My point is that a run of results alone isn't enough to mean someone should be permanent manager. No matter how good the results are, they also have to convince in both the approach and performances.
So far from Carrick we've seen three games in which the opposition had more of the ball than us, and one game against 10 men we've dominated. Which in the context those particular games, is absolutely no problem at all, it's very positive stuff.
But if we don't see much more than that across the rest of the season, or if we consistently let opponents have the ball more than they should, or if we struggle to break teams down when we have more of the ball, or if we end up with a lot of lucky results, then he shouldn't get the job. Even if the results are great.
Which isn't me saying that will happen, or criticising anything Carrick has done so far. He hasn't had the chance to answer those "ifs" yet. But that's what he should have to do to be appointed permanent manager at the end of the season, and that requires more than just results.