Pep Guardiola has reportedly questioned Michael Carrick’s tactical decision-making after Manchester United surrendered another late lead against Everton, with the Manchester City boss believed to have identified one particular substitution as a major reason why Carrick’s side failed to secure all three points at Hill Dickinson Stadium.
Manchester United appeared to have done enough to win the match after Bryan Mbeumo gave them the lead and Benjamin Sesko restored their advantage with an 88th-minute header. However, Ainsley Maitland-Niles produced a stunning long-range strike in the sixth minute of stoppage time to rescue a 2-2 draw for Everton and leave Carrick’s players devastated.
The result has immediately generated questions about Carrick’s game management, particularly because United had twice found themselves in a winning position but were unable to protect their advantage. Carrick himself admitted after the match that his team needed to manage certain moments better, describing the result as extremely painful because of how close United had come to victory.
Guardiola, meanwhile, is being portrayed as believing that Carrick made the wrong call at a crucial stage of the contest. According to the storyline surrounding the reaction, the Manchester City manager believes United needed greater defensive stability during the closing stages rather than making a change that altered the balance of Carrick’s team.
The criticism centres on the period immediately after Everton equalised through Tyrique George in the 83rd minute. Carrick responded by introducing Leny Yoro and Andrey Santos for Diogo Dalot and Kobbie Mainoo. United then regained the lead only minutes later when Sesko headed Luke Shaw’s cross into the net.
From Carrick’s perspective, the substitutions appeared to work initially. United scored almost immediately after Sesko entered the match, and the visitors looked set to leave Merseyside with three valuable points. But Everton refused to surrender, continued attacking and eventually found the spectacular equaliser through Maitland-Niles.
That sequence has made Carrick’s tactical decisions one of the major talking points surrounding the match.
Guardiola is understood, in this fictionalised scenario, to believe that Manchester United should have focused entirely on controlling possession and protecting the lead once Sesko put them 2-1 ahead. Instead, United struggled to maintain control during the final minutes and were ultimately punished.
The irony is that Maitland-Niles’ goal was an extraordinary piece of individual quality. The Everton substitute received the ball outside the penalty area before producing a curling effort that flew into the top corner. It was the kind of strike that can completely change a football match regardless of the manager’s tactical instructions.
Nevertheless, Guardiola’s alleged criticism would highlight a familiar issue for Manchester United: closing matches.
Carrick has already acknowledged that United need to improve defensively. After the Everton draw, he pointed out that his team had conceded two goals in each of their first three league matches and accepted that conceding fewer goals would give United a better chance of winning games.
That admission will concern supporters because United had appeared to be on course for a major away victory. The team created dangerous attacking situations, produced two excellent goals and twice took the lead. Yet once again, defensive concentration in the final moments cost them.
The situation surrounding Marcus Rashford also adds another layer to the debate. Rashford had been one of United’s brighter attacking players and was substituted in the 70th minute because of a slight physical issue. Carrick later indicated that the problem was nothing major.
Some supporters may therefore wonder whether United lost an important attacking outlet when Rashford left the pitch. His ability to carry the ball forward and threaten Everton in transition could have helped United keep the home side deeper during the closing stages.
However, blaming one substitution for the result would be too simplistic.
Everton had more shots on target, continued to attack and showed tremendous resilience after falling behind twice. Their first equaliser came through George before Sesko restored United’s lead, while Maitland-Niles completed the comeback with his spectacular stoppage-time effort.
Carrick’s biggest problem is therefore not necessarily one individual substitution but the overall ability of his team to manage pressure.
For a club like Manchester United, leading in the 88th minute should normally provide an opportunity to demonstrate maturity and experience. Instead, the team allowed Everton to maintain enough attacking momentum to produce one final chance.
That is exactly the kind of situation Guardiola has spent years teaching his own teams to avoid.
Manchester City under Guardiola have often been associated with controlling matches through possession, positioning and territorial dominance. Even when City are protecting a narrow lead, Guardiola frequently demands that his players continue controlling the ball rather than simply retreating and defending wave after wave of pressure.
If Guardiola were genuinely criticising Carrick, his argument would likely be that United needed to take the game away from Everton rather than simply hope to survive the final minutes.
Carrick will now have to respond on the pitch.
Manchester United have collected only four points from their opening three Premier League matches, and although Carrick insists the start has not been disastrous, the defensive statistics are becoming increasingly difficult to ignore. United have conceded six goals in three matches, with two goals conceded in every league fixture so far.
The timing could hardly be more challenging.
United are preparing for Champions League football before facing Manchester City in the Premier League. The Manchester derby will provide Carrick with another major test of his tactical decisions, and every substitution will inevitably receive enormous scrutiny if United find themselves protecting a narrow lead.
The Everton draw has therefore become more than just two points dropped.
It has raised questions about whether Carrick has found the right formula for managing matches, whether his midfield combinations are strong enough defensively and whether his substitutions are helping United control games or unintentionally giving opponents opportunities to regain momentum.
Andrey Santos will also attract attention following his introduction against Everton. The Brazilian midfielder was brought on after George’s equaliser, but despite United immediately regaining the lead, the team eventually conceded again. That does not prove Santos was responsible for the equaliser, but it will inevitably fuel debate among supporters about Carrick’s tactical choices.
Ultimately, Manchester United did not lose the match. They drew it.
But given that they led twice and were just seconds away from victory, the feeling around the dressing room was understandably one of defeat. Carrick admitted exactly that after the final whistle, saying the result felt like a defeat despite United taking a point.
The manager now has a difficult job ahead of him.
He must make sure his players learn from the Everton collapse rather than allow it to become a recurring problem. The attacking quality is clearly there, but United must become considerably better at controlling games when they have the advantage.
If Guardiola’s alleged criticism has any lesson for Carrick, it is a simple one: big teams cannot afford to lose control of matches they have already put themselves in position to win.
Against Everton, Manchester United were 2-1 ahead in the 88th minute.
Six minutes later, everything had changed.
Maitland-Niles had rescued a point, Everton were celebrating, United were devastated and Carrick was left wondering how his team had allowed another victory to slip through their fingers.