Derbies in the Noughties

[SouthsideHarp_Bhoy]

Does anybody have the stats, now that we have completed a decade of derbies?

My suspicion would be fairly even - hearts had 5-1 win, but we had 6-2, i can only think of a handful of vicotries for either side at each others ground
.

Thought it might be interesting stats

[hibbie02]

Does anybody have the stats, now that we have completed a decade of derbies?

My suspicion would be fairly even - hearts had 5-1 win, but we had 6-2, i can only think of a handful of vicotries for either side at each others ground
.

Thought it might be interesting stats

Cue LHWM..........................:greengrin

[LHWM]

Cue LHWM..........................:greengrin

I haven't put up the latest result.

They are based round a 'season' rather than calendar year. e.g. 1999-2000 counts as the 1990s.

I'll do a calculation based on the 'calendar year' later.

http://www.londonhearts.com/scores/tea/hibernian.html#Decade

[hibbie02]

As if by magic..................:wink:

[LHWM]

Since the formation of the SPL Hearts are just ahead. Hibs lost just 1 in 12 around the time Alex Mc was in charge. There has been no real dominant 'pattern' as there was from 1965 through to 1998 (Hibs on top then Hearts).

Though the past decade has seen some of the more remarkable games in the 134 year history of the tie.

Last Minute winners
Last Minute equalisers
2 Cup ties that effectively decided the winners of the tournament
Generally some exciting football on show though the last half dozen have been pretty poor low scoring fare.

[LHWM]

By Calendar Decade Competitive games only

Hearts First

1870 P3 W0 0 %W D1 33 %D L2 66 %L F2 A4
1880 P6 W2 33 %W D1 16 %D L3 50 %L F12 A16
1890 P11 W6 54 %W D1 9 %D L4 36 %L F24 A17
1900 P23 W13 56 %W D7 30 %D L3 13 %L F36 A22
1910 P24 W18 75 %W D3 12 %D L3 12 %L F49 A19
1920 P20 W2 10 %W D9 45 %D L9 45 %L F25 A34
1930 P18 W8 44 %W D7 38 %D L3 16 %L F41 A27
1940 P25 W11 44 %W D2 8 %D L12 48 %L F52 A52
1950 P24 W15 62 %W D3 12 %D L6 25 %L F58 A33
1960 P21 W10 47 %W D4 19 %D L7 33 %L F45 A35
1970 P25 W2 8 %W D10 40 %D L13 52 %L F18 A39
1980 P26 W11 42 %W D12 46 %D L3 11 %L F33 A23
1990 P37 W18 48 %W D13 35 %D L6 16 %L F52 A30
2000 P38 W14 36 %W D13 33 %D L11 28 %L F56 A44

[SloopJB]

Does anybody have the stats, now that we have completed a decade of derbies?

My suspicion would be fairly even - hearts had 5-1 win, but we had 6-2, i can only think of a handful of vicotries for either side at each others ground
.

Thought it might be interesting stats

you thought wrong then:wink:

[Prof. Shaggy]

'Course, it all depends on whether you count a decade from '00 or from '01...

[Sprouleflyer]

By Calendar Decade Competitive games only

Hearts First

1870 P3 W0 0 %W D1 33 %D L2 66 %L F2 A4
1880 P6 W2 33 %W D1 16 %D L3 50 %L F12 A16
1890 P11 W6 54 %W D1 9 %D L4 36 %L F24 A17
1900 P23 W13 56 %W D7 30 %D L3 13 %L F36 A22
1910 P24 W18 75 %W D3 12 %D L3 12 %L F49 A19
1920 P20 W2 10 %W D9 45 %D L9 45 %L F25 A34
1930 P18 W8 44 %W D7 38 %D L3 16 %L F41 A27
1940 P25 W11 44 %W D2 8 %D L12 48 %L F52 A52
1950 P24 W15 62 %W D3 12 %D L6 25 %L F58 A33
1960 P21 W10 47 %W D4 19 %D L7 33 %L F45 A35
1970 P25 W2 8 %W D10 40 %D L13 52 %L F18 A39
1980 P26 W11 42 %W D12 46 %D L3 11 %L F33 A23
1990 P37 W18 48 %W D13 35 %D L6 16 %L F52 A30
2000 P38 W14 36 %W D13 33 %D L11 28 %L F56 A44

Should the 1940 decade not be green?

