Like predecessor Erik ten Hag, Ruben Amorim should have gone in the summer when the evidence of his unsuitability was set out in wins, draws and losses, mostly the latter.
His tactical intransigence, the 3-4-3 dogma, reflected an abstract vision of the way the game should be played. His unwillingness to adapt when it was clear his schema had no application in the Premier League, reflected his inexperience.
Amorim was out of his depth but having appointed him against the wishes of the sporting director, Dan Ashworth, subsequently sacked after just five months in post, the leadership repeated the failings that saw Ten Hag retained when it was clear his flush was busted.
Ultimately all this comes back to Sir Jim Ratcliffe and his Ineos clique, who, instead of modernising an outmoded institution as promised, have set it back. United go into the Burnley fixture with Darren Fletcher in the caretaker role. They might as well give it to his sons.
This latest rupture is further proof of the ineptitude of Ineos in the football setting. Ratcliffe thought he could apply the principles of commerce that made him Britain’s richest man to the business of football. The results have made the majority owning Glazer family look competent.
Apart from ruining the team, Ratcliffe has bludgeoned the spirit of the club, sending a third of the workforce, more than 400 people, packing on the altar of profitability. This might have been acceptable had the supporters seen an upturn in results.
This term was supposed to be better. It is to a degree, but only because last season was catastrophically bad.
The spawny victory over Newcastle on Boxing Day was their only home success in the league since October, a run that includes a defeat to 10-man Everton and draws against West Ham, Bournemouth and Wolves.
Why it took director of football Jason Wilcox this long to find Amorim’s dull output unacceptable is a question only he can answer. It appears he does not have to answer to the media for his genius nor his power. Defending the indefensible was left to Amorim, the only part of the job at which he excelled.
Amorim was invariably on point with his understanding of his team’s failings, whether it be lack of intensity, failure to win second balls, over-reliance on Bruno Fernandes, fear of failure, performance anxiety, you name it, he identified it. The problem was he could not fix it.
Ashworth was onto him early, believing his style to be an imperfect fit for United, too passive, too slow, too risk-averse. He argued that to focus on formation was a mistake. It was always more complex than that. So true, and far too complex a puzzle for a young coach with nil experience outside Portugal to fathom.
Ultimately it is Ratcliffe and Ineos who do not know what they are doing. Ratcliffe thought borrowing from Manchester City was the way to go, raiding the Etihad for a new chief executive in Omar Berrada and Wilcox, who spent a decade in the academy, first as a coach and then as director.
Your next read
The vague belief that the association with City was enough, that it would necessarily lead to a transference of behaviours and outcomes illustrated how little personal understanding Ratcliffe has of the football milieu. He sought a change in culture, yet culture is developed not bought off the shelf.
The cultural shift United need most is at the top, where the ignorance and incompetence of Ineos has combined to leave the club in a worse spot than they were on Christmas Eve 2023 when Ratcliffe rushed through his takeover of football operations. Yet these are the people who will decide on the next manager.
The future they promised feels further away than ever.
from Football - The i Paper https://ift.tt/SvYX0TP
Post a Comment