After a disastrous start to the season, Manchester United have given their manager, Michael Carrick, more time. My instinct tells me they are prolonging the inevitable. I’m not wishing him out of a job. I’m asking what the owners have seen that convinces them he can turn this around.

Carrick is a decent man and a reasonable manager. But United do not need “reasonable”. They need exceptional: somebody capable of handling the demands of a club of that scale.

The Glazer family, United’s majority owners, and Sir Jim Ratcliffe, the minority owner overseeing football operations, have hardly covered themselves in glory. Ratcliffe is a remarkably capable businessman, but success elsewhere does not make you infallible in football. You cannot assume another industry’s methods will translate – although his existing involvement in sport should have taught him that.

But the ownership’s failings do not give the manager a free pass.

This squad might lack the depth to sustain a challenge across 38 league games and European competition. That does not explain failing to start the season properly. We should be discussing whether United can stay fourth, fifth or sixth – not why they are in yet another crisis. Carrick should be getting considerably more from these players.

Nor can he be separated from recruitment. Managers do not negotiate fees or contracts, and their preferred player might prove unaffordable. But the idea that they have no say in selecting players is utterly ridiculous. If the squad is inadequate, Carrick must accept some responsibility.

The manager has to manage

The concern goes beyond results. It is the lack of control.

When United captain Bruno Fernandes publicly questions the team’s tactics, that is not simply a problem for the owners or recruitment department. It is a problem for the manager.

When I owned Crystal Palace, between 2000 and 2010, I did not want to have the manager’s relationship with the players. That was his job. I wanted him to have authority and get on with it.

Of course, players should face consequences for stepping out of line. But my first conversation would be with the manager: get control of your players, their performances and their messaging.

You are not trying to kill individuality or create a state in which everybody marches in step. But you do need a singularity of thinking about basic standards: work ethic, discipline, respect and what representing the club demands. Different personalities are welcome. Different interpretations of those obligations are not.

If the manager cannot establish those standards and cannot get results, what is he delivering?

Carrick promises improvement. The performances get worse. What convinces the ownership he can lead United where they need to go?

If Michael Carrick is the answer, what’s the question?

The argument that United have tried elite managers and therefore cannot appoint another is complete nonsense.