Hearts won 11 with a 44% win rate and lost 12 with a 48% loss rate.

Does that not make the 1940's decade a Hibs decade?

[LHWM]

Should the 1940 decade not be green?

Hearts won 11 with a 44% win rate and lost 12 with a 48% loss rate.

Does that not make the 1940's decade a Hibs decade?

Yes! My mistake.

[McSwanky]

How depressing it was to grow up in the 80s....

[wazoo1875]

How depressing it was to grow up in the 80s....

Very , what with the miners strike , high unemployment and the tories selling everything , can't remember anything about the football though :boo hoo:

[Dashing Bob S]

Yes! My mistake.

Well change it then!

[erin go bragh]

How depressing it was to grow up in the 80s....
yes.but a certain albert kidd made it very enjoyable too:wink:

[Steve-O]

What are the stats from the last 10 years then?

1999 - present.

[Green_one]

Looks like we poor at derbies in the 50s too. :confused: What ever happened to the famous five?
:grr:
Dream shattered

[JeMeSouviens]

The 80s might not look so bad and the 70s would look even better if they hadn't spent so much time hiding in the 1st division. :wink:

Yes, younger readers, seems almost impossible to believe now, but the Champions League contending behemoth that we now know as the Big Team spent several years as a yo-yo club.

[Danderhall Hibs]

What are the stats from the last 10 years then?

1999 - present.

Is this not them?


2000 P38 W14 36 %W D13 33 %D L11 28 %L F56 A44

[LHWM]

Looks like we poor at derbies in the 50s too. :confused: What ever happened to the famous five?
:grr:
Dream shattered

I haven't got the contemporary reports but speaking to older Hearts and Hibs fans, one of the big reasons given was that Tam McKenzie had 'Gordon Smith in his back pocket'. Keeping GS 'relatively quiet' was one of the keys to the Maroons success in the Derbies in this era.

[SouthsideHarp_Bhoy]

I haven't got the contemporary reports but speaking to older Hearts and Hibs fans, one of the big reasons given was that Tam McKenzie had 'Gordon Smith in his back pocket'. Keeping GS 'relatively quiet' was one of the keys to the Maroons success in the Derbies in this era.

Thanks for that LWHM – fortunately or unfortunately, I have been at all those momentous matches that you refer to

I would be interested in your opinion on why the disparity exists between what have been, for the most part two pretty comparable clubs? There are a number of reasons (excuses I hear you say!) that have swirled through my mind at various times, and I would be interested, given your insight, what you think the main factors have been?

Over a circa 125 year period it obviously cannot be a ‘coincidence’, although I think it could possibly be a serious of separate coincidences (if that makes sense) that when combined equal the disparity – however that necessarily means that Hibs have been unlucky in that these coincidences have always gone for you, or at least not against you – and im loathe to put it down to ‘luck’. So, some possibilities:

Hibs were ******ed in their growth from the start and so were at a disadvantage from the start – in less enlightened times, this could (and probably would) have extended to rigged draws, biased referees and unfair rulings.

Hibs are generally inconsistent – Hearts have far better record in average league placings, but I think im right in saying that (post war) anyway Hibs have finished higher on more occasions (I once saw a league table minus OF and Hibs were ahead with 16 league titles since the war, was a couple of years back) – we are either brilliant or rubbish (more frequently the latter) and rarely have solid mid-table seasons, meaning that when Hearts are bad, they are generally still mediocre at worst (as in now).

