In Zola the morons trusted! And boy did they let us know it! It was like the bleat of the sheep in Animal Farm! Every time somebody dared to criticise the tactics, the selection policy, the transfer signings, the performances or even the blasted results, up came the bleat, "In Zola we trust", trying to drown out the truth.
Great guy though he is, this site's regular, Stani Army, was something of a Squealer in this. He was never a sheep but Stani only just stopped short of saying, "Zola is always right"! "Don't blame Zola, blame the players" was Stani's mantra and the argument was always, "We will never be able to measure Zola because the next manager will not start the season with the same squad. S&G will back the new man." Oh yes?
Well, according to Stani, Piquionne and Ben Haim are poor signings. Thus far, we have spent less in the transfer market than we spent last season. Indeed, I have a hunch that we will recoup more money than we spend, with my favourite to leave being Behrami. So, where is the financial backing for Grant exactly?
The truth is, Grant has already proved himself more astute than Zola. Hitzlespurger looks a much better signing than Jimenez. Barerra is a chancy signing but he looks to fit the team's needs better than Diamanti. Piquionne and Ben Haim may not set the pulses racing but they have Prem experience, are not complete mugs and fill gaps in the squad. So far so much better than under Zola.
Now we are in to the friendlies and West Ham are doing what we didn't do under Zola, winning. And we are winning without our "star" players in the team too. And what is more, we seem to have a shape and the players are being played in the correct positions. It isn't rocket engineering as I always said. Pick the players to do jobs that they are comfortable with and they will play better. Pick players out of position and on the wrong flank and, unless they are World Class, they will struggle.
Grant is not a genius but that means he understands the importance of organisation and playing within your limitations. The players loved Zola because he made them feel like gods. But what is the point of entering your ugly daughter for a beauty pageant? She will only end up humiliated. And that's what happened to us under Zola! He convinced the players that they were better than they were, are and ever will be and asked them to do what they could not do. And as they staggered down the catwalk, the biggest threat to the opposition was that they would fall about laughing! Mick McCarthy couldn't believe his luck when he saw our team sheet for that six pointer at Upton Park! Team talk? All he had to do was show his players Zola's team!
To better Zola, Grant only has to finish fifth from bottom this season. To better Zola, Grant only has to average one point a game. To better Zola, Grant only has to win two games away from home this season. Let the comparison begin! And if Grant comes out on top, then all you bleating sheep had better own up! In Zola we trusted? What a bunch of mugs!
42 comments:
I hope the team can carry this winning mentality into the games against Panathinaikos and Deportivo (and of course the League games). The opposition we had so far was really poor (even Borussia).
But I do think that Avram will bring better organisation to the team. The hurdle was left too low by his predecessor any way. If we don't cash in on key players in the next two weeks and hopefully acquire a versatile and reliable right back then I would surely join the opmtimists about our chances next season.
To better himself last year Grant will have to achieve even less!
Strange and there's me thinking Zola didn't better than Grant last season - in fact surely Zola has nothing to prove and of course he is unable to defend his record for this season... hardly a fair scrap?
Hear hear
Baaaaa Baaaaa Baaaaaa Baaaaaa. Jewish legs good, Italian legs better!" Baaaaaa Baaaaaa Baaaaaaa
No matter what anyone's opinion was of Zola, or presently is of Grant... it is totally unfair and inappropriate to 'judge' Avram Grant based on any comparison, past or future, to Gianfranco Zola, and vice versa!!
Grant's success will be the result of a whole DIFFERENT set of factors now in place....different approach, different players, different coaching methods, different tactics, different infrastructure. CHANGE has been implemented. Change is what was required...to bring about stability and ultimately, improvement! There are few of the previous constants left to base pointless comparisons on...Zola has gone, Clarke has gone, Duxbury has gone, Nani has gone, the 'project' is no more, the Icelandics are no longer in control, the debt is now being seriously addressed and sensibly managed....all change, and for the better!
You only have to take a look at Avram's press conference last week. The guy was upbeat, buoyant and smiling...yes, smiling! He talked about potential...he talked about improvement. He talked about the present and the future.
