I think by almost every football metric, Iraola is better. The big question mark is “can he handle United?”. The scrutiny at the very tiny group of massive clubs is worlds away from anything anywhere else. There’s lots of players and coaches that just can’t handle it. Can Iraola? Can’t answer that til he’s done it.Iraola has proven he can adapt with losing players and still play high intensity football while developing players. Carrick has done amazing job so far, the big unknown is simply that with improved MF, will he be able to play high intensity football? Iraola has already proven it with smaller budget over the last 3 years. Utd have lost intensity since city game and has more counter attacking element of play. It’s a difficult decision for the club as no one Expected the results achieved by carrick.
We've had big managers who've struggled - what's to suggest being able to handle a big club like United is the problem? Mourinho got sacked, LVG got sacked - they might have handled the club well but it didn't work out. If Ireola came and found the club too big, then maybe the club needs to work out why that is and support them. I think Amorim struggled but he was forever in the face of the press and I think that was fundemental in his downfall. I firmly believe Ireola is the right man for us, but he'd need better support. Carrick seems to have way less scrutiny than Amorim it seems - has the club learnt it's lesson?I think by almost every football metric, Iraola is better. The big question mark is “can he handle United?”. The scrutiny at the very tiny group of massive clubs is worlds away from anything anywhere else. There’s lots of players and coaches that just can’t handle it. Can Iraola? Can’t answer that til he’s done it.
In an ideal world he’d have shown it at a club in between; someone like Spurs or Newcastle. Bournemouth are by almost every definition, the smallest club in the league.
I genuinely thought we had a squad capable of getting into the CL, & I said as much on here at the beginning of the season. Chelsea & Villa do not have a better 1st team, I didn't think Liverpool woudl be so poor though.Let’s look at the stat you brought up: since Carrick’s arrival, Arsenal, Chelsea, Liverpool, and Forest have won 4 games by more than one goal. United is tied with City and Brighton at 3. I would say this is not as bad as you implied? Meanwhile, Iraola—the supposed master of progressive football—has only won one game by more than a single goal. Now, you could say that Bournemouth doesn't have the same quality of players as United, which is fair. But if "doing more with less" is the standard, why aren't we calling for Hürzeler instead? He also has a "lower-profile" squad at Brighton, yet he has a better league position and more multi-goal wins than Iraola.
Ultimately, the data tells us one of two things: either the entire league is so bad, or the league is so competitive right now that nobody is beating anyone easily.
Let's look at other stats. Since Carrick took over, United has earned the most points (potentially second if City win their game in hand) and scored 24 goals—tied with Arsenal at the 2nd place and only Liverpool has more with 25. I don’t understand the constant complaints. Do people sincerely believe we have a top-three squad? Before this run, nobody imagined we’d even be fighting for Champions League. If Iraola is working miracles, then so is Carrick.
You mentioned Carrick is "running above expectation and it could quickly fall back." Of course, these results feel unsustainable — but that’s not because of the coaching — it’s because we are, at best, a top-six squad currently playing at a top-two level. If we are “only” fighting for top 4 next season, would anyone say it’s a failure? The double standard here is also particularly strange: if Carrick is overachieving and bound to fall back, why is the same not said for Iraola? Why are people so certain Iraola can sustain his level at a bigger club? For the past few years, the narrative was that United was "too big" for managers like Ten Hag or Amorim. How can anyone be certain that Iraola is a "sure upgrade" when he has zero experience at this level of pressure?
We need to set a baseline: unless there is a miraculous summer window, the proper expectation for next season is to fight for a Champions League spot. If the head coach hits that target, they've done their job; if not, they move on. While that feels like a "downtrend" compared to our current results, we should agree that it's a realistic expectation for Carrick, or anyone else.
If we somehow land Enrique, I’m all for it. But I don't see a logical reason to favor Iraola over Carrick that much right now.
They have better fullbacks and a better DM. I'd take everyone else from United over Chelsea's.Chelsea have a better first XI than Man Utd.
Jose and LVG weren’t sacked because they couldn’t handle the pressure, they were just fading forces on the way down. Moyes has spoken about the sense of “f**king hell” he experienced when he joined because the step up in media and scrutiny was so vast.We've had big managers who've struggled - what's to suggest being able to handle a big club like United is the problem? Mourinho got sacked, LVG got sacked - they might have handled the club well but it didn't work out. If Ireola came and found the club too big, then maybe the club needs to work out why that is and support them. I think Amorim struggled but he was forever in the face of the press and I think that was fundemental in his downfall. I firmly believe Ireola is the right man for us, but he'd need better support. Carrick seems to have way less scrutiny than Amorim it seems - has the club learnt its lesson?
