The crazy world of Smoking Slaven's West Ham Wonders!
Saturday 1 January 2011
New Year, New Start!
Let's hope so! We've lost the last six games we've played on New Year's Day! Well what do you expect, it's hard to play football after getting hammered the night before aint it?
27 comments:
Sav
said...
I really hope we win today. But if we don't and Grant is still there, then there will be no hope for survival. So, either way, we need something to change today; Avram's pathetic record or Avram himself needs to be changed. If none of the above change today, then we are doomed!
I hope so too HF. But in case we don't, we will have one last chance to restructure and have a go against the odds of staying up. This last chance has to be given to a new manager who can motivate, organise and take the team forward (starting from securing the right players in the right positions in January).
I am not pessimistic by nature. It is the nature of how West Ham conducts its affairs on and off the field that makes me pessimistic. When something, obviously doesn't work you change it. I have seen enough of Avram Grant to say he hasn't got what it takes. Frankly, I just can't understand why you are almost the only one that hasn't realised this yet.
We have taken 17 points from the last 16 games, despite a crippling injury list. 19 points from the next 18 won't be enough to save us, but if we can find another 4 points on top of that, we will stay up. It isn't going to be easy, but five points from the last 3 games, two of which were away from home, is not relegation form - and that is despite the injuries!
Cole was unfit to start Stani. He is still carrying that injury - and it shows! Just like Rooney in the World Cup! Funny how good he has looked since going to America for treatment eh?
Unfit to start doesn't make sense. Does starting put extra burden on the body? In fact, getting a proper warm up before the game, instead of coming cold off the bench is safer. He could then come off at half time or whenever.
He was carrying this niggle before the Fulham game too HF. If Cole was injured enough to prevent him playing, he would not have been on the bench for Everton. Grant was trying to rotate and it was simply a poor decision to drop Carlton. A poor Everton were there for the taking.
If he was worried about Cole's injury, tell me why he didn't take him off against Fulham to protect him? Cole scored his 2nd goal on 72 minutes. We were 1-3 up. Cole could have easily been taken off then for Obinna. He ended up playing 40 minutes against Everton anyway. Had he started his confidence would have been up. Instead he was dropped after scoring two and was understandably probably asking himself why. Then he had to come on cold off the bench with that doubt of being dropped still in his mind and his newly found confidence gone.
But you are ignoring the evidence as usual and shooting from the hip. Piquionne was injured and needed to be replaced against Everton. You also seem to have forgotten that Cole appeared to be feeling his injury at the end of the Fulham game. Reports before kick off said Cole was unfit to start. Remember too that there are rumours that he can only train twice a week, rumours the club have denied but smoke and fire and all that.
Do you really think Avram would have left him out if he believed he could play the full 90 minutes? Here's one. Remember the Blackburn game last season? We started with Nouble up top on his own. Cole came on after 57 minutes. So, do you think Zola thought Nouble was the better option, or did he believe Cole was unfit to play 90 minutes but fit enough to figure as a sub? I remember you DEFENDING that decision by Zola when I said we should have STARTED Cole and taken him off when he tired!
The difference this time was that Grant had Piquionne and Obinna available, so the decision to hold Cole back, if not fully fit, makes much more sense than Zola's to play a crucial must win home game with a raw kid leading the line on his own!
So, Stani, explain why it was a good decision by Zola but a bad decision by Grant!
Last season, Cole had just come back from a knee injury. Yes, an actual injury so there is no comparison why Zola was introducing him slowly and why Grant DROPPED him after he had played THE WHOLE GAME the previous match and scored two. The previous game to the Blackburn one last season Cole had only had a few minutes off the bench again. He was introduced from the bench because just 13 days before that Blackburn game he wasn't even in the squad because of injury. There is simply no comparison to what Grant did. Good effort though.
Ignore the evidence? You are relying on rumours HF. Well the rumour named about 5/6 of our players, all black, so you can see how much credibility that rumour has in it. The club actually made a statement that it was false and that they were looking at legal action. That rumour didnt have much going for it dd it? You use it though and you accuse me of ignoring evidence. Is believing bullsh*t better?
