8 games to go. Should have still got a few points - Zero points is unacceptable and smacks of poor management. The problem is end of season form often goes into the following season. Presumably, Roy knows that.

Red and Blue Army!

I can handle the defeats because most of the games we were complete underdogs but the way we played has been abysmal. Not good enough in any way or form. And no point saying we had nothing to play for. After the Bournemouth win we still had a slim shot at Europa league.

I really hope Roy stays and is given some decent players to work with. It’s been a good season overall and the rigour he brings to the team is important. It might not be the most exciting football but how many non-top six sides stay up AND entertain? He’s an excellent manager and if we replace him I think we are more likely to go down next season.

If he wasnt aiming for Europe, he could have used them as 8 friendlies to try new things out.

If we'd lost, he could have then said we were experimenting and probably held off people calling for his head.

Instead he said that he owes it to the (out of form) senior players to give them a place in the team because every place was important. Then bought on a defensive midfielder for a winger with two minutes to go. But he got a point, which haulted his losing streak, then complained that he didn't have Kane so was unlucky again.

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".