I mean it's a fair point, wing backs are more of a specialised role and I would argue the two attacking 10s require a particular type of player. Sign those specific type of players and if it doesn't work with Amorim, we go to a 433 and those players may become redundant.This from the Guardian might have something to do with his departure;
"Ashworth had reservations about switching to Amorim’s 3-4-3 formation as he wanted a consistent style, regardless of who was in the dugout, to aid with long-term recruitment strategy, which was a source of tension."
Are his reservations well founded?
The success or failure of any organisation starts with the individual.We are a massive club and I’ve said this previously. You can’t come in and expect to run this club under the same model as Brighton etc (Just an example).
Patrick Evra once said he couldn’t become DoF at Manchester United as it would require his life. Until the guys in charge and the players understand this we will never be elite.
Missing important meetings, going to watch basketball games dressed like Denis Rodman we you can’t perform like him… all sounds minute and knit picking when justified.. but you can’t build an empire cutting corners or allowing standards to slip. Or in our case not exist.
Let’s hope some of these players get this ruthless treatment next.
That’s exactly what I thought the plan was. The difference is, under Ten Hag we didn’t really have a style in which to maintain.This from the Guardian might have something to do with his departure;
"Ashworth had reservations about switching to Amorim’s 3-4-3 formation as he wanted a consistent style, regardless of who was in the dugout, to aid with long-term recruitment strategy, which was a source of tension."
Are his reservations well founded?
This from the Guardian might have something to do with his departure;
"Ashworth had reservations about switching to Amorim’s 3-4-3 formation as he wanted a consistent style, regardless of who was in the dugout, to aid with long-term recruitment strategy, which was a source of tension."
Are his reservations well founded?
Well in a way, yes. Not exactly about the formation, but our recruitment cannot be restricted to playing only a particular style. We would need players who should be effective even if we get rid of Amorim, two years down the line and new manager plays a different style.This from the Guardian might have something to do with his departure;
"Ashworth had reservations about switching to Amorim’s 3-4-3 formation as he wanted a consistent style, regardless of who was in the dugout, to aid with long-term recruitment strategy, which was a source of tension."
Are his reservations well founded?
This from the Guardian might have something to do with his departure;
"Ashworth had reservations about switching to Amorim’s 3-4-3 formation as he wanted a consistent style, regardless of who was in the dugout, to aid with long-term recruitment strategy, which was a source of tension."
Are his reservations well founded?
Unless you have signed an obvious fraud, 5 months is very less time to do a performance rating. Especially when you played a circus with Newcastle, that lasted months to get him in. Ratcliffe comes out looking quite impulsive and indecisive, and not positively.I'm not sure why people are that surprised. Ratcliffe is a self made billionaire in one of the most intense industries possible.
He's going to be a pretty brutal, cutthroat owner. Perform or move aside.
I agree.
INEOS fecked up by not allowing Berrarda to select the Sporting director. And it seems they went ahead and selected people for positions at the club who weren't compatible with each other. So it's hard to align something when executives at the top of the chain like Ratcliffe and Brailsford make blunders to begin with and start to select people who they think are best in class without understanding how it may effect the running of the structure as far as stability goes. I thought they would've learned this by now after their countless blunders at OGC Nice but unfortunately not.
It's not a case of having too many cooks but rather it's about people who don't understand football at the highest level.
And I don't know if Ashworth wanted Southgate but I wouldn't believe bullshitters like Luckhurst and Alex Crook who have regularly been wrong about things surrounding the club.
What this again proves is that the most successful football structures are made up of groups of people who get along with each other. So it's no surprise to see that people in power at football clubs who are employed to work directly or indirectly developing the football side want to work with people who they know and are comfortable with. This is something that Ratcliffe and Brailsford need to understand quickly or things will get ugly if something like this repeats itself again.
Sacking Ashworth only puts more attention on himself, and his competence in running a football club. That doesn't make a lick of sense.
Only logical explanation I can come to is that some sort of scandal is about to come out, and Ratcliffe wanted to end his association with Ashworth before it becomes public.
Unless you have signed an obvious fraud, 5 months is very less time to do a performance rating. Especially when you played a circus with Newcastle, that lasted months to get him in. Ratcliffe comes out looking quite impulsive and indecisive, and not positively.
We also wanted football people making or forcing football decisions. Woodward was criticised for getting overly involved in football matters and it seems it's happening at a higher level with Jim. It's like one end of the extreme with the Glazers not caring nor wanting to make football calls to a guy who clearly has and will express his views. I prefer the Ratcliffe approach too but it's a fine line to balance.Medicority and passiveness won't be tolerated; but at the same time it shines a light on Jim being more influencial than we thought he'd be. The truth is, we've been asking for an energetic and engaged owner for years, and United fell apart due to the lack of supervision from the Glazers, so this is a complete 180.
