Michael Carrick - Permanent Head Coach

Status
Not open for further replies.
Kayla40TS said:
I agree. I would add that the reason we were making mistakes/being sloppy was because the way we were playing was being changed to a more modern approach. We were near the top of the league in pressing, for one example. It takes some time to get used to that was of playing and being able to do it mistake free. What Carrick has done is drag us back to pre-ETH sit deep, look to counter, and hope Bruno magics up some goals. Which we've seen can be reasonably successful at getting us into Europe. But isn't going to genuinely challenge for the league, imo. People seem to think Carrick's style will change next season with a pre-season, new players, more security in his position as first team coach etc etc. I remain very sceptical but again very hopeful to be made to look a compete fool.
Click to expand...
I agree with what you said, I would also add that our attacking players are much harder working compared to Eth times.

Also Carrick was a possession midfielder, I doubt he wants to continue like this, our midfielders limit what we can do.
 
Hammondo said:
I agree with what you said, I would also add that our attacking players are much harder working compared to Eth times.

Also Carrick was a possession midfielder, I doubt he wants to continue like this, our midfielders limit what we can do.
Click to expand...
It will be interesting who we get in for the midfield in the summer. It will tell us a lot about how Carrick wants to play. We have to get much more athletic in the middle of the park.
 
Kayla40TS said:
What shape we were in was we were third in the table based on almost every advanced metric. Arguably, all Carrick has done is be in charge while we progressed to the mean. I don't think we would have reached third under Amorim, as much as I wish we had so I could yell about how smart I am. But I don't think what Carrick has done since he got the job is a valid argument for keeping him. We've regressed hard in several really important statistical areas that are predictive of long term success.

I suspect this will go pretty badly next season and Carrick won't be in charge one year from now.

I am desperate to be as wrong about that as I was about Amorim.
Click to expand...
That's revisionism of the highest order. I wasn't rabidly Amorim out because I really thought we were seeing signs, but we were almost as close to relegation as were to third when he took over?


Hammondo said:
I'd say the biggest difference is that we make fewer mistakes, less sloppy and don't give away as many silly goals.
Click to expand...
Surely the biggest difference is that we are on form and results the best team in the league since he took over?
 
Kayla40TS said:
It will be interesting who we get in for the midfield in the summer. It will tell us a lot about how Carrick wants to play. We have to get much more athletic in the middle of the park.
Click to expand...
Absolutely, somehow more athletic and a player to dictate play.
 
moses said:
That's revisionism of the highest order. I wasn't rabidly Amorim out because I really thought we were seeing signs, but we were almost as close to relegation as were to third when he took over?



Surely the biggest difference is that we are on form and results the best team in the league since he took over?
Click to expand...
Our results have been good, our form isn't, we are not playing well.
 
moses said:
That's revisionism of the highest order. I wasn't rabidly Amorim out because I really thought we were seeing signs, but we were almost as close to relegation as were to third when he took over?



Surely the biggest difference is that we are on form and results the best team in the league since he took over?
Click to expand...
What revisionism? We were third in xG, xGA, xPTS. Top three in pressing metrics. We were the third-best team in the league in many metrics that over large samples are very well correlated with the final table. Amorim wasn't getting the results so he got sacked. Fine. No issues with that. But this team isn't third because Carrick dragged a shite team to a position much higher than it deserved. He got us to where we were trending anyway.
 
Hammondo said:
Absolutely, somehow more athletic and a player to dictate play.
Click to expand...
I think with the right partner, Baleba MAYBE, Mainoo can do the dictating. Unless you want specifically someone who dictates with passing from deep.
 
Do some of you guys even watch United play because there is no way a genuine argument can be made that United have played well Under Carrick while keeping a straight face .
 
Kayla40TS said:
I think with the right partner, Baleba MAYBE, Mainoo can do the dictating. Unless you want specifically someone who dictates with passing from deep.
Click to expand...
I don't care where from, if Mainoo can then great.
 
Last edited:
Kayla40TS said:
There's no way you believe this, is there? Since Arsenal away we've been bang average in performances just scraping results.
Click to expand...
You really thought we were a better team in terms of performances under Amorim? Because results are not comparable?
 
moses said:
By what metric, your eyes?
Click to expand...
Well by most metrics I believe we are worse, for chances for and against, and the expected goals for each. I think our possession might be a little higher, I know we are short passing more.
 
gajender said:
Do some of you guys even watch United play because there is no way a genuine argument can be made that United have played well Under Carrick while keeping a straight face .
Click to expand...
The conversation you have entered is an Amorim v Carrick United, because thet were the circumstances given to Carrick. In my opinion, we have improved in every way.
 
