Manchester United find themselves in a familiar crossroads as the club debates whether to hand Michael Carrick the permanent head‑coach role. The situation bears an uncanny resemblance to the path Ole Gunnar Solskjær walked to secure his full‑time appointment. Since stepping in for Rúben Amorim in mid‑January, Carrick’s results have been impressive, yet questions about his suitability persist, many of which stem from the inevitable Solskjær comparison.
Carrick has brushed off those parallels as "irrelevant," but the narrative has already taken hold. The key question remains: is the comparison fair? Solskjær took charge of United for 13 Premier League games before being appointed permanently in 2019, having arrived from Molde as a caretaker. Carrick has now overseen the same number of league fixtures, prompting a side‑by‑side look at how their interim tenures compare.
In terms of points, Solskjær holds a slight edge, amassing 32 points out of a possible 39 – three more than Carrick’s tally after 13 matches. His side also found the net 29 times, five more than United have under Carrick, while conceding three fewer goals. However, Solskjær’s run featured matches against all three clubs that eventually went down that season, and only four of his games were against teams that finished in the top half of the table in 2018/19.
Carrick’s schedule has been tougher. Since replacing Amorim, United have faced seven opponents that began the weekend in the top ten, and only one opponent currently languishing in the relegation zone. This higher‑quality opposition makes direct point‑for‑point comparisons more complex. One of Solskjær’s most memorable results was a 1‑0 away victory at Mauricio Pochettino’s Tottenham, who ended the season in fourth place.
Marcus Rashford’s clinical finish, set up by a lofted ball from Paul Pogba, secured the win, with David de Gea pulling off crucial saves. Carrick, however, can point to two back‑to‑back triumphs over the league’s two biggest clubs – Manchester City and Arsenal – in his first two games, a feat Solskjær never achieved in his initial spell. Those wins, coupled with a victory over Aston Villa – a side on course for Champions League qualification – helped United solidify a third‑place position. Carrick argues that each manager operates under a unique set of circumstances, and he is correct.
Solskjær had to juggle Premier League, Champions League and FA Cup commitments, whereas Carrick has enjoyed the luxury of mid‑week breaks between league fixtures, at one point going 24 days without a match. When all competitions are considered, Solskjær oversaw 19 matches in 86 days, while Carrick has overseen 13 matches over 101 days. The quality of players available also shapes each audition. Solskjær could call upon the likes of Eric Bailly, Chris Smalling, Romelu Lukaku, Alexis Sanchez, Juan Mata, Fred and Scott McTominay.
Carrick’s pool has featured Noussair Mazraoui, Patrick Dorgu, Mason Mount, Leny Yoro, Ayden Heaven, Manuel Ugarte, Benjamin Šeško and Joshua Zirkzee, among others. These differing squads inevitably influence tactical options and results. From a purely league‑table perspective, Solskjær is often regarded as one of United’s more successful post‑Ferguson appointments, though his tenure is marred by criticism over the team’s style of play.
United under Solskjær frequently relied on moments of individual brilliance rather than a cohesive, possession‑based system, limiting their ability to challenge for major trophies. Carrick’s best performances have also come against teams expected to dominate possession, allowing United to exploit counter‑attacking opportunities – a pattern evident in the wins over City and Arsenal.
This similarity fuels the narrative that Carrick might be another version of Solskjær, a notion not entirely surprising given his former role as Solskjær’s assistant. Statistical analysis of their first 13 league games highlights these parallels.
Carrick’s side averages more fast‑breaks per match, likely a by‑product of the tougher schedule and the need to absorb pressure before striking. The most noticeable statistical divergence lies in headed goals, with United scoring more from set‑pieces under Carrick – a reflection of the Premier League’s current emphasis on dead‑ball situations, where United rank among the most prolific behind Arsenal.
Understanding the context each manager inherited is crucial. While both Amorim and José Mourinho share Portuguese nationality, their relationships with the squad differed markedly. Mourinho left United amid a toxic atmosphere, famously residing in the Lowry Hotel and embroiled in a public spat with Paul Pogba, which reportedly fractured the dressing room.
Amorim’s exit was dramatic as well; he publicly challenged director of football Jason Wilcox in a press conference before being dismissed. Despite these off‑field issues, neither manager appeared to have lost the locker‑room entirely.
United had lost three of Mourinho’s final eight games before his sacking following a 3‑1 defeat at Liverpool. Amorim’s record before his departure was comparatively better, with United losing only one of his last eight matches and winning three. Amorim’s main tactical flaw was a puzzling reversion to a back three after his back‑four system had yielded improved performances.
Solskjær’s challenge was to inject optimism into a squad still reeling from Mourinho’s negativity, while Carrick’s task has been to revert to a back four and restore confidence. Both interim managers were handed the open goal of making simple adjustments to rectify the problems left by two stubborn predecessors. Solskjær had to manage larger egos in a squad that eventually turned against him; Carrick, meanwhile, must contend with constant comparisons to his former boss.
In the end, the debate over which interim audition was superior after 13 Premier League games remains open. Fans can weigh the points, quality of opposition, tactical nuances and player availability to decide which manager delivered a more convincing case for a permanent role.