Manchester United secured a narrow 2-1 victory against Crystal Palace, with Ruben Amorim's tactical approach once again under the microscope. The win, highlighted by goals from Joshua Zirkzee and Mason Mount, provided a temporary reprieve for the Portuguese manager, whose tactics have been increasingly questioned. While the 3-4-2-1 formation ultimately prevailed, the match exposed persistent flaws in Amorim's system, raising concerns about its long-term viability.
Crystal Palace, managed by Oliver Glasner, mirrored United's formation with their own 3-4-2-1, setting the stage for a tactical battle. However, the contrasting approaches of the two managers were evident. Glasner's Palace employs an "expanding system," characterized by quick transitions and a direct attacking style, while Amorim's United favors a more "contracting" approach, focused on controlling possession and suffocating the opposition.
Despite the win, United's performance was far from convincing. In the first half, Palace effectively contained United's attack and took the lead, exposing vulnerabilities in Amorim's setup. United struggled to break down Palace's compact defensive block, with their wing-backs often failing to provide sufficient width and their midfield lacking dynamism.
Amorim's tactical rigidity has been a recurring criticism. Against Everton, Amorim's reluctance to deviate from his 3-4-2-1 formation after Everton went down to ten men ultimately contributed to their defeat. This inflexibility was again apparent against Palace, with Amorim slow to react to Palace's tactical adjustments. While Amorim made changes in the second half, injecting more intensity and altering the way Josh controls the ball, questions remain about his in-game management and ability to adapt to different scenarios.
One of the key issues with Amorim's system is the lack of balance between "givers" and "takers" in the team. The reliance on players like Højlund, Bruno Fernandes, and Garnacho, who tend to dominate the ball, can lead to a lack of creativity and link-up play. Moreover, the wide players often struggle to make an impact, with Dalot's reluctance to use his left foot and the wingbacks failing to get up in time.
Defensively, Amorim's high backline can be vulnerable to pacey counter-attacks, particularly with the likes of Mateta. The midfield pairing of Casemiro and Bruno, while talented, lacks the athleticism and defensive discipline to consistently protect the back three. This leaves the center-backs exposed, requiring them to jump out of position and leaving gaps in the defense.
Despite these flaws, Amorim's system does offer some advantages. The 3-4-2-1 can provide defensive solidity, with the wing-backs dropping in to create a back five. It also allows for a more attacking left wing-back. The system also negates the need for a dedicated defensive midfielder. However, these benefits are often outweighed by the system's inherent weaknesses, particularly against tactically astute opponents like Glasner's Crystal Palace.
In conclusion, while Ruben Amorim secured a valuable victory against Crystal Palace, the match highlighted the ongoing challenges with his 3-4-2-1 formation. While the system has its strengths, its rigidity, defensive vulnerabilities, and lack of attacking fluidity continue to raise concerns. For Manchester United to achieve their ambitions, Amorim needs to address these flaws and demonstrate a greater willingness to adapt his tactics to different opponents and game situations.
