Blind Hammer responds to Guardian criticisms of West Ham.
I am a Guardian Reader but have to confess I am becoming increasingly fed up with the negativity of some of the comments published by this August institution about West Ham. Some of this criticism is childish, snarling and frankly unacceptable. The Guardian’s “Fiver” Sports Newsletter thinks it is clever to now resort to name calling, referring to our club as “Taxpayers United”, joining with the BBC in promulgating a theory that if you repeat a lie often enough people will believe it. Apparently the Guardian is blind to the overt measures taken by Spurs to secure Tax payers money as reported by Sean Whetstone a couple of weeks ago, preferring to only launch their barbs with a single eyed determination at West Ham. It appears that the Guardian also somehow now believes fervently that West Ham should be responsible for funding the nation’s commitment to Athletics at the London Stadium. This is the lazy lie which the Guardian and others are pushing about the Stadium’s financial problems, that these are sole responsibility of West Ham cheating the Taxpayer when any fair analysis would recognise that it is only with West Ham that the stadium has any future at all. It is the multi-use of the stadium for Athletics which is creating a financial crisis.
This snarling criticism was echoed by a recent piece by Jacob Steinberg in which he sought to belittle the business done by West Ham in the transfer market this summer. The piece is interesting because I have personally been unaware of the Guardian taking up any agenda against other clubs for their transfer business, beyond reflecting on the general lack of business done. Only West Ham appears to have received criticism for the actual signings made.
If we are to believe Steinberg West Ham has indulged in “short terminism”, signing players approaching the end of their Careers.
This flimsy and poorly argued piece by Steinberg is barely worth taking seriously but for the record he includes the signing of Joe Hart at 30 as an example of short terminism. He then goes on to criticise West Ham for not only signing a player at an advanced age but one who career is in decline. Steinberg appears desperate for what he describes as a ”glamorous“ signing to go sour.
Steinberg does not seem to reflect that if there is this risk then West Ham have done extremely good business by only signing Hart on loan. If things go sour, as he suggests, then the damage to West Ham will be minimised. If on the other hand things go well, then West Ham will be in prime position to consolidate the Hart signing with a buy option. I personally think it is extremely unlikely that if Hart does well, that he would want to jeopardise his international place, by returning to a so called “bigger club” to warm their bench. To describe the signing of a 30 year old keeper as short term by Steinberg would be laughed off as plain silly by most football pundits. Hart could easily have 7-8 years as a West Ham Goalkeeper ahead of him.
Pablo Zabaleta is the other allegedly geriatric players that Steinberg takes aim at. At 32 he is another person apparently up for a last big “pay-day” in a retirement home. Steinberg queries whether West Ham can cope with more slow players, referring to the evident lack of athleticism in the team last season. Now at 32 Pablo Zabaleta will have to answer some questions this season, though the prospects look reasonable, if pre-season is anything to go by. Age, as we know from many examples, including those at our club, is not necessarily a guide to fitness. Billy Bonds at 32 was clearly the fittest player at our club at the time.
However I do not recall Steinberg lining up to criticise Manchester United when they signed Zlatan Ibrahimovi? on an even shorter term contract last year at 35. Nobody is ridiculing Manchester United when they say that they may offer Zlatan Ibrahimovi? another contract in |January if he recovers from his knee ligament injury. It is apparently perfectly acceptable for Manchester United to invest in proven international class players at the end of their careers whilst it is foolish for West Ham to do the same.
Steinberg’s criticism of Arnautovic seems to revolve around the fact that Stoke paid only £2 million for him 4 years ago, and that he is at the giddying advanced age of 28. Now Steinberg’s carping now descends to the silly. 28 are considered by most to be the age at which most footballers are at their peak. The problem for West Ham over the years is that their transfer business has recruited players not at their peak, but players who are either young and unproven, or older and at the end of their careers. Any fair evaluation of the recruitment of Arnautovic would recognise this fact. The fact that he cost only £2 million 4 years ago is just irrelevant. There are hundreds of players who have increased their transfer value whilst playing for a club. Nobody blinks an eye if Chelsea or Manchester City pays a higher transfer fee for a player at his peak who was previously recruited for a lesser fee. Why should it be a problem for West Ham?
Hernandez at 29 is apparently another who is ready for the rest home and the lazy life. Whilst it would have been great to have signed Hernandez at 27, when we first wanted him, to suggest he is over the hill now is again carping. I have seen no articles from Steinberg pointing his ammunition at Bournemouth for signing the 34 year old Jermaine Defoe. If Hernandez has anything like the fitness levels he apparently naturally holds we have a player who can reasonably perform for the next 3-4 years at least. Steinberg’s gloomy assessment of Hernandez’s age does not appear to be shared by other football commentators. Commentators writing for the fan base of Manchester United, Tottenham and Arsenal have all bemoaned the fact that West Ham has achieved the Hernandez coup, when they clearly feel he could have done a job for them. But then according to Steinberg all these commentators from other clubs are presumably also lacking judgement, falling into the “short terminism trap.
There is a risk in all transfer business and we will have to see how these recruitments pan out. It is also possible that the club may still, late in the window, invest in more speculative players for the future. Any fair analysis of West Ham transfer policy over the last few seasons would recognise that this is what they have done. Ashley Fletcher was recently sold for a profit, Lanzini’s worth has climbed astronomically since her was signed. Fernandez and Arthur Masuaku all look like proven PL quality signings on the cheap, as was Cheikhou Kouyaté. Even Payer realised a 250% transfer rise in value whilst at West Ham.
The investment in the Academy appears to be finally paying off with a crop of youngsters who may just possibly form the core of another “golden generation” of West ham youngsters. The investment the club makes year in, year out, in its Academy is the very opposite of short terminism.
So in my view it is time for the guardian to recover some it alleged spirit of “balanced reporting” and stop their anti-West Ham bias and sniping.
COYI
David Griffith.
He
St