Dan "The Gardener" Ashworth Has Left | Venit, vidit, non vicit

[Rex Banner]

For what it's worth, Southgate isn't mentioned anywhere in The Athletic article.

 

[dubplate warrior]

Yes and no. Time will tell, but by the sounds of it, him and the others had a major parting of agreement and SJR was on the warpath about summer recruitment. Probably for the best that they parted.

My next point (and this may end up a topic in its own right) but why aren’t players capable of playing a multitude of different formations? It’s not rocket science to go from 4 at the back to 3. We’re not asking a nurse to perform surgery.

Because our players are not technically good enough or intelligent enough without the ball. I've seen City change the way multiple times with different players.

This is strictly an issue of quality.

 

[afrocentricity]

Because our players are not technically good enough or intelligent enough without the ball. I've seen City change the way multiple times with different players.

This is strictly an issue of quality.

I guess it's easier to believe that, sure...

 

[MadDogg]

Don't buy the story about Ashworth not liking the 3-4-3. Great players should be able to adapt to multiple systems. No player should only be capable of playing in one system. If we were targeting system specific players then Ashworth wasn't good at his job.

To a large extent that is true, especially through the middle of the pitch. However there is more of a difference in the respective roles out wide. A great fullback may not be a particularly good attacking wingback, and a great winger may not be suitable to play as a wingback or a #10. They 'can' still play those roles, but not to the same level.

 

[NZT-One]

Yes and no. Time will tell, but by the sounds of it, him and the others had a major parting of agreement and SJR was on the warpath about summer recruitment. Probably for the best that they parted.

Agreed. Still a bad outlook overall after such a short amount of time. I personally had my reservations about Amorim because of his rather exotic formation, I would have thought, a more conventional manager might have been better, as in "easier to integrate and get started". On the other hand, I think, the summer would have been the right time to part ways with ETH and if Ashworth is connected with that decision, I can see where the tensions come from.

My next point (and this may end up a topic in its own right) but why aren’t players capable of playing a multitude of different formations? It’s not rocket science to go from 4 at the back to 3. We’re not asking a nurse to perform surgery.

I think, you are underestimating the different interpretations and roles, that can (but don't have to) come with different formations. Just think of how wingers have changed over the years, went from for example right sided midfielders like Beckham, to tricky wing players who liked to cut in like Robben or Ronaldo to wing forwards like Rashford. Look at how the 10 position changed, from Riquelme to Mata to Wirtz. In a 3atb formation, at least one of the CBs is expected to step into midfield from time to time, you don't have fullbacks so CBs are more relevant to defend wide spaces. I guess, at the highest level you will also notice the difference when you have two players with one being comfortable and experienced in different formations and one who isn't. It just reduces the mental load of asking yourself where to be when.
I think, it is important, to have a formation across all levels of a club, this makes sure, that the path into the first team is as smooth as possible. It certainly isn't a must have and shouldn't mean, that players should be uncomfortable to play something different from time to time but Barcelona and Ajax show how you can benefit from that. At the same time, it is necessary to have and keep a somewhat modern formation and playstyle because if you would try to implement a system with a Libero these days, you might have trouble finding one. Same applies to other formations as well. We've seen how system players like DVB or Sancho lately simply fell through the cracks, of course thats not only due to the system but many different aspects, but it has been such a long time, since we had a system, that really benefitted the whole team. The United of the last 5 or 6 years benefitted only two players.

 

[ROFLUTION]

This article on the BBC provides a decent summary. In short, it seems like there was a bit of a power struggle behind the scenes between Ashworth and Berrada, with both of them having differences of opinion over key decisions. The main ones seem to pertain to how long Ten Hag was kept in the job, the players we signed during the summer and eventually which managers were being lined up to replace Ten Hag.

