Contrasting Approaches Define Diverging Fortunes for Manchester United and Liverpool
The widening gap in performance between Manchester United and Liverpool can be largely attributed to the drastically different strategies employed when appointing their current managers. While Liverpool utilized a data-driven approach, consulting a complex model crafted by a physicist wiht a Harvard education, Manchester United’s decision-making process surrounding their new manager leaned heavily on subjective impressions.
United, seeking a figure to revitalize the club following a decade of struggle as Sir Alex Ferguson’s 2013 retirement, were drawn to Ruben Amorim’s success in delivering sporting CP’s first league title in nineteen years. Club leadership, including Sir Jim Ratcliffe and Omar Berrada, prioritized a young, dynamic coach, identifying in Amorim qualities reminiscent of Mikel Arteta and pep Guardiola.
Ratcliffe has consistently emphasized Amorim’s personality, describing him as “intelligent” and “thoughtful,” and has publicly recounted candid conversations held at the Carrington training ground, characterized by direct feedback from owner to coach.
However, a critical element overlooked by United’s assessment was Amorim’s strong preference for a 3-4-3 formation. Liverpool, in contrast, flagged this tactical inflexibility as a critically important concern, ultimately leading them to pursue Arne Slot.
Despite currently facing a challenging run of form with three consecutive losses ahead of Sunday’s match against United, Slot has largely proven a triumphant appointment for Liverpool. This stands in stark contrast to Amorim’s tenure at Manchester united, where, after eleven months, the situation has demonstrably worsened.