The media vultures attempted time and time again to draw him with questions on the near past and his predecessor, but he simply smiled and told them that he was only interested in the present and what is to come, and not what has gone before! Avram...I salute you for that!
Let's NOT 'judge' Avram against Zola! Let's forget Zola and the old 'regime'.
Let's give this guy a chance and the credit and respect he deserves...because he happens to be the Manager of West Ham United!
1249 has a great point... Italian legs did finish higher. For Zola to do worse than Grant he'll have to achieve the impossible and get relegated down two divisions.
shaun - I have no idea why you come here - you are way too positive, if you're not careful you'll end up like stani, bitter, twisted and negative - it's what hf does best, he poisons the soul and corrupts the spirit.
That stani used to be a good lad and now look at him.
you have to remember grant took over in december and they were bottom with 7 points, it wasn't his team and they were deducted 9 points because of previous managers/owners so he basically had -2 points when he took over in december.
how well would zola have done in that situation? did zola really do better than grant last season?
and we had easy friendlies last year and failed to win even the easiest games, not to mention signings but any good signing we did make nouble, deprela, behrami, illunga (based on his first season, second esason was poor but injuries and the fact zola didn't rate him never helped).
i am happy with grant so far and hitzlesperger looks the boy, the only reason he wasn't in the germany squad was because he only played 3 club games due to change in management. i rate the guy, you don't captain stuttgart to the german title if you don't have the stones to cut it at the top level. piquionne i see as solid, if we keep cole and benni keeps fit and the young lads come on i dont think we need to blow big money on a striker. ben haim can play rb so im thinking maybe he was signed on a free more due to being versitle, not in the spector kinda way and he has to be a step up to spector. faubert and berrera on the wings with parker and hitz in the middle with cole and piquionne up front. yeah we need defenders now and hopefully spend big on one quality cb and i will be happy, a keeper like eneyma or joe lewis would be nice but i cant see anyone wanting green, so thats my moneys worth
anon 13.56, just to add looking at our results zola had a 16 point head start before grant even took over. which means zola picked up 19 points in the same amount of games grant picked up 21 and got portsmouth to the fa cup final. who had the worst season if you look at the actual facts
Anon 13:48 , hehehe...one thing I'm NOT is a pessimist!
Yep, I like to be positive....mainly because what I've seen recently has given me cause to be!...and I like it, especially as I'm certain there's more 'additions' to come yet!(I'm 'ere all week!)
But don't confuse my positivity with over-optimism....nah, I'm a realist too! I don't view things through rose-tinted spectacles and I don't wear claret n blue goggles either...do I HF!?! Sometimes I DO wear beer goggles, but then, life looks just dandy through them doesn't it!?
To better Zola, Grant needs to finish higher with the same team. We will never know HF, and you know that.
If Zola was the main cause of our results last season, then all you have to do is take Zola out of the equation to be better. Zola is out of the equation so why the need to buy?
If our players were good enough, Grant would not be out shopping to make such major changes.
Shaun,
Well said, we can't compare.
Anonymous 1348,
I'm very very good (as in sensible, not good as in HF's 'I'm good!').
stani stop trying to be smart u dont seem to kno much bout west ham at the mo and any1 else noticed noble seems to be getting re juvanated i kno its only friendlys but hes playing better in these 1s then he was last year
Fred,
How about talking about the points I've raised? Go on, you may learn something from it, or God forbid, teach me something.
Quite right everyone. We can't make a scientiic comparison of the two coaches. Different circumstances and conditions and all that. But most importantly, we can hardly have anything to judge or much less to compare Grant with anyone else so far! It's just too soon to make any judgement. I like to think however that not many people can get the selection and organisation of the team much worse than Zola. That's not a compliment to Grant but rather something that has been proven beyoned any reasonable doubt about Zola as a manager.
..and his first season in charge Sav? Everyone seems to forget.
