I guess it's a fine line between continuing with the current approach and trying something different.
Given we've ended up in 6th place after 10 games, Ralph could argue that as long as our first halves are, on average, good enough to outweigh the down turn in our second halves then it's 'mission accomplished'?
Who's to say that squeezing all the juice out of our best 11 players for as long as possible in any given game doesn't yield as many points as spreading the effort over inferior players in the second half?
Dunno. I'm no sport scientist so will have to pass on casting an informed view on this one.