West Ham Circus

I said I'd consider writing an article about the London club in my 20/21 Premier League preview. Well, it only took one game to inspire me to start this. It's not going to be reactionary, as that would be silly. Having kept an eye on the club for three seasons now, I can confidently write about what's plaguing this situation.

Managerial turnover

This one is obvious. It's only rational that a club without a long term plan will fail long term. Not rocket science. Many Premier League clubs, and this isn't new, care more about staying in the division than having a long term plan. You'll often see managers being sacked at the first sign of trouble, as the TV money is that important. It comes down to the aims of the club. For instance, Norwich last season knew they were one of the worst teams and were likely to go down, which is exactly what happened. They could have handled it differently, in terms of bringing in talent, but it's commendable to have a plan and stick to it. Part of the plan was sticking with the manager, Daniel Farke, when they were relegated. The last example of this was probably Sean Dyche with Burnley a number of years ago. My point here is many owners have no idea what they're doing; they just know they need to stay in the league at all costs to protect their asset. Case in point is West Ham United.

I can only comment on the end of the Allardyce era until the present. Going from 2014/15, the club has finished 12th, 7th, 11th, 13th, 10th, and 16th. During that time, Moyes has been in charge either side of Manuel Pellegrini, with Slaven Bilic being the proceeding Allardyce. Personally, I don't rate any of them, though Pellegrini has clearly had the best career in management. With the Chilean, at least in England, he kept the status quo going at City between Mancini and Guardiola. The football wasn't great, and his final season was poor, barely making top 4, though they did make the semi's of the Champions League. At West Ham, he was average. Literally. The team finished at the bottom of the top half of the table in his first season. Second season went downhill quickly, prompting the call to Moyes. I'll touch on Davey in a minute. Bilic is now at West Brom, having joined when they were in the Championship, and I think that about encapsulates his ability. He did well with the Hammers, achieving their best finish in the period I included. I shouldn't do this, because there's context in every season, but that season was one of, if not the worst Premier League season in a decade. Leicester won the league, ffs. Liverpool finished 8th, Chelsea 10th. City and United finished (4th and 5th, respectively) on 66 points. Villa came close to matching infamous records as they were relegated. But yeah, Moyes is not a good manager. He has a single way of playing, which is to sit back and hope Antonio can outrun/out-muscle the opposition to score. That's why they've picked up results against superior teams and struggled against teams equal or below in terms of ability. Not a hard concept to grasp. I have no clue why they stuck with Moyes to start the season. Maybe it was the short turnaround and the fact the board didn't want to spend.

Transfers

Having explained the managerial chaos at the club, it's only right that I cover the transfers. It's not just a West Ham thing, though they're up there with Everton as two clubs that spent hundreds of millions on players that didn't play well. It's not a coincidence. In fact, I'll say that it's part of why I dislike the Premier League. Basically, without a decent director of football, and no continuity with who's coaching the club, it only makes sense that purchases will lack cohesion. Two other clubs with a similar problem of late are Aston Villa and Fulham. Newcastle as well, when Ashley decides to not be a cheap cunt. The point is, when a club goes to buy players, they should a) have a fit in the system, and b) not be too much of a risk playing at the required level. I've written about how net spend is flawed, but just for context, the club has spent more than it's sold every season outside of 2017/18. Actually, I have a number of issues with the club's transfers, so I'll try and explain them somewhat coherently. I mentioned the part about changing managers, so I won't dwell on that.

Four players within the previous three windows illustrate how misguided the club is. They are Chicharito, Felipe Anderson, Sebastien Haller, Pablo Fornals. If you'll notice, two are strikers, one's a winger, and one's a number 10. I also don't think it's a coincidence that none of them have worked out, as attacking phases of play are more difficult to orchestrate, compared to defending. Also, with Moyes, you can just sit deep in a 4-5-1 or whatever, which makes defensive players look better. Simply put, Chicharito is a poacher. He's also been past it for a while, but that's another issue. If you leave him up front and don't give him service, he won't score. Same with Haller. He played with Jovic and Rebic at Frankfurt in a trident, where he'd basically hold the ball up and create (along with Kostic and De Costa from the wings). If you act like he's a lone striker in a defensive system, he'll look like an idiot, which is exactly what's happened. You even have a guy to perform the Rebic role in Antonio, so to not play them together is disgraceful. Moyes has played Fornals on the wing, when he's a number 10. It's not hard to figure out why a midfielder looks lost on the wing. Same with Anderson. He wasn't even a consistent starter at Lazio, and West Ham spent 34 million on him. Made no sense. Also, the system there under Inzaghi is such that wing backs create width, leaving a winger/number 10 like Anderson to create closer to the goal, and in the middle/half space. These signings all have one thing in common; the coach has not used the player properly, and the player is deemed a flop.

