What insiders say Julen Lopetegui’s situation is really like at West Ham – and why he isn’t the only one who should be questioned, writes RIATH AL-SAMARRAI

Contrary to the sense that all shadowy corners at West Ham are occupied by assassins, there are still some at the club who have nice things to say about Julen Lopetegui. One spoke to me this week and in flattering terms, too.

While the sentiments might jar with some members of the first-team squad, he said the manager was a warm man. Kind. Holistic in elements of his approach. And that was all explained in a loose comparison to David Moyes, even if it wasn’t pointed as a slur on the latter.

The example my source used was based on a willingness to allow the kids of players and staff into their Rush Green training ground. On that front, Moyes was not such a fan, and apparently he once chewed out Michail Antonio for bringing in his children. Nothing wrong with that, but Lopetegui sees benefit in going the other way every so often.

Of course, that is what managers do – they all have their methods and the greater the difference to the previous guy, the better. Or so goes the perception, and it’s usually the detail we write about when three or four games have gone well at the start of a new reign.

Much of it is guff and gimmickry but we pump out the examples nonetheless. Garry Monk rearranged the tables at Swansea City’s canteen to promote conversation between his players. Antonio Conte got rid of ketchup at Tottenham. Reuben Amorim made a play of visiting Manchester United’s museum. These factors may or may not be worth as much on the field as they are in the optics, on the illusion of discovery, but one salient fact remains: if your midfield turns slower than milk, you’re still screwed.

One spoke to me this week and in flattering terms, too. While the sentiments might jar with some members of the first-team squad, he said the manager was a warm man

An example was based on his willingness to allow the kids at the club. On that front, David Moyes was not such a fan, and he once chewed out Michail Antonio for bringing in his children

And for now, Lopetegui looks a bit screwed. A bit lost. A bit too similar to Moyes in tactical pragmatism, and not enough like Moyes in his ability to make it effective.

The mistake of driving Moyes away, of undervaluing what he brought, including a first trophy in 43 years, was called out as foolish long before it was even put into action. Swapping him for Lopetegui is the most contemporary reason to tell fans and owners of all clubs, and David Sullivan in particular, that a new broom is sometimes just a stick and bristles. To trim that down further at the risk of cliche: be careful what you wish for, because West Ham are considering another change less than half a season in.

I dislike the headline ‘El Sackico’. I find it inhumane, lacking in compassion for those at the heart of a sporting crisis, but it does cover the essence of West Ham’s engagement with Gary O’Neil’s Wolves on Monday. If one or both are dismissed in the next week, it wouldn’t be a surprise.

But we’ll stick with Lopetegui and West Ham, because Sullivan isn’t known for his willingness to part with severance pay.

‘Very hesitant’ was the description preferred by my source, who cited half a dozen occasions when staff felt Moyes’s tenure was about to be ended in its final months, before it was ultimately concluded he was not the right fit. By then, Moyes had reached the same conclusion about them, and we can only wonder for now if Lopeteugi has developed some common ground with his predecessor on the role of Tim Steidten, the club’s technical director.

I have used this page previously to query why those in suits operate with greater impunity than the ones who pick the sides. To watch West Ham this season is to be in no doubt that their failures should be apportioned as much to the figure who oversaw £125million in summer spending as it is to Lopetegui.

Lopetegui’s work has equated to 15 points from 14 games, five goals given away in a half against Arsenal, and a most recent defeat against Leicester that broke the patience of so many fans. Their frustration is entirely valid – he has no clear idea on his best XI and the only consistency is that results and performances continue to be dire. There is nothing in his style resembling the pretentions of a ‘West Ham way’, whatever that is meant to be in 2024.

But Steidten’s name got far less of an airing at Leicester on Tuesday night. So what about his work? What is there to suggest he was the right one to back in the power struggle with Moyes, which briefly saw Steidten kept away from the training ground, rather like those kids?

Lopetegui looks a bit screwed. A bit lost. A bit too similar to Moyes in tactical pragmatism, and not enough like Moyes in his ability to make it effective

He has helped supply a defence that conceded three or more on seven occasions this season, across league and cup. A midfield with no pace. An attack with three men aged over 30, serving within a wider squad where no fewer than 10 players who fall in the same age bracket and rank as the oldest collective in the Premier League this season.

They are the opposite of Chelsea, who, for all their sins, bet on the future and are enjoying the here and now. West Ham simply reek of bad judgement. Of a mess that will require an expensive fix.

That’s less on Lopetegui and more on Steidten. He is the director of this shambles. A man who was never knowingly shy in posing alongside the signings he picked, such as Luis Guilherme (£25m, 11 minutes of playing time) and Niclas Fullkrug (£27m, 31 years old, shredded by injuries since his arrival), but has gone curiously quiet since.

Lopetegui would therefore be in the right to question if he should be absorbing the flak alone. He could also make an argument that 14 league games is hardly a fair crack of the whip.

By now, after such thin evidence of progress, Sullivan might be less inclined to listen.

But if he does break with old habits and acts quickly, he must surely look for common denominators behind this manager and the last one. West Ham are a little more child-friendly these days, but that would be the grown-up thing to do.

BOURNEMOUTH EXPOSED FRAILTY IN SPURS 

We can now add Bournemouth to the list of sides that have exposed a frailty in Ange Postecoglou’s Tottenham. As of Dean Huijsen’s header, the running counter shows Spurs have conceded five goals to set-pieces in the league this season.

I would love to see Postecoglou succeed, but there is no virtue in repeating the same mistakes over and again. That goes double for one of the areas where a coach can have most input and influence.

We can add Bournemouth to the list of sides that have exposed a frailty in Postecoglou’s Spurs

The worry for Postecoglou is that whereas Chelsea have shaped into contenders against most sensible expectations, Spurs are still the same vision of vulnerabilities

Sunday’s game with Chelsea arrives 13 months after last season’s wild fixture, when Tottenham lost 4-1 but thrilled us by chasing a win with nine men at 1-1. It was audacious, bold, a touch foolish and naïve, but the flaws were fun because they were so brazen. So new. That can’t be submitted as a case for the defence anymore.

The worry for Postecoglou is that whereas Chelsea have shaped into contenders against most sensible expectations, Spurs are still the same vision of vulnerabilities. A team that can stuff both halves of Manchester on their day has also lost to Bournemouth, Ipswich, Brighton and Crystal Palace and never looks sturdy under a set-piece. They never give the impression that lessons have been learned and one above all others – it is hard to turn a corner if you can’t defend one.

FA UNSURE IF THEY WILL ENDORE SAUDI’S BID

The FA are said to be unsure over whether they will officially endorse Saudi Arabia’s bid to host the 2034 World Cup when it is ratified next week. Given the Saudis have been shamelessly ushered into a race of one by FIFA, it’s hardly an approval that is needed. 

And yet after a week of muddling around the issue of Marc Guehi’s rainbow armband, it would be simply absurd for the FA to publicly validate a state where LGBTQ+ rights are non-existent.