Yeah Luis Campos is the DOF I would love, however much like Enrique there is no chance PSG let either go. I wish the club could see we need someone experienced with Vivell to work with and that person isn't Wilcox
Jason Wilcox - Director of Football
- Thread starter reddevilchennai
- Start date
-
In the latest edition of the United Hour Podcast, we interview Duncan Drasdo of MUST - covering ticket prices, new stadium, INEOS and what fans should be demanding from our club.
Also, due to technical issues we couldn't put a notice up for the previous episode which was about the game against Bournemouth and other stuff. If you'd like to listen to it, click here.
I don't think that the issue is about us buying bad players. The real issue at United is us ignoring that gaping hole in CM. We've been doing that long before SAF had retired. All the CMs we've bought were punts, veterans on their last legs or players who were clearly not good enough. Then there's this obsession with no 10s that I've never understood. We're probably have spent more in that position then anyone else (Bruno, Pogba, VDB, Mount, Cunha, Mbuemo, Kagawa)
You are looking at trends that cross three different eras. SAF, post SAF with the Glazers and under Ineos.
Pogba was not a punt in CM. We are clearly going to tackle the midfield issue this summer.
I think the biggest mistake made was going for an inexperienced 3-5-2 purist despite knowing the huge expense that would take in converting this team to his system. The risk that this system wouldn't work was huge (Conte was the only manager to win an EPL title with it) and not worth the expense.
The Ugarte deal was also a feckup but it goes in line to United's strategy in cutting corners in terms of CM by buying a player whose surplus to requirement at the club or who isn't exactly doing well at the moment at a cut price. We did that with Matic, Bastian and Casemiro + we're probably going to do the same with Baleba.
There's also the issue of retaining Bruno only to play him in an awkward position for him and alongside a DM who clearly lack the legs to support him. At the beginning of the season I was adamant that such strategy will ruin our season. I was sure that Bruno would break ranks in CM by going all over the place leaving Casemiro on his own.
Ultimately I agree with every point you did especially the bold part. Rome wasn't built in a day but ignoring CM was stupid. It's a hotelier embellishing the lobby while leaving the toilets a mess
Agreed mate. We'll just have to see what happens now in the summer as far as the midfield is concerned. I don't think it's a difficult fix personally. But what will be interesting to see is if they miss out on the obvious targets like Anderson and Wharton and who they then have as alternatives.
This is what scares me and the chap they have in charge of recruitment (Vivell), is someone who never really created a strong midfield at the RedBull clubs. And there's already noise about Tyler Adams who was a former Leipzig player. He's more of a destroyer similar to Ugarte but is quick and agile out of possession.
I'm going to take a break from the forum for a bit and let's hope for the best.
I agree on the alternatives point. I think Baleba is already decided and sewn up provided we pay what's required. Perhaps Adams is the Baleba alternative. We need some better on the ball if either of Wharton or Anderson can't be secured.
Enjoy the break mate.
- Joined
- Sep 1, 2015
- Messages
- 21,953
- Supports
️
If we have any proper sporting direction then one high volume passer/progressor and one dueller and carrier will be the signings.
Even with the Vivell link I cannot see Adams happening at all.
Even with the Vivell link I cannot see Adams happening at all.
I can only hope it's a cheap alternative to the latter. The former has to be paramount as that player simply doesn't exist in any form in our first team squad.
what are your thoughts on Fernandes (from West Ham) as Anderson alternative?
We also had Thiago and Kroos lined up in consecutive summers, but for the new manager to veto in each case. Dumb that we listened, but neither of those were punts either.
Yeah they would have to be two of the daftest veto's from new managers I can ever imagine. Really want to believe that Wilcox couldn’t possibly be stupid enough to do something similar
We will have to agree to disagree here as you're conflating a lot of things, which is fine if the general point of discussion was about recruitment, something I see the criticisms as fair. However, you are removing a lot of ETH's own responsibility and without putting words into your mouth seem to imply that he did his best as a coach, put the players at his disposal in the right positions and platform to succeed and that because he said something, he actually delivered or try to deliver that despite vast amount of evidence showing the opposite.
