Backwards, then, to a glorious future. Where change has failed, let there be continuity. After six years of churn and unconvincing change, Manchester United in appointing Ole Gunnar Solskjær on a permanent basis have turned not merely to an icon of their past but to a manager who seems determined to be a conduit for that past. Let there be progress through history. Let it always be 1999.

It is a popular move and, on the face of it, a good one. Solskjær has transformed this season. Yet Ed Woodward’s track record is such that every time he takes a decision the instinct is to flinch and assume it must in some way be flawed. And there are questions. Solskjær is inexperienced. He has never undertaken a rebuilding project such as this before. The charm of his Scandi‑manc vowels and sheer excitement at being in the job may not last for ever.

I feel so privileged to be Manchester United manager, says Solskjær Read more

There has been no evidence since David Gill left in 2013 of any deep footballing knowledge on the Old Trafford board. Given David Moyes was so obviously Sir Alex Ferguson’s choice to be his successor, the directors can perhaps be given a pass on that decision. But the appointments of Louis van Gaal and José Mourinho were uninspired: big names with a great track record, but nobody seemed to have stopped to ask whether their greatest days might be behind them. Nobody seems to have had the acumen to find a name on the way up the mountain rather than on the descent.

Solskjær is such a name. Appointing him as a caretaker was inspired, the best decision the United board has made in years. The rot was stopped. Sunshine penetrated the clouds of gloom. Players who had seemed miserable and cowed found form. Yet a doubt remains and it is largely to do with the timing.

Facebook Twitter Pinterest Ole Gunnar Solskjaer talks to Alex Ferguson at Manchester United training in 2007. The Norwegian began his coaching career at Old Trafford after retiring from playing. Photograph: Martin Rickett/PA

Why now? Why appoint Solskjær just as he has lost two games in a row? Why take the leap just as there has been a slight wobble? Perhaps there is some advantage for player recruitment in providing certainty as to who the manager will be (further evidence of the importance of United at some point appointing a sporting director), but making Solskjær’s deal permanent now is baffling.

Solskjær was a clever interim appointment in that, with his personality and clear belief in Fergian ideals, he was always likely to bring the club together. At the very least he could be expected to offer breathing space. And because of his love of the club it meant there was little danger of him agitating (certainly in public) to be given the job permanently, or of him suddenly accepting an offer from a rival.

There have been notable tactical successes, most obviously at Arsenal and PSG

His start has been exceptional, far better than could reasonably have been expected but these last two defeats are the first time he has really been tested. What if there is the regression to the mean the xG-wallahs have been prophesying? What if United finish a distant sixth? What if they are humiliated by Barcelona? Why not wait, let him prove himself for another two months?

But that’s the apocalyptic scenario. To ask why the United board has not waited, as it easily could have done, for more evidence, is absolutely not to say it has made the wrong decision on the evidence currently available. Solskjær has resurrected the season. Since he took over United are averaging more points per game in the league than Liverpool are over the season as a whole.

Manchester United’s 1999 Champions League winners: where are they now? Read more

He has breathed new life into Paul Pogba, Marcus Rashford, Jesse Lingard, Anthony Martial and Luke Shaw. There have been notable tactical successes, most obviously at Arsenal, where his deployment of Romelu Lukaku and Alexis Sánchez as wide strikers with Lingard dropping between them successfully exploited the way Arsenal’s full-backs push high.

His management of the game away to PSG was masterful. Tactics are not simply a matter of picking the best players in the best positions: they are also about reading a game and responding appropriately. Leading 2-1 in Paris early in the second half, needing a goal but with his team still under pressure, Solskjær dropped back to a 5-4-1 and essentially let 25 minutes pass to create a situation in which United had 10 minutes to score a goal. United – especially when Solskjær is involved – always score late; PSG always concede late. The argument can certainly be made that United were lucky that night but Solskjær rode the various narratives to create the greatest possible chance of success and in so doing demonstrated great emotional intelligence (something xG charts cannot demonstrate).

Quick guide Follow Guardian sport on social media Show Hide Twitter: follow us at @guardian_sport Facebook: like our football and sport pages Instagram: our favourite photos, films and stories YouTube: subscribe to our football and sport channels Photograph: Chesnot/Getty Images Europe

His constant invocation of United’s past stems from a similar source. He has soothed fractured nerves and kindled something by reminding the club of what it was and so suggesting what it could be again: the narrative at least is of making United great again. But as well as wondering how he will deal with a couple of setbacks it is fair to ask how long he can keep acting less as a manager than as the high priest of Fergianity.

These are exciting times for United, the best they have enjoyed since Ferguson left. But can it really be 1999 for ever?