Disagree.Chelsea have a better first XI than Man Utd.
4 defeats in the final 4 games would maybe do it?
It's Carrick's job now though realistically, even playing poorly we'll likely scrape a win or two as we have been doing, the club don't care about performances.
LammensChelsea have a better first XI than Man Utd.
Lammens
James
De Ligt
Martinez
Cucurella
Caicedo
Casemiro
Bruno
Cunha
Pedro
Mbeumo
I think that's a perfectly unbiased combined 11 and it has 7 Utd players.
Obviously Palmer at his best gets in but we haven't seen that in donkeys years.
They were relegated, then couldn't get promoted, then promoted in 2nd and then just avoided relegation in the seaons preceding him so it looks like the complete opposite.There was a piece on Brentford recently, and how they've continually coped with their top players leaving, plus then losing their manager (who then performed badly at a bigger club) and how Brentford have continued to perform. It was all about the infrastructure and broader team around the manager which makes sense of course. Not sure where i saw it, but the principle is right.
It feels similar to B'mouth, continually invested well and managed exits seamlessly, how much of that is down to Iraola and how much is it down to B'mouth being a well run club? If more weighted towards the latter, Utd is a different animal and whilst i think we're on the path to being "well run" i dont think we're there yet.
In essence, Iraola feels Amorim v2 to me, Utd/B'mouth just not comparable.
Amorim literally uprooted the system and formations the club has used for 5 plus decades to try and install new stuff. Iraola just plays a more aggressive version of what Carrick, ETH, Ole, Mourinho and Moyes post Fergie have given us. It's not even close........, Utd/B'mouth just not comparable.
Pretty even. Full backs, Caicedo/Enzo + Delap.Chelsea have a better first XI than Man Utd.
Amorim literally uprooted the system and formations the club has used for 5 plus decades to try and install new stuff. Iraola just plays a more aggressive version of what Carrick, ETH, Ole, Mourinho and Moyes post Fergie have given us. It's not even close.
what do you mean by this? How would the board screw up Iraola's managing unitedI have no doubts Iraola would be ideal and would work. But the board can't be trusted. So Id rather keep Carrick who seems to be able to wrangle that bag of wild cats
It's not a double standard, Iraola actually has multiple seasons, whilst having to adapt to losing his best players every season and is still improving. Carrick is an interim and has managed us for 13 games. Carrick has the positive of managing the current group of players, but no track record on the league beyond this stint. I personally have sat through about 10 Bournemouth matches, as I like Iraola and I went to uni there, so every time they play the big boys, I watch.I agree. I was talking about that (winning multiple goals) only because the person I replied to brought it up and used it against Carrick.
If we’re going to pivot to xG based stats, we have to acknowledge their limitations. These models vary significantly depending on which data provider you use, and over a small sample, they are prone to massive noise and aren't statistically significant. If 13 games' xPTS / xG / xGD is a good indicator, Chelsea should have kept Rosenior.
Speaking about eye test, every one of us watches 90 minutes of every United game under a microscope. Realistically, how many people here have actually sat through 13 full Bournemouth matches this season? How many people here are just parroting the "progressive football" narrative they see online? The "eye test" argument usually favors the manager you watch less often. We see every "ugly" win Carrick grinds out, but most people only see Bournemouth’s best moments.
Again, I’m not downplaying Iraola’s work. My point remains: if Iraola is praised for overachieving with his squad, Carrick should be given the same grace. It feels like people are looking for reasons to doubt Carrick while looking for reasons to believe in Iraola. I don't like double standard.
I see far more method in what he does than those guys. Potentially not with Carrick as I don't really know what his true style is. It may be closest to Ten Hags version of the pressing traps and quick counters he started to formulate, but a little more polished. I think that's the Spanish in him.Amorim literally uprooted the system and formations the club has used for 5 plus decades to try and install new stuff. Iraola just plays a more aggressive version of what Carrick, ETH, Ole, Mourinho and Moyes post Fergie have given us. It's not even close.