Stani in Zola's first season he had Curbishley's team and set up. It was in his second season that we endured pure Zola. He was useless, but not his fault other than taking a job he had had no experience of. He had been assistant coach for the Italian under 21 team for gods sake. How can that possibly prepare you for managing a premiership side? Its something Nani and Duxford should answer. One thing is for sure they have all lined their pockets one way or another at the clubs expense and it maybe sensible if the D's looked into exactly where the astronomic legal fees ended up in the Tevez affair and how the reported 15 million was split up for the useless italian kid,
John,
Curbishley's team? You mean an injured Ashton, an injured Dyer and an injured Gabbidon? And I refuse to believe that you really think Zola had Curbishley's set up.
I think you've just given a poor reason for trying to explain something which you're in denial about accepting mate.
ye but out of them 3 players only dyer was signed by curbishly and he may of been injured alot but u cant honestly say deano wasnt a gd player so therefore i think ur a douchebag
Sorry Stani I sort of agree with John here. Yes he had half a season whereby the team without playing great football managed to finish reasonable well when looking at the table. The defining season for Zola was last year. I don't think it is easy for even you to make an argument in favour of the Italian. His seletions where repeatedly wrong (not learning from his mistakes), his tactics were terrible, and of course he had no clue about what to do when we were in deep trouble. Any other year and 34 points would have us relegated a few games before the end of season. I still remember very vividly the 42 points that weren't enough to keep us up!
Fred,
Comprehension! You haven't understood what I am saying lightening. I am saying they ARE good players but were injured so Zola couldn't use them. John was saying Zola did well because of Curbishley's players (not necessarily players Curbishley bought...another thing you didn't understand), and I was telling him that the better ones were injured most of the time. Feel stupid? Good, there's a reason for it and it's: B.E.C.A.U.S.E Y.O.U A.R.E
Sav,
You haven't told me what you agree with.
'Half a season'? He took over in September mate! Everyone keeps harping on about his selections as if he had Ronaldo, Rooney and Drogba on the bench but wasn't picking them.
actually if pardew signed them then they can be classed as his team and u dont refernce any fact tht its how gd they were jus tht they r apparently curbs' team so i dont think im stupid i think 500,000 people think u are stupid so **** off
No matter what you and I think he managed in his first season in the job, I don't think there are many who think he did well last year (except perhaps you). I don't think there is much I can say to make you change your mind. Even with the second team he could have managed better than insisting in picking for example Tomkins and Spector for half the season despite their obvious failings. Moreover, as HF keeps saying, he was playing key players out of position. I don't have anything against him. He is a very likeable person and a living legend as a footballer. But then again, so is Maradona, and I don't rate him to be much a manager either.
Did someone say Noble is playing well?
No Parker and Noble playing well thats happened before
I notice there doesn't seem to be a bidding war for the 'best' player West Ham have C'mon cockyfools £10mill and you too can watch man and ball piroquette endlessly in the centre circle
Stani I liked Zola as a person but not as a manager and I was saying on this blog he should go long before HF got into the act.I keep reading very logical reasons why he wasn't a good manager so to get me out of denial can you give any good points about his managership and if he was any good why did we nearly get relegated?
ye it was me but i think they cud play well together if played together in this 4-3-3 grants been playing i wud love this line up for next year
green
faubert tomkins da costa daprela
noble parker hitzlperger
piquionne cole diamanti
Fred, this isn't personal but would you please stop using text spelling. It is crass. I am afraid I will start deleting your posts if you persist. I find your "English" insulting to the language we speak. For pity's sake, start writing like a young man instead of a 7 year old on LSD!
Deane 22:20.... so, you're of the uninitiated (sorry matey, that's SIX syllables...don't wanna confuse you) opinion that all Scott Parker does is receive the ball and endlessly rotate on his own axis, ad infinitum, in the centre circle are you?! That's all he does is it?!
Well, I'm sorry to have to be the one to point out the obvious but the base level of your stupidity has just dropped off the scale...so, congratulations!
Fred149....I'm in agreement with HF yet again here....you blart on and on in indecipherable abbreviated shorthand slang AND have the audacity to tell my good mate Stani to 'f**k off'?!....RED card!...slide away mate...just slide away!!
