Why would it have been a disaster? Because we would be languishing in the bottom half of the table? The club would be more toxic than it is right now? The right decision in hindsight when they chose not to fire him was to let him see out his contract. The only difference we have made by not letting him see out his contract was waste another 3-5 mill in compensation to various people.
Dan "The Gardener" Ashworth Has Left | Venit, vidit, non vicit
- Thread starter Berbaclass
- Start date
Why would it have been a disaster? Because we would be languishing in the bottom half of the table? The club would be more toxic than it is right now? The right decision in hindsight when they chose not to fire him was to let him see out his contract. The only difference we have made by not letting him see out his contract was waste another 3-5 mill in compensation to various people.
So why hire a 3421 manager if we need 6-9 new players? Why not a 4231 manager? I think we need 6-9 new players regardless but 3421 seems like a narrow path.
@Brand Nubian - I was close enough. See all the articles about Ashworth wanting Frank surfacing now.
We can all debate whether Frank would have done better with what we have than Amorim (personally I think Frank would have but not because he’s necessarily a better coach and more tactical flexibility) but what isn’t up for debate is that Ashworth as the man brought in to run the footballing department should have been the one that made the call and not Berrada.
It was clear that Ineos briefed journalists with the reports of Ratcliffe firing Ashworth because Ashworth refused staff cuts seeing as Ashworth would have worked with a far smaller amount of staff at Brighton and Newcastle and also how many of the staff cuts have been cuts on the footballing department ? Why would Ashworth go up against Ratcliffe over non footballing staff ?
It comes down to Ratcliffe choosing Berrada over Ashworth in their power struggle and Berrada most likely saying that Ashworth’s role can be covered by himself and Wilcox as Wilcox has a good relationship with Berrada from their time at City so Ashworth isn’t needed, we also had Vivell doing consultancy too so I’m sure that was also thrown in to the equation too.
Reality is that Ashworth was right in not wanting Amorim in yet as we neither have the players he needs or the money needed to bring players he needs in, Frank would have been perfect whilst we were stabilising and his tactical flexibility would have been a plus whereas Amorim is running before we can walk and would have been perfect to take us to the next level in a few years once we could offer him what he’d need.
It was clear that Ineos briefed journalists with the reports of Ratcliffe firing Ashworth because Ashworth refused staff cuts seeing as Ashworth would have worked with a far smaller amount of staff at Brighton and Newcastle and also how many of the staff cuts have been cuts on the footballing department ? Why would Ashworth go up against Ratcliffe over non footballing staff ?
It comes down to Ratcliffe choosing Berrada over Ashworth in their power struggle and Berrada most likely saying that Ashworth’s role can be covered by himself and Wilcox as Wilcox has a good relationship with Berrada from their time at City so Ashworth isn’t needed, we also had Vivell doing consultancy too so I’m sure that was also thrown in to the equation too.
Reality is that Ashworth was right in not wanting Amorim in yet as we neither have the players he needs or the money needed to bring players he needs in, Frank would have been perfect whilst we were stabilising and his tactical flexibility would have been a plus whereas Amorim is running before we can walk and would have been perfect to take us to the next level in a few years once we could offer him what he’d need.
We would have certainly picked more wins playing a formation that the players were familiar with. With or without Ten Hag or Amorim.
Again, whether that would have been worse for us in the long term is a different question
I also don't think many managers would have this level of support after winning 4 out 14 league matches. He has seemingly escaped a higher level of criticism because the board/senior management are so shite.
I'm not saying Amorim should be sacked or anything but he has to take a lot of the blame for the problems on the pitch. A lot of those off the pitch issues were there for Ten Hag and he also had the Ronaldo and Greenwood shenanigans to deal with at different points. That didn't seem to give him any extra leeway with fans though.
Yup, and PL proven, as are Silva and Iraola.
Ten Hag had lots of leeway with fans
Frank makes a plan suited to the team he has, and it is working better than ours without splashing insane amounts of money on players. We are in lack of funding, so that would have been the right approach. Noone will suddenly turn our midfield into a running machine with our squad, but you can adjust the system, if you are a bit more flexible. I don´t believe in dogmatism.
Think they just hired who they think the best manager on the market was.
I also think the constant concerns over 3421 vs 4231 are trivial. The squad needs a complete overhaul in our athleticism, and the attack needs a makeover especially. You can play any formation you want, but if you have a squad that's largely slow in many areas, and lacking technicality in others while not being able to score consistently you're going to have a hard time getting anything done.
