Gers winning mentality

[noseyhibby]

Much as I despise their bigoted bile, I can only admire Rangers resolve and spirit to win. They have in abundance a winning mentality. If our boys had half their heart to win we would not be in freefall and getting played off the park and bullied by practically every team that we now face.

[Pretty Boy]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Much as I despise their bigoted bile, I can only admire Rangers resolve and spirit to win. They have in abundance a winning mentality. If our boys had half their heart to win we would not be in freefall and getting played off the park and bullied by practically every team that we now face.

I said this to my mate earlier, St Mirren looked scared to win that game today. Even after the sendings off Rangers looked like they expected to win it.

It's that mentality which keeps the OF ahead of the rest in Scotland.

[Bishop Hibee]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Much as I despise their bigoted bile, I can only admire Rangers resolve and spirit to win. They have in abundance a winning mentality. If our boys had half their heart to win we would not be in freefall and getting played off the park and bullied by practically every team that we now face.

Sorry, the main reason Rangers won is the quality they have in their team. If St Mirren had had either Boyd, Miller, Novo or Naismith, they would have won easily. The Scottish Cup Final was the same in May.

[oldbiker]

they looked better with nine and more focused. St Mirren didnt seem to know how to use the extra men. I though Miller was just totally focused, hungry and determined.
God how I wish some of our lot had showed that commitment yesterday.

Difference between 3 grand a week and 30 grand or so, I suppose.

[EuanH78]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

they looked better with nine and more focused. St Mirren didnt seem to know how to use the extra men. I though Miller was just totally focused, hungry and determined.
God how I wish some of our lot had showed that commitment yesterday.

Difference between 3 grand a week and 30 grand or so, I suppose.

Mentality costs nothing.

Painful as it is to say (by virtue of Rangers being complete ****bags) it's as much their winning mentality that won that game as it was St.Mirrens lack of self belief and that is something worthy of emulation. Both cases being a state of mind.

You, I and (mostly) everyone on here would love that mentality in our Hibs team so how to go about getting it?

[noseyhibby]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Sorry, the main reason Rangers won is the quality they have in their team. If St Mirren had had either Boyd, Miller, Novo or Naismith, they would have won easily. The Scottish Cup Final was the same in May.

We are supposed to have quality in our ranks, but without fight, desire, hunger and passion to win, quality does not guarantee a victory. Who can tell me that man for man, Hearts possessed more quality than Hibs yesterday and that it was their quality that won them the game? Rangers have both quality and passion to win. Hibs have quality and no passion to win. End of.

[lyonhibs]

As I said to my Hun mates in the pub, that is the single defining difference between The Huns and every other team in Scotland, certainly Hibs.

Down to nine men, and St Mirren just didn't know how to take advantage of it.

This mentality costs nothing, but is absolutely priceless. If Rangers could bottle it and sell it on, they'd clear their £30 million debt in about a week!!

[Bishop Hibee]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

We are supposed to have quality in our ranks, but without fight, desire, hunger and passion to win, quality does not guarantee a victory. Who can tell me that man for man, Hearts possessed more quality than Hibs yesterday and that it was their quality that won them the game? Rangers have both quality and passion to win. Hibs have quality and no passion to win. End of.

The only player in the Hibs XI that played yesterday that would have a sniff of the Rangers first team squad is Stokes.

We were the equal of Hearts until Stack blew it for the first goal. I'd agree the players then lacked the mental toughness to recover from that blow until Riordan gave us a lifeline and Hearts tired.

By the way, have you ever posted a positive comment about Hibs?

[Broken Gnome]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Sorry, the main reason Rangers won is the quality they have in their team. If St Mirren had had either Boyd, Miller, Novo or Naismith, they would have won easily. The Scottish Cup Final was the same in May.

At the same time, there came a period when St. Mirren were heavy favourites to win that game. 11 on 11 it's more about making sure they had a decent go at Rangers; likely defeat would've been acceptable if they had at least made the effort to try and win it. Then they went from being the better team when the numbers were even to being odds on to win with a two man advantage, something they couldn't deal with.

A bit like Hibs-Rangers on Boxing Day; perfect start for Hibs, then they realised the magnitude of the situation and caved in. You aspire to beat the Old Firm obviously, but on the rare occasions that the pressure and expectation goes onto the 'lesser' team, more often than not they're not up to it.

