A social media post doing the rounds over the weekend has sparked an interesting debate among West Ham supporters, highlighting what some see as a recurring theme in the club’s managerial appointments under David Sullivan and the late David Gold.
The post lists a succession of West Ham managers and jokingly categorises them by their playing positions:
- Sam Allardyce – Defender
- Slaven Bilic – Defender
- Manuel Pellegrini – Defender
- David Moyes – Defender
- Graham Potter – Defender
- Julen Lopetegui – Goalkeeper
- Nuno Espírito Santo – Goalkeeper
The less charitable description attached to Avram Grant is perhaps best left where it belongs, on social media. He actually never played professional football!
While the observation is obviously tongue-in-cheek, it does raise an intriguing point. Since Sullivan and Gold took control of West Ham in 2010, the club has overwhelmingly turned to former defenders and goalkeepers when appointing managers.
Whether coincidence or conscious preference, the pattern is difficult to ignore.
Defenders and goalkeepers are often associated with organisation, structure and caution. Many of the managers West Ham have appointed during the ownership era have certainly prioritised defensive solidity first and attacking football second.
Bilic – one in a long line of defenders or ‘keepers appointed as West Ham Manager
That said, West Ham have hardly looked defensively secure under Nuno this season, and many teams have taken full advantage of those weaknesses.
Allardyce built his reputation on pragmatism. Moyes delivered the most successful period of the modern era through discipline, shape and resilience. Even Pellegrini, despite his reputation for attacking football at Manchester City, spent much of his West Ham spell battling to find defensive balance.
The goalkeeper connection is perhaps even more interesting. Both Lopetegui and Nuno Espírito Santo were former keepers, with each enjoying success elsewhere before taking on the challenge in east London.
Of course, there is no evidence that Sullivan sat down with a shortlist and immediately crossed off every former midfielder or striker. Football management success rarely comes down to the position someone played during their career.
After all, some of the Premier League’s most successful modern managers have come from every area of the pitch.
Yet supporters often look for patterns when results are poor, and West Ham’s recent struggles have inevitably led to fresh examination of decision-making at boardroom level.
Whether the theory is meaningful or merely an amusing statistical quirk, one thing is certain, Hammers fans would probably care far less about a manager’s former position if the current team was climbing the Championship table.
Sometimes football’s strangest observations turn out to be nothing more than coincidence. This may well be one of them. But it is the sort of coincidence that will get supporters talking.
What do you expect when you have unambitious, dullard, embarrassing, two bob, cheapo, gobby owners; you get tinpot appointments.
Loser managers that are unemployed and no-one else wants.
Even the reappointment of Moyes was an embarrassing and two bob appointment at the time as he’d been jobless since his first stint with us.
It was pure chance and an absolute fluke that he did well for us.
Pellegrini was the only ambitious appointment, and even that was only forced due to rioting from our supporters due to the owners lies and lack of ambition.
The sooner David Sullivan and his sons have no involvement in the club, the better.
He doesn’t look in the best of health, and he won’t be here forever.
I can think of something else which all those former and present West Ham managers might have in common. They were all unemployed and probably had all been sacked!
the other thing that they have in common, with the exception of Moyes is they’re all absolute rubbish. ( being nice).