The Solskjaer Trap: Why Man Utd Must Rethink Making Michael Carrick Permanent
Updated July 9, 2026
Is Michael Carrick really the right man for Manchester United? The numbers look good and the momentum he has built has been impressive. But there are uncomfortable questions that need answering before Sir Jim Ratcliffe hands him the keys permanently.
One of the feel-good stories of the Premier League season has been the resurgence of Manchester United. Under Michael Carrick's steady guidance, United have played 15 matches and lost only two, and the team currently sits third in the Premier League having secured Champions League football for next season, something that looked borderline impossible when Ruben Amorim was marched out the door. The board of directors at Old Trafford have reportedly reached a unanimous agreement on appointing him permanently, with The Athletic reporting that he has the backing of Chief Executive Omar Berrada and Director of Football Jason Wilcox.
The dressing room loves him, the fans are warming to him, and the executives are ready to hand him the contract.
So why does it feel like United might be making a familiar mistake?
The turnaround initiated by United's former midfield metronome deserves attention. Carrick has recorded 11 wins and 2 draws in 15 league matches since taking over a club in crisis, with Manchester United set to finish 3rd having beaten Arsenal, Manchester City, Liverpool and Chelsea since Carrick took the reins at Old Trafford. Considering they were 15th last season and looking lost under Amorim this season, this represents a tremendous about-turn in form.
Since Carrick took over, Manchester United have collected more Premier League points than any other side in that period. He took a shattered squad, steadied the atmosphere, and dragged them into the top three.
It is easy to see, therefore, just why Wilcox and Berrada have been sufficiently impressed by Carrick's influence to recommend he takes charge permanently. The executives also recognise that he enjoys the full support of the players. In a club notorious for fractured dressing rooms under ten Hag and Amorim, that unity carries real weight.
Despite the undoubted progress United have made since Carrick took the helm, there is an elephant in the room to address. United chose tactics over vibes in appointing Carrick over Solskjaer back in January, but the club is now potentially about to repeat the same error it made with Solskjaer: appointing a well-liked club legend on the back of a promising short run, and only discovering the ceiling when it's too late to act cleanly.
Solskjaer won 14 of his first 19 games back in 2018/19. The reaction was almost identical to what we're hearing about Carrick now. It took three years and two failed full seasons before the inevitable happened.
The board is still evaluating other options before making a final decision, with names like Andoni Iraola and Julian Nagelsmann emerging as possible alternatives. That due diligence is being rushed rather than properly concluded, which is its own red flag.
Carrick's impressive run since January cannot be dismissed out of hand. But he's also inherited a squad that, for the first time in years, seems to want to play for its manager. However that goodwill has a shelf life. When results dip, will Carrick have the tactical nous, the transfer market authority, and the hard edge to turn it around? If a packed fixture list proves taxing and players begin to tire, will he feel able to rotate out the players who have played him into a position to seize control at one of the world's biggest clubs?
As one supporter put it: "The same people asking for him to be coronated will be the first to ask for the sack if results begin to nosedive. Manchester United is a club with a rich history and enormous expectations."
Wayne Rooney put it plainly: "For what he has done, he's earned the right to get the manager's job. But they need to do it swiftly because they need to get players in." Even those backing Carrick frame it as conditional, "for what he has done" is hardly a ringing endorsement of his long-term suitability. It's a reward for short-term service.
Furthermore, Carrick is still yet to be really tested as a manager at the highest level. While his supporters will no doubt point to the excellent record he boasts at Old Trafford and the wins over top quality opposition, these wins have come in a season where United will have only played 42 matches in total thanks to humiliating cup exits to Grimsby and Brighton, and a lack of European football after their 15th-place finish last season.
Compare this to Arsenal's 63 matches and City's 61, and it is easy to see why Carrick's United have seemed so fit and fresh compared to their rivals. Next season will prove a real acid test of Carrick's management, as United's much-heralded return to Champions League football will yield at least another 8 matches for them to negotiate.
Nobody is dismissing what Carrick has achieved at Old Trafford this season. He stopped the rot, restored belief, and delivered Champions League football when the club desperately needed it.
But permanently handing the role to a manager because he's had a strong four months feels like sentiment overriding strategy. United have been here before. The club has confused "good interim manager" with "the right permanent appointment" more than once.
The United board deserve credit for asking harder questions than their predecessors, but that doesn't mean they should stop asking them now.
Affiliate DisclosureATS.io uses affiliate links. If you sign up through a link on this page, we may earn a commission at no additional cost to you. Rankings are based on hands-on testing and published criteria, and affiliate relationships do not determine placement.
