Blueprint: How Big Clubs Decide When a Manager Is Done

Amorim, Maresca, and How Big Clubs Decide a Manager’s Fate

In the space of a few days, the Premier League claimed two more high-profile managerial casualties. Enzo Maresca, a disciple of Pep Guardiola, who had delivered silverware at Chelsea. Rúben Amorim, has been viewed as one of Europe’s brightest coaching minds, was dismissed by Manchester United, followed shortly after.

On the surface, the sackings felt contradictory. Amorim won Premier League Manager of the Month in October. Maresca won the same award in November. Both had enjoyed visible runs of form. Both were publicly backed only weeks earlier.

Yet neither decision was impulsive. In fact, both were deeply consistent with how elite clubs now operate.

Because modern Premier League boards do not sack managers for what happens in one month. They sack managers when patterns emerge that threaten long-term league outcomes, especially in one critical area:

Consistency against inferior opposition.

If there is one truth modern Premier League executives agree on — privately, if not always publicly — it is this:

You do not lose your job because you fail against the best teams.
You lose your job because you fail to be reliable against the weakest ones.

This is not arrogance; it is mathematics.

The Structural Reality of the Premier League Table

Across a 38-game season:

• Roughly 20–24 matches are played against bottom-half opposition
  

• These fixtures account for over 60% of the points required for:
  

  • Champions League qualification
    

  • Title contention
    

  • Managerial security

Elite clubs do not expect perfection in matches against Manchester City, Arsenal, or Liverpool. Those games are treated as variance events.
Matches against relegation-threatened or mid-table sides are treated as process tests.

Fail too often in those games, and the conclusion becomes unavoidable: the process is flawed.

Rúben Amorim at Manchester United: Identity Without Inevitability

When Manchester United appointed Amorim, they were buying into a clear vision. His Sporting CP side had been tactically sophisticated, aggressive in possession, and structurally brave. United wanted identity.

For a moment — particularly in October — it looked like they had found it.

The October Peak

United’s October run was Amorim’s strongest period in England:

• ~2.3 points per game
  

• Improved pressing metrics
  

• Fewer shots conceded
  

• Clear structure in a 3-4-3
  

• Results against mid-table and top-half opponents

The award followed naturally. United looked more organized. More intentional. More “coached.”

But the warning signs were there.

Even during that strong month, United struggled to turn dominance into inevitability against teams who:

• Defended deep
  

• Refused to press
  

• Played for territory and transitions

This would become the defining flaw of Amorim’s tenure.

The Numbers That Undermined Him

Across Amorim’s time at United:

• United dropped points in nearly half of their matches against teams ranked 11th–20th
  

• Points taken vs bottom-half sides hovered around 58% — Europa League level, not Champions League standard
  

• Multiple matches featured:
  

  • 60% possession
    

  • <1.0 open-play xG
    

  • Concessions from the opponent’s only meaningful chance

Representative matches:

• United 1–1 West Ham: sterile possession, no box presence
  

• United 4–4 Bournemouth: late collapse, exposed rest defence
  

• United 1–1 Wolves: territorial dominance, no central penetration

All these games were at Old Trafford. United were often harder to play against — but not reliably better.

Tactical Rigidity and Squad Fit

Amorim’s 3-4-3 relied heavily on:

• High wing-backs
  

• Central stability in rest defence
  

• Progressive centre-backs

At United, this structure produced:

• Vulnerability in transition
  

• Overreliance on wide creation
  

• Limited central occupation between the lines

Against strong teams, the system could compete. Against weaker teams, it often stalled.

For a club of United’s stature, that is unacceptable. Big clubs do not judge managers by how they survive difficult games — they judge them by how efficiently they win easy ones.

The United Context: A Decade of Managerial Instability

Since Sir Alex Ferguson’s retirement:

• No United manager has lasted three full seasons
  

• Tactical resets have piled upon one another
  

• Over £2bn spent without a league title

Amorim did not just struggle — he represented another reset without proof of sustainability. Once tensions over control and recruitment surfaced publicly, the decision became inevitable.

Enzo Maresca at Chelsea: Control Without Conversion

Maresca’s Chelsea story is more nuanced — and in some ways more brutal.

He won trophies.
He qualified for Europe.
He imposed a clear positional structure.

Yet he was still dismissed.

Why?

Because Chelsea, like United, judge managers primarily on league trajectory.

The November Illusion

Chelsea’s November run was impressive:

• 65–75% possession regularly
  

• Among the league’s lowest shots conceded
  

• Strong rest defence
  

• Narrow but consistent wins

Maresca’s football looked modern, intelligent, controlled. The Manager of the Month award followed.

But again, context mattered.

Chelsea were controlling territory, not penalty boxes.

The Underlying Decline

As the season progressed:

• Chelsea’s chance quality declined
  

• Big chances vs bottom-half teams dried up
  

• Goals increasingly relied on:
  

  • Set pieces
    

  • Individual moments
    

  • Low-probability shots

Chelsea dropped points against:

• Leeds United
  

• Bournemouth (2 times)
  

• Aston Villa

Each followed the same script: dominance without incision.

Chelsea’s points taken vs bottom-half teams sat around 62% — below Champions League standard.

This is the metric that sealed Maresca’s fate.

Transfer Volume and Squad Complexity

Chelsea’s structural challenges amplified Maresca’s issues:

• Oversized squad
  

• Positional redundancy
  

• Constant rotation
  

• Limited attacking hierarchy

Control remained. Clarity did not.

Chelsea often required perfect execution to win matches they statistically dominated — an unsustainable demand over 38 games.

Chelsea’s Managerial DNA

Over the last decade, Chelsea have:

• Regularly changed managers despite success
  

• Prioritised league position over cups
  

• Treated coaches as shock absorbers for structural complexity

Maresca did not fail by Chelsea standards. He failed to convince with data.

The Shared Failure: Points Against Inferior Opposition

When the two tenures are placed side by side, the similarities are striking.

Points vs Bottom-Half Teams (Comparative Benchmark)

This table explains both sackings more clearly than any press conference.

Why Consistency Matters More Than Peaks

Big clubs understand something supporters often resist:

You do not win leagues by beating good teams.
You win leagues by never wasting games you control.

Matches against inferior opponents:

• Make up over 60% of required points
  

• Test structure, patience, discipline
  

• Reveal whether dominance is repeatable or conditional

Amorim’s United needed space to function.
Maresca’s Chelsea needed perfection.

Elite teams need neither.

The Elite Benchmark: Guardiola & Arteta

• Guardiola reduces randomness through suffocation and central overloads
  

• Arteta stacks margins with set-pieces, repetition, and discipline

Different styles. Same outcome: predictable points.

That is the standard United and Chelsea benchmark against — not ideals, but arithmetic.

How Big Clubs Actually Decide to Sack Managers

Contrary to popular belief, these decisions are rarely emotional.

They are driven by:

• Trend lines
  

• Points-per-game projections
  

• Bottom-half efficiency
  

• Risk modelling

Once a manager:

• Drops below ~65% points vs inferior teams
  

• Shows limited adaptability
  

• Relies on ideal conditions

The clock accelerates. Amorim and Maresca crossed that threshold.

Final Verdict

Neither Amorim nor Maresca lacked intelligence, preparation, or philosophy.

They lacked inevitability.

In the modern Premier League:

• Identity is expected
  

• Control is insufficient
  

• Consistency is everything

Manager of the Month awards celebrate peaks. Elite clubs protect against collapses.

Manchester United and Chelsea did not sack their managers because of one bad run — they acted because the numbers suggested the future would look like the recent past.

And at this level, that is enough.