Graham Potter

[stubbo]

https://www.whufc.com/news/graham-potte ... head-coach

​​​​​​In the past he's favoured a 3-4-3 formation...hard to see how we can do that currently with only 3 senior CBs, one of whom is injured. He's also played wingers (Solly March as an example) in the wing back roles.

Typically when a 3-4-3 gets announced on a match day the manager is immediately described as being too negative, too cautious etc. I guess it depends on the composition of the 4.

He's given young players chances...hopefully that continues at West Ham.

Welcome Graham.

 

[Sir Alf]

We have to remember that the enormous thing in Potter’s favour and a reason why we can perhaps be hopeful is that Sullivan does not rate him.  

[El Scorchio]

But the big difference with Brighton and Caicedo, for example, is that when they bought him they immediately loaned him out to a top-tier Belgian side and he played first-team, top-tier games in a decent European league. He was ready when they signed him. Once he got back, he went straight into first-team football at Brighton.

"The future" is great - nothing against signing players for the future. But it's also conveniently ethereal for people who don't know what they're doing. It can be the "jam tomorrow" of the sporting world world. Savio Nsereko was "one for the future".

The questions for Steidten - who is paid a lot of money to do this - are "when in the future, what's his development path and show me how you/we are ensuring he gets there?"

I really hope you're right. Nothing against the kid at all - and let's all hope he goes on to be a star. I'd like nothing more than that. Maybe the club needs to loan him out in this window, so they can gauge where he's at in terms of (which level) first-team football. At the moment, it's all a big mystery.







 

 

Sure, but there are also some key differences. Caicedo was 2 years older and they paid twice as much for him (as far as I can see, so he was a huge risky investment for Brighton at the time) than we have for this kid, and he's gone on to be the absolute biggest success imaginble in terms of his play for them and the transfer fee they recouped rather than the norm for these sorts of moves. So it's not really a fair comparison. Could we have sent LG on loan? Maybe. Although 17 is young and that would be a manager decision rather than TS? Again Savio seems an unfair comparison because that deal was clearly as bent as a nine bob note. The bloke who signed him was clearly in cahoots with his relative who happened to be involved with the selling club, right?

You'd assume there is a plan for LG's development as there's no way old deep pockets would have signed off that much money without the spanish inquisition for TS alongside it. It is a big mystery at the moment and I won't disagree we are very much living in hope rather then certainty that he turns out to be a player, but the whole point of me bringing it up was that we have to wait and simply can't judge that transfer now. If he turns out to be shit, sure I'll hold my hands up and agree it was poor judgement. But you can't be judge jury and executioner to TS on this deal. That's minority report territory. However if we get nothing out of Fullkrug, then absolutely fill yer boots on that one!

 

All fair points, Scorch, even if I disagree with some of them.

The only thing I'll point out is that it wasn't me who made the Caicedo comparison - I think it was Jean-Luc Paul Goddard (trust Sarge!). I agree that I think it's not a great comparison.

Likewise, I don't judge Steidten on the LG deal alone. I think he has a lot of other things he needs to fully explain. Can't say I've been too impressed with him thus far. I'm not seeing many pearls from the so-called pearl diver! I think that whole Chairman-Tech Director-Manager relationship needs work. It seems too loose and disjointed at the moment - with too much room for un-cordinated decisions to get made. Steidten has fallen out with both managers so far, and it's not clear who has been responsible for certain purchases etc.

Early days, but clearly we need to work (as a club) on the tech director's role and responsibilities.

 

 

Yeah that's totally fair and actually it's good to just have a discussion and debate without immediately calling each other cunts
Fair play if MC wasn't your comparison!
But yes undoubtedly some of his other signings are a touch questionable. I mean I like Fullkrug as a player but it's been a big disappointment thus far. I am really hoping that with one of the corners of a triangle clearly all puling against each other gone (JL) that it's now just a straight tug of war between Potter AND Stiedten vs the meddling owner. If he just lets them get on with the jobs they are emplyed to do and doesn't stick his fingers in, then you'd hope something more holistic will become clear. While its true he's not got on with either manager so far, but one was there when he joined and clearly didn't want HIM there, and the other was clearly hired against his wishes. And I hear you about it being murky as to who signed who, but I think Sullivan likes it like that so he can pull his 'Oh I wanted that one' at any successful player while pulling his trusty 'I didnt want him but the others talked me into it' poor old man routine for any who are not a sucess.

