Ruben Amorim | Sacked

Status
Not open for further replies.
I'm totally speculating here but I wouldn't surprised if Amorim suggested that he would be flexible, first because people often lie to get a good job and also because he probably saw the reports that followed his interviews with Liverpool and West Ham where his attachment to 3421 was clearly stated as an issue.

Now I totally agree with whoever is critical of the decision makers, namely Berrada and SJR, who decided to gamble on him when it made no practical sense.
 
Globule said:
3 at the back, 4 at the back. It doesn't really matter if you're trying to develop a style football that goes beyond a single manager. Pep and Mourinho have both used 4-3-3 but the way they play is different.

So hiring a manager that prefers a certain formation isn't a mistake. Hiring managers with contrasting philosophies is what's cost us in the past.

And again, most managers favour a certain formation, but how many are so wedded to that system that they're not willing to deviate at all. Struggling to get results - same formation.
Struggling to get performances - same formation
Chasing a goal - same formation.

I don't think anyone would have expected Amorim to be quite as rigid as he was before he came here.
Click to expand...
There is some truth in what you say but by dismissing formation you miss a key element. Formation and style are intimately linked. 3 at the back typically means 3 CBs, so less technical players. It means fewer technical or attacking players elsewhere on the pitch, and dictates where you can and cannot easily create overloads. It means playing wing backs who as well as needing to be the main attacking outlet from wide, also need to have huge stamina and be solid defenders. Probably the most demanding role on the pitch and few players want to do that when they have other options.

Pep for a period played notionally 3 at the back, but 2 and on occasion all 3 of those were in fact CMs. In possession it often become something like a 1234, so very aggressive high press and unrecognizable from anything associated with 3 at the back. Yes there are variations on 3 at the back, Glasner for example plays a more fluid system and more variations. Amorim was also pretty rigid in his patterns of play and how we wanted the team to advance the ball. We already saw a difference under Fletcher in terms of balls going more quickly through to Sesko, with good results.

Your final point is though spot on. No top managers today are rigid. Some change formations regularly during games. Glasner adopted a back 3 as it suited the squad, same with Conte at Chelsea. The entire mantra of modern coaching is flexibility.
 
AFCON peeps are going to come back to the club aghast, really. "We're abroad for a few weeks and you guys let everything implode!"

Meanwhile Kobbie is grinning cheekily in the background somewhere
 
JPRouve said:
I'm totally speculating here but I wouldn't surprised if Amorim suggested that he would be flexible, first because people often lie to get a good job and also because he probably saw the reports that followed his interviews with Liverpool and West Ham where his attachment to 3421 was clearly stated as an issue.

Now I totally agree with whoever is critical of the decision makers, namely Berrada and SJR, who decided to gamble on him when it made no practical sense.
Click to expand...
The point about Liverpool and West Ham is interesting in this context. So either he lied to us or I think more likely we were fine with it. If it was a key issue they could have sacked him in the summer as it was clear by then as well.

I just don't think they cared about it until it became a talking point, and then it seemed like Ratcliffe started pushing for it.
 
Devarshi said:
Not enough people slagging off Berrada, Wilcox and co. for their shit decision making here. Brought in the 3-4-3 system guy and then decide the system is the problem because of all the pundit podcasts.

The problem is elsewhere and no manager is going to succeed here while that continues to be the case.

Lots of Amorim naysayers gleefully coming out of the woodwork here, and while I'll be the first the acknowledge that the Europa final, crashout to Grimsby, and loss to ten man Everton are all sackable offences, it hasn't all been downhill under Amorim.

The broader picture: The team has looked decidedly more fitter after pre-season. They could string two passes together again. There was more confidence going forward, no backpass hell like under EtH. More emphasis on direct play, more chances created. The deadwood was offloaded. The players were behind the manager and the atmosphere in the dressing room was positive (evident from the messages the players are leaving for the coach). We were 6th but faltering in December primarily because of injuries and AFCON.

This is when the INEOS wisearses decide they somehow know better and push the back 3 guy to use a back 4. As if they didn't already know that was his trigger. As if they didn't know they have a young Portuguese hothead known for being emotional and saying shit. You HIRED the guy, not doing the due diligence, and failed to manage him, so where are the consequences?

Thanks for blowing up this season too, you nitwits. There was something good going. Not Champions level good, but bit better than midtable where United seem destined for these days. Now we have to survive on hope, prayer and a bit of magic from the ex-players - and thank feck we have options like Carrick, Ole, Mckenna and Fletch to fall back on, or this board would be squeaking their bums around more during matchday and burning more of the club money to hire the next incompetent.