Under ETH, we had no patterns or routines playing out from the back (which is a large part of the reason of why we were so easy to press), no structure or pressing triggers regarding first phase pressing (opposition half) other than press high and M2M or second phase (counter pressing), didn't value possession other than being as vertical as possible and had asked an awful lot of the midfield by continuing to ignore the defensive line. There is a middle ground between having players like Maguire, Lindelof, McTominay, Eriksen, playing the suicidal lines we did, not attempting to be progressive through the lines and not having the required elite midfielders and athletic players we still aim to seek. Similar to what Amorim 'didn't have' and perhaps maybe what we may see under Carrick's term now i.e just because you don't have two athletic, technical box-to-box monsters, it doesn't mean you have to play 3 CBs, a 2 man midfield and wing backs to 'adjust' around. After 2.5 years in charge, if you don't see the higher lines, build up play from defence other than when Martinez was there then at some point you have to admit you just ain't it. Obviously INEOS and the board have their massive share of responsibility for not focusing on the right profiles but ETH absolutely failed in what he wanted to try; he showed very little, whether by intention or not on the pitch to prove he was the correct one going forward despite what he said.
Without a doubt if RDZ or Flick was managing the same side, we would instantly see a much higher line and more progressive build up regardless of the personnel on the pitch. Whether the results would be better is another discussion but the concepts of 'higher line', 'playing out from the back' are not just catch words, they have to actually be (tangibly) delivered on the pitch.
I've explained everything you've brought up in detail. I'm not conflating anything and my assessments as far as the team going all the way back to Mourinho, Solskjaer, ten Hag and recently Amorim is to do with recruitment. The post you initially responded to which set off this duscussion, which contained a brief summary of ten Hag's time at the club was also about recruitment and how not recruiting for a specific system of play will hamper a coach.
I've explained to you the reason why things became dysfunctional imo and what was being tried. It wasn't dysfunctional in ten Hag's first season where we finshed 3rd in the league playing conservative football. But the issue was the next step had to be, to be more proactive out of possession where you as a team attempt to take the game to the opposition. And this strategy is mainly used (imo) against the so called lesser teams where you will have have to proactively attempt to disrupt them and exert your authority over them whilst leaving space for them to exploit. We struggle in that regard and can't play the same way against the lesser teams because they then take advantage of our inabilities out of possession.
You said he abandoned the midfield and I gave you reasons as to why that wasn't the case. And how the CBs not stepping up meant there was a massive gap in the middle and created a chain-reaction of problems which created tactical problems in the midfield where the two CBs and deeper midfielder should be lined up in a three whilst squeezing the pitch. You also questioned why there wasn't alot of talk about the CBs not stepping up and how it was creating systematic issues within the team. I even gave you a direct response in that regard.
I've addressed everything you've said, and my general point was always centred around recruitment and the development of a system of play. It wasn't about any manager/head coach. And whether De Zerbi or Flick would've done better can only be judged once we have the body of work in-front of us to assess.
I think @Adnan is making a crucial distinction that's getting lost here. This isn't about whether ETH executed well (he clearly failed in many ways), it's about whether he was set up to succeed in the first place. Both things can be true: ETH failed as a coach AND recruitment failed to give him the tools to implement what modern football requires.
@criticalanalysis you're right that concepts mean nothing without execution. But Adnan's point is that execution becomes nearly impossible when you don't have the right profiles. You mention Flick or RDZ would instantly implement higher lines. Maybe they would, but look at what Flick inherited at Barcelona: defenders who can pass (Koundé, Cubarsí, Eric García), midfielders who can receive under pressure (Pedri, De Jong). He didn't have to coach those abilities into existence, the profiles were already there.
On McTominay, Adnan isn't saying using him as a battering ram was ideal football. He's saying given the constraints (CBs who couldn't/wouldn't step up, midfielders who couldn't progress play under pressure), ETH adapted by using McTominay's strengths higher up while bypassing the broken build-up phase. That's just pragmatism given bad recruitment, not really some tactical masterstroke.