Like I said, it's not just a West Ham problem. Joelinton at Newcastle, who has never been a "pure number nine", was put in a situation with Steve Bruce of all people expecting him to play as one. He wasn't even the main guy at Hoffenheim; Kramaric was. He was more like Firmino. Compare that to a long term project like Burnley, Leeds, or Sheffield United, and it's dead obvious why they have more success signing players. The other point I wanted to make about West Ham's transfers is this weird fascination with players from bigger clubs. If you look at transfers that worked out, the players more often than not came from "smaller" clubs. I think the reason for this is you look more at fit when shopping at "lower levels", as opposed to "oh look, this guy's from such and such big club, let's buy him." Two exceptions are Payet, who was amazing for a stretch, and Ogbonna, who was under 10 million from Juventus. Four recent "successes" are Arnautovic, Bowen, Diop, Fabianski; all of whom were at relegated clubs (Toulouse went down after Diop left, tbf).

There have been various signings from the Championship this window from the Championship, including one of the guys at Newcastle that played a part in their 2-0 win at the London Stadium (Jamal Lewis). It's been crystal clear for a while that none of the fullbacks are good enough, yet they're still at the club. I'd argue they have the worst set of FB's in the league, with Palace and West Brom in that bracket. Villa have bough Matty Cash. Blades have taken Bogle and Lowe from Derby. Aina, Robinson and Tete have all joined Fulham. Walker-Peters signed permanently for Saints. Veltman provides additional cover for Brighton, along with Lamptey who joined last season. These are all clubs in/around the bottom half that West Ham will be competing with, and they've sat still.

The Stadium

I'll tie this one in with the owners, as they caused the stadium situation. As I said in the preview, there's such a thing as soul in sports. It's the result of a number of aspects of the sport aligning and working in harmony. There's the coach (and his philosophy), the upper management, the players, the fans, and the stadium. The best way I can say this is the location and design of a stadium dictate what the atmosphere will be. A great example is Arsenal. Highbury was better in terms of atmosphere due to how it was built. Traditional football grounds simply provide a more compact environment, which allows the noise to resonate, compared to the "toilet bowl" modern stadiums. In West Ham's case, they didn't even get a moderns football stadium; they were moved to an athletics arena, track in tact. I tend to be somewhat open on stadium designs, but running tracks are always a no-go. Watching Roma at the Olympico is so depressing when the fans are that far from the pitch; you see a guy run off in celebration after scoring a goal, only to reach onto the track and do some silly gesture towards the fans, who are still meters away. The thing with that is Roma have played there since I can remember; West Ham were at Upton Park, a beautiful English ground, until the owners forced them into the London Stadium. It's especially funny now, when there aren't fans at games, as that was the reason for the move. The owners wanted more money from ticket sales. Even if a club doesn't necessarily keep managers long enough to develop an identity, such as Watford, they can at least rely on the home crowd to lift the team, which leads perfectly to the next section.

Fan attitude

The aforementioned issues all culminate in disillusionment among the fans. They pay a ton of money to sit in a stadium they don't like, watching overpaid mercenaries under-perform for a manager who will only be there for a season or two. It's a cycle of failure. Personally, I don't think the fans have done enough. Like Ashley at Newcastle, fans have complained for ages, but they still go to games. The only way to get these people to sell is hurt them where it matters; their pockets. If you bemoan the team but still buy merch and maintain a season ticket, you're part of the problem. You know the club is being run into the ground, but you're too addicted to the product to change your ways. Another personal opinion I'll add is it would probably be more fun as a fan to be in the second tier. Relegation never "helps" at club, as it were, considering the financial implications. That said, I just don't get the point supporting a regime you despise, not even allowed to go to the ground, all while watching the worst manager in the league sucking the life out of a squad that shouldn't be where it is. My opinion is they should stop watching, altogether, until they see the change they want. To continue to support the business that always beats you is farcical. At some point, fans have to realize they're in an abusive relationship and need to snap out of it. The season ticket thing is baffling, especially now. You literally cannot go to the games, yet you line the owners' pockets once again.

Takeaway

Honestly, this is one situation I don't see an immediate solution for. Knowing how certain owners are, GSB won't change a thing if the club stays up. Even if they go down, they might not sell the club or switch anything up. I said I wouldn't be reactionary, so I'll stick with my prediction that West Ham stay up this season. A similar dilemma happened at Villa and Sunderland, as they steadily dropped down the table and became a laughing stock, before going down. Sunderland is probably the worse case scenario. I've no idea how long it'll take, but the owners need to invest properly or sell. That's the first step. Get rid of the "dead wood" in the process, which is like half the squad. Investment must be on players that will be in a cohesive system, and that requires a coach who knows what he's doing and won't be sacked at the first sign of trouble. One shout is Jesse Marsch, who's currently at Salzburg. He's one of the top up-and-coming managers, as reflected by his move up the Red Bull chain. With a manager in place who has a clear plan and philosophy, as well as backing from the owners (GSB or someone else), the club could reverse this downward spiral.