OK then, explain why Grant didnt send Hines on to partner Obinna in place of Piqu if Cole was injured? This is all evidence that you are ignoring HF, not me. I gave you facts. Cole was not injured. He was dropped or at best rested. We are no position to be resting our best players that are on a hot streak. Resting is done in between games, not when games are going on.
It's not about thinking if Cole can play 90 minutes. You read my previous comment. It would have been better starting Cole because of the fact he was high on confidence even if he couldnt play 90. Not only better off because of the confidence factor but the warm up factor too. You admitted he was feeling something by the end of the Everton game, this could have easily been from a shoddy warm up having to quickly come on for injured Piquionne.
I have a nasty suspicion that if Stani, me and a few other regulars were to take the opposite view regarding Grant you would probably be arguing, like you did with Zola, against him staying. Which makes one think, is it true that all you care about is how many hits you get on your blogg?
No insult meant HF. But it is hard to comprehened your stance on this issue. You are ignoring the most important fact (statistic if you like) in this argument. We are consistently bottom of the League and that we have only 17 points from 20 games. What other facts are more important than these?
1. Recent results. 2. What Grant inherited. 3. A very tight transfer budget. 4. Injuries. 5. Bad luck - I give you the disallowed Piquionne goal at Wolves! 6. Six months isn't long enough to judge. I did not make my judgement on Zola until December of 2009. He had be in position for 15 or 16 months by then. I will reserve judgement on Grant for a similar period. That is consistent.
Last season, Cole had just come back from a knee injury. Yes, an actual injury so there is no comparison why Zola was introducing him slowly and why Grant DROPPED him after he had played THE WHOLE GAME the previous match and scored two. The previous game to the Blackburn one last season Cole had only had a few minutes off the bench again. He was introduced from the bench because just 13 days before that Blackburn game he wasn't even in the squad because of injury. There is simply no comparison to what Grant did. Good effort though.
Ignore the evidence? You are relying on rumours HF. Well the rumour named about 5/6 of our players, all black, so you can see how much credibility that rumour has in it. The club actually made a statement that it was false and that they were looking at legal action. That rumour didnt have much going for it dd it? You use it though and you accuse me of ignoring evidence. Is believing bullsh*t better?
OK then, explain why Grant didnt send Hines on to partner Obinna in place of Piqu if Cole was injured? This is all evidence that you are ignoring HF, not me. I gave you facts. Cole was not injured. He was dropped or at best rested. We are no position to be resting our best players that are on a hot streak. Resting is done in between games, not when games are going on.
It's not about thinking if Cole can play 90 minutes. You read my previous comment. It would have been better starting Cole because of the fact he was high on confidence even if he couldnt play 90. Not only better off because of the confidence factor but the warm up factor too. You admitted he was feeling something by the end of the Everton game, this could have easily been from a shoddy warm up having to quickly come on for injured Piquionne."
Cole was high on confidence last season when he sat on the bench against Blackburn! He still has the same bloody injury. He has talked about it! He has to be nursed through games it seems. What if Grant had started him and Cole had pulled up after 20 minutes and been ruled out of today's game? If fully fit, he would have played, no question. He is in today isn't he?
1. Recent Results are not satisfactory (despite the win at Fulham). Everton was there for the taking and AG blew it. 2. If AG didn't like what he was inheriting then he should not have taken the job. 3. He knew what money was available when he accepted the challenge. 4. Every team has bad luck. 5. Every team has and should expect injuries. 6. If you give AG six months in order to judge him we would be a relegation certainty by then.
My last comment (written about an hour ago) just got posted, so please ignore my last question about what happenned to it. But it is a problem HF if it takes that long to post a comment. It is very hard to have live discussion this way.
27 comments:
I really hope we win today. But if we don't and Grant is still there, then there will be no hope for survival. So, either way, we need something to change today; Avram's pathetic record or Avram himself needs to be changed. If none of the above change today, then we are doomed!
Doomed, doomed! Change your name to Fraser!
Avram's trying to change Zola's pathetic record, the trouble is, it's stuck in the groove! (As the very well endowed bishop said to the actress!)
Calm down, it's only Wolves! I have every confidence that our team of poodles will be their match!