If I understood your points correctly:
And look at what Wilcox spent £200m+ on. Three attackers. If the plan was to implement modern, proactive football, why weren't those funds directed at the spine? We need to prioritize the foundation first. We did the opposite, again, under a "new structure" that was supposed to learn from past mistakes. You're not wrong about ETH's failures in execution. But the broader point about recruitment determining whether any system can function feels more fundamental. We can keep cycling managers, but until the spine is sorted, we'll keep seeing versions of the same dysfunction.
@criticalanalysis you're right that concepts mean nothing without execution. But Adnan's point is that execution becomes nearly impossible when you don't have the right profiles. You mention Flick or RDZ would instantly implement higher lines. Maybe they would, but look at what Flick inherited at Barcelona: defenders who can pass (Koundé, Cubarsí, Eric García), midfielders who can receive under pressure (Pedri, De Jong). He didn't have to coach those abilities into existence, the profiles were already there.
On McTominay, Adnan isn't saying using him as a battering ram was ideal football. He's saying given the constraints (CBs who couldn't/wouldn't step up, midfielders who couldn't progress play under pressure), ETH adapted by using McTominay's strengths higher up while bypassing the broken build-up phase. That's just pragmatism given bad recruitment, not really some tactical masterstroke.
If I understood your points correctly:
- criticalanalysis: ETH had enough to work with and failed to implement anything coherent for 1.5 years
- Adnan: ETH tried to implement a modern system but lacked the foundational profiles, so it collapsed
And look at what Wilcox spent £200m+ on. Three attackers. If the plan was to implement modern, proactive football, why weren't those funds directed at the spine? We need to prioritize the foundation first. We did the opposite, again, under a "new structure" that was supposed to learn from past mistakes. You're not wrong about ETH's failures in execution. But the broader point about recruitment determining whether any system can function feels more fundamental. We can keep cycling managers, but until the spine is sorted, we'll keep seeing versions of the same dysfunction.
We had to buy 3 attackers, because RA decided to get rid of our attack except And and also made a decision to play our best player and creator at CM
It was impossible to fix the whole squad in one window, so the decision to rid your attack can't be on the DOF IMO, which meant we had to prioritise the attack
Yep - the bulk of the attack was kids who were sporadic and never what was going to be needed short term. Rashford was kicked out (right decision) so it was essentially a whole new front line + a promising attacker in Amad (but he has had some injury issues so it's not like they would hang their hat on him).
Case, Bruno, Mainoo, Ugarte, arguably Mount for 2 CM roles (knowing Amorim only ever was going to play a pair) is fine for a season. You can't just buy a whole new team in one window.
I'm not disputing there's been poor recruiting. When we were in talks to sign Mount, I got pelters because I said 'ETH doing this will be worse than the 7-0 for me'. After the encouraging, pragmatic but fairly progressive football of the first season, I thought he would be smart and try to build from that by bringing in more or better players with similar profiles to the one that produced our best football; for me that was epitomised in the quartet of Varane, Martinez, Casemiro and Eriksen, the relative spine of the team. Instead he wanted to bring in a player, who did his best work in the opposition third. Now I'm aware I'm implying it was ETH's choice (which was largely reported at the time) but regardless it doesn't negate my overall point below.
If recruitment was a 5/10 (scattergun approach but enough individual quality to make something work), then ETH's coaching, tactics and implementation from the 2nd season onwards towards this mythical 'modern proactive football' was a 3/10. That's where the crux of my issue was with 'ETH was let down by recruitment'. A coach IMO has to show they can raise the bottom level (i.e improve players and/or their performances) and maintain a certain standard of football even if the results don't show it. If you can't do that, then I'm afraid whilst I agree the platform wasn't the best, I can't say it was the major reason why the football didn't work; that always fall back to the manager.
