Tuesday 21 September 2010

Sunderland 1 West Ham Reserves 2 Crisis What Crisis?

"Faubert has played well. Tomkins has played well. Da Costa has played well. Ben Haim has done well in the second half...West Ham are in a false position...West Ham will get out of trouble...Stech hasn't been bothered since the goal...West Ham will be well out of trouble by Christmas...Obinna scored a wonderful goal..."

Not me, just taking dictation from the Sports Extra commentary! Sunderland played their first team, we went in with 7 changes and, from what I heard, played them off the park, becoming only the second away team to win at the Stadium of Light in 2010. The other team? Man Utd!

I can't give an authoritative account myself because I was listening to the radio, but we have won away from home at long, long, long last and did it in style and with plenty of gas left in the tank. No Upson, no Green, no Cole (until he was brought on), no Noble (sub), no Dyer (sub). Is that the secret? Forget the Englishmen - though to be fair, Tomkins did play and so did Parker, and both played very well.

Boa did well. Barerra did very well, looking "intelligent and a constant threat". Kovac did well. Avram did well.

I take it all back! Well done Avram for respecting Yom Kippur. God must be Jewish! Can't write any more, I'm off to get circumcised!

Ouch!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

17 comments:

Anonymous said...

COYI!

Anonymous said...

Worrying theme going on here, Avram taking a team to Wembley followed by relegation?!!

Hammersfan said...

Do us a favour and smile, for one night at least!

Anonymous said...

Oh I'm smiling don't worry especially with a Makem mate, but I thought the theme might give you subject matter for a future thread!

Hammersfan said...

I hope not mate. I'm hoping this blog can be a little bit more optimistic now. The signs of progress are there.

Anonymous said...

yeah I hope so too mate because generally your glass is half full of shit

Hammersfan said...

Well we have been shit for over 12 months so is it any surprise? Half full? Under Zola the cup overflowed with shit!

Sav said...

Pitty we don't get any points for this win. Now we have to do it all over again against Spuds. If they play like they did against Arsenal tonight we should have no problem at all. COYI

Stani Army said...

It's not Zola's fault the cup was full of sh*t HF. Nice of you to admit it was full of sh*t though. What would he have given for the players Grant has?

Hammersfan said...

It was Zola's fault. He said he wanted to work with a smaller squad. If you lick the arse of the owners to that extent, you shouldn't be surprised if you end up with shit all over you face!

Zola WANTED Jimenez! Zola WANTED McCarthy! Zola WANTED Kovac! Zola WANTED Tristan!

Hammersfan said...

And, incidentally, you said Piquionne and Ben Haim were shit so, presumably, you don't think they have enhanced the squad at all. Reid isn't playing. Nor is Derr Hammer. So, basically, we are talking Barerra and Obinna as improvements to the squad and that has been balanced by the loss of Diamanti, Daprela and Ilan. Can't see that the squad is any stronger if you are right about Piquionne and Ben Haim! We were shit under Zola because he couldn't organise a piss up in a brewery!

Stani Army said...

Rubbish HF!
Zola was not responsible for buying players. Why will you not accept this? It was just not his job. Actually I know why you wont accept it, because you'll have to back track on most of your criticism of him.

I stand by my opinion of Ben Haim and Piquionne. Just to be clear, I said Ben Haim is garbage and Piquionne runs the channels well but doesnt score enough. Ben Haim has definitely not enhanced anything. Piquionne may have because we were short on strikers but he was not what we needed.

So you would have Ilan and Diamanti rather than Barrera and Obinna? Please, dont insult yourself with stuff like that HF. It's nonsense.

Hammersfan said...

Again, more fool Zola if he had NO say in who was bought and sold. That makes him a complete idiot for agreeing to drive a getaway car in a diamond heist without first checking out the make and model. You don't turn up to find that the car is a twenty year old Mondeo with flat tyres and a knackered engine!

As for Obinna and Barerra, time will tell. Ilan and Diamanti scored goals. I saw Barerra against Oxford and he was poor. Obinna wasn't good enough for Inter; just like Jimenez. Barerra is unproven; just like Diamanti. You have ignored the loss of Daprela.

We haven't spent a fortune this summer. Avram has nominated the players he wanted. If they are any good, doesn't he deserve credit for that? Why didn't Zola have that level of knowledge? How many decent players did we miss out on because Zola and Nani only knew about Italian football? Look at the signing of Tristan. Zola was living in the past!

