Poll: AmorOut - Who next?
- Thread starter Robbo
- Start date
how did that come about?You need more than a season and a half to get away with a team I agree. You don't need a season and a half and £200m to barely improve though. Rightly or wrongly, Ole got the job full time at United because he did well in the time he was interim. What other teams with ambition stick with a manager for 2+ years who doesn't seem to be going anywhere?
This is precisely why well run clubs have an overarching plan for recruitment that sits above the manager. Managers are always on borrowed time and the best way to give them the best chance of success is to have them come into a settled and balanced squad. Thats why Amorim was such a gamble. His style needed wholesale changes to the makeup of the team and one of three things was going to happen.
1. He is a wild success and you have built a team for him over a couple of years and he goes on to stay at the club for years and your rebuild is a success.
2. He doesn't deliver and you now have a mess of a squad that you have to continue rebuilding in the style Amorim wanted but without him as manager and you are looking for managers that play 5 at the back because you have decided that how United will play in the future.
3. He does OK but not good enough and you are looking again for one of the small number of top managers who play that style.
Yes, I know your point is going to be that Amorim wasn't given a squad that suited him but he still didn't add enough to the equation to keep his job. If he was adaptable and did even OK this season he would have got 1 or 2 good CMs next summer and better WBs. He did a crap job and didn't deserve any more backing.
It was stupid from the club to go for a manager who wanted to replace so many of our players but Amorim did a really bad job in spite of that.
Where we differ is to what extent we think he did a crap job. I think the stats showed that it was the players missing their chances and making mistakes that cost us.
I suppose the response to that is that if we played better then the players would take their chances (Sesko is well fed etc) and if the midfield was better guarded then the defenders would less exposed?
I can agree with the former but not the latter, we all known the issues in midfield, they've been there for years, that's not on Amorim but that's arguably what cost him his job. That and the dog poo keepers we had before Lammens.
Last edited:
Do you think he was doing a good enough job? Do you think that our league position was an accurate representation of our quality as a team? Do you think we generally played well under him? Do you think that in a season where outside of Arsenal and City, a lot of teams are having poor/mixed season he wouldn't have us lower mid-table at best? Do you think that he has shown enough improvement to the team outside of just buying better players to warrant another £200m spending on the team for him?
I completely agree that the midfield is a massive issue but the midfield isn't the reason we played against 10 men at Everton and still had 5 players at the back when Everton had 9 men defending their final third. Its not the reason he didn't change his formation at all until forced, not matter the game or situation. Its not the reason he saw that 4 at the back was the far better way to play with missing players but then went back to a back 5 for no reason. Its not the reason why he was substituting defenders on when we were chasing results instead of throwing the kitchen sink at the opposition.
He was his own worst enemy with his inability to be flexible in almost any way. That inflexibility cost him his job.
There's a lot there which I will have to think about. But my gut feeling is that it was going as well as realistic - last season (and the season before) we struggled to score goals, we got new players and we're scoring goals now. I think whoever the manager is needs to now work on midfield and defence, Amorim or no Amorim, bar a new manager bounce we're likely to struggle. I think we're a top 10 team currently. I'm obviously very happy to be wrong and I don't claim to be an expert at all.
Yeah I agree on the 5 at the back nonsense and the random subs but I think the subs were due to saving legs. I don't think he had a kitchen sink to throw. It's a rusty steel sink with holes in it.
Last edited:
I don’t think INEOS would give him the control he requires and currently has at Villa. But it would be an interesting appointment.
He struggled at Arsenal
And I'd suggest the 2 jobs are very similar. He seems to thrive just below the top level.
Or at least I thought he did? His win % was very simlar to his current one with Villa
Last edited:
Caporegime
- Joined
- 22 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 29,131
- Location
- Boston, Lincolnshire
Disagree with that. He was coming after Wenger which was an impossible job. Finished 5th and got to a European final. He never got to fully put his stamp on things and never got the time Arteta did.
I'm still not clear in my own mind why it has failed with Amorim and therefore what it is that's required of a new coach to be a success.
a) Did Amorim fail because he wasn't adequately backed by the board?
Well they spent a ton of money again but was it best spent. Did Amorim want two tens when he had Mount who he seems to prefer if fit, Amad and Fernandes who is one of the worlds best. I never got the signing of Mbeumo after we got Cunha. Certainly not ahead of a central midfielder. I can't believe wanted to forego that position when it was clear he didn't really fancy Casemiro at first, Mainoo struggled to persuade him and he called out Ugarte towards the end of last season for not being the player he had at Sporting.
b) Was the 3-4-3 system inherently not suited to the EPL or is it too rigid in the player profiles required to play it successfully?
The easy answer here is to say that its both and Amorim was naive to think that what was successful in Portugal could be equally so in England. However, the board knew this when they hired him. They would also have known that the United squad did not profile good matches for this system. They bought him Dorgu - a kid from another league, asked him to convert Amad and used Dalot to fill in wherever there was a need. This resulted in no threat going forward whatever side Amorim or Mazraoui played.
c) Was Amorim just out of his depth?
To an extent yes. The intensity of the English league and the press surrounding Manchester United would have been a shock to the system. As a naturally engaging guy he gave a lot of himself. Arguably too much but he also got no slack for the fact that second language english speakers will always make mistakes in communication. However he showed toughness in sorting the bomb squad which few fans would argue against. He built a stronger team spirit for sure. I think the players liked him. They worked harder, they pressed better and this season didn't lose games that they did under ten hag and last season.
d) Is the job impossible?
