|The very best posts from KUMB over the years ...
16 points in our last 15 games.
8 points in the previous 15 games.
A string of cup wins.
No leads thrown away against 10 men opposition.
Only one loss (on the opening day) in nine games against bottom half opposition.
Perhaps we are improving, albeit slowly and marginally?
After 21 games last season we had 19 points.
3 points against Everton or Wolves will equal that 21 game total from last season .... Anything more will better it obviously...
We subsequently won only 2 of the next 12 games last season after that 21st game. The opportunity is there to improve on that greatly. Something we must take advantage of. Everything to play for.
Ouston, I reckon if Zola has still been here some would be suggesting he'd planned the mistakes by those players.
If Grant had been here two years, and signed a load of his own players who werent up to the Prem, while shipping out ones who were on frees, he would have deserved to be fired.
Grant's situation is entirely different. He's been in charge for a quarter of the time that Zola has, having inherited Zola's ****, rather than the best squad left to a manager in West Ham history.
Did Zola choose to sell Bellamy? That was the principal weakening of the squad that he inherited.
Did he choose for Ashton to be crocked? How much of an impact was that on his ability to win games?
He inherited Ilunga as a replacement for McCartney; does he not deserve any credit for Ilunga's decent first season?
Was it Zola's fault that Neill refused the terms on offer, in favour of a summer on the beach and half a season on Everton's bench?
Did Zola preside over a period in which we almost - totally beyond his control - go bust?
I think your argument is going from one extreme ('best ever squad to inherit') to another (Zola's ****) in 76 matches.
My initial point was that Grant's first half of a season was inferior to Zola's first half last season. I can't see why that's so controversial. Even in Zola's second half of the season, when he came under more 'back page' pressure from his owners than I can remember any other coach ever receiving, he spent a solitary week in the bottom three.
If Grant repeats that, sing hosannah, he's done well.
The Prophet has good points as well.
- The Davids are not itching to get rid of Grant the way the bullied Zola out
- Zola's squad was continually weakened.
(although he brought in some players he stated he wanted to strenghten the squad with, but who knows how much spin was on that)
- We were in 20th place far longer than I can remember we have been for a while now.
still very pleased we got rid of Zola though.
What a stupid thread to bump don't sack Zola when he has been sacked a long time ago get over it.
What I find even more stupid is you still get the same people slagging Zola off for selling our star players and replacing them with crap.Anyone with a IQ over 10 could see Duckers sold them (auctioned them off probably more accurate) and Nani signed the cheap inferior replacements after bank debts were repaid.
No of course not PM but admitting that would ruin Chuck's Devils Advocate position wouldn't it!
Even now his hatred for Zola stretches to backing a manager who has spent 12 months in the bottom 3 and blaming it on Zola irrespective of anything Grant has done.
Standing idly by and avoiding responsibility (whilst being paid very handsomely) do not constitute admirable qualities or acceptable excuses.
Not sure where you're going with this? Avoiding responsibility? All he was responsible for was coaching/training team selections and tactics etc as he was employed as head coach aka yes man.What would you have liked him to do then if its that easy? remembering your mate Curbs a far more experienced manager was powerless in stopping Duckers selling Anton and Mcartney.
What he was paid has no relevance just because he was overpaid doesn't change the FACT he was a puppet.
All of the stuff Zola was responsible for the stuff I mention above he pretty much ****ed up.You will get no arguments from me there.I just don't like seeing people get the blame for things they have no control over.
The last manager we had in a (proper football sense) was Curbishley who then sued us when Duckers broke a clause in his contract regarding player transfers.They were not going to make the same mistake again Zola's contract would have been totally different to a proper football mangers contract which curbs had.That way we wouldn't have the possibility of being caught out with that again in the future. Duckers was a stupid **** as you and others know but even he wouldn't make the same mistake twice.
He had a choice. He chose to stand back.
Do you really believe that when he renegotiated his contract, securing a substantial pay-rise at a time when we were nowhere near as potless as often implied, that he had no influence in the running of the club?
Do you really believe that he had no influence in the summer business in 2009, when the club spent a net £6 million on players - so obviously doing more than just balancing the books?
Do you really believe that if he had said he was unhappy with Nani after the Savio shambles that the club (or support) would have taken Nani's side and failed to back him?
Of course he is culpable - whether as a puppet, a member of a collegiate/collective management team or as an individual who avoided asserting influence on the club.
That's just conjecture.
Lots of people have speculated that the deals we did under Nani (before he and then Duxbury were forced out by the new administration) were unusual at best.