Good Hibs teams (no myth-making here, honestly) are generally packed full of flair players – you only need to look at Hibs legends to see the dearth of big Scottish defenders – in Scotland this has meant that even when good, we have always been vulnerable to the Scottish vices, which are of course more prevalent (and more effective) in derby matches. i.e. Famous Five were up against ‘Iron Curtain’ of Huns and solid (but no less good I must stress) hard men like Dave Mackay, who could mix it as well as play – AFAIK, Eddie Turnbull was the only similar player in famous five

The negative approach of the 80s early 90s saw Hibs at least partly responsible for helping Hearts to 22 (this is not to belittle the achievement)

Hibs main period of dominance coincided with playing each other only twice a year (I think – mid 60s to early 70s)

The fact that Hearts always have, for more than a decade now, been living way beyond their means have until this season been relatively immune from the consequences?

That Hearts have consistently spent more money? Perhaps given the feeling of natural born superiority that Hearts, as the city’s main team have had an obligation to strive to prove it over Hibs (this is not meant to be a dig, I do feel that Hearts as a club, have this – no bad thing necessarily), who have on occasion been more than happy to ‘cash-in’?

Following-on from the above, the intangible ‘X Factor’ – Hearts got on top early (perhaps due to point one) and it has therefore become a self-fulfilling prophecy

Better management – Hearts have had better owners/chairmen and team managers than Hibs?

As I say I do not know which of these (if any) is true, but I think it is an interesting discussion to be had…

[CropleyWasGod]

'Course, it all depends on whether you count a decade from '00 or from '01...

I'm with you, Prof. When most of the Western world was saying "Happy New Millennium", I was the sourpuss saying "no it freakin' ain't!".

Is it too much bother, LWHM, to rearrange your stats for us pedants?

:greengrin

[son of haggart]

Thanks for that LWHM – fortunately or unfortunately, I have been at all those momentous matches that you refer to

I would be interested in your opinion on why the disparity exists between what have been, for the most part two pretty comparable clubs? There are a number of reasons (excuses I hear you say!) that have swirled through my mind at various times, and I would be interested, given your insight, what you think the main factors have been?

Over a circa 125 year period it obviously cannot be a ‘coincidence’, although I think it could possibly be a serious of separate coincidences (if that makes sense) that when combined equal the disparity – however that necessarily means that Hibs have been unlucky in that these coincidences have always gone for you, or at least not against you – and im loathe to put it down to ‘luck’. So, some possibilities:

Hibs were ******ed in their growth from the start and so were at a disadvantage from the start – in less enlightened times, this could (and probably would) have extended to rigged draws, biased referees and unfair rulings.

Hibs are generally inconsistent – Hearts have far better record in average league placings, but I think im right in saying that (post war) anyway Hibs have finished higher on more occasions (I once saw a league table minus OF and Hibs were ahead with 16 league titles since the war, was a couple of years back) – we are either brilliant or rubbish (more frequently the latter) and rarely have solid mid-table seasons, meaning that when Hearts are bad, they are generally still mediocre at worst (as in now).

Good Hibs teams (no myth-making here, honestly) are generally packed full of flair players – you only need to look at Hibs legends to see the dearth of big Scottish defenders – in Scotland this has meant that even when good, we have always been vulnerable to the Scottish vices, which are of course more prevalent (and more effective) in derby matches. i.e. Famous Five were up against ‘Iron Curtain’ of Huns and solid (but no less good I must stress) hard men like Dave Mackay, who could mix it as well as play – AFAIK, Eddie Turnbull was the only similar player in famous five

The negative approach of the 80s early 90s saw Hibs at least partly responsible for helping Hearts to 22 (this is not to belittle the achievement)

Hibs main period of dominance coincided with playing each other only twice a year (I think – mid 60s to early 70s)

The fact that Hearts always have, for more than a decade now, been living way beyond their means have until this season been relatively immune from the consequences?

That Hearts have consistently spent more money? Perhaps given the feeling of natural born superiority that Hearts, as the city’s main team have had an obligation to strive to prove it over Hibs (this is not meant to be a dig, I do feel that Hearts as a club, have this – no bad thing necessarily), who have on occasion been more than happy to ‘cash-in’?

Following-on from the above, the intangible ‘X Factor’ – Hearts got on top early (perhaps due to point one) and it has therefore become a self-fulfilling prophecy

Better management – Hearts have had better owners/chairmen and team managers than Hibs?

