Ruben Amorim’s time at Manchester United has been marked by a noticeable shift in his demeanor and the team’s performance, highlighting a growing disconnect between his tactical philosophy and the realities of the club. Initially arriving at Old Trafford with a polished, confident presence, Amorim’s appearance resembled that of a high-end professional, poised for success. However, just weeks into his tenure, his once confident posture has been replaced with a visible air of frustration and exhaustion, as if the weight of the job has already begun to take its toll.
United’s recent struggles, including four consecutive defeats and a lack of goals, only add to the sense of unease surrounding Amorim’s tenure. The team’s performances have been disjointed, and despite his reputation as a tactician, Amorim’s rigid approach has struggled to find success within the club’s current setup. His insistence on implementing a specific tactical shape one that emphasizes a three-at-the-back formation and high-intensity midfield pressing has become increasingly difficult to execute, given the club’s roster limitations and lack of cohesion.
This situation stands in stark contrast to the approach of Arne Slot at Liverpool, where pragmatism and adaptability have led to early success. While Amorim’s philosophy centers around systems and rigid structure, Slot has taken a more flexible approach, building on the solid foundation left by Jürgen Klopp and refining it rather than overhauling it. This pragmatic mindset has allowed Slot to get the best out of players like Ryan Gravenberch, Luis Díaz, and Trent Alexander-Arnold, all of whom have reached new heights under his guidance. Slot’s ability to tweak and adapt the existing framework has made him a more effective manager in the short term, as opposed to Amorim’s insistence on forcing a system that may not be suitable for the players at his disposal.
The contrast between these two managers also highlights the broader differences in the two clubs’ management styles. Liverpool, under Slot, benefits from a relatively stable environment and a clear, functional squad, which has allowed for incremental improvement. Meanwhile, Manchester United’s situation is more chaotic, with a history of managerial turnover, inconsistent performances, and a squad that has yet to fully gel. Amorim’s failure to adjust his tactical demands to the club’s limitations has only underscored the pre-existing flaws at United, particularly in midfield, where his selections have been criticized for their lack of cohesion and balance.
Moreover, the financial and managerial decisions made by United’s ownership have further complicated Amorim’s task. The club’s lack of investment in key areas, combined with the failure to deliver on promises made by ownership, has left Amorim with a team that is ill-suited to execute his high-intensity, system-based approach. In contrast, Liverpool’s ownership, while financially cautious, has provided Slot with a more coherent environment to work in, allowing him to build on Klopp’s legacy rather than starting from scratch.
While Amorim may yet find a way to make his system work at United, the current reality suggests that his approach may be misaligned with the club’s needs. The contrast between his struggles and Slot’s early success at Liverpool serves as a reminder of the importance of adaptability and pragmatism in modern football management. For now, Amorim’s time at Manchester United feels like a case of a manager with a clear vision, trying to implement it in a place where such plans often fail.
