Why Amorim should not “adapt”

Hoof the ball

Full Member
Joined
Jan 16, 2008
Messages
13,696
Location
San Antonio, Texas.
Inappropriate Content
Let's address a couple of points :-

"Amorim doesn't have the players to play this system"
In order to know whether someone is able to play in this system, they must first actually play games in the system; and with only four training sessions completed on tactical and system work, it's naive to assume that they can't until they have all the instruction and details in how to operate within the system and their specific role in it. Players aren't cogs; they're multi-faceted and multi-purpose professional football players. There's no such thing as a "wing-back" or a "full-back". There's only players that play well as a wing-back or a full-back. Just because someone has always played somewhere, it doesn't mean that they will always play there. You must permit Amorim the space and the time to get the repetitions and the training in so that each player can be assessed accurately.

"Amorim needs to go back to four-at-the-back"
He does not need to go back to four-at-the-back. Firstly, the xG conceded and the shots per game with four-at-the-back was tremendously bad under ten Hag. It was also bad under previous managers. It would be a naive decision to revert back to a previous setup that has demonstrably failed time and time again. Secondly, Amorim is unfamiliar with this interpretation of his philosophy. You cannot just ask him to start training a 4-2-3-1 or a 4-3-3 base with his system if he himself has never done so. Now is not the time to experiment with familiar philosophies and unfamiliar profiles. Furthermore, he cannot just teach someone else's system. His ideas in the build-up, in the transitions, in the possession, in the various phases of the game are explicitly tied to his idea about player profiles and roles.

"It's obvious that it's not working so far"
I would argue that, if you pay attention to the underlying performance statistics, that it's not so binary as you would like to think. Under ten Hag, with four-at-the-back, we conceded the 2nd most shots per game in the entire league. Under Amorim, until recently, Amorim went seven games registering under 1xG conceded, which includes games vs. City and Arsenal. Of course, we can cite very poor results in part, however, the statistics tell us that we've been conceding infinitely more goals than the data suggests we should, which is in part a result of a lot of individual mistakes and the opposition taking advantage of every opportunity afforded at a rate way above their own xG production. One also only has to look at the sample within those seven games to see that we conceded so few touches in our 18 yard box. This is not a mistake, or a coincidence. The system itself is very good; the application is inconsistent because we have had no training sessions in which to understand it to any significant degree.

Like Amorim said; if he reverts to something like what they've been playing under ten Hag, then he'll have to delay the learning for a season, and then the process will only be delayed down the line only for us to be in the same position then as now. But at least if he persists with the new system, those that are truly compatible will be kept, and those who aren't will be dispensed with, leaving us with a summer transfer window knowing already who will, and who won't fit his footballing vision.

For years people have been talking about a manager coming in with a distinct identity, and someone who sticks to his identity. Under ten Hag we got adaptable. Under ten Hag we got someone who compromised for the sake of the squad available, and it didn't work. Had ten Hag tried to implement something akin to his Ajax philosophy, then who knows where we'd be. If Rangnick had persisted with trying to implement his Leipzig philosophy, then who knows where we'd be. Let the man get his ideas across in his own way, in his own time.

 
Last edited:
Hoof the ball said:
Let's address a couple of points :-

"Amorim doesn't have the players to play this system"
In order to know whether someone is able to play in this system, they must first actually play games in the system; and with only four training sessions completed on tactical and system work, it's naive to assume that they can't until they have all the instruction and details in how to operate within the system and their specific role in it. Players aren't cogs; they're multi-faceted and multi-purpose professional football players. There's no such thing as a "wing-back" or a "full-back". There's only players that play well as a wing-back or a full-back. Just because someone has always played somewhere, it doesn't mean that they will always play there. You must permit Amorim the space and the time to get the repetitions and the training in so that each player can be assessed accurately.

