Good qustions. I made a post a while ago when it is clear we were safe asking what people wanted to see from the last few games. I think it should have been a discussion between Parish and Roy and we should have had a clear stratergy either way.

The options we had were;

1) Stick with our best team, and hope we finish as high up the league as possible.

2) Treat the matches as friendlys, try out some different players, see what we have to build on for next season.

We stuck with our best team, lost 7 games and drew one against a Spurs side who weren't pushing for a win. Therefore, the manager got it wrong.

In the matches we were losing, we failed to make uses of our substitutions to either chase the game or give the youngesters a run out. Roy's biggest concern seemed to be goal difference. He can always come in after a games with the same cliches about how the thought we were unlucky.

So Roy didn't chase the highest possible league finish but still played what he thought was our best team.

If we treated the games like friendlies, we could have seen what players might be able to contribute to the side next season, if a player played well, we could save or make millions in the transfer market. B

But Roy decided to play our senior players, showing that there is no real competition for first team places.

Your second question is pretty loaded and your language is quite devisive, and contains a typical Roy Hodgson appologist excuse. I can tell you that I wouldn't have bought on an experienced defensive midfielder for a winger with two minutes to go. I'd have like to have seen something done earlier, and with more attacking intent. We had Pierreck, Meyer, Kirby, and Gordon on the bench. We could even have bought on Woods and stuck Dann up front. Again, had we lost, we'd finish in exactly the same league position.

Contiually giving players 2 mintues on the pitch in just seems like an insult to the players, unless he's trying to kill a game off.

A draw with Spurs, on the last day of the season, when they only needed a draw, isn't some great acheivement to celebrate. It can't be used to hide from the fact we lost 7 in a row before then. In Roy's fans minds, it's his Dunkirk.

Lombardo stuck a young Clinton Morrison on the pitch for 10 minutes against Sheffield Wednesday on the last day of the season in 1998. He grabbed a tap in and gave the fans something to be hopeful for going into the next season.

I do get the impression that large swathes of our supporters are thinking along the lines of "Oh, NO, not another season with Hodgson and his boring tactics".

I am increasingly hearing "Time for a change".

I,m increasingly looking toward joining all the we used to be someone’s in the Championship and lower , much earlier than we needed to be, if the moaners get their way.

First paragraph is spot on.
My complaint about Roy is his resistance to using subs, we never seem to want to chase the game and his insist on keeping it to 0-0 at half time.
We have spent very little money and it looks like this will continue. Why? To me this is the biggest question as it was our Chairman who stated you cannot stand still and should not be happy with doing so.
The transfer window will be interesting and somewhat informative

You're not wrong, Hrolf.

I said, that you'd pick a statergy and either us youth players, or go for the points. We made a half arsed attempt to go for the points and failed because of our negative tactics.

I'd prefer it if we went for a death or glory approach in the final minutes, particularly if we were safe in the knowledge that we couldn't drop a league position.

You completely ignored my point about Morrison's debut. Why not give it a go? I'd give them much longer than two minutes. That's pointless unless you are trying to kill off a game. Woods/Dann may not have been the answer (although Dann did come close with the final chance of the game), but we still had Meyer, Pierreck, Kirby, and Gordon. I bet if Roy was in charge in 1998 he'd have played Padavano, although at the time he was busy screwing up Blackburn.

A draw yesterday won't make a blind bit of difference to the current slump we are in.

So our strategy is to keep an old boy in the job for as long as the old boy feels like he can get out of bed each morning? My God I really hope things aren't as clueless as that. We're a football club not a nursing home.

And you are choosing to ignore my first question - how do you think Parish would have reacted if Hodgson had told him he wanted to '' experiment ' in the last 8 games ?

You might prefer to go for '' death or glory '' but you aren't a Premier League manager. A draw DOES make a difference. A tiny step perhaps, but one in the right direction. So yes, Hodgson was trying to kill the game off and protect the point. Ask the players if they felt better at getting a point yesterday as the result of their putting a shift in or whether they wished the manager had gambled and they had lost the game. I think I can predict what the answers would be.

Old, Ungifted and White

After the Bournemouth game it was a totally different picture. 4 wins, 4 clean sheets in a row. I doubt too many players would be thinking new systems etc., while they are banking their win bonuses !

But I agree, it's about evolution. And then we get back into the old argument about the quality of young players...as for tactics, another topic done to death - while they achieve Hodgson's objective then he has no incentive to change.

Old, Ungifted and White

I've answered it several times Neillo. You are just ignoring it.

Communication between the Chairman and Manager should be clear, and so should the stratergy.

A "tiny" difference is could also be described as insignificant. Which is what it was. It wasn't even in the right direction, it just slowed down the decline Losing wouldn't have made a bit of difference. Drawing will possibly drag out the saga of Roy Hodgson's very slowly killing the club.

The players know the only reason we got a draw yesterday was because Spurs let the game fizzle out. Had they needed to win, it would have been a different story.

I see you and Roy might both have very risk adverse personalities, at some point you have to take risks. Sport is about taking risks and trying to win. The best time to take risks is when there is nothing to lose, we didn't take this oportunity and we are now worse off because of it.

The time to start changing things wasn't after the Bournmouth game, thats a disingenous comment. The time to change them was after the Burnley game when we knew we had a tough run of fixtures.