Fair point.
Also fair. Not everyone can assist their own header with their foot.
Ruben Amorim | 2025-26
- Thread starter Cheimoon
- Start date
I like this timeline where his two defender subs were a stroke of genius that got us the equaliser
Who said that?
It's somewhere on the last pages
You must really have enjoyed losing games under him then.
Never enjoy losing games but it doesn’t take a genius to know it takes time to instil a new system into players, particularly when some of those players were either entitled, lazy or simply not good enough.
Even if we somehow beat Tottenham next week he'll still have only picked up 47 points from a full 38 league games which is a disgraceful return on our investment no other so called big club would put up with a manager performing that poorly
is it though?
You're the guy who also said that Arsenal were the better team on the first day of the season too aren't you? I can't work out if you are for real or just trolling?
If we beat Spurs our form will be WLWWWDW, and we'll likely be around the top 3, so why would you care about results from last season?
Even longer if the manager isn’t good enough.
Okay, but it’ll be 20 points from 11 games this season, as opposed to 27 points from 27 games. So a big improvement.
Teams that we will be competing for european places, all lost- so in that respect its a point gained drawing with Forest. However, the feeling remains that if we had competed and showed the same intensity, our quality would have yielded a win...but Utd players have not shown that application for consecutive games therefore to be expected!
Trajectory would certainly point in the right direction, no doubt about that
What's your point?
I really want him to thump Spurs in particular. They had our number so much last season
We pulled a point from losing position and a post hit and goal line clearance away from getting all three points. 2 points away from second. Move on to the next game.
Results like this will happen. We have great run, didn't lose, and we should keep our focus on top 6.
I did and he has been very good but he isn't someone I would bring on when chasing a game. But if I am trying to shut out a game then he would be my go to guy.
A lot of teams will go to The City Ground between now and May and lose. This might be seen as a decent result in a few weeks.
Well of course, the idea our squad wasn't terrible is nonsense, I was just amused by the insistence in the importance of facts while making counterfactual statements
OK so the goalposts have moved here. Your previous statement was that Mount would help us retain the ball because Forest were seeing plenty of it and weren't hoofing it, given that was demonstrably false you've moved to pretending 61% possession isn't that good against a defensive Forest, presumably because you accept that they were sitting back and happy to cede possession. Your new point is, perhaps unsurprisingly, also counterfactual though. Forest have an average possession of over 53% this season, so the 39% against us in the second half is definitely an outlier. In fact, I've checked this just to be clear, against us was the lowest amount of possession Forest have had all season by a distance.
The point is that any more possession and we'd be getting into Van Gaal territory, there's no upside. We were struggling to build momentum, that's true, but it's because Forest were extremely buoyant after scoring, gained energy from the crowd, and were using every delaying tactic in the book. It certainly wasn't because we didn't dominate possession. Just throwing on subs in order to bring on someone new is exactly that, and the manager was right not to reduce our threat even further.
I didn't change any goalposts at all. You were the one who said that bringing subs on would have killed our offensive momentum which is ridiculous because we didn't have any offensive momentum at all. Comparing our possession to the average forest allow is completely disingenuous because they were leading the game so of course we would have more of the ball in the second half. We struggle with building attacks against tight defences and a majority of our attacks come from the team winning the ball higher up the pitch through pressing. Unfortunately that wasn't happening in the second half and Forest were able to play through a few times and that's how they were able to manage 40% possession.
It's not realky rocket science to think that fresher legs especially Mount would have meant we could have won the ball more in the forward areas or forced Forest to just quickly clear away. There's no chance any other manager would havd made zero offensive changes in the that second half.
Both Liverpool and Fulham were trying to be much more expansive and proactive than Forest, who, once they went ahead, were content to sit back and try to hit on the counter. They weren't suddenly going to push up because Sesko was off, Dyche has built his entire career around making teams difficult to break down, that doesn't involve CBs going off chasing midfielders.
There wouldn't be any room for players to run in behind because the CBs would have stayed deep, instead we'd have had our goalscorers further away from the goal we wanted them to score in. It's a substitution that would have blunted our attack even further.