10 managers in 12 years suggests so and ultimately this comes back to the Glazers dry raping of the club.The constraints placed on Ineos mean that any significant rebuild was always going to take longer than is acceptable to stakeholders. On reflection the ten Hag and Solskjaer periods really set us back in terms of squad development. The debacles with Ronaldo, Sancho, Antony, Greenwood, Onana, Hojlund set the club back massively. We have until this season bought really poorly. van der Beek, Casemiro, Eriksen, Mount, Zirkzee, Malacia, James. All symptoms of having no strategy and arguably too much managerial input or commercially motivated deals.
There is no doubt Amorim under-performed. The stats don't lie but the rebuild had to be wholesale. The dressing room was toxic. Players had too much power and he has had to deal with all of that. I think he made progress but I don't believe he would have picked Maguire, Shaw, Dalot, Casemiro to be so integral to his squad. These players are not at the level of a top team. We are asking a lot of Dorgu, Mainoo, Heaven, Amad and Yoro talented as they are.
So in terms of what is required.
Strong will, media savvy, able to manage upward, credibility with the squad, tactically progressive and a committed to playing the United way (whatever that is) and presumably some sort of winning track record in a top 3 European League? Importantly they also have to want the job which I don't think is a given.
Personally I think the board should have signed him at least one midfielder instead of Mbeumo and allowed Amorim the season. Otherwise they are quitting when a job is half done. As @sigma commented - the goal scoring has improved but the defending as a team is a problem. I don't blame the back three. Shaw aside I think they have been decent but we have lost a lot of goals through not tracking runners from midfield. DeLigt was out best player until he got injured.
If it were up to me and they are only going for an interim, I'd leave Fletcher in charge until June. I think he will be ok and fits most of the criteria aside from the winning experience. He's a football geek, United through and through but also knows what its like to play for West Brom or Stoke. Pulis's testimony about him is unbelievable. I don't want to go back to Ole and offering Carrick it for 3 months doesn't feel right. I don't think he's quite the right personality.
Fletcher is a low risk appointment. He's humble and not a huge ego, if he fails then it won't be any worse than Amorim and if he does well he'll still likely be happy to slot back into his u18 role.
a) Did Amorim fail because he wasn't adequately backed by the board?
Well they spent a ton of money again but was it best spent. Did Amorim want two tens when he had Mount who he seems to prefer if fit, Amad and Fernandes who is one of the worlds best. I never got the signing of Mbeumo after we got Cunha. Certainly not ahead of a central midfielder. I can't believe wanted to forego that position when it was clear he didn't really fancy Casemiro at first, Mainoo struggled to persuade him and he called out Ugarte towards the end of last season for not being the player he had at Sporting.
b) Was the 3-4-3 system inherently not suited to the EPL or is it too rigid in the player profiles required to play it successfully?
The easy answer here is to say that its both and Amorim was naive to think that what was successful in Portugal could be equally so in England. However, the board knew this when they hired him. They would also have known that the United squad did not profile good matches for this system. They bought him Dorgu - a kid from another league, asked him to convert Amad and used Dalot to fill in wherever there was a need. This resulted in no threat going forward whatever side Amorim or Mazraoui played.
c) Was Amorim just out of his depth?
To an extent yes. The intensity of the English league and the press surrounding Manchester United would have been a shock to the system. As a naturally engaging guy he gave a lot of himself. Arguably too much but he also got no slack for the fact that second language english speakers will always make mistakes in communication. However he showed toughness in sorting the bomb squad which few fans would argue against. He built a stronger team spirit for sure. I think the players liked him. They worked harder, they pressed better and this season didn't lose games that they did under ten hag and last season.
d) Is the job impossible?
10 managers in 12 years suggests so and ultimately this comes back to the Glazers dry raping of the club.The constraints placed on Ineos mean that any significant rebuild was always going to take longer than is acceptable to stakeholders. On reflection the ten Hag and Solskjaer periods really set us back in terms of squad development. The debacles with Ronaldo, Sancho, Antony, Greenwood, Onana, Hojlund set the club back massively. We have until this season bought really poorly. van der Beek, Casemiro, Eriksen, Mount, Zirkzee, Malacia, James. All symptoms of having no strategy and arguably too much managerial input or commercially motivated deals.
There is no doubt Amorim under-performed. The stats don't lie but the rebuild had to be wholesale. The dressing room was toxic. Players had too much power and he has had to deal with all of that. I think he made progress but I don't believe he would have picked Maguire, Shaw, Dalot, Casemiro to be so integral to his squad. These players are not at the level of a top team. We are asking a lot of Dorgu, Mainoo, Heaven, Amad and Yoro talented as they are.
So in terms of what is required.
Strong will, media savvy, able to manage upward, credibility with the squad, tactically progressive and a committed to playing the United way (whatever that is) and presumably some sort of winning track record in a top 3 European League? Importantly they also have to want the job which I don't think is a given.
Personally I think the board should have signed him at least one midfielder instead of Mbeumo and allowed Amorim the season. Otherwise they are quitting when a job is half done. As @sigma commented - the goal scoring has improved but the defending as a team is a problem. I don't blame the back three. Shaw aside I think they have been decent but we have lost a lot of goals through not tracking runners from midfield. DeLigt was out best player until he got injured.
If it were up to me and they are only going for an interim, I'd leave Fletcher in charge until June. I think he will be ok and fits most of the criteria aside from the winning experience. He's a football geek, United through and through but also knows what its like to play for West Brom or Stoke. Pulis's testimony about him is unbelievable. I don't want to go back to Ole and offering Carrick it for 3 months doesn't feel right. I don't think he's quite the right personality.
Fletcher is a low risk appointment. He's humble and not a huge ego, if he fails then it won't be any worse than Amorim and if he does well he'll still likely be happy to slot back into his u18 role.