You think they haven't asked him what his long term vision is, what sort of players he would want in the summer and that type of thing? I think you think we're still run by the wee gerbil guy.
Michael Carrick - set to be recommended for permanent role
- Thread starter Bastian
- Start date
You think they haven't asked him what his long term vision is, what sort of players he would want in the summer and that type of thing? I think you think we're still run by the wee gerbil guy.
No actually. Most billion dollars businesses promote from within. In hardly any other industry do you see regularly getting people from the outside unfamiliar with the organisation’s culture and history to lead their main teams.
Have you ever been in a billion dollar entity? If not, you’d be surprised at how decisions are actually made.
Most of the time a due dil is only ordered to justify a decision already made
I think I've just been beaten down so much by the past few years that my faith in our top level management has been completely eroded. I'd like to think they'd know these things but it wouldn't surprise me if they don't even know when his birthday is let alone what his five year strategy is.In which case, that would definitely explain the last few years!
Well, his tactics have been a 4-3-3 and a use of our best players in their best positions. My take is that the general tactics would be replicated by everyone who finds themselves in his position, except someone with the ego of Amorim. Even Ten Hag adapted his tactics to the squad during the first 12 months of his reign.
One of the main positives of Carrick is his character. He was well liked by everyone at Boro, staff and players, and even when they felt it was time for a change at end there was sadness and genuine well-wishing when it happened. This might not be super important in the Championship, but in the Prem where players cost 10s of millions and represent huge investments by the club, a coach who is kind, stoic, calm and on good terms with the players is super important to keep harmony and bring out the best in these primadonnas. This, I guess, is also a similarity with Ole but also I suppose with far more successful managers like Ancelotti who was loved by everyone at Real. He stands out at that, compared to previous and following managers at Boro, none of which were really liked. And you see that the players already speak highly of him here.
Now funnily enough tactically, and contrary to what people believe here, Carrick's reign at Boro was characterized by a tactical inflexibility where he really valued possession very highly. Baiting the press and playing out of the back. If anything, the problem was he didn't have a plan B on how to beat low block teams who didn't want to press his CBs and DM and that is something he will have to figure out here. The disclaimer is that he didn't have the players to do that either, at Boro. During his time at United we see the opposite so far, where he seems ok going long periods without the ball so long as we look like the most dangerous or likely team to score on the counter. So maybe he learned his lesson to be more flexible and do what works under the circumstances. He is a young manager after all who is learning and he is at a grander stage now.
The other possibility is that this style of play is mostly the influence from Steve Holland who is a hugely experienced assistant coach. He has been assistant manager at Chelsea under Villas-Boas, Di Matteo, Benitez, Mourinho, Hiddink and Conte, under Southgate for England and now Carrick at United. I think the importance of having a strong Assistant Manager and coaches can not be overstated when you have a young, inexperienced manager like Carrick. Keeping Holland and adding other experienced coaches is likely to be an essential ingredient to success.
You cannot fluke things in today's Premier League, the competition is insane and even "small" clubs are extremely well organised and competitive. You will need good coaches, good players and a good manager to win the league. You can't do it just with a good manager. And if you can't get a manager like Pep, Klopp or Enrique then your second best option is probably to have good players, good coaches and a decent manager/moticator who keeps the focus. I don't like Arteta's Arsenal at all, but the work of his defensive and set-piece coaches along with good recruitment has brought them at the precipice of incredible success.
No. I'm just talking about what "dominance" looks like, not how close we should be to that under Carrick now.
But what is fair to ask is, based on what we've seen from Carrick's approach both here at at Middlesbrough, how well do we think he can progress towards that if made permanent manager.
Possession isn't dominance, but it's a part of it.
The relationship between possession and success is long established at this point: better teams tend to have more possession. Not least because possession is to a large extent a product of player quality.
At Boro Carrick's style of play was very much about controlled possession. To the point that when things went badly for him the complaints from fans were about sterile possession football. Which perhaps isn't what people framing him as a more counter-attacking manager would expect.
And in reality we've also been more possession and control focused on the ball under Carrick than we were under Amorim. We've been building out from the back more, making more passes, keeping the ball for longer when we have it, and we've obviously added Mainoo's relatively high pass completion numbers to midfield. When we're ahead in games in particular, our pass completion is a lot higher than it was under Amorim (around 82%), as we look to control the game more on the ball.
