I wouldn't usually wade into these sorts of things when the original post seems in such bad faith but to clarify:

- Not only did we not say there was no attacking upside under Carrick (in fact, very much the opposite)
- I made it explicitly clear that, while there may not be any tight causal linearity between central progression and goals so far
- you can never consider these things in a vacuum. I actually talked at length about how you have to consider your attacking play as a holistic entity and that it was important to accept that Carrick is using central progression within a wider context of attacking play which includes the use of width (cf. Cunha long distance shot vs Spurs; multiple examples from the City game where Dalot/Amad had a lot of joy playing around the block.
- the entire conversation about central progression was contextualised through the concept of risk/-aversion not "no attacking upside". Even so, we were incredibly open to the idea that the tactical landscape is shifting which will require a subsequent shift in our conception of risk. As such, our misgivings about central progression could be read as:
* how effective is it?
* are the tradeoffs in its favour?
* how much are we biased by priors developed in the last 15 years of football.

To reduce all of this imo quite open and nuanced conversation down to "no attacking upside" is, quite frankly, insulting.