"Amorim needs to go back to four-at-the-back"
He does not need to go back to four-at-the-back. Firstly, the xG conceded and the shots per game with four-at-the-back was tremendously bad under ten Hag. It was also bad under previous managers. It would be a naive decision to revert back to a previous setup that has demonstrably failed time and time again. Secondly, Amorim is unfamiliar with this interpretation of his philosophy. You cannot just ask him to start training a 4-2-3-1 or a 4-3-3 base with his system if he himself has never done so. Now is not the time to experiment with familiar philosophies and unfamiliar profiles. Furthermore, he cannot just teach someone else's system. His ideas in the build-up, in the transitions, in the possession, in the various phases of the game are explicitly tied to his idea about player profiles and roles.

"It's obvious that it's not working so far"
I would argue that, if you pay attention to the underlying performance statistics, that it's not so binary as you would like to think. Under ten Hag, with four-at-the-back, we conceded the 2nd most shots per game in the entire league. Under Amorim, until recently, Amorim went seven games registering under 1xG conceded, which includes games vs. City and Arsenal. Of course, we can cite very poor results in part, however, the statistics tell us that we've been conceding infinitely more goals than the data suggests we should, which is in part a result of a lot of individual mistakes and the opposition taking advantage of every opportunity afforded at a rate way above their own xG production. One also only has to look at the sample within those seven games to see that we conceded so few touches in our 18 yard box. This is not a mistake, or a coincidence. The system itself is very good; the application is inconsistent because we have had no training sessions in which to understand it to any significant degree.

Like Amorim said; if he reverts to something like what they've been playing under ten Hag, then he'll have to delay the learning for a season, and then the process will only be delayed down the line only for us to be in the same position then as now. But at least if he persists with the new system, those that are truly compatible will be kept, and those who aren't will be dispensed with, leaving us with a summer transfer window knowing already who will, and who won't fit his footballing vision.

Time to put your money where your mouth is. For years you've been talking about a manager coming in with a distinct identity, and someone who sticks to his identity. Under ten Hag you got adaptable. Under ten Hag you got someone who compromised for the sake of the squad available, and it didn't work. Had ten Hag tried to implement something akin to his Ajax philosophy, then who knows where we'd be. If Rangnick had persisted with trying to implement his Leipzig philosophy, then who knows where we'd be. Let the man get his ideas across in his own way, in his own time.
Click to expand...
This.
Judas said:
Actual change unless it’s instantly successful terrifies this fanbase.
Click to expand...
And this.
 
Honestly I agree with Amorim about sticking with the formation. Going back to 4-5-1 or whatever you want to call it won't help, we played that way under ETH and were terrible.

As mentioned the results have been bad but the main issue is the individual errors. Either not defending properly especially set pieces, making wrong final pass decisions, poor finishing, inability to make simple passes. These are not related to the formation but the technical and mental limitations in our squad.
 
The fanbase can say whatever they want, the important thing is how patient and forward thinking his superiors are. Hopefully Ineos don’t do something stupid like pull the trigger because the media and fan channels are having a field day with sensationalist titles and this whole relagation angle.
 
Agreed with wall of text in OP.
 
Red Rash said:
Honestly I agree with Amorim about sticking with the formation. Going back to 4-5-1 or whatever you want to call it won't help, we played that way under ETH and were terrible.

As mentioned the results have been bad but the main issue is the individual errors. Either not defending properly especially set pieces, making wrong final pass decisions, poor finishing, inability to make simple passes. These are not related to the formation but the technical and mental limitations in our squad.
Click to expand...
Bingo. And you didn't even mention the increasingly obvious physical limitations for a large share of the players. I'd challenge any manager to win that game against Newcastle with Eriksen and Casemiro in central midfield. It's got nothing to do with coaching - they are just toast.
 
Sticking to his tactical guns seems totally fine to me.

The reality is that United are going to have a shit season domestically no matter what but the talk of relegation is just banter and clicks stuff. From a results perspective, everything rests on winning the Europa League, which isn't even that farfetched because the competition is a lot easier without the CL clubs dropping down. So it seems fine to spend his first few months painfully trying to lay the groundwork for whatever he wants to do long term and setting himself up to make a run in Europe in March/April/May.

I'm not convinced that hiring a coach with Amorim's tactical vision was a wise move in general. But once you've done it then you've got to let him give it a real go.
 
