It was with some amusement that I read reports of the comments by Richard Keys that the 0-2 victory at Arsenal was won the ‘Big Sam Way.’ What is it with the sports media and the way that they continually lionize Sam Allardyce? How many times recently have we had to endure football pundits pontificating about the need to ‘be careful what we wish for.’ What they all conveniently forget is that last season we won just three matches after Christmas. That is clearly relegation form, something that the Board could not ignore come the end of the season. What other PL club would retain a manager after such a long run of poor results? Indeed, not many clubs would have even allowed a manager with those results to see out his contract, let alone retain him the following season. To the credit of the board they stuck with Allardyce until the end of last season and then effected the transition. There may have been a financial aspect to it, but it was also the more civilised way to go about things.
Now, personally I prefer to give a nod to Allardyce’s achievements whilst with the club (i.e. promotion and the retention of our PL status) and then just move on. This is a new era, with a new manager and vastly improved squad, but comments like those by Keys have to be challenged. With the best will in the world, how many times did a Allardyce managed West Ham side beat Arsenal? Would Allardyce have played 16 year old Reece Oxford in such a high profile match? Moreover, would goal scorer Zarate even have been at the club, let alone on the pitch, if Sam Allardyce had still been in charge? I think that we all know the answers to those three questions.
Yes, West Ham’s victory was founded on a very solid defensive display. However, what distinguished it was the team’s ability to defend as a unit, squeeze and narrow Arsenal’s play and reduce their passing options. In that sense it was an intelligent and well executed game plan. Perhaps the opening goal by Kouyate, scored from a set piece, owed something specifically to Allardyce? Well, Not really. It was a very well taken free kick, with Payet providing the guile and Kouyate showing excellent timing/power to stay on-side, beat Cech to the ball and head it home. But in truth it was a world away from the speculative set peices that we become used to during Allardyce’s reign. However, the biggest difference was our greatly improved ability to retain possession and launch dangerous counter-attacks. Throughout the match, we maintained an offensive threat and that is a welcome development. A typical Allardyce defensive away display would be desperate, ‘backs to the wall,’ type fayre, where we would invariably fail to threaten our opponent’s goal. For instance, take the infamous ‘19th Century Football’ 0-0 away draw with Chelsea. How many times in that match did we get in to the opposition half?
So, lets be clear, it was a defensively competent, well organised, counter-attacking display. It delivered three points and we will secure more away victories this season if we can replicate it. The credit for the tactics and implementation lies with Bilic and his staff and, ultimately, the current playing staff. It owed little to the legacy of the previous manager and that is the bottom line for me. So, lets all move on and leave Sam Allardyce where he belongs, firmly in the club’s past. I personally wish him well and hope that after an appropriate period of rest and relaxation he will return to the game. As for West Ham, we have moved on, pity the sports media cannot do likewise!
Yesterday, Bobby Shovels speculated in his blog about the possibility of West Ham following up on the victory over Arsenal by slipping up against Leicester City and/or Bournemouth. It was an interesting observation and, as we all know, it is something that past West Ham sides might well have done. So, in that sense, our results in the next two fixtures are a litmus test of the degree to which we have progressed. The victory at Arsenal sets up the tantalising possibility of West Ham securing a maximum 9 points out of the first three matches. Have we ever done that before in a prior season? Not to my immediate recollection, not even in 1985-86. A haul of 7 points out of 9 would be an excellent start, let alone a maximum return. But lets just take one match at a time and see if we can do it.
Then there is the possible signing of Joey Barton! At the time of writing there are strong rumours that he might join the club on a Bosman deal. I really do not know about this one. He is undoubtedly a good player, but what all about the baggage that accompanies him? If he does sign, it will be as a stop gap acquisition, probably on a one year deal. And interestingly enough it will see the re-unification of the three former Toon team mates, Carroll, Nolan and Barton. Although admittedly Nolan’s future at the club has yet to be determined one way or the other. The big obstacle to Nolan exiting the club is his reported £50,000 per week wages. If West Ham subsidized them for a year then other clubs might possibly show some interest. The best possible option for Nolan would probably be a wage subsidized loan this season, leading to a final big pay day via a Bosman move next summer. Or, alternatively, Nolan could confound us all and stay put this season and take a Bosman move next summer. At 33 years of age he will take the option that is best for him both financially and as a player. Regardless, Nolan was a good signing for the club and his captaincy and goals from midfield were key factors our resurgence in winning promotion and staying in the PL. We should not forget that.
Like most of you I viewed the recent BBC documentary on West Ham’s tenancy of the Olympic Stadium with some considerable world weariness! It was unbalanced and fixated on proving that it is a ‘sweet’ deal for the club and to the detriment of tax payers. It came on the back of recent continuous agitation by the Charlton Supporters Trust on the issue (presumably taking over the lead role from Leyton Orient) and questions asked in the House of Commons by Chris Bryant. Personally, I do not buy the Charlton argument that the move to the OS will result in them losing supporters in South London and Kent. It totally misunderstands the nature of football affiliation and exhibits a distinct lack of faith in their club’s ability to continue to attract local support. The debate in the Commons made me feel very uncomfortable because for the first time ever I found myself in agreement with Boris Johnson on an issue! I agree that the blame should be laid at the feet of those decision-makers who excluded the prospect of designing PL football in to the OS at the planning stage. All the subsequent extra costs of adapting the Stadium arise from that amazing lack of foresight. While, West Ham’s tenancy does indeed dispel the danger of the OS becoming a giant ‘white elephant’ and affords it a real and viable future. One that also benefits the diverse local communities of East London and boosts local sports participation..
One of the things that is driving the criticism is the secrecy of many of the clauses in West Ham tenancy agreement; which is justified on the grounds of business interests. Unfortunately it has fuelled the rumours that West Ham are getting a better deal than originally thought and it is at the expense of the tax payer. Personally, I think that the club should have been far more proactive in their communications on this issue. They must have known that this opposition/criticism would be forthcoming. Why did the club not launch an early proactive communications offensive, conveying the facts/positives factors arising from West Ham’s involvement in the OS? Particularly in respect of a forward projection of the income likely to be generated for the public purse over the duration of West Ham’s 99 year lease. That would have anticipated and effectively disarmed much of the current criticism. Unfortunately, they approached it reactively and the myths and misconceptions have now taken hold at the very centre of public debate.
Politically, I am on the left, but I tend to find myself in strange company on the OS. Only last week I had a twitter exchange with a prominent Newham Green activist, who expressed the personal view that the Spurs bid for the OS should have been approved. The justification for this was mainly on the dubious grounds that Spurs fans would bring new money in to the area, regardless of the fact it would have meant the bulldozing of the OS and the loss of the 2012 sporting legacy. To me that outcome would have been madness.
Hopefully the current controversy around the OS will settle down. If not and Chris Bryant gets his public inquiry, lets hope the remit includes consideration of the decisions taken on the OS at the planning stage and their later financial consequences.
SJ. Chandos.