It seems like Ashworth is copping the blame for messing up the decisions in the summer and Berrada was the main instigator behind appointing Amorim while Ashworth favoured a domestic appointment (the list of managers he suggested were reportedly Thomas Frank, Marco Silva, Eddie Howe and Graham Potter). It sounds like Ratcliffe has been unimpressed by Ashworth for a while and had been slowly freezing him out before making the call to sack him on Saturday.

Cheers - Not saying whether it's a right decision or not, but it makes sense for Berrada to move the fella on given they didn't agree on core things. Also the earlier remarks of Ratcliffe of us being a decade behind on data (not sure, he would know anyways) stands out as a point of conflict, if they saw Ashworth as not being up to the task.

Berrada must ultimately have compared Ashworth to what he knew worked at Man City, who's had good/great facilities for a long time. Also as a CEO, you need everyone to be in line and cooperate even if they get overruled themselves by an appointment to a whole new system not agreed upon like Amorim's.

Can't have footdragging, when such a massive project needs to be built. Everyone needs to be in sync and on the same page. It's easy to understand why it didnt work out from both sides - Ashworth probably thought his role was to make us play a certain way and find players for a certain system, which was the original task set up when he got assigned.

 

[limerickcitykid]

For what it's worth, Southgate isn't mentioned anywhere in The Athletic article.

Adam Crafton has actually said that Southgate has never been mentioned to him by a single source.

The list of managers is clearly a load of shit to try make Ashworth look bad evidenced by it including Howe, who it was widely reported didn’t get along with Ashworth when he first joined. He certainly didn’t turn around and ask to bring in the same manager he fell out with at Newcastle.

 

[Wazzaduke33]

So, let’s get this right . . .

SJR pumps Ashworth due to disagreements and major differences of opinions on signings, formations and the outgoing and incoming manager ?

Ultimately SJR is head honcho on the footballing side and sanctions the continuation of ETH, the new signings (these were made to play in ETH system)

Then sacks ETH, employs Amorim who plays a totally different style to ETH and whinges about the fit of the signings ? Bizarre, I think I know where the problem lies here . . .

 

[Teja]

That point of Ratcliffe getting angry when Ashworth suggested bringing in a data company to evaluate ETH replacements makes Ratcliffe seem more like an old man bumbling how great things were in the old days.

How is Ashworth expected to do data analysis on key metrics without the necessary data?

If it’s true, I am more concerned that Ratcliffe is unnecessarily more hands-on than what was required.

It's the opposite right - He was annoyed that the club had no in-house data capabilities at all. Obviously the data itself is purchased, the interpretation of the data is what we need expertise in. You can't just outsource that to some 3rd party org and have them tell you what the data means. For what it's worth, re: data I see some movement here because the StatsBomb conference (probably one of the most sophisticated data companies now) was hosted by United this year.

https://statsbomb.com/events/statsbomb-conference-2024/

I used to listen to those talks hosted by Chelsea, Liverpool, City etc. building really interesting data setups and United not even in the frame. I think we're finally waking up to this movement. What I'd expect is for us to buy statsbomb's data and have an in-house data team use that data (along with other sources, both open and proprietary) to build models and inform the management.

It also correlates to him being annoyed by the replacement targets being suggested by Ashworth (PL proven guys like Silva, Potter etc. and not some under appreciated gem we unearthed from the continent like Hurzler).

I'm not backing INEOS fully in this regard, it's hard to get a whole data org up and running in 6 months of joining with all of the fires we have underway. But in regards to data, Ratcliffe seems to know what he's talking about.

 

[OmarUnited4ever]

Very interesting read. If I want to pick out just one single sentence it's this: " Berrada’s role does cross over into the football department."

Just WHY?! I get people disagreeing, maybe not everyone sharing the exact same vision, that's normal and expected. While the broad direction should be shared by everyone, disagreeing about details is to be expected. But I didn't expect that this new "best in class" structure would result in this. Either Ashworth wasn't able to do his job and Berrada had to step in (which would make the sacking well deserved), or they really failed to create a proper structure with clearly defined roles. It sounds like the latter, and that's something that makes me worry.