Because it was already a disaster for the year that preceded his sacking! Ten Hag was rudderless and out of his depth and everybody knew it.
As much as I hate what I'm seeing right now in the league, I'd take this outcome every single time over seeing Ten Hag last even one more day in the job than he did. He didn't deserve to see out last season and it was entirely ridiculous that he wasn't sacked over the summer. Appointing Amorim showed intention to change, even if it doesn't end up working. I'd rather see a guy struggle to pick us back up and try something different than the same stuff we've seen fail consistently for the prior 18 months with a guy who actively caused us to slide down the table.
It is this set of players that has got us in this mess, they would almost definitely not have us higher in the table, playing in a different formation ffs.
What were you actually watching last season and up until ten Hag getting sacked this season, as it certainly wasn't the same games I wasn't?
These players need to be made more culpable by fans, they're seriously pulling the wool over your eyes. Wake up!
Of course we need a squad overhaul but why do it with a plan to play 3421? Only Inter and Leverkusen of the top teams use it. We are gonna have to buy a lot of players used to 4231 and teach them a new system, at least statistically. It might work but it stinks of poor strategic planning and hence Ashworth leaving.
Longer term it is a safer bet to build a team around 4231 than 3421, since most managers and players are used to it.
Last edited:
I suspect the argument was:
B: "but Amorim will be at City replacing Pep, or somewhere else... but we have a chance to get him now if we're aggressive"
A: "but... 3421... inexperience in PL... unstable squad...."
B: "there will be pain"
Is the link between where we now find ourselves and Ashworth’s sudden departure a coincidence or was he on to something…. Maybe he spotted this a mile off but big Jim wasn’t interested in what he had to say and listened to his boy Berrada instead. Would love to know the entire story.
The concerns over 3-4-2-1 or a formation with a back four are not trivial though because in order for the system to work it needs two centre backs who have pace to go out wide and get back in plus also push up into midfield, needs two athletic midfielders to get up and down but also with a good range of passing, wing backs who offer us much going forward as they do defensively, two 10’s who have pace and an ability to run beyond as well as a pressing striker who scores goals but also works non stop.
From that we maybe have Yoro who fits one of wide centre backs, Ugarte who could fit one of the midfield roles if his passing improved and Amad who fits one of the 10 roles which means out of 11 players we’ve probably got 3 players for Amorim’s system so we’re a long way away from having enough just for the starting 11 let alone a squad for Amorim.
Also they didn’t go for the best coach on the market as Amorim wasn’t on the market and said he didn’t want to leave Sporting til the summer but Berrada told him it’s now or never and no doubt made promises in order for Amorim to go against his own wishes, Ashworth was happy to have RVN remain as interim for the season then bring in Frank or Howe in at the end of the season.
We'd still have been junk. Maybe 8th place junk but junk nonetheless.
It’s been well reported that Ashworth was against bringing Amorim in due to Amorim’s insistence on his system and us not having the players to play it or the money to bring players in to play the system either, Ashworth was happy to keep RVN as interim for the season if Frank or Howe couldn’t be brought in immediately.
What I find interesting about people worried about the future if we get players who can play Amorim’s style: CBs who can move into the Chanels and mobile multi faceted CMs, and wing backs who actually play mostly as wingers. Basically players who could slot straight back into a 4-3-3 and be good at it.
You just described what any good side needs essentially. Which is my entire point. Our squad lacks athleticism all around the spine, any sort of consistent threat and technicality in attack, and necessary legs/passing range in the middle. It’s not hard to improve right now. Every good team needs quality from out wide, pace at the back, goals and work rate up front, and midfielders that can run for days.
So as I said before, the arguments of 3421 or 4231 with this team are trivial, because the biggest flaws remain despite the shape.
It’s not as strict as you make it out to be though, and every coach has different principles in any formation they deploy. You can have two different managers both technically play a 4231 yet approach the shape in completely different ways in and out of possession, and thus direct their players in completely different ways as well.
If an attacker has quality technical ability and athleticism, then it’s not going to be that much of a difference whether he’s an “inside 10” or a LW that’s cutting inside in a more traditional formation. The only thing that will change is the relationism to other players and perhaps some drilled patterns.
