It would be foolish of the club to undo a winning, entertaining formula by turning elsewhere for a permanent head coach
T
hese days, we have a strong desire to complicate football, particularly in how we talk about it. Often, we are saying the same stuff we always were, just calling things by different names – styles are philosophies, contributions are actions, players earn minutes, not appearances – and the game can still be as simple as it ever was. This is something Michael Carrick understands well, and is one reason Manchester United’s next move is also simple: they have no choice but to appoint him as permanent head coach.
Under Carrick, United’s 33 points from 15 games puts them top of the form table for a period in which rivals have been beaten and Champions League qualification guaranteed, with a third-place finish highly likely. Had Ruben Amorim delivered these results, he’d be secure; were Luis Enrique responsible, they’d be further evidence of his generational – outstanding – brilliance. Yet there remains equivocation.
Some sceptics cite the Ole Gunnar Solskjær experience as evidence against giving Carrick the job full-time – a legendary player retained after an impressive start to a caretaker stint only for form to fizzle thereafter. It is natural for there to be trepidation about repeating an error but since Alex Ferguson retired, United have contrived failure with every possible type of manager. However, sweating something that happened with a different man and a different team in a different environment at a different time is born of fear, not rationale.
