Boro v Swansea City 2-0 (Latte Lath (2) )

[Changing Times 16,078 23.1k]

1 hour ago, OldManGravz said:

Isnt that just the old adage of luck evening out over the course of the season though? Weve been extremely unlucky in some games weve dominated and weve had that slice of luck back recently. You cant just say "all the recent results are down to a slice of good luck" without acknowledging theres points we dropped where it was a case of bad luck.

Also, it's a bit ingenious to say we would be in contention for the top 6 if xyz happened. As it happens, we are in contention for the top 6 this season, albeit marginally, despite our issues.

I didn't say all recent results are down to a slice of luck, nothing of the sort actually.  The only time I mentioned luck was in regards to Norwich having a man sent off for nowt when they were all over us.  My post wasn't talking about luck, and Snowblind was talking about xyz and being in contention for the top 6, not me.  I just replied to his post.

Edited April 7, 2024 by Changing Times

[Changing Times 16,078 23.1k]

1 hour ago, JCWamma said:

Worth saying that in terms of where we "should" be, we're 6th in the xPts table. Our xG is higher than the number of goals we've scored, and our xGA is lower than the number of goals we've conceded. Even after this run of 7 games.

Yeah, that's akin to what I'm talking about.  Our upturn in form is in part down to our goals for and against getting closer to our xG and XGA figures.  We're not conceding goals from dumb mistakes on this run, and we're getting goals from worse opportunities than we've screwed up earlier in the season.

[GrimsbyBoro 2,405 3k]

6 hours ago, Changing Times said:

Yeah, that's akin to what I'm talking about.  Our upturn in form is in part down to our goals for and against getting closer to our xG and XGA figures.  We're not conceding goals from dumb mistakes on this run, and we're getting goals from worse opportunities than we've screwed up earlier in the season.

We managed to get away with a few bits of silly defending yesterday that previously were going in. 

[AnglianRed 7,883 18.1k]

3 hours ago, GrimsbyBoro said:

We managed to get away with a few bits of silly defending yesterday that previously were going in. 

That too.

Think it goes back to my response to Hammy's comment about how few goals we've conceded, pointing out we have mostly played struggling teams in our recent run and the only 2 goals we've conceded were against Norwich & Southampton.

So hard to know if we've really improved a lot as a team, or have just been fortunate to be playing a lot of poor teams. We have Ipswich & Leeds coming up after Hull, so I guess those games will tell us where we really are.

[OldManGravz 2,460 6.4k]

12 hours ago, Changing Times said:

I didn't say all recent results are down to a slice of luck, nothing of the sort actually.  The only time I mentioned luck was in regards to Norwich having a man sent off for nowt when they were all over us.  My post wasn't talking about luck, and Snowblind was talking about xyz and being in contention for the top 6, not me.  I just replied to his post.

Ah I've completely misread your post after a few gins haha. My bad

[BoroDave4 1,655 3.5k]

4 hours ago, AnglianRed said:

That too.

Think it goes back to my response to Hammy's comment about how few goals we've conceded, pointing out we have mostly played struggling teams in our recent run and the only 2 goals we've conceded were against Norwich & Southampton.

So hard to know if we've really improved a lot as a team, or have just been fortunate to be playing a lot of poor teams. We have Ipswich & Leeds coming up after Hull, so I guess those games will tell us where we really are.

With Rav and Hackney back on the bench yesterday, we might have them available to start those games. Which I presume will make a big difference as well. Mind you, Howson has been pretty faultless filling in at the back. 

[Changing Times 16,078 23.1k]

2 hours ago, OldManGravz said:

Ah I've completely misread your post after a few gins haha. My bad

That's ok, and luck probably does play a part in it all but maybe a relatively small part.  What I was talking about though was the ability of the team, and that the ability was such that we couldn't keep making stupid mistakes that either lead to us conceding goals or not scoring goals.  That at some point it should begin to reverse itself to get back us back towards what it 'should' be.  That part of it isn't really to do with which players are available.  What I was talking about with Latte Lath was, and please bear with me with this example, but let's say that his ability means that on average he should score about 16 goals per season.  Now let's say that in the first half of the season he only scores 3 goals but should have scored more but in the second half of the season he scores 13 goals, and it seemed like every chance he had was either in or on target.  If you watched him in the first half of the season then you'd think he was rubbish, and shouldn't be in the side.  He can't score enough goals to help us be successful.  If you watched him in the second half of the season you'd think he was great, and if he plays like that for a full season he'll be 25/30 goal a season striker.  But, overall, he is still a player who will score about 16 per season.  He'll miss easy chances, and score some good goals.  Do you see what I'm getting at.  Now imagine something like that for the entire squad, we should score X goals and concede Y goals but at different points of the season we may be above or below where we should be.

