-
How Michael Carrick Went from Manchester United’s Saviour to Another Managerial Scapegoat
November 12, (THEWILL) – “If he had started the season with us, we would have won the league.”
These were the sentiments of many Manchester United fans following Michael Carrick’s remarkable interim spell, which produced 12 wins, three draws and just two defeats in 17 Premier League matches.
Carrick took over from Ruben Amorim on 13 January 2026, with Manchester United sitting seventh in the Premier League. What followed was an extraordinary turnaround, featuring memorable victories over Manchester City (2–0), Arsenal (3–2), Chelsea (1–0), Liverpool (3–2) and Aston Villa (3–1).
The United legend collected 39 points from a possible 51, the highest tally of any Premier League club during that period. More importantly, he guided the Red Devils to a third-place finish, securing Champions League qualification against expectations.
Given those achievements, it was understandable that United supporters approached the new season with renewed optimism. Rewarding Carrick with a two-year contract seemed a reasonable decision, offering him an opportunity to build on the momentum and continue the club’s resurgence.
For some supporters, Manchester United were not merely expected to compete for the Premier League title. They were expected to challenge the very best teams in England and perhaps reclaim their place at the summit of English football.
Unfortunately, football rarely follows the script.
After an underwhelming summer transfer window, United began the new Premier League campaign with a disappointing 2–0 defeat to newly promoted Hull City. What initially appeared to be an early-season setback soon developed into a full-blown crisis.
The results deteriorated, performances became increasingly unconvincing, and the optimism that greeted Carrick’s permanent appointment gradually gave way to frustration.
By November, Manchester United had recorded just one victory in their opening 10 Premier League matches, collecting eight points and languishing in 18th position. Their 4–4 draw with Aston Villa on 8 November proved to be Carrick’s final league match in charge.
For a club of Manchester United’s stature, the situation was alarming. A team that had finished third only months earlier was suddenly battling to escape the relegation zone.
The club’s hierarchy eventually decided that enough was enough. In announcing Carrick’s departure, Manchester United acknowledged the disappointing start to the season and explained that a managerial change was necessary to achieve the club’s ambitions.
Yet the club was equally appreciative of Carrick’s contribution, describing him as a Manchester United legend whose dedication, professionalism and achievements during the previous season would be remembered fondly.
There is little doubt about Carrick’s professionalism and commitment to the club. Throughout his difficult final months, he maintained a largely calm demeanor, even as the pressure intensified during increasingly uncomfortable press conferences.
His frustration was sometimes visible. The confident figure who had inspired United’s remarkable resurgence gradually appeared weighed down by the demands of managing a struggling team.
But can anyone reasonably question his desire to succeed?
The results were unacceptable, and Carrick must accept responsibility for them. However, his dismissal raises a familiar question that Manchester United have struggled to answer since Sir Alex Ferguson’s retirement in 2013: Is the manager always the problem?
Football management can be a thankless profession. Eleven players take to the pitch, substitutes are introduced, and individual mistakes often determine the outcome of matches. Yet when results deteriorate, the manager becomes the most convenient target.
He selects the team, determines the tactics and makes the substitutions. Consequently, he must accept a significant share of the responsibility.
But a manager does not operate in isolation. His success also depends on recruitment, squad depth, player availability, technical support and the strategic direction established by the club’s leadership.
This is where Manchester United’s hierarchy must face difficult questions. The club entered the summer transfer window with the prospect of Champions League football and an opportunity to strengthen a squad that had exceeded expectations under Carrick.
Instead, questions emerged about whether United had done enough to address weaknesses in key positions.
The arrivals of Youri Tielemans, Andrey Santos and Carlos Baleba offered different qualities, but doubts remained about whether the recruitment strategy adequately reflected the demands of competing domestically and in Europe.
Tielemans brought Premier League experience, while Santos represented a younger midfield option. Baleba, meanwhile, arrived with considerable potential but also the pressure associated with a major transfer.
READ ALSO:
Marcus Rashford returned from his loan spell at Barcelona, while goalkeeper Karl Darlow was added to the squad. Nevertheless, the central question remained: Had Manchester United strengthened sufficiently to compete on multiple fronts?
Those concerns were reinforced by reported comments from defender Lisandro Martínez following United’s Champions League defeat to Atlético Madrid, in which he questioned the level of support from the club’s hierarchy and the need for additional reinforcements.
Such frustration, if accurately reported, suggests that concerns about recruitment extended beyond supporters and football pundits.
It also raises questions about the relationship between the technical department, the coaching staff and the players.
Did Carrick identify the positions requiring reinforcement? Were his preferred targets pursued? Did the club’s hierarchy believe that last season’s impressive results meant the existing squad needed only limited additions?
Or did United simply underestimate the demands of returning to the Champions League while attempting to sustain a domestic title challenge?
These questions deserve answers.
For a club with Manchester United’s history, commercial strength and global following, qualification for Europe’s elite competition should ordinarily be an opportunity to build, not a reason for complacency.
Yet the cycle has become painfully familiar.
A manager arrives amid optimism, delivers encouraging results, raises expectations and eventually becomes the face of another disappointing campaign. The manager is dismissed, another appointment follows, and supporters are invited to believe that a fresh start will finally restore the club’s fortunes.
Since Ferguson’s departure, Manchester United have repeatedly changed managers without achieving the sustained stability and success their supporters crave.
Carrick’s dismissal is the latest chapter in that troubling story.
Of course, it would be unfair to absolve him of responsibility. A single league victory in 10 matches is an unacceptable return for a club with Manchester United’s ambitions, regardless of the circumstances.
Managers are ultimately judged by results, and Carrick’s performances this season provided the hierarchy with legitimate grounds for concern.
However, dismissing the manager should not automatically absolve those responsible for recruitment, squad planning and the club’s broader football strategy.
The responsibility for success and failure must extend beyond the technical area.
Attention now turns to Mauricio Pochettino, the Argentine coach who is reportedly close to taking over at Old Trafford.
Having previously managed Southampton, Tottenham Hotspur and Chelsea, Pochettino is familiar with the intensity, expectations and demands of English football.
His experience could prove valuable, particularly at a club desperately seeking stability.
But Manchester United represents a different challenge altogether.
Pochettino would inherit a team struggling near the bottom of the Premier League, facing intense scrutiny and carrying the weight of expectations associated with one of football’s biggest institutions.
He would also be expected to restore confidence, improve performances and rebuild a winning mentality, potentially without the benefit of a full pre-season.
That is an enormous responsibility.
And unless the club addresses the structural problems that have contributed to repeated managerial failures, even an experienced coach may struggle to deliver lasting success.
Michael Carrick arrived as a familiar face who understood Manchester United’s traditions. He briefly restored belief, delivered Champions League qualification and reminded supporters of what their club could achieve.
Less than six months after earning a permanent contract, he has become another casualty of United’s enduring instability.
The next manager may bring new tactics, fresh ideas and renewed optimism. But without a coherent recruitment strategy, accountability at every level and a clear long-term football vision, Manchester United risk repeating the same mistakes.
Carrick has paid the price. But have those responsible for building the team learned anything?
And perhaps the most important question remains: Will Mauricio Pochettino finally steady the ship, or will he become another name on Manchester United’s growing list of managerial casualties?
By Moshood Isah
