Manchester United find themselves in a familiar crossroads as the club weighs the prospect of handing Michael Carrick a long‑term managerial contract. The situation bears an uncanny resemblance to the path Ole Gunnar Solskjær travelled on his way to becoming the Red Devils' permanent boss.
Both men stepped in as interim figures after a Portuguese coach’s turbulent tenure, and both have now overseen exactly thirteen league games. This parallel has sparked a flurry of debate among fans and pundits: does Carrick’s early record measure up to Solskjær’s, or is the comparison misleading? Since Carrick took over from Ruben Amorim in mid‑January, United’s results have been surprisingly positive. Yet doubts linger about whether his success is sustainable or merely a short‑term boost.
Carrick himself has brushed off the Solskjær comparisons as "irrelevant", but the narrative has already taken hold in the media. To assess the fairness of that narrative, it helps to look at the numbers side by side. Solskjær oversaw thirteen Premier League fixtures before being given the job permanently in 2019.
In those games he accumulated 32 points out of a possible 39, averaging 2.46 points per match. Carrick, on the other hand, has gathered 29 points from the same number of games, a three‑point shortfall that translates to 2.23 points per match.
In terms of goal output, Solskjær’s side found the net 29 times, five more than United have under Carrick, while also conceding three fewer goals. However, the raw figures hide important context. Solskjær’s run included matches against all three clubs that would eventually be relegated that season, and only four encounters with teams that finished in the top half of the table in 2018/19. By contrast, Carrick’s opponents have been considerably tougher: seven of his thirteen fixtures have been against clubs that were positioned 10th or higher at the start of the weekend, with only a single opponent languishing in the relegation zone.
One of Solskjær’s standout moments was a 1‑0 away victory at Tottenham Hotspur, then a fourth‑place finisher, secured by a precise Marcus Rashford finish from a Paul Pogba through‑ball and saved by David De Gea’s heroics. Carrick, however, can claim an even more impressive pair of marquee wins in his first two games: United defeated both Manchester City and Arsenal – the two teams that finished first and second in the league – in consecutive matches.
Those victories not only demonstrated tactical acumen but also boosted United’s confidence and solidified their push for a Champions League spot. Carrick also guided United to a win over Aston Villa, a side that was on course to qualify for Europe themselves, further cementing United’s hold on third place.
While Solskjær had to juggle the demands of the Champions League and FA Cup alongside the league, Carrick has enjoyed relatively quiet midweeks, at one point experiencing a 24‑day break between fixtures. This difference in schedule inevitably affects squad rotation, fatigue levels, and the ability to fine‑tune tactics. If we broaden the lens to include cup competitions, Solskjær’s résumé contains a memorable FA Cup triumph over Chelsea at Stamford Bridge and an iconic Champions League comeback against Paris Saint‑Germain in the last‑16. Over the same period he oversaw 19 matches in 86 days, whereas Carrick has managed 13 matches across 101 days – a longer calendar but fewer games, reflecting United’s more relaxed fixture load under his interim stewardship.
Player availability also plays a crucial role in shaping each manager’s audition. Solskjær could call upon the likes of Eric Bailly, Chris Smalling, Romelu Lukaku, Alexis Sánchez, Juan Mata, Fred and Scott McTominay. Carrick, meanwhile, has had access to talents such as Noussair Mazraoui, Patrick Dorgu, Mason Mount, Leny Yoro, Ayden Heaven, Manuel Ugarte, Benjamin Šeško and Joshua Zirkzee.
The differing pools of talent inevitably influence tactical options and the ability to implement a preferred style of play. Speaking of style, Solskjær’s tenure is often criticised for lacking a clear identity. United under him relied heavily on moments of individual brilliance rather than a cohesive, possession‑based approach, which many argue prevented the team from challenging for major trophies. Carrick’s most effective displays have also come when United have faced opponents expected to dominate possession, allowing his side 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 replica of Solskjær, a notion that is understandable given his former role as Solskjær’s assistant. Statistical analysis reinforces these parallels. Carrick’s United have logged more fast‑breaks per game, perhaps a by‑product of a tougher schedule that forces quicker transitions.
Conversely, Solskjær’s side recorded a higher proportion of headed goals, reflecting a greater reliance on set‑piece situations. In the modern Premier League, dead‑ball efficiency is a valuable asset, and United rank among the league’s most prolific teams in that department, trailing only Arsenal. Understanding the environment each manager inherited is essential. While both Amorim and Jose Mourinho share Portuguese nationality, their relationships with the squad differed dramatically.
Mourinho’s tenure was marred by public spats, notably with Paul Pogba, and a pervasive sense of negativity that spilled over into the dressing room. Solskjær stepped into that toxic atmosphere and was tasked with restoring morale and unity.
Amorim’s departure, on the other hand, was precipitated by a dramatic confrontation with director of football Jason Wilcox in a press conference, after which he was promptly dismissed. His exit was less about player unrest and more about a breakdown in relations with the club hierarchy. Under Amorim, United’s form had actually improved toward the end of his spell, losing only one of his final eight games and winning three.
The primary tactical criticism aimed at him was a puzzling reversion to a back three when a back four had previously yielded better results. Both Carrick and Solskjær were therefore handed relatively open‑goal scenarios: Solskjær needed to inject optimism into a squad demoralised by Mourinho’s departure, while Carrick’s immediate task was to revert to a back‑four formation to stabilise the team’s defensive shape. In both cases, the adjustments were straightforward, yet the pressure to deliver consistent results remained intense. In summary, while Solskjær enjoys a slight edge in pure points accumulation and goal difference, Carrick’s record against stronger opposition, his impressive back‑to‑back victories over the league’s top two teams, and the comparatively lighter fixture congestion all suggest that his audition is far from a mere copy of his predecessor’s.
The true test will be whether Carrick can sustain this momentum over a full season, develop a distinct playing philosophy, and navigate the inevitable challenges of the transfer market and European competition. Until then, the debate over which interim manager delivered the superior 13‑game audition will continue to spark lively discussion among United supporters.