Imagine being slightly worried that we look utterly woeful, have our best forward still sulking and on his way out, have our new forward so poor that he's being subbed 30mins into a game, and trying to shoehorn wingers in to number 10 roles. Whilst we play 2 full backs at wing back, which doesn't even make us more defensively solid.

It's outrageous anyone could be worried! Let alone when the new manager bounce wears off.
 
No football manager is unfamiliar with how to implement 4 at the back.
 
Great post and I agree with it all.
People are pointing out that Amorim has made some mistakes with team selection and they may be right but are we expecting him to make zero bad calls during this time of experimenting with different players in various positions in the system? Come on.

He should stick to his system; we simply must because the alternative is the same old, same old.

As long as we don't get relegated, I don't really care how the season turns out anymore. As long as we see some progress in building a new system and identity as you said. Then with a good window finding the right players and selling misfits, we can hopefully push for 4th next season. And challenging for the title within 3 years.

That's the progress I'm looking for, and willing to sacrifice results for in the short term.
 
Much better than the '3-4-3 Ain't it' thread.
 
Hire a manager who only ever played 3-4-3 and expect him to play a different system. We should have gone for a different manager then. I hope Amorim sticks to his system and will make it work next season.

This season is a write off. Just dont relegate.
 
Great OP. My thoughts exactly.

No doubt we'll see a few people coming in and complaining about how delusional it is without reading any of it bar the thread title.
 
Hoof the ball said:
Let's address a couple of points :-

"Amorim doesn't have the players to play this system"
In order to know whether someone is able to play in this system, they must first actually play games in the system; and with only four training sessions completed on tactical and system work, it's naive to assume that they can't until they have all the instruction and details in how to operate within the system and their specific role in it. Players aren't cogs; they're multi-faceted and multi-purpose professional football players. There's no such thing as a "wing-back" or a "full-back". There's only players that play well as a wing-back or a full-back. Just because someone has always played somewhere, it doesn't mean that they will always play there. You must permit Amorim the space and the time to get the repetitions and the training in so that each player can be assessed accurately.

"Amorim needs to go back to four-at-the-back"
He does not need to go back to four-at-the-back. Firstly, the xG conceded and the shots per game with four-at-the-back was tremendously bad under ten Hag. It was also bad under previous managers. It would be a naive decision to revert back to a previous setup that has demonstrably failed time and time again. Secondly, Amorim is unfamiliar with this interpretation of his philosophy. You cannot just ask him to start training a 4-2-3-1 or a 4-3-3 base with his system if he himself has never done so. Now is not the time to experiment with familiar philosophies and unfamiliar profiles. Furthermore, he cannot just teach someone else's system. His ideas in the build-up, in the transitions, in the possession, in the various phases of the game are explicitly tied to his idea about player profiles and roles.

"It's obvious that it's not working so far"
I would argue that, if you pay attention to the underlying performance statistics, that it's not so binary as you would like to think. Under ten Hag, with four-at-the-back, we conceded the 2nd most shots per game in the entire league. Under Amorim, until recently, Amorim went seven games registering under 1xG conceded, which includes games vs. City and Arsenal. Of course, we can cite very poor results in part, however, the statistics tell us that we've been conceding infinitely more goals than the data suggests we should, which is in part a result of a lot of individual mistakes and the opposition taking advantage of every opportunity afforded at a rate way above their own xG production. One also only has to look at the sample within those seven games to see that we conceded so few touches in our 18 yard box. This is not a mistake, or a coincidence. The system itself is very good; the application is inconsistent because we have had no training sessions in which to understand it to any significant degree.

Like Amorim said; if he reverts to something like what they've been playing under ten Hag, then he'll have to delay the learning for a season, and then the process will only be delayed down the line only for us to be in the same position then as now. But at least if he persists with the new system, those that are truly compatible will be kept, and those who aren't will be dispensed with, leaving us with a summer transfer window knowing already who will, and who won't fit his footballing vision.

Time to put your money where your mouth is. For years you've been talking about a manager coming in with a distinct identity, and someone who sticks to his identity. Under ten Hag you got adaptable. Under ten Hag you got someone who compromised for the sake of the squad available, and it didn't work. Had ten Hag tried to implement something akin to his Ajax philosophy, then who knows where we'd be. If Rangnick had persisted with trying to implement his Leipzig philosophy, then who knows where we'd be. Let the man get his ideas across in his own way, in his own time.
Click to expand...
Not disagreeing with your post, but your xG against statistic point is moot. The sample size is too low (as you argue in first point) to make an informed decision on whether it is working or not.

