Rooney discussed Manchester United's performance, Sesko's situation, and other topics with host Mark Goldbridge on the "Stick to United with Wayne Rooney" show.

Mark Goldbridge: What exactly is the problem with Sesko? I think he could definitely start. But the coach didn't field him. Foden was sent off in the 25th minute, leaving Manchester City with ten men. As you know, City's ball control is very strong, and Maresca's team is always well-organized. I was thinking at the time that Sesko should be brought on as soon as possible.

Rooney: I understand that you don't necessarily have to make a substitution in the 25th minute, but some coaches definitely would. When I was watching the live broadcast at halftime, I said, bring on Sesko. I'm sure that if we focused on crosses, he could get to the ball at least twice in the next 45 minutes. But he didn't come on until seven minutes after we went 0-1 down.

Mark Goldbridge: Speaking of the false nine tactic, you've played in top leagues and coached, so you understand that Guardiola has used this tactic, but as a Manchester United fan, I want to see the team spread out and have a proper center forward up front. Carrick seems to be going down the false nine route. If another coach made this arrangement, I would say: I can understand his thinking, but his track record at the top level is not thick enough. I prefer Carrick's approach last season, simple and pragmatic, getting results first. Now it feels like we're trying to run before we can walk. Just looking at this Manchester derby, and even more broadly, Sesko as a player, even if you don't rate him yourself, looking at the bench you'll find: he's the perfect choice to pin down Guehi and Ruben Dias. Honestly, both of them played well today, but they hardly faced any real test, we didn't put any pressure on them.

Rooney: Keane made a lot of sense after the game, and I thought the same thing at the time. I was watching Sky Sports and listening to Keane's commentary. He said: when your opponent is down to ten men, if they get a point or even win, they must be exhausted and physically drained at the end of the game. Because they have to constantly defend, give their all, and endure high-intensity confrontation. But in this game, I didn't feel at all that City were pushed to that point, I would have supported bringing on Sesko immediately.

Exactly, I would most likely do that, or adjust other tactics. I might put Rashford up front, and arrange for players to make runs without the ball. Yes, Rashford as a center forward, with others running around him, at least having a focal point up front. Bruno, I would move him slightly to the left, cutting in to attack, staying high. Of course, when making decisions in the heat of the moment, no one has a standard answer.

But yesterday, I actually felt a bit sorry for Carrick. When the camera panned to him, I was thinking: only two substitutions in the entire game. In a 90-minute match, only making two substitutions is ridiculous. The opponent was down to ten men, and in the last 20 minutes of the game, fresh blood should have been brought on to inject energy into the pitch. Was it that he didn't trust the players on the bench?

After that, I picked up the team sheet, and with 20 minutes left, I was sitting in the studio, even with plenty of time to ponder, without having to make a real-time decision, I couldn't think of who to bring on. This goes back to what we talked about when the transfer window closed: the team needs new signings. Just for this kind of situation, not even the entire season, we need more available players. Even if not top stars, just someone who can come on as a substitute for 20 minutes, seize opportunities to score, a player who can contribute about 8 goals from the bench in a season. The team's squad depth is severely lacking, facing a derby with ten men, we couldn't even use all 5 substitutions, which is incredible.

Mark Goldbridge: I strongly agree with that statement, even when winning, coaches usually make 4 to 5 substitutions now, but there were none in this game.

Rooney: This brings us back to recruitment, the club's recruitment strategy should be smarter. There's one thing I don't understand: the club signed Santos, and then signed Baleba, I think Baleba is a good signing and can make an impact when he plays, but Santos can only sit on the bench. When Baleba recovers from injury, it will be his turn to sit on the bench again. Players who were signed for a lot of money, or young players who were highly anticipated and were among Manchester United's best in the first few games, are left sitting on the bench. If Carrick didn't intend to use Santos, what was the reason for making that signing decision in the first place? Why wasn't that money used to buy a full-back or a center forward?