VP89 said:
Parking the bus is a bit disingenuous, we looked a lot better after the tactical change for a period. Ive made more points than just that.
Click to expand...

It isn't disingenuous at all, we were already in a defensive setup in the first half, in the second half Carrick's tactical change was to have us sit back and cede possession and territory. It worked in terms of the result, but better is arguable as it didn't change that much, we conceded the exact same number of shots on and off target and big chances in the second half as in the first half, and in doing so we didn't carry any attacking threat whatsoever and Brentford were camped in our final third. Fortunately they only made use of it once.

Still, there's very little to praise there in terms of flexibility in that example, sitting back like extreme underdogs is the kind of thing Dyche or Big Sam could easily cook up for us. United shouldn't be playing like the inferior team against most of the league, and the good results we've had doing so under Carrick aren't sustainable at all. Without a pretty hefty overhaul of our approach to matches, we're going to get results that are more fitting of our performances, which means they won't be very good.
 
moses said:
You really thought we were a better team in terms of performances under Amorim? Because results are not comparable?
Click to expand...
We had many very good performances under Amorim. Results and performance are two different things. Results under Carrick have been vastly better, no one sane would argue otherwise. Sunderland away, West Ham away, Fulham at home, Newcastle away, Leeds at home, Chelsea away. All under Carrick. All PERFORMANCE wise in the bottom 10 performances of the season.
 
Buzzing about this. He has deserved it. A good window and the team can start the season very well.

Two year deal is also very sensible all things considered.
 
moses said:
The conversation you have entered is an Amorim v Carrick United, because thet were the circumstances given to Carrick. In my opinion, we have improved in every way.
Click to expand...
Amorim had to go but if we look beyond the results I don't thing there has been much improvement we have just been on right side of some close games with performance on downward trend more or less .
 
moses said:
The conversation you have entered is an Amorim v Carrick United, because thet were the circumstances given to Carrick. In my opinion, we have improved in every way.
Click to expand...

For us to have improved in every way, you'd have to place zero importance on measures that have clearly regressed. Off the top of my head, things like possession, territory, pressing, etc.
 
The Hilton said:
It isn't disingenuous at all, we were already in a defensive setup in the first half, in the second half Carrick's tactical change was to have us sit back and cede possession and territory. It worked in terms of the result, but better is arguable as it didn't change that much, we conceded the exact same number of shots on and off target and big chances in the second half as in the first half, and in doing so we didn't carry any attacking threat whatsoever and Brentford were camped in our final third. Fortunately they only made use of it once.

Still, there's very little to praise there in terms of flexibility in that example, sitting back like extreme underdogs is the kind of thing Dyche or Big Sam could easily cook up for us. United shouldn't be playing like the inferior team against most of the league, and the good results we've had doing so under Carrick aren't sustainable at all. Without a pretty hefty overhaul of our approach to matches, we're going to get results that are more fitting of our performances, which means they won't be very good.
Click to expand...
First paragraph is an incorrect statement of how we played following the change. There was a good period where we actually had a lot better control than prior to the tactical change. We did sit back after, but that wasn't immediate like you've tried to frame.

Ultimately he made the right tweak and gave away less chances as a result, and won the game. I don't really mind if you don't want to give him any credit for that flexibility, given the incorrect framing of the match.
 
Last edited:
The Hilton said:
For us to have improved in every way, you'd have to place zero importance on measures that have clearly regressed. Off the top of my head, things like possession, territory, pressing, etc.
Click to expand...
Raw random metrics without context don’t tell the full story. For example in a squad lacking confidence or structure, with a high ceiling and jelly like foundations, priororitising stability over dominance, sometimes even sacrificing possession to reduce transition risk and improve control is the best a manager can do. These adjustments can improve results before they show up clearly in long-term statistical trends or the shape of the team. At a high-pressure club like Manchester United, at a time of increased scrutiny and chaos, reducing that chaos and improving game control and results is a very meaningful form of progress, even if the underlying metrics lag behind, marginally.
 
Performances have been up and down a bit, but in general we look a lot better under Carrick than we did under Amorim.

We‘ve analyzed and argued about it over and over in this thread, but to summarize:

- players in their best positions
- Mainoo
- no high pressing
- attack the space

Feck the stats, if you play according to your strengths you win more games.

We still have a habit of raising our game against top teams. In general though, the players have put in a lot of effort, except for games like Newcastle, Leeds and Sunderland.

These are pre-existing issues that persist. Recruitment can help by only getting a certain profile of player in, that wants to die rather than lose any game.

We need more of those. I feel like half of our players are passengers.