Fred,
Once again, you just don't get it do you? When me and John were referring to Curbishley's team, we were referring to the players Curbishley had left at the end of his time as manager, irrespective of who bought them.
It was not necessary for me to literally write that Ashton, Dyer and Gabbidon are good. My inference of Ashton, Dyer and Gabbidon being good required some decent level of intelligence and comprehension. Any regular person would know what I was saying, as I'm sure the person I wrote it to (John) did. Unfortunately for the likes of you, it seems everything has to be spelled and pointed out.
500,000 people think I'm stupid? Where did you get that nice round number from? Do you have any concept of how much 500,000 is anyway? Trust me when I say that if we were to conduct a poll of who was more stupid, me or you, you would win hands down. Keep swearing and keep losing the argument mate!
Sav,
You surprise me. I have never said he did well. My argument has always been that he was not primarily to blame for our decline, and it was the players and off-field happenings that were. You make it out as if I supported him blindly, when I in fact have given reasons for every point that I have used to support him. I have been critical of his selections a number of times but people seem happy to gloss over this. I was not happy with him being so patient with Noble and Tomkins during the middle/end of the season.
But why do you simply just dismiss what he did in his first season mate, but take what he apparently did in his second season to have him hung drawn and quartered?
Which key players did he play out of position? He played Spector at left back but he is not a key player. He played Stanislas on the left but was proved correct when Stanislas was moved on to the right and flopped. All the key players played in their positions. The rest he had to make do with because of either injuries, players needing to be sold or lack of available funds to buy what was required. He made errors, but if we were supporting any other club and hence had the time and desire to analyse the manager there, we would see him doing likewise. His mistakes compared to other factors were greatly exaggerated. Also take into consideration that by the end of his reign, he also had the chairmen plotting against him. An impossible job to succeed in.
John,
O.K then mate, if he was so bad why did we finish 9th in his first season, just two points off the uefa cup spot and behind Tottenham in 8th on only goal difference (-3)? Can a bad manager do this?
Shaun,
Thanks mate. He's free to disagree, but he needs to know not to swear and needs to understand that if people disagree with him, its allowed and not the end of the world and that he can be wrong. I hope he doesn't disappear and stays on the site as I know how it is to be forced off one. It is utterly pointless having a blog if opposing views put in a civil manner cannot be tolerated. Let's hope some of your civility can rub off on him.
Stani, Zola took over a team in third place and finished 9th. He took over a team that was scoring goals and by the end of the season were averaging only a little over a goal a game. He took over a team that had finished 1oth the season before and by Christmas, we were close to the relegation zone. His first season was a bridge between the Turds era of mediocrity and the Zola era of disaster!
Now back to next season. YOU have said that the new signings are average to crap. If that is the case, and you have made that case repeatedly, why can't we measure Grant against Zola? He has the same basic team doesn't he?
Who did he play out of position? Diamanti on the right and left of midfield instead of in the hole, Kovac by picking him in the first team as opposed to the reserves, Behrami on the left of midfield, Noble on the right and left of midfield, Jimenez full stop, Spector at left back, Nouble as an 18 year old in the lone striker role, Stanislas as a right footer on the left, his entire midfield as a working unit. Don't distort the facts mate.
Stani we will just have to 'beg to differ' on this one
HF,
"Zola took over a team in third place and finished 9th."
Either you are deliberately taking me for a fool, misleading people on this blog, or you're not giving your intelligence enough credit because I fail to believe you could use that argument as something which has any weight. Zola took over 3 games into the season, yes, THREE!!! How can you use our position in the table at that time as an argument? It's beyond insignificant. You call the Curbs era a mediocrity but then you use us being 3rd under him as something to bash Zola with?
Diamanti was the second top scorer because? Because he was played on the flank where he was comfortable and from which he could score. Consider that HF. I must say, your idea of football, particularly when it comes to playing left footers on the left and right footers on the right is very old-fashioned. It is also a tactic that many of the English managers employ but there is a lot clearly wrong with English football at the moment. I bet you also prefer the big man small man striker pairing no? There was a time and place for it but rarely any more.