Mark Goldbridge: These are obvious weaknesses in the team, it's truly embarrassing. Shaw, no matter what people say about him, it's only three rounds into the season and he's already missed the last two games (including the Champions League). No matter how the club tries to explain it, not signing a left-back is a blatant failure in recruitment. Everyone knows we lack a left-back, and then our starting left-back misses the Manchester derby directly. Dorgu, let's not talk about the offside call first, he's not originally a left-back, and problems also arose on the pitch, and in this situation, we needed to stabilize the defense. We just mentioned signing Santos. Bruno Fernandes was moved to midfield for the second time this season. Let's temporarily put aside Carrick's role as head coach, and we'll discuss his post-match comments later. From the coach's perspective: the team didn't provide him with a qualified left-back, there was a shortage of forwards, and he didn't trust Santos, so after four games, he preferred to play Bruno in midfield rather than field Santos.

Rooney: Another interesting point yesterday: Dorgu was actually the ideal choice at left-back against ten-man City. He's essentially more of a left-winger than a full-back, and could fully utilize his attacking prowess, surging into the box. But I felt he was hesitant after coming on, not pushing forward nearly enough, always waiting for the ball to reach Rashford's feet before attempting an overlap. I kept thinking, what was he waiting for? Had he not fully adapted to the physical demands of that position?

This is worth thinking about. Luke Shaw has missed the last two games. In the match against Everton, it was the first time in a long time that I saw Luke Shaw continuously push forward to assist. Did that extensive forward movement exhaust him physically, and was it this high-intensity running that led to his injury? This also proves: the left-back is too crucial. Many strong teams' full-backs need to constantly push forward, and must have sufficient physical fitness and stamina to complete the back and forth. But currently, neither Luke Shaw nor Dorgu meet this standard.

Mark Goldbridge: And on the topic of full-backs, I said at the end of last season that the midfield needed rebuilding, but the full-back issue has always been an underestimated pain point: our full-backs are so poor, it's truly hard to describe. Dorgu played yesterday, and speaking of substitutes, Mazraoui sat on the bench for the entire game. Dorgu played like that, and Carrick didn't make a change, preferring to continue using Dorgu . This also shows that Mazraoui's form doesn't meet the coach's requirements. You just mentioned Dorgu and the injured Luke Shaw. Name me a Premier League team whose full-backs are worse than Manchester United's right now. I'm not trying to deliberately criticize these full-backs, nor am I targeting Carrick. Look at other teams: Arsenal have Calafiori, Timber; Chelsea use wing-backs in their new system; Newcastle have Hall.

Rooney: Full-backs are too important. As we just discussed when talking about playing against ten men, full-backs must be physically fit. In modern football, physical fitness and sustained running ability are essential requirements for full-backs. Dalot's fitness is decent, but his technical ability is lacking. In our team, we have left-footed players playing on the right and right-footed players playing on the left. Full-backs must push forward boldly to create space for inverted wingers; either drag away the opposing full-back or push high and wide to allow the wingers to tuck in, creating opportunities for the midfield to get on the ball.

But yesterday, we played cautiously. I don't know if we were wary of City's counter-attacks after they went down to ten men, but in football, you have to take risks. Especially at home, you should be confident: the opponent should be worried, not us. Even if we concede, I have the ability to track back and defend. I've played on the wing, and full-backs constantly pushing forward will continuously wear down the opposing wingers.

I remember a previous match against Real Madrid, with Cristiano Ronaldo and that Portuguese left-back as opponents. I was playing right-wing at the time, and I didn't like that position myself. The coach's instruction to me was to track back with all my might, mark Ronaldo on the left, and follow him wherever he went. For most of the game, I couldn't actively contribute at all, I could only passively follow the opponent. Our full-backs also lack the ability to actively create threats. Once the full-backs are afraid to push forward, Rashford will also become stagnant, and the opponent will have more time and space on the ball.

As I said before, when Rashford gets the ball high on the left, he mostly cuts inside. He did this several times yesterday, dribbling into the box. But there were defenders in the opponent's box to intercept. Against top teams, this kind of play is too easy to predict. Players from top teams can always adapt, maintain constant high pressure, and continuously press you in the last ten minutes of the game. You run out of energy, either you lose the ball, or the opponent capitalizes on possession to score.

AF's PC site is now live! Browse full news, comments, match details and stats on your computer. Visit: www.allfootballapp.com