(Submitted by Stani Army)
So we have it, the long awaited GrantaZola dossier…sorry, index. Long awaited because HF had to find some way to skew the outcome and Alastair Campbell is a very busy man.
Don’t believe his garbage about it being harder to avoid the drop this season. Firstly, as I have told HF many times before, there are two many variables to be able to compare the strength of leagues from different seasons.
Secondly, I would like to particularly address the following he wrote:
1) “Want the proof of this logic, it is easy. Assume three teams are so weak that they lose to every other team and draw all their matches with each other. All three of these teams end up on 4 points. By virtue of beating these three teams, the side finishing fourth from bottom survive even if they lose every other game! So a club survives on 18 points beating only the three useless, winless teams at the bottom, and survive by a massive 14 points! Now 18 points would ordinarily guarantee bottom place! And that is why Zola's team survived and Grant's didn't. Zola's side beat Hull, Burnley and Portsmouth at home and drew away to Hull and Portsmouth. That was 11 points taken from the three hopeless teams at the bottom. And only with the aid of these gimme points did his side survive. Sadly, Newcastle, West Brom and Blackpool were made of
altogether sterner stuff, and that was our undoing.”
“Assume three teams are so weak that they lose to every other team and draw all their matches with each other. All three of these teams end up on 4 points. By virtue of beating these three teams, the side finishing fourth from bottom survive even if they lose every other game”…This did not happen and so cannot be used for the point you’re trying to make. The reality was far more complex and unpredictable than that. We lost points to strong teams that the relegated teams took points off, for example. Your example doesn’t apply. It just highlights the variables and how you cannot compare.
Also, why are you not using the three promoted teams (from the season before) and their strength when talking about Zola’s season (Portsmouth and Hull were already in the league), yet you are using the three promoted teams and their strength when talking about Grant’s season? Why? Because if you used the three promoted teams when talking about Zola’s season (Wolves, Birmingham and Burnley), you will find that we took just 9 points off them, which is 2 LESS than we took off the three promoted teams in Grant’s season, thus meaning the promoted teams in Zola’s season were stronger and made the league stronger!
Of course one thing that totally contradicts HF’s claims that it was harder to avoid the drop this season, is that we were also stronger, so why did we not compete? Why were we 6 points off 2nd from bottom – the joint 2nd biggest points difference between any two placed teams in the league? Why were we so far off with such a good squad? But you see talking about this would highlight Grant’s total lack of management skills. How much did Grant spend HF? He had a full pre-season to look at the weaknesses and address them right? He had the support of the board from the beginning of his appointment (until they realised) right? They backed him in January right? Look at our team. Pundits that spoke about our relegation said that with our team we should not be where we ended up, and they are saying that with all things considered i.e the strength of the league’s other teams!!! Your argument is in tatters just on that point!
So whilst you mention other pundits saying the three teams relegated this season would have stayed up last season, why do you not mention them also saying that there is no way we should be getting relegated this season with the team we have? Why? Because it cancels your ‘harder to avoid the drop’ point out, it overrides it because it is THE most important point. WE HAD GOOD ENOUGH PLAYERS TO STAY UP! But there was one common denominator - the common denominator that also took a team down last season - and that’s Avram Grant.
Speaking of January, when Grant brought in players that would walk into half the top 10 sides; can you tell us why Grant did worse after January HF? The first game our first January signing played in was on the 25th January. Let’s examine how well Grant did before this period when we were weaker (without the signings), and after this period, when we were stronger (with the new signings). He gained an average of 0.9 points per game without and before the new January signings. With the new January signings he managed just 0.8 points per game! Why did we get fewer points when Grant was supposed to have better players at his disposal? Remarkably, as an advantage to your argument and to Grant, this ‘after January’ period also includes the return of Hitz from injury, so we should have been even stronger! But no!