Going forward, I assume Carrick will want to fix our midfield and alter our play style a bit. This will be the real test. This is where Ten Hag failed in his third season, and Amorim (going further back, Ole).

Our continued strengthening of the squad should increase Carrick‘s chances of success. This summer will be crucial.
 
VP89 said:
First paragraph is a completely incorrect statement of how we played following the changed. There was a good period where we actually had a lot better control than prior to the tactical change. We did sit back after, but that wasn't immediate like you've tried to frame.

Ultimately he made the right tweak and gave away less chances as a result, and won the game. I don't really mind if you don't want to give him any credit for that flexibility, given the incorrect framing of the match.
Click to expand...

Sorry mate, you know I like you as a poster, but you're dead wrong about this. The control you speak of was nonexistent, and in terms of chances Brentford were almost identically creative after the change. Same number of big chances, same number of shots, same number of shots on target, 0.05 difference in xG.

Of course there was a short period we looked a bit better after the half time change to a back 5, it's a hallmark of our matches under Carrick, we have 5/10 minutes of intensity before we sit back and play like underdogs.
 
The Hilton said:
Sorry mate, you know I like you as a poster, but you're dead wrong about this. The control you speak of was nonexistent, and in terms of chances Brentford were almost identically creative after the change. Same number of big chances, same number of shots, same number of shots on target, 0.05 difference in xG.

Of course there was a short period we looked a bit better after the half time change to a back 5, it's a hallmark of our matches under Carrick, we have 5/10 minutes of intensity before we sit back and play like underdogs.
Click to expand...
One has to take into account the game state. We were ahead, so naturally the other team attacks more.

What happens when the opponent scores from one or two of their chances? It would be a completely different game.

Now, the way the game progressed, we were giving away chances, and Carrick made a formation change.

The result was that Brentford barely got a sniff after that. Never mind your stats, the chances in the first half were way bigger. We were in control in the second half.
 
The Hilton said:
Sorry mate, you know I like you as a poster, but you're dead wrong about this. The control you speak of was nonexistent, and in terms of chances Brentford were almost identically creative after the change. Same number of big chances, same number of shots, same number of shots on target, 0.05 difference in xG.

Of course there was a short period we looked a bit better after the half time change to a back 5, it's a hallmark of our matches under Carrick, we have 5/10 minutes of intensity before we sit back and play like underdogs.
Click to expand...
It wasn't for 5-10 minutes, and we didn't concede the same amount of chances as we did in the first half.

I am not denying we played like underdogs as the game went on in the second half, as we were protecting the lead. But right now, we are going into a pointless micro debate. My point is Carrick has demonstrated flexibility. If you think moving from 433 to 5321 midgame is not showing tactical flexibility then that's fine.

The inability to execute the tactical plan is another problem and one he will need to solve for.
 
Last edited:
We were a nothing team under Amorim, the revisionism on here is ridiculous. Reading some of the posts one would think we actually played well under him.

Carrick on a shorter contract is a sensible choice. And just like with ETH and Amorim, the mistake wasn't so much appointing them, it was persisting with them for too long. Don't make that mistake now and we'll be fine, he has earned his chance. It's easy to say the board should go with someone with a higher ceiling but the reality is so much more complicated than that.
 
NLunited said:
One has to take into account the game state. We were ahead, so naturally the other team attacks more.

What happens when the opponent scores from one or two of their chances? It would be a completely different game.

Now, the way the game progressed, we were giving away chances, and Carrick made a formation change.

The result was that Brentford barely got a sniff after that. Never mind your stats, the chances in the first half were way bigger. We were in control in the second half.
Click to expand...

You're using "never mind your stats" to dismiss reality.

For starters, Brentford won the second half 1-0, so even by the most basic measure we had a worse result after the change to sit back so deep.

Still, we aren't going to agree on this, you may be happy to see United sitting back like relegation fodder at home to the likes of Brentford, I hope we can move away from that.
 
VP89 said:
It wasn't for 5-10 minutes, and we didn't concede the same amount of chances as we did in the first half.

I am not denying we played like underdogs as the game went on in the second half, as we were protecting the league. But right now, we are going into a pointless micro debate. My point is Carrick has demonstrated flexibility. If you think moving from 433 to 5321 midgame is not showing tactical flexibility then that's fine.

The inability to execute the tactical plan is another problem and one he will need to solve for.
Click to expand...

Subbing off a winger for a defender and telling the team to sit deep and play like extreme underdogs isn't flexibility worth mentioning, it's the kind of defensive change underdog teams have been making forever when they've taken the lead.

And we did concede the same number of big chances, shots, shots on target, etc. The stats are clear about that. The difference was in our own attack, when we went from creating some chances to creating absolutely nothing.
 