I was reading a thread over on FMTTM that was about Matt Clarke, and the consensus seemed to be that our better defensive record was because he was in the side.  But Clarke played in both Rotherham games, he played in the 3-1 loss against Coventry, he played against Plymouth and Stoke, at Preston, and obviously the game at Stamford Bridge when he was appalling.  He started the Norwich game when we were all over the place.  So it's daft to think our recent run of results is down to him being in the side otherwise our results would have been better in his previous games as well.  VDB hasn't played the last four games, we've kept 3 clean sheets, are we then going to say we're better without him in the side because that's the same argument.  Thomas started the last two, we kept two clean sheets, should he start every week?  That's not to say that players don't influence results because of course they do but the evidence of our season is that for the most part we've been inconsistent no matter who has been in the side, which points to something beyond just individual players.  And in fact, as I think most people seem to agree, a lot of the goals we've conceded have had nothing to do with who we've played at the back, it's been errors in front of them that have created problems for ourselves.

To bring it back to Snowblind's post, if we'd kept Rogers we'd be closer to the top six now was one of his points.  However, our two best runs of form this season, our two only truly good runs of form this season, came without him in the team.  He was dropped when we won six in a row in Autumn, and he was obviously sold in January long before our recent unbeaten run.  So there's no reason to think we'd be any better with him here now, and that's not a judgement on him as a player, it's simply looking at what happened with him in the team.  I think if he'd still been here our results would have largely gone exactly the same way in that we'd have still had a poor/inconsistent run, but then improved results would have arrived as they have because as a team we'd have stopped making as many stupid mistakes, teams would stop taking advantage of situations quite as easily, we'd have scored some more goals to get us closer to what our goal total 'should' be, and so on.

[Redcar Rioja 9,086 8.8k]

7 minutes ago, Changing Times said:

That's ok, and luck probably does play a part in it all but maybe a relatively small part.  What I was talking about though was the ability of the team, and that the ability was such that we couldn't keep making stupid mistakes that either lead to us conceding goals or not scoring goals.  That at some point it should begin to reverse itself to get back us back towards what it 'should' be.  That part of it isn't really to do with which players are available.  What I was talking about with Latte Lath was, and please bear with me with this example, but let's say that his ability means that on average he should score about 16 goals per season.  Now let's say that in the first half of the season he only scores 3 goals but should have scored more but in the second half of the season he scores 13 goals, and it seemed like every chance he had was either in or on target.  If you watched him in the first half of the season then you'd think he was rubbish, and shouldn't be in the side.  He can't score enough goals to help us be successful.  If you watched him in the second half of the season you'd think he was great, and if he plays like that for a full season he'll be 25/30 goal a season striker.  But, overall, he is still a player who will score about 16 per season.  He'll miss easy chances, and score some good goals.  Do you see what I'm getting at.  Now imagine something like that for the entire squad, we should score X goals and concede Y goals but at different points of the season we may be above or below where we should be.

I was reading a thread over on FMTTM that was about Matt Clarke, and the consensus seemed to be that our better defensive record was because he was in the side.  But Clarke played in both Rotherham games, he played in the 3-1 loss against Coventry, he played against Plymouth and Stoke, at Preston, and obviously the game at Stamford Bridge when he was appalling.  He started the Norwich game when we were all over the place.  So it's daft to think our recent run of results is down to him being in the side otherwise our results would have been better in his previous games as well.  VDB hasn't played the last four games, we've kept 3 clean sheets, are we then going to say we're better without him in the side because that's the same argument.  Thomas started the last two, we kept two clean sheets, should he start every week?  That's not to say that players don't influence results because of course they do but the evidence of our season is that for the most part we've been inconsistent no matter who has been in the side, which points to something beyond just individual players.  And in fact, as I think most people seem to agree, a lot of the goals we've conceded have had nothing to do with who we've played at the back, it's been errors in front of them that have created problems for ourselves.

