Suppose for a moment West Ham manager Nuno Espírito Santo really was persuaded to change his mind and include Tomáš Souček in his starting XI rather than sell him. Would that really be such a bad thing?
Some are suggesting it might be a sign of indecision — or even weakness — on the manager’s part. That would certainly fit the modern interpretation of changing your mind, often lazily labelled as flip-flopping.
Personally, I see it differently. I think it’s a strength.
In fact, I would much rather be open-minded and happy to change course when presented with new information than be stubborn and doggedly stick to my guns.
But this is not the first time in Nuno’s short West Ham career that he has seemingly gone back on a decision — and what’s most impressive of all is that he doesn’t appear resentful when persuaded otherwise.
The first example I noticed was during the January transfer window, when Nuno was actively trying to offload Callum Wilson. It was common knowledge that Wilson was available, with his agent Will Salthouse negotiating with other clubs.
However, the story goes that Espírito Santo was convinced to retain him — which, at the time, seemed entirely sensible. Allowing Wilson to leave would have left West Ham dangerously light in the striking department.
Then there was Nuno’s late reassessment of his backroom staff. Deciding he needed a second set of eyes, the Hammers brought in Paco Jémez on the manager’s recommendation.
Nuno seems happy to change course when things aren’t working
Flexibility Over Stubbornness
One might also point to the case of Lewis Orford, who had previously been consigned to under-21 training.
Opportunity arose when Orford was drafted in to train with the senior squad at the start of February. Nuno was so impressed with what he saw that he reversed course entirely, incorporating the England under-18 captain into his first-team group.
Taken together, these examples paint a clear picture.
This is a manager who reassesses. Who adapts. Who is prepared to change his mind when circumstances demand it.
That doesn’t look like weakness to me — it looks like flexibility.
And right now, with West Ham staring down a difficult run and the threat of relegation, I would far rather have a manager willing to correct course than one stubbornly steering straight towards the rocks.
All the way
He started off with a lot of experimentation when he said he needed to get to know his players. He switched Todibo & Kilman and it worked, he inverted fullbacks – that did not work. I think he was in a way testing the 2 CBs, to get to know them as he puts it – sports psychology?
Anyhow, he has made plenty of mistakes but corrects them and that shows diligence in his case and means he is always thinking about how to fix problems in the team and himself. It is all good, not a sign of weakness in the case of NES. He is very focused and passionate about getting WHU to play well. He keeps saying need to learn and work ou how to be better. Could have simply been empty words, but his switch to an attacking setup was done overnight with Pablo and Taty on the pitch immediately, Summerville & Bowen back to being wingers… brilliant.
You can see/guess the complexity of the task at WHU by all they the coaches, are working on, the improvements in individual players and tactics. They are working on all the details too. I was watching Scarles take about 5 mins to take a throw in, feinting left, feinting right and everyone shouting ‘throw the bloody ball!’ – now, nothing of the sort. Another bad habit fixed. The workload the coaches are taking on must be incredible. They should get an end of season recognition!😊
Like others though (Irish Hammer), I still dread his use of 5 at the back. For some reason (unknown to me) with 5 the defence is not better while midfiled also looks lost and hopeless as in the 1st half against Burton as opposed to the 2nd half where Magassa & Kante, were not running the midfield by any means, but no longer looked unable to cope and out of their depth.
Sorry for such a long post.
Spot on Gonzo, it was the stubborn refusal to change our line-up and tactics under Loppy and Potter, when it was clear to all that they weren’t working, that got us into the dire position we’re in.
Under Moyes it was called Dithering 😉
If only he could see that a back five doesn’t suit the players he has.
Gonzo this is great for the team. How I hear you ask. Well a player has a couple of bad games arguing with team mates. Manager drops him. His bad time he’s having in his private life gets sorted and training etc improve dramatically. This is the part fans don’t see. Gets sub appearance because manager changes his mind on him. Player accepts second chance and plays for the team. Maybe a little over simplified but you get the picture.
He is a good manager….Even if the worst happens i think we should keep him.