Some of the failings seen are familiar e.g. mental fragility but many are specific to amorims set up. Obviously we were also way below our normal league position last year too
If we continue the form of the last few games over the course of the season we should be top 6 but I wpuld be suprised to see it all fall apart again in the next month or two
It's not rocket science, but it's definitely relying on magic to think Mount would allow us to win the ball in forward areas when Forest were just going long, or forcing them to just quickly clear away which they were already doing, 1 in every 5 attempted passes.
This is genuinely silly. Forest's style of play, especially in the second half, is kryptonite to high pressing, because it's bypassed constantly. Dominating possession against them wouldn't have changed things, because it's already what happened. Forcing them to go long wouldn't have changed things, because it's already what happened. All the substitution would have done allow us to do what we did anyway regarding possession, and move our players further away from their goal.
If you gave another manager lack of viable offensive options on the bench, with a huge drop off in quality from the first team, then there's a very good chance they wouldn't use them. That's because plenty of managers are sensible enough not to make substitutions just for the sake, (or, in this case it seems, based on an alternate reality which is contradicted by the facts).
You are the one presenting an alternate reality to what actually happened in the game. Your posts seem to suggest that United were bossing the game and every time forest touched the ball they were hoofing it away which is not true at all. 61% of the ball is nothing in a half against a struggling team where you are trailing for majority of it. Heck United only had about 100 more passes than forest in the half which is a tiny number. We had an open play xg of 0.37 in the half and didn't have a corner till we scored in the 81st minute. It's really not that much to suggest that whatever we were doing was not working and the manager needed to find other options.
Right so we've gone from moving the goalposts to strawmen and "no u". This is pointless.
My version of events is borne out by the facts, statistically we've had more of the ball, by some distance, than any other club have managed against Forest, and they resorted to going long in 1 out of every 5 attempted passes. I've been specific about that every time, you suggesting it's "every time they touched the ball" is either an extreme lack of reading comprehension or, more likely, deliberately lying about it to avoid addressing the point, because it blows up your argument.
Speaking of alternate reality, this statement is another wonderful example:
It was 114, but even if we took your deliberately understated number of 100, that's "tiny" advantage is still greater than any other club have managed against Forest this season in an entire match. It's over double! Come on man, you aren't even trying to be accurate.
Your final sentence at least has definite truth to it, but the issue is, the manager did make some changes, and those changes resulted in us getting back level and being a goal line clearance from winning. Which should be exactly what you wanted, but because it wasn't your preferred, ill thought out (if at all) substitutions, you're complaining. Subs for the sake of subs, complaining for the sake of complaining.
Can't understand the huge criticism of us getting an away draw? The formula for success in football has always been win home games and be hard to beat away. If you can avoid defeat away from home and grab the odd win and maintain solid home form you are onto a good thing.
Especially when you have finished 15th season before, are in the most extreme rebuild of the last ten years, and still have to buy players for key positions.
Also, both Amorim and the players will hopefully learn that you cannot have a 5 minute period in a PL game where you allow yourselves to lower your intensity.
Honestly I am bored of this conversation now so this is my last post. You just cherry pick stuff to suit your argument again & again. Forest season stats are pretty irrelevant because first of all they have had multiple different managers with different playing styles and secondly a lot of these stats are game script dependant where Forest have barely been ahead in games.Right so we've gone from moving the goalposts to strawmen and "no u". This is pointless.
My version of events is borne out by the facts, statistically we've had more of the ball, by some distance, than any other club have managed against Forest, and they resorted to going long in 1 out of every 5 attempted passes. I've been specific about that every time, you suggesting it's "every time they touched the ball" is either an extreme lack of reading comprehension or, more likely, deliberately lying about it to avoid addressing the point, because it blows up your argument.
Speaking of alternate reality, this statement is another wonderful example:
It was 114, but even if we took your deliberately understated number of 100, that's "tiny" advantage is still greater than any other club have managed against Forest this season in an entire match. It's over double! Come on man, you aren't even trying to be accurate.
Your final sentence at least has definite truth to it, but the issue is, the manager did make some changes, and those changes resulted in us getting back level and being a goal line clearance from winning. Which should be exactly what you wanted, but because it wasn't your preferred, ill thought out (if at all) substitutions, you're complaining. Subs for the sake of subs, complaining for the sake of complaining.