To bring it back to Snowblind's post, if we'd kept Rogers we'd be closer to the top six now was one of his points.  However, our two best runs of form this season, our two only truly good runs of form this season, came without him in the team.  He was dropped when we won six in a row in Autumn, and he was obviously sold in January long before our recent unbeaten run.  So there's no reason to think we'd be any better with him here now, and that's not a judgement on him as a player, it's simply looking at what happened with him in the team.  I think if he'd still been here our results would have largely gone exactly the same way in that we'd have still had a poor/inconsistent run, but then improved results would have arrived as they have because as a team we'd have stopped making as many stupid mistakes, teams would stop taking advantage of situations quite as easily, we'd have scored some more goals to get us closer to what our goal total 'should' be, and so on.

I pretty much agree with all that but I get the feeling that there's an Elephant in the room that you are holding back from mentioning or am I reading too much into it?

[Changing Times 16,078 23.1k]

42 minutes ago, Redcar Rioja said:

I pretty much agree with all that but I get the feeling that there's an Elephant in the room that you are holding back from mentioning or am I reading too much into it?

None of the evidence I've seen indicates the presence of an elephant. 

[LinoJo3 5,823 13.6k]

45 minutes ago, Changing Times said:

None of the evidence I've seen indicates the presence of an elephant. 

I get what you’re saying in the main post but the elephant to me is you don’t consider individual improvement. Carrick improving the set up for example and/or making changes to prevent past mistakes. The goals from Lath showed definite improvement from him, he would never in a million years have scored that first goal in September. You class it as a lucky scuffed shot but that completely takes away the composure he showed, taking time to find some space before getting the shot away. Yes it was a scruffy shot but only because it was his weak foot, it wasn’t like he was aiming for the far post and completely spannered it and by some miracle it went through 2 defenders legs and in at the near post, he was clearly aiming for that.

Yes luck and reversion to the mean play a part, but idk you just seem to have a thing against giving any kind of credit. If what you’re talking about is true we might aswell pack up and go home now as we will perpetually be in mid table, Carrick may aswell retire as he will never improve and Lath should just get used to being a championship player as that’s all his mean suggests he will be.

[ScarBoro 1,148 1.5k]

1 hour ago, Changing Times said:

That's ok, and luck probably does play a part in it all but maybe a relatively small part.  What I was talking about though was the ability of the team, and that the ability was such that we couldn't keep making stupid mistakes that either lead to us conceding goals or not scoring goals.  That at some point it should begin to reverse itself to get back us back towards what it 'should' be.  That part of it isn't really to do with which players are available.  What I was talking about with Latte Lath was, and please bear with me with this example, but let's say that his ability means that on average he should score about 16 goals per season.  Now let's say that in the first half of the season he only scores 3 goals but should have scored more but in the second half of the season he scores 13 goals, and it seemed like every chance he had was either in or on target.  If you watched him in the first half of the season then you'd think he was rubbish, and shouldn't be in the side.  He can't score enough goals to help us be successful.  If you watched him in the second half of the season you'd think he was great, and if he plays like that for a full season he'll be 25/30 goal a season striker.  But, overall, he is still a player who will score about 16 per season.  He'll miss easy chances, and score some good goals.  Do you see what I'm getting at.  Now imagine something like that for the entire squad, we should score X goals and concede Y goals but at different points of the season we may be above or below where we should be.

I was reading a thread over on FMTTM that was about Matt Clarke, and the consensus seemed to be that our better defensive record was because he was in the side.  But Clarke played in both Rotherham games, he played in the 3-1 loss against Coventry, he played against Plymouth and Stoke, at Preston, and obviously the game at Stamford Bridge when he was appalling.  He started the Norwich game when we were all over the place.  So it's daft to think our recent run of results is down to him being in the side otherwise our results would have been better in his previous games as well.  VDB hasn't played the last four games, we've kept 3 clean sheets, are we then going to say we're better without him in the side because that's the same argument.  Thomas started the last two, we kept two clean sheets, should he start every week?  That's not to say that players don't influence results because of course they do but the evidence of our season is that for the most part we've been inconsistent no matter who has been in the side, which points to something beyond just individual players.  And in fact, as I think most people seem to agree, a lot of the goals we've conceded have had nothing to do with who we've played at the back, it's been errors in front of them that have created problems for ourselves.

To bring it back to Snowblind's post, if we'd kept Rogers we'd be closer to the top six now was one of his points.  However, our two best runs of form this season, our two only truly good runs of form this season, came without him in the team.  He was dropped when we won six in a row in Autumn, and he was obviously sold in January long before our recent unbeaten run.  So there's no reason to think we'd be any better with him here now, and that's not a judgement on him as a player, it's simply looking at what happened with him in the team.  I think if he'd still been here our results would have largely gone exactly the same way in that we'd have still had a poor/inconsistent run, but then improved results would have arrived as they have because as a team we'd have stopped making as many stupid mistakes, teams would stop taking advantage of situations quite as easily, we'd have scored some more goals to get us closer to what our goal total 'should' be, and so on.