True. My point was though its absurd to paint him 'as like an Amorim II". Yet he plays the exact formations, style and systems the club has used close to 5 decades. The exact same ones only LVG and Amorim diverted from significantly.I see far more method in what he does than those guys. Potentially not with Carrick as I don't really know what his true style is. It may be closest to Ten Hags version of the pressing traps and quick counters he started to formulate, but a little more polished. I think that's the Spanish in him.
They haven't proved they can stick to a long term plan at the first sign of troubled waters. I can imagine them after 1.5 seasons start demanding 'Iraola dial back the aggression (front foot press)" at the pain of the sack if results are not "suitably stable" for them. Iraola looks like the type who'd not take too kindly to that affront. Carrick who has an Ancelotti demanour about him would just go on wrangling the cats. Till they eventually betrayed him and sacked him too regardless if things were to hit a similar wall.what do you mean by this? How would the board screw up Iraola's managing united
The comparison is a none starter strictly because he plays the exact identical formation to a Carrick. Moyes is the better call if one were reaching for comparisons because he fell at the step up hurdle ala Nuno and Frank at Spurs. Amorim was almost entirely diametrically opposed to anything in United's history bar possibly Ragnick and LVG.I think its fairly easy to draw the comparison. Primarily both going from small clubs where formation and playing style is the main focus, Utd job is much broader than that. i could understand going to an Enrique but Iraola as good as he's been doesnt make sense to me given how Carrick has performed (hopefully im wrong if we do go that way).
I appreciate the context, and it's fair you’ve caught some Bournemouth games. However, I don't understand why you can just cherry pick a coach that had similar experience, and make a conclusion that Carrick would be the same. Isn't that a classic false analogy? I can use your own logic to show how fragile the argument is. Let's name a few examples:It's not a double standard, Iraola actually has multiple seasons, whilst having to adapt to losing his best players every season and is still improving. Carrick is an interim and has managed us for 13 games. Carrick has the positive of managing the current group of players, but no track record on the league beyond this stint. I personally have sat through about 10 Bournemouth matches, as I like Iraola and I went to uni there, so every time they play the big boys, I watch.
Carrick has clearly done well, but it's just not the same as actually managing the ups and downs of a team and club through a season. Di Matteo probably has a similar record to Carrick, but I don't think anyone really thought he was long term option - it's the same with Carrick.
Did you think the club were too hasty in sacking Ruben Amorim?They haven't proved they can stick to a long term plan at the first sign of troubled waters. I can imagine them after 1.5 seasons start demanding 'Iraola dial back the aggression (front foot press)" at the pain of the sack if results are not "suitably stable" for them. Iraola looks like the type who'd not take too kindly to that affront. Carrick who has an Ancelotti demanour about him would just go on wrangling the cats. Till they eventually betrayed him and sacked him too regardless if things were to hit a similar wall.
I'm incredibly cynical about them currently. So am probably too biased to answer you balancedly, to be fair.
I'm just using an example someone who had major success with a big club and still was moved on, your examples don't prove Carrick's record to be any better or less risky than Iraola's either. A body of 3 seasons of work is a far better gauge that 13 games as an interim. All of your examples weren't parachuted in either. I don't think any are really comparable scenarios. Carrick's body of work is based on playing one way, with no scope for change, for half a season and one game a week. What he's done has been good, but I'm not sure how you're meant to extrapolate. Iraola simply has more examples of adaptability, alongside improving a team. Now his big problem is he's never managed at this level and Carrick's only done it for a short period of time, in a hyper specific scenario that won't be replicated.I appreciate the context, and it's fair you’ve caught some Bournemouth games. However, I don't understand why you can just cherry pick a coach that had similar experience, and make a conclusion that Carrick would be the same. Isn't that a classic false analogy? I can use your own logic to show how fragile the argument is. Let's name a few examples:
So my question is, how can you be so certain that Carrick is not one of them, but he must be the same with Di Matteo?
- Hansi Flick, who was a former Bayern player, had no track record in the Bundesliga as a head coach, was an assistant coach in Bayern, took over midway as an interim.
- Lionel Scaloni, who had zero head coach experience before taking over Argentina as a caretaker.
- Zidane, who was a former legend of Real Madrid, no La Liga head coach record, was an assistant coach in Real, took over midway (I know he wasn't appointed as an interim, but there are enough similarities).
If we apply that same logic to the "proven mid-table manager" route, the track record for the "step-up" is just as shaky:
Now, can you be sure that Iraola is an upgrade instead of becoming someone similar to them?