We clearly have a different expectation from what we expect from United. I am OK with a draw but I want United to be ready to lose to go for a win in a game like this. You choose to ignore that we didn't do anything in attack from 50-80 minute mark. You want to look at the clearance off the line as us being close to winning but for me we lacked any sustained pressure at all even when losing and it's disappointing that the manager didn't do much to change that. Yes we scored after the subs he made but honestly didn't feel that Dorgu or Mazaroui had much of an impact on the game at all
3 centre-backs and we're still relying on Amad to mark two players at the back post and win defensive headers right in front of the keeper.
It's almost as if one of those centre-backs is completely superfluous.
It's almost as if one of those centre-backs is completely superfluous.
But as people say, let's look at the short term and the season in which points are now counting.
The season doesn't end in November. It has only just started.
By continuing to attach last season's numbers, you can dilute any current improvement to the point where you'd be able to advocate for sacking a manager even when he happened to get very good results in the present.
Because if 47 points from 38 games are disgraceful, certainly 50 points from 39 games, or 53 points from 40 games, or 56 points from 41 games are still unacceptably poor, overall? Never mind we'd well be in top 4 at the point?
What are your actual expectations for this season?
You aren't the only one bored of it, so I'm happy to park it. As for cherry picking, I was simply responding to your assertions with data, the topics were all (cherry) picked by you.
It was nice of you to throw yet another alternate reality statement in to the final post though. The 50-80 minute mark you say we didn't do anything included Bruno hitting the post, and Casemiro making a mess of a cross that reached him 2 yards out from goal which should have been a tap in. It's bewildering how many false statements can be shown to be false without the slightest bit of introspection.
We do seem to have different expectations from United. I want the manager to be able to think a bit deeper than "moar subs now". Eventually we'll have the squad depth to make more changes viable without losing all of our quality. But until then, just throwing out substitutions for the sake of it is going to do more harm than good, and so I'm glad that isn't the approach he took. The approach he did take saw us get back level, and a goal line clearance away from winning.
Last edited:
Not really - if you play 6 away games - it's better to win 3 and lose 3, than it is to draw 5 and win 1. Points are what matter, not the mythical "hard to beat".
The problem isn't the Forest game in isolation - it's the realisation that this is what we can expect in away games now. City Fulham Grimsby Brentford and Forest away is starting to become a significant enough sample size where the pattern is we fail to control games, fail to defend properly, fail to match the opponents' intensity. The Liverpool result feels like an anomaly.
It depends what the hopes/expectations are for the season. I really want us to hit 65+ points to give us a shot of finishing 5th. I go into every away game feeling like getting a win is very very unlikely, because statistically it is. And it will be hard to accumulate enough points to finish 5th if you can't win away games on at least a semi-regular basis.
Every home game feels like a must win because the following game will be away which is almost guaranteed dropped points.
Last edited:
Remember our target for this year is to get back to Europe EL/CL, Top 6. We are on the right track. We are not expected to win every game. If we do, we would be challenging for the title. It's obvious that we don't have the squat yet. Many have already repeated here, we need 2 CMs and a LWB as minimum. Ideally, another good at aerial defence CB and hopefully another backup ST to bring on when we need to get a winning goal.
The new players for this year Mbeumo, Sesko, Cunha, Lammens and the entire team need to gel and find the rhythm. You can't build a team with strong mentality and consistency with 10 games. It takes time and we will improve.
We have improved a lot compared to last year. Have faith, support the manager and support the players. Give them time and encouragement instead of piling on pressure and negativity.
The new players for this year Mbeumo, Sesko, Cunha, Lammens and the entire team need to gel and find the rhythm. You can't build a team with strong mentality and consistency with 10 games. It takes time and we will improve.
We have improved a lot compared to last year. Have faith, support the manager and support the players. Give them time and encouragement instead of piling on pressure and negativity.
LWB to boot Dalot out and Gallagher on loan is probably the absolute best we can get mid season. Yes we desperately need backup striker as no sign of Chido being recalled to first team
Seen a number of posts slagging the manager's selections for cowardice, not bringing enough attacking options on etc. I think there's certainly reason for why Amorim chose the substitutes that he brought on / didn't bring on.
