I dont agree that Amorim was worse than ETH - the team in the first season was terrible, and with no one to carry our attack. That was caused by ETH squad building. First half of this season was much improved, especially the underlying data, but Amorim struggled getting the results with a lot of draws (not that many losses mind you). When amorim left, we had a far better team that was much easier to raise to a good level than what ETH had done over 3 summers. I truly believe that Amorim's biggest mistake was that he brought the coaching staff which were far too poor for United. Carrick strength is the coaching staff is great.
Michael Carrick
- Thread starter Bastian
- Start date
He is passing 33% across the second row under CarrickThe most simple measure of that is where Lammens is passing the ball in open play:
He is passing 29% across the second row under Amorim.
The concentration wide vs middle is a consequence of system, but the build up is broadly from the same starting point. In fact there's 6% being played out in his own box, right in the middle which is the big difference. Ironically that's an even deeper position.
Interesting article outlining current season strategy and tactics under Carrick and how that will change next season.
https://kwestthoughts.substack.com/...mpaign=post&utm_medium=web&triedRedirect=true
https://kwestthoughts.substack.com/...mpaign=post&utm_medium=web&triedRedirect=true
I think lack of vision and desirable defined playing style sums up Ole's failings here.
Whilst it's on the recruitment team to be better, the manager should know if you want to play out from the back, play a high line and be an elite attacking side in possession, AWB and Maguire aren't the right ones. I really hope the new recruitment team and Carrick have more sense than this.
Likewise he failed to foresee the tactical and dressing room implications of bringing an Ronaldo back and the problems that would cause.
I'm not sure what point you're making?
I'm arguing that we've been playing out from defence more under Carrick, and opting to go long less often. The numbers you just cited support that. As the graphic says, there's been a roughly 10% swing in the proportion of long passes going directly from our goalkeeper into the opposition half.
I think this owes more to the system, Amorim was keen for chipped balls out wide.
My question is more why you think Carrick is doing the same thing here compared to when he was at Boro.
It feels to the naked eye too, that we try to build more from the back under Carrick. That said, it might also be a case of personnel, I don't know if Carrick would have preferred to play out of the back more with Onana in goal. However, it still remains a fact that we try to build up more form the back and the middle, rather than playing direct and through the flanks. That's why Mainoo is also having a renaissance.
The problem is more in ball recovery, under Carrick. We don't press high to get the ball back as much and when we do our press is often beaten easily. So then we retreat and it becomes a low block, where we let teams enjoy too much possession. The reason we don't dominate matches under Carrick is not because of what we do or don't when we have the ball. It's because of what we don't do without it.
EDIT: The one thing I feel is not reflected in the stats, primarily the xG against, is how easily we conceded under Amorim. In the eye test, our set up with 2 CMs, 3 CBs and high press was very vulnerable on the counter and teams would cut through it often to create very dangerous situations. I feel that happens a lot less under Carrick. We often go into a low block when defending and make it nervous for ourselves, but we're not easy to break down and we concede less under Carrick than Amorim. We had conceded 30 goals in 20 games when Amorim got the sack (1.5gpg). We have conceded 18 in 15 games since (1.2gpg). That is despite our near complete decimation of the defence with the long injuries to De Ligt, Martinez, Dorgu and the also the loss of Maguire for bunch of matches too.
Last edited:
Don't forget his coaching staff is also really important. If Steve Holland, who is very experienced stays with him and they get in any additional coaches he needs. It could make all the difference.
I'm glad it's not me making this call for real. It's a hard call. I think Iraola will be a terrific manager for a bugger club. It remains to be seen how that pans out.
Not sure how coaching a gay club would be any different, although I admit I didn't even know there were football clubs based on sexual preferences. But thanks for the perspective!
That post focused as of why I believe that the club would have given the permanent job to either Ole/Carrick if they were capable of qualifying to the CL. From a political POV it would be extremely risky doing otherwise.
Regarding who is the better manager between Amorim and ETH. Well it depends. Results wise it was ETH (that's the most important thing for a club whose losing money and is therefore reliant on European cup qualification), Culture wise it was Amorim, Tactical wise it was ETH, Ten Hag's tactics weren't great but he wasn't a 1 trick pony. Financial wise? Well Amorim's childish meltdowns in the media ripped millions out of Garnacho's and potentially Mainoo's fee. Having said that ETH is the only manager we had in our club's history whom I believe should be investigated. Those deals coupled by his close involvement to some major agencies stunk big time. Maybe there's a reason why he was kicked out of a well run club mere weeks after joining them and had to now settle for a technical director role in some mickey mouse club.
IMO all it basically shows is that we mix it up more now than we did previously
This sums it up.
Whether Carrick or Iraola or Glasner is a roll of dice.
The only argument in favor of Carrick is he’s already there, knows the club and the squad. So I’d say better the devil you know.
Probably see more ball possession for one.
