Manchester United drew 2-1 and lost 1 in their last 3 league games, and were eliminated from the League Cup after Brighton's comeback. The Athletic published an article noting that Michael Carrick's challenges at Manchester United mirror those Ole Gunnar Solskjaer faced during his tenure: a lack of a defined playing style and absence of a reliable Plan B.

Since Michael Carrick was appointed interim manager of Manchester United in January, comparisons with his predecessor have been inevitable.

Just over seven years ago, Solskjaer took the interim manager role at Manchester United. At that time, the club turned to another Ferguson-era legend to lift morale and stabilize the situation.

Like Solskjaer, Carrick's temporary appointment was made permanent after he successfully turned the team's fortunes around and dispelled the gloom that had lingered for months. Now, mirroring Solskjaer's situation in early 2021-22, the team's form has deteriorated and outside criticism has mounted—with some questioning why the club retains a manager they believe cannot take the team further, simply out of sentiment.

But is viewing Michael Carrick as "Solskjaer 2.0" fair? Do the parallels in their managerial paths at Manchester United suggest identical outcomes for both?

The similarities between the two are quite striking. Both have shown a desire to implement fast, attacking football, reminiscent of the great Manchester United teams they played for. Their impressive playing records, combined with their deep understanding of the club's traditions, helped them inspire confidence during difficult periods—both among supporters and within the dressing room.

Michael Carrick told the club's media in January: "I want us to play exciting, attacking, creative football that sparks passion on the pitch. I want to be excited watching from the sideline."

This mirrors Solskjaer's philosophy in a 2020 The Athletic interview about his team-building approach: "Of course, we look back at all the history of Manchester United. We're an attacking team, and we need quick players to execute fast transitions."

Another shared trait is their reluctance to publicly criticize their players, and both have been praised for the improvements their players showed under their management. Munnoo's development under Carrick is one example; under Solskjaer, Pogba's form improved significantly. These qualities made them popular with supporters, but Carrick now faces the same critical scrutiny Solskjaer did.

The main criticism is that Manchester United lacks a distinct playing "identity" and relies too heavily on transitions. This view has merit. Data shows that after Solskjaer replaced Mourinho in December 2018, Manchester United's fast-break frequency increased steadily, and it rose further after Carrick took charge mid-season last year.

Carrick's first match against Manchester City, where Umtiti's goal exemplified this transition style, was a perfect illustration. However, when the sides met again a few weeks ago, the situation was entirely different: when the opponent had 10 men and sat deep, Manchester United struggled to break them down, exposing the critical weakness of this system—the lack of a reliable Plan B, a major problem Solskjaer also faced.

However, the view that the Norwegian lacked tactical flexibility and ingenuity entirely is one-sided. Solskjaer had many matches where his specific tactical setup proved highly effective—for example, the 6-2 victory over Leeds United in December 2020, where he successfully dismantled Bielsa's man-marking system. He also deployed a back three with wing-backs to amplify threats from attacking transitions and regaining possession, a proven strategy against opponents like Manchester City, Chelsea, and Liverpool.

But when opponents squeezed space and cut off Manchester United's key transition lanes, Solskjaer found it difficult to break down deep blocks. The 2020-21 Europa League final is a classic example: Manchester United dominated possession but couldn't penetrate Unai Emery's Villarreal defense, drawing 1-1 before losing on penalties. It was a frustrating struggle throughout.

After months of observation, Michael Carrick's Manchester United is sharp on the break, but when opponents compress the space, the team's attacks stall. The pattern is clear, and the old problems Solskjaer faced have returned for Carrick. Last week's League Cup loss to Brighton—who deployed a five-man defense at Old Trafford and ultimately won—is a typical example.

The similarities don't end there. Manchester United's high press has been ineffective this season, leaving the defense exposed. Solskjaer faced this exact problem. Granted, the situations aren't identical: during Solskjaer's tenure, the main issue was that Cristiano Ronaldo's playing style didn't suit high-pressing systems. Under Carrick, problems typically arise in defending when out of possession, particularly on the flanks, which are often vulnerable to attack.

It's worth noting that they aren't the only two to struggle implementing an effective press at Manchester United: when Erik ten Hag attempted intensive pressing tactics, it similarly weakened the defense.

Michael Carrick was an important member of Solskjaer's coaching staff, so their managerial philosophies naturally align closely. It's unsurprising that the former England midfielder faces the same dilemma as his former boss. However, as some perspectives suggest, this doesn't mean Carrick is destined to fail.

What's wrong with supporting attacking transitional football? Transitions alone cannot be a team's only weapon, but the counter-argument that "possession-based football is the only true path" is equally debatable.

As the table above shows, the Premier League champions' average possession has declined significantly over the past two seasons compared to when Solskjaer managed Manchester United. Fast transitions are increasingly popular in the modern Premier League. There remains room for counter-attacking football in the top flight, and it's arguably more embraced now than during Solskjaer's era. Carrick's players have demonstrated their ability to generate serious threats through transitions.

Integrating transitions into a tactical system isn't the problem. The real concern is the lack of alternatives when opponents shut down the transition lanes. Solskjaer struggled to find solutions to deep blocks, but this doesn't mean Carrick will repeat those mistakes.

Carrick has multiple tools at his disposal to break down compact defenses. Munnoo's through-ball accuracy continues to improve; Baleba, signed in the summer, has returned from injury and will be available in midfield after the international break, easing the burden on Munnoo and freeing him to focus more on creativity and orchestration. The movement flexibility his forwards have demonstrated suggests the team has players capable of rotating positions and coordinating intricate passing patterns well enough to create space against tight defenses.

Manchester United's early-season performance has drawn warranted criticism, and these concerns are legitimate. Comparing Carrick's current situation to Solskjaer's past problems is also fair. However, it's premature to conclude that the current manager lacks the means to find solutions.

So far, Michael Carrick's managerial journey at Manchester United has inadvertently mirrored that of his former teammate and former boss. He deserves the opportunity to prove he possesses sufficient tactical acumen to overcome the difficulties that led to Solskjaer's downfall.

แปลโดย AI

เว็บไซต์ AF เปิดตัวแล้ว! ดูข่าว ความคิดเห็น รายละเอียดแมตช์ และสถิติครบถ้วนบนคอมพิวเตอร์ของคุณ เยี่ยมชม: www.allfootballapp.com