Fact is, Zola kept us up and Grant did not. And the most fitting thing is the picture HF has used. In his haste to choose an image which showed Grant in front of Zola – so as to represent Grant’s superiority - HF tripped himself up. Because that picture comes from the game we beat Grant’s Portsmouth – A WIN WHICH LIFTED US OUT OF THE BOTTOM THREE. How fitting. A great choice HF, because that picture is symbolic of everything!"
(The title is mine because it will have more impact on the Newsnow Board. The rest is Stani's. Even the bloody picture!)
20 comments:
Talk about an appropriately selected picture! It sums up your article beautifully Stani!
Funnily enough, my next article is on the "backing" Grant received from the Board. Wht did our formm slump? How was Grant supposed to manage the team as a Dead Man Walking for God's sake? What authority did he have after January?
That's because the picture and article is a response to your article HF! I would have expected you to get that....oh silly me, you don't spot your own bullshit do you mate? :)
No mate, it was your subconscious directing you! You know in your heart that this is all crap. You know Zola was crap and the wheels came off whilst he was the manager. No wheels on the wagon but Grant was still riding along until SuGo completely undermined him with that botched attempt to appoint O'Neil.
How exactly did I skew the outcome. I carry ALL the comparative results. None left out, none doctored. No claims about WMDs that don't exist. Just FACTS Stani. FACTS. The COMPARATIVE INDEX shows Grant outperforming Zola! Are you holding him accountable for the Sunderland game when he had already been sacked?
Sorry, I couldn't even be bothered reading all that. It's not that I necessarily disagree with you Stani. It's just that it's all a bit academic now.
West Ham are down because they've been crap for a few years now. We've had two poor managers in succession - Zola and Grant. Arguing which one was marginally better is getting a little too deeply into the territory of angels dancing on the heads of pins.
Here's to next season...
I concur Rab.
No one's forcing you to read it Rab, or comment under it.
I've got a gun to his head as it happens Stani!
Zola is 10 times the manager Grant can ever be. And this is not a compliment to Zola.
Just as Stani is 10 times the real human being you can ever be HF! And this is a compliment to Stani. The fact that he puts up with you despite your failings is his only weakness.
The 2 of you can argue until you're blue in the face but 1 point you're both missing is that the players put in (marginally)more of an effort under Zola than they did Grant (remember some of the goal celebrations the season before?) Given time Zola will be the better manager,Grant should have done a lot better given his greater experience but he inspires no-one.What you should be doing is comparing the squads both men had to work with,not the teams we faced,I think if Zola had Grant's squad the season just gone,we would have survived by the skin of our teeth again.
Should have Zola have been sacked? definately yes,as he took us backwards but never replaced by Grant,herein lies the blame.....
Sav,
Thanks for your compliment mate. As for putting up with HF; the longer I do, the bigger my laugh in the end. But I do think I'm too patient, generally. Plus he hates it when I'm right and that's always a joy. He has everything I say "ingrained" in his mind, as he said.
21:32,
Not sure if you are new to this blog, but I have put that point to HF many times earlier in Grant's reign. His response was basically that Zola was too pally and we needed a real manager like Grant! The old, wise head.
Stani, please show a little more respect. This article was carried as a main article. I did not need to do so.
If you are really "putting up" with me, there really is no need to bother. I can be like other sites and take your article down and deny you a voice.
I think your latest comment is extremely discourteous given I have PLATFORMED your opinions in a way to maximise your readership. If you think about it hard, given I have the power to moderate, if anybody is putting up with anybody, it is the other way around. That is not how I see it. I believe in debate; I do think you should show a little more respect for the fact that I am willing to platform opinion that I very strongly disagree with.
Stani,
I realise nobody is forcing me to read it, which is why I stopped after a couple of paragraphs.
I don't mean any offence to either you or HF. I read this blog because I generally enjoy HF's posts and the banter on the comments threads, where your a regular contributor.
What I meant by my own comment was that reading a dispute between you and HF as to whether Zola or Grant was the better manager, is a bit like being offered a choice between water torture and having your finger nails pulled out. I might indeed have a personal preference but neither are on the cards any longer and actually, we have a future ahead of us that might be rather bright (and relatively torture free) if we pick the right manager.
