I don't get this obsession with da Costa. Sure he had one goodish game against Tottenham, and the tactic of fielding a team of giants worked well at home to Stoke when they didn't have Etherington, but that apart, I would identify his selection as one of the main reasons why our season has gone into reverse again.
Here are some stats to ponder upon. Manuel has started 27 games in all competitions for West Ham and in those games we have kept just 4 clean sheets, strangely two of those against Tottenham. In those 27 games we have conceded 47 times, meaning that we have to score twice to draw when he starts!
Our points acquisition hasn't been bad - within context of what has happened in other games when he hasn't played - but remains no better than par. And the problem with playing da Costa is that either Tomkins, who was in superb form before the introduction of the Portuguese man mountain, is dropped or is played out of position. Etherington exposed Tomkins at right back in the cup game at Stoke; Petrov surely put an end to that experiment at Bolton.
Three into two won't go - unless it's one of Cole's parties - and, for me Tomkins and Upson are the superior pairing. We were playing well when they were paired together and Grant needs to revert to plan A quickly or Villa will put us on the brink of the drop.
So you're saying it's Grant's fault HF? That he's picking the wrong centre backs and stupidly playing a centre back at right back? I think if it was Zola doing this, this article would have taken a totally different line.
ReplyDeleteThe problem you have my friend is you have to criticise our bad performances and results, but know full well that it leads to the manager's glaring mistakes. And you don't want to highlight his mistakes do you?
I think I make clear where reponsibility lies. I have copy and pasted the relevant bits. The argument isn't absolutely clear cut because we collect as many points with da Costa in the team as without him, which is why I have tried to steer a course closer to the middle than I would with Stanislas on the left wing or Spector at left back. However, I am critical of Grant. Read the extract below:
ReplyDelete"I don't get this obsession with da Costa...the problem with playing da Costa is that either Tomkins, who was in superb form before the introduction of the Portuguese man mountain, is dropped or is played out of position. Etherington exposed Tomkins at right back in the cup game at Stoke; Petrov surely put an end to that experiment at Bolton...We were playing well when they (Upson and Tomkins) were paired together and GRANT (capitals added) needs to revert to plan A quickly or Villa will put us on the brink of the drop."
stani you are the biggest hypocrite ever you critisize HF for not critisizing grant enough but you refused to acknoledge Zola was a s**t manager and never critisized him
ReplyDeleteDa Costa is our best defender you idiot ive had a season ticket for the last 9years and he is easily the top 3 defenders weve had in that time i havent missed 1 home game to so im pretty sure i have more of a clue who to blame and its players like Spector,Boa Morte and Upson yea upsons had a few good games but Da Costa and Tomkins have saved us loadssss this season
ReplyDeleteThanks for capitalising Grant's name HF, I must have missed it since you mentioned it a grand total of....once. You're being a naughty boy aren't you?
ReplyDeleteYou know it is nothing compared to how you criticised Zola. In fact, it's not even that clear you blamed Grant. When it came to Zola, his name was almost on every line, not excruciatingly eked out on the 2nd last line.
Why do you not want to hold him responsible HF?
Of all the real problems in the team to pick on HF (such as Noble's pathetic defending or Keane's soft impact up front and so on) you decided to make a twisted argument against someone who is probably our best defender. I totally disagree with you that Tomkins is better than Da Costa (in any position). Tomkins is off pace and he makes more mistakes that anyone. Yes, Da Costa was at fault for bad judgments and wondering off his position a few times as he like to do. But make no mistake, he is our best and most reliable defender. We need to have our best back four (Jacobsen, Da Costa, Upson and Bridge) play together a few times to learn each other's game. The problem is not the the back four but how much they are stretched from not having any cover from the midfield which includes Noble and to some extent Hitz (who despite his great qualities as a play maker he is not very good in defending). When our manager in his wisdom decides to play three in midfield and two of them are Noble and Hitz, then we have not chance. The defence is stretched to make up the gaps and we lose. Simple!
ReplyDeleteFred my dear, settle down now.
