Gary Neville expressed serious concerns that Manchester United’s tendency to allow goals is unlikely to disappear, especially after the team surrendered two goals for the third consecutive match during their recent clash with Everton. The former United defender highlighted a pattern that, in his view, threatens the club’s ambitions, particularly with a high‑stakes fixture against Manchester City looming next week and a European tie scheduled for mid‑week. Despite the 2-2 draw and the fact that United have only accumulated four points from three league games, midfielder Michael Carrick attempted to put a more optimistic spin on the start to the season, describing it as "not that bad".

However, Neville was unconvinced, pointing out that the Red Devils have already conceded six goals in just three matches – a statistic that, in his opinion, signals a deeper defensive problem that cannot be solved simply by rotating the back line. Neville argued that Carrick’s efforts to build trust with both the squad and the supporters will be severely tested if the defensive frailties continue.

He said, "It puts a bit of pressure on Manchester United as they have Man City next week and a European game in midweek. Michael Carrick is trying to build a trust with his team and with the fans that he can repeat what he did last season. That game should have been won today.

Everton weren't at it in the first half. They let Everton back into the game. They have a liability of conceding goals and it's not going away. That is my fear.

Conceding goals will hunt them and chase them down the road. I'm not sure how Carrick will deal with it as he's already got his best back four on the pitch. Why did Shaw and Dalot go off with five minutes to go? Ruben Amorin and Erik ten Hag changed their back four too.

You can't be changing your back four. There's not much behind the first choice.

So you can't change it." The match itself featured a dramatic moment when Everton’s Ainsley Maitland‑Niles, on his debut for the club, struck a stunning equaliser from about 25 yards in stoppage time. Neville praised the quality of the strike but was equally frustrated by United’s lack of organisation in the moments leading up to the goal. He noted, "Manchester United are conceding two goals a game, you can't concede two goals a game.

With the questions asked since the transfer window regarding the defence, United needed to win today and they couldn't concede goals. Lazy analysis will say they conceded two spectacular goals.

The Maitland‑Niles goal is a really bad one. Dorgu for some reason chases out and presses, an isolated press. It gets played past Dorgu - it's a massive mistake, a lack of communication.

United had to change their back four during the match. Yoro coming on at right‑back highlights the problem - he plays so narrow." Neville emphasized that defensive lapses often occur well before the ball finds the net. He argued that when a team is defending an away result, it must maintain discipline, avoid “stupid things,” and stay compact. "They could have stopped the goal at source.

I was screaming as it happened as they had to be organised, they weren't organised in the final few minutes. 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 reflected. The broader context of Neville’s criticism touches on a historical pattern at United. During the era between legendary goalkeepers Peter Schmeichel and Edwin van der Sar, the club often enjoyed a reputation for an almost impenetrable defence, yet even then there were periods when opponents sensed vulnerability.

Neville warned that the current squad might be slipping back into that uncomfortable space where opponents believe they can breach the back line with relative ease. From a tactical perspective, the Red Devils have struggled to find a settled defensive unit. The frequent substitutions of key defenders – such as the late removal of Luke Shaw and Diogo Dalot – suggest a lack of confidence in the starting back four. Moreover, the introduction of less experienced players like Yoro at right‑back, who reportedly operates in a narrow channel, underscores the limited depth and options available to manager Erik ten Hag.

This revolving door in defence not only disrupts cohesion but also hampers the team’s ability to develop the understanding and communication essential for a solid back line. Neville also hinted at the psychological impact of conceding goals.

When a side repeatedly allows opponents to score, it can erode the collective belief and create a self‑fulfilling prophecy where players anticipate conceding, leading to hesitancy and mistakes. He warned that this mindset could haunt United throughout the season if not addressed promptly. In summary, while Carrick may try to reassure fans that the early season results are acceptable, Neville’s analysis suggests that United’s defensive issues are more than a temporary slump. The combination of high‑profile fixtures ahead, a lack of a clear first‑choice back four, and recurring mistakes in positioning and communication paints a worrying picture.

If the club does not find a stable, reliable defensive structure soon, the fear that their goal‑conceding habit will persist – and potentially derail their campaign – appears well‑founded.