The reason this isn't reflected in average possession numbers is that we press a lot less under Carrick, which means our opponents also keep the ball for longer when they have it. And that mid-block, less aggressive pressing was a feature of Carrick's time at Boro as well.
According to many reports it was Ole who insisted on that not Carrick. Hence why he lost the job.
Now let me explain to you why it was a silly request. Ineos bought a minority share in Manchester United on the condition of getting football control. That's an awkward deal since the Glazers were still the majority shareholders who had control on what truly matters ie ££££. It's basically the equivalent of a 15 year old playing FM. He might win trebles every season but all will be gone the moment his parents decide to confiscate his laptop sort of thing but I digress.
INEOS promised a mature data driven approach led by best in class. True to their word they brought Berrada (who had an extensive experience in non football related jobs at Barca and City) and Wilcox (who had done wonders at City as academy director and was now transitioning to DOF at Southampton). However the crown jewel of it all was Ashworth ie the man who was considered the brains behind Brighton success. The latter cost United loads in terms of money and waiting time yet SJR promised it was all worth it.
One of their first football snags was whether to keep ETH or not. ETH had a good record in terms of cups but he wasn't doing greatly in the league. On top of that there was the VETO issue that INEOS hated for very good reason. Everything led to the idea that ETH would be sacked. The club made it public that they were interviewing managers with their main target being Tuchel. Then Tuchel turned us down, ETH won the FA cup, our fickle fans decided that ETH is the second coming of Sir Matt and INEOS surrendered to the pressure. The price to pay for that was huge. ETH kept his VETO, he got a contract extension and he even rubbed salt in the wound by outing how club officials flew to his holiday venue to beg him to stay. That summer ETH got almost all the players he wanted (De Ligt, Mazraoui, Zirkzee)
Then reality hit home, we had a series of bad results and SJR wanted ETH out. Ashworth demanded a more cautious and data driven approach but was ruled out. Berrada overruled Ashworth by bringing Amorim in which led to Ashworth leaving the club on a hefty fee. Amorim proved to be even worse then ETH. United ended in 15th place. Ruben was stubborn and uncompromising. We lost Garnacho on peanuts because Ruben aired our problems in public and almost lost Mainoo because he refused to play him. By December we were out of all cups and his win record was appalling. But what led to the break up was his meltdown following United's inability to buy Semenyo. Once again Ruben aired the problem in public, embarrassing the board on his way out. United were at that point humiliated by their own manager, with a broken squad, without a manager and staring at yet another year without Europe. The club needed someone quickly and the top two candidates for the interim job were Carrick and Ole. Ole was deemed to be the favorite as he had all of Carrick's advantages (ie he was a legend of the club etc) + managerial experience at Manchester United. The Norwegian was deemed to be the favorite up until he came up with that silly clause
There was no chance that the board would commit the same mistake again by choosing a permanent without proper due diligence. That clause would have meant that they would not be able to properly negotiate with other candidates up until CL qualification is lost. That would put them in a disadvantage when compared to other clubs who could start negotiating with top managers who might suddenly become available. That clause was also unnecessary. If a legend of the club was able to drag that utter mess of a squad to CL qualification then he would, most probably, get the job. After the Ashworth, the ETH and the Amorim's mess up, the board had little to no credit in the bank to justify why Manchester United should let a winning horse whose being paid peanuts leave the club on a free only to spend huge money to get another manager in. In the very unlikely event that they do manage to persuade the Glazers/INEOS to do so then they'll better hope that the next manager is the second coming of Sir Alex. Cause if he tanks then loads of fingers will be pointed almost all towards them.
Of course he's going to be interviewed, the club have briefed that constantly. They will interview candidates, it might be down to two or three, we don't know.
Who's available as an alternative? It's a limited pool this summer. What Carrick has in his favour is the work he has done this season, without a preseason. He's worked at the club before in a coaching capacity under Mourinho and Ole. He's played for the club, won the PL, won the CL. So as a player he has the relevant experience and medals to win over a dressing room.
If Tuchel, Ancelotti, Enrique were available this summer. Carrick wouldn't be in the conversation, but they aren't.
Let's start from the end. Back in the day United were built as a counter attacking side. Ole wanted a CB and a RB who would immediately slot in a deep line defense. AWB and Maguire did amazing in such setup
There were two problems with the AWB/Maguire deals
A- The fees were way over the top. That's down to Judge not Ole.
