It is now two weeks since West Ham were booed off against Hull City. Since then the Hammers have beaten Sunderland at the Stadium of Light and lost in controversial circumstances against title-chasing Liverpool.
The club look almost assured of their Premier League status as they sit loftily in 11th place on 37 points with the bottom three struggling to put together enough positive results to claw themselves out of trouble.When West Ham were booed off against Hull, the media gave significant attention the issue. The manager Sam Allardyce said he had never experienced the booing of a win in football before and he cupped his ear in disbelief at what he had heard. As a result there was a split between fans; those utterly dismayed by the performance and those who were shocked that a team could be criticised after emerging victorious.
Whatever the result however, the match against Hull was awful to watch. Players seemed lacking in confidence, imagination and composure. Not only was there a lack of belief and inventiveness, but the players also seemed unable to pass to one another or retain possession for any length of time and were outplayed, out-thought and out-passed by ten-man Hull City.
Allardyce made the point that it is difficult to play fluently against ten men who set up defensively and though this is true to a point, there seemed a lack of ability on our part to create chances of any kind, as well as what could be described as a lack of desire to add to the lead. As a spectacle it was all rather embarrassing and thoroughly demoralising, we may have got the points but it did not feel like much of a victory.
Many supporters took little, if any enjoyment from the match, despite the result.
Football, after all, is an entertainment business. People pay to watch and they expect a certain level of entertainment. When fans pay significant sums of money, as football supporters do, then a greater pressure is placed on the team to meet that standard.
Allardyce was aghast at the audacity and lack of gratitude shown by the minority of West Ham fans who booed at the end of the match. However, at no point in his post match press conference did Sam make reference to the supporters who pay their money and perhaps feel that they are entitled not only to express their opinions but also to expect the side to be able to make basic passes and show some attacking ambition.
If you go to the theatre you expect actors to remember their lines, you expect the show-reel at the cinema to play wtihout cutting out. We now live in a Sky Sports-dominated football world, with the emphasis on TV schedules and making money at all costs, where supporters are frozen out of decision-making and left to pick up the pieces when owners abandon their pet projects and fans are not consulted or considered when the fundamentals of the game and decisions affecting their own clubs are decided.
It leads to the question; how else are supporters expected to vent their disappointment if the board doesn’t listen to them through conventional means? The booing against Hull represented the feelings of the fans (perhaps only a minority), that the standard was simply unacceptable. Should that only be allowed after defeat, or should the West Ham fans almost be admired for confronting the issue after a victory? They were not prepared to accept a victory-at-all-costs attitude, a higher emphasis had been placed by the fans on being entertained.
The display against Liverpool saw so much of what was lacking against Hull City. It was full of heart, players giving their utmost, taking responsibility against top-class opposition and there was skill and determination in equal measure. For this endeavour, the players were applauded off by the fans, who despite witnessing some questionable refereeing decisions, had been entertained by both teams.
Allardyce is not seemingly able to comprehend the concept of booing off after a victory, does he have similar difficulties understanding the act of applauding off after a defeat? When there was some clapping of Wayne Rooney’s spectacular goal from the half-way line against Manchester United, did Sam Allardyce cup his ear in shock at what he was hearing? Has he fainted with sheer disbelief on other (rare) occasions when moments of skill or brilliance by opposition players have been politely recognised by the West Ham support?
I wonder what he would have made of the Dinamo Tiblisi team being clapped off the pitch in a European Cup Winners Cup victory at Upton Park in the early '80s?
Sam Allardyce has achieved a huge amount during his time at the Boelyn Ground. He has secured promotion at the first attempt, then a top ten finish in our first season up and now, despite significant injuries, looks to have maintained our Premier League status in the notoriously difficult second season.
However with that success, and the spending of money on decent players, particularly in midfield and in the forward line (Andy Carroll, Matt Jarvis, Stewart Downing), comes expectation. The supporters of the club are no longer going to accept the “we need to stay up at all costs” line from the manager. Of course we need to stay in the Premier League, for financial reasons and due to the Olympic Stadium, but now the expectation is not to do it at all costs, but to do it by playing with some kind of style and to give the fans a certain level of entertainment.
To an extent, Allardyce is the victim of his own success, but he is also seemingly convinced or wants to persuade others that survival is only achievable by sacrificing entertaining football, that one is not achievable without the other. Other clubs have shown this not to be the case.
A real test of his ambitions for the style of the club will come when Ravel Morrison returns to training in the summer. In Morrison there is a ready made ‘West Ham player’. He is skilfull, technically gifted and can alter the dynamics of our midfield entirely (if he is able to adapt his flair to the needs of the team when required). Morrison can be the Youri Djorkaeff or Jay-Jay Okocha that the mdeia always refer to when talking favourably of Allardyce’s Bolton teams.
If Allardyce decides to keep him on the sidelines or ship him out with no flair player to replace him, then surely that is a sign that his remaining tenure will be one of grinding out results to ensure survival in the league rather than attempting to transform us into a side who aim to show creativity and attacking prowess.
There is an internal debate raging in my mind and those of supporters, it swings like a pendulum from week to week. It is one of solidity vs flair. We are currently more organised defensively than I can remember us ever being (a spell under Curbishley aside), we keep clean sheets, we grind out results at Chelsea, Sunderland and Aston Villa amongst others that make supporters proud. Under previous managers in the controversial home game v Hull we may have only ended up with a draw.
There is definite character in this team, which may disappear if Allardyce were to leave. In addition to this we have played terribly under all of our most recent mangers, the difference being that Allardyce has kept us secure whereas Glen Roeder and Avram Grant oversaw relegation and Gianfranco Zola came pretty close.
What do we want at the club, what do we expect? Do we want more entertainment at the risk of going down or more defeats? If we remain patient, will the manager build on the solid foundations that have been established by turning us into a more attack-minded side that is also defensively sound? If this is the case then there should be optimism at the club, not negativity.
Or do we want entertainment, more flair players, better passing and fluidity in the attacking third? This brings its risks and potentially more chance of failure than the low-risk approach we witness under Allardyce. Perhaps if we are not entertained and we want change, then the best course of action is not to boo the team, but to stop paying the money and going to games?
Consequently there wouldn’t be the negative impact on the players leading to lowering of confidence, but a message would still be sent to the board that the fans are not happy with what they are seeing (or at least not the price being charged). But should this extreme approach be the only course of action left open to fans?
Fomer West Ham manager Ron Greenwood once said, "The crowds at West Ham have never been rewarded by results, but they keep turning up because of the good football they see. Other clubs will suffer the old bugbear that results count more than anything. This has been the ruination of English soccer."
Who is right, Allardyce or Greenwood? Or perhaps we are now simply suffering the same fate as the vast majority of clubs, results at all costs, even at the expense of entertainment.
* Like to share your thoughts on this article? Please visit the KUMB Forum to leave a comment.
* Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the highlighted author/s and do not necessarily represent or reflect the official policy or position of KUMB.com.