On Barrada as a CEO, my expectations were that his focus would be to bring in the best football people to manage the football side while he can also focus on the day to day club operations as a business with footballing success being the main goal, which means it should not overlap with what a DoF would be doing, however, 2 instances that took place made me question few things since Ashworth firing, first, Barrada was instrumental in the club signing of Yoro, Barrada is French of Moroccan descent, so one might think he could connect better with a French talent, but he is the CEO, Ashworth is the one who is supposed to be doing this work and leading it, and in hiring Amorim, again, Barrada was instrumental in that too, which then pegs the question, is their jobs overlapping? or is Ashworth not that smooth operator, I think it is the latter.

The club did create a proper football structure in 2021, but it was not led by the best, Arnold, the previous CEO was a Glazers' man, a banker, and Murtough, the Football Director before INEOS, was good and experienced football operator, but probably not a savvy DoF, though he helped in building the initial structure especially in the women's team, the academy and the recruitment team which is now the same as the one that currently exists, and with INEOS' takeover of the club's football operations, they simply hired what we initially thought "Best in Class", Barrada & Ashworth are great hires, Wilcox is very experienced and Vivell is highly thought of, so, Ashworth not working is not the end of the world, they can simply hire another one or just promote Wilcox, who was a DoF at Southampton, with Vivell most likely being made permanent in his current role as head of recruitment to supervise the scouts (Mick Court as Chief Technical Scout, with 3 senior regional scouts managing full and part time scouts, and Steve Brown being the one that assigns the assignments and all), so yes structure is there, it just needs to be led by the right people.

 

[Rex Banner]

Adam Crafton has actually said that Southgate has never been mentioned to him by a single source.

The list of managers is clearly a load of shit to try make Ashworth look bad evidenced by it including Howe, who it was widely reported didn’t get along with Ashworth when he first joined. He certainly didn’t turn around and ask to bring in the same manager he fell out with at Newcastle.

I think there's some truth to the list of managers given the source, but yeah it's strange Howe was reported given his history with Ashworth. Frank and Silva are clearly good managers though, I don't think either would have been bad choices. Ashworth clearly valued PL experience, but I don't think it's a stick to beat him with.

The talk over Ashworth wanting Southgate seems like the club trying to get the fanbase onboard with the decision because they know how unpopular Southgate is.

 

[Andy_Cole]

I do think Southgate was mentioned by him. Southgate was bookies favourite for the whole 6 months prior to Hags sacking.

No smoke without fire. Thankfully the rest didn’t agree.

 

[The Firestarter]

Sacked for a lack of wokeness.

Care to elaborate ?

 

[Yakuza_devils]

Looking at the timing. Ashworth left shortly after we appointed Amorim. It's clear as day that he is not align with the club strategy for manager/style of play. Hence, he has to go.

I think it must be Berrada or someone higher up overwrite his decision as DOF and appoint Amorim. Ashworth may have someone else in mind.

 

[Berbasbullet]

Sacked for a lack of wokeness.

Great post, what this conversation needed.

 

[Mrs Smith]

Yes and no. Time will tell, but by the sounds of it, him and the others had a major parting of agreement and SJR was on the warpath about summer recruitment. Probably for the best that they parted.

My next point (and this may end up a topic in its own right) but why aren’t players capable of playing a multitude of different formations? It’s not rocket science to go from 4 at the back to 3. We’re not asking a nurse to perform surgery.

Well said....players aren't coached from kids to play a specific roll...I had a pal who played centre forward all his youth football, signed for a pro-club and they made him into a right back where he played for the next five years before moving to sweeper...playes need to and can adapt

 

[Crostien]

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 Guardian is one of the worst offenders for bigoted, shit-stirring anti-United nonsense. This is because its business model is primarily based on its BTL, as it leads to higher ad rev. Nothing sells better than 'United in Crisis'.

It should be treated by serious fans with disdain.