You will recall that against Brentford, he brought on Mainoo, Zirkzee, Mount and Yoro when chasing the game. Mainoo was on for Ugarte, and Zirkzee was on for Dorgu, Mount was on for Shaw. Not only did we fail to score, but because we were chasing the game and the defensive formation changed, we ended up conceding a last minute goal (though that also had to do with Bayindir diving out of the way). And Amorim got slagged for his substitutions.
Against Brighton, after making reasonable substitutions of Mainoo and Zirkzee, we ended up conceding two goals.
So it's not like Amorim hasn't experimented before, and the results weren't great. I can hence see why Amorim has decided that making more attacking substitutions WITHIN the existing structure because it still helps keep us defensively solid (despite Maz deciding to try to dribble half the Forest team), the players won't be confused about where they are supposed to play, how they are supposed to run etc. Amorim explained that he wanted Dorgu to replace Dalot for better crossing from the left (which is an attacking change). Dorgu did deliver a few left-footed crosses. We don't really have anyone else to do that, unless we throw Mbeumo / Amad / Shaw over there but in the circumstances, if what Amorim wanted was left-footed crosses, then the substitution makes sense. Similarly, he said that he brought Maz on because Maz can aid the attack better than Yoro (Maz having even played as a no. 10 last season, and is a reasonable right-back and crosser of the ball), but is still reasonably defensive-minded and is aware of how to play the RCB position within the system. We could then still chase the game but be reasonably defensively solid.
I think Amorim's decisions were alright, given that we did generate some chances (Amad, Cunha, Sesko) and didn't concede. I think all hell would have broken loose on the forums if we threw in a bunch of attacking subs and conceded.
You will recall that against Brentford, he brought on Mainoo, Zirkzee, Mount and Yoro when chasing the game. Mainoo was on for Ugarte, and Zirkzee was on for Dorgu, Mount was on for Shaw. Not only did we fail to score, but because we were chasing the game and the defensive formation changed, we ended up conceding a last minute goal (though that also had to do with Bayindir diving out of the way). And Amorim got slagged for his substitutions.
Against Brighton, after making reasonable substitutions of Mainoo and Zirkzee, we ended up conceding two goals.
So it's not like Amorim hasn't experimented before, and the results weren't great. I can hence see why Amorim has decided that making more attacking substitutions WITHIN the existing structure because it still helps keep us defensively solid (despite Maz deciding to try to dribble half the Forest team), the players won't be confused about where they are supposed to play, how they are supposed to run etc. Amorim explained that he wanted Dorgu to replace Dalot for better crossing from the left (which is an attacking change). Dorgu did deliver a few left-footed crosses. We don't really have anyone else to do that, unless we throw Mbeumo / Amad / Shaw over there but in the circumstances, if what Amorim wanted was left-footed crosses, then the substitution makes sense. Similarly, he said that he brought Maz on because Maz can aid the attack better than Yoro (Maz having even played as a no. 10 last season, and is a reasonable right-back and crosser of the ball), but is still reasonably defensive-minded and is aware of how to play the RCB position within the system. We could then still chase the game but be reasonably defensively solid.
I think Amorim's decisions were alright, given that we did generate some chances (Amad, Cunha, Sesko) and didn't concede. I think all hell would have broken loose on the forums if we threw in a bunch of attacking subs and conceded.
I think we should consider that removing bad habit that has been entrenched for so long would also need time. Consistency in doing the right thing is not going to be a straight line trajectory. There will be hiccups like last match. I'm still encourage of the things we did right. Our play from the back, the one touch football has slowly returning. But we still have not been able make that final pass consistently. But for what it's worth I think this team mentally stronger than last season, our intensity are better and we are physically more capable to handle the demands of PL. Previous seasons we would capitulate after getting sucker punched at the first 5 minutes against Forest. We would also definitely lost against Liverpool after getting equalized. We are now in the process of recognizing the good things we have done and making the effort of being consistent in that, while removing the bad habits.
Yeah, I've seen that this team has enough good foundation to built upon and I do think the bad habits would take time to be weeded out. What I saw from Amorim right now is that he's very calculated in seeing what this group of players can or can't do.