Anyways, my larger concern is on Ineos knowing what they want. Purely from a layman's view, we seemed to have have jumped from an ETH system to Amorim system. Our purchases in the summer will be to play that system. If it works, then its all good. If it doesn't we would be back to square one.
I don't know the solution, that would make us be a PL contender again. 3 at the back or 4 at the back, whatever works.
But I would want the so called footballing experts that Ineos has hired to know it and not wing it.
 
Iker Quesadillas said:
No football manager is unfamiliar with how to implement 4 at the back.
Click to expand...

It's not about the four-at-the-back. Football isn't reductively that basic. It's not purely a defensive idea. It's an offensive one. It's not as though he hasn't harped on about it in most of his press conferences.

Amorim's philosophy about how a team should build up is based on 3 CB's. One CB steps up next to the DM. Both wide CB's press far into midfield to permit the high press. The wing-backs are a utility to spread the pitch wide, so that the real creation happens with the two CM's and the two 10's having more space as a result of those buildup decisions.

Of course he knows how to implement 4 at the back, but it's not about having 4 at the back for it's own sake. If his idea about building up through all phases is inferior with a 4 at the back, then it's an inferior implementation. Of course he should avoid the scattering of people giving their expert opinions. He knows his system better than them, and he knows tactical theorem better than them too.
 
Yes, he’s definitely the one and nothing can possibly go wrong.

Just like LVG, Mou, Ole at the wheel, ETH.

We shouldn’t be even slightly worried we look like cannon fodder for Bournemouth and Wolves using these tactics.
 
RedDevil@84 said:
Not disagreeing with your post, but your xG against statistic point is moot. The sample size is too low (as you argue in first point) to make an informed decision on whether it is working or not.

Anyways, my larger concern is on Ineos knowing what they want. Purely from a layman's view, we seemed to have have jumped from an ETH system to Amorim system. Our purchases in the summer will be to play that system. If it works, then its all good. If it doesn't we would be back to square one.
I don't know the solution, that would make us be a PL contender again. 3 at the back or 4 at the back, whatever works.
But I would want the so called footballing experts that Ineos has hired to know it and not wing it.
Click to expand...

The inference is that they wanted this all along and Ashworth is the scapegoat for them not pulling the trigger in the summer and fully committing. The process would have been a lot less painful if it had been done then but that ship has sailed, they now have someone who is unequivocally their guy and the entire football structure has to be aware of the system he plays and the player profiles that match it. It would be assinine to make this appointment and then bail after a few bad results just because the bedwetters are panicking again. The type of real, foundational change that we have needed for over a decade now is not going to happen in just a couple of months and we should not blink just so we can enjoy the false positivity of another good vibes new manager bounce by retreating to a safe 4-2-3-1 and individual moments.
 
Regulus Arcturus Black said:
Yes, he’s definitely the one and nothing can possibly go wrong.

Just like LVG, Mou, Ole at the wheel, ETH.

We shouldn’t be even slightly worried we look like cannon fodder for Bournemouth and Wolves using these tactics.
Click to expand...

Because, he's had four training sessions in which to communicate and teach his system.

Four.

It's absurdity itself to lament about something not working after four sessions. It's a teaching and repetition problem, not a system one. There's nothing in the world that you'll grasp and understand efficiently in four classes or sessions, that has any degree of complexity and variables.

If a new manager comes in during pre-season, he has weeks and weeks of teaching sessions available. Hell, if a manager comes in during August or September, he has a non-congested schedule to get a lot of teaching repetitions in. I'm not sure folks appreciate that he's stepped in during the Christmas period, having to deal with a game every three days, leaving nothing but recovery sessions and rest. Even if he did teach a new 4-2-3-1, it'd the same problem because he doesn't have time to each that either.

The issue is the time ill-afforded him to teach and train.
 