For me that question largely rests on how successful our recruitment is this summer. If we can add the right midfielders, strengthen our left flank, and add some quality depth, I can see us continuing to build towards that under Carrick. Raising the technical and physical floor of our team will help us become more dominant as a team. Despite the managerial upheaval this season, we’ve seen what one solid transfer window can do in that regard, and how fine the margins are in the current PL when it comes to a team clicking or collapsing in form, or jumping from one part of the table to another. Has Arsenal’s growth towards that kind of dominance been more a result of outstanding managerial ability from Arteta or the sensible and strategic recruitment which has underpinned his tenure? Both play a part, but it’s easy to envisage Arteta being much less successful without the requisite ambition and strategy from the club around him.
Of course, the challenges of recruitment are partly why Carrick has become more likely to get the full time job - there don’t seem to be many outstanding managerial candidates available in the current market. In that context i’m not averse to seeing what he can do with a better and more well rounded squad.
You are STILL attributing things to me I have neither implied nor said. I'm talking of a real pattern by our board of NOT supporting managers. I'll go first to LVG:
i. Just as things started to look up and we won our first post SAF silverware of what was supposed to be a 3 year project we sacked him.
ii.Next Mourinho got us to second. Our board gave him no support in the summer following, pissing him off so much he burnt bridges all around him just to get sacked his 3rd season.
iii. Ole his replacement. Sacked after his truly only bad spell. After a summer in which he was prevailed upon to add CR7 but never given the funds to add the DM he needed to evolve the team. Sacked after his first truly bad spell without being given a chance to steady things. Compare that to Arteta dropping to 15th and how the Arsenal board treated it. Or starting the following season in relegation contention.
iv. ETH. First signs of trouble he was asked to change his game module and get new back room staff iuring his second season difficulties amidst navigating a horrible injury crisis and an attempted club take over. Even after winning even bigger silverware than year 1. He obliged. A slow start to his 3rd season cost him his job.
v. Same story with Amorim. After a disaster first 6 months. He was sacked 6 months later, in 6th, having navigated Christmas fixtures with a badly depleted squad. Told to "change his tactical set up or else". He chose or else ....
The pattern is rather clear. It literally has nothing to do with whether one thinks the sackings unfair or not. Literally none of them received the support has Arteta gotten at Arsenal. Support that is finally yielding big rewards this season. Yet he had more bad spells then them in his first 2 full seasons combined.
My entire argument is I desire the next United manager to receive the exact support Arsenal has handed Arteta. End of story. It literally has nothing to do with whether previous managers " were "rightly/wrongly sacked". That is literally irrelevant to the central point. We are not ever going to be successful if every 1-1.5 years we rip up the blue print 'steady things" with an interim and start again like has been the case since Mourinho. We need to fully commit to a plan and the manager we pick to implement it. Full stop.
2 direct rivals have showed us how to do it. First Liverpool. Now Arsenal. Under our recent board behaviour I have no doubt both Arteta in the past and Slot right now would have been sacked.
The whole Ole had us defending in a low block thing is a complete myth though. We had one of the highest average defensive lines in Europe under him from 2019-2021; we nearly always pressed high, and the back four and midfield generally backed that up well without allowing too much space to open up in the middle of the pitch... the energy and ability to cover ground of McFred was a massive part of that, as were the recovery capabilities of Wan-Bissaka (particularly) and Shaw. When it went wrong, as sometimes, things went spectacularly wrong; goals conceded in the Leeds, Southampton and Liverpool games in 20/21 spring to mind, as with any time where Maguire or Lindelof were left 1v1 with a pacy winger/forward, exposed in channels, and made to look a bit silly.
As a wider point to this thread, for me, it's really hard to assess Carrick looking at next season based on what we've seen this. He's done unbelievably well, and better than most would have expected, but was fundamentally brought in to secure short-term results and maximise resources. This underpins most decisions he's made which have had positive outcomes.
Ultimately, the tactical decisions Carrick has made boil down to the simple question of what is the best way to win each game with the tools available? Most of that leads back to midfield (and where our most influential players happen to sit). It's where we failed most under Ten Hag and Amorim, and where most big teams ride or die. He realised – and it's obviously not rocket science – that we'll win far more football matches with Casemiro and Bruno Fernandes in their best positions for as close to 90 minutes each time as possible. It's clear the former becomes exhausted in second halves if he has to cover excess ground, particularly horizontally... so Carrick has set the team up in a way where this is far less necessary. We saw on Sunday against Liverpool, when the game did become unusually stretched, just how Casemiro still suffers in such game states... it was his clear worst performance for a while.
We used to dread the usual Casemiro early sub under Amorim usually because chaos (Ugarte/square pegs in round holes) then ensued while trying to get results over the line. And we had so much more of it back then because Casemiro of course got very tired and was more susceptible to yellow cards as a result of the role given to him, also necessitating earlier withdrawals. So fast forward to now: our full-backs don't push up or join attacks often because they are required to protect the middle of the pitch space and simul-help Casemiro while also accommodating Bruno's drifting. We don't aggressively counter-press when leading and try at all costs to avoid basketball matches like the first half vs Brentford and second half vs Liverpool, because Carrick doesn’t want games getting stretched and draining our most important players' energies.