ReplyDeleteThere is a distinct difference between the position I held on Zola and the one HF holds on Grant. My argument has always been that he is a young manager and should be given time at our club because he has shown glimpses. This is a clear acceptance on my part of Zola's limitations at the time.
But I have highlighted Zola's strengths such as his first season with us when we finished 9th and his coaching abilities and people skills. I have asked HF many times to tell us what is good about Grant but he cannot. Can you?
Now the same argument of time cannot apply to Grant because he's been in management all his life and has achieved nothing significant, and by the looks of it, learnt nothing either in nearly 40 years of coaching.
Give Zola 40 years, and I bet you he'd get a lot further than this clown.
Sav,
Very good point about the lack of protection for our defence from the midfield
HF,
How about you do a similar analysis for Tomkins and Upson HF? I think Da Costa would come up well.
Upson and Tomkins make more clear errors than him. e.g Sturridge's first goal (Upson) and Strridge's second (Tomkins)
SAV tomkins made the mistake against villa first game of the season but tell me how many since then all i ca ncount is the one muddle up against liverpool and oh we wo ntha tgame 3-1 and tomkins was at the heart of our defence not da costa .da costa has made more mistakes and is easily skinned i could go on but its so simple that tomkins is better then da costa
ReplyDeleteNot so Stni. And you wouldn't accept anyway as you only see what you want to see. For exmple, da Costa was at fault for the Birmingham goal when he played the scorer onside, but you insisted the fault lay elsewhere. Without getting too bogged down, look at our form up to da Costa replacing Tomkins and our form since. Tomkins was, for me, our best defender before he was shunted to right back to accommodate Manuel. But are you saying Grant is proving himself a masterful manager by correctly replacing Tomkins with da Costa? It seems so to me! ; }
ReplyDeleteWhy not play Da Costa and Tomkins, Upson is the weak link and don't say experience that's bull he has made more clear and glaring mistakes as the experienced CH than the other two.
ReplyDeleteNope, I'm saying Tomkins and Da Costa should play because they are both better than Upson and Grant does not do so because he's a crap manager.
ReplyDeleteWhat are you saying HF?
(I dealt with your Brum goal argument at the time)
I'm very clear, Grant has blundered selecting da Costa ahead of Tomkins. To drop Upson would be crazy in my opinion.
ReplyDeleteThe reason all you lot are quibbling amongst yourselves is simple...all 3 have times in nearly every game when they switch off,look at the woeful defending away to the barcodes & again against Bolton,how a "giant" of a man like that massive Korean guy can score with his head between 2 "midgets" like Upson & DaCosta??
ReplyDeleteIf you could mould all 3 together you might come up with a player like.....James Collins (what a f*ck up we made selling him).
Upson "should" be the best of the 3 because he has the most experience but our near-silent captain makes the most mistakes,plays the line too deep & even some of the time takes the secondary striker because he's mainly gutless & the sooner he walks the better.
Timmons is by far the better of the 2. And with a little more experience he will hce upson but his inexperience, for now holds him back. Da Costa is weak. He looks lost at times. The real problem is the right back, left back area. They are so weak, we become forced to through Tomkins out there and it's not his primary.
ReplyDeleteGive HF credit for being able to write this piece and all these other pieces. I too respect the likes of Zola and thought he needed time however he was unable to adapt to change. He threw out a tit lineup time after time with kovac and Franco in there. Atleast Grant throws us curves balls that make it fun and exciting to see how much were gonna lose by.
Well Zola made us sell him of course 2104, so we could buy Diamanti, who he promptly benched and played out of position!
ReplyDeleteSo glad that I am not the only one who thinks Da Costa is a liability. He has had 1.5 good games. Spurs away and Stoke at home in the league. Apart from that he has been awful. Costly lapses in concentration, awful distribution. I struggle to see why Grant would pick him ahead of Tomkins or even Gabbidon to be honest
ReplyDeleteTomkins is the better player. Full stop.
ReplyDeleteI don't get it. Some people seem to have to have a grudge against Tomkins.
Absolutly agree mate. He will captain England one day. How will hhe respond if we go down having been treated so shabbily by Grant? Could we blame him if he slapped in a transfer request?
ReplyDelete