“Paul Hanlon says Hibs boss Jack Ross has built on Neil Lennon’s positivity”

[Stuart93]

I can’t be the only one who doesn’t see it? Saying Jack Ross has continued to give us belief in games against the old firm.

In games against the old firm so far under JR we’ve managed one point.

If you’re going to come out with stuff like this in the papers at least make sure the results back up what you’re saying

[The Count]

Thats my only concern about our manager.As yet he has not laid a glove on a team with a bigger budget.unfortunately that includes Hearts.The posotive is we take care of clubs with smaller budgets.But he has to rectify my first point.

[HFC93]

I can’t be the only one who doesn’t see it? Saying Jack Ross has continued to give us belief in games against the old firm.

In games against the old firm so far under JR we’ve managed one point.

If you’re going to come out with stuff like this in the papers at least make sure the results back up what you’re saying

As a counter, I would argue that we are one of the only teams that have laid a glove on Rangers this season.

[Jones28]

Thats my only concern about our manager.As yet he has not laid a glove on a team with a bigger budget.unfortunately that includes Hearts.The posotive is we take care of clubs with smaller budgets.But he has to rectify my first point.

We did beat them last season, at Tynecastle.

[hughio]

I can’t be the only one who doesn’t see it? Saying Jack Ross has continued to give us belief in games against the old firm.

In games against the old firm so far under JR we’ve managed one point.

If you’re going to come out with stuff like this in the papers at least make sure the results back up what you’re saying

"Journaist"Moira Gordon phones player Pual Hanlon
Paul make a few comments.
Published in Evening News as a story.


That's modern newspapers...sports section anyway.
Meaningless waffle for the most part..IMO.

[Keith_M]

Hanlon's hardly going to say something like, "we've basically accepted defeat before we even go onto the pitch".

I realise they have to actually back it up when the game starts but surely it's better to say something positive before the game.

[Brightside]

Imagine if PH said.... aye we've gone a bit backwards under Jack Ross.

We are 4th in the league.

[WhileTheChief..]

“Lennon’s positivity” - good to hear. I always thought the players liked playing under him. If it’s the same playing for Ross then that’s got to be a good thing.

[Brightside]

In other news JR confirmed talks are ongoing with Rocky and Newell.

[matty_f]

I think he's right - we didn't give a bad account of ourselves at Parkhead last time, Celtic had to play well to beat us, and we took a point off Rangers in our last match, with a good performance.

I think we need to remember at just how high a level Rangers and Celtic are having to play at the moment, with Rangers in particular looking very impressive.

The biggest difference for me is that we haven't seen the sort of performances where we play above our level (like we did under Lennon or Stubbs in big games) often enough in bigger games. I think there's more that Ross could get out of the side in these games.

The flip side to that is that we do seem to have found a level of consistency which sees us compete well in the majority of games, which we didn't always have under Stubbs and Lennon.

[B.H.F.C]

The biggest difference for me is that we haven't seen the sort of performances where we play above our level (like we did under Lennon or Stubbs in big games) often enough in bigger games. I think there's more that Ross could get out of the side in these games.


Agree with this. The one game where we have come close to doing it was against Rangers at Easter Road. It was a different type of performance (under Ross) where we went toe to toe with them and were really aggressive. That’s what we need to do tomorrow. If we don’t, it’ll be a rerun of the game at Parkhead.

[MWHIBBIES]

Thats my only concern about our manager.As yet he has not laid a glove on a team with a bigger budget.unfortunately that includes Hearts.The posotive is we take care of clubs with smaller budgets.But he has to rectify my first point.

Eh. Beat Hearts 2-0. Beat Aberdeen 3-0. Drew 2-2 with huns. Definitely has laid a glove, despite an overall poor record.

[Tyler Durden]

Thats my only concern about our manager.As yet he has not laid a glove on a team with a bigger budget.unfortunately that includes Hearts.The posotive is we take care of clubs with smaller budgets.But he has to rectify my first point.