As I say I do not know which of these (if any) is true, but I think it is an interesting discussion to be had…



That's an interesting analysis. I only go back to 1964 in terms of attending matches and I think I went to my first derby in 1969 - East of Scotland Shield - passed off to my mum as 'just a frendly' (ha ha)

I wouldn't agree with all of it. I think the flair thing doesn't really wash with me. For much of the early years (with players like Bobby Walker and Tommy Walker), Hearts had the 'flair reputation. If this has had an effect it may be as much about believing you own myth, or living up to it for managers and players. Spurs to some extent could be said to be suffering from that in England - a lack of focus on defence. The trophy winning teams from both sides of the town have had great central defenders/ hard midfielders who could 'play a bit'


I think there has certainly been a financial advantage for Hearts - Hibs origins were in the poorer side of the town though I doubt that has had much effect in recent years. Hearts crowds have been marginally better but it would be interesting ( a job for Davy) to factor average league crowds against the results for the derbies. It may be that Hears have just had better buying power.

I think psychology has been at work too. I started supporting in the mid 6os and I didn't see Hearts beat Hibs in a league game till 1974. For much of the late 60s 70s even when we got into a position to win we didn't believe we would. Hibs seem to have had longer 'ruts' like this and perhaps being second fiddle has to some extent become second nature and almost part of the deal (fans expectations are of being underdogs and it communicates itself to players)

Re the early years I think you may be right - a team of catholic origins would undoubtedly a) have had a smaller pool of potential players to draw upon and b) have been discriminated against consciously or unconsciously. I don't believe that is the case (except in relation to the OF) these days

[LHWM]

I'll put together a fuller reply.

In the early years (up to 1887) Hibs were the far better side.
In the 1920s Hearts had the best crowds in Scotland for 3 years but had one of their poorest footballing sides.

1983 to 1998 the major difference was John Robertson. You can apply the presence of a great goalscorer as a major factor

James McGhee at least 24
Bobby Walker 31
Tommy Walker 29
Robbo 27

NB the first 3 include local competitions

Psychology would also plat a big part in long non winning runs.

[hibs0666]

That's an interesting analysis. I only go back to 1964 in terms of attending matches and I think I went to my first derby in 1969 - East of Scotland Shield - passed off to my mum as 'just a frendly' (ha ha)

I wouldn't agree with all of it. I think the flair thing doesn't really wash with me. For much of the early years (with players like Bobby Walker and Tommy Walker), Hearts had the 'flair reputation. If this has had an effect it may be as much about believing you own myth, or living up to it for managers and players. Spurs to some extent could be said to be suffering from that in England - a lack of focus on defence. The trophy winning teams from both sides of the town have had great central defenders/ hard midfielders who could 'play a bit'


I think there has certainly been a financial advantage for Hearts - Hibs origins were in the poorer side of the town though I doubt that has had much effect in recent years. Hearts crowds have been marginally better but it would be interesting ( a job for Davy) to factor average league crowds against the results for the derbies. It may be that Hears have just had better buying power.

I think psychology has been at work too. I started supporting in the mid 6os and I didn't see Hearts beat Hibs in a league game till 1974. For much of the late 60s 70s even when we got into a position to win we didn't believe we would. Hibs seem to have had longer 'ruts' like this and perhaps being second fiddle has to some extent become second nature and almost part of the deal (fans expectations are of being underdogs and it communicates itself to players)

Re the early years I think you may be right - a team of catholic origins would undoubtedly a) have had a smaller pool of potential players to draw upon and b) have been discriminated against consciously or unconsciously. I don't believe that is the case (except in relation to the OF) these days

There is no doubt that the yams have had the benefit of being the establishment club, have held the upper Hand over Hibs in head to head over the years, and have won more trophies.

What I don't understand is, despite this dominance, why the yams enjoy only 10%-15% higher average attendance than Hibs.

There must be something inherently attractive about shouting for the Hibs and/or something deeply unattractive about the yams. I kind of suspect both.

[Steve-O]

Is this not them?

No, that's 2000 - present.