Anyway I'm not meaning to sound like a TS shill and I agree there are questions that need to be answered but the owner needs to empower him to do his job and make it clear who's responsibility everything is, rather than constantly cutting his nuts off. For instance we know Sullivan kaiboshed Duran.

[Massive Attack]

The rest of Potters backroom staff and confirming we're keeping the Goalkeeper Coach:

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/talkspor ... stoke/amp/

[El Scorchio]

It's nothing about being revisionist as it was a straightforward question posed yesterday when asking people whether it was justified to sack him and virtually everyone that answered said yes. Then when it gets held up against someone else, the goalposts change. 

 

The goalposts aren't changing though. Ask almost anyone whether Moyes should have been sacked too at that point and it's an overwhelming yes. 

 

It definitely wasn't an overwhelming yes. And as I say it goes beyond just here and other forums, the Media was also riddled with typical careful what you wish for bollocks. 

 

 

Again, the media isn't us. We were all pushing back on that silly media narrative as well. It's been moaned about ad infinitum, how shitty and patronising it is. There's no point in having a go at people in here about what the media said. We aren't in control of that. From what I've seen the media in general think we've been harsh on JL, just not as resoundingly as they were about Moyes.

And it was pretty much an overwhelming yes, I can only think of 2-3 (albeit very vocal) posters who were plainly Moyes in since the world cup in 2022. Almost everyone else was get him out now, or at the least with grave doubts over his capability to take us forward.

[Massive Attack]

Back to Potter, here's more insight in to what he'll bring...

https://www.whufc.com/news/controlling- ... r-analysed

[Massive Attack]

It's nothing about being revisionist as it was a straightforward question posed yesterday when asking people whether it was justified to sack him and virtually everyone that answered said yes. Then when it gets held up against someone else, the goalposts change. 

 

The goalposts aren't changing though. Ask almost anyone whether Moyes should have been sacked too at that point and it's an overwhelming yes. 

 

 

It definitely wasn't an overwhelming yes. And as I say it goes beyond just here and other forums, the Media was also riddled with typical careful what you wish for bollocks. 

[southbankbornnbred]

But the big difference with Brighton and Caicedo, for example, is that when they bought him they immediately loaned him out to a top-tier Belgian side and he played first-team, top-tier games in a decent European league. He was ready when they signed him. Once he got back, he went straight into first-team football at Brighton.

"The future" is great - nothing against signing players for the future. But it's also conveniently ethereal for people who don't know what they're doing. It can be the "jam tomorrow" of the sporting world world. Savio Nsereko was "one for the future".

The questions for Steidten - who is paid a lot of money to do this - are "when in the future, what's his development path and show me how you/we are ensuring he gets there?"

I really hope you're right. Nothing against the kid at all - and let's all hope he goes on to be a star. I'd like nothing more than that. Maybe the club needs to loan him out in this window, so they can gauge where he's at in terms of (which level) first-team football. At the moment, it's all a big mystery.





 

 

Sure, but there are also some key differences. Caicedo was 2 years older and they paid twice as much for him (as far as I can see, so he was a huge risky investment for Brighton at the time) than we have for this kid, and he's gone on to be the absolute biggest success imaginble in terms of his play for them and the transfer fee they recouped rather than the norm for these sorts of moves. So it's not really a fair comparison. Could we have sent LG on loan? Maybe. Although 17 is young and that would be a manager decision rather than TS? Again Savio seems an unfair comparison because that deal was clearly as bent as a nine bob note. The bloke who signed him was clearly in cahoots with his relative who happened to be involved with the selling club, right?

You'd assume there is a plan for LG's development as there's no way old deep pockets would have signed off that much money without the spanish inquisition for TS alongside it. It is a big mystery at the moment and I won't disagree we are very much living in hope rather then certainty that he turns out to be a player, but the whole point of me bringing it up was that we have to wait and simply can't judge that transfer now. If he turns out to be shit, sure I'll hold my hands up and agree it was poor judgement. But you can't be judge jury and executioner to TS on this deal. That's minority report territory. However if we get nothing out of Fullkrug, then absolutely fill yer boots on that one!

 

 

All fair points, Scorch, even if I disagree with some of them.

The only thing I'll point out is that it wasn't me who made the Caicedo comparison - I think it was Jean-Luc Paul Goddard (trust Sarge!). I agree that I think it's not a great comparison.

