Carrick made a great start at United, but is he just another Solskjaer?

24 Jan 2026 - THE GUARDIAN / Sport

Jonathan Wilson

The problem Manchester United have – after 13 years and seven managers of failure – is that for whatever action they take now, there is a bad precedent. Keep Michael Carrick on, and it’s just another Ole Gunnar Solskjaer situation. But replace him and, for almost whoever they appoint – be it a Premier League veteran, foreign maestro, renowned pasthis-best winner, Red Bull-adjacent gegenpresser, austere Dutchman or Portuguese ideologue – they have done it before and it hasn’t worked. It’s almost like the biggest problem at the club isn’t the manager.

Carrick’s start was undeniably impressive. There was pace and zip and creativity. The relief of players being released from the 3-4-2-1 was akin to one of those videos of cows being allowed back into the pasture after being kept in a barn over the winter. Who could possibly have predicted that Amad Diallo would excel as a right-sided forward, or that Bruno Fernandes might thrive as a No 10? United didn’t just beat Manchester City 2-0; they hammered them.

A crushing victory in the derby? A display full of attacking flair? Unpicking Pep Guardiola’s tactical schema? Give him the job now! Where do you want your statue, Michael? But Solskjaer’s first game after replacing José Mourinho in December 2018, it may be remembered, was a 5-1 demolition of Cardiff. He proceeded to win 13 of the following 16 games, the only defeat coming at home by Paris Saint-Germain in the last 16 of the Champions League, a setback that was turned around in the second leg at the Parc des Princes, which turned out to be the high point of his reign.

Out of both cup competitions and not in Europe, United have only 16 games left this season. Which is to say that by the time a final decision has to be made on his future, Carrick will be only at the point Solskjaer was in Paris. Solskjaer lost the two games that followed, to Arsenal in the league and Wolves in the FA Cup, and was then appointed permanent manager. In total, United won only two of their final 12 games that season; by the summer, it already seemed clear they had erred in their appointment.

Of all the mistakes United made during Ed Woodward’s time as chief executive, even bringing a superannuated Cristiano Ronaldo back to the club, that was the least excusable. They had no need to make a decision that March. Solskjaer had a contract until June; he, of all people, was never going to walk out on United. There was absolutely no reason not to wait until they had as much evidence as possible of his capabilities and suitability. But they acted to satisfy public clamour; doing something because Rio Ferdinand has said it would be a good idea is rarely indicative of sound governance.

But just because Solskjaer failed – and in the end, for all his shortcomings, what undid him was the imposition of Ronaldo – does that automatically rule Carrick out of contention? This is the problem with looking at precedent and drawing direct conclusions. A logic persists at United that because

Sir Alex Ferguson eventually succeeded after years of frustration, every manager is due similar patience. But every case is different.

What of Carrick? His past record is reasonable. Although he didn’t lead Middlesbrough to promotion in almost three seasons, he does have the second-best win percentage of any manager who has been at the club for six months or more. He was unbeaten in a previous three-game stint as caretaker. Does that necessarily mean he is ready to take the United job full-time? Of course not. But equally, it doesn’t mean he is not ready.

Victory over City has to be placed into context. This is an injury-ravaged City. They haven’t won in four in the Premier League. They were beaten comfortably in the Champions League by Bodø/ Glimt in midweek. But equally, United did play with the sort of verve and freedom that used to characterise their play. If that goes on, if Carrick’s United can produce that sort of performance against a range of opponents, and not just those vulnerable to balls played in behind them as they struggle to implement an unfamiliar offside trap, then why not him?

The problem is that United should be fresher than every side they have left to play this season. Of the opponents in their remaining 16 games of the season, only West Ham and Bournemouth will not have played more games than United (and West Ham may have the upcoming FA Cup tie against Burton on their mind); United’s squad is deeper than either. If they look quicker and more dynamic than opponents over the next four months, that may be a result of Carrick’s tactical approach but, equally, they should be quicker and more dynamic.

How then can United assess him? But how can they assess anybody? How can any upper Premier League club assess a manager? Thriving in the mid-reaches of the Premier League does not mean a manager can step up to the different challenge of a bigger club, as Thomas Frank’s struggles at Tottenham are demonstrating.

But United have discovered that thriving in a mid-ranking league, such as the Netherlands or Portugal, is no guarantee of success either. The truth is that there’s no real preparation for a top Premier League job other than a top Premier League job. (United remain for now a top Premier League job but their status is waning: down to eighth in the Deloitte Money League, even before this Europe-less season. And, leaving financial issues aside, any aspiring manager has reason to be cautious of joining a club who have such a habit of chewing up talent).

So how do United make a decision? It can’t just be results. It can’t even just be performances. It has to be rooted in some complicated assessment of leadership and potential, of tactical acuity but also the capacity to inspire players and fans at a massive club. It’s not easy; by definition such judgments are nebulous, based in feel as much as fact. And the huge worry is that at no point in the past 13 years has anybody in the United hierarchy done anything to suggest that have the insight to recognise such a candidate.