[vahibbie]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Difference between 3 grand a week and 30 grand or so, I suppose.

Hope not
Possibly playing for a big club in Scotland and your Man Us and Barcalonas in the wider sense does give you a leg up in the determination stakes.

But players at teams like ours should still be expected to put up some sort of fight.....doesn't mean we won't get out-fought but FFS show you're at least trying

[Kaiser1962]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Mentality costs nothing.

Painful as it is to say (by virtue of Rangers being complete ****bags) it's as much their winning mentality that won that game as it was St.Mirrens lack of self belief and that is something worthy of emulation. Both cases being a state of mind.

You, I and (mostly) everyone on here would love that mentality in our Hibs team so how to go about getting it?

Jim Telfer used to say that you were born with it. Faldo also said when he stood over a three foot putt and wasnt bothered if it went in or not he knew then he was finished. The money per week that a player is on shouldnt matter once they enter the field of play but the ones with the drive, with the will to win or to make a sacrifice to get to the top have that mentality. Others, whom are maybe satisfied with where they are, do not. Ali once said that you have to have skill and you have to have will but if the will is not greater than the skill then you will be beaten.

[noseyhibby]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

By the way, have you ever posted a positive comment about Hibs?

Yes, I have. But these are a given and ignored, as positive posts are not contentious. It's like selling newspapers, good news does not stimulate interest, only the bad. This said, I like to think that I put out reasoned posts and not mere rants for the sake of it.

[Dunkin' Donut]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Much as I despise their bigoted bile, I can only admire Rangers resolve and spirit to win. They have in abundance a winning mentality. If our boys had half their heart to win we would not be in freefall and getting played off the park and bullied by practically every team that we now face.

i know where your coming from but its hard to fully agree here as they are top of the league playing a team thats 2nd bottom and they won 1-0 with a late goal. fair enough they never had their full quota of players for the 90 mins but its not as if they were dominating and had to alter their style after the sendings off.

[Bad Martini]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Sorry, the main reason Rangers won is the quality they have in their team. If St Mirren had had either Boyd, Miller, Novo or Naismith, they would have won easily. The Scottish Cup Final was the same in May.

Correct...thats all that ultimately separated them - given the huns firepower, they should have demolished them. They should also have demolished Dundee Utd as well.

The huns; dispicable, odious and ultimately NOT as good as most people think they are.

[Nakedmanoncrack]

Thought St Mirren had been much the better team throughout and the sendings off actually helped galvanise a struggling Rangers. Sadly in a similiar situation playing a team we would expect to beat, I'd expect Hibs to completely fold rather than react as Rangers did.

[EuanH78]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Jim Telfer used to say that you were born with it. Faldo also said when he stood over a three foot putt and wasnt bothered if it went in or not he knew then he was finished. The money per week that a player is on shouldnt matter once they enter the field of play but the ones with the drive, with the will to win or to make a sacrifice to get to the top have that mentality. Others, whom are maybe satisfied with where they are, do not. Ali once said that you have to have skill and you have to have will but if the will is not greater than the skill then you will be beaten.

I'm not so sure it's something you are born with but then I tend to believe that all behaviour is a learned process that can be changed if the 'will' is there.

Psychology has a massive part to play in success/ failure at anything in life. Quite how it works in a collective group like a football team and how to change a negative self defeating culture I am not so sure.

Teams like Rangers/ Man Utd seem to have this quality whereas teams like Hibs dont. Money may be able to buy the players that have this mindset individually but we dont have the money to buy the finished product like that and would individual players be able to change the collective anyway? Chelsea as an example haven't seemed to show this with any sustainability at least.

A few years ago we sold half a team (some to Rangers) Did these players suddenly have a different mentality after they were sold? If so where did it come from?

I'm leaning toward it being driven by a central character. Smith and Ferguson respectively. Smith seems to be making a silk purse from a sows ear with no money available to him but must be close to retirement now. What happens to an organisations success when the driving force behind it goes? I guess we'll find out soon enough.

Alex Ferguson needed a bit of time to instill that mentality to his Man Utd (who I also dislike intensely btw ) but they have consistently performed over most of his tenure there.