Behrami falls in the category I mentioned above of Zola having to make do because of lack of options. Ideally, he would have every positions filled but the situation at our club wasn't ideal was it? Kovac did better than people give he credit for. You know this. Jiminez didn't work out, which is why he didn't play much. Spector I disagreed with but it was either him or Daprela...or than Ashley Cole as it seems. Stanislas we have discussed a million times before. You saw what happened when he was on the left with your own eyes so why are you using it as an argument? Just because you think he was played on the wrong flank, does not mean he was. We have discussed this many times, a right footed player CAN be a left winger, and vice versa.
As for this season and the signings so far. The only player I said that was crap is Ben Haim. The other player I criticised was Piquionne because he doesn't score much BUT MAINLY because of the deal that brought a 31 year old to the club. If he was free on a one, or even two year deal, then I wouldn't have minded. Like I said in a previous post, he can do a job, but we could have done better. I don't remember criticising Hitzlsperger. I criticised the manner in which he was bigged up on the OS when he was announced, something you also made part reference to when talking of his quoted international caps. Barrera I have not criticised. It's clear, Grant is already in a better position to succeed then Zola and this is just considering the playing personnel. We haven't even considered the backing of the chairmen which is something that not only dis Zola not get, but he got the other extreme of them deliberately forcing him out. Grant is being given every chance, Zola was given no chance. No comparison.
It is not the same basic team or circumstances any more HF. You cannot compare, you know this which is why you engaged in this over-simplification of the teams, in order to conclude they are the same. AND, your argument is based on two pre-season friendlies so even if the teams were comparable, your dependence of it on two pre-season games would leave it on shoddy ground. I said to you a few weeks back that you would engage in such a comparison and that you shouldn't because it is impossible. You've probably been thinking of how you could get around it since then and decided here was your chance. We will never know HF.
John,
That's perfectly fine mate. It was good debating with you.
Stani, the article does not propose judging on two friendlies but over the season. Read the last paragraph.
Perhaps Diamanti may have been our top scorer if used correctly! How many of the goals did he score from open play? Not many! Why? because he was tied to the flank and to defensive duties he was and is patently unsuited to! Where was Diamanti over the last leg of the season? On the sub's bench! Why? Because Zola couldn't trust him to defend! For all Zola's supposed love of the beautiful game, he picked teams designed to defend, to clog up midfield!
Actually he took over 4 games into the season, 5 if you count the league cup game. Indeed, Zola did not pick the team that beat Newcastle 3-1 in the first game after his appointment, so we can say that we were five league games into the season before he effectively took over. By that stage, tables are pretty representative on the whole. Had we won against Bolton 7 games into the season, we would have been at the top of the table. We lost 3-1 with Green having a mare. From the position of being able to go top after 7 games, we found ourselves in 17th place in the table in December, a startling collapse of form! Tottenham, who were rock bottom when Zola took over were, by that stage on our shoulders! Remember the points start that Zola was given over Fulham and Tottenham! It was quite an achievement to manage to finish behind both by the end of the season! The truth is, that apart from one "purple patch" spell under Zola, we showed relegation form under the rest of his first season tenure. We secured 15 points over an 8 game spell in December, January and early Feb. Take off those 15 points and we would have finished with 36 points. Take off the 9 points we had already banked before he took effective control and we would have finished with 27 points! Outside of these two windows, Zola averaged just over a point a game! If stretched over the whole season, that would have seen us finish in 16th place, 5 points clear of relegation! Doesn't look so shit hot now does it?
As for the backing of the Chairmen, Zola received 100% support from Duxbury but what good was that? Our results under S&G saved us. Whilst Zola had backing from above, we were utterly crap. It was the intervention of Sullivan that turned things around. He delivered the home truths that Zola wasn't man enough to deliver and ruffled the feathers of our Zola coddled players.
Of course a comparison is reasonable. We still have the debt. We have basically the same team. The big change is the removal of Zola. Yes there are other variables but they are minor by comparison!
Finally, Zola's win ratio as a manager is the WORST in the club's history. THAT says it all!