Hoof the ball said:
Let's address a couple of points :-

"Amorim doesn't have the players to play this system"
In order to know whether someone is able to play in this system, they must first actually play games in the system; and with only four training sessions completed on tactical and system work, it's naive to assume that they can't until they have all the instruction and details in how to operate within the system and their specific role in it. Players aren't cogs; they're multi-faceted and multi-purpose professional football players. There's no such thing as a "wing-back" or a "full-back". There's only players that play well as a wing-back or a full-back. Just because someone has always played somewhere, it doesn't mean that they will always play there. You must permit Amorim the space and the time to get the repetitions and the training in so that each player can be assessed accurately.

"Amorim needs to go back to four-at-the-back"
He does not need to go back to four-at-the-back. Firstly, the xG conceded and the shots per game with four-at-the-back was tremendously bad under ten Hag. It was also bad under previous managers. It would be a naive decision to revert back to a previous setup that has demonstrably failed time and time again. Secondly, Amorim is unfamiliar with this interpretation of his philosophy. You cannot just ask him to start training a 4-2-3-1 or a 4-3-3 base with his system if he himself has never done so. Now is not the time to experiment with familiar philosophies and unfamiliar profiles. Furthermore, he cannot just teach someone else's system. His ideas in the build-up, in the transitions, in the possession, in the various phases of the game are explicitly tied to his idea about player profiles and roles.

"It's obvious that it's not working so far"
I would argue that, if you pay attention to the underlying performance statistics, that it's not so binary as you would like to think. Under ten Hag, with four-at-the-back, we conceded the 2nd most shots per game in the entire league. Under Amorim, until recently, Amorim went seven games registering under 1xG conceded, which includes games vs. City and Arsenal. Of course, we can cite very poor results in part, however, the statistics tell us that we've been conceding infinitely more goals than the data suggests we should, which is in part a result of a lot of individual mistakes and the opposition taking advantage of every opportunity afforded at a rate way above their own xG production. One also only has to look at the sample within those seven games to see that we conceded so few touches in our 18 yard box. This is not a mistake, or a coincidence. The system itself is very good; the application is inconsistent because we have had no training sessions in which to understand it to any significant degree.

Like Amorim said; if he reverts to something like what they've been playing under ten Hag, then he'll have to delay the learning for a season, and then the process will only be delayed down the line only for us to be in the same position then as now. But at least if he persists with the new system, those that are truly compatible will be kept, and those who aren't will be dispensed with, leaving us with a summer transfer window knowing already who will, and who won't fit his footballing vision.

Time to put your money where your mouth is. For years you've been talking about a manager coming in with a distinct identity, and someone who sticks to his identity. Under ten Hag you got adaptable. Under ten Hag you got someone who compromised for the sake of the squad available, and it didn't work. Had ten Hag tried to implement something akin to his Ajax philosophy, then who knows where we'd be. If Rangnick had persisted with trying to implement his Leipzig philosophy, then who knows where we'd be. Let the man get his ideas across in his own way, in his own time.
Click to expand...
You've explained this very well so thank you for that.

I wish everyone who is whinging would take a minute to read and have a little think about what you have said.
 
I’m with you, but we need to play 3 in the middle at all costs.
 
The starting line-up against Newcastle seemed to be put together out of a tombola drum.

I'm all for him sticking to his guns but playing Eriksen and Casemiro together was a bizarre decision. Then there's only playing Garnacho when the team seems to be in a hopeless position. It's not as if our other attacking players have been doing well. He needs to adapt there and utilise some of the (slightly flawed) assets that he has.

Again, he needs to be somewhat pragmatic in the short term if he wants to succeed. That's just (sadly) the reality of modern football. It's not that uncommon for a big club to go through three appointments in one season.

On a wider point, is anyone else annoyed that potentially we have given up on a season for it to be used as a 6 month trial period? Are we gonna see a refund on season tickets or reduced ticket prices whilst he tries figure everything out and we get battered at home to the likes of Bournemouth and play like a League Two side trying to keep the score down against Newcastle.
 