Twats.
Click to expand...
Yes the ultimate blame here is with Berrada who it seems led the pitch for Amorim, and Ratcliffe for ignoring his expensive DOF and wanting a quick fix. But Amorim leaves with the worst win rate since a I think Wilf McGuinness, as few clean sheets as Ossie Ardiles. The table is irrelevant in such a topsy turvy season. People like you keep wanting to give Amorim credit for offloading deadwood, but Ratcliffe came out and said it would happen and name checked several players.

We were going nowhere under Amorim. Look at Everton, subbing on replacement CBs when playing 10 men, no idea whatsoever what to do. We heard Lacey get bigged up but Amorim was afraid to try him. I will never forget the Everton game, Neville asking the camera to pan out and show 5 players in a straight line on the half way line with one attacker. Then Yoro constantly getting the ball in midfield. Neville saying this is not the player you want in acres of space inside right, who is just going to jog forward and pass sideways. Sure enough he did. It was not a criticism of him but his point was you need an attacking player there. Bring on Lacey as a throw of the dice, take off a sodding centre back. I mean seriously, how hard it is?

By all accounts he promised at the outset to evolve but I think the reality is he and his staff are woefully inexperienced and had no idea how to do that. His system was his comfort blanket.
 
Is it too late to sack Wilcox and get him back in? The more I read other opinions and even pundits coming out of the woodwork to say they thought we might be onto something, I feel more and more justified in thinking this is a big mistake. Results weren’t great and the list of missing players was killing us, but I felt like we were heading in the right direction. I don’t really care what anybody tells me but I think we’ve messed this one up big time.
 
Gordon'sHill said:
There is some truth in what you say but by dismissing formation you miss a key element. Formation and style are intimately linked. 3 at the back typically means 3 CBs, so less technical players. It means fewer technical or attacking players elsewhere on the pitch, and dictates where you can and cannot easily create overloads. It means playing wing backs who as well as needing to be the main attacking outlet from wide, also need to have huge stamina and be solid defenders. Probably the most demanding role on the pitch and few players want to do that when they have other options.

Pep for a period played notionally 3 at the back, but 2 and on occasion all 3 of those were in fact CMs. In possession it often become something like a 1234, so very aggressive high press and unrecognizable from anything associated with 3 at the back. Yes there are variations on 3 at the back, Glasner for example plays a more fluid system and more variations. Amorim was also pretty rigid in his patterns of play and how we wanted the team to advance the ball. We already saw a difference under Fletcher in terms of balls going more quickly through to Sesko, with good results.

Your final point is though spot on. No top managers today are rigid. Some change formations regularly during games. Glasner adopted a back 3 as it suited the squad, same with Conte at Chelsea. The entire mantra of modern coaching is flexibility.
Click to expand...

Your second paragraph is my point though. How you play depends how you're implementing the formation, not the formation itself. It's why we looked better with Amad at wing back than we did with Dalot or Mazraoui.

But for Amorim if Amad is not available he wouldn't consider taking the formation, he'd stick one of the others there because the formation comes first. If Dalot, Maz and Amad weren't available what would have been the likeliest outcome - that he tweaks formation or he forces someone else there.
 
Gordon'sHill said:
There is some truth in what you say but by dismissing formation you miss a key element. Formation and style are intimately linked. 3 at the back typically means 3 CBs, so less technical players. It means fewer technical or attacking players elsewhere on the pitch, and dictates where you can and cannot easily create overloads. It means playing wing backs who as well as needing to be the main attacking outlet from wide, also need to have huge stamina and be solid defenders. Probably the most demanding role on the pitch and few players want to do that when they have other options.

Pep for a period played notionally 3 at the back, but 2 and on occasion all 3 of those were in fact CMs. In possession it often become something like a 1234, so very aggressive high press and unrecognizable from anything associated with 3 at the back. Yes there are variations on 3 at the back, Glasner for example plays a more fluid system and more variations. Amorim was also pretty rigid in his patterns of play and how we wanted the team to advance the ball. We already saw a difference under Fletcher in terms of balls going more quickly through to Sesko, with good results.

Your final point is though spot on. No top managers today are rigid. Some change formations regularly during games. Glasner adopted a back 3 as it suited the squad, same with Conte at Chelsea. The entire mantra of modern coaching is flexibility.
Click to expand...
Both Arteta and Pep regularly play with 3 CBs, sometimes even 4, as part of their back 4.
 