Anyway, to answer your question, no, 'his' reservations are not well-founded. See here:

'DA 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'

Sounds as though DA just wanted to carry on regardless, taking no major decisions and allow things to tick over.

Yes it (Athletic article) could absolutely be summarised as that, assuming that is the narrative you wanted to push before reading it and ignored most of the article to make it fit.

Absolutely. Well said.

 

[AlexUTD]

Well if Ashworth did not pull his weight then i rather the club act ruthless and get rid and get in a better fit. There has been a lack of this at the club for years to act fast on important matters.

 

[SuperiorXI]

It is not a good sign that INEOS cocked up such an important appointment; it was so difficult to get Dan in the first place but here we are only a few months later and he is sacked. It does not reflect well on them at all. Sure you can say it's ruthless and if Dan doesn't fit then he needs to go, but why does he not fit? Why wasn't the proper due diligence done? It makes them look like amateurs.

 

[Trex]

A lot of people were worried he got a lot of ex Ajax and Dutch players this summer. Wondering what is Ashworth and the scouts doing if it's just like with Murtough with ETH getting his way. Now he's been moved on, from all Radcliffe has been saying I think he wants United to undergo a radical change with the people at the helm taking the wheel and steering the club in a very different direction. I don't think he trusts Ashworth after what he's seen so far.

 

[JB7]

I do think Southgate was mentioned by him. Southgate was bookies favourite for the whole 6 months prior to Hags sacking.

No smoke without fire. Thankfully the rest didn’t agree.

The bookies don't have a clue, people will bet on the name that's in the newspapers and the gutter press (ie the red tops who genuinely do create fire without smoke on a daily basis) continually linked Southgate because of the direct connection. If he had mentioned Southgate it would have been in the Athletic deep dive. The common theme in his preferences was PL proven managers, Southgate hasn't managed in the PL for 15 years.

 

[Lentwood]

The press are rightly enjoying this and it doesn't look great, but the reality is, this is why SJR is a billionaire, whilst the rest of us scrap away working for other people.

The easy thing to do, the thing most people would have done, is take the path of least resistance. Let's give Ashworth more time. We can't sack him now, how will it look? Let's see how this plays out.

That's not how people like SJR think. They know that every step taken in the wrong direction is debt that must be made-up later, and that includes wasted time. He's identified a problem, or his team have, and it needs to be fixed immediately...so that's what he does.

If Ashworth's vision didn't align with the rest of the team, then he had to go.

 

[Catt]

At some point we will start looking back at the days of LVG, Mourinho, Woodward, and full Glazer control with longing.

That point is probably now - things were actually better back then.

Yeah no. Selective memory?

 

[Catt]

We Might as well just try poach sportings…..sporting director.

This is the answer

 

[Catt]

Our rivals are laughing at us.

How will we live

 

[Stinkypete]

As it looks to me, Ashworth wasn't ambitious enough, made a couple of public errors alongside Berrarda. Wasn't making any movement on data analysis side which Ratcliff was keen on us getting to the forefront of.

In that context probably for the best. United is a huge club and whilst I have no doubts Ashworth is fantastic at the operations side of things, there's no reason as a single club entity (as it stands) that work needs to be micro managed by an individual with that sole purpose, takes up a spot and wage for a role we don't nessecarily need.

I would definitely be looking at a more transfer orientated director going forward.

 

[NK86]

It's the opposite right - He was annoyed that the club had no in-house data capabilities at all. Obviously the data itself is purchased, the interpretation of the data is what we need expertise in. You can't just outsource that to some 3rd party org and have them tell you what the data means. For what it's worth, re: data I see some movement here because the StatsBomb conference (probably one of the most sophisticated data companies now) was hosted by United this year.

https://statsbomb.com/events/statsbomb-conference-2024/

I used to listen to those talks hosted by Chelsea, Liverpool, City etc. building really interesting data setups and United not even in the frame. I think we're finally waking up to this movement. What I'd expect is for us to buy statsbomb's data and have an in-house data team use that data (along with other sources, both open and proprietary) to build models and inform the management.