Rista said:
We were a nothing team under Amorim, the revisionism on here is ridiculous. Reading some of the posts one would think we actually played well under him.

Carrick on a shorter contract is a sensible choice. And just like with ETH and Amorim, the mistake wasn't so much appointing them, it was persisting with them for too long. Don't make that mistake now and we'll be fine, he has earned his chance. It's easy to say the board should go with someone with a higher ceiling but the reality is so much more complicated than that.
Click to expand...
I disagree that persisting is the wrong choice in every case. Appointing Amorim was a massive mistake, a colossal blunder that cost us a fortune.

Should have kept ETH, qualified for Europe and then recruited a coach who plays a compatible style and formation.

I hope there are break clauses in Carrick‘s contract. No more huge contracts and huge payouts.
 
The Hilton said:
Subbing off a winger for a defender and telling the team to sit deep and play like extreme underdogs isn't flexibility worth mentioning, it's the kind of defensive change underdog teams have been making forever when they've taken the lead.

And we did concede the same number of big chances, shots, shots on target, etc. The stats are clear about that. The difference was in our own attack, when we went from creating some chances to creating absolutely nothing.
Click to expand...
You think he told the team to sit deep do you? Hmwhat else did he say? If you were in the dressing room of course.

He saw that our wingers weren't helping the full backs and made a good tweak, it was the right thing to do because there was always a double up on. As for the stats, yes please share them if you want to continue debating into a debate. Also please confirm what tactical flexibility means to you.
 
At the end of the day we're hiring a manager with very little experience at all, let alone any experience winning trophies. I'd be worried about those who don't have some concerns.

But there's no unemployed Klopp or Pep waiting for a phone call, and Carrick has done well enough over the past several months to be worth a chance over others who also don't have experience of winning trophies.

So when all is said and done I've no complaints with him be given a 2 year contract, that's pretty sensible by the club. I genuinely hope he does well and doesn't fall off a cliff like the others
 
Carrick and his staff did the only sensible thing: they built a system designed to minimize our weaknesses and maximize our strengths.

With an injury-ravaged back line, a midfield with some very obvious limitations, and forwards who are far more dangerous in transition than in slow build-up play, the logical approach was to defend deep, stay compact, and then let Bruno and the attackers do what they do best — counter into acres of space.

Very few of our players are naturally suited to an aggressive high press for 90 minutes. We repeatedly saw the team run out of legs, intensity, and occasionally basic motor functions towards the end of halves.

It would have been tactical self-harm to keep forcing something similar to Amorim’s approach, regardless of formation. Systems should fit players, not the other way around.

Players like Maguire, Casemiro, and Bruno are far better suited to the way we’re playing now, even if some of the underlying metrics don’t look as pretty. Football isn’t won on PowerPoint slides or xG charts alone.

Sometimes the smartest tactical plan isn’t the most fashionable one — it’s simply the one that stops your defenders from looking like they’re in a charity sprint against Mbappé every weekend.
 
AndySmith1990 said:
At the end of the day we're hiring a manager with very little experience at all, let alone any experience winning trophies. I'd be worried about those who don't have some concerns.

But there's no unemployed Klopp or Pep waiting for a phone call, and Carrick has done well enough over the past several months to be worth a chance over others who also don't have experience of winning trophies.

So when all is said and done I've no complaints with him be given a 2 year contract, that's pretty sensible by the club. I genuinely hope he does well and doesn't fall off a cliff like the others
Click to expand...
All true I think, and there's always a risk, even with a Pep or Klopp, admittedly probably less. But ETH and Ruben won't be the last managers to arrive with high reputations and fail.
 
The Hilton said:
You're using "never mind your stats" to dismiss reality.

For starters, Brentford won the second half 1-0, so even by the most basic measure we had a worse result after the change to sit back so deep.

Still, we aren't going to agree on this, you may be happy to see United sitting back like relegation fodder at home to the likes of Brentford, I hope we can move away from that.
Click to expand...
Had Brentford equalized, the game state would have changed. You completely missed my point. The game state is what allowed us to sit back.

The second part is that stats alone do not reflect reality. No one who watches that game closely will observe that we gave up as many chances in the second half as we did in the first.

Third part: Brentford is a good side. Every team in PL can compete these days. That‘s reality, dominating every game isn‘t.
 
Good move signing Carrick. He is a known quantity and I believe he has a vision of how he wants MU to play. That vision means he needs many new and better players and I think he knows this.

If we had signed a new manager there would be no guarantee he would be better than Carrick especially given the failures of VG, Mou, Ralf, ETH and Amorim. So far the best managers since SAF have been Ole and Carrick.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.