Likewise, I don't judge Steidten on the LG deal alone. I think he has a lot of other things he needs to fully explain. Can't say I've been too impressed with him thus far. I'm not seeing many pearls from the so-called pearl diver! I think that whole Chairman-Tech Director-Manager relationship needs work. It seems too loose and disjointed at the moment - with too much room for un-cordinated decisions to get made. Steidten has fallen out with both managers so far, and it's not clear who has been responsible for certain purchases etc.

Early days, but clearly we need to work (as a club) on the tech director's role and responsibilities.

[stubbo-admin]

It's nothing about being revisionist as it was a straightforward question posed yesterday when asking people whether it was justified to sack him and virtually everyone that answered said yes. Then when it gets held up against someone else, the goalposts change. That also goes beyond WHO in the wider debate.

 

 

The trouble is you're essentially saying "are we in recession, should we change the government". 

It's much more nuanced than "how many points after how many games", which I'm sure you know anyway. But you've invented a single deciding criteria, ignored the others, and then are using that to try and prove a point.

If you want someone who agrees with you, suggest calling this guy:

https://x.com/GuillemBalague?t=0TtsbkML ... 0Heuw&s=09

[El Scorchio]

It's nothing about being revisionist as it was a straightforward question posed yesterday when asking people whether it was justified to sack him and virtually everyone that answered said yes. Then when it gets held up against someone else, the goalposts change. 

 

 

The goalposts aren't changing though. Ask almost anyone whether Moyes should have been sacked too at that point and it's an overwhelming yes. It's not down to anyone on here that Moyes wasn't actually sacked. As I said your beef is with David Sullivan over that.

[stubbo-admin]

And yet this seasons total of 23 points after 20 League games still outperforms the 2022/23 points total of 18 points after 20 games 1 point outside the drop zone and yet that's acceptable.. 

Number 1 - What's your point? 

Number 2 - Who said 2022/23 18 points after 20 games was acceptable? 

Because it's not been a fair level playing field when justifying sacking 1 manager for seemingly low points total and yet others aren't judged by the same measures with even less League points total in a genuine relegation battle.

There are differences though.  Grant got the full season...but we fucked up sacking him which was the intention.

Moyes had much credit into the bank and was on route to silverware glory.

Lopetegui had alienated himself with many, including the Technical Director, and the team were shipping too many goals to consistently win games, as well as not having put a single 90min coherent performance in all season. Plus the fans had fully turned.

[Massive Attack]

It's nothing about being revisionist as it was a straightforward question posed yesterday when asking people whether it was justified to sack him and virtually everyone that answered said yes. Then when it gets held up against someone else, the goalposts change. That also goes beyond WHO in the wider debate.

[El Scorchio]

And yet this seasons total of 23 points after 20 League games still outperforms the 2022/23 points total of 18 points after 20 games 1 point outside the drop zone and yet that's acceptable.. 

Number 1 - What's your point? 

Number 2 - Who said 2022/23 18 points after 20 games was acceptable? 

Because it's not been a fair level playing field when justifying sacking 1 manager for seemingly low points total and yet others aren't judged by the same measures with even less League points total in a genuine relegation battle.

That's SUllivan's call to fire one and not the other, not ours. Ask him that question. FWIW and you know this, this whole forum aside from 1 or 2 people at best were screaming for Moyes head for the last 18 months of his reign. It's absolute revisionist stuff to say otherwise or that almost anyone was content with that scenario vs this one. Most of us were desperately unhappy with both and wanted change then, and now. Only difference is the owner of the club only acted this time.

[El Scorchio]

But the big difference with Brighton and Caicedo, for example, is that when they bought him they immediately loaned him out to a top-tier Belgian side and he played first-team, top-tier games in a decent European league. He was ready when they signed him. Once he got back, he went straight into first-team football at Brighton.

"The future" is great - nothing against signing players for the future. But it's also conveniently ethereal for people who don't know what they're doing. It can be the "jam tomorrow" of the sporting world world. Savio Nsereko was "one for the future".

The questions for Steidten - who is paid a lot of money to do this - are "when in the future, what's his development path and show me how you/we are ensuring he gets there?"

I really hope you're right. Nothing against the kid at all - and let's all hope he goes on to be a star. I'd like nothing more than that. Maybe the club needs to loan him out in this window, so they can gauge where he's at in terms of (which level) first-team football. At the moment, it's all a big mystery.



