Saturday, 17 September 2011

Millwall 0 West Ham 0 Firing blanks in a phoney war

Well that was a damp squib in every sense of the term. The corner count suggests that Millwall had the better of the game but the real chances fell to West Ham. Lansbury had two chances in the first half. Bentley missed a great opportunity to score, putting wide from six yards and had a good shot from outside the box, Faubert had a goal struck off for offside, Nolan headed tamely at Forde and Cole had a header saved. But the best chance came from the kickoff when the referee blew for the start whilst Forde was still checking his net with his back to the play! If that had gone in and we had claimed the goal, it would have kicked off big time!

The worrying thing was the lack of quality. This is a workmanlike Millwall team and we should have beaten them comfortably. The standard of crossing today was awful, from both sides, with Faubert and McCartney, in particular, showing all the direction and accuracy of a blind sniper after ten pints of the amber liquid. Piss poor.

Once again, Nolan was close to anonymous. He isn't firing and isn't linking the play as he should. Baldock came on and played in Faubert for the disallowed goal, which is promising, but the former Newcastle man is a big worry. Bentley's confidence won't have been helped by his miss either.

Was Taylor injured? He lacked his usual spark and was withdrawn early, allowing Bentley to join the fray. Lansbury was also disappointing but the decision to repeatedly go long may explain that. There's not much point in having a quality midfield if you lump the ball over their heads.

The injury to Tomkins is a big worry. Faye and Reid coped defensively against a distinctly mediocre Millwall team but they lack the quality on the ball to initiate attacks from the back. Fingers crossed that Tomkins has a minor groin strain and not something more debilitating.

All in all, a disappointing day on the pitch. Let's hope it remains all quiet on the streets after the game.

27 comments:

Stani said...

Some strange decisions from Pam. You have to keep the likes of Taylor and Lansbury on for their quality on the ball even if they are having bad games. To take them off and leave Faubert and Noble on, who were not exactly playing better than Taylor and Lansbury, is a bit perplexing.

Anonymous said...

Interesting write up, particularly your assessment of Nolan. I assume you were there to be able to judge his performance?

Elf72 said...

I'll settle for 0-0.

Away at Millwall could've been a real banana skin.

Anonymous said...

Love the new store in westfield its great

USA Dave said...

Look, HF. Derby's are a different affair. We could win 10 on the trot while Millwall could lose 10 and if we met after those streaks it would still be a torrid game.

We will not win every game, and expecting us to will only set us up for pain. I listened to the game, and it seemed a draw was appropriate. I am fine with today, because I still believe overbthe long season we are best equipped to pick up points on a consistent basis.

Sav said...

I agree with the comments made by Stani. You just don't take off Lansbury and Taylor, even if they are not having the best of days. I haven't seen the match so I can't really comment on what was Noble's contribution, but I can't believe that Taylor and Lansbury were substituted, while Noble played the full 90 minutes!

Mike said...

Yeah, I'd not get 'worried' just yet. Fact is, we didn't play the best game ever, but we came away with a point away from home.

I mean, it could have been worse. We could have lost.

Hammersfan said...

The trouble is Sav, even without seeing the game, you are still knocking Noble! Taylor was struggling, full stop. There are some suggestions that he went into the game unwell. Lansbury was pulled off to allow on Baldock, a very positive move by Allardyce when playing away from home. Noble is the anchor. You don't replace your anchor with a striker unless you are behind!

Hammersfan said...

Or Mike, like Middlesborough, we could have won.

Stani said...

Strange thing is Sav, from radio commentary, Lansbury seemed to be our best player.

Pam's never made this style of experimental change at all (hasn't played 442, hasn't played Baldock, or Faubert and Bentley in the same side), so to do it here, away from home, is strange.

Did you stick with Nolan as your captain HF?

Stani said...

Sav's not knocking Noble's performance HF, just saying Lansbury and Taylor are better players. I think we can all agree with that! Plus, I know which 2 of the 3 I'd trust to produce a bit of magic to turn the game in our favour, hence I know who I'd have left on (provided they weren't injured)

Anonymous said...

14:51 don't be silly, he read it on KUMB.

TurdsOut! said...

That was Millwall's cup final! I for one am happy with the point.

Hammersfan said...

But winning matches isn't all about players with magic Stani. Look at Arsenal. You need tacklers, fighters and workers too.

Mike said...

Arsenal? They need a new team.

Anonymous said...

Is this a write up of a game or a write up of a radio commentary disguised as a write up of a game?

Stani said...

I didn't say winning games is all about players with magic. And the funny thing is HF, Lansbury and Taylor are better than Noble at the things you mentioned anyway!!!

And even if in your opinion, Lansbury and Taylor were JUST about magic, we've plenty of tacklers, fighters and workers in the team to afford to let them stay on despite not being at their best, because they can turn a game.

fred149 said...

Well Stani from what i heard noble had a good game and was involved quite abit in the second half but heres another truth just because somebodys your captain in my book does not mean he should always play every game for 90 mins. Nolan was apparently nowhere to be seen today and it would have made more sense to take nolan off and bring on baldock and play lansbury in behind the striker which is why he exceeded against pompey. Where to start on faubert oh deary me apparently couldnt cross ball even if it was a simple cross to the back post or a cross 10 yards in front of him needs to be dropped next game for bentley

Sav said...

I will reserve any further comment on Noble until I see him play next.

However, Noble is a tackler and a fighter you say?!!! Based on the matches I have watched him play he is neither. He is tentative, very often loses the ball and his tackles are mis-timed most of the time (like the penalty he gave away last week against Portsmouth). For me, he is the weakest link in this West Ham team. The sooner Pam realises this the better.

Stani said...

Fred, I didn't say Noble had a crap game. Stop being so sensitive.

fred149 said...

i was meant to put sav and stani but stani i didnt say you said it i was just pointing it out but what you are saying is that noble should have been taken off over lansbury and taylor which aint true

Anonymous said...

See the "Noble twins" are at it again...or are you just one & the same person ?

Perhaps you should sign in as "Stavani" or better still why not actually attend a game for once,maybe join up with HF (That's if you can prise him away from White Hart Lane watching his beloved Scotty heh heh)

Stani said...

'Sign in' 07:30?

You attend games? Why didn't you say so! We inferior and unworthy lot really need to hear more from you 30,000 real West Ham fans.

Sav said...

It is called being objective 07:30. We have nothing against Mark Noble other than the fact than that the benefits from playing him are less than the costs to the team from his short-comings and persistent errors.

Anonymous said...

id say 0-0 was a fair result! west ham lucky to go away with a point in an away derby match and to be honest the complaints about west ham you have... well thats why they aint in the premier league anymore
twitter @flappychops

the headmaster said...

Tell, us, HF - is the poster/s who calls himself Anonymous one and the same poster or is there a whole host of sad acts who just come on here to dis everything you say?

Hammersfan said...

LOL God only knows mate.