B- AWB and Maguire were suited for one style of football (ie a low block). The moment we tried to improve our game by playing a high line everything came tumbling down. Maguire lacked the pace to play a high line while AWB lacked the ability to cause damage in the opponent's box. That's not down to Ole's inability to spot talent. As said before AWB and Maguire were great for what we brought them to do. The problem was Ole's lack of vision in bringing in players who can adapt to the game as we transitioned from a counter attacking side to a modern side who can play a high press. It's like City signing Haaland even though they're planning to play with a false 9.
Regarding the initial question. United have the most divisive fan base in the world. We can barely agree on anything. For example you can still find fans out there (ex Howson) who think that Ole was amazing at United and that his sacking was the result of knee jerk reaction from the club following a couple of bad results. Most of the fans are result driven so if Ole did well then his support base would have increased. Its important for the club to realize that while fan opinion need to be considered it can't be the driving factor behind decision making. Fans have no idea what's going on behind the scene and we're vulnerable to bias (ex club legend etc) or to a charismatic manager (ex Amorim) whose able to say the right things at the right time.
We have most certainly not been more possession and control orientated under Carrick compared to Amorim.
It's abundantly clear that under Carrick we do not control the ball with as much possession, but try more ruthless and vertical attacks, with a lot more direct play.
He's also changed systems mid game. Ultimately he's operating very differently compared to Boro.
I think we do attempt to play better football under Carrick, it doesn't come off all the time but we do try to play in midfield a bit at times. At least to my eyes it's a bit better.
The possession stats under Amorim were never a reflection of us being in control, it was just passing the ball between keeper and centre backs until we either made a mistake and lost possession, or fired it long and wide to the wingers.
That's why Mainoo never played, he was of no use to Amorim who did not actually want to control possession beyond half way.
Don't know what else to tell you except that you're wrong.
It's quite a straightforward thing to capture in numbers: we're making more passes, we're having longer spells in possession, we have higher pass completion rates, we're building out from the back more, and in winning game states in particular we're keeping the ball much more than we did under Amorim.
And even without looking at the numbers, it doesn't take a genius to realise that the effect of adding Mainoo to CM and moving Bruno further forward would be more controlled possession than you get from a Casemiro/Bruno midfield two.
And I say all this as a plus. I think keeping possession and maintaining control are good, and this change is one of the positives Carrick has brought.
It also doesn't mean we're not attacking vertically, for the same reason it doesn't mean teams managed by the likes of RDZ don't attack vertically. Keeping possession and baiting opponents into pressing to create space for quicker, vertical attacks has been part of the tactical meta for quite a while, and has been a feature of Carrick's time here as well as Boro. It's also partly why more of our attacks come through the centre. But it still involves us keeping sustained possession for longer periods than we did under Amorim.
The only reason it might seem like we're less possession-orientated is because we have less of a share of possession overall. But that's because we're pressing and winning the ball back less out of possession, not because of what we're doing with it in posssesion. Instead of our posssesion share increasing under Carrick, both teams are turning the ball over less often in his games.
And that's reflected in our expected numbers, where we're both creating and conceding less than under Amorim's higher variance brand of football.
Last edited:
Noticed Carricks recent adaptation of Fergies handlebar/ape-hangers celebration
That’s me convinced
That’s me convinced
They still have a choice to follow the plan, it's not like some other team will snap Carrick away from us.
I thought we wanted to move away from the players making the decisions.
I want Iraola as well, but I can understand the choice being Carrick, but the process should still be done the right way. And if Carrick starts losing next everyone will complain that it was stupid to hire a failed Boro manager just because he had a great interim period.
Probably due to how limited our squad is, he's forced into it.
It cannot be possibly denied that our performances, and not just our results, have been vastly superior under Carrick than under Amorim. That debate is over. Consigning the idiotic 343 for a 433 was the obvious, but at the same time brilliant move. There is no luck associated with how we’ve reversed a disaster into a masterclass.
The serious question whether Carrick has enough in his locker to extend his masterclass of management to a full season. A good faith argument can be made that he doesn’t. It’s a roll of the dice whatever the decision will be.
The serious question whether Carrick has enough in his locker to extend his masterclass of management to a full season. A good faith argument can be made that he doesn’t. It’s a roll of the dice whatever the decision will be.
That's not quite true. Carrick’s results are much better, but the underlying numbers suggest that under Amorim United were creating more, having more possession, entering the box more, and conceding fewer quality chances. That's just a statement of fact. So it's pointless us all arguing how bad Amorim was (the worst manager we've had in my lifetime) or how great Carrick is (there's a lot of emotional attachment doing the heavy lifting) ad infinitum and using stats to back that up, because they don't ... until you look at wins/losses.
