Why Man Utd should NOT appoint Michael Carrick

"What's making me think he shouldn't get the job? That he might possess the same tactical stubbornness that eventually made Amorim's position untenable. When Carrick was appointed as interim at United there were many articles written about his time at Middlesborough and two things really stand out. Firstly his tactical style which in simple terms equated to 'hold possession and attack through the middle'."

"The thing about attacking through the middle is that it's really difficult because that's where most of the defending players are and so there is very little space. To do this successfully and consistently you need your attackers to be significantly better than the opposition, you need extremely well drilled passing sequences, and you need some method of creating more central space or a numeric advantage."

"What happened at Boro is that teams learned if they sat in a tight block and packed the middle of the pitch they could easily stifle Carrick's attacking style, win the ball back in the middle, then counter attack. The frustration grew when this was"

Michael Carrick's interim management at Manchester United has generated mixed opinions among supporters regarding his suitability for the permanent role. While his winning record is impressive and his status as a club legend makes him an appealing candidate, concerns exist about potential tactical limitations. During his time at Middlesbrough, Carrick employed a possession-based attacking style focused on central play, but refused to adapt this approach even when opponents successfully countered it by packing the middle of the pitch. This tactical stubbornness eventually frustrated Boro fans and the club hierarchy. Similar inflexibility could prove problematic at United, as attacking through the middle requires superior attacking talent, precise passing sequences, and numerical advantages—conditions difficult to maintain consistently.

Read at Football365