Lack of ambition?

Much has been said about how we seem to defend too deeply when we are in front, seemingly showing a lack of ambition to go all out for a second goal or even more but until today I was willing to give Malky the benefit of the doubt, believing, perhaps naively, that maybe those notes that come onto the field during the second half said "Push up!", "Stop defending so deeply" or even "Try to score another goal".

But this afternoon, after seeing us concede for the umpteenth time this season after going ahead by inviting the opposition on to us, I'm really beginning to wonder if our over-riding approach when we get ahead is "What we have we hold" and that this is coming from the manager himself because it's happening too frequently for it to be the players actions alone.

What really showed this I thought today were the two substitutions in stoppage time. I've read the thread below about this and I see that some people think that this was a way of Malky buying some extra time to try to grab a winner. To me it was just the opposite. Bring on a striker by all means if you're trying to win the game but don't take a striker off!

To me it seemed like a cautious move rather than an ambitious one from a manager who had settled for a point by that time, and whose main objective seemed to be to hold on to that point.

And why do we wait until the opposition equalise before trying to score again? First 25 minutes of the second half we showed no ambition and played almost completely on the break. They score and then suddenly we start putting them under pressure again!If we'd done that from the start of the second half we may not even have conceded!

I think that our lack of ambition when leading games has cost us badly this year. One thing that has been shown time and again however is that rarely is one goal enough for us to win and we don't seem to have the tactical nous or leadership to hang onto a lead.

Generally we do drop a little to deep for my liking.
Today though I don't think we did.

What really showed this I thought today were the two substitutions in stoppage time. I've read the thread below about this and I see that some people think that this was a way of Malky buying some extra time to try to grab a winner. To me it was just the opposite. Bring on a striker by all means if you're trying to win the game but don't take a striker off!

Miller for earnie should have been done earlier but I don't see swapping a striker as lack of ambition.
If MM knew Kev was injured when he brought earnie on I'm sure he would have just made a double sub but he didn't know.