Pre-Match
I’ll admit something: I have never felt particularly strongly about Millwall compared with most of West Ham’s other London rivals. Some supporters may argue that makes me less of a “proper West Ham” fan, but I refuse to manufacture a hatred that simply isn’t there. I appreciate that supporters from different areas may have experienced the rivalry differently, but from my perspective, the animosity has sometimes been exaggerated for the sake of headlines and media attention.
Growing up in the suburbs between east London and Essex, Millwall barely featured on my radar as a West Ham supporter. I can’t recall ever meeting a Millwall fan who made their allegiance obvious. Having attended my first game at the Boleyn Ground in 1961, it took another 17 years before West Ham finally faced Millwall. Even today, the number of meetings I have witnessed during my time supporting the club is surprisingly small.
Things could have been very different, too. My father was born in Stratford while my mother came from Bermondsey, so I remain thankful that football loyalties somehow seemed to be inherited through the paternal side of the family. Otherwise, I might have spent my life surrounded by caravans, railway arches and gold signet rings.
None of that diminishes the significance of this fixture. It remains a London derby that West Ham should approach with pride, determination and the expectation of winning. Millwall, meanwhile, were always going to treat the occasion like their cup final.
Teams
It was no great surprise to see Nuno stick with the same starting XI that began against Wrexham, with just one enforced alteration. Kyle Walker-Peters came in at right-back for the injured Joel Veltman.
Nuno clearly believes strongly in keeping a winning side together, while his preference for a 4-4-2 formation remains equally clear. He appears determined to persist with it until the results become impossible to ignore.
Millwall arrived with a lengthy injury list, which looked encouraging from a West Ham perspective. However, football has a habit of making such advantages meaningless.
The financial gulf between the two clubs also highlights just how important this fixture was. West Ham recorded revenues of £226 million in their last published accounts, compared with £23.9 million for Millwall. Even taking into account the financial impact of West Ham’s relegation, the difference is enormous.
That makes Millwall’s promotion challenge last season even more impressive given their comparatively modest resources. From West Ham’s perspective, there could be no excuses.
West Ham XI: Hermansen, Walker-Peters, Mavropanos, Kilman, Morato, Engels, Mukasa, Bowen ©, Solomon, Taty, Piroe.
Subs: Herrick, Scarles, Golambeckis, Magassa, Orford, Kanté, Ajala, Austbø, Pablo.
First Half
Millwall 2-0 West Ham
Caleb Taylor 16′, Camiel Neghli 45+3′
There are plenty of words that could describe West Ham’s first-half display: dreadful, awful, abysmal. It looked less like a fierce London derby and more like a complete mismatch.
The Hammers were completely unprepared for the intensity Millwall brought to the game. They were beaten tactically from the dugout and physically on the pitch.
The biggest concern with Nuno’s formation was exactly what many feared: West Ham were being overrun in midfield. Without a natural defensive midfielder, the team struggled badly. Millwall had organisation, aggression and purpose, while West Ham looked passive and directionless.
Engels and Mukasa were often stranded on the wrong side of the halfway line, leaving the attacking players isolated. For the opening 30 minutes, the front four could barely get involved.
It raised serious questions about West Ham’s preparation. Surely the coaching staff knew Millwall would come out aggressively in front of their home supporters at The Den? Why did the Hammers appear so surprised by the way their opponents approached the game?
Both Millwall goals exposed the same familiar weakness: West Ham’s inability to deal with long throws.
The first came while Mavropanos was temporarily off the pitch after being caught by Hermansen following the goalkeeper’s reckless attempt to claim a cross that never really belonged to him.
Once again, Kilman appeared unwilling to attack the ball, instead turning away as the delivery came in. Former West Ham defenders would surely have dealt with the situation far more aggressively.
The second goal arrived just before half-time, when West Ham seemed to be hoping they could somehow reach the interval only one goal down. Instead, too many players were watching rather than defending, allowing Millwall to double their advantage.
Second Half
Millwall 2-2 West Ham
Caleb Taylor 16′, Camiel Neghli 45+3′; Mohamadou Kanté 74′, Konstantinos Mavropanos 80′
Whenever a team produces a poor performance, the obvious question is whether the players or the system should take most of the blame. In this case, the answer is probably a combination of both.
Personally, I remain unconvinced by Nuno’s tactical setup. If the players themselves lack confidence in the system, that will inevitably affect performances.
The formation may work against teams that attack openly and leave plenty of space between the lines, but those opponents are relatively uncommon. Smarter teams could easily follow Millwall’s blueprint, targeting West Ham’s lack of numbers in midfield and slow build-up.
To his credit, Nuno reacted at half-time by changing both his personnel and his formation.
Pablo and Kanté replaced Piroe and Walker-Peters, while West Ham switched to three at the back and added another player into midfield.
Whether the improvement was caused by the tactical adjustment, the substitutions or Millwall beginning to tire, the Hammers gradually started taking control of the game.
Pablo brought an entirely different level of aggression and energy. He looked like someone who had spent the previous week watching Green Street on repeat. His attitude was infectious, although he missed a good opportunity with a header that Piroe may have converted.
Despite dominating possession and territory, West Ham initially struggled to create clear chances.
Then Kanté produced a spectacular effort from around 35 yards to pull one goal back.
Suddenly, everything changed. Bowen, Solomon and Austbø became far more influential, while Kanté repeatedly made runs beyond the forwards. The urgency and purpose that had been missing in the first half finally returned.
West Ham eventually found their equaliser when Solomon delivered an excellent cross into the box and Mavropanos rose to head the ball home.
A winner would probably have been unfair on Millwall given the way the game had unfolded, but West Ham’s hopes of completing the comeback were damaged when Kanté was shown a red card for a clear denial of a goalscoring opportunity.
The reaction that Kanté had supposedly done the right thing illustrates how much professional football has changed. Back in the day, when Willie Young brought down Paul Allen in the 1980 FA Cup final, supporters were outraged by what was viewed as an outrageous and unsporting act. The incident was so controversial that the laws of the game were subsequently changed.
Today, committing a deliberate foul to stop a goalscoring opportunity is often praised as “taking one for the team”.
Ultimately, West Ham and Nuno were fortunate to escape The Den with a point. The manager will hope there are more get-out-of-jail cards available when similar situations arise.
For a neutral supporter, however, this was probably an entertaining derby. There was plenty of action, intensity, tackles and passion — and, thankfully, no VAR to interrupt the occasion.
COYI!
“EXCLUSIVE” WEST HAM FANS FUMING! Nuno’s SHOCKING TACTICAL DECISION Leaves Hammers Fighting for Survival at Millwall