I'm willing to be patient with Hibs and Yogi I think. I suspect that Mcoist wont be able to adequately fill Uncle Walters boots and there will be a gap that a settled team like Hibs could fill if they were a settled team. I could be wrong (wouldn't be the first or last time ) but it doesnt look like we will be getting instant gratification anyway so willing to be patient and see what happens.

In the meantime there is a lot to be upbeat about IMO

[noseyhibby]

I've just seen the highlights and Rangers victory was unquestionably a classic example of self-belief and determination overcoming the odds. Down to 9 men but rather than play for penalties as most teams would they still felt they could and would win. That is impressive, irrespective of ones allegiance. If only Hibs had a fraction of this resolve and self belief.

[Mikeystewart]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Much as I despise their bigoted bile, I can only admire Rangers resolve and spirit to win. They have in abundance a winning mentality. If our boys had half their heart to win we would not be in freefall and getting played off the park and bullied by practically every team that we now face.

Totally agree if there was ever a work ethic and mental solidity to emulate it would be the rangers team right now espicialy with all the things going on with the club , hibs playes have it easy only worrying about there performance and fan opinion mabey too easy a bit of caos could possibly gel the team, organized caos of course .

[hibsbollah]

Its arguably easier to play with 10 men than it used to be because of changing tactics and greater athleticism. I read a good article last month about it here (its a bit long mind you)
http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/blog...-better-10-men


The idea that it that may be harder to play against 10 men than 11 has been a cliché so long that there's even a Beyond the Fringe sketch about it. It is also palpably untrue. Events at the weekend, when Barcelona, Liverpool and Almería all won despite playing the bulk of the game a man down – along with Manchester United's performance after the dismissal of Nani last night – suggest it may be that playing against 10 men is not as easy as it used to be.

It depends, of course, when you mean by "used to be". Figures produced by Opta and Castrol Performance Analysts suggest the impact of red cards has changed only a little over the past 20 years.

In the Premier League between 1992 and 2000, for instance, a side that was drawing when they had a man sent off went on to win the game 11.8% of the time if the red card happened in the first hour, 3.7% if it happened between 60 and 80 minutes, and 4.5% if it happened after 80 minutes. Looking at the top divisions in England, Spain, Italy, Germany and France since the start of 2006-07, those figures are 13.4% for up to an hour, 8.1% for 60-80 minutes and 4.9% for after 80 minutes.

Between 1992 and 2000 in the Premier League, teams losing when they had a man sent off went on to draw or win 11.1% of the time if the red card happened before the hour, 5.9% if it happened between 60 and 80 minutes, and 4.8% if it came after 80 minutes; in the top five European leagues since the start of 2006-07, the figures are 11.5% for a red card in the first hour; 11.4% for a red card between 60 and 80 minutes; and 2.7% for a card after 80 minutes. So there is a slight but distinct trend suggesting having a man sent off is no longer quite such a negative as it was.

More striking, though, is the fact that when YouTube - Argentina 0 Cameroon 1, it was the first time any side had improved their result having had a man sent off in a World Cup game, François Omam Biyik scoring the only goal six minutes after his brother, André Kana Biyik, had been sent off. Benjamin Massing also picked up a red card late on. Eleven days later, Austria had Peter Artner sent off 32 minutes into their group match against the USA with the score at 0-0, but went on to win 2-1. Since then, teams have improved their result (that is, gone from a loss to a draw or win, or gone from a draw to a win) while a man down on a further 10 occasions.


What's changed?

There are, of course, far more red cards in modern football than there used to be, but the figures are still significant. In World Cups before 1990, 37 players were sent off from teams drawing or losing, and none improved their result; since then there have been 80, of which 12 have improved. In the last 20 years, it would seem, a sending-off has had less of an impact than it had in the first 120 years of football's history. Moreover, it appears its impact is continuing to diminish.

There is one obvious and prosaic reason why that trend should be apparent in club football, which is that teams near the top of the league are now so much better than those lower down that they don't need 11 men to beat them. Across Europe the impact of Champions League revenues has been to stretch domestic leagues. The gap between fourth and fourth bottom in the Premier League last season, for instance, was 0.97 points per game (down from a record 1.05 the season before), as opposed to 0.68 in 1998-99.

