Gary Neville voiced his concerns that Manchester United’s tendency to allow too many goals is unlikely to disappear, especially after the team surrendered two goals for the third consecutive match, this time at Everton. The former defender highlighted the pattern as a growing alarm, pointing out that United’s defensive frailties are becoming a persistent problem rather than an isolated incident. Meanwhile, manager Michael Carrick tried to put a positive spin on the early season performances, insisting that the start to the campaign was "not that bad" despite the 2-2 draw with Everton, which saw the visitors equalise in stoppage time and left United with only four points from three games.
Carrick’s optimism, however, did little to soothe Neville’s worries, as the Red Devils have already let in six goals in just three fixtures – a figure that the former England right‑back described as "a big worry". Neville elaborated on the pressure this defensive record places on the squad, particularly with a high‑stakes clash against Manchester City looming next week and a mid‑week European fixture on the horizon.
"It puts a bit of pressure on Manchester United as they have Man City next week and a European game in mid‑week," he said. He added that Carrick is attempting to build trust with both the players and the supporters, hoping to replicate the defensive solidity he displayed last season.
"Michael Carrick is trying to build a trust with his team and with the fans that he can repeat what he did last season," Neville noted. The former United captain was blunt about the missed opportunity to secure a win at Goodison Park. "That game should have been won today. Everton weren’t at it in the first half.
They let Everton back into the game," Neville argued, indicating that United’s inability to close out the match was symptomatic of a deeper issue. He warned that the team’s “liability of conceding goals” could continue to haunt them throughout the season.
"Conceding goals will hunt them and chase them down the road," he warned, expressing doubt about Carrick’s capacity to resolve the problem given the current personnel. Neville also questioned tactical decisions made in the closing stages of the match.
He asked why defenders Luke Shaw and Diogo Dalot were substituted with five minutes remaining, and why both Ruben Amorin and Erik ten Hag made changes to the back line. "You can’t be changing your back four. There’s not much behind the first choice.
So you can’t change it," he asserted, suggesting that constant reshuffling undermines defensive cohesion. The decisive moment of the encounter 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 organization in the lead‑up to the goal. He emphasized that conceding two goals per game is unsustainable.
"Manchester United are conceding two goals a game, you can’t concede two goals a game," he said, dismissing any simplistic analysis that would attribute the goals solely to individual brilliance. Neville criticised the defensive errors that preceded the goal, highlighting a miscommunication involving midfielder Daniel James (referred to as "Dorgu" in the original transcript) who, in his view, made a poor decision to press isolatedly, allowing the ball to be played through.
He also pointed out the problematic substitution of right‑back Yoro, who, according to Neville, played too narrowly and exposed United’s flank. "Yoro coming on at right‑back highlights the problem – he plays so narrow," he observed.
The former defender stressed that a team playing away must maintain discipline and avoid “stupid things” in the final minutes. He recalled his own playing days, noting that during the era between Peter Schmeichel and Edwin van der Sar, opponents occasionally believed they could score at Old Trafford because United were not defensively robust enough.
"Teams have the feeling that they can score. That’s a horrible place to be at," Neville warned.
In summary, Neville’s analysis paints a picture of a Manchester United side that, despite occasional flashes of attacking promise, is being undermined by a porous defense. The combination of frequent goal concessions, questionable late‑game substitutions, and a lack of clear communication among the back line suggests that Carrick faces a significant challenge in stabilizing the defensive unit. With a crucial Premier League showdown against Manchester City and a European tie looming, the Red Devils must address these issues swiftly if they hope to avoid a season defined by defensive frailties.
The broader implication for United’s supporters is clear: unless the coaching staff can solidify the back four and instill greater organization, the team’s ambitions in both domestic and continental competitions may be severely compromised. The next few weeks will be decisive in determining whether Carrick can adapt his tactics and personnel to stem the flow of goals, or whether the fear expressed by Neville will become a self‑fulfilling prophecy.