It also correlates to him being annoyed by the replacement targets being suggested by Ashworth (PL proven guys like Silva, Potter etc. and not some under appreciated gem we unearthed from the continent like Hurzler).

I'm not backing INEOS fully in this regard, it's hard to get a whole data org up and running in 6 months of joining with all of the fires we have underway. But in regards to data, Ratcliffe seems to know what he's talking about.

I didn’t read that as Ashworth completely outsourcing the whole decision. I felt the statement meant he wanted to get more outside help to help him with the right metrics to then form the correct decision.

If it’s the former, then it is a giant red flag against any candidate if they want to outsource such a crucial decision as a whole. With Ashworth’s reputation coming into the job, it would be seriously bizarre if that’s what he suggested.

Anyway, we must move on quickly. It does not matter what caused this development, but we need to come out of this better, and not look like mugs in hindsight.

 

[Rojofiam]

I do think Southgate was mentioned by him. Southgate was bookies favourite for the whole 6 months prior to Hags sacking.

No smoke without fire. Thankfully the rest didn’t agree.

The bookmakers don't have any inside info on this sort of thing.

 

[Marwood]

Individual players can. Squads can't. The difference often more is a question of numbers, not of abilities. Simple things like: If you play with a back five you need more (starter level) CBs as if you play with a back four. If you recruit for a back four you have too few CBs once you switch to back five. If you recruit for a back five you have too many expensive CBs on the bench. Similar issues arise around the pitch.

If you play with a back 5 you probably needs 5 CB's in the squad?

We've had at least 5 CB's at the club for the past decade when playing 4231. We've got 6 now with a couple of others who can play there.

The system is barely even a tweak really in terms of how many players do you have for a position.

 

[Strats]

Think this is a bit blown out of proportion and might be more positive than what it seemed. I still trust the Ineos given the absolute mess they inherited and at least the logic of their appointments to the footballing structure has been very good.

Sometimes people who have a good rumour/resume isn’t the right man for the job

We haven’t been proactive/ruthless when removing people/players when it’s evident that they aren’t a good fit, and I like that we are despite the initial feeling of ”what a fecking circus we are etc etc”.

If claims that Ashworth wanted to keep ETH(his beloved cuptitles apart, we were fecking shite and it was even visible from the moon ä) and eventually appoint Southgate or Howe are true that’s a massive red flag on Ashworths part.

Would question anyone’s judgement if even the thought of appointing Southgate came up. Especially given the fact Southgate hasn’t been in club football in ages, which is a massive difference managing club football. And that’s excluding the fact he was almost impressively shite at the end of his spell att Middlesbrough, won like 1 out of 19 games in the end if I’m not wrong.

Think it would have set us back even further appointing him. Didn’t meant to make this into a rant about Southgate, but if I was in ratcliffes position I’d find it incredibly alarming hearing Ashworth proposing him.

 

[Marcus]

I hope this increases our chances of winning the league again soon. I accept we will not know the full reasoning as to why Ashworth got sacked.

 

[SuperiorXI]

The press are rightly enjoying this and it doesn't look great, but the reality is, this is why SJR is a billionaire, whilst the rest of us scrap away working for other people.

The easy thing to do, the thing most people would have done, is take the path of least resistance. Let's give Ashworth more time. We can't sack him now, how will it look? Let's see how this plays out.

That's not how people like SJR think. They know that every step taken in the wrong direction is debt that must be made-up later, and that includes wasted time. He's identified a problem, or his team have, and it needs to be fixed immediately...so that's what he does.

If Ashworth's vision didn't align with the rest of the team, then he had to go.

This is not a good look for Jim, he didn't make his billions by fecking up like this, it's an egg on face moment. Let's not spin it into something it's not.

 

[dubplate warrior]

I guess it's easier to believe that, sure...

