Surely Dalot is one of our best purchases post SAF (not necessarily great competition though). Bought for £20m and still on low wages comparatively with most other purchases, has played +200 matches, still 26 and would be a fine squad option for the next years if not sold for a profit.
Ruben Amorim - Manchester United Head Coach | Thread locked during matches
- Thread starter sewey89
- Start date
-
Nik (@Rood) and Imran (@Annihilate Now!) discuss United's fantastic win away against Athletic Club in the semi-final of the Europa League.
They also pick out the positives of United's 4-3 loss away at Brentford, and Nik reviews a day out at Old Trafford watching Manchester United Women qualify for the Champions League.
I have addressed your point. If you still find my post too complicated for you to understand that I have actually addressed it then there is nothing else I can do for you. Best thing is that agree to disagree and watch the games because Amorim has recently deployed inverted wingback role to give Garnacho more freedom to express himself on the right.
Amongst our average players, I’d rate MCT as a higher calibre player than Dalot who had a greater impact on the team but the latter is a decent utility player at our current level.
Wrong, he is garbage.
How MCT made it as a midfielder for a club like United back then baffles me.
Does our academy teach how to turn on the ball??
Lots of words ≠ complexity.
You started off by arguing: “All he does now is to flip them around by having the right side no 10 to move wide while his right wingback to move inside.”
And
“we have Garnacho and Amad who prefer to drift wide not stay inside, while we have Dalot and Mazraoui who prefer to drift inside. If we have Garnacho or Amad on the right sided 10, then to compliment them we need inverted right wingback.”
Then you spent several more pages waffling on about inverted RWBs.
Then you concluded by posting heat maps that showed the exact opposite of the thing you had spent pages arguing - because those heat maps very clearly showed Dalot hugging the right flank and providing the width whilst Garnacho’s showed him drifting towards the goal. Which is unsurprising of course, because both Amad and Garnacho are known for wanting to drift inside towards goal, despite you trying to claim the opposite.
You’ve played a blinder, just not for yourself.
Meanwhile my point the whole time has simply been that wherever they’re positioned as RWBs, they don’t provide the requisite threat and quality that we’re so clearly missing in attack from that position.
Last edited:
Two main things you clearly misinterpreted what I said:
- You misinterpreted what I meant by providing the width to ‘’hugging the width’’.
- I never once said the word of ‘’hugging the width’’ in our conversation but you assumed when I said providing the width means ‘’hugging the width’’. Providing the width means providing threat in the wide area, not the same thing as hugging the width. Hugging the width doesn’t provide threat. Providing threat means the player penetrates through to the final third from the width. That’s why I said ‘’We should use Dalot and Mazraoui as inverted RWB instead, while playing Amad or Garnacho as wide forward on the right to provide threat on the right flank. ‘’
- I never say inverted wingback won’t be hugging the width at all. But you misinterpreted me saying ‘’drift inside’’ that the player will not hugging the width and will always stay inside. Football is not rigid. Players will still exchange position to occupy other spaces.
Two main things you clearly misinterpreted what I said:
The heat map (see below picture) proves my point that our right wingback shouldn’t operate the same way as how our left wingback operate during the attacking phase. That’s because during the attacking phase, Amorim is using Garnacho to operate the same way as how our left wingback operate on the right flank. Amorim using him like that because that’s Garnacho’s strength. Hence why, I believe the inverted wingback is required to provide this balance to allow our natural winger on the right side to express themselves. Inverted wingback compliments Garnacho/Amad’s strength, it doesn’t change Amorim’s system, and it compliments our limited budget to allow us to concentrate other areas especially focus on the backbone of the team
- You misinterpreted what I meant by providing the width to ‘’hugging the width’’.
- I never once said the word of ‘’hugging the width’’ in our conversation but you assumed when I said providing the width means ‘’hugging the width’’. Providing the width means providing threat in the wide area, not the same thing as hugging the width. Hugging the width doesn’t provide threat. Providing threat means the player penetrates through to the final third from the width. That’s why I said ‘’We should use Dalot and Mazraoui as inverted RWB instead, while playing Amad or Garnacho as wide forward on the right to provide threat on the right flank. ‘’
- I never say inverted wingback won’t be hugging the width at all. But you misinterpreted me saying ‘’drift inside’’ that the player will not hugging the width and will always stay inside. Football is not rigid. Players will still exchange position to occupy other spaces.
