Scapegoats - 50/50 - Hibs Heros

[down-the-slope]

I have noticed that the players at hibs seem to be divided into 3 groups on .net

Scapegoats - those who its always their fault when we lose or play badly (and even if they / we don't) and they will never be Hibs class and anyone who dares to say otherwise is either a Jambo or an idiot

50/50 - Those who its OK to either criticise or praise with either being acceptable as long as its the current majority view.

Hibs Heros - Those who are considered Hibs class and who no criticism of is tollerated, and who's performances must be viewed with green tinted .net glasses. Anyone who does express criticism towards such players is either a Jambo or an idiot, or has it pointed out that its not such players fault as they are being played a)out of position b) play is affected by those in scapegoat category c) they are misunderstood etc etc

Is there an official list held somewhere :dunno: that can keep me right as I regularly seem to be failing to keep in step.

[TornadoHibby]

I have noticed that the players at hibs seem to be divided into 3 groups on .net

Scapegoats - those who its always their fault when we lose or play badly (and even if they / we don't) and they will never be Hibs class and anyone who dares to say otherwise is either a Jambo or an idiot

50/50 - Those who its OK to either criticise or praise with either being acceptable as long as its the current majority view.

Hibs Heros - Those who are considered Hibs class and who no criticism of is tollerated, and who's performances must be viewed with green tinted .net glasses. Anyone who does express criticism towards such players is either a Jambo or an idiot, or has it pointed out that its not such players fault as they are being played a)out of position b) play is affected by those in scapegoat category c) they are misunderstood etc etc

Is there an official list held somewhere :dunno: that can keep me right as I regularly seem to be failing to keep in step.

I think you may have a decent theory there but I think that you should keep your own mind on anything worthy of comment on here and say what YOU feel having considered the facts as that is the only way to enjoy the board IMO! :agree:

Happy New Year when it comes along later to everyone! :agree:

Let's hope for a decent second half to this season and maybe even for some competition success for the Hibees! :wink: :agree:

[Toaods]

Scapegoats - Maka, Nish, Thicot, Hanlon, Benji


50/50 - Hogg, Stevenson, Stack, Rankin


Hibs Heroes - Deek, Murray, Wotherspoon, Miller, Bamba, Stokes, Zemmama, McBride


not yet had enough of a run to be categorised - McCormack, Cregg, Galbraith, Byrne

[down-the-slope]

Scapegoats - Maka, Nish, Thicot, Hanlon, Benji


50/50 - Hogg, Stevenson, Stack, Rankin


Hibs Heroes - Deek, Murray, Wotherspoon, Miller, Bamba, Stokes, Zemmama, McBride


not yet had enough of a run to be categorised - McCormack, Cregg, Galbraith, Byrne

Ah see there is a list - is this definative :confused:...how long before a player gets categorised:confused:

[Toaods]

Ah see there is a list - is this definative :confused:...how long before a player gets categorised:confused:



That is the definitive list, which is constantly reviewed after every game, as like all good pros it only looks at the next game.

The length of time a player takes to be categorised is unlimited, until a great performance (even after a few minute son the park) moves you up..:faf:

[down-the-slope]

That is the definitive list, which is constantly reviewed after every game, as like all good pros it only looks at the next game.

The length of time a player takes to be categorised is unlimited, until a great performance (even after a few minute son the park) moves you up..:faf:

I though once you were categorised that there was it nothing could be done to either promote or demote you :confused:

This is so much more complicated than it first seemed - I'm never going to get this right...

Can we not just adopt the old fashioned method of each being allowed our own opinion - respected by others - and this be based on objective views of recent performances:dunno:

[lapsedhibee]

I have noticed that the players at hibs seem to be divided into 3 groups on .net

Scapegoats - those who its always their fault when we lose or play badly (and even if they / we don't) and they will never be Hibs class and anyone who dares to say otherwise is either a Jambo or an idiot

50/50 - Those who its OK to either criticise or praise with either being acceptable as long as its the current majority view.

Hibs Heros - Those who are considered Hibs class and who no criticism of is tollerated, and who's performances must be viewed with green tinted .net glasses. Anyone who does express criticism towards such players is either a Jambo or an idiot, or has it pointed out that its not such players fault as they are being played a)out of position b) play is affected by those in scapegoat category c) they are misunderstood etc etc

Is there an official list held somewhere :dunno: that can keep me right as I regularly seem to be failing to keep in step.

Think there's at least one other category besides these three, and that's Whipping Boy. Whereas Scapegoat is a player who is blamed for a defeat, even though others played worse, made more mistakes, etc, Whipping Boy is just someone to have a go at for any or no reason at all, even though it is acknowledged his performance did not contribute to a defeat. Thus Maka is a scapegoat because, even though he did not cause them, he was involved in all the Huns' goals last week. Alan O'Brien was a whipping boy - it was widely accepted that his presence on the pitch made no difference whatsoever to the result, so people would pick on him for wearing gloves.

Such fine distinctions should be borne in mind if the full benefit of slaughtering our own players before, during and after matches is to be felt.

[down-the-slope]

Think there's at least one other category besides these three, and that's Whipping Boy. Whereas Scapegoat is a player who is blamed for a defeat, even though others played worse, made more mistakes, etc, Whipping Boy is just someone to have a go at for any or no reason at all, even though it is acknowledged his performance did not contribute to a defeat. Thus Maka is a scapegoat because, even though he did not cause them, he was involved in all the Huns' goals last week. Alan O'Brien was a whipping boy - it was widely accepted that his presence on the pitch made no difference whatsoever to the result, so people would pick on him for wearing gloves.

Such fine distinctions should be borne in mind if the full benefit of slaughtering our own players before, during and after matches is to be felt.

Thanks lapsed...I think :confused:...so let me get this right, a Whipping boy is a scapegoat who does not need to even play to be considered fair game for abuse for any spurious reason ....is that right :dunno:

[matty_f]

I though once you were categorised that there was it nothing could be done to either promote or demote you :confused:

This is so much more complicated than it first seemed - I'm never going to get this right...

Can we not just adopt the old fashioned method of each being allowed our own opinion - respected by others - and this be based on objective views of recent performances:dunno:

You do realise that this is exactly what happens already? It's just that sometimes someone's opinion is different to the opinion of the majority of posters, and therefore people argue against it.

It's nothing to do with lists. If you ask the majority of people what they think of Liam Miller, for instance, most will say he's a cracking signing etc.

If you're the person that thinks he's rank, then expect to be argued with.

Part of being allowed an opinion is being able to accept that sometimes lots of people won't share that opinion and will make that known.

[down-the-slope]

any changes to the categories after today I should be aware of :rolleyes: