It seemed like two Wolves teams turned up to play Liverpool.
The first team took the opening 45 minutes at Anfield and were outplayed.
A second team came out after the break and had the beating of the Reds.
The difference wasn't in the personnel though, it was in the formation.
Unlike the very best teams in the league, we only have two tactical options - 4-4-2 or 4-5-1.
At Liverpool the first half was 4-5-1 and the second was 4-4-2.
Mick made his decision before kick off and it turned out to be the wrong one.
It happens, we just have to hope he gets it right more often than he doesn't.
And to be fair to him, he was decisive by recognising the error and changing formation for the second 45 minutes.
Plus, I thought 4-5-1 was the way to go before the game too. It's not such an attacking formation but in theory it makes you more solid so is well suited to away games against the big sides.
So Mick got it wrong, recognised that and changed it. The second half was infinitely better for us but we came up short. At Anfield there's no shame in that so let's not panic.
It's good that we've got two systems pinned down now and a squad of players who make it possible to play both effectively.
If we play with one up top, Doyle is a workaholic and can hold the ball up while the midfielders join the attack. To play like that you need box-to-box midfielders and we've got them in Edwards and Guedioura.
If we go 4-4-2 then Fletcher and Doyle make a good partnership. Then you need control in the four-man midfield and that's why it's important to have players like O'Hara and Milijas who are comfortable on the ball in the middle of the park.
So we've got two solid options but still we're way short of the tactical prowess of the top teams,
The likes of Manchester United have all kinds of systems which they can switch between with fluidity.
But that's because they have a squad of players who can play in any number of positions.
What position would you say Ryan Giggs played of you had to name one?
He's a winger one minute, then a creative midfielder, then a second striker.
How about David Silva - a wideman? Not really.
Walcott . . . Nasri . . . Arteta . . . Cahill . . . Park
It's great that we've got two solid options that we can switch between as we did at Anfield.
If Mick gets the decision right more often than he doesn't then we'll be fine.
But moving forward, two ways of playing is old hat. Fluidity is the future.