I hope so too HF. But in case we don't, we will have one last chance to restructure and have a go against the odds of staying up. This last chance has to be given to a new manager who can motivate, organise and take the team forward (starting from securing the right players in the right positions in January).
I am not pessimistic by nature. It is the nature of how West Ham conducts its affairs on and off the field that makes me pessimistic. When something, obviously doesn't work you change it. I have seen enough of Avram Grant to say he hasn't got what it takes. Frankly, I just can't understand why you are almost the only one that hasn't realised this yet.
Grant just got rinsed on soccer Saturday for dropping Cole and Stan to the bench for Everton. Rightly so.
Cole is a confidence striker if there ever was one. Scores two and is dropped. Crazy
We have taken 17 points from the last 16 games, despite a crippling injury list. 19 points from the next 18 won't be enough to save us, but if we can find another 4 points on top of that, we will stay up. It isn't going to be easy, but five points from the last 3 games, two of which were away from home, is not relegation form - and that is despite the injuries!
Cole was unfit to start Stani. He is still carrying that injury - and it shows! Just like Rooney in the World Cup! Funny how good he has looked since going to America for treatment eh?
Unfit to start doesn't make sense. Does starting put extra burden on the body? In fact, getting a proper warm up before the game, instead of coming cold off the bench is safer. He could then come off at half time or whenever.
He was carrying this niggle before the Fulham game too HF. If Cole was injured enough to prevent him playing, he would not have been on the bench for Everton. Grant was trying to rotate and it was simply a poor decision to drop Carlton. A poor Everton were there for the taking.
If he was worried about Cole's injury, tell me why he didn't take him off against Fulham to protect him? Cole scored his 2nd goal on 72 minutes. We were 1-3 up. Cole could have easily been taken off then for Obinna. He ended up playing 40 minutes against Everton anyway. Had he started his confidence would have been up. Instead he was dropped after scoring two and was understandably probably asking himself why. Then he had to come on cold off the bench with that doubt of being dropped still in his mind and his newly found confidence gone.
But you are ignoring the evidence as usual and shooting from the hip. Piquionne was injured and needed to be replaced against Everton. You also seem to have forgotten that Cole appeared to be feeling his injury at the end of the Fulham game. Reports before kick off said Cole was unfit to start. Remember too that there are rumours that he can only train twice a week, rumours the club have denied but smoke and fire and all that.
Do you really think Avram would have left him out if he believed he could play the full 90 minutes? Here's one. Remember the Blackburn game last season? We started with Nouble up top on his own. Cole came on after 57 minutes. So, do you think Zola thought Nouble was the better option, or did he believe Cole was unfit to play 90 minutes but fit enough to figure as a sub? I remember you DEFENDING that decision by Zola when I said we should have STARTED Cole and taken him off when he tired!
The difference this time was that Grant had Piquionne and Obinna available, so the decision to hold Cole back, if not fully fit, makes much more sense than Zola's to play a crucial must win home game with a raw kid leading the line on his own!
So, Stani, explain why it was a good decision by Zola but a bad decision by Grant!
No problem.
Last season, Cole had just come back from a knee injury. Yes, an actual injury so there is no comparison why Zola was introducing him slowly and why Grant DROPPED him after he had played THE WHOLE GAME the previous match and scored two. The previous game to the Blackburn one last season Cole had only had a few minutes off the bench again. He was introduced from the bench because just 13 days before that Blackburn game he wasn't even in the squad because of injury. There is simply no comparison to what Grant did. Good effort though.
Ignore the evidence? You are relying on rumours HF. Well the rumour named about 5/6 of our players, all black, so you can see how much credibility that rumour has in it. The club actually made a statement that it was false and that they were looking at legal action. That rumour didnt have much going for it dd it? You use it though and you accuse me of ignoring evidence. Is believing bullsh*t better?
OK then, explain why Grant didnt send Hines on to partner Obinna in place of Piqu if Cole was injured? This is all evidence that you are ignoring HF, not me. I gave you facts. Cole was not injured. He was dropped or at best rested. We are no position to be resting our best players that are on a hot streak. Resting is done in between games, not when games are going on.