Zola is still ahead by 2 points in the Grantazola Index. Let's see where that index stands by the end of the season shall we?

Stani Army said...

Fool or not, that wasn't his job. There was a director of football there...that's how the set up was. There's no shame in saying that you dont know much about cars and asking the club to get someone in who does know about cars. If the cars mess up in the heist, you blame the guy who got the cars.

Daprela hardly played so it was potential. I was comparing the actual. You know Berrara and Obinna will be more effective than Diamanti and Jimenez so I'm not sure why we're even arguing about it. They are much more dynamic and are the thrust of our forward movement.

If Grant asked for those players then he deserves credit but we wasnt talking about this was we? We were talking about the team Zola had and the team Grant has. But indirectly you have just said that they are better players than Zola had so thanks :)

Does the Index only run on points? If so, are you comparing Grant to Zola's first season or second and why?

You cannot compare HF. Why, an intelligent guy like you, are you wasting your time?

Hammersfan said...

I can compare and will compare. We have the same debt, according to you we still have crap owners and, according to you, most of Avram's signings are pigs.

You seem to accept that Zola was foolish to accept the job with no say on who was bought or sold. Of course, Duxbury said that all decisions about who was bought and sold were played past Zola first. Zola himself claimed to be fully involved in the process and Zola repeatedly said that he was happy with the arrangement and with who was bought and sold. All decisions were "footballing" decisions of course and Zola, like an idiotic toady, said he wanted to work with a smaller squad.

Remember, on his own admission, Zola had NO CONTACT with Ashton. What sort of crass manager ignores his injured centre forward? Remember Zola, on his own admission, trusted Lucash to get in contact before he made a decision on his future. What sort of idiot lets his captain sign for another team without speaking to him first?

Why do you think Zola is still out of work? It is you who is delusional Stani. The facts cannot be disputed - Zola, over TWO SEASONS - has the worst win ratio of ANY manager of West Ham.

It is early days for Grant, but in the first half against Bolton, we played better than we played at any time last season. That was basically the same bunch of players that Zola had at his disposal, except for Barerra and the "pointless signing" Piquionne. We will kick on, we will improve, and we will do so because Avram is a manager, not the best mate of the players. He may not be a genius but, as we saw against Sunderland, he can vary his tactics and he can organise a bunch of players to play as a team. Those two basics of the job put him way ahead of Zola!

Stani Army said...

Zola said he was not in charge of who was bought. There was a director of football who did that and he was there before Zola.

Well obviously Zola knew Ashton was finished. Was he going to say it before the club made an official announcement?!

Neill was offered a contract. You're saying this happened without any conversation between him and the manager? Strange.

Lots of managers are out of work e.g Martin O'Neil. There are more managers than there are clubs HF.

The facts cannot be disputed; we never got relegated under Zola as we did under other managers in our past. FACT

You keep saying same players but they're not. Neither is the support from the chairmen.

And there's no point in directing personal insults at me is there?

Hammersfan said...

Delusional is hardly a personal insult. You suggest that I am lying about how I really feel! I quote, "Actually I know why you wont accept it, because you'll have to back track on most of your criticism of him."

Did Zola know Ashton was finished? So, his response was to make no contact, to ignore the guy? That makes Zola a very poor human being doesn't it? I don't believe that at all. Ashton confirmed that he only spoke to Zola once, when he showed up at the training ground. Zola never even phoned him!

If Zola KNEW Ashton wasn't returning, why did he mislead the fans. He said how much he was looking forward to working with him! He made no attempt to sign a replacement did he?

Yes Lucash was offered a contract and yes he told Zola he would be in contact before he made a decision, but then Zola WAITED for a call! Would Ferguson wait? Would 'Arry wait? Of course they wouldn't!

Fact Stani. We finished with our lowest points total EVER in the Prem last season. Fact, Roeder's team amassed 7 more points! Fact, our points total last season would have seen us relegated in almost every year since the Prem's inception. Fact, Zola has the worst win ratio of any West Ham manager in the history of the club, even allowing for his first "successful season".

It is your refusal to recognise these facts that provokes the delusional charge. You will not accept that Zola was a disaster. Well, the facts state otherwise. The definition of delusional is, "something that is falsely believed or propagated". I will stick with facts. I will compare Grant's performance to Zola's and I will judge honestly. You have it in for Grant because he replaced your favourite. You have it in for Gold and Sullivan because they sacked your favourite. You have it in for the players because they were poorly managed by your favourite. The trouble is, your favourite was a clown!