- Graham Potter, who had an obvious high pressing style, improved Brighton every year and was the attractive option. He lasted less than 7 months at a big club.
- David Moyes, 11 years of "adapting to losing best players" and "managing the ups and downs" at Everton. He brought Everton to the Champions League once, and kept Everton at the 5th - 8th position (8th for only once) for 7 consecutive seasons since 06-07 before joining United. We all know how that "track record" worked out.
Again, I'm not saying Carrick is our Hansi Flick or Iraola will definitely be the next Moyes. My point is simple: you can’t use a false analogy to predict the future. Judging one by a "failed interim" narrative while ignoring the "failed step-up" narrative is just a double standard. No one can be certain that Iraola is a better choice than Carrick yet many are willing to treat a hypothetical preference as an established fact here.
The comparison is a none starter strictly because he plays the exact identical formation to a Carrick. Moyes is the better call if one were reaching for comparisons because he fell at the step up hurdle ala Nuno and Frank at Spurs. Amorim was almost entirely diametrically opposed to anything in United's history bar possibly Ragnick and LVG.
I’d also take caicedo, Enzo and PedroThey have better fullbacks and a better DM. I'd take everyone else from United over Chelsea's.
Double standard as you think your Di Matteo example is a true analogy while mine are all incomparable. Double standard as both are performing beyond expectations but you seem to believe Carrick is doomed to fail like Di Matteo while Iraola will keep improving.I'm just using an example someone who had major success with a big club and still was moved on, your examples don't prove Carrick's record to be any better or less risky than Iraola's either. A body of 3 seasons of work is a far better gauge that 13 games as an interim. All of your examples weren't parachuted in either. I don't think any are really comparable scenarios. Carrick's body of work is based on playing one way, with no scope for change, for half a season and one game a week. What he's done has been good, but I'm not sure how you're meant to extrapolate. Iraola simply has more examples of adaptability, alongside improving a team. Now his big problem is he's never managed at this level and Carrick's only done it for a short period of time, in a hyper specific scenario that won't be replicated.
On Potter, look at Chelsea since him, they're a mess and Moyes plays a completely different style.
I don't think it's a double standard to say someone who's managed a club through 3 seasons has is a better body of data than a short stint at interim. People closer to the day to day might have more insights that they believe the short experience Carrick has is better, but I'm not really sure where there's a double standard.
I don't know what you're really saying to be honest. The analogy I used was to show managers get moved on in spite of success because they don't have enough experience. I don't believe Carrick is doomed to fail, I'm saying he hasn't got enough experience to be particularly confident what he's done. Iraola has continually improved across whole career at Bournemouth and previously. He just objectively has way more experience.Double standard as you think your Di Matteo example is a true analogy while mine are all incomparable. Double standard as both are performing beyond expectations but you seem to believe Carrick is doomed to fail like Di Matteo while Iraola will keep improving.
“your examples don't prove Carrick's record to be any better or less risky than Iraola's either” — This is precisely my point.
I was applying your own logic to show how fragile the "Di Matteo" argument is. By calling my examples incomparable, you’ve effectively proven my point that these analogies don't work, which is exactly what I've been saying from the start. You can’t use one manager's specific failure as a crystal ball for another’s future. If you said my examples don't count, yours doesn't either.
May I remind you that Bournemouth also got kicked out at the first round of the League Cup and FA Cup? So when you said Carrick’s work is based on one game a week (which he’s not responsible for), it’s the same for Iraola, which you conveniently ignored. Similarly, when Bournemouth went 11 consecutive league games without a win, you didn't accuse Iraola of “playing one way with no scope for change”. Why does Carrick get scrutinized for a tactical "rigidity" that you give Iraola a pass on?
Carrick has shown flexibility, he's changed system mid game in our last fixture. The style he has now is not really the same as the style at Middlesbrough either, unless I'm mistaken. He's getting wins over the line because that's his remit right now.I'm just using an example someone who had major success with a big club and still was moved on, your examples don't prove Carrick's record to be any better or less risky than Iraola's either. A body of 3 seasons of work is a far better gauge that 13 games as an interim. All of your examples weren't parachuted in either. I don't think any are really comparable scenarios. Carrick's body of work is based on playing one way, with no scope for change, for half a season and one game a week. What he's done has been good, but I'm not sure how you're meant to extrapolate. Iraola simply has more examples of adaptability, alongside improving a team. Now his big problem is he's never managed at this level and Carrick's only done it for a short period of time, in a hyper specific scenario that won't be replicated.