 

 

 

Sure, but there are also some key differences. Caicedo was 2 years older and they paid twice as much for him (as far as I can see, so he was a huge risky investment for Brighton at the time) than we have for this kid, and he's gone on to be the absolute biggest success imaginble in terms of his play for them and the transfer fee they recouped rather than the norm for these sorts of moves. So it's not really a fair comparison. Could we have sent LG on loan? Maybe. Although 17 is young and that would be a manager decision rather than TS? Again Savio seems an unfair comparison because that deal was clearly as bent as a nine bob note. The bloke who signed him was clearly in cahoots with his relative who happened to be involved with the selling club, right?

You'd assume there is a plan for LG's development as there's no way old deep pockets would have signed off that much money without the spanish inquisition for TS alongside it. It is a big mystery at the moment and I won't disagree we are very much living in hope rather then certainty that he turns out to be a player, but the whole point of me bringing it up was that we have to wait and simply can't judge that transfer now. If he turns out to be shit, sure I'll hold my hands up and agree it was poor judgement. But you can't be judge jury and executioner to TS on this deal. That's minority report territory. However if we get nothing out of Fullkrug, then absolutely fill yer boots on that one!

[Massive Attack]

I knew it would be a difficult square for you to circle, mate.

[onsideman]

And yet this seasons total of 23 points after 20 League games still outperforms the 2022/23 points total of 18 points after 20 games 1 point outside the drop zone and yet that's acceptable.. 

Number 1 - What's your point? 

Number 2 - Who said 2022/23 18 points after 20 games was acceptable? 

Because it's not been a fair level playing field when justifying sacking 1 manager for seemingly low points total and yet others aren't judged by the same measures with even less League points total in a genuine relegation battle.

There you go again... changing the narrative. Doubtless we had less than 23 points after 20 games under Avram Grant (although I'm not sure we'd conceded as many goals)... but that's not relevant either. Anyhow, the debate here was whether we improved under your boyfriend. We didn't. 

[southbankbornnbred]

Folks - you really are crying over spilt milk. He's gone now and, let's all be honest, none of us REALLY wanted him at West Ham or thought he would be a great manager for us.

He was poor. His team was disjointed and poor, and a little fortunate to have 23 points (the Man Utd victory especially: we could easily have been 3-0 down at half-time).

People could argue the toss over every little stat, sure (and it's good to understand the "why"). And he probably did improve a few things (against his own low benchmark) right at the end. But was he ever going to make a big difference to West Ham? We all know the answer to that. He was struggling with a lot of things in England - not least the language. Everything at the training ground was taking twice as long, which contributed to the complaints about long hours etc, and he fell out with a lot of people considering he was here for little more than six months.

There was a lot of dysfunction. He's gone. We move on.

[Massive Attack]

The only true metric for progress (or otherwise) is the results... and we are way, way behind where we were last season after 20 games. 

And yet this seasons total of 23 points after 20 League games still outperforms the 2022/23 points total of 18 points after 20 games 1 point outside the drop zone and yet that's acceptable.. 

Number 1 - What's your point? 

Number 2 - Who said 2022/23 18 points after 20 games was acceptable? 

Because it's not been a fair level playing field when justifying sacking 1 manager for seemingly low points total and yet others aren't judged by the same measures with even less League points total in a genuine relegation battle.

[Russ of the BML]

 

Our defence was Areola/Fabianski in goal then Coufal on the right with Ben Johnson backup, Cresswell or Emerson on the left and Zouma with Aguerd central.

Now it’s Fabianski or Areola or Foderingham in goal with Wan-Bissaka on the right with Coufal backup, same people on the left but Kilman and Todibo in the middle.

We may look rubbish defensively but on paper, our defence is full of better players. Soler is better than Ward Prowse in my opinion but I accept we don’t all share that.

Rodrigues has been disappointing but most of us were happy to have signed an Argentinian international.

Up top we have added Fullkrug without losing either of the existing strikers and that was off the back of an impressive Euro campaign. I’m not blaming the manager for his injury whilst playing for Germany.

Summerville is better than Benrhama although trying to crowbar three left footed attacking wide players into the team meant that he either had to rotate too much or leave someone out - that’s the sort of luxury we have t had in a long time, like Duran on the bench at Villa, it’s good depth.