So Shaun if I'm so stupid and Parker is so good how come no interest and no England place? Parker is above average and very probably the best player we have but ultimately not very good and I believe Noble will be a better player without him just like Germany blossomed without Ballack
But there is interest Deane! We are led to believe that Villa are VERY interested, and will be even more interested should they flog Milner to Sheikh Citeh!! The 'interest' is limited because most other Prem managers have got the message, loud and clear from Mr Sullivan, that we'd actually prefer to keep him!
As for the 'no England place'?? Well let me ask you...do YOU think he should have gone?! Would you have taken a Hyde Park jogger masquerading as an International (SWP) as well as an injured unfit 'holding midfielder' (GB)...well, would ya?! Parker should have gone...fact!
I'm appalled that you say Scott Parker is 'probably the best player that we have, but ultimately not very good'?? That doesn't say much for your opinion on the whole of the playing squad then does it?! Let me ask you a question based on that comment then Deane....are you really a West Ham fan?!!
I will step in there Shaun. There have been times when I have thought the whole squad crap, but I was still a West Ham fan! Lee Chapman? Iain Dowie? Diego Tristan? You can be honest and remain a fan, that's the point of this site!
With regard to Parker, no he should not have gone. I would have taken Rodwell ahead of him. How many goals did he score last season? How many the season before? How many yellows did he collect? Can you afford to take a player who collects yellow cards at a ratio of one per 2 games to a World Cup? That guarantees a suapension, never mind opening up the possibility of a red card.
Barry was unfit and should not have gone but that does not prove anything about Parker, just that he could have jumped in somebody else's coffin. How often does Parker lose possession? Too often. How often does Parker concede free kicks? Too often. How often does Parker make a killer pass? Not often enough. He is busy so he is loved by fans, but his contibutions are hit and miss. Not good enough for international football.
As for SWP, Capello took the wrong Man City winger!
Oh yes I am a West Ham fan just lost the rose tinted specs a long time ago doesn't mean I stop supporting, hoping, wishing. I've just stopped expecting, which these days is no bad thing. I never expect West Ham to win therefore I'm never dissapointed lose-expected, draw-bonus,
win-fanbloodytastic
HF.... now let me get this straight, YOU have believed at various 'times' (pl!), that the entire professional playing staff of West Ham at those given time(s) have simply 'been crap'??! Sorry, but I'm having difficulty getting my head around that assertion!
You cherry-pick three players (who played for West ham at different periods) as if to suggest that is reason enough on it's own to reinforce your opinion that they, and the entire squad around them....was....wait for it...'crap'!? Phew!
I'm all for honesty and constructiveness here, but simply being derisory and over-critical without good reason to reinforce one's dislike of one player is frankly just crass in my book, sorry!
Then to suggest that an untried inexperienced 19yr old in Rodwell, with limited club experience, let alone NO full international experience, should be preferred to THAT player for a major tournament is nothing more than an insult to Parker?!
Maybe you and Deane should go on YouTube and watch his goal against Wigan again?! I'm not referring to the goal's importance in the grand scheme of things, nor am I referring to the quality of the strike....I'm referring to his close-up reaction caught by the cameras and EXACTLY what scoring that goal for West Ham meant to Scott Parker!! Priceless!
Deane, maybe Anon 1348 is right, and I shouldn't be here because I come across as over-positive at times...but I refuse to be negative just for the sake of it, like you. The original title of 'Now Let's Judge Avram Against Zola' was obviously lost on you, as you preferred instead, off-topic and out of context, to have a needless pop at Parker! I was going to apologise to you for implying you may be stoopid, but I think I'll now reserve that given the negativity of your last dreamy soliloquy, when I eventually deciphered it that is!
Stani, Sorry if I have given you the impression that I think you blindly support Zola. I do respect you have your reasons which you articulated a number of times. Let's just agree to disagree about Zola and move on. Which is a good advice for HF to follow by the way. What's done is done. Let's consider the future and the prospects of the emerging West Ham team. Go irons!
No worries Sav, we cool ;)
Gabbidon is class by the way :)
You had to remind of Gabbidon, didn't you! At least we agree that Spector is rubbish.
Post a Comment