Good points and I wouldn’t argue with the thrust of them. There are other points though.

I wouldn’t say we are better without VDB in the side overall - but maybe we were in the last few games?. He’s a young lad suddenly playing almost every game AND having to change position. Most managers make the point that young players need to be eased into a team and have regular rests. I think over recent weeks, VDB has struggled a bit. Hopefully the rest will do him good, and if he comes back it is to a settled position. Equally Clarke had a season and a bit out, so I guess it’s taken him a long time to settle back into regular football - earlier he was in and out of side, so difficult to get back to match form. 
With Lath and Rogers, both were new into the team, and Lath new to the Championship. I think you can equally argue that as he has got used to the pace and physicality, Lath has improved, hence scoring more goals. If he hadn’t got injured against Chelsea, he would maybe have started his goal scoring streak earlier. it’s not unreasonable to suggest his goal scoring ratio has increased because of his improvements and not just part of a scoring streak that will balance out with a poor streak.
During the spell he was injured, we didn’t really have a striker on the pitch.  I think Rogers was getting to grips with the Carrick style of play shortly before he left and had he stayed, he would have provided an option up front. The fact that Emery has seen fit to play Rogers quite a lot straight away (even if injuries helped him get in team) suggests he would have continued to improve with Boro and him and Lath would have made a difference as Snowblind suggests.

Not having a forward fit also put more pressure on the defence, which can’t have helped whatever centre backs we had at the same time. There is more pressure on defence and losing a goal matters more as you are less likely to score yourself.
Ayling has also taken time to fit in and get back to match fitness and his improvement must have helped the central defenders recently as well. Maybe those factors helped Clarke find his best form. (I accept it could have helped VDB equally)

I can see the point that we are an inconsistent side and I think we still would be even with those two here and fit. That doesn’t mean we wouldn’t have benefited from them being in team and that benefit would only increase over time.

[Changing Times 16,078 23.1k]

14 minutes ago, LinoJo3 said:

I get what you’re saying in the main post but the elephant to me is you don’t consider individual improvement. Carrick improving the set up for example and/or making changes to prevent past mistakes. The goals from Lath showed definite improvement from him, he would never in a million years have scored that first goal in September. You class it as a lucky scuffed shot but that completely takes away the composure he showed, taking time to find some space before getting the shot away. Yes it was a scruffy shot but only because it was his weak foot, it wasn’t like he was aiming for the far post and completely spannered it and by some miracle it went through 2 defenders legs and in at the near post, he was clearly aiming for that.

Yes luck and reversion to the mean play a part, but idk you just seem to have a thing against giving any kind of credit. If what you’re talking about is true we might aswell pack up and go home now as we will perpetually be in mid table, Carrick may aswell retire as he will never improve and Lath should just get used to being a championship player as that’s all his mean suggests he will be.

What has Carrick done to improve the set up?  I'm honestly asking the question here.  And if it was as simple as that then how come he couldn't manage it months ago?  We changed formation for a few games but then we've changed back.  Results are still positive so the set up itself doesn't seem to be responsible.  We've still got half the squad missing so it can't be down to that either.  The Sheff Wed game last week was pretty much identical to a handful of our home games this season, except that we won it, and scored a couple of goals, which are two things that we've struggled to do at times this season when dominating games.

As regards Latte Lath, I don't believe you can say that someone has definitely improved on the basis of one shot.  I also didn't say his shot was lucky at all, I don't know why you are saying that I did?  I didn't mention luck with regards to his finish.  I'm saying that it's possible, and at the moment more likely, that the he's the same player as the player who missed easier chances this season.  That his ability level is that of a player who is capable of both things.  The bigger point I was trying to make was that the circumstances leading up to the goal weren't happening for us earlier in the season.  The cross wouldn't be spilled or if it was then Lath would have had his shot blocked by one of the many defenders between him and the goal.  Things like that.  They weren't going for us earlier in the season but that can only go on for so long before things should turn around.  None of that is a criticism of Lath or saying he's lucky.  I like the lad, he's an exciting player to me, I just don't know if he'd suddenly improved or if things are just falling for him now that weren't earlier.  In other words, he wasn't as bad as he might have looked previously at times but he might not be as good as the run he's on now.  Individual improvement can definitely take place albeit it tends to come with younger players more than older ones.  I don't know if we can say with any certainty that this is what's happening here.  You'll see it over time but not in a few games.  The funny thing with Lath is that he's still underperforming against his xG but only slightly now.  He's scored 10 and expected 10.5, so that would appear to be a reversion to the mean wouldn't it?  That isn't a bad thing because over a full season his 'mean' could be 20/25 goals, and if he hits it then we're all happy aren't we?