JustAGuest said:
The point about Liverpool and West Ham is interesting in this context. So either he lied to us or I think more likely we were fine with it. If it was a key issue they could have sacked him in the summer as it was clear by then as well.

I just don't think they cared about it until it became a talking point, and then it seemed like Ratcliffe started pushing for it.
Click to expand...

I would say that he lied. For the simple reason that he lied during press conferences about the same thing. I don't see any reason to believe that someone that would lie publicly wouldn't do it behind closed door.

In reality pretty much all the recent reports from the club match with things that Amorim said during interviews and press conferences, there is no reason to believe that someone will say that he would evolve in public while swearing that he wouldn't behind the scene to his bosses, it makes no logical sense.
 
Devarshi said:
Source? Because this is the guy who said something like Pope can't make him change his system.

You're guessing here just like I'm sure Berrada and Wilcox did when hiring Ruben, and that's what has led to this shitshow.
Click to expand...



No, no, no. Not even the Pope or someone, it will not, this is my job and my responsibility, my life. I will not change that but I will change the system, there will be an evolution, but we need to make all the good steps. If I am a player and I have a coach who has a lot of pressure, it doesn't matter if they are all around the world, they are saying you need to change the system and in this moment, they will look at me in a different way. Everything, when you think about the impact a decision is going to have in the team, everything is important. I will say the same thing, this will have an evolution and I am doing things my way and some guys do things in another way, but it will change. I hope I will have the time to change, it will change."
Click to expand...

https://www.manutd.com/en/news/deta...-system-despite-pressure-at-manchester-united
Devarshi said:
And they decided now was the time to sack him, when the team is going through an injury crisis + key players away from AFCON, not before when shit was most decidedly more dire? Around the October-November mark there were more calls to sack Ruben and the board backed him (and his 3-4-3). Now, with two days left for Burnley, FA cup tie and City derby coming, they think it's best to push the coach to try something he's not comfortable with?

It's daft as feck and there are no two ways about it. The timing was atrocious. They couldn't cough up the money to get the necessary signings, tried to blame Ruben, and sacked him when he rightfully blew up at them.

Club's fecked under the Glazers and INEOS, there's honestly no way out of this.
Click to expand...

Amorim decided it was time for his sacking when he told them he wanted to leave and then proceeded to have public outbursts.
 
JPRouve said:
I would say that he lied. For the simple reason that he lied during press conferences about the same thing. I don't see any reason to believe that someone that would lie publicly wouldn't do it behind closed door.

In reality pretty much all the recent reports from the club match with things that Amorim said during interviews and press conferences, there is no reason to believe that someone will say that he would evolve in public while swearing that he wouldn't behind the scene to his bosses, it makes no logical sense.
Click to expand...
When did he lie about it during press conferences? He was pretty clear from the start that he would stick to his system until the players had learned it or something along those lines. I think only recently did he start to suggest he might have to adapt due to players being away at AFCON or not getting signings.
 
JustAGuest said:
When did he lie about it during press conferences? He was pretty clear from the start that he would stick to his system until the players had learned it or something along those lines. I think only recently did he start to suggest he might have to adapt due to players being away at AFCON or not getting signings.
Click to expand...

He lied about leaving without compensation if he felt that he wasn't trusted, he lied about being a manager and not a head coach. He lied about being willing to change his system and evolvve, that one is part of the Pope quote. He also lied about Amass performances, even if people tried to twist it into some misunderstanding, he just lied for no good reason.
 
pocco said:
Is it too late to sack Wilcox and get him back in? The more I read other opinions and even pundits coming out of the woodwork to say they thought we might be onto something, I feel more and more justified in thinking this is a big mistake. Results weren’t great and the list of missing players was killing us, but I felt like we were heading in the right direction. I don’t really care what anybody tells me but I think we’ve messed this one up big time.
Click to expand...
Big mistake :lol:

JustAGuest said:
It's the easy solution. Sack the manager = team will do better. Not that different to politics.

Now we face the consequences which is an interim for the rest of the season. An interim that will need to change the system we have played, which will take some time to transition mid season. Looks like it will be Ole who we not long ago sacked for not being good enough. Good luck to him.
Click to expand...
I don't think Ole coming back even as an interim is a great idea but to be fair, not being good enough meant not challeging for the title back then. If I had to put money on it, I would bet on Ole outperforming Amorim any time.
 
