Owen's 'Embarrassing' Formation Rant Ignites Fiery Debate Amidst Ten Hag's Tactical Turmoil

In the ever-churning world of football punditry, opinions are dispensed with the ease of a striker tapping in an open goal. However, some comments strike a chord that resonates beyond mere discussion, often due to their perceived irony or outright contradiction. Such is the case with Michael Owen's recent, rather dismissive, take on Ruben Amorim's tactical choices, which has predictably stirred a hornets' nest, especially when juxtaposed with his own damning assessments of Manchester United's struggles under Erik ten Hag.

Owen, a former England international and Ballon d'Or winner, didn't mince words when discussing Sporting CP manager Ruben Amorim's preferred 3-4-3 formation.

He reportedly branded it as 'embarrassing,' a comment that immediately raised eyebrows among those familiar with modern football tactics and, more pointedly, those who recall Owen's candid criticisms of Erik ten Hag's Manchester United backline. The irony, for many, was palpable and immediate.

Just a few months prior, Owen had delivered a scathing review of Manchester United's defensive performances, specifically highlighting their 'back four' as contributing to 'some of the worst football' he had ever witnessed from the club.

This stark assessment came during a period where United were grappling with inconsistency, porous defending, and a clear lack of tactical cohesion under Ten Hag. To then turn around and label a proven, successful formation as 'embarrassing' seems to suggest a selective memory or, perhaps, a less-than-thorough understanding of the tactical landscape.

Ruben Amorim, in stark contrast to the perceived chaos at Old Trafford, has achieved remarkable success with Sporting CP, largely employing the very 3-4-3 system Owen found so objectionable.

Under Amorim's guidance, Sporting has not only challenged for but also secured league titles, showcasing a disciplined, effective, and often exhilarating brand of football. His formation prioritises defensive solidity with three centre-backs, while the wing-backs provide crucial width and attacking impetus, creating a dynamic and often overwhelming system when executed correctly.

This is not a novel or inherently flawed setup; it's a proven tactical blueprint, as evidenced by teams like Antonio Conte's Chelsea, who famously won the Premier League with a similar structure, or even Sheffield United during their impressive spell in the top flight.

The criticism levelled at Amorim's system, therefore, feels remarkably misplaced.

Is the issue truly the formation itself, or rather the execution of the players within it? Owen's prior comments on United seemed to point to fundamental flaws in their defensive organisation and individual errors, regardless of the numerical setup. A back four can be just as 'embarrassing' as any other formation if the players are not performing, not coached effectively, or lack the necessary quality and understanding.

This episode serves as a powerful reminder of the pitfalls of punditry.

While strong opinions are a cornerstone of engaging football analysis, they must be grounded in consistency, context, and a robust understanding of the tactical intricacies of the modern game. To dismiss a successful manager's entire tactical philosophy as 'embarrassing' while simultaneously highlighting the catastrophic failures of a different system, without acknowledging the fundamental differences in execution and player quality, invites scrutiny and, indeed, renders the criticism itself rather embarrassing.

As Manchester United continue to navigate their complex rebuild under Ten Hag, and Ruben Amorim continues to thrive with his 'embarrassing' formation, the debate around tactics, performance, and punditry will undoubtedly rage on.

But for now, Michael Owen's comments stand as a curious case study in the subjective and often contradictory world of football commentary.