And I don’t think we are particularly only targeting “3421” type signings. Even Gyokeres and Quenda, both ex Amorim players, wouldn’t have any issue playing a more traditional 433 as well. Cunha could play as a classic 10, a striker, or on the wing in a 4231. Honestly Ugarte is really the only “specialist” for this current formation and that’s more so because he seems far more limited when asked to play in a more traditional pivot where he has to progress the ball more.
My only worry about it would be the wingbacks. We'd be lacking to be able to properly switch to a back 4 if they're better going forward than going back.
Then you play them at wing forward - amad.
I'd say between the 3 full backs we currently have and the extra centre backs we'd manage.
The very same patience people are asking for for Amorim and the need to suffer now so that we can put ourselves in a better position, should have been applied at that moment. Let him see out his contract, save money, hire a manager in the summer. A poor season is a poor season. Rudderless and out of depth is exactly the situation we are in, only now we have wasted a couple more millions in the process.
I personally think they had written off this season. The plan was to use it to figure out who they had to get rid of and to start getting the players that'll be here, bedding into the system.
It's a big gamble because it still doesn't quite feel like we'd be recruiting for a philosophy. If Amorim feels, we'll be resetting from ground zero.
These post are so confused. ETH should have gone last summer end of, his signings are the worst in club's history and squad he has left us after £600m spend is by the far worst in last 20 years. Amorim was a dumb hire that went against the stated philosophy of agreeing a system and hiring managers and players to fit that (like Brighton). This isn't some philosophical crusade where we have to feel pain to see the benefit. Its football, its not that complicated. Amorim is a rigid system manager and his set ups are now as daft as ETHs, with the same problems. All top managers are flexible, its not about principles its about being sucessful on the pitch. If Amorim wants to stick to his 'principles' (a very grand word for a football formation), then sure, but suspect he will be gone by Christmas at the latest
Casemiro not playing next to Ugarte in a double pivot isn't anything to do with the formation though. We could easily still play that combo, which would then obviously push Bruno back into an attacking position.
I suspect the reason we aren't doing that (and the reason that Rashford and Antony were also largely frozen out) was an agreement between Amorim and the club that we want to try to force them out. Get their wages off the books, hopefully get a decent transfer fee, and that opens up funds to then buy players in the summer. Take a bit of a short-term hit this season for hopefully the longer-term good.
It's worked for Rashford and Antony who have both gone on loan and (so far at least) are doing well enough that it looks like we should be able to sell them fairly easily. Casemiro is saying he still wants to stay, but that might change after another half season of barely playing. Of course he'll also be the hardest to find a buyer for considering his age and wages, so maybe not.
I do agree we could have got a manager who would be doing better right now, but the hope is that Amorim will be better in the long-term. Next season will be when we can start getting a better judgement on that plan. Also, it's worth noting that ETH himself was playing a more normal 4231 this season with only one of the midfielders being an attacker, yet we were still in a similar position under him.
The wingbacks are really the only players that are specific to the 3421, and even then there's a strong chance that players that we sign for that role will be quite capable of playing either as a normal fullback or as a winger. On the flip side, there's one position (the wide goalscorer like Rashford or Garnacho) that might find it more difficult in a 3421. But I would say that anybody who is truly great in that role will still be good enough to play as one of the 10's, even if they aren't quite at their best.
In every other position, any player we sign will have a similar (if not exact same) role in a 4231 or 433. It'll come down to what type of player they are and whether they suit the style of play that the manager wants, which isn't that related to the formation (one manager who plays 4231 can be much closer to Amorim's style than they are to ETH's 4231).
So the same type of defenders that top teams are increasingly targeting for a back four? Fast, athletic and good on the ball.
So the same type of midfielders that top teams will be prioritising for their midfield in a 4231 or 433?
Yep, this is a bit more specific, but players for this role will normally be quite good at either a normal fullback or winger. They may end up not being good enough to be a starter in those positions though, so this one could potentially be an issue.
So the same type of players that will suit a #10 or a winger role in a 4231 (my understanding of how it was set up at Sporting was that Amorim favoured having one of each in his two #10 roles). Perhaps not so suited to an easy change to 433, but not that different to 4231.
So the same type of striker which almost every team is looking for?
Now do the same for a 4231. You won't get many more players than what you just named. I'd add Mazraoui (RB in 4231 and RCB in 3421) and perhaps De Light (at CB in both) as players who seem to suit either just as well. Shaw as well (LB or LCB respectively) if he could actually get fit.