El Jefe said:
You must have missed the Rangnick era. It's essentially a precursor to the Amorim fandom.

All you need to do for a not so insignificant section of this fanbase is to present yourself as coach who is clean shaven, talks impeccably well in press conferences and 'says it as it is'. Promise a future of success but only after clearing out bad apples and having your own squad. Follow this and their football will lead to the return of the superpower that is Manchester United.

The key thing is that press conferences to this batch of fans carries an inexplicable amount of weight in assessing the performance of the manager. Most fans will judge based on output on the pitch and rightfully so but to the fans who fully drink the Kool-Aid, other things like lack of signings, media coverage, players downing tools or lack of time will be used to excuse the performances. The promise of success is something they truly believe in despite how the results go.

Say the right things in press conferences and you'll have an army of fans treat you like a martyr even if you get rightfully sacked for poor performance.
Click to expand...
That Rangnick quote and the way it is used annoys me whenever I see it. It's not that he was necessarily wrong about things but anyone can say "this squad is shit and needs major changes". Ever since, we've been hearing about this open heart surgery, as if every manager needs the squad completely overhauled. We even had people using it to defend Ten Hag, after all the dross that we signed on his recommendation. You could sign 15 players and people will still be like oh, Shaw and Maguire are still here, what do you expect.
 
JustAGuest said:
Both Arteta and Pep regularly play with 3 CBs, sometimes even 4, as part of their back 4.
Click to expand...
Califiori, Hincapie, White and Timber are all excellent on the ball. They all played at full back before joining Arsenal (Hincapie at wingback) and contribute to us dominating most games we play. It is the same with City.

Amorim wasn’t good at coaching an attack (at least one that didn’t also leave holes all over the defence when the ball was lost). This is more salient than the number of players who can play CB in the back line.
 
Rista said:
I don't think Ole coming back even as an interim is a great idea but to be fair, not being good enough meant not challeging for the title back then. If I had to put money on it, I would bet on Ole outperforming Amorim any time.
Click to expand...
Cardiff improved results immediately after Ole got the sack, Amorim has more manager credentials than him, to be honest, even if it didn't work out for him here.
 
JPRouve said:
He lied about leaving without compensation if he felt that he wasn't trusted, he lied about being a manager and not a head coach. He lied about being willing to change his system and evolvve, that one is part of the Pope quote. He also lied about Amass performances, even if people tried to twist it into some misunderstanding, he just lied for no good reason.
Click to expand...

What did he say about Amass? I probably missed it
 
Devarshi said:
What did he say about Amass? I probably missed it
Click to expand...
He said that he struggled in Championship but I suspect it is not what he meant. To me it makes no sense to lie about something that is quite obvious to everyone is not true. But anything to slag Amorim off!
 
ivaldo said:
No, I'm saying there's data to prove we played attacking football. That's why I provided offensive stats and bolded 'risk adverse' in my response. I don't know how I could make it any clearer for you bud. Though I understand why you're now trying to pivot.
Click to expand...

I haven't changed my stance at all mate.

We played largely boring, risk averse football. We've all watched Amorim in game after game where we were losing or drawing take little or no risks to turn games around. Post all the data you want and intepret it however you want. But none of it proves that we weren't risk averse under Amorim. And I think it's important you understand what I mean here, he rarely made attacking changes (subs, tactical adjustments, formation changes etc) to try and turn games around. Also in lots of games (especially this season) where we went in at half time a goal or two up. We'd come out in the second half much more defensive in an effort to hold onto what we have instead of going for the 2nd or 3rd goal to kill the game.

To me that's risk averse football.
 
JPRouve said:
He lied about leaving without compensation if he felt that he wasn't trusted, he lied about being a manager and not a head coach. He lied about being willing to change his system and evolvve, that one is part of the Pope quote. He also lied about Amass performances, even if people tried to twist it into some misunderstanding, he just lied for no good reason.
Click to expand...
The compensation thing is taken out of context, it was said in the summer following the final but the board decided to trust him to continue.

Evolving the system takes time. You cannot sack him after 14 months (and not even one full season) then claim he lied because the system didn't evolve.

I won't argue with the manager thing as he was indeed appointed head coach, but then again we have no idea what he has been told in private and whether he expected to have more input on the team direction even as head coach. The claim that Amass was struggling in the Championship was wrong.

I still think it is quite a stretch to assume he must have lied to the club to get appointed based on the above.
 
Devarshi said:
What did he say about Amass? I probably missed it
Click to expand...