[Changing Times 16,078 23.1k]

46 minutes ago, ScarBoro said:

Good points and I wouldn’t argue with the thrust of them. There are other points though.

I wouldn’t say we are better without VDB in the side overall - but maybe we were in the last few games?. He’s a young lad suddenly playing almost every game AND having to change position. Most managers make the point that young players need to be eased into a team and have regular rests. I think over recent weeks, VDB has struggled a bit. Hopefully the rest will do him good, and if he comes back it is to a settled position. Equally Clarke had a season and a bit out, so I guess it’s taken him a long time to settle back into regular football - earlier he was in and out of side, so difficult to get back to match form. 
With Lath and Rogers, both were new into the team, and Lath new to the Championship. I think you can equally argue that as he has got used to the pace and physicality, Lath has improved, hence scoring more goals. If he hadn’t got injured against Chelsea, he would maybe have started his goal scoring streak earlier. it’s not unreasonable to suggest his goal scoring ratio has increased because of his improvements and not just part of a scoring streak that will balance out with a poor streak.
During the spell he was injured, we didn’t really have a striker on the pitch.  I think Rogers was getting to grips with the Carrick style of play shortly before he left and had he stayed, he would have provided an option up front. The fact that Emery has seen fit to play Rogers quite a lot straight away (even if injuries helped him get in team) suggests he would have continued to improve with Boro and him and Lath would have made a difference as Snowblind suggests.

Not having a forward fit also put more pressure on the defence, which can’t have helped whatever centre backs we had at the same time. There is more pressure on defence and losing a goal matters more as you are less likely to score yourself.
Ayling has also taken time to fit in and get back to match fitness and his improvement must have helped the central defenders recently as well. Maybe those factors helped Clarke find his best form. (I accept it could have helped VDB equally)

I can see the point that we are an inconsistent side and I think we still would be even with those two here and fit. That doesn’t mean we wouldn’t have benefited from them being in team and that benefit would only increase over time.

VDB played in the wins at Birmingham and QPR.  So he started the good run we've had, and we kept two clean sheets.  I would imagine that most people would prefer to see him in the team.  However since he's been out of the side our good run has continued.  So is he integral to it or not?  The thread I referenced earlier was about Clarke being the reason for the improved defensive performances but again he was in the side when things were going badly.  Most of the players were actually because almost everyone has played during bad and good spells, which suggests that the personnel has been less to blame or praise than some other factors.

As regards Rogers, with all due respect you're talking about things without any basis in fact.  Rogers was getting to grips with Carrick's style shortly before he left according to you, and I know other people have said the same.  The following are the results of the games he played in before he left - 1-1 draw with Rotherham at home, 3-1 win at Millwall, 3-1 defeat at home against Coventry, 2-1 win at Huddersfield, 1-0 loss at Rotherham, 1-0 win at West Brom.  Those are the games he started in.  So a mixed bag you would have to say.  He contributed 3 assists and a goal in those 6 games, so a decent enough return, but we were just as inconsistent as we have been all season long.  There's nothing to suggest that things had improved, and as for him being an option up front, I just don't think that would have seen him play any better than he had previously when we tried him up there.  I'm sure that not having a fit striker has caused us issues, I completely agree with that.  But when we had fit strikers we were still inconsistent, and that was down to everyone not just the strikers.  It's funny but nobody is making the same argument about Crooks. I think there's a certain amount of bias involved tbh, and I'm also sure that if Rogers hadn't scored yesterday then we wouldn't be having this discussion. When it comes to Ayling, I don't think he is suddenly playing much better either tbh.  I think we are playing better, and he's under less pressure as a result.  He's in a purple patch as regards the assists but he hasn't suddenly become a great goal creator at the age of 32, I assume that most people would accept that?  He usually gets between 3-6 assists per season, he just happens to have gotten most of them in a short spell of time for us.

To be clear, I didn't say that we wouldn't benefit from them the likes of Rogers and Lath being in the side.  What I said was their mere presence alone wouldn't be enough, they'd have had to play better than they had been, which I think is essentially what you are saying here as well?

