstacle to that and if you’re too nice and soft it doesn’t work. It’s a tough profession and you have to make tough decisions".

Hurst is a good guy, a nice bloke. He isn't quite as anodyne as Brooking, but he is certainly not a Jose. To say it, Hurst must believe it and feel it. Shouldn't we all just accept that if Sir Geoff says it, then it must be true?


Anonymous said...

Hurst - - - - "This isn't a man with an agenda"

Unlike yourself.

Hammersfan said...

And what is my agenda?

Anonymous said...

Still trying to justify your hatchet job on Zola.

Hammersfan said...

My hatchet job? Did I sack him? I don't think so. Did I write the script for Il Duce and Sir Geoff? I don't think so. Did I pick the team and determine the tactics? I don't think so. Did I lead the team to 6 consecutive defeats? I don't think so. Did I lead the team to its lowest ever points total in the Prem? I don't think so. Did I pick and motivate a West ham team that lost at Fulham for the first time since 1966? I don't think so. Did I organise a side to win just once away from home all season, a club record? I don't think so. My hatchet job? I don't think so!

Anonymous said...

Anyone else heard that if Grant gets the job then he will be bringing in Alvin Martin with Clarke leaving.

Great to have a WH legend in the management team but he has as much management experience that Moore and Hurst had at managing Southend and Chelsea.

Anonymous said...

That's a nasty obsession you've got there.
I was hoping that it might have cleared up as the object of your fixation had been removed but, clearly, you're not over it yet.

Hammersfan said...

I apologise, of course you are right - I did do a hatchet job on Zola and now of course my biggest fear is that Grant turns out to be worse - in fact it's got so bad that it's causing a few sleepless night....

Hammersfan said...

Mind you when you really think about it Brooking and Dicks are the better men..... I get so confused these days that I'm starting to feel that everything is beginning to unravel.

Shaun said...

HF... I think Hurst was simply being diplomatic with his 'for the good of the club' Ambassador hat on! That's his prerogative and what he says is up to him. Sure, he's a club and country idol, no doubting that, but sunbeams don't actually originate from his backside either!

There's been a little too much talk about the club lately, from all parties, not least and loudest of those being Sullivan!
It's time for the verbal BS and the PR stunts to cease, and the actions to start, pronto!
I'm wondering if the '10 Point Pledge' is in chronological order, because they haven't even fulfilled Point.1 yet!!?


Hammersfan said...

Hammersfan, that reads like brilliant irony from me! Keep it up mate! Far from making me look daft, that reads like a sardonic response from yours truly.

Damn. It's hard this Internet Trolling business isn't it?

Keep it up mate, it saves me some time!

Shaun said...

Anonymous 11:33, I'd also read that Steve Clarke will be departing, but I don't think it's because Grant is supposedly coming in. It's more likely down to the sacking of Zola, as, contrary to all the crap about Clarke going to the owners and informing them that GZ wasn't fit to manage, they were very close friends!
Apparently, like Zola, Clarke still has 3 years left to run on his £1.2M/yr contract and as soon as agreement is reached on his remuneration, it's Adios!

It'd be great to see 'Stretch' back at the club too! What a legend! Presumably he'll be a direct replacement for Clarke and be working with the defence?
What puzzles me though is, if we are to assume that Grant's appointment is imminent, how come he hasn't already stipulated Clarke's retention, considering their 'success' at the Bridge?!
I'm hoping the rumours are false and we keep Clarke!

Stani Army said...

You cannot dispute others using Dicks and Brooking as support for Zola, but then go and use Hurst yourself against Zola. If they are wrong for using Dicks and Brooking, you cannot be right for using Hurst.

I respect what Hurst has done, but he is an egotist. We must always be careful of an egotist's opinion as they tend to be controversial, self-righteous and have blinkers on. They also love using hindsight but are nowhere to be found in times when foresight is required.

Hammersfan said...

Stani, you disappoint me. My tongue was super glued to the inside of my cheek as I typed that. What does Hurst know about the modern game? Just playing people at their own stupid game. You should know by now, that I think my opinion is all that really counts.