It's not about thinking if Cole can play 90 minutes. You read my previous comment. It would have been better starting Cole because of the fact he was high on confidence even if he couldnt play 90. Not only better off because of the confidence factor but the warm up factor too. You admitted he was feeling something by the end of the Everton game, this could have easily been from a shoddy warm up having to quickly come on for injured Piquionne.
I have a nasty suspicion that if Stani, me and a few other regulars were to take the opposite view regarding Grant you would probably be arguing, like you did with Zola, against him staying. Which makes one think, is it true that all you care about is how many hits you get on your blogg?
Poor response to hard facts Sav. Come back at me with facts, not insults. "Big Nose" is not a mature way of debating.
No insult meant HF. But it is hard to comprehened your stance on this issue. You are ignoring the most important fact (statistic if you like) in this argument. We are consistently bottom of the League and that we have only 17 points from 20 games. What other facts are more important than these?
Did you receive my response HF?
Six:
1. Recent results.
2. What Grant inherited.
3. A very tight transfer budget.
4. Injuries.
5. Bad luck - I give you the disallowed Piquionne goal at Wolves!
6. Six months isn't long enough to judge. I did not make my judgement on Zola until December of 2009. He had be in position for 15 or 16 months by then. I will reserve judgement on Grant for a similar period. That is consistent.
Which response Stani? I've published all that I've received.
Went to Spam for some reason!
I swear I sent it. Here it is:
"No problem.
Last season, Cole had just come back from a knee injury. Yes, an actual injury so there is no comparison why Zola was introducing him slowly and why Grant DROPPED him after he had played THE WHOLE GAME the previous match and scored two. The previous game to the Blackburn one last season Cole had only had a few minutes off the bench again. He was introduced from the bench because just 13 days before that Blackburn game he wasn't even in the squad because of injury. There is simply no comparison to what Grant did. Good effort though.
Ignore the evidence? You are relying on rumours HF. Well the rumour named about 5/6 of our players, all black, so you can see how much credibility that rumour has in it. The club actually made a statement that it was false and that they were looking at legal action. That rumour didnt have much going for it dd it? You use it though and you accuse me of ignoring evidence. Is believing bullsh*t better?
OK then, explain why Grant didnt send Hines on to partner Obinna in place of Piqu if Cole was injured? This is all evidence that you are ignoring HF, not me. I gave you facts. Cole was not injured. He was dropped or at best rested. We are no position to be resting our best players that are on a hot streak. Resting is done in between games, not when games are going on.
It's not about thinking if Cole can play 90 minutes. You read my previous comment. It would have been better starting Cole because of the fact he was high on confidence even if he couldnt play 90. Not only better off because of the confidence factor but the warm up factor too. You admitted he was feeling something by the end of the Everton game, this could have easily been from a shoddy warm up having to quickly come on for injured Piquionne."
Even your blog doesnt like me!
Cole was high on confidence last season when he sat on the bench against Blackburn! He still has the same bloody injury. He has talked about it! He has to be nursed through games it seems. What if Grant had started him and Cole had pulled up after 20 minutes and been ruled out of today's game? If fully fit, he would have played, no question. He is in today isn't he?
He's in today's team because he was never injured. He was dropped.
1. Recent Results are not satisfactory (despite the win at Fulham). Everton was there for the taking and AG blew it.
2. If AG didn't like what he was inheriting then he should not have taken the job.
3. He knew what money was available when he accepted the challenge.
4. Every team has bad luck.
5. Every team has and should expect injuries.
6. If you give AG six months in order to judge him we would be a relegation certainty by then.
That's for answering your hard facts.
Now that is stupid! Grant may be a fool but drop a player after scoring twice and being hailed MOTM? He didn't drop him after the Man Utd game did he?
YES!!! Finally you understand my argument. Grant IS a fool.
Where has my last post answering your hard facts gone HF? Did it follow Stani's post route into your spam mail?
My last comment (written about an hour ago) just got posted, so please ignore my last question about what happenned to it. But it is a problem HF if it takes that long to post a comment. It is very hard to have live discussion this way.
In fact, getting a proper warm up before the game, instead of coming cold off the bench is safer.
Ahh the return of the dopelganger. HF, you need to do something about this guy.
Post a Comment