Possibly - that’s definitely the view Ineos are putting out, but part of me is thinking that Ashworth has been well regarded in a number of different jobs throughout football, and Ineos have done nothing of note in football - so does Ratcliffe & Brailsford know enough to make an informed decision on whether a sporting director is doing the job well or not.
We also wanted football people making or forcing football decisions. Woodward was criticised for getting overly involved in football matters and it seems it's happening at a higher level with Jim. It's like one end of the extreme with the Glazers not caring nor wanting to make football calls to a guy who clearly has and will express his views. I prefer the Ratcliffe approach too but it's a fine line to balance.
And yet Amorim made the 3-4-3 work at Sporting with 2 inverted wingers as "10s" in Pedro Goncalves and Francisco Trincao. If you're truly a quality player, then you have the ability to adapt.I mean it's a fair point, wing backs are more of a specialised role and I would argue the two attacking 10s require a particular type of player. Sign those specific type of players and if it doesn't work with Amorim, we go to a 433 and those players may become redundant.
Good players should be able to adapt but try a 343 with the City, Arsenal and even Liverpool squad and they would all need some specialist recruitment.
I mean considering how many mangers come and go, its a fair point. You can't just rebuild your squad when ever you get a new manager. Currently we don really have anyone in our squad who I would say is a natural wing back, And only really Fernandes who is natural to be one of the number 10's. So we aren't a great squad fit for Amorim. Realistically we are hoping Amorin is a good enough coach to find solutions to this but we will see.This from the Guardian might have something to do with his departure:
"Ashworth had reservations about switching to Amorim’s 3-4-3 formation as he wanted a consistent style, regardless of who was in the dugout, to aid with long-term recruitment strategy, which was a source of tension."
Are his reservations well founded?
Yeap, makes senseI'm pretty convinced that it's a combo of 1 & 2. The timing of this, immediately after the forest game, 8pm on Saturday night with him having day in the directors box alongside others.
There's obviously been a few issues over the last number of months, but something has happened/been said during the game - I'm guessing it's something directly to Berrada about axeing ETH to replace him with Amorim (and still losing at home to Forest)
My point is that these players don't suit or rather do well in any tactic. If you look at other big teams' squads they wouldn't need far reaching changes to suit Amorim. Ten Hag himself couldn't play the high line because his CB combos were all one paced, Casemiro couldn't play as a single pivot and Bruno+Mount didn't work out as advanced 8s. Rashford and Garnacho in the press, the less said the better.
So my point is even if we hired a coach for the back four he'd still want five or six out because they are the wrong profiles for most modern systems. City, Arsenal and Liverpool use flexible systems that end up looking similar to Amorim's default system, City on the ball have a back 3, midfield box and advanced fullbacks.
As for having extra wingbacks; players adjust they are professional footballers unless of course they play for United. Cucurela was brought in as a wingback but isn't he playing LB in a back 4? What about Pedro Porro, couldn't Alfonso Davies, Trent Alexander Arnold et al play as wingbacks? Aren't they ideal for such roles but have built careers in back fours?
It's not that complicated, players who played for Brazil during their better days were raised to play a 3-5-2 or 3-4-3 for their national team but almost all of them had great club careers playing in back 4s. Our players are just flawed and come up short against the physical and technical demands of the modern game.
Tbf if your 2 strong opinions about the managerial role are Keep ETH or replace him with Potter / Southgate, you deserve the sack without the compensation
So Man United were up for sale and only one person made a proper bid. How does that happen.
I mean id disagree with this, basically the only thing united have been good at over the past 12 years is hitting teams on the break, thats what at least Mourinho and Ole had the most success with. So we did have a style.That’s exactly what I thought the plan was. The difference is, under Ten Hag we didn’t really have a style in which to maintain.
I assumed Amorim was the first one in a new line of coaches, and the one after him will be in that vein.
Zirkzee and De Ligt were signings with Ten Hag in mind. Theyre for Ten Hag, not the club when we knew his future was in doubts. I dont know who ultimately agreed to sign them but it wasnt a good decision. Nas is another story, you can tell any manager would love to have him in his side.
Yep, Qatar is still as awful an on option (and as unrealistic an option) as it ever was.I hope the moral police officers that demonised Sheikh takeover are happy now. The circus continues.
What the feck...
This doesn't fill me with any confidence in SJR going forward.
I haven't skimmed through the thread yet, so I don't know if I missed any important details.
Juat a very long article from The Athletic which can be summarised as "spoilt billionaire demoralises entire club then throws toys out of pram"
This from the Guardian might have something to do with his departure:
"Ashworth had reservations about switching to Amorim’s 3-4-3 formation as he wanted a consistent style, regardless of who was in the dugout, to aid with long-term recruitment strategy, which was a source of tension."
Are his reservations well founded?