Our last 2 games vs Rangers were 2-2 and 2-1 to them. We beat Hearts and Aberdeen this time last year.

You might have a point overall but it’s bit daft to suggest we’ve not laid a glove on these teams

[Tyler Durden]

Agree with this. The one game where we have come close to doing it was against Rangers at Easter Road. It was a different type of performance (under Ross) where we went toe to toe with them and were really aggressive. That’s what we need to do tomorrow. If we don’t, it’ll be a rerun of the game at Parkhead.

Have to say, the aggression and intensity we showed in the 2-2 vs Rangers just hasn’t been replicated anywhere near enough. That game is the template for how we should perform. Even if we’d have lost that game everyone could see that the players went about it the right way and they would’ve been applauded.

Why we didn’t do similar at Hampden or against Aberdeen leaves me bemused.

[B.H.F.C]

Have to say, the aggression and intensity we showed in the 2-2 vs Rangers just hasn’t been replicated anywhere near enough. That game is the template for how we should perform. Even if we’d have lost that game everyone could see that the players went about it the right way and they would’ve been applauded.

Why we didn’t do similar at Hampden or against Aberdeen leaves me bemused.

It frustrates me. My biggest criticism this year is that I think the players play within themselves a lot of the time. It feels, to me, they’re playing the way they are asked to play, but I think there is more in there.

[Pagan Hibernia]

Agree with this. The one game where we have come close to doing it was against Rangers at Easter Road. It was a different type of performance (under Ross) where we went toe to toe with them and were really aggressive. That’s what we need to do tomorrow. If we don’t, it’ll be a rerun of the game at Parkhead.

we didn’t play badly at parkhead.

[hibbysam]

Lennon had a side that included McGinn McGeouch which in turn allowed Allan to flourish. It’s a tad easier to go toe to toe with them with players that were ultimately better than what we have now (no disrespect to those here now, McGinn has gone to a far higher level). Those two sides are also far better now than they were then, rangers especially.

[B.H.F.C]

we didn’t play badly at parkhead.

I know that was the general feeling. But we lost 3-0 and the goalie never had a save to make. Granted, we had a few openings early on which we wasted but we were nowhere near as competitive as we’d been against Rangers the week before.

[B.H.F.C]

Lennon had a side that included McGinn McGeouch which in turn allowed Allan to flourish. It’s a tad easier to go toe to toe with them with players that were ultimately better than what we have now (no disrespect to those here now, McGinn has gone to a far higher level). Those two sides are also far better now than they were then, rangers especially.

I don’t think you can say Celtic have improved from what they were like in our first season back up (Their second season under Rodgers).

[Oscar T Grouch]

Thats my only concern about our manager.As yet he has not laid a glove on a team with a bigger budget.unfortunately that includes Hearts.The posotive is we take care of clubs with smaller budgets.But he has to rectify my first point.

The huns have gone through the first 14 games letting in 3 goals, we have scored 2 of them, they've only dropped points againsts 2 teams, we were one of those teams. We have beaten Aberdeen and hearts under Ross, the only 'bigger budget' team we've not laid a glove on is Celtc, we could do that tomorrow.

[JimBHibees]

We did beat them last season, at Tynecastle.

Also beat Aberdeen 3 0 a year ago.

[JimBHibees]

we didn’t play badly at parkhead.

Personally thought that was a canter for Celtic early goal, second just before half time. Early part of the second half we were imo going through the motions. Need to play much nettter tomorrow

[hibbysam]

I don’t think you can say Celtic have improved from what they were like in our first season back up (Their second season under Rodgers).

Hard to tell, they were so dominant back then, but how much of that was down to how bad the rest were? They’re slightly worse this season but last season they were arguably better than the Rodgers Celtic side.

We’re a work in progress, we’ll have some good weeks (rangers at home, first half of Celtic away I thought we were good), and we’ll have some bad results against them (Aberdeen etc).