There is also, though, a greater sophistication to football these days. In 2006, after Chelsea had come from a goal down to beat West Ham 4-1 despite having had Maniche sent off after 17 minutes, José Mourinho said that he devoted time in training to playing with 10 men, focusing on ball retention and fewer, more precise attacks.

Arsenal, similarly, at least in the days when they had players sent off on a regular basis (it is now over a year since their last Premier League red card, which is one of those odd statistics for which they ought to be praised, and yet seems somehow indicative of their problems), would practise with a man down.

Related to specific practice with 10 men is the fact that, as football has become increasingly systematised, the effect of losing a player has changed. It's no coincidence that Italy in the 1994 World Cup, when under Arrigo Sacchi they played perhaps the most systematised football ever known at international level, had men sent off while level against Norway and behind against Nigeria, and yet went on to win both matches.

Systems and the 'man over' fallacy

Each game has its specific circumstances, of course, and should probably be assessed accordingly, but in the systematised world of modern football there is a danger that the team with the extra man will over-react and try to force things too much. In the days before zonal marking, when football was essentially a series of one-on-one battles, it was easy to pinpoint the weakness of a team going a man down, and easy to attack that space.

Take, for example, YouTube - 1953 FA Cup Final Blackpool v Bolton W, which was decided not because of a sending off but by injury. Bolton led 3-1 with 20 minutes to go, but were hampered by the fact that their left-back, Tommy Banks, had pulled a muscle and the left-half, Eric Bell, had strained a hamstring. Not only were there no substitutes, but there seems to have been no thought that other players could have dropped in to cover them. Stanley Matthews, Blackpool's right-winger, revelled in the freedom, and set up three late goals to win the game.

Under a zonal system, which was being developed in Brazil by Zeze Moreira at around the same time, even without having players switch positions, there would have been more cover, with the centre-half naturally drifting to protect the left-back secure in the knowledge that behind him the right-back would be moving across to cover, the right half dropping to cover him, and so on.

Since football became systematised, the idea that a side playing with 11 against 10 should have a "man over" has been outdated. As Valeriy Lobanovskyi, heavily influenced by the Kyivan cybernetics boom, described it, football in its purest form was "a system of 22 elements – two sub-systems of 11 elements – moving within a defined area [the pitch] and subject to a series of restrictions (the laws of the game). If the two sub-systems were equal, the outcome would be a draw. If one were stronger, it would win."

Take one of the elements from one of the sides, and that sub-system becomes weaker, but without – in Lobanovskyi's pure model – leaving a specific and exploitable weakness. Football, of course, isn't an abstract game and so there remains a difference between losing a centre-back to a red card and losing a right-winger, but it has moved far closer to Lobanovskyi's ideal than Bolton's 1953 naivety.

[hibsbollah]

Continued....

Ramsey and Ranieri

Unless an obvious weakness is revealed – a centre-back who can't head up against a target-man centre-forward, for instance, or a lumbering full-back against a rapid winger – it may be that the best thing to do when faced with 10 men is to change nothing.

Certainly that was the tactic Alf Ramsey employed in YouTube - 1966 World Cup Quarter Final England v Argentina. Burned by a 1-0 defeat against Argentina in a friendly in Brazil in 1964, when England had had most of the play but had been undone by a solitary counter, he decided (by the standards of the day) on caution, sitting deep in midfield and waiting for Argentina to make a mistake.

Another manager might have been tempted into a more expansive approach after Argentina's captain, Antonio Rattin, had been sent off after 35 minutes, but not Ramsey. If his game-plan was the right one against a sub-system of 11 men, he seems to have reasoned, it remained the right one when that sub-system had been weakened by the removal of its key element.

He remained unflinching and, sure enough, it was Argentina who blinked. A couple of attacks seem to have encouraged the Argentinians, perhaps even awakened the thought that they should take try to advantage when they had a little momentum and try to get the game done in 90 minutes rather than risk exhaustion in extra-time, and pushing forwards, they fleetingly lost shape.