No. You specifically claimed that Amorim was using Dalot and Mazraoui as inverted WBs because they prefer to drift inside whilst Amad and Garnacho prefer to drift wide.
That doesn’t really stack up because Amad and Garnacho are the ones who like to drift inside towards goal. Neither of them are “natural wingers” like you suggest - they both want to drift in rather than get to the byline. The heat maps show that. And the “inverted” player (Dalot) has far lighter spots in the inverted areas than either Dorgu or Garnacho on those maps. The few spots you claim to be Dalot “inverting” are less pronounced that Dorgu’s are, and are, by the looks of it at least in the box, most likely just from corner or set piece positions. You could have just as easily drawn lots of blue lines pointing at “inverted” spots on each of the other heat maps to make the opposite point. And that’s not to say Dalot doesn’t invert at times. I just think you are greatly overstating how well he complements Garnacho and Amad and how that relates to our longer term strategy and transfer plans.
And of course players change position. The more fluid we are in attack the better. There are lots of times when Dalot is on the inside of Garnacho, amd there are lots of times Dalot is on the outside of Garnacho, as it should be. But that again relates to my main point, which you repeatedly fail to address, that whether inside or outside, neither Dalot nor Mazraoui provide the requisite quality or threat or penetration in possession that would make our right side more effective, and provide the likes of Amad and Garnacho with more space to operate in. But you refuse to engage with or address that point in any substantive way. Instead you just hide behind these contrived arguments about “inverting” and “balance”, whilst ignoring one of the most glaring deficiencies in our current set up, as well as the glaring limitations that Dalot and Mazraoui show when playing as WBs (inverted or not).
This notion that we only need one player on each flank who is capable of carrying the ball is also bizarre. We’re short on players who can break the lines by doing this, and Amorim is known to like athletic, winger type WBs that are versatile enough to beat a player inside or outside on either flank, and do so in tandem with their 10 to create scoring opportunities. And I can’t see him abandoning that long term to facilitate more limited players like Dalot, who regularly stunt our attacking plays either through poor decision making or lack of ability.
Last edited:
Is this still a thread on Amorim?
International break, when the cat's away, etc.
It doesn’t stack up because you are ignoring all the stuffs I have mentioned and only use one sentence.
If you didn’t ignore all the other stuffs I have mentioned, you would know that what I meant by drift wide is not the same as hugging the width, drift wide is also means beating players from wide area to inside because I already explained this to you many times. I even specifically mentioned this already in 16th March twice (see below for the quotes and the two links) to use or to give freedom for Amad/Garnacho to beat players from wide area to inside.
‘’When Amad and Garnacho played in the L10 or R10, they tend to drift wide. It’s their nature of play because they are wingers, therefore instead of using Dalot/Maz to beat players in the wide area or from wide area to inside, we should use Amad/Garnacho instead. ‘’
https://www.redcafe.net/threads/geo...ll-go-to-chelsea-in-2026.486737/post-33056252
‘’As inverted wingback, their attacking responsibility becomefar less, and they will have less responsibility to try to beat man, which is why I mentioned that this also suits to their strength and weakness. And this compliments to Garnachoand Amad by giving them more freedom to drift wide and beat players either to inside or wide.’’
https://www.redcafe.net/threads/geo...ll-go-to-chelsea-in-2026.486737/post-33056618
The heat map matches what I described that during attacking transition both Garnacho & Dorgu shares similar heat map. Garnacho drifts wide to receive a pass and then beat players (and I have mentioned ‘’beat players from wide to inside’’).
The RCB and midfielder like Ugarte will also need to change position. Yet, you want Mazraoui to play the RCB despite of your comment above. If you don’t expect the RCB and Ugarte to be the main source of our attack to provide Amad/Garnacho with more space to operate in, the same thing I have been explaining to you that It’s bizarre if you expect the manager to use inverted wingback to be the main source of our attack like what you described in your comment above.
I have addressed this point of yours by explaining to you multiple times the role of inverted wingback and I’m not wasting my time to repeat it again because you don’t get it. You view inverted wingback to be like playmaker and attacking wingback, but I don’t view inverted wingback like that as the main objective. Agree to disagree.