It's really only there that suddenly Carrick seems to be a miracle worker. And what everyone has to decide is: are those 'miracles' just dumb luck and the stats will eventually balance themselves out (and terrible performances with fortunate draws/wins evolve into terrible performances with losses) or is Carrick somehow responsible for these results going against the stats due to his own managerial abilities, the belief he instils in his players, the culture he has managed to create in a very brief time etc. The truth is none of us know and the only way we'll find out is if he's installed permanently as manager. He'll either succeed or he'll be shown up. It's really quite simple!
Creating more and conceding less means nothing in the context of Carrick under Boro and Carrick under us.
Let's start with the stats. Can you show me where we are playing out from the back more under Carrick?
I think you misread my post, as none of the bold in any way contradicts the point I was making. Apart from possibly "conceding fewer quality chances", depending on how you define that and which xGA model you're looking at.
You're right, my bad! I misinterpreted your post!
I would love Carrick to work out, but I've been burned so many times before that the thought of making another bad managerial mistake haunts me in my dreams! If a decision is made to give Carrick the job permanently, I want it to be because it's the right decision, not because it's the easy/convenient decision.
I truly hate straw man comments like this. Arteta after being appointed spent a whole season in 8th. Doing that includes up and down performances and struggling with result consistency. The following season started shakliy too. Do you know what happened? The board stuck to the plan and supported the manager even in the face of some fan discomfort and pundits pressing "its not working" narratives. When things werw rough. THAT is what we bloody mean when we talk of support. United have not done that with any body Since LVG was supported. Not one manager. Any unrest or shaky period they sack.
No one ever reccomends support for a manager doing nothing but sinking like a stone. Neither Amorim nor ETH nor Ole were sinking like stones when they got sacked in recent times ala Frank at Spurs. So I don't get where the hell y'all get that idea when ever support for a manager is brought up.
It's not a strawman argument, it's looking at how boards at clubs with the highest expectations operate all over Europe. Despite Arteta's 8th placed finishes, did he ever reach the lows of ETH and Ole in both results and performances or not? It's as simple as that and why your statement about just giving a manager backing no matter what is deeply flawed.
Structured Sequences: United are stringing together more long passing sequences (10+ passes) under Carrick, jumping from 9.7 to 12.2 per game. This indicates a deliberate focus on building from the keeper and involving deep midfielders like Kobbie Mainoo earlier in the move.
Amen!
I don’t want to dismiss the argument. It’s a clear indicator that we’re not dominating most of our games. Having said that, the metric in itself is misleading. For example, if we’re leading at the Emirates for the majority of the game, it’s perfectly good strategy to maintain discipline rather than making, potentially speculative, attempts at goal. Even though the latter may result in a ‘better’ performance in terms of xG. Consider the fact that we haven’t really trailed much since Carrick has arrived, it would make sense that our xG isn't as high as it could've been had we been chasing games more often. If we had similar points performance, as under Amorim, it would make sense to compare the performances under the two via metrics. In isolation, the most simple metrics tell a clear story.
Having said all that, there are obvious concerns regarding our inability to be elite level clinical. A peak Guardiola or Klopp side would’ve made it 4 or 5 in the first half against Liverpool. Also, there has been a really high proportion of our goals which have come from set pieces. If we do not make substantive improvements in the productivity we get from our attackers, we could struggle next season. I don’t see a side which can do well across PL and CL when their attackers are in the form that Mbuemo and Amad have shown off late. Assuming Sesko isn’t going to be a sub anymore, we don’t have sufficient fire power off the bench as well. Regardless of the implication on Carrick, these data points show that we need a bit more from our attack. Whether that’s delivered through a more balanced midfield, potential new attackers or higher productivity from our current players is the puzzle our recruiting team needs to solve.
Seeing as Ole never finished as low as 8th I’d say so. Infact Ole outperformed Arteta while they were both here.
Not just the finishes but actual performances on the pitch near the end of Ole's tenure. Think back, because I certainly don't want to go back to that place again because it was incredibly grim and brutal.
I’m ignoring the phase after Ronaldo came in honestly. Ole was a coward to not bench him and he deserved firing on that alone.
These are all the valid points where if Carrick doesn't work out we'll all be looking back and pointing to those as the obvious red flags.