He said that Amass was struggling when he wasn't. He was asked about Mainoo and decided to put a negative spin on other youth players in attempt to defend his decisons which wasn't even needed.
 
JustAGuest said:
The compensation thing is taken out of context, it was said in the summer following the final but the board decided to trust him to continue.

Evolving the system takes time. You cannot sack him after 14 months (and not even one full season) then claim he lied because the system didn't evolve.

I won't argue with the manager thing as he was indeed appointed head coach, but then again we have no idea what he has been told in private and whether he expected to have more input on the team direction even as head coach. The claim that Amass was struggling in the Championship was wrong.

I still think it is quite a stretch to assume he must have lied to the club to get appointed based on the above.
Click to expand...

Sure.
 
Trigestis said:
Cardiff improved results immediately after Ole got the sack, Amorim has more manager credentials than him, to be honest, even if it didn't work out for him here.
Click to expand...
Alright, but the most relevant comparison would be how they both did at United. I would bet on Ole getting more out of the squad. If nothing else then for the fact that he wouldn't be actively sabotaging our chances by using a system that is clearly suboptimal for the squad at his disposal. It's why I would even bet at Fletcher not doing any worse for the remainder of the season.
JustAGuest said:
Evolving the system takes time. You cannot sack him after 14 months (and not even one full season) then claim he lied because the system didn't evolve.
Click to expand...
Playing basically one way for 14 months straight is pretty much the definiton of not evolving. How long does evolving a system take then, 5 years? No manager is even in the job long enough to do it.
 
Rista said:
Alright, but the most relevant comparison would be how they both did at United. I would bet on Ole getting more out of the squad. If nothing else then for the fact that he wouldn't be actively sabotaging our chances by using a system that is clearly suboptimal for the squad at his disposal. It's why I would even bet at Fletcher not doing any worse for the remainder of the season.
Click to expand...
Time will tell when/if he joins. The pressure is huge now with only 17 games left and we're desperate for a CL spot. Forever grateful if he can do that. If it's just about not doing any worse, then it's not good enough.
 
pocco said:
Is it too late to sack Wilcox and get him back in? The more I read other opinions and even pundits coming out of the woodwork to say they thought we might be onto something, I feel more and more justified in thinking this is a big mistake. Results weren’t great and the list of missing players was killing us, but I felt like we were heading in the right direction. I don’t really care what anybody tells me but I think we’ve messed this one up big time.
Click to expand...
No matter what utd do the media and pundits will say we are wrong. When Ruben was in,they pushed he wasnt good enough. Wouldn't even bother taking notice of them.
 
Rista said:
Alright, but the most relevant comparison would be how they both did at United. I would bet on Ole getting more out of the squad. If nothing else then for the fact that he wouldn't be actively sabotaging our chances by using a system that is clearly suboptimal for the squad at his disposal. It's why I would even bet at Fletcher not doing any worse for the remainder of the season.

Playing basically one way for 14 months straight is pretty much the definiton of not evolving. How long does evolving a system take then, 5 years? No manager is even in the job long enough to do it.
Click to expand...
Do we play the same way this season as last season? Not talking about the formation.
 
It's very telling that every defence of Amorim boils down to either, "we shouldn't have hired him in the first place then," or blind, head-in-sand faith that time and money would suddenly turn things around (or a combination of the two).

It was clearly a mistake to hire him because he was clearly shit at his job. You don't rectify that mistake by letting him stay in post.

The fact that so many have either conveniently missed/forgotten the times he's talked about the need for flexibility and evolution isn’t actually relevant, even if it does directly contradict their claims that he was allegedly promised he could do things exactly how he wanted, regardless of results.

The fact is that his approach wasn't delivering results and he was asked to make changes, even if only until we could actually bring in more suitable players.

This was a perfectly reasonable request, made precisely because we don't want another season "written off" as a transition year, and rather than accepting this, he went nuclear.

If you want to ignore that (which you shouldn't), we had 14 months and 47 matches with Amorim, and he won just 15. He also only once managed to string together a run of consecutive wins (which only stretched as far as three).

Any faith that things would markedly get better with time and/or money spent is effectively baseless. There is basically nothing that can be pointed to as evidence that Amorim could turn it around.
 
Alex99 said:
There is basically nothing that can be pointed to as evidence that Amorim could turn it around.
Click to expand...
Turn it around from what? What is your base point here? 15th? 6th? Nothing at all pointed to us improving? Not the fact that we created more chances, or scored more goals? Nothing could improve from 6th with a functional midfield?
 