That’s your assumption. If you actually read again what I said, I have explained many points why I suggested to use inverted wingback and one of them is to buy ourselves time so we can focus more on other areas in this summer and improve the backbone of the team first. We aren’t going to solve all problems in one summer because we have limited budget, therefore we also need to know how to use or get the best out of the rest of the squad not just pretend that we have lot of money to spend.
Ruben. What a guy. Pretty bad sandwich though.
Not once have I said that an inverted WB should be our main source of attack. I have simply pointed out that in our current set up, our “inverted WB” as you describe him still frequently and consistently gets in to attacking positions, and still frequently and consistently breaks our attacking impetus by not being good enough or effective enough in those positions. And therefore a less limited player being in those same positions would benefit our attacking play as a whole, and help us to create more chances and score more goals (which is one of our team’s most glaring deficiencies).
You keep trying to insist they have less attacking responsibilities, whilst ignoring all the times they very clearly have significant attacking responsibility. Dalot frequently gets in position to put in a good cross, but he’ll shank it out for a goal kick or hit it too long instead. He frequently gets in one on one positions, but he doesn’t have the ability to beat a man which means it doesn’t go anywhere. He frequently gets oppprtunities to slide a pass in to a team mate in the box but dithers and cuts back instead, losing the opening and the moment. And moments like these kill our attack.
And Amad and Garnacho drifting wide and then drifting inside in no way tactically negates this glaring issue. Their game is not raised or made possible or made more effective by a player with Dalot’s limitations “inverting”. Their threat would actually be enhanced if they had a better and more incisive ball carrier or passer interchanging with them.
Last edited:
Yeah. I think this also. I find myself screaming at him most matches.
Agreed. How anyone can be critical of a player like Dalot is beyond me. He's clearly a massive asset, especially compared to the other challenges the squad currently facing, most conspicuous of which is the need for a proper United quality striker.
Ruben > Prawn Sandwiches
Just by his availability alone, nobody in their right minds can call him a bad signing when compared to the others in our squad.
He has improved leaps and bounds since he first got here. Solid player.
Haha, fair enough, well said. Will stop cnuting up the thread.
true, but somehow a prawn taco is the shit.
Depends where you get it
'Ruben, Ruben, you've got an exciting run of games ahead, but can I just ask you about Marcus Rashford who scored his first two goals since December?' Isn't it amazing!?
A gentlemanly response from the boss as usual but boy must he be annoyed at these journos
A gentlemanly response from the boss as usual but boy must he be annoyed at these journos
- Mount, Maguire, and Yoro : Available
- Luke Shaw : Not ready yet, but doing drills
- Mainoo : Returning but not yet available.
- Evans and Heaven : Recovering
Reflecting over this mid-season break, I would say that my initial position when Amorim was first linked with us has not changed. I think he’s a talented coach and seemingly a very likeable man, however, I don’t think he’s the right fit. He may even win something with us, just as Conte could have done - but I was skeptical about his football from the start.
To me, he’s puts too many defenders on the pitch at once, and then of the others, he puts too many midfielders. In a traditional 433 - I see it t as 3 forwards/strikers PLUS a 10. With us we are playing 5 defenders and sometimes as many as 4 further midfield players. Players like Mount, Eriksen, Mainoo, Bruno are not players who should be in a front 3. These players are effectively playing a Heung-Min Son role for us. They should have 3 forwards ahead of them, not be the forward players.
Then there’s the midfield itself. I was concerned at Sporting that he didn’t seem to require much from his midfielders with the football. They are set up to play against the ball firstly.
The outcome of that is players like Rashford, Garnacho and Mainoo have been struggling to fit. Mainoo can play in a top midfield IMO, but not in this one because that type of midfielder isn’t really conducive. Rashford has played poorly, but in terms of profile - I’d be worried if we were asking questions about whether this type of player can play or not. It’s the type of player every top team needs to make a difference, and the idea that a player like Mason Mount could be more suited to Rashford for a role says a lot about the expectations of the role. I feel like if Amorim was managing Liverpool, he could theoretically see Striker + Szobozlai and Jones as a feasible front 3, or even Striker + Salah + Jones, which is still not as potent IMO.
