Manchester United are once again faced with a familiar dilemma: whether to hand Michael Carrick the permanent managerial role after a surprisingly positive spell in charge. The situation bears an uncanny resemblance to the path Ole Gunnar Solskjær walked to secure his full‑time appointment.
While Carrick has brushed off any comparison to his predecessor as "irrelevant," the narrative persists, prompting a closer look at whether the parallel is justified. Both men have overseen exactly 13 Premier League fixtures in their respective interim periods. Solskjær earned his permanent contract in 2019 after a 13‑game caretaker stint, having arrived from Molde to steady a club that was floundering under Portuguese boss José Mourinho. Carrick, meanwhile, took over from Portuguese manager Rúben Amorim in mid‑January and has since guided United through an equally turbulent stretch.
When the numbers are laid side by side, Solskjær enjoys a modest edge in pure results: 32 points from a possible 39, three more than Carrick’s tally. United under Solskjær found the net 29 times, five more than the 24 goals scored under Carrick, while also conceding three fewer goals.
However, the context of those figures matters. Solskjær’s run featured matches against all three clubs that eventually went down that season, and only four of his opponents finished in the top half of the table in 2018‑19. By contrast, Carrick’s fixtures have been tougher on paper – seven of his opponents were positioned tenth or higher at the start of each weekend, and only one was fighting relegation. One of Solskjær’s standout achievements was a 1‑0 away victory at Tottenham Hotspur, then a fourth‑place side, courtesy of a precise Marcus Rashford finish set up by Paul Pogba and sealed by a heroic David de Gea save.
Carrick, however, can claim an even more impressive pair of marquee wins early in his tenure. United produced back‑to‑back triumphs over the league’s two best teams – a 2‑1 win at Manchester City followed by a 2‑0 victory over Arsenal – demonstrating an ability to rise to the occasion against elite opposition.
Additionally, Carrick’s side edged past Aston Villa, a club on course for Champions League qualification, to solidify United’s push for a top‑three finish. The circumstances surrounding each interim spell differ markedly. Solskjær juggled Premier League duties alongside deep runs in the FA Cup and the Champions League, often playing multiple mid‑week fixtures that stretched the squad.
Carrick, on the other hand, has benefited from a relatively gentle schedule, at times enjoying a 24‑day hiatus between league games. Over the same period, Solskjær oversaw 19 matches in 86 days, while Carrick’s 13 games stretched across 101 days, highlighting the disparity in workload.
Player availability also shaped each manager’s audition. Solskjær could call upon the likes of Eric Bailly, Chris Smalling, Romelu Lukaku, Alexis Sanchez, Juan Mata, Fred and Scott McTominay. Carrick, meanwhile, has had access to newer faces such as Noussair Mazraoui, Patrick Dorgu, Mason Mount, Leny Yoro, Ayden Heaven, Manuel Ugarte, Benjamin Šeško and Joshua Zirkzee.
These differing personnel pools inevitably influenced tactical choices and results. Beyond raw statistics, the legacy of each manager is colored by style of play. Solskjær’s tenure is often criticised for a lack of a clear identity; United frequently relied on moments of individual brilliance rather than a cohesive, possession‑based approach, limiting their ability to challenge for major trophies.
Carrick’s best displays have similarly emerged against teams that dominate possession, allowing United to exploit counter‑attacking opportunities – a pattern evident in the wins over City and Arsenal. This tactical similarity fuels the perception that Carrick is merely a continuation of Solskjær’s blueprint, a notion not entirely unfounded given their former working relationship. A deeper dive into the numbers reveals subtle divergences. Carrick’s United average more fast‑breaks per game, perhaps a by‑product of the tougher opposition they have faced.
Conversely, Solskjær’s side recorded more headed goals, reflecting a greater reliance on set‑piece proficiency. In today’s Premier League, dead‑ball situations are increasingly decisive, and United rank among the most effective teams at converting them, trailing only Arsenal. Understanding the environments each manager inherited is crucial. Mourinho’s era left United in a toxic atmosphere, with public spats – notably with Paul Pogba – and a perceived divide within the squad.
Solskjær was tasked with restoring confidence and unity. Amorim’s departure, however, stemmed from a very different drama: a public confrontation with director of football Jason Wilcox that culminated in his dismissal.
While Amorim’s exit was less about dressing‑room discord, it did highlight strained relations with the club hierarchy. Both interim coaches were handed relatively straightforward mandates: Solskjær needed to inject optimism after Mourinho’s negativity, while Carrick simply had to revert to a back‑four formation to improve stability. Each succeeded to varying degrees, but both also faced the shadow of their predecessors – Solskjær with Mourinho’s legacy, Carrick with the lingering comparisons to Solskjær himself. In the end, the question of who delivered the stronger audition after 13 league games remains subjective.
Solskjær amassed more points and scored more goals, yet many of those came against lower‑ranked opposition. Carrick’s résumé includes higher‑profile victories against the league’s elite and a more challenging fixture list. Fans and analysts will continue to debate which interim stint best positions United for sustained success, but the data suggests that both men have demonstrated the capacity to navigate the club through difficult periods, each leaving a distinct imprint on the Red Devils’ recent narrative.