On Potter, look at Chelsea since him, they're a mess and Moyes plays a completely different style.
I don't think it's a double standard to say someone who's managed a club through 3 seasons has is a better body of data than a short stint at interim. People closer to the day to day might have more insights that they believe the short experience Carrick has is better, but I'm not really sure where there's a double standard.
Agreed, that's exactly what an interim should do. I don't think it says much about what he'd be like as full time manager though and whether he can do that.Carrick has shown flexibility, he's changed system mid game in our last fixture. The style he has now is not really the same as the style at Middlesbrough either, unless I'm mistaken. He's getting wins over the line because that's his remit right now.
I would also argue having no body of work for a club like Manchester United carries equal or bigger risk - see cases of Frank, Amorim, AVB. In fact, Marco Silva has been very impressive with Fulham, he had a big gig at Everton and it collapsed.
Carrick has shown flexibility, he's changed system mid game in our last fixture. The style he has now is not really the same as the style at Middlesbrough either, unless I'm mistaken. He's getting wins over the line because that's his remit right now.
I would also argue having no body of work for a club like Manchester United carries equal or bigger risk - see cases of Frank, Amorim, AVB. In fact, Marco Silva has been very impressive with Fulham, he had a big gig at Everton and it collapsed.
Yes. But that is not my real issue. I have a humongous issue with hiring a manager known for a particular style utterly alien to your club and it history. Then 1 year through his term, as the methods slowly start to sink in to the players, leaping from 15th to 6th with more growth to come demanding, he change it "back to traditions" he is not known for. Then acting "shocked and dissapointed " he refused it and then having to usher him and his staff at the kinda cost that would have been better spent on player recruitment, yet again. Thats the kinda short termist football strategic planning I had hoped we had left behind in the Woodward era. He should NEVER ever have been hired. If we had no plan to stay the course of the risky gamble we took.Did you think the club were too hasty in sacking Ruben Amorim?
Your missing my point, Utd is a different proposition, the stress, the media, the fanbase, its all way bigger to anything Iraola or Amorim have faced. The formation is one aspect of managing a club but there are so many other strands to the job.
I'm not saying Iraola is the wrong choice, he's done a brilliant job with Bournemouth but its a monumental difference managing us vs B'mouth, same for Amorim, the step from Sporting is huge and it was too much..
I think you’re misremembering the Di Matteo situation and hence the disconnect in our discussion. You’re operating under the impression that Chelsea was skeptical of Di Matteo’s experience so he was let go after the interim success. That simply isn’t what happened. He did not get moved on because Chelsea was skeptical about his experience; he was handed the permanent job after the successful interim spell. He did not get moved on in spite of success; he was sacked three months into the following season because the results actually collapsed.I don't know what you're really saying to be honest. The analogy I used was to show managers get moved on in spite of success because they don't have enough experience. I don't believe Carrick is doomed to fail, I'm saying he hasn't got enough experience to be particularly confident what he's done. Iraola has continually improved across whole career at Bournemouth and previously. He just objectively has way more experience.
My whole point comes down to experience when comparing the two. 13 games just isn't enough, in my opinion vs a full career. I'm not saying Carrick is Di Matteo, I'm saying it was completely valid to be skeptical from Chelsea's point of view.
Iraola obviously hasn't managed a prem team in Europe, that's an obvious gap. The point about Carrick being in that circumstance, as he's never managed outside of this unique set of circumstances. Bournemouth had that period and came out of it, so you have the rough with the smooth over 120+ games and it's ultimately been an upward trajectory. You're more than welcome to think what he's done he is equal to or better, I'm just not sure how that really flies and where the double standard is.
I brought you all 2 trophies in 2 years, after your dry spell from 2017. Comparing me to Amorim is quite disrespectful.
Chelsea have a better first XI than Man Utd.
Being a top 4 challenger isn’t the goal. Winnning trophies and challenging for big ones is. Keeping things simple and being a top 4 to 6 team at United is easy.How many times did we achieve top 4 since the 21-22 season?
Every clubs ex players and staff understand that club more than outsiders. It doesn’t grant them magical abilities and turn them into great managers.but he understands the pressures of being at United better than Iraola or any of these other up and coming managers we could end up with. He seems to be handling it all pretty well so far...