Every manager needs to adapt, but yeah I agree with your thread. No manager can just copy and paste his system/tactics from one club to another. The principles can be similar, the formation can be similar, but every manager has to adapt it to their new squad and what they have, and what the league calls for. That's why it was always dumb people questioning why Ten Hag can't play the same way here as at Ajax. There were tons of similarities between the 2 sides. Ten Hag failed to adapt adequately for the premier league, because the Premier League obviously is tougher than the Eredivisie.

Pep and Klopp constantly had to adapt and evolve their tactics from their prior leagues to here, and while they were here. Same with Sir Alex. Amorim has to do the same, but that doesn't mean a 3-4-3 doesn't work or what he's training now won't work. That obviously needs time and iterations.
 
I don't know, I still think the board and Amorim expected the team to muddle through the festive season in better shape, otherwise he'd be better off joining in January instead.. It's a bit like railway maintenance. People have the right to be vocal if service becomes diabolical or gets disrupted due to breakdowns and/or poor planning, even if things are fixed after 2-3 years. Personally I like to see healthy amounts of pressure on leaders and senior management to do better.
 
Not surprised by all the praise for OP given the desperation on here for Amorim to be “the one” but there are a couple of points where they get it wrong I think.

Firstly, our underlying stats under Ten Hag this season weren’t that bad and we should have been winning a lot more games than we were.

Secondly Ten Hag has been portrayed as pragmatic in opposition to Amorim. Potentially more so yes but ultimately he was sticking to a system that did not suit our players. Just like Amorim now.

I don’t think Amorim is wrong to stick to his guns per se but if these results continue then he as a manager will be tainted with failure which will be a huge barrier to overcome. There is no shame in applying a dash of pragmatism in the short term if it enables you to achieve your long term vision.
 
Hoof the ball said:
Because, he's had four training sessions in which to communicate and teach his system.

Four.

It's absurdity itself to lament about something not working after four sessions. It's a teaching and repetition problem, not a system one. There's nothing in the world that you'll grasp and understand efficiently in four classes or sessions, that has any degree of complexity and variables.

If a new manager comes in during pre-season, he has weeks and weeks of teaching sessions available. Hell, if a manager comes in during August or September, he has a non-congested schedule to get a lot of teaching repetitions in. I'm not sure folks appreciate that he's stepped in during the Christmas period, having to deal with a game every three days, leaving nothing but recovery sessions and rest. Even if he did teach a new 4-2-3-1, it'd the same problem because he doesn't have time to each that either.

The issue is the time ill-afforded him to teach and train.
Click to expand...
So simple, don't use the system if it's not going to work or they haven't had the time to train with it...
Bizarre to suggest anything other than that frankly.
We had people on these forums complaining that Ole wasn't doing anything on the training ground in terms of tactical play, yet here we have a manager who actively ISN'T doing any tactical sessions, yet expects the players to pick up an unfamiliar formation and play in unfamiliar positions.
I'm all for Amorim and believe he will be the one to finally get it right, but he definitely needs to be flexible and adapt, we've seen numerous managers die by their own stubborn sword in the premiership, Amorim could be another.
 
Judas said:
Actual change unless it’s instantly successful terrifies this fanbase.
Click to expand...
Great thread. And this.

Frankly, people in here seem to be willing us to get relegated, with zero understanding of the ruin that would cause the club. As such, if 16th is the target, I say he should stick with it.
 
Fully agree with OP. Those banging on about adapting or worse need to consider this well thought-out thread. If anyone is to blame for current difficulties, it’s Ineos and their maintaining of EtH after the cup final, whose decision deprived Rubin of a preseason and the opportunity to bed his approach into the squad. I still feel sure that we’ll be fine with this manager given sufficient time.
 
Champ said:
So simple, don't use the system if it's not going to work or they haven't had the time to train with it...
Bizarre to suggest anything other than that frankly.
We had people on these forums complaining that Ole wasn't doing anything on the training ground in terms of tactical play, yet here we have a manager who actively ISN'T doing any tactical sessions, yet expects the players to pick up an unfamiliar formation and play in unfamiliar positions.
I'm all for Amorim and believe he will be the one to finally get it right, but he definitely needs to be flexible and adapt, we've seen numerous managers die by their own stubborn sword in the premiership, Amorim could be another.
Click to expand...