Hang on, which Hammersfan is this? Has my alter ego taken over? Is Jibreel Shaiton? Sorry, reading The Satanic Verses at the moment and I've also been helping my daughter to disprove Aquinas by using Entropy. Happy Sunday afternoon in the sun!

Hammersfan said...

By the way, this egotist had plenty of foresight last July and August as I've proved!

We are all egotists of course. Without the sense of self, we have nothing. We all understand everything through your own ego, as Rushdie seeks to prove in TSV. Is this "revision" of the Qu'ran true by the way? Did Mohammed really have to correct The Satanic Verses as Rushdie suggests and as anti Islamic sites claim? What's your take on this? I'm genuinely interested.

Have you ever read Rushdie's novel? What are your opinions on it and on the Fatwah? Would you consider it a sin to read it? I can read Mein Kamph without fear of becoming a Nazi; do Muslims dare to read Rushdie?

Stani Army said...

No HF, I dont think we are all egotists. I think there is a difference between one's 'self' (nafs in arabic) and one's 'ego'. The ego comes when the self has not been controlled.

I have not read the satanic verses in it's entirety. I do not believe it is a sin to read it, as taking up this position would be a fundamentally flawed one. I cannot say someone has written something wrong with any credible certainty if I have not read enough of it myself. The sin would be to believe what he has written.

I have read literary reviews of the book and they are a mixed bag. From them, I do get the impression that as a writer, he wasn't all that and controversy was exactly what he needed. Censorship helps to sell and establish books. I agree with the children's author Roald Dahl who said that Rushdie "knew exactly what he was doing and cannot plead otherwise. This kind of sensationalism does indeed get an indifferent book on to the top of the bestseller list - but to my mind it is a cheap way of doing it". He went on, "To my mind, he is a dangerous opportunist. I think he's a twit". Have you read the Satanic verses HF? What do you think of what Rushdie has to say about the British? About Thatcher? The Queen?

The Quran has no revisions or corrections HF. The 'satanic verses' were an interjection from the crowd when Mohammed peace be upon him was speaking. This interjection was heard by some and rumour then spread from this that Mohammed pbuh had said those words. But of course, he did not.

There was also a fatwa issued by the Al-Azhar university (highest Sunni Muslim authority) that said that Rushdie should not be put to death. Unfortunately, we didn't hear as much about that fatwa. Here's a 2 minute clip from the brother of Henry Winter, The Daily Telegraph football correspondent, which you may find interesting

Hammersfan said...

I read it years ago, my wife had to travel to London to buy it from a bookshop as it was not available locally. I didn't understand it at all, never having read the Qu'ran at that stage. I am reading it at the moment, having rediscovered it on my bookshelf. As a work or art, it has its flaws but it does feature some fantasticly beautiful passages. As an atheist, I see it as a deeply religious book and one that lends a certain visual beauty to religion. I'm only half way through but will update you when I reach the end with a final judgement. According to Rushdie, Satan took the form of Gabriel and misled Mohammed peace be upon him, tricking him into including the Satanic Verses.

I must say I agree with Rushdie's opinion on the Queen, Thatcher and the police force as it was constituted in the 1980s. I do see s delicious irony in the fact that Rushdie was then dependent upon that police force for his protection! How he must have regretted the scene in the back of the police van! Dahl is entitled to his opinion, but it is an opinion of course. Matilda and James and the Giant Peach both made him a lot of money and are not, exctly, high art. I think Rushdie is dealing with more interesting topics and themes personally. But I haven't finished it yet! The intersting thing, at this stage, is how much I remember and how much I have forgotten from my original reading.

Anonymous said...

Hurst's point was that the gnocchi gorging gnome was wrong for the job in the first place. You welcomed him with open arms.

Hammersfan said...

I have admitted I was wrong. We all make mistakes don't we?

Hammersfan said...

LOL, I'm having to check if it is you or me now! Very good Hammersfan Alter Ego. You should write a blog!

Steve Walford said...

Roald Dahl was bang on with his comments about Rushdie and "The Satanic Verses" and was then (figuritively) crucified by the press who'd decided to make Salman a protector of free speech, art, etc. Rushdie also supports Spurs and is only a very talented author, but not one touched by genius. Dahl, likewise.