I'm looking forward to watching HF and you argue about that.
But for the record, if you ask me whether I'd prefer Zola or Grant.... I'd rather have my finger nails pulled out....
LOL Rab, you don't know who the next one is yet. You may yet yearn for Grant! Let's face it, this club has appointed Roeder, Macari, Zola and Grant!
True HF
HF,
You have completely and utterly got the wrong end of the stick, and shame on you.
The putting up comment was meant in a lighthearted manner and was merely a reply to Sav's use of the phrase. If you care to notice, I was replying to Sav. You have blundered big time. You should know how I tend to clown around most of the time.
Now let me take you up on a couple things you have hurled at me. Firstly, do not talk to me about respect or courtesy - you will lose EVERY time.
Secondly, who is the only one here, despite some of the garbage you say, that has actually stated on many occasions how the one thing that makes you different from other bloggers is that you post our opinion even if it is against you? I even thanked you for doing so not so long ago when a couple of bloggers were complimenting me. And you have the nerve to question me? Excuse my language, but you must be f***ing kidding me. Here are my exact words, clearly of someone that is ungrateful, discourteous and disrespectful:
"Nigerian Hammer, Turds, thanks guys, I really appreciate your kind words. I promise not to get a big head! :) And make sure you keep coming back to air your views here, at a place you can. As for HF, he actually agrees with me more than he lets on.
Thanks for letting their comments through HF. That's the difference."
http://thegamesgonecrazy.blogspot.com/2011/05/sullivan-golds-masterplan-comes-closer.html
Shame on you HF, shame on you.
I should be grateful to you? You should be grateful to me and everyone else that makes this blog what it is. Go ahead, take my article down and "deny" me my voice and align yourself with Iain Dale.
Unbelievable.
I don't usually go on the attack like this, but your comment was way off the mark. You got it completely and utterly wrong. I won't hold my breath for an apology, as I'm sure you'd take much pleasure in me suffocating to death.
Rab,
That's my point though mate. This place that was offering water torture and nail extraction did not force you to come in and make a choice between the two. You could have walked on by. You entered yourself and decided to tell the guy behind the counter that you don't want water torture or your nails removed.
As for my argument with HF, I think there are a few people like Turds and Sav, that wanted to see my response to HF's creation (GrantaZola post). And others such as US HF, Beelzebub and Nigerian Hammer who enjoy our debates.
I don't want to be divisive, but I think your original comment wasn't needed, especially the use of the word "bothered".
LOL, I'm not going to apologise but I accept your explanation. I still think the use of the term "putting up with" was inappropriate in the circumstances. We move on.
Well if I knew it would cause so much trouble I would surely not have used the words "put up with". But sometimes, HF, you seem to lose any sense you may have for humor.
That was the way I wrote it, that's the way Stani took it, and all the rest were caused by your over-reaction to something very innonent and with no malice at all. Yeah, I agree, let's just move on!
No, let's not move on...this is the closest HF has come to an apology...ever! :) And what do you mean you're not going to apologise? Do you not apologise when you are wrong HF? Naughty boy.
Actually, reading between the lines, it was one big sorry from you wasn't it HF? It was just done the HF way, trying to be macho/manly and all that. Stani understands. Saying the word sorry doesn't make you less of a man though HF!
Inappropriate in what circumstances? I think someone was giving you shite and you decided to read my comment in the same light and hurled some back at me when it wasn't deserved.
And of course you accept my explanation, because it's the bloody truth. I find it really difficult to do wrong to people, even to be unreasonable to them. Trust me, I lose sleep over it. It is why I take unkindly to any suggestion I was. By God, my intentions are always pure.
Sav, I think this Grant thing has got him all edgy and paranoid. Let him go HF. The shite you're getting from people just for him? He's not worth it.
Post a Comment