Basically, the team feels like a bit of a blunt instrument. Too often we expect our promising attacking situations to be solved by players who are not optimised in those situations. I don’t know who we will sign in the summer, but changing Hojlund for Osimhen, swapping one 10 for another doesn’t change enough I fear. I want 3 forwards on the pitch. There are no ‘flying wingers’ in this vision from what I can see, and some of the best players in world football would not really have a role in this team.
In the absolute perfect storm, any system can work of course if every player is ‘just right’ for this idea, but that is difficult to achieve with a vision that excludes so much talent on the market by default.
To me, he’s puts too many defenders on the pitch at once, and then of the others, he puts too many midfielders. In a traditional 433 - I see it t as 3 forwards/strikers PLUS a 10. With us we are playing 5 defenders and sometimes as many as 4 further midfield players. Players like Mount, Eriksen, Mainoo, Bruno are not players who should be in a front 3. These players are effectively playing a Heung-Min Son role for us. They should have 3 forwards ahead of them, not be the forward players.
Then there’s the midfield itself. I was concerned at Sporting that he didn’t seem to require much from his midfielders with the football. They are set up to play against the ball firstly.
The outcome of that is players like Rashford, Garnacho and Mainoo have been struggling to fit. Mainoo can play in a top midfield IMO, but not in this one because that type of midfielder isn’t really conducive. Rashford has played poorly, but in terms of profile - I’d be worried if we were asking questions about whether this type of player can play or not. It’s the type of player every top team needs to make a difference, and the idea that a player like Mason Mount could be more suited to Rashford for a role says a lot about the expectations of the role. I feel like if Amorim was managing Liverpool, he could theoretically see Striker + Szobozlai and Jones as a feasible front 3, or even Striker + Salah + Jones, which is still not as potent IMO.
Basically, the team feels like a bit of a blunt instrument. Too often we expect our promising attacking situations to be solved by players who are not optimised in those situations. I don’t know who we will sign in the summer, but changing Hojlund for Osimhen, swapping one 10 for another doesn’t change enough I fear. I want 3 forwards on the pitch. There are no ‘flying wingers’ in this vision from what I can see, and some of the best players in world football would not really have a role in this team.
In the absolute perfect storm, any system can work of course if every player is ‘just right’ for this idea, but that is difficult to achieve with a vision that excludes so much talent on the market by default.
Interesting. I'm actually more all in on Amorim now than I was when he first arrived. His positive temperament is the perfect remedy to rebuild United from the ground up for another long stretch of competing for leagues and CLs. Despite our table position, results v City, Liverpool, and Arsenal offer a glimpse of significantly better days ahead once we are fully fit and have a proper striker.
I agree. We're still to clear out the bad apples from the squad, but we're already seeing glimpses of players being brought to fit the system (Dorgu, Heaven) and it's looking far more positive going forward.
I'm not asking this in a condescending way because you might ultimately be right but did you not think the performance against Sociedad with Dorgu constantly surging forward and giving their fullback a nightmare to deal with suggests that this could be an attacking formation with the right profile of player? I'm not saying Dorgu is that player but if you imagine someone like Frimpong or prime Evra then it looks far more attacking.
When you go back to Liverpool's Klopp side a few years ago his midfield was very functional and hard working but the creativity was often provided by the full backs and the lethal front three. When people say someone like Ugarte is limited, i'm not so sure he needs to be all that creative in our system. The real creativity comes from the the wing backs and the two tens and if we had a great striker who could bang in the goals I think we'd be looking a lot better.
You might be right and I guess time will tell but personally I'm interested to see how this system develops with the right players.
I don’t think you have necessarily said something different. There is a lot to like in terms of temperament and he seems a great and likeable personality. But from a purely football perspective, are you happy either way the foundations you are seeing so far? Personally, I still don’t fully agree with the footballing principles I’m seeing. Of course, I’ve become desperate to the point where I’ll take anything that works - but it all looks like unnecessarily over complicated football to me which has a lower probability of success than something a bit more traditional, and relies upon a perfect alignment that is harder to find.
My views are subject to change, but in theory, I want to see a team with great 1v1 forwards in attacking roles who take people on and score goals. I also want to see central midfielders that control games with the ball. Amorim’s ideas may work in the end, but I just don’t like the approach.
How people are still complaining this formation is remotely defensive is beyond me. As for 3 forwards, that's exactly what we'll end up with obviously as we already know the exact template he wants to deploy, his Sporting 10s attacked the box and scored goals.
