Throwing cold water on the Spector bandwagon (again).

To read Yanks Abroad's article regarding Jonathan Spector and West Ham surviving relegation (thus far, court and FIFA battles to come yet), you'd think he was an integral part of their survival.

However, the interesting thing is that his being ushered to the bench parallels the rise of West Ham from relegation certainties to a finish clear of the drop.

On February 3rd, against Aston Villa, winners of two of their last 14, Spector made his last regular start in a game that saw the Hammers lose and fall 5 points adrift in the relegation zone. Up to, and including that game, he had 18 starts and 4 subs in all competitions.

His relegation to the bench coincides with an upturn in Hammer form. By March 4th, they gave Tottenham a good game and Spector was an unused sub. They went on to win 7 of their last 11, with Spector starting one game, subbed in 5 times, and watching 5 others in their entirety. At the conclusion of this period they were 3 points and 2 teams clear of the drop.

Of course, some would harp upon the rise in form of Tevez as a key factor in the Hammers' fortunes, and I think they'd be right, but it's nonetheless interesting that Spector didn't play a ton while the Hammers were saving their necks from relegation.

 

If you take the 7 from 11 EPL finish of the Hammers, and extend it over a season, they would have finished in the Champs League spots, which is more like some expected when a top 10 team and UEFA participant spent wads of cash on Tevez and Mascherano, among others.

Instead, they finished 15th, with a points total actually lower than when they were relegated in '03. And this position was secured via a mad rush in which Spector was a marginal participant. While you might be able to sneak by some here with an argument that he was not to blame for their early fortunes, you would probably then also have to grant that he had little to nothing to do with the return to form that kept them in the Premiership. Which, in and of itself, is telling.

 

West Ham had 5 clean sheet victories in its last 10 games, none of which Spector started. Which equals the amount of clean sheets they had all season until that set of games, including a game against Brighton in cup play. Of those 5, he was an unused sub in 2, a sub in 3, and a starter in 0.

And, of course, the easy responsive argument to "give Tevez credit for the winning" is that it is hard to give Spector any credit for same, then. He started 10 of the last 11 sitting and only subbed in for half those. For those who would annoint him our next NT starter, those should be troubling numbers. You'd expect the NT starter leading the charge, not resigned to the periphery at a key juncture.

 

Look, if I told you that the Red Bulls' recent swoon coincides with the return of Mathis from the suspension he earned against Houston, we might say that matters. Why then can't I say it's interesting that Spector was a marginal participant in the Hammers' fortunes this spring? At best, he's a part cause of their struggles. At minimum, he was sat for much of their run and thus can't take any credit for it. And this is one of the guys NT fans want to pencil into the starting national eleven?

 

Which happened to be the one throwaway game he started at the end of the season....

 

The argument he didn't lead his team to safety is indeed a straw man, and it's your straw dude, not mine. I never said anything like that. In terms of who "led them to safety", you'd find few takers for anyone other than Tevez.

My point was more about deletions from the lineup that might have affected the Hammers. I said his benching coincides with their success, or at minimum means he had little or nothing to do with same. Someone on the bench is most certainly not leading them to safety, as they aren't leading squat, and in his case, are probably happy for the minutes they get.

I don't know how you can look at someone who started 18 of their first 30 or so games, many under a different manager, who then started one game the rest of the season (11 games), while his team suddenly looked decent again, and didn't even emerge from the bench for half of those games, and act like he was viewed with favor by his new manager. As you granted at one point, the bench was the role he was given at this key juncture, as his team fought its way out of the abyss. For someone who was more integral in the earlier part of the season, and left the very team the new coach previously managed, I'd hardly see that as a vote of confidence.

 

Considering they'd beaten Man U (swept them, actually) but not Chelsea in the first go-through, that Chelsea needed Ws to keep up their chase of Man U, and that they had to play again in 3 days against a team where they had a better chance (Everton), it was sort of a toss-away.

 

Then why'd the clean sheets go up? The interesting thing is that in the turnaround period, not only did the Hammers quit getting shut out all the time (which was their early problem, fixed obviously by Tevez, et al), they started doing their own shutouts, none of which were started by Spector. 5 shutouts in 11 games after 5 in something like 30 to that date. There were 3 1-0 games in that last period, plus a 2-1 squeaker, and if they'd given up so much as a goal more in two of those four games, they'd have been the other side of relegation. You're neglecting the defense's role in making Tevez's goals stick. After all, if the winter pattern of 3-3, 2-2, and 4-3 games had continued, they'd have gone down no matter how many they scored. And while the Hammers held serve, Spector was relegated to the bench.