Otherwise, I'd say Dalot at RB and Garnacho at LW are the only players that are notably impacted by the change in formation, and both of those have large question marks over whether they are good enough anyway. Everyone else has similar potential or problems in either formation.
A lot of effort going on here to prove/ disprove the obvious. Lets look at some facts. No top teams regularly play 3 at the back, regardless of what MadDog wants to pretend you need several specialist players, especially wing backs. Its inherently a defensive and reactive system, which is one reason Liverpool passed on Amorim (as did West Ham, its worth remembering). Players need to be extremely well drilled to suit the system, and modern teams seems to find it quite easy to exploit its limitations (again one reason that most top teams dont play this way) Its fine to play 3 at the back on occasion, but not be so wedded to it as you've discovered the secret of world football. Its just a formation. The best managers constantly learn, evolve and are flexible.
Wingbacks are the one position that I do agree are specialists, albeit ones that might be able to transition to other positions.
I'm not fully on board of the 3421 myself. It wouldn't surprise me at all if it ultimately doesn't work out, but I'm also not expressly against it. I'm just waiting to see. My argument tends to be with those making too much of it in terms of squad-building, as if it needs specialists all over the park and if we want to go back to 4231 or 433 we'd have to rip it all up and start again. Obviously there would be a bit of a shuffle (mostly out wide), but the majority of good players can fit in multiple different formations.
Leverkusen or Atalanta come to mind as top teams (often) playing a 343 and doing it in an attacking, not defensive way.
He was going up against Ratcliffe against job cuts to the football department. And if there was a briefing it was rather the one how INEOS made Ashworth responsible for keeping Ten Hag (a laughable claim considering Ashworth wasn't in the job then, but an easy, opportunistic and effective blame to assort at the time).
More than enough. He started to lose it rapidly because of hallucinating post match conferences of his. In his verdict we were always playing OK and good and gave our all. He didn't call it like it is.
I just don’t see Ashworth going against Ratcliffe over job cuts though seeing as Ashworth worked with a far smaller team at both Brighton and Newcastle and again it just smacks of an easy Ineos cop out brief to make Ashworth look like the one in the wrong.
Also Ashworth was happy to cut the entire data department and outsource it because our data department is piss poor so that alone goes against the reports of Ashworth going against Ratcliffe over job cuts, I don’t believe for a second Ashworth wouldn’t have been told about cutting staff before coming in either seeing as the accounts were there to see.
There was definitely Ineos briefs over Ashworth wanting to keep ETH even though that was decided before Ashworth even came in and is pretty much known that Brailsford was the driving force behind ETH staying and giving ETH an extension, I always find it funny when companies or politicians put out briefs and insult our intelligence in thinking we’ll just believe the obvious briefs.
4-2-3-1 / 3-4-2-1 is pretty interchangeable when you think about it. Most modern teams who play 4 at the back push their Wing backs up and wide or tucked into Midfield, then one of the 2 CM's drops into the back to make a 3.
Our bigger challenge is this is an utter Frankenstein of a squad. Some players suited to a low block, some suited to a high press, some possession based, some fast paced counter attack.
The more I hear about this the more I am convinced he knew too much about Football for these clowns and they didn't like it one bit. He has been treated shabbily by them and to put Ten Hag staying on him was bang out of order.
The chase, us paying a compensation to get him from Newcastle and then the eventual sacking matches any kind of feckwittery we saw from Woody and gang.
I mean I have no fecking idea what went wrong here. Why did he leave? Why did United change their mind so quickly? Who is the best replacement? Did we ever need him? Why?
Hindsight is easy in football.
The thing with Ashworth is, hiring him via an expensive long process and then sacking him a few months later seemed astonishingly idiotic at the time.
The club and people on here had to work the conjecture into overdrive just to spin it as anything other than stupid at the time, and now all hindsight has done is wash that bsck away and remind everyone how stupid it was.
The thing with Ashworth is, hiring him via an expensive long process and then sacking him a few months later seemed astonishingly idiotic at the time.
The club and people on here had to work the conjecture into overdrive just to spin it as anything other than stupid at the time, and now all hindsight has done is wash that bsck away and remind everyone how stupid it was.
Dorgu is comfortable as a pure fullback, as are Dalot and Mazraoui. If we get Quenda for the other spot, then he could play LW or RW in a 4 atb system as well. It's also notable that we are mainly targeting these versatile hyper young players, meaning they'll be able to fit into different roles and systems without having to completely retrain their brains like a 28 year old might.