Gary Neville voiced serious concerns that Manchester United’s tendency to allow opponents to score is unlikely to disappear, especially after the team surrendered two goals for the third consecutive match during their recent encounter with Everton. Despite the 2-2 draw, which left United with just four points from three league fixtures, midfielder‑turned‑coach Michael Carrick tried to put a positive spin on the start of his tenure, describing the opening phase of the season as "not that bad". However, the late equaliser scored by Everton in stoppage time underscored the defensive frailties that have become a recurring theme for the Red Devils. Neville, a former United defender and now a prominent pundit, highlighted the six goals the club has let in over those three games as a major cause for alarm.
He questioned whether Carrick, given his current squad, possesses the tools necessary to resolve the problem. "It puts a bit of pressure on Manchester United as they have Man City next week and a European game in mid‑week," Neville said, emphasizing the tight schedule that leaves little room for defensive errors. Carrick, who is still in the early stages of building trust with both the players and the supporters, aims to replicate the solidity he displayed as a player during his final season with the club. Yet Neville argued that the recent performance suggests a deeper issue.
"That game should have been won today. Everton weren’t at it in the first half. They let Everton back into the game," he noted, pointing out that United’s lapse in concentration allowed the visitors to claw back into the match. The former defender went on to describe United’s defensive record as a "liability of conceding goals" that appears to be entrenched.
"It’s not going away. That is my fear. Conceding goals will hunt them and chase them down the road," Neville warned.
He expressed doubt about Carrick’s ability to fix the problem, especially after the manager made several late‑game changes to his back line. "Why did Shaw and Dalot go off with five minutes to go? Ruben Amorin and Erik ten Hag changed their back four too," Neville asked rhetorically, suggesting that constant shuffling at the heart of the defence signals a lack of confidence in the starting eleven.
Neville stressed that stability is essential. "You can’t be changing your back four. There’s not much behind the first choice. So you can’t change it," he argued, implying that the club needs a clear hierarchy and reliable options rather than rotating players in a desperate attempt to plug gaps.
The dramatic moment of the match came when Everton’s Ainsley Maitland‑Niles, on his debut for the Toffees, struck a spectacular 25‑yard equaliser in stoppage time. While Neville praised the quality of the strike, he was equally frustrated by United’s lack of organisation leading up to the goal. "Manchester United are conceding two goals a game, you can’t concede two goals a game," he asserted, highlighting the pattern of defensive breakdowns.
He criticised the simplistic analysis that would attribute the concession solely to the brilliance of the opposition, insisting that United’s own mistakes were to blame. "Lazy analysis will say they conceded two spectacular goals.
The Maitland‑Niles goal is a really bad one," Neville said, noting that the build‑up to the goal exposed a series of errors. Neville singled out the performance of defender Dan Dorgu, who, according to the former United star, left his position to press in isolation, creating a gap that was exploited. "It gets played past Dorgu – it’s a massive mistake, a lack of communication," he explained. The subsequent substitution of Yoro at right‑back further highlighted the problem, as Neville argued that Yoro’s narrow positioning limited the team’s defensive width.
He emphasized that many of the issues occur before the ball actually reaches the net. "A lot happens before the ball goes in the net. When you’re playing away holding onto a result, you have to push up and don’t do stupid things. They could have stopped the goal at source," Neville lamented, describing his own reaction of screaming as the goal unfolded because he felt the team should have been better organised in the final minutes.
Reflecting on his own playing days, Neville recalled a period between the Peter Schmeichel and Edwin Van der Sar eras when opponents believed they could threaten United at Old Trafford. "Teams think they have a chance against them. I played in a Man Utd team where teams, in the period between Peter Schmeichel and Edwin Van Der Sar, did feel they had a chance against us at Old Trafford and we weren’t quite good enough defensively. Teams have the feeling that they can score.
That’s a horrible place to be at," he said, drawing a parallel between past and present defensive insecurities. Neville’s commentary underscores a broader narrative that United’s defensive woes are not isolated incidents but part of a systemic issue that could jeopardise their ambitions in the Premier League and Europe. With a high‑profile clash against Manchester City looming and a crucial European fixture on the horizon, the pressure on Carrick to tighten the back line will only intensify. If United cannot address the root causes—whether they be tactical naivety, lack of cohesion among defenders, or insufficient depth in the squad—their goal‑conceding habit may continue to haunt them throughout the season.
The club’s leadership, coaching staff, and players will need to collaborate closely, perhaps revisiting training methods, defensive drills, and recruitment strategies, to restore the solidity that once defined Manchester United’s back line. In the meantime, fans and pundits alike will be watching closely to see whether Carrick can adapt his approach, establish a reliable defensive unit, and ultimately silence the doubts expressed by Neville and others who fear that United’s defensive fragility may become a persistent obstacle on their road to success.