Nuance and grey areas seem to be diminishing qualities in recent years. Many would suggest the growing tendency for binary opinions stems from social media, but that’s a discussion for another day.
What I’ve noticed is how quickly people take sides, particularly regarding West Ham, though it’s likely a broader trend.
This has never been clearer than in recent days, as fans seem desperate to find a single pantomime villain for all of West Ham’s woes.
Most Read on West Ham News
Yesterday’s comments section on Claret & Hugh and social media reflected a clear divide: pro-Tim Steidten or pro-Julen Lopetegui. Others, however, place the blame squarely at David Sullivan’s feet, believing he’s responsible for everything that goes wrong at West Ham.
It’s certainly easier to simplify things into villains and heroes, as was evident yesterday after a Daily Mail article pinned much of the blame on Tim Steidten for the Hammers’ struggles this season.
Having read the article in its entirety, I disagree with their assessment that West Ham’s German director of football is responsible for the team’s awful defending. In my view, that responsibility lies entirely with Lopetegui, who has been fully backed by Steidten and Sullivan. A whopping £93m was committed to the signings of Max Kilman, Jean-Clair Todibo, and Aaron Wan-Bissaka so surely J-Lo has the tools to make a serviceable defensive unit.
That said, I’m not suggesting Lopetegui is Darth Vader and Steidten some Skywalker-like hero.
Whilst I believe Lopetegui has been a shocking appointment, I’m far from convinced by Steidten either. The signing of Niclas Füllkrug, despite his horrendous injury record since 2019, is baffling. I’m also wary that media sources close to Steidten have undermined both David Moyes and Lopetegui.
While the Mail Online was wrong to blame Steidten for the team’s defending, they were spot on with other observations.
Incredible Steidten-David Moyes and West Ham's director of football struggled to get along
Tim Steidten: Some say messiah whilst others say naughty boy
Wrong man for West Ham’s top job
Then we come to David Sullivan and “the Board.” Again, the situation isn’t as black-and-white as it seems. Both Steidten and Lopetegui were fully backed during the summer transfer window. Aside from the signing of Crysencio Summerville, the recruitment team and Lopetegui were largely left to their own devices.
Lopetegui was indulged with the £40m signing of Kilman, and the Board also sanctioned Guido Rodríguez’s transfer despite concerns. Meanwhile, Steidten overspent massively on the £27m acquisition of Füllkrug, who is unsettled, injury-prone, and on the wrong side of 30.
You’d think this might absolve Sullivan of blame, but he too is culpable. The indecision surrounding Lopetegui’s non-sacking on Thursday was a complete mess.
Worse still is the admission that Lopetegui—a defensive manager—was hired to implement attacking football. It beggars belief that the club identified a need for attacking play but appointed a defensive coach to deliver it.
Perhaps most damning are the list of candidates being floated as potential replacements for Lopetegui. The absence of names like Andoni Iraola, Roberto De Zerbi, Sebastian Hoeneß, and even Marco Silva from the discussion speaks volumes. West Ham may be ambitious in transfer spending, but they do not value managerial appointments in the same way.
Ultimately, I find this binary blame game unhelpful and inaccurate. The truth is, multiple individuals are underperforming. Frankly, I struggle to see anyone at the club capable of fixing this mess—let alone a knight in shining armour