It's clever and pragmatic. But is this really how Carrick wants to play, carte blanche? Almost certainly not. Thus I don't think we can take much that we've seen right now and project over to next season because the squad will be different and without the Casemiro dependence, there will be alternative solutions in play. What gives major cause for optimism are his principles, man-management and the ability to find effective tactical solutions on the evidence thus far – it's just highly likely that come August, there'll be different such solutions and time will tell how good they are.
Last edited:
Very well said - it’s refreshing to see some recognition of the pragmatism he’s shown since coming in.
Cheers for this. Interesting read.
This part in particular annoys me and hopefully is addressed next season if Carrick gets the job long term.
Just like against Liverpool, I can never understood why we cede possession after the lead and go defensive inviting mistakes to happen.
I think this is one of the keys, along with whether Carrick has a real true vision of playing in a style that we want to move towards long term. This is why there is a vast amount that we won't be privy to in being able to assess who the best candidates truly are. At least we know that Carrick can get results and our heads don't drop with set backs under him, but the underlying metrics are very unimpressive and feel as though we will soon be in for a rude awakening. As mentioned, the way we concede possession in 2nd halves is also concerning and will not lead us to long term results.
Ultimately, if we give Carrick the full time gig and he proves to not be worthy, we need to be ready to make a decision swiftly on his future instead of dragging things out and wasting more seasons.
ETH won two cups, finished 3rd and then 8th with a squad decimated with injuries. There is no contest who was better.
I can’t remember where but I saw an interesting stat that it was our three CBs averaging the most touches per game under Amorim, whereas under Carrick it’s now our midfielders averaging the most touches.
And agreed on your last point. Under Amorim conceding a soft goal and dropping points felt like an inevitability to me - we just looked so disorganized and vulnerable in that back three. Now I have far more confidence that we’ll defend resolutely whilst doing enough up top to take the points.
Ten Hag also oversaw some of our most embarrassing losses, getting absolutely battered by big score lines all too often. He also had a historically poor CL performance, ending up bottom of the group stage for the first time ever. He also left our squad in a far worst state having squandered nearly half a billion on players poorly suited to the league.
Arguing that Ten Hag was better than Amorim is like arguing that cat shit is better than dog shit. So what? They’re still both shit.
because we are inconsistent finishers.
the weekend was a case in point: two up and coasting but missing chances to seal it, ditto fulham at home and a few others
same under eth, ole and Jose, even
Amorim was the dumbest, most idiotic ego maniac of a manager I've ever had the misfortune to watch. A truly horrendous manager who doesn't get a free card because Wilcox and the backroom staff made the squad better in spite of him.
The worst manager in our history, by some distance, utterly utterly shite at everything.
Ruud had no issue raising the level post ETH, and that tells you all you need to know about how crap the other bloke was.
They sold the guts of his team. That simple
We finished bottom of our group in 05/06, with just one win (2-1 at home to Benfica, courtesy of an 85th minute winner).
We also only scored one other goal in that group, in a 2-1 defeat away at Benfica.
We also lost 1-0 to Lille, then drew our other game with Lille and the two against Villarreal 0-0.
Lille finished ahead of us because of the head-to-head results (both on six points). The goal they scored to beat us was their only goal of the group stage.
Sorry, no. Just like Amorim should have been fired at the end of last season, if Carrick is making us look crap by the January window then his position should be reviewed.
Agreed. It's not about him being a former player or not. That's actually a plus but I don't let that cloud my judgment. It's the football that's not winning me over.
We'll see what he conjures up over the summer.
I agree on the importance of the assistant. It seems Carrick's decline at Middlesbrough coincided with the departure of his assistant Danks.
Not sure Holland is the right choice though based on how England underachieved (and similarities in how we play after taking leads).
Not the departure of his best players?
What makes you think Ole would have the upper hand compared to Carrick if he didn't stubbornly require that clause in the interim contract anyway? Ole had a failed stint in Turkey after leaving us, while Carrick at least had a stint in England and lasted quite decently.
Many reputable journalists said it at the time. Ole was at an inch of getting the job. Then he started making demands for a pathway in a more permanent role. Ole tanked in Turkey (ie the same league Mourinho tanked as well) while Carrick tanked in the Championship
Agreed fully.
Carrick and McKenna doing well after his leadership ended is proof that there was a good group there.
Surely you wouldn't bring in backroom staff at this stage of the season if you didn't know who the manager was going to be next season, which would immediately confirm Carrick is getting the job. Or am I wrong on this?
You are not wrong. It’s now only a matter of when and how Carrick will be announced as manager. Undoubtedly contractual terns have already been worked out, with details such as assistant coaches getting sorted being the last piece before the big reveal can be arranged.
There's been a school of thought for a while that we should be hiring a backroom team somewhat independent of the manager, so there's at least some degree of consistency there even if the manager isn't kept on.
We've basically had to completely replace the coaching staff a few times over the years because we've let each manager bring in all of his own team.
I think it's Carrick too and if they get recruitment and coaching right it could go very really well.
I think the author of that article points out we just don’t have the legs to continue to push and attack. I suppose that doesn’t mean we can’t keep hold of the ball more.
It’ll speak volumes about our play next season depending on who we sign this summer.
He is going to be confirmed as the permanent manager, right before the last home game.