Lake Palmer aka Monk wrote:
Fred your such a divvy head. Basically you've just typed the first thing that has come into your head. You are interested in how a Nolanless West Ham performs because you can't decide whether Nolan is the best or worst player in the team. No one else does. No way was judging Nolans abscence the worst thing about going down to ten men.

Nolan will back and rightly so when his ban ends.

All our sending off's have been a bit shit this season haven't they ? but the ref karma has brought us loads of pens so can't complain too much.

It was a stand out performance and these 3 games have just got everybody onside. Everyone is drawing comparisons but it reminds me of those two away games up north under Pards, Wigan and Burnley was it ?? where everyone bonded, Anton and Elliot stepped up, Zamora and Harewood clicked and went on a surge.

Ralph, what stops it in the ratings is the fact Blackpool are so woeful, this league is so woeful and without pissing on anyone chips to win 4-1 after having your keeper sent off just shows that we should be smashing this league. I said early doors the quality is poor poor poor.
Are you seriously suggesting that no-one gives a shit whether west ham are better with or without Nolan?  Are you seriously suggesting that Allardyce regards him as undroppable, or are you saying he is universally loved by west ham fans?

It is clear that Allardyce bought him in as much for his attitude as his goals.  Allardyce wanted his man to make sure west ham stopped playing shit / like west ham.  Some might say, top of the table, resilient, professional performances with 10 men... job done, Nolan is not essential to make sure that west ham are an allardyce team.

Ok, potentially having dropped 2 points against southampton was the worst thing. 

(no need to respond, i know you're not interested)