The club will die chasing instant turnarounds. We didn't end up in this situation instantly.
 
Hoof the ball said:
Let's address a couple of points :-

"Amorim doesn't have the players to play this system"
In order to know whether someone is able to play in this system, they must first actually play games in the system; and with only four training sessions completed on tactical and system work, it's naive to assume that they can't until they have all the instruction and details in how to operate within the system and their specific role in it. Players aren't cogs; they're multi-faceted and multi-purpose professional football players. There's no such thing as a "wing-back" or a "full-back". There's only players that play well as a wing-back or a full-back. Just because someone has always played somewhere, it doesn't mean that they will always play there. You must permit Amorim the space and the time to get the repetitions and the training in so that each player can be assessed accurately.

"Amorim needs to go back to four-at-the-back"
He does not need to go back to four-at-the-back. Firstly, the xG conceded and the shots per game with four-at-the-back was tremendously bad under ten Hag. It was also bad under previous managers. It would be a naive decision to revert back to a previous setup that has demonstrably failed time and time again. Secondly, Amorim is unfamiliar with this interpretation of his philosophy. You cannot just ask him to start training a 4-2-3-1 or a 4-3-3 base with his system if he himself has never done so. Now is not the time to experiment with familiar philosophies and unfamiliar profiles. Furthermore, he cannot just teach someone else's system. His ideas in the build-up, in the transitions, in the possession, in the various phases of the game are explicitly tied to his idea about player profiles and roles.

"It's obvious that it's not working so far"
I would argue that, if you pay attention to the underlying performance statistics, that it's not so binary as you would like to think. Under ten Hag, with four-at-the-back, we conceded the 2nd most shots per game in the entire league. Under Amorim, until recently, Amorim went seven games registering under 1xG conceded, which includes games vs. City and Arsenal. Of course, we can cite very poor results in part, however, the statistics tell us that we've been conceding infinitely more goals than the data suggests we should, which is in part a result of a lot of individual mistakes and the opposition taking advantage of every opportunity afforded at a rate way above their own xG production. One also only has to look at the sample within those seven games to see that we conceded so few touches in our 18 yard box. This is not a mistake, or a coincidence. The system itself is very good; the application is inconsistent because we have had no training sessions in which to understand it to any significant degree.

Like Amorim said; if he reverts to something like what they've been playing under ten Hag, then he'll have to delay the learning for a season, and then the process will only be delayed down the line only for us to be in the same position then as now. But at least if he persists with the new system, those that are truly compatible will be kept, and those who aren't will be dispensed with, leaving us with a summer transfer window knowing already who will, and who won't fit his footballing vision.

Time to put your money where your mouth is. For years you've been talking about a manager coming in with a distinct identity, and someone who sticks to his identity. Under ten Hag you got adaptable. Under ten Hag you got someone who compromised for the sake of the squad available, and it didn't work. Had ten Hag tried to implement something akin to his Ajax philosophy, then who knows where we'd be. If Rangnick had persisted with trying to implement his Leipzig philosophy, then who knows where we'd be. Let the man get his ideas across in his own way, in his own time.

Click to expand...

The issue here isn't the system but rather the formation. And if Amorim wants to persevere with the formation then I'm fully behind him irrespective of the results in the short term.

We didn't fail under ten Hag because he utilised a back 4 formation. But rather our failure under ten Hag was due to him adapting his system where he was going direct and bypassing the midfield because the midfield as a collective unit just didn't have the pace and power along with the progressive passing abilities. So he went direct and the backline took on the responsibility of progressing the ball. So come the summer transfer window of 2024, we had to improve the CBs and deeper midfield options as far giving us the physicality, athleticism and technical qualities that were quite clearly missing. Adding these qualities had the potential for the backline and deeper midfielders to progress the ball which had the potential to create more variety in the build up phase. So signing midfielders with progressive abilities especially in possession was absolutely necessary but they ended up signing Ugarte who is not a progressive player in possession which meant that again the midfield problem was not addressed as far as improving the system of play. If the money spent on both Ugarte and Zirkzee was instead spent on players who fit the above criteria then the team would be better balanced with both the backline and deeper midfield positions sharing equal responsibility to progress the ball. This type of variety in the build up makes it difficult for the opposition to nullify our players due to there being a wider more varied progression threat rather than the one dimensional one we see currently and have done so for quite some time.