As for the RDZ and Flick comments, again my points seems to have been missed. Three things here that need to be noted: 1) There is a middle ground between the suicidal bollocks that we tried under ETH and those managers mentioned. Defenders refusing to do what a coach has asked for a 1.5 year is laughable, either the players run the club or the manager was incompetent. 2) Simply playing a high line doesn't necessarily equate to 'modern football'. What about the aggressive playing out from the back, counter pressing, playing in between the lines, controlling the midfield and areas of the pitch via movement and patterns? If ETH had some shown semblance of consistency in those areas for the 1.5 years then I would have said 'it's not working but I can respect that he really wants to try to get us play in a proactive way'. Except he didn't so even if the platform wasn't solid, he did his best to fall at every step. 'We don't have Pedri' and 'we don't have players who can receive under pressure' is not the same as accepting conceding 20+ shots at our goal, get pressed easily by pretty much every team that dared to press us man-to-man and playing in a way that let's double decker trains steam through the entire centre of our team. 3) The goal shouldn't be 'play in a modern proactive way at all costs', it's be the best footballing version you can and then build from that.
It's a small sample size (against teams I'm well aware are not dissimilar to performances we've seen under previous managers) and this is probably going to bite me back in the arse but I think Carrick has already implemented something fundamental that should go a fairly long way to playing much better football compared to the last 2.5 years. It's no surprise for me that it's the same quartet in terms of profiles and positioning I've mentioned above, which in this case for the last two games is Martinez, Maguire, Casemiro and Mainoo. This box shape with an emphasis on build up and defensive solidarity should gives us the ability to play out from the back, control the central areas and allow the rest of the team to perform their roles. IMO this should have been the goal of all of our managers post Fergie but none of them ever valued midfield (regardless of personnel at their disposal). It should also be the same areas where we should be looking to improve this summer.
Last edited:
He did not decide that himself. It was clear for anyone that Sancho and Garnacho had to leave and that Rashford also became a huge issue. Well done, especially consodering their replacements
I didn't not imply that Amorim made the decision to rid of Garnacho and Radford alone, that was a collective choice. But when you sell your best(and all your) attackers then buying a new attack becomes priority no.1 imo when we still have Casemiro(who was on high wages and didn't want to leave) Mainoo, Bruno and Ugarte for 2 CM place.
Totally agree. All those crying out for a midfielder, are not wrong to do so, but don't wish to accept the context that we had 4 midfielders (for two roles) and practically no forwards after Amorim put four in his bomb squad.
If things continue as is, the 2025 transfers (Cunha, Sesko, Mbeumo, Dorgu, Lammens, Heaven, Leon) will go down as one of the best in the clubs history. Especially if they help take us from 15th to top 5 in a season.
Pretty vindicated in investing in goalscorers (and a goalkeeper ) first this summer.
Now they're settled and we're playing to their strengths we're all happy and enjoying the supporting the club again.
Now they're settled and we're playing to their strengths we're all happy and enjoying the supporting the club again.
The big worry.
INEOS would have stuck with Amorim, drove Kobbie out of Manchester, seen our season go to crap, and told us we have to suffer had Amorim not gone kamikaze.
Wilcox and his bosses have lucked into this. They weren't actively looking at Carrick, or anyone else, before Amorim pressed self destruct.
What does that say about the judgement of the people who run this club?
Got some news for you, most of football is dumb luck.
I'm not his biggest fan, but don't see how this is relevant, as Amorim did what he did.
The fall out between Amorim and Wilcox was a direct result of Wilcox pushing back against Amorim's dogmatic system. It didn't happen in a vacuum. We should have dispensed with Amorim after the Europa fiasco, but I can give them some credit for realizing Ruben's system wasn't working, better late than never.
Exactly and they didn't sell Mainoo despite Amorim wanting him replaced. Seems a very odd stick to beat him with.
They were in the midst of a long term project but still had the presence of mind to hold Amorim accountable, when we failed to build on an easy run of fixtures, which resulted in the latter talking himself out of a job. After that they made the best of a poor situation and have been vindicated by results so far.
Isn't that kind of "the current thing" these days?
Guess it's the sort of twitter journalism we've come to expect
Since so many seem to jump onto the train, you certainly have a point.
This is really shit journalism and a really shite take. Even after ignoring that United themselves blocked the transfer of Mainoo, against Amorims wishes.