Trigestis said:
Turn it around from what? What is your base point here? 15th? 6th? Nothing at all pointed to us improving? Not the fact that we created more chances, or scored more goals? Nothing could improve from 6th with a functional midfield?
Click to expand...
Give it a rest. Worse win rate since Wilf McGuinness. As few clean sheets as Ossie Ardiles at Spurs, the ultimate banter manager. The rest is irrelevant. He was a rigid system manager using a system that no other top manager in a major league uses. No other team at United had adapted to it. Do you even understand what his system was meant to do? He does not seek to control the midfield, he uses a high press and wants to get the ball vertical as quickly as possible. Sure a more mobile Casimero would help, but it doesn't change the fundamentals of what he was trying to do or how predictable and east to counter it is. He will never win a major trophy. Sporting he had some of the best football development and recruitment behind him, in one of the weakest leagues.
 
I don’t really care whether Amorim said he’d change his formation later down the line or not, the whole idea of not changing under any circumstances until the team were familiar with it - which included during a final we lost btw - was ridiculous in itself and in the case of that final can even potentially be said to have been prioritised over United winning a trophy, qualifying for CL and receiving more money. At the very least he didn’t do anything and everything he could to win that game, which is basically a sack worthy dereliction in itself and even IF he genuinely believed sticking with the same crap that had seen us lose twice to Spurs already that season was enough, he was wrong, and got outsmarted by Ange, which is worse!

Then youve got the whole “I won’t change if you tell me to, but I’m going to tell everyone that so it looks worse when I do” shit which was basically losing mind games to himself, so it’s clear he wasn’t smart or savvy enough to be worth sticking with for 3 years, unless you think literally anyone would be, in which case who does it matter who we appoint?

I can’t see any actual arguments for why it was bad to sack him beyond “it’s just annoying and inconvenient to have to start again” and… yeah, but, tough.
 
Last edited:
Gordon'sHill said:
Give it a rest. Worse win rate since Wilf McGuinness. As few clean sheets as Ossie Ardiles at Spurs, the ultimate banter manager. The rest is irrelevant. He was a rigid system manager using a system that no other top manager in a major league uses. No other team at United had adapted to it. Do you even understand what his system was meant to do? He does not seek to control the midfield, he uses a high press and wants to get the ball vertical as quickly as possible. Sure a more mobile Casimero would help, but it doesn't change the fundamentals of what he was trying to do or how predictable and east to counter it is. He will never win a major trophy. Sporting he had some of the best football development and recruitment behind him, in one of the weakest leagues.
Click to expand...
I know, you have said that about 50 times. Talking about Wilf McGuinness and Ossie Ardiles as if that is somehow relevant in the modern day football ffs

What manager have we had post Fergie that sought to control midfield? Maybe Moyes who turned down Thiago Alcantara to sign Fellaini?
 
Trigestis said:
Turn it around from what? What is your base point here? 15th? 6th? Nothing at all pointed to us improving? Not the fact that we created more chances, or scored more goals? Nothing could improve from 6th with a functional midfield?
Click to expand...

Nothing that didn't have an obvious counter

We were 6th when we should have been 4th (or higher). We weren't 4th because he couldn't win enough football matches.

We scored more goals, but also conceded more than all but the worst 5 or 6 teams in the league.

Our win rate improved this season but, even in isolation, remained worse than our very worst post-Fergie manager.

But we've been through all of this, so as I said, blind faith, head-in-sand.

Don't reply to me again.
 
JustAGuest said:
Both Arteta and Pep regularly play with 3 CBs, sometimes even 4, as part of their back 4.
Click to expand...
This is a gross falsehood. Did you even read my post? As stated, Pep had a period of playing with 3 CBs. But they were not generally not actual CBs, they were often midfielders and highly technical. In Stones they had one of the best ball playing CBs there is. Pep has said his perfect team might have 10 CMs. You cannot claim Pep was ever 3 CBs in the conventional way as when in possession they would leave one back and adopt something like a 135, incredibly aggressive. In defense at times it became 532. His philosophy is diametrically opposite to Amorim.

Same with Arteta, Timber can play CB or full back, as can others. So in our team can Shaw, he showed at Burnley he can still do a stint and be an attacking outlet at full back. Amorim wants 3 CBs at all times and there is very limited fluidity in their positioning, they have clear positions and roles whether in or out of possession.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.