Amorim has come in and changed the formation where he's playing with a extra CB and placed more responsibility on the fullbacks to provide in wider positions rather than the wide forwards. Any system of play doesn't require a specific formation but rather it requires players who are comfortable playing in positions where they can play to the best of their ability. Whether it's a formation with fullbacks or a formation with a extra CB and wingbacks, the system doesn't have to change only the players change and currently the extra CB with two fullbacks replacing the wide forwards isn't working. Would it be better to try the actual wide forwards in wingback roles within the same formation? I think something needs to change and if he is to persist with playing a extra CB and wingbacks then maybe having two genuine attackers at wingback with the extra CB and two defensive minded midfielders would possibly be a better bet as far as making things work.
 
In theory we are playing 343,but in practice 541.Yet we are still conceding goals with 5 defenders and one defensive midfielder.

(1) Player wingers as RWB and LWB,we looked threatening when Amad was one if the wingbacks, why not try Antony /Amad/Garnacho as WBs?Play Maz as one of CBs.

(2) Persisting with Dalot :One consistent thing about our post Sir Alex managers is that they always persist on playing at least one underperforming player who become the Hill their United career die on.

One of the strengths of the 343 is the cross field pass to the wing backs which creates overload, Dalot has wasted some of these opportunities because he is not left footed and technically deficient.

(3) Adapting to specific games:
Great managers are adaptable, sometimes these managers change their shape to a specific match/team or opposition player. I remember Sir Alex using J.S Park to man-mark Pirlo in a CL match against AC Milan,he also moved from 442 to 433 to counter mourinho's 4231/433 at Chelsea.

In his post match Amorim mentioned that Newcastle are a physical side, but went ahead to play Eriksen, Casemiro and Zirkzee who are physically weak and nit very mobile,also when we are chasing games, I have never seen him sub one of the 3CBs for an attacking player.

These are early days,I want him to succeed, but I hope he's not dogmatic and a bit too idealistic.
 
Last edited:
I don't really buy this outlook.

I'm not saying things can't get better and that he shouldn't be given a chance. But if being successful was as simple as picking a system and playing it to death, repeating it in every game, the majority of teams would do that, managers wouldn't be sacked so often and squads would stay the same for years. None of this is the reality of what happens for the most part.

Yes a team needs a base dentity, but I don't agree at all that the best way to start off is to just go for it during a congested period playing some good teams when you've little time to train for it. It's more likely you'll lose your matches than win them which is exactly what's happened.

There's a lot of talk about Ten Hag being adaptable here, he was in the beginning which resulted in a decent league finish and a couple of cup finals. He then changed the approach after that first season and in my opinion rarely deviated from it aside from the odd game here and there (which was usually to go even more defensive against really good teams).

I agree we've let a lot of sloppy goals in that were totally avoidable, but while that's happening he has to find a way for us to get a goal(s) earlier in the game before we inevitably concede and it's an uphill battle to get a result.

He seems to be choosing not to make a couple of selections that worked as well, Amad was quite a threat from the wing back position but hasn't played there in a while. Ugarte and Casemiro looked like they had a good partnership going in the middle of the park for a few games and that's not been happening much either.

I'm obviously just a fan, so hopefully I'm wrong and he's the man to make us win again given time, but I don't think it's 'bed wetting' to believe there are other ways to go about things than just playing the same formation every game regardless of who you're playing, or who you have available.
 
Yeah, I'd like to think a talented manager can get the previous manager's players to play better since they were playing poorly... But we chose Amorim and he has his own style we knew he would want to play when the club hired him. In the short term we might get a few more points if he uses the old system, but it'll be a slower process getting us playing his system and being able to judge him on it. It'd also make it harder to get everyone to buy into his system if he keeps going back to the old system when we hit a bump.

If you dont like him playing the new system you know who to blame. INEOS. They hired this manager who plays this way. I know people want to paint them as saviours but they've had a rocky start. If Amorim succeeds they'll start to earn it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.