Media has a way of peddling simplistic narratives and making it about "personal emotions". Very likely Amorim was told in that meeting he had to change his stupid formation, be more tactically flexible (which means avoiding obsessive compulsive CB substitutions when we're losing 2-1) and start showing results or he'd be sacked. Obviously, they knew Amorim wasn't interested in all that since he's full of himself think that he's cracked football in its entirety and everyone who doesn't believe him is an idiot. Rather than sacking him, they waited for an emotional outburst & for Amorim to say really stupid things to win a bit more fan support - very needed after how SJR backed him at the start of the season. The decision to sack him was very likely made before that meeting.
The way I see it is that Wilcox and Amorim were on a collision course.
If Amorim yielded and showed greater flexibility then he would have stayed, but he didn’t therefore he had to go.
Yes timing wise it looked like they had an argument so got sacked, but I think Wilcox / Ineos just saw the writing was on the wall at this point - that Amorim was not willing to deviate from his terrible system.
That, or Wilcox just saw Amorim’s blow up as a great opportunity to get rid of the guy he never wanted wanted in the first place and the higher ups to their credit respected his recommendation rather than force him to continue on with Amorim.
That still doesn’t change the fact they should have binned him after the Europa final, but again I don’t know if Wilcox could be blamed for this - Amorim was Berrada’s pick and Ratcliffe seemed to be in his corner too.
The implication is that if he didn't want to sack Amorim already before that argument, it would mean that if our next manager is just compliant and avoids conflict he might last longer than he should.
Doubt it, they've now been vindicated. If they used it as a good example of what to do, I certainly would be worried.
Funny that, because before Carrick got the gig, he was getting slaughtered for sacking Amorim because they had a disagreement and for not letting Amorim see out the season and be allowed to get the players to help his system work - removing Kobbie.
So pick a side of the fence. The less we started acting like we know what’s best for the club the better.
Sometimes you just need abit of luck.
Thread needs a bump because so many in here were insisting that Wilcox made a horlicks of our summer transfer window by not buying a midfielder. And that Sesko was a miss.
Credit where credit is due, Wilcox, along with others who were involved in recruitment, have played a big hand in helping us get back into contention this season.
Getting rid of Amorim, may have been more down to luck and circumstance, rather than judgement, but with Cunha, Sesko, Mbeumo, Lammens and Dorgu prior to his injury all performing and contributing, the 2025 transfers (Jan and Summer) have to be looked at as one of our best couple of windows in the last 15 years.
Credit where credit is due, Wilcox, along with others who were involved in recruitment, have played a big hand in helping us get back into contention this season.
Getting rid of Amorim, may have been more down to luck and circumstance, rather than judgement, but with Cunha, Sesko, Mbeumo, Lammens and Dorgu prior to his injury all performing and contributing, the 2025 transfers (Jan and Summer) have to be looked at as one of our best couple of windows in the last 15 years.
Senne and Sesko. Fixing the two most important positions in one transfer window (perhaps it's a bit early to say that w/r/t Sesko but I feel strongly about his future with us) is something any technical director/recruitment manager would want to put on their resume.
Wilcox deserves some credit. Still needs to show that he knows how to recruit a proper midfielder after the Ugarte business.
Wilcox deserves some credit. Still needs to show that he knows how to recruit a proper midfielder after the Ugarte business.
Yeah midfielder will be next true test of his recruitment
I did actually mean to respond to this at the time, but been sat here for a bit. Sesko was a miss from the perspective of having a striker that was going to contribute straight away, it's taken him half the season to get to the point where he's worth close to what we paid for him and we're still suffering from the midfield being a mess.
I don't really think there's any big credit to be had from a season planning perspective. We've bungled our way to where we. They deserve credit for going with Lammens in the end, it would have been nice if we did it earlier - we may not have lost the Arsenal and Grimbsy games, but its understandable.
The bold sums him up really. I'm yet to see a proactive or decisive move, that's shown the vision for the club. He's got it all to prove with this next manager appointment, I hope he gets it right.