No, I don’t see Dorgu or Evra as good enough offensively. They are both left-backs to me, and as much as I saw Dorgu getting forward vs Sociedad, I didn’t see the attacking quality that says to me that I want him to be the man on the end of our promising situations. Evra played for us a left back. He played behind Ronaldo, but he wasn’t able to BE Ronaldo. Marcelo who was even better was also better suited to being a supplementary wide threat. Even Trent is great creatively for a full back, but has struggled when moved further forward. Dorgu is no Gareth Bale. I do like the idea of us getting Elanga back to play RWB, but that’s just my own musings, no links. And that’s because Elanga is a genuine threat as a PL level winger. None of these full-backs we put there have the same quality going forward.
And the difference between us and Liverpool is that this full back creativity you speak of was for 3 forwards. Not one striker and two 10s. I don’t see us having a Mane/Salah/Firmino output from whatever Amorim puts in those positions, because he sees it as a role for players like Mount, Eriksen and Mainoo more than he sees it as a role for Rashford/Garnacho IMO. I don’t think those three roles carry the same goalscoring potential. But otherwise you are right, there are some principle similarities to that Liverpool side, but our team relies upon our 9 puttong up Haaland numbers if we are going to win big trophies I think.
At the risk of going off topic, but this gets said quite often here and I think it's too reductive. Everyone will agree that Thierry Henry was a world class player at Arsenal but he wasn't that hot at Juventus. The environment players play in can make a huge difference in showcasing their talents and abilities.
It's strange but i'm the exact opposite opinion of Rozay, to me he's the first Manager we've had that feels like they've got a proper long term plan. Not a quick plaster fix, but someone who has a clear identity and vision for the club. I'd be very curious to see how we get on with a proper pre season and transfer window under his belt as there has been plenty of buds of potential in the last few weeks. I dont even think his football is defensive, it's progressive and modern. But requires very specific players that we simply don't have here. It's why Dorgu has made such a huge impact, he understands and can deliver what Amorim wants from him.
Genuinely, I think we'll be a significantly better team next season.
Genuinely, I think we'll be a significantly better team next season.
My expectations for this season were tempered by the reality of what actually transpired about 8 weeks in. Getting a new manager who was knowingly hired that he would bring new changes in formation and culture, but that it would take a least a year or more and one or two transfer windows and the benefit of a proper summer training schedule to realize what Amorim brings to the table. Therefore I realize it is not reasonable to expect football to make the fans happy this year - because there will be too much turbulence along the way. Once we get the benefit of a full summer transfer window, a fully fit squad, and the usual summer training and pre-season tour, I suspect things will be quite different -- especially if we buy a proper striker.
This isn’t in contrast to anything I’ve said. The gist of my point hasn’t been that he has no vision, it’s that I don’t particularly like it.
His Sporting team never scored much (relatively speaking) until his final season - then they outscored everyone else by quite a margin.
But in the seasons before that, they never outscored their main rivals (top of the table, I mean) - even when winning the league.
(Not really making a point - just looking at sheer numbers.)
Also, with regard to the part in bold: Do you think his employers are aware of this? Or - perhaps we should ask, rather - were they aware of this before they hired him?
Apparently, the rise in goals coincided with Gyokeres' arrival. 71 scored the final season without him, 96 scored during his first year there.
He is by far my favorite manager since SAF and that despite the resukts not being there yet. I am confident he will build almething great over time. Let him cook, as the young ones say
They also had an outstanding (not to quite that degree, but he was top scorer) goal provider when they won the league in his (Amorim's) first full season...but in that season they were outscored by both of their top 3 rivals.
Gyökeres is posting the same numbers this season as he was under Amorim (well, better numbers, actually - and there are still some rounds to go). The team as a whole is unlikely to match last season's total - but it might not be that far off.
Again - numbers, just looking at numbers, we all know they never tell the full story.
The fact that I needed to post the link of my old posts and specifically re-quoted where you missed is a reflection that this discussion is going circle. I don’t have time to keep re-quoting what you missed.
Like I said before, If you disagree, then be respectful and agree-to-disagree because it’s common to have different views. Don’t try to misinterpret what I have said and what I have already explained. Move on mate.
Embargoed bit….