Even with 11, Argentina's formation was lop-sided, Oscar Mas playing as a left-winger without any equivalent on the right. England, accordingly, tended to attack down their left, where the full-back, Roberto Ferreiro, could be isolated. It was down that flank that the goal came, as Ferreiro needlessly conceded a throw about 40 yards from goal. Ray Wilson took the throw to Alan Ball, accepted the return, and knocked the ball forward for Martin Peters. At last, he had space, and shaped a cross to the near post where Geoff Hurst, making an angled run between Roberto Perfumo and Rafael Albrecht, glanced a header past Antonio Roma.

"The system …," wrote David Miller in the Sunday Telegraph, "is not one to win the crowds even if, as things are going, it still seems to win matches." But about what else did Ramsey care? Throughout his career he treated fans and journalists as little more than nuisances who, with their demand to be entertained, got in the way of the serious business of winning matches. As cold-eyed as any England manager has ever been, he had won the stand-off.

That said, it could be argued that Martin O'Neill adopted a similar policy last night, and he later admitted he wondered whether his side might have taken more risks. That can be a dangerous policy, though, as was shown, for instance, in YouTube - 11) AS Monaco - Chelsea (1/2) in 2004.
Andreas Zikos was sent off seven minutes into the second half with the score at 1-1, at which Chelsea's manager Claudio Ranieri brought on Jimmy Floyd Hasselbaink for Mario Melchiot. Perhaps, his departure having been so long foretold, Ranieri felt the need to make a point, to enact a decisive change that would confirm his genius and persuade Roman Abramovich to keep him on.
Squeezed into an uneasy 4-3-3 in which first Robert Huth and then Scott Parker had to play right-back, though, Chelsea lost shape and the width that might have stretched Monaco and opened up gaps. They ended up conceding twice in the final quarter-hour to effectively surrender the tie. "It's my fault," Ranieri said. "With one player more I wanted to win the match. We tried to continue to control the match and tried to do something good, but we lost it in the last 15 minutes. Everybody wanted to do something more, to run with ball and not to combine with the other players." They, in other words, had become individuals, while Monaco remained a system.

Perspective


....It may be less of a handicap than it once was, but having a man sent off is still a major disadvantage. Italy's win over Nigeria game remains the only World Cup fixture in which a team, having a man sent off, has come from behind to win. Similarly, since that Chelsea win over West Ham, only once in the Premier League has a team come from behind having had a man sent off (ignoring games with more than one red card): Arsenal's 3-2 win over Bolton in March 2008.

The Castrol statistics show that on more than half the occasions a team in one of Europe's top five leagues has had a player sent off while winning or drawing with more than 10 minutes remaining, their result has worsened. Red cards are still significant, and four cherry-picked results in the past few days don't change that. What is apparent, though, is that those results are part of a wider trend: teams are better at playing with a man down that they used to be.

[Andy74]

Like the Man U and Barcelaona threads recently it always looks like they are working harder or have a better attitude but ultimately it is the difference in quality that is the defining factor.

They know when and where to play, where to press, have the quality to take the chances, to make the tackles, all that stuff.

If you think you could take the likes of Hibs and just ask them to work harder you won't get that far. I believe they are working hard and have the right attitude but are low of confidence and form.

[JimBHibees]

Rangers are no doubt a mentally strong team however IMO St Mirren bottled it big time. Their use of the ball against 9 men was awful and their crossing particularly from Ross and Carey was criminal given they were under no pressure on many occasions. No way should they have got caught on the break against 9 men. I think when they were suddenly favourites the realisation set in and they found it difficult to deal with.

[Vince White]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Sorry, the main reason Rangers won is the quality they have in their team. If St Mirren had had either Boyd, Miller, Novo or Naismith, they would have won easily. The Scottish Cup Final was the same in May.

Don't agree. The players you mention are not significantly better ability-wise than the likes of Stokes, Riordan or Zemmama.

Boyd, Naismith and Novo were all good players for Kilmarnock and Dundee but they did not do any more for those clubs than say, Riordan and O'Connor did up front for Hibs. However, what sets Rangers (and usually Celtic) apart is that these teams are under FAR more pressure from their fans to win week in week out. It engenders a will to win that is simply not matched by other teams. As I've said on another thread, far too many Hibs fans are willing to accept mediocrity on a regular basis because 'that's just the way it is with Hibs'. Put the current Hibs team under the type of pressure Rangers play under and we might actually see some passion on the pitch. At present the players know that even if they lose tomorrow night it's not really such a big deal because the fans are used to being let down and there won't be protests at the gates of Easter Road - as there would be if Rangers or Celtic lost such a game.