Then there are the attacking and possession stats - loads better than under Moyes. The Leicester game was a freak with how we didn’t win it and we are getting what we asked for there, or at least moving in the right direction.

The results have been underwhelming but a slight improvement on what Moyes did in his final season, which is why I use the word ‘progress’ and not ‘success’.

I didn’t want Lopetegui in the first place but having appointed him, we should have given him more than one window and half a season unless we were in tragic form or position, which were not. It’s not as good as we wanted but it’s early days.

If Potter brings us on then great but we definitely made some progress under Lopetegui compared to what we had before him and the massive job Moyes left him with.

The only true metric for progress (or otherwise) is the results... and we are way, way behind where we were last season after 20 games. 

And yet this seasons total of 23 points after 20 League games still outperforms the 2022/23 points total of 18 points after 20 games 1 point outside the drop zone and yet that's acceptable.. 

Number 1 - What's your point? 

Number 2 - Who said 2022/23 18 points after 20 games was acceptable? 

[Russ of the BML]

Fuck me. Progress under Lopetegui. Either Massive you are on a wind up or you are the most generous person I know.

[Massive Attack]

What are these signs of progress you talk of?

 

Our defence was Areola/Fabianski in goal then Coufal on the right with Ben Johnson backup, Cresswell or Emerson on the left and Zouma with Aguerd central.

Now it’s Fabianski or Areola or Foderingham in goal with Wan-Bissaka on the right with Coufal backup, same people on the left but Kilman and Todibo in the middle.

We may look rubbish defensively but on paper, our defence is full of better players. Soler is better than Ward Prowse in my opinion but I accept we don’t all share that.

Rodrigues has been disappointing but most of us were happy to have signed an Argentinian international.

Up top we have added Fullkrug without losing either of the existing strikers and that was off the back of an impressive Euro campaign. I’m not blaming the manager for his injury whilst playing for Germany.

Summerville is better than Benrhama although trying to crowbar three left footed attacking wide players into the team meant that he either had to rotate too much or leave someone out - that’s the sort of luxury we have t had in a long time, like Duran on the bench at Villa, it’s good depth.

Then there are the attacking and possession stats - loads better than under Moyes. The Leicester game was a freak with how we didn’t win it and we are getting what we asked for there, or at least moving in the right direction.

The results have been underwhelming but a slight improvement on what Moyes did in his final season, which is why I use the word ‘progress’ and not ‘success’.

I didn’t want Lopetegui in the first place but having appointed him, we should have given him more than one window and half a season unless we were in tragic form or position, which were not. It’s not as good as we wanted but it’s early days.

If Potter brings us on then great but we definitely made some progress under Lopetegui compared to what we had before him and the massive job Moyes left him with.

The only true metric for progress (or otherwise) is the results... and we are way, way behind where we were last season after 20 games. 

And yet this seasons total of 23 points after 20 League games still outperforms the 2022/23 points total of 18 points after 20 games 1 point outside the drop zone and yet that's acceptable.. 

[Metroplex]

Soucek improved? I must have missed it.

[southbankbornnbred]

He was a poor manager. He won't be missed.

Some of his more recent "improvement" was merely a case of him unpicking his own earlier mistakes. For example, that utterly STUPID tactic of pushing the full-backs inside towards his CBs when we did not have possession. Early in the season, it cost us dearly.

Eventually, he did it less often - although he never quite eradicated it. But he shouldn't have made that mistake in the first place.

And that sums up Lopetegui's reign. At best, he undid some of his own mistakes.

[Lee Trundle]

Big wow.  Soucek slightly improved while the rest of the team noticeably went backwards.

[Massive Attack]

Not only the number of chances we were creating but the general passing quality of the Team was definitely progress as well on the previous season. The likes of Soucek and Fabianski's passing and distribution had definitely improved individually not just the overall quality of the Teams passing. Defensively it was very poor still and of course the goal scoring but when your 2 main Strikers are out long term, that was to be expected in the end. There were signs of progress and felt more was to come, especially with the window now open.

[Lee Trundle]

I can understand what Gank is getting at.

I've always said I'd be content if progress was made on the previous season.  It's fine if we finished 14th as long as we finished 15th or below the previous season.

But I'm honestly struggling to see any improvement we had under Lopetegui apart from a tiny increase in our possession STATS.  We were never going to finish above 8th or above this season when we can't even string 2 wins together.