To try and compare this side to our side of 2017/18 is just wrong, lennon set us up to try not to lose the first two games we played Celtic as well, until it went pear shaped and he had no choice but to have a go at them (2-0 down at home, 1-0 down away, 2-0 down in the cup semi).

[Magpie]

Ross has a combined total of 13 games against Celtic, Rangers, Hearts and Aberdeen since joining. 2 wins, 1 draw, 10 losses.

[B.H.F.C]

Hard to tell, they were so dominant back then, but how much of that was down to how bad the rest were? They’re slightly worse this season but last season they were arguably better than the Rodgers Celtic side.

We’re a work in progress, we’ll have some good weeks (rangers at home, first half of Celtic away I thought we were good), and we’ll have some bad results against them (Aberdeen etc).

To try and compare this side to our side of 2017/18 is just wrong, lennon set us up to try not to lose the first two games we played Celtic as well, until it went pear shaped and he had no choice but to have a go at them (2-0 down at home, 1-0 down away, 2-0 down in the cup semi).

Na they were better then. They were just off the back of an unbeaten season and qualifying for the Champions League.

Can accept that sometimes it just won’t happen, but our approach in The Rangers game was totally different to the other games mentioned. Need to replicate that tomorrow to have a chance. Can even accept that if we play well and they play well, they’ll probably win because they have better players. But we need to do more to give ourselves a chance than we have in a lot of the ‘big’ games under Ross.

Also, don’t see what’s wrong with comparing. We got results against some of these sides regularly back then, less so now and I think a lot of that is down to the approach. Even the month before Lennon left, when we had an inferior squad to what we had the year before, we still managed to beat Celtic at ER and draw with The Rangers at Ibrox.

[Northernhibee]

A big part of the issue is that since the days of Lennon, the two Glasgow teams are much, much stronger than before. Aberdeen we should beat more often but by and large they still are a team who are in front of where we are.

[Stuart93]

Ross has a combined total of 13 games against Celtic, Rangers, Hearts and Aberdeen since joining. 2 wins, 1 draw, 10 losses.

That’s a horrendous stat. Must improve.

[Stuart93]

A big part of the issue is that since the days of Lennon, the two Glasgow teams are much, much stronger than before. Aberdeen we should beat more often but by and large they still are a team who are in front of where we are.

Celtic aren’t stronger now than they were under Brendan Rodgers. That’s guff

[hibbysam]

Na they were better then. They were just off the back of an unbeaten season and qualifying for the Champions League.

Can accept that sometimes it just won’t happen, but our approach in The Rangers game was totally different to the other games mentioned. Need to replicate that tomorrow to have a chance. Can even accept that if we play well and they play well, they’ll probably win because they have better players. But we need to do more to give ourselves a chance than we have in a lot of the ‘big’ games under Ross.

Also, don’t see what’s wrong with comparing. We got results against some of these sides regularly back then, less so now and I think a lot of that is down to the approach. Even the month before Lennon left, when we had an inferior squad to what we had the year before, we still managed to beat Celtic at ER and draw with The Rangers at Ibrox.

They also got pumped 4-0 by Hearts and we’re getting 7 put past them in Europe. They were hardly some top drawer team. They went on a far better run last season than they did that season.

Had we taken one of our two very good chances at parkhead at 1-0 then it’s a totally different game, we were aggressive first half, we just didn’t get the rewards and lost the second goal at a bad time.

Do you really think the beginning of those three games I mentioned vs Celtic under lennon were aggressive? We were passive and men behind the ball, went behind, 1-0 once and 2-0 twice and had to chase it, had nothing to lose. I’m not even going to discuss the rangers games as they were rank back then and a shadow of the side they are now.

[Since90+2]

A big part of the issue is that since the days of Lennon, the two Glasgow teams are much, much stronger than before. Aberdeen we should beat more often but by and large they still are a team who are in front of where we are.