[Vince White]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Correct...thats all that ultimately separated them - given the huns firepower, they should have demolished them. They should also have demolished Dundee Utd as well.

The huns; dispicable, odious and ultimately NOT as good as most people think they are.

Do most people really think the huns are good? I think it's the fact most can see they're nothing special that makes it so frustrating they seem to be strolling towards the treble.

As the OP points out, it's mentality as much as quality which carries them through.

[hibees_green]

Mentality costs nothing .......

Aye it's just coincidence that when you buy a player for millions they happen to have it.

[Mag7]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Mentality costs nothing .......

Aye it's just coincidence that when you buy a player for millions they happen to have it.

Dunno about the rest but I don't think Boyd cost them more than a few hundred thousand? Might be wrong.

[Mag7]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Don't agree. The players you mention are not significantly better ability-wise than the likes of Stokes, Riordan or Zemmama.

Boyd, Naismith and Novo were all good players for Kilmarnock and Dundee but they did not do any more for those clubs than say, Riordan and O'Connor did up front for Hibs. However, what sets Rangers (and usually Celtic) apart is that these teams are under FAR more pressure from their fans to win week in week out. It engenders a will to win that is simply not matched by other teams. As I've said on another thread, far too many Hibs fans are willing to accept mediocrity on a regular basis because 'that's just the way it is with Hibs'. Put the current Hibs team under the type of pressure Rangers play under and we might actually see some passion on the pitch. At present the players know that even if they lose tomorrow night it's not really such a big deal because the fans are used to being let down and there won't be protests at the gates of Easter Road - as there would be if Rangers or Celtic lost such a game.

Depressingly true in most cases I imagine, though I'd hope at least some of the players would feel the pain if we get beat by Ross County.

[EuanH78]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Mentality costs nothing .......

Aye it's just coincidence that when you buy a player for millions they happen to have it.

I dont think you understand what I mean in 'mentality costs nothing'. I'm not saying people wont pay a premium for it if you have it.

On a personal level its about having your mind in the right place, if the head is in the right place the erse will follow, it's got no choice. The monetary cost of that is nothing. The value of it is immeasurable.

Thats the reason we just watched a fairly average Rangers (who lb for lb aren't any more skillful than most of the top 6 in the SPL IMO ) win a cup with 9 men.

Hibs have the players to compete, its the mindset that's wrong.

[hibees_green]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

I dont think you understand what I mean in 'mentality costs nothing'. I'm not saying people wont pay a premium for it if you have it.

On a personal level its about having your mind in the right place, if the head is in the right place the erse will follow, it's got no choice. The monetary cost of that is nothing. The value of it is immeasurable.

Thats the reason we just watched a fairly average Rangers (who lb for lb aren't any more skillful than most of the top 6 in the SPL IMO ) win a cup with 9 men.

Hibs have the players to compete, its the mindset that's wrong.

I must admit how you describe it is a little odd. I think your almost implying that everyone can have it if they want it enough. If thats the case I disagree.

Having a strong mentality is a gift just as much as having great skill. Certain people naturally have one. Others can work at it and develop one. But others will simply never be able to acheive one. To have great skill and a winning mentality is a rare thing.

Relative to St Mirren, Rangers are simply no where near an average squad (and that comparison holds true for the rest of the SPL with the exception of Celtic).

I very much doubt the whole St Mirren squad would raise as much as any 4 Rangers players would (never mind 9).

[Andy74]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

I dont think you understand what I mean in 'mentality costs nothing'. I'm not saying people wont pay a premium for it if you have it.

On a personal level its about having your mind in the right place, if the head is in the right place the erse will follow, it's got no choice. The monetary cost of that is nothing. The value of it is immeasurable.

Thats the reason we just watched a fairly average Rangers (who lb for lb aren't any more skillful than most of the top 6 in the SPL IMO ) win a cup with 9 men.

Hibs have the players to compete, its the mindset that's wrong.

I think that's rubbish.

Rangers have better quality players so they win more games. That's that.