Goldbridge Turns Wrath on Bruno Following Man United Stalemate | OneFootball

Goldbridge Questions Man Utd Direction After Fernandes Role Sparks Debate

Fernandes Conundrum in Midfield

Manchester United’s 1–1 draw at Fulham has reignited debate over Bruno Fernandes and his role under manager Ruben Amorim. Speaking on The United Stand, Goldbridge voiced strong concerns about tactical choices that appear to be hindering the team’s progress. His analysis centred on United’s lack of midfield balance and the repeated deployment of Fernandes in a deeper role that exposes defensive weaknesses.

Goldbridge highlighted that Fernandes remains one of United’s most creative players but is being utilised in positions that do not maximise his influence. Rather than operating as a classic No.10, he has been tasked with functioning as a No.8 in a two-man midfield. This shift, according to Goldbridge, has contributed to lapses in discipline and costly defensive errors.

Concerns Over Recruitment and Squad Balance

United’s summer strategy has come under scrutiny once again. Despite significant investment, Goldbridge argued that the squad remains overloaded with attacking midfielders while critical issues in central midfield and goalkeeping persist.

New signings such as Benjamin Šeško and Bryan Mbeumo were highlighted as already struggling to make an impact, not through lack of quality, but because of structural issues within the team. The fear expressed is that Manchester United’s system risks “ruining” players by failing to provide them with the right conditions to succeed.

Photo IMAGO

Goldbridge also revisited the club’s ongoing failure to complete transfer business early enough in the window. He pointed out that United have begun several recent seasons without key reinforcements in place, leading to dropped points and slow starts. The Fulham draw, combined with the opening defeat to Arsenal, already leaves United five points worse off than they should have been.

Striker Usage and Service Issues

Goldbridge was clear in his assessment that Amorim’s preference for a false nine system has not worked. The lack of service to Šeško was cited as a recurring theme. The striker, despite his reputation, has been left isolated and ineffective due to a midfield that fails to provide consistent supply.

Instead, Goldbridge believes United must simplify their approach by giving their centre-forward regular touches and chances in front of goal. He argued that too many players are attempting to play expansive, high-risk passes, rather than feeding the striker in effective areas. Without this adjustment, United’s attacking output risks becoming stagnant and predictable.

Call for Patience but Demand for Change

While Goldbridge was highly critical of specific tactical decisions, he reiterated his support for Amorim and rejected calls for another managerial change. His stance was clear: it is too soon to consider replacing a coach who has been backed with over £200 million of investment. However, patience must be accompanied by practical changes.

Goldbridge urged Amorim to reassess Fernandes’ role, introduce balance into midfield, and prioritise service to the strikers. He stressed that failure to address these issues could leave United struggling to compete for a top-four finish, especially with fixtures against Manchester City and Chelsea looming.

United’s draw at Fulham may not be disastrous in isolation, but for Goldbridge, it underlined deep-rooted problems. Unless key tactical and structural issues are resolved quickly, Manchester United risk another season defined by inconsistency rather than progress.