Dropping Jamie

[Billychaotic182]

Really? Why drop the one player who would have the most to play for. He’s playing to get into the World Cup squad and we drop him
For barker who couldn’t finish his dinner?!? That was horrific. Totally don’t understand if. Why change a team that hasn’t lost in 11?

[JeMeSouviens]

Barker has all the pace and skill you could want but given that his %age of end product is woeful.

[Zazu62]

Shocking decision to drop him

[Billychaotic182]

Also to not play Bartley at all? Mind blowing.

[IGRIGI]

I was worried going q up front as it reminded me of when we put Stokes up front on his own and we struggled for goals.

Kamberi and MaClaren are the reasons we were in for a shout for 2nd, mental to change it tonight.

[Greenbeard]

Barker has all the pace and skill you could want but given that his %age of end product is woeful.
Agree, but he was our main (only) threat and a couple of his attempts cutting in off his right foot were decent efforts. Woeful with his left peg though. I think Kamberi missed McLaren but even when they were together it still misfired.

[Winston Ingram]

Really? Why drop the one player who would have the most to play for. He’s playing to get into the World Cup squad and we drop him
For barker who couldn’t finish his dinner?!? That was horrific. Totally don’t understand if. Why change a team that hasn’t lost in 11?

Maclaren is *****. Anyone who watched him at Pittodrie wouldn’t have questioned his absence tonight. He was ***** when he came on. Shaw would’ve been a better option

[Scouse Hibee]

Maclaren is *****. Anyone who watched him at Pittodrie wouldn’t have questioned his absence tonight. He was ***** when he came on. Shaw would’ve been a better option

What about his other games?

[PiemanP]

I don’t think Maclaren can complain at being dropped, but it should have been for oil shaw, and not to change the whole formation that had been working really well. Barker to me remains at best an impact sub.

Also madness not to start marv in these games, especially at tyncastle IMO. Draw would have been fine tonight too.

[Frazerbob]

I don’t think Maclaren can complain at being dropped, but it should have been for oil shaw, and not to change the whole formation that had been working really well. Barker to me remains at best an impact sub.

Also madness not to start marv in these games, especially at tyncastle IMO. Draw would have been fine tonight too.

The draw would’ve been fine tonight. Unfortunately NL didn’t know that.

[MWHIBBIES]

What about his other games?Dangerous play trying to be logical after a derby loss. Everyone is ***** right now and nothing will change that.

You are spot on. Maclarens record so far speaks for itself.

[Lee Marvin]

Changing the whole shape to shoehorn in a barker was a very very strange call, especially since we were undefeated for over 3 months playing 3 at the back and 2 up front.

This is what cost us the points imo.

Still absolutely gutted/raging this morning!!!

[Aim Here]

I think the issue is that Lennon wanted both Barker and Boyle on the wings. If you go that route, you want 4 at the back (because you probably shouldn't rely on Barker to defend left-back) and so you only have one frontman, unless you want to drop a central midfielder, and why would this Hibs team ever want to do that?

It's a tactical decision, rather than having one player be a drop-in replacement for another. I don't think it's a slight against Maclaren, just a tactical decision which didn't work out.

I'm more perturbed that Whittaker is getting game time above Bartley.

[Centre Hawf]

Dropping one half of the inform strike partnership in the country was a ludicrous decision that bit Lennon on the backside.

[Golden Bear]

Also to not play Bartley at all? Mind blowing.

:agree:

Bartley has always been outstanding against hertz. He would have been my number 1 pick on the teamsheet.

Lennon has said in the past that Tynie is not the place where you can play with 2 wide players yet that is exactly what he tried to do. It's baffling to say the least.

[jeffers]

Changing the whole shape to shoehorn in a barker was a very very strange call, especially since we were undefeated for over 3 months playing 3 at the back and 2 up front.

This is what cost us the points imo.

Still absolutely gutted/raging this morning!!!

That was initially my thoughts and I'd definitely have started Bartley, he is a must in derbies at Tynecastle. But in NL's defence he can't legislate for so many poor performances. The usually reliable Stevenson switching off, SJM and Darren McGregor having their worst games in a long time, Kamberi being largely ineffective. I could go on through the rest of the starting 11 as other than Ambrose I'm struggling to think of any others who came close to receiving pass marks. I thought beforehand his selection/tactics were wrong, but when so many players have an off night it doesn't matter what the tactics are.

[Billy Whizz]

Maclaren is *****. Anyone who watched him at Pittodrie wouldn’t have questioned his absence tonight. He was ***** when he came on. Shaw would’ve been a better option

Go and give it a rest please, starting to get a bit fed up of your McLaren bashing

[Elephant Stone]

:agree:

Bartley has always been outstanding against hertz. He would have been my number 1 pick on the teamsheet.

Lennon has said in the past that Tynie is not the place where you can play with 2 wide players yet that is exactly what he tried to do. It's baffling to say the least.

I was more baffled when he decided to put Barker up front and go with no wide players. He was our most dangerous player by a mile and was giving their right back hell, was completely wasted when he got put up front.