 

[LinoJo3 5,823 13.6k]

20 minutes ago, Changing Times said:

What has Carrick done to improve the set up?  I'm honestly asking the question here.  And if it was as simple as that then how come he couldn't manage it months ago?  We changed formation for a few games but then we've changed back.  Results are still positive so the set up itself doesn't seem to be responsible.  We've still got half the squad missing so it can't be down to that either.  The Sheff Wed game last week was pretty much identical to a handful of our home games this season, except that we won it, and scored a couple of goals, which are two things that we've struggled to do at times this season when dominating games.

As regards Latte Lath, I don't believe you can say that someone has definitely improved on the basis of one shot.  I also didn't say his shot was lucky at all, I don't know why you are saying that I did?  I didn't mention luck with regards to his finish.  I'm saying that it's possible, and at the moment more likely, that the he's the same player as the player who missed easier chances this season.  That his ability level is that of a player who is capable of both things.  The bigger point I was trying to make was that the circumstances leading up to the goal weren't happening for us earlier in the season.  The cross wouldn't be spilled or if it was then Lath would have had his shot blocked by one of the many defenders between him and the goal.  Things like that.  They weren't going for us earlier in the season but that can only go on for so long before things should turn around.  None of that is a criticism of Lath or saying he's lucky.  I like the lad, he's an exciting player to me, I just don't know if he'd suddenly improved or if things are just falling for him now that weren't earlier.  In other words, he wasn't as bad as he might have looked previously at times but he might not be as good as the run he's on now.  Individual improvement can definitely take place albeit it tends to come with younger players more than older ones.  I don't know if we can say with any certainty that this is what's happening here.  You'll see it over time but not in a few games.  The funny thing with Lath is that he's still underperforming against his xG but only slightly now.  He's scored 10 and expected 10.5, so that would appear to be a reversion to the mean wouldn't it?  That isn't a bad thing because over a full season his 'mean' could be 20/25 goals, and if he hits it then we're all happy aren't we?

We probably will never know what Carrick has done with the set up, but we know it will go much further than just formation, probably regards to player instruction etc, for example in a game not long after Norwich almost every comment on the match thread was about us hoofing it up the pitch and ‘playing like warnocks team’.
 

To my eye we seem less ‘open’ and look a lot more like a regular championship team rather than a championship team trying to be to clever with fancy tactics and over playing the ball. He’s definately changed something. I’m not saying it’s “the” reason we’ve suddenly started winning but I do feel it’s a big reason why our defence is no longer like a sieve.

As for laths improvement I’m not even sure that it’s physical talent based, more mental. Maybe he’s got to grips with the championship game more, got used to his team mates more or even just simply regained his confidence where maybe 6 months ago he was trying to hard to impress. Again it’s not really just about the goals he’s been getting, but his contribution to build up play, he worked a shot for himself just before his first goal by playing a couple of give and gos with Jones and O’Brien I think it was. Just small things like that which means he can impact the game beyond just getting in behind or kick and rushing past a defender. He’s added to his all round game i guess u could say.

[Changing Times 16,078 23.1k]

1 minute ago, LinoJo3 said:

We probably will never know what Carrick has done with the set up, but we know it will go much further than just formation, probably regards to player instruction etc, for example in a game not long after Norwich almost every comment on the match thread was about us hoofing it up the pitch and ‘playing like warnocks team’.

I remember that but we didn't continue doing that did we?  I think when you start talking about things that we'll never know about then it's basically impossible to discuss it.  I think we got lucky against Norwich and Southampton in different ways, and then have beaten four teams we are clearly better than.  We still had a 'poor' result against Blackburn in the middles of those games so it's not like we haven't seen some of what we saw earlier in the season even on this better run.  We should have won some of the games earlier in the season that we stuffed up - just go over some of them.  We didn't play badly in them all, we just didn't win.  Have we played well throughout this run?  Not really but we have won some games.  Play well but don't win, play not as well but do win.  Is that a sign of improvement or precisely what I'm talking about?  It's interesting to think about isn't it?  When things got bad a month or so ago, I think it might have been after the Stoke game, I was asked by NB4 would I sack Carrick.  If I remember rightly it was that Stoke game that got people talking about Carrick a lot more.  I said no I wouldn't.  And the reason I wouldn't is because of what I'm talking about now.  We weren't as bad as it seemed at the time, and things were always going to improve, at least that's how I saw it.