Last season absolutely should not be disregarded. Right from the very first game of the preseason until the last four games of the season (and it was strongly rumoured we only changed for those games after Wilcox demanded it) we played a stupid system that didn't make sense. Injuries obviously made it even worse, but even during the periods we didn't have many injuries we were still playing like absolute shit. Hell, those final four games was one of our worst hit periods of the season yet we instantly started playing better because the players weren't being set up to fail. Up until that point we could have had some of the greatest players of all time all over the pitch and it still would have failed dismally. It was only the people who wanted to support ETH to a fault (such as yourself) who put all the blame on injuries and turned a blind eye to the fundamental flaws of the set-up.
This season we were playing a more normal system and yes, our performances were better than our results. I'd agree with you there. I still don't think the basic system is anything like what Amorim is trying to implement though. What ETH was doing was still closer to Ole or Mourinho than it is to what Amorim seems to be doing. Very much transitional football and forcing passes, with no real interest in controlling the tempo of the match. While it's been inconsistent, we've seen a clear and instant improvement in that regard under Amorim. We're developing patterns of play in the build-up and attempting to control the tempo, which ultimately leads us to a very different place than where we were going under ETH.
I think those in The Caf that are already turning on Amorim either aren’t watching the matches or aren’t as dialed in or attuned to the tactics.
What I am seeing that I did not from Ten Hag:
1. Playing through the high press. Other than the mistakes from Onana, we are much much better breaking the high press. Players know exactly where to go and what position to be in. It’s much less helter shelter with fewer long balls.
2. Build up play is more organized. Yes, there is a lot of passing from CB to CB, but a lot more break the lines passing and the 10s occupying the half spaces to offer options. Ten Hag’s response to build up was typically a long pass to an out-of-position Dalot or a quick, all-or-nothing through ball into the channel.
3. Patterns of play in the attacking 3rd. We have much better patterns of play when attacking. A lot of cutbacks to the penalty spot after attacking the by-line. Nifty one twos to feet and close play in the box. Obviously, we need to finish these chances.
4. Much better defensive structure. There in no doubt about positioning in open play defensively. It’s basically a lot of 5-4-1 with a crowd of tallish CBs in the center of the box. Set pieces are still a problem, but hopefully we can reduce the issues there.
5. Possession. We have the ball a lot more. And we lack a polished, ball dominant midfield and have some risk takers (Bruno) who tend to be less metronome-like and more risky with their passing.
6. High press is simultaneously better organized and lethal, yet less risky. The indecision of when to press and when not to press of the Ten hag era is gone. So are the massive gaps caused by the system. Ten Hag’s “retreat” mantra after losing possession is gone. We counterpress more effectively and the CBs are encouraged to to step to challenge in the half spaces.
The results haven’t been great. But Bournemouth is a hard to beat team, same with Forest. Also, we have yet to put together a full 90 minutes of an Amorim style performance. I’m optimistic the results will start to turn positive.