Manchester United’s decision to hand Michael Carrick the permanent managerial job is coming under renewed scrutiny, with frustrated supporters questioning whether the club allowed a successful interim spell to overshadow the experience required to manage one of football’s biggest institutions.

Carrick’s appointment appeared justified after he helped United secure a third-place Premier League finish last season, restoring some optimism at Old Trafford and giving supporters reason to believe the club was finally moving in the right direction.

However, the current campaign has exposed just how difficult it can be to turn that initial success into consistent results, with United struggling to maintain their momentum and facing growing criticism over their tactical organisation and performances.

For some supporters, the problem began when the club interpreted Carrick’s impressive run last season as sufficient evidence that he was ready for the permanent position, rather than treating it as an encouraging audition that required further evaluation.

Managing Manchester United demands more than understanding the club’s culture or inspiring players for a short period, because the manager must also navigate relentless media scrutiny, difficult transfer decisions, dressing-room pressure and the expectations that come with competing for major honours.

Carrick may understand the club better than many outside candidates, having represented United as a player, but that connection alone cannot guarantee success in the dugout.

His critics argue that a more experienced manager could have brought greater tactical flexibility and a clearer plan for dealing with difficult matches, potentially preventing some of the problems currently undermining the team.

The argument Is understandable, particularly when United’s performances have raised questions about their midfield balance, defensive organisation and ability to protect leads.

Yet it would be unfair to suggest that every problem is Carrick’s responsibility, because the club’s recruitment strategy and long-standing squad weaknesses have also contributed to the difficulties.

United invested heavily in midfield during the summer, but concerns remain about the defence and whether the squad has the right balance to execute the manager’s ideas consistently.

Even an experienced coach would have faced challenges working with a squad that still has obvious weaknesses, especially if the club failed to provide the necessary reinforcements.

That is why the debate should extend beyond whether Carrick was the right appointment and examine the decision-making process that led United to choose him.

Did the hierarchy genuinely believe he was the best candidate for a long-term rebuild, or did the success of his interim spell make promoting him the easiest and least disruptive option?

If the club chose Carrick because it trusted his vision and believed he could build a winning team, it must now take responsibility for supporting that project while demanding measurable improvement.

However, if his appointment was based primarily on a strong run of results, United’s leadership must acknowledge that short-term momentum is not always a reliable measure of long-term managerial suitability.

The club cannot afford to repeat the cycle of appointing a manager, expecting an immediate transformation and then searching for another solution when the results deteriorate.

Carrick still has an opportunity to prove his doubters wrong, but the coming matches will be crucial in determining whether he can translate last season’s promise into sustained progress.

For Manchester United, the biggest mistake may not have been appointing an inexperienced manager, but failing to establish whether he was genuinely the right man for the job before making such a consequential decision.

Sources: [The Guardian — Manchester United’s problems extend beyond Carrick](https://www.theguardian.com/football/2026/oct/18/manchester-united-michael-carrick-omar-berrada-leeds-premier-league?utm_source=chatgpt.com)