It was Zola's second season as a coach.
He was very well paid, but he was also a novice, and, as Allardyce can now testify, the safety of tenure of even a well-established coach is practically non-existent. I am much more inclined towards the view that Zola just let them in the board room get on with the deals etc whilst he did his best - often falling well short - on the training pitch.
After all, which well-established coach would have agreed to the Bellamy out, Savio in deal?
This is pure conjecture too, good enough for your conclusions but not other people's? It's impossible to make a meaningful judgement between the two, both have an extended run of **** results to their names with bit of luck here or there to seperate them - so what? They're just interchangeable. In Grant's favour is that he's about a third of the price with the assistant taken into account.
What influence would you have liked to see him do at the time then? Considering the club was drowning in debt as confirmed by the porn bro's when they took over.
I wish I ignored this thread I blame you Saludo now it's distracting me from the problems we still have now I will make my way over to the relevant threads.
Without addressing every point, and accepting that Zola DID face some challenges, lets look at what Zola DID do?
Bellamy was a loss, a big one - in terms of pushing on to get a place in Europe - but the big loss was ridding ourselves of decent Prem players and replacing them with **** (Kovac, Savio, Lopez), or kids who were not ready, in order to fulfil Zola's "23 man squad" ideal.
Zola DID allow Bowyer, and Neiil to leave on free transfers, while paying a fee to sign Kovac (who he already knew wasnt very good) and paying the same amount that Neill asked for to Jiminez in wages.
I'm sure that he didnt want to sell Bellamy - though he said he was happy - but he didnt have to go and waste much of the money on a kid that even today, two years later, has played a total of 13 games for four clubs in the top level. Thats less than Dyer in the same time, despite him being injured for most of that time.
He also oversaw the sale of James Collins, and Matthew Etherington - both would walk into our team today (I read last week only two players have created more goals than Ethers this season in the league), and also signed Diamanti with the money we had in for Collins.
I'm not going from any extremes, I am making statements that I believe to be facts. If you can tell me a West Ham manager who inherited a better squad (not potential, actual squad of 20 odd players who could all do a job in the Prem), and at the same time point me to a worse (relativley speaking in terms of the leagues at the time) I'll happily acceptthat only half of my statement is valid.
Regarding your initial point, to compare the second half of Zola's second season to the first half of Grant's first season isnt controversial, its just pointless, because Zola had nearly two years to address the problems he had (many of his own causing) and signed numerous players in doing so with the help of the best scout in the business.
grant has been here for a quarter of the time Zola had to get it right. I might have mentioned some of this before.
Last edited by Chuck D on Tue Dec 28, 2010 1:46 am, edited 1 time in total.
zola had no problem making thinly veiled public digs at gold and sullivan as he felt they were undermining him......why so different a board that at best were selling players and bringing in poor replacements and at worst were using zola's likeable personality to distract from their massive financial and legal mismanagement......seems zola didn't like some stern words but was strangely ok with having all of his best players sold from under him......
did someone seriously use FACT when talking about zola's involvement in player sales and purchases? that you dux...cos I'm assuming no one other than nani, dux and zola really know
zola was a nice guy who probably summed up the respect that we all want players and managers to have....he may well go on to be a great manager/coach, he may do really well with good resources....but he was simply not good enough with the situation that we have been in and the patience afforded to ****wits like duxbury because of zola's likeability made our situation worse....does that make him a bad manager....no, does that make grant a better manager, too early to tell imo, either way zola was not the right person for west ham at that time and needed to be sacked imo, whether we brought the right replacement in is the only question really worth asking.....in fact, why am I posting...too many beers...i'm off to sleep ready for our next must win game
rant over, nite all
Where have I done that HD?
Could you please show me the "hatred for Zola"? Unless you are making it up again?
I'll explain the point again, cos you seem to be having trouble getting your head around it.
If you start with a very good squad, and then end up destroying the work done by the previous incumbent (by selling/releasing perfectly good players, and replacing them with foreign players who cant handle the Prem, just because you vainly thought you could play your tactics in the Prem) over a total of 70 odd games you really dont deserve the thanks of the supporters. You seem to feel differently, and thats your business.
Grant started out with a sows ear (left to him by Zola), and has - thus far - done about the same as Zola did last season, without the benefit of a season to work with his team, mould his tactics, and sign the players he wanted over a sustained period.
When Grant has had a two year tenure, its worthwhile comparing how well he has done in comparison with Zola.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests