Manchester United's Worst Run: 7 Points from 7 Games, Trust Broken Again Against Leeds

In the 84th minute, when Matheus Cunha was brought on, the eyes of Manchester United fans at Elland Road were fixed on the scoreboard — 1-1. But the real story wasn't on the scoreboard; it was on the bench, where Marcus Rashford sat unused by Michael Carrick in a match United needed to win. This wasn't just a selection decision; it was the clearest signal of the crisis that has dragged United to the worst start in Premier League history. Seven points from seven games — this number doesn't tell a story of temporary form but of steady decline across three different managerial regimes. Even this draw against Leeds wasn't a relief but another warning, because the way United won the first half was more luck than substance. Before this match, United's situation was already fragile — five consecutive Premier League games without a win, and six across all competitions. Playing at Elland Road against Leeds is always difficult, especially when the opponent is full of momentum and aggression. Daniel Farke's Leeds sat deep in the first half but changed only their mentality, not personnel, at half-time and began pressing high. This was the strategy that exposed United's weaknesses. Manchester United had no answer — no tactical change at half-time, no leadership on the pitch to steady the team. Carrick deployed Bruno Fernandes on the left wing, instructing him to drift centrally at times like a false nine. This was a necessity, as the team had no fit striker. But the result was that Bruno, the team's most creative player, was moved away from his best position. There was no natural overlapper on the left flank, and the centre became congested. United's only goal came from Bryan Mbeumo, but from a chance many analysts called "fortunate." Mbeumo had missed a better chance earlier, and the team's attacking plan relied entirely on one player. The real problem wasn't scoring but the way they conceded. Leeds' equaliser came from a corner, with Dominic Calvert-Lewin heading in at the far post. Mbeumo — a forward — was assigned to mark him. This is a structural error, reflecting either a lack of defensive players or a failure of the set-piece plan. Earlier, Nico Elvedi had also headed from a corner, saved by goalkeeper Sen Lammens. Conceding two aerial chances from set pieces in one match is not coincidence but a pattern. Control of the game also slipped from United's grasp. Leeds scored within five minutes of the second half, and United took over an hour to regain their rhythm. Carrick made no effective intervention. Keeping Cunha on the bench until the 84th minute, when the team needed a goal, was a decision that reflected either the bench's weakness or the manager's reluctance to take risks. Not using Rashford at all suggests the issue isn't purely football — fitness, attitude, or contractual factors could be involved. Read also: [Our expert commentary on the tactical report of this match] Goalkeeper Lammens' sweeper-keeper role also proved risky. He rushed out to clear a high ball, made an error, the ball reached Stach, and only Mazraoui's goal-line block saved United from defeat. Against a better finisher, this match would have been lost. This is a repeatable error that could prove costly against better teams. On the other hand, Leeds' strategy was more coherent. Farke made no changes at half-time but instructed his team to press high and play with aggression. His team created chances consistently and kept United's players unsettled. This was a performance from a team playing above its capabilities, while United played well below theirs. After the match, Carrick said it felt "somewhat like a new beginning" and that he wasn't surprised by how the team played. This statement is dangerous. For a manager to admit he wasn't surprised by a poor performance sends a message to the board and fans that the team is prepared to lose. It further erodes the trust that was already wavering. A contrarian question arises: is the problem really just Carrick? The numbers show United were three points better at this stage last season under Ruben Amorim and one point better than Erik ten Hag's final season. The decline isn't just one manager's but the entire system's. No striker, Rashford unused, and a forward marking on set pieces — these are recruitment and structural failures, not just coaching ones. In Carrick's defence, one could argue injuries have left him with limited options. But shouldn't a club like United have a backup plan? Is benching Rashford purely a football decision? And is removing Lisandro Martinez at half-time, after a solid first half, just an injury matter? Carrick may not have answers to these questions, but they are the ones shaking his chair. The coming weeks will be decisive for United. If the team fails to take even four points from the next two or three matches, Carrick's departure seems almost certain. But changing the manager alone won't solve the problem, because the real issue is the team's structure. A striker is needed most in the January window, but a club in crisis always pays a panic premium. The question is whether United's board will scapegoat Carrick to hide its own mistakes or actually fix the structure that brought the team to this point.