It's really easy to see why Carrick is probably a bad idea. I now think he should get the job but I still think he'll almost certainly be fired within 2 years.
Its 100% a staw man. Where in my post did refer to a manager being supported against logic? Arteta who I highlighted. After winning the fa cup went backwards. In his first full season he dropped to 15th by Christmas. Late improvement pushed him to 8th. The following season started so bad he was in the relegation for some of the 5 of his first 10 league gamea. The fans and pundits were clamoiring. The board was unmoved! They stuck to their guns and plans. The supported. You didn't hear whispers of them asking him to recruit additional back room staff nor demands to change tactical approach.
ETH never experienced a patch as bad as Arteta's with us. Even when he finished 8th. Neither did Ole. Ole was sacked after his first truly bad patch in 3 seasons. ETH was compelled upon to change his back room staff. "Work on his game model" and was then sacked. Amorim too. After a disaster first 6 months. He was in 6th. Had just navigated a rough patch and was being compelled upon to "change your match tactics/game model or else". He chose "or else". What is so wrong with desiring our board to not take the self same approach with the next appointee and instead do what Arsenal did? Which in particular is supporting a manager fully and doing everything possible to make him a success?
Build up usually starts with a goal kick. What does open play exactly mean here?The most simple measure of that is where Lammens is passing the ball in open play:
These graphs certainly don‘t conform to the eye test.
I don't know about that. Ten Hag was 14th when he got sacked with 4 wins out of 14 games. On top of that, we had the controversies with him wanting more control over transfers and signing players he had previously coached through related agents SEG for exorbitant fees spending over £600m (!) on transfers over two seasons. And finally, the man had absolutely no charisma as a manager, he didn't even last 2 months at Leverkusen before pissing everyone off and getting sacked. If you're going to argue that he was not backed appropriately or given enough time, you're welcome to. But I think the majority would now think he should have been booted a lot sooner. Sometimes, there are just too many red flags.
Amorim had a disastrous start last season and frankly, he was lucky to be allowed to lead us into this one after finishing 16th and losing a final to Spurs of all teams. But he had started to somewhat recover this season, before having a crash-out and getting himself sacked. He got in an argument with Wilcox (his boss) after the loss at Wolves and after the 1-1 draw with Leeds, he publicly suggested his role was being undermined, insisting on being called "manager" (the contract he signed said Head Coach) and demanding more control over transfers. At the end, he was the one begging to be sacked.
You speak about Arteta, but he operated under smaller budgets, with less control over transfers (Edu was in charge) and didn't have a crash-out, blaming the board, while Arsenal were at 8th. If anything back in 2020 when Arsenal were shit and their fans were shouting "Kroenke Out" Arteta was publicly backing the board. You don't bite the hands that feed you. But I guess when some managers have had enough and want out, they know this is an easy way to get a pay-out without having to resign and forego their compensation. Just criticize your bosses publicly, demand more control while you have achieved zilch, and voila... you've earned yourself a paid-for extended gardening leave, free of pressure and drama.
Last edited:
Don't know where to even start with this section in bold. Would strongly advise you have a look back at how both their tenures ended, not just the results but the actual performances on the pitch. Ole was smacked 5-0 at Old Trafford ffs. You'd have kept him on not long after that? Also it wasn't his first brutal spell, as before Bruno was signed he was on the brink also.
Whilst I fully agree that if Carrick or whoever else is hired will need time, the version of "time" I have in relation to still keeping expectations high enough for a club of our stature, and your version which is that Ole and ETA were unfairly sacked, is the crux of my disagreement and I just knew it was what you were getting at originally.
Last edited:
The focus on framing Carrick's stats exclusively against Amorim's is also perhaps slightly unfair to Carrick.
If I look at our underlying stats as compared to the rest of the league since Carrick was appointed (via Understat), we are 6th for non-penalty xG, 3rd for non-penalty xGA, and 3rd for non-penalty xGD.
Which seems... fine? We've probably run a bit hot in terms of results but nothing there overly suggests we aren't playing like a top five team.
People do seem to forget there were a lot of bad spells under Ole where he could have been sacked and it would have been no surprise, and that he bounced back almost every time to his credit. I’ll never forget the 2-0 home defeat before we signed Bruno. Probably the most toxic atmosphere I’ve seen from the OT crowd who were so fed up (though the Newcastle game last year was pretty nasty too- Zirkzee jeered).