Manchester United has recorded 2 draws and 1 loss in their last 3 league matches and was eliminated from the League Cup after losing to Brighton. The Athletic published an article noting that the problems Michael Carrick faces as Manchester United manager are strikingly similar to those Ole Gunnar Solskjaer faced: unclear playing style and the absence of a Plan B.

When Michael Carrick arrived as Manchester United's interim manager in January, it was inevitable that external observers compared him to his predecessor.

Seven years earlier, Solskjaer had also taken charge as interim manager. At the time, United sought to lift spirits and stabilize the situation by reinstalling another Ferguson-era club hero in the dugout.

Like Solskjaer, Carrick's interim role was converted to permanent manager after a few months of improved results and a turnaround in team morale. Now, as the team's performance has declined—similar to Solskjaer's difficulties in the 2021-22 season—criticism has emerged about continuing to employ a manager who cannot elevate the team to the next level for purely sentimental reasons.

But is it fair to view Michael Carrick as "Solskjaer 2.0"? Do the similarities in their managerial careers suggest their tenures at United will end the same way?

The similarities between the two are striking. Both have recalled the great Manchester United teams they played for and stated their desire for the team to play quick counterattacking football. Their illustrious playing careers, combined with their understanding of the club's traditions, helped boost morale in both the dressing room and among supporters during difficult periods.

Michael Carrick told the club's media in January: "I want to create exciting, attacking, and creative football that gets the crowd going. I want to feel a thrill watching from the sideline."

This echoes Solskjaer's 2020 Athletic interview about his team-building philosophy: "We look at Manchester United's entire history. We are an attacking team and need to play quick counterattacking football, utilizing our quick players."

Another commonality is that both avoided publicly criticizing players and both were praised for player development under their guidance. Carrick's development of Mainoo is one example, while Pogba's form was revitalized under Solskjaer. Many of these qualities endeared them to supporters, but Carrick's dilemma now is that he faces the same criticism Solskjaer once received, not just the praise.

The main criticism is that the current Manchester United team lacks a clear "stylistic identity" and relies too heavily on counterattacking. This criticism is not without merit. Data shows that after Solskjaer replaced Mourinho in December 2018, Manchester United's counterattacking frequency steadily increased, and this trend accelerated after Carrick took over mid-season.

Mbeumo's goal in Carrick's first match against Manchester City was a perfect example of this counterattacking style. However, when the two teams met again weeks later, the situation was entirely different. When the opposition was reduced to ten men and retreated defensively deep, Manchester United struggled to take control of the game. This exposed a weakness in the tactical system: the lack of a reliable Plan B—a significant problem for Solskjaer as well.

However, the view that Solskjaer, a former Norwegian striker, completely lacked tactical flexibility and acumen is too one-sided. Solskjaer had multiple matches where his tactical setup was highly effective, such as the 6-2 victory over Leeds United in December 2020. In that match, his tactics successfully dismantled Bielsa's man-marking system. He also employed a three-back formation with wing-backs to enhance the team's transitional attacking threat, a strategy that proved effective against Manchester City, Chelsea, and Liverpool.

However, when opponents pressed space and blocked United's counterattacking routes, Solskjaer struggled to find a solution. The 2020-21 Europa League final was a typical example. Manchester United dominated possession but could not break through Unai Emery's Villarreal, the match ended 1-1, and Manchester United lost on penalties. It was a grueling battle.

After months of observation, Michael Carrick's Manchester United is sharp in counterattacks, but when opponents press space, the team's attacks stall. Rival teams have identified this pattern, and the long-standing problems Solskjaer faced are now resurfacing under Carrick. Brighton's victory at Old Trafford in last week's League Cup, playing with five defenders, is a typical example.

The similarities don't end there. Manchester United's intense pressing this season has been inefficient, making defense even more vulnerable—a problem Solskjaer also faced. Of course, the situations are not identical. Under Solskjaer, the key issue was that striker Cristiano Ronaldo didn't fit the high-pressing system, but under Carrick, problems are more apparent in off-the-ball defense, with the flanks often exposed.

It's worth noting that Solskjaer and Carrick were not the only managers to struggle with implementing effective pressing at Manchester United. Ten Hag also faced defensive vulnerabilities when attempting high-intensity pressing.

Since Michael Carrick was part of Solskjaer's coaching staff, their coaching philosophies are highly aligned, and it's unsurprising that the former England midfielder faces the same dilemma his predecessor once encountered. However, as some suggest, this does not mean Carrick is destined to fail.

Is promoting counterattacking football inherently wrong? While counterattacking cannot be a team's only weapon, the notion that "possession-based play is the only correct path" is also debatable.

As the chart shows, the average possession of Premier League champions has significantly decreased over the past two seasons. Compared to Solskjaer's time at Manchester United, quick counterattacking is now far more prevalent in the Premier League. There is still room for counterattacking style at the highest level, and it is valued more highly than during Solskjaer's era. Carrick's players have demonstrated the ability to create lethal threats through counterattacking.

Incorporating counterattacking into the tactical system itself is not the problem. The real danger lies in the team's inability to find alternative solutions when opponents block the counterattacking routes. While Solskjaer consistently struggled to find a breakthrough, this does not mean Carrick will repeat the same mistake.

Carrick has several tools that could help solve the problem of compact defensive setups. Mainoo's through-ball ability continues to improve, and summer signing Baleba, after recovering from injury during the international break, will return to midfield to relieve Mainoo's burden and enable him to assume a more creative and organizational role. The flexible movement shown by Carrick's forwards indicates the team has players capable of executing complex passing and movement combinations to create space and break down compact defenses.

Manchester United's poor early-season form has drawn considerable criticism, and these doubts are reasonable. Comparing Carrick's current difficulties to Solskjaer's past experiences is also valid. However, it would be premature to conclude that the current manager has no opportunity to find solutions.

So far, Michael Carrick's journey as Manchester United manager closely mirrors that of his former colleague and superior, Solskjaer. He deserves the opportunity to prove he possesses sufficient tactical intelligence to overcome the challenges that brought down Solskjaer.

AI 번역.

AF PC사이트가 오픈했습니다! 컴퓨터에서 전체 뉴스, 댓글, 경기 상세 정보와 데이터를 확인하세요. 방문하기: www.allfootballapp.com