Why else would players not be able to adapt to new tactics and positions?

 

[m1tch]

If Ashworth is the reason for persisting with EtH when it was blindingly obvious that there was no chance it was going to work out, and then he pushed for Southgate, then it's positive to have rid of him.

Whilst he should fall on his sword / be sacked over the EtH debacle alone, the main negative here for us as a club is that we appointed him knowing that he was a big Southgate proponent, and that surely came out in conversations prior to us paying out to get him. The Reddest of red flags.

 

[Rojofiam]

Think this is a bit blown out of proportion and might be more positive than what it seemed. I still trust the Ineos given the absolute mess they inherited and at least the logic of their appointments to the footballing structure has been very good.

Sometimes people who have a good rumour/resume isn’t the right man for the job

We haven’t been proactive/ruthless when removing people/players when it’s evident that they aren’t a good fit, and I like that we are despite the initial feeling of ”what a fecking circus we are etc etc”.

If claims that Ashworth wanted to keep ETH(his beloved cuptitles apart, we were fecking shite and it was even visible from the moon ä) and eventually appoint Southgate or Howe are true that’s a massive red flag on Ashworths part.

Would question anyone’s judgement if even the thought of appointing Southgate came up. Especially given the fact Southgate hasn’t been in club football in ages, which is a massive difference managing club football. And that’s excluding the fact he was almost impressively shite at the end of his spell att Middlesbrough, won like 1 out of 19 games in the end if I’m not wrong.

Think it would have set us back even further appointing him. Didn’t meant to make this into a rant about Southgate, but if I was in ratcliffes position I’d find it incredibly alarming hearing Ashworth proposing him.

The Athletic article only mentions Howe, Silva, Frank, and Potter as an interim option proposed by Ashworth.

 

[Crostien]

A good analogy is Ineos and the Labour Party.

Both have campaigned and been implemented to save something United because of the failed outgoing administration.

Both communicate it will take time to remedy and a rocky road awaits. Big decisions and hard calls need to be made and we citizens/supporters need to accept it.

Alas, chiefly due to an ideologically hostile press, anything they do is interpreted negatively.

Means-tested Winter Fuel Allowance and cutting Administration staff. Dan Ashworth and Louise Haigh. Underwhelming budget and ticket increases. So forth.

There's a lot of mitigation in between but we sugar-fed citizens/supporters just want our cake ready. Will it be ready?

Not according to this EXCLUSIVE I saw online...

 

[Grande]

This is really, really simple, don’t get all the fuss and speculation at all.

Dan Asworth was brought in to finally get rid of all the deadwood, and like the etically upright man he is, he started at his own doorstep. Job well done!

Now we need a new deadwood clearer, just not quite as thorough.

 

[buchansleftleg]

I think we are clearly briefing to the press some of the "symptoms" of why Ashworth was no longer deemed suitable for the role.

However if that was the only reason then I'd expect a gradual "removal" process with a full announcement of a new structure.

Something ELSE has clearly drawn matters to a dramatic head with talk of him being walked out of the building at the end of a match he was attending with his family.

We're getting a lot of Camel...but no talk of the straw!

 

[ClassOf'99]

If you play with a back 5 you probably needs 5 CB's in the squad?

We've had at least 5 CB's at the club for the past decade when playing 4231. We've got 6 now with a couple of others who can play there.

The system is barely even a tweak really in terms of how many players do you have for a position.

Outside of that, we have players who can and would fit in that system better too, Martinez & Shaw (not now but in theory), I didn't expect Maz to fill in there too, but we had a good baseline with the CBs and players who could play into a backline comfortably Case & Ugarte as a ball winning CB so it may be the technical ability of those in Midfield, in the 10s and out wide that has raised the questions more than the CB positions.

 

[Werd.]

So Berrada wants to be the big dawg in regards to football matters and his first play was Amorim, but, does this mean old Jim will get rid of him too if Amorim doesn't work out?