No they are not. Rangers are better but this Celtic side is miles away from being as good as Brendan Rodgers side.

[B.H.F.C]

They also got pumped 4-0 by Hearts and we’re getting 7 put past them in Europe. They were hardly some top drawer team. They went on a far better run last season than they did that season.

Had we taken one of our two very good chances at parkhead at 1-0 then it’s a totally different game, we were aggressive first half, we just didn’t get the rewards and lost the second goal at a bad time.

Do you really think the beginning of those three games I mentioned vs Celtic under lennon were aggressive? We were passive and men behind the ball, went behind, 1-0 once and 2-0 twice and had to chase it, had nothing to lose. I’m not even going to discuss the rangers games as they were rank back then and a shadow of the side they are now.

The game we went behind at Parkhead, drew 2-2, was a brilliant performance at a time when Celtic were about 60 odd domestic games unbeaten. 2-0 down at ER we forced our way back in to the game. 2-0 down against them this season, game was over and they strolled through the remainder of the game. The semi final was the exception, he got that totally wrong, obviously. Still managed to make a game of it second half once we did have a go. Two games under Ross at Parkhead have been easy for Celtic.

We weren’t aggressive in the game at Parkhead this year for me. Duffy misjudged a couple of balls, we got in and wasted good chances. We didn’t press anything like we did the week before against Rangers, like when we let Callum McGregor have all the time in the world to pick his spot. Do you really think our approach in the Celtic game was as it was the week previous against Rangers? The way we worked in the Rangers game is the only way to get a result against either.

[hibbysam]

The game we went behind at Parkhead, drew 2-2, was a brilliant performance at a time when Celtic were about 60 odd domestic games unbeaten. 2-0 down at ER we forced our way back in to the game. 2-0 down against them this season, game was over and they strolled through the remainder of the game. The semi final was the exception, he got that totally wrong, obviously. Still managed to make a game of it second half once we did have a go. Two games under Ross at Parkhead have been easy for Celtic.

We weren’t aggressive in the game at Parkhead this year for me. Duffy misjudged a couple of balls, we got in and wasted good chances. We didn’t press anything like we did the week before against Rangers, like when we let Callum McGregor have all the time in the world to pick his spot. Do you really think our approach in the Celtic game was as it was the week previous against Rangers? The way we worked in the Rangers game is the only way to get a result against either.

Not having that about those Lennon games. We were hopeless until they scored. Seriously passive and really defensive, sitting back and giving them the ball. It was like a flick of a switch when we went behind. All three of those games we started extremely slow and were nowhere near aggressive or in their faces.

I think our approach was the same as the rangers game. Goals change games though. We got the goal against rangers, we never got the goal against Celtic. It’s no surprise to hear them saying that was far and away their best performance of the season, and when they are at their best there is nothing we can do about it.

Let’s not kid ourselves on, 7 times out of 10 we will lose against the old firm. Whether we like it or not, that’s what budgets do. By the same token we should be beating the bottom teams in the league the same amount of times. By and large we have been. Our real test is Aberdeen and our record should be better there IMO.

[Since452]

Not having that about those Lennon games. We were hopeless until they scored. Seriously passive and really defensive, sitting back and giving them the ball. It was like a flick of a switch when we went behind. All three of those games we started extremely slow and were nowhere near aggressive or in their faces.

I think our approach was the same as the rangers game. Goals change games though. We got the goal against rangers, we never got the goal against Celtic. It’s no surprise to hear them saying that was far and away their best performance of the season, and when they are at their best there is nothing we can do about it.

Let’s not kid ourselves on, 7 times out of 10 we will lose against the old firm. Whether we like it or not, that’s what budgets do. By the same token we should be beating the bottom teams in the league the same amount of times. By and large we have been. Our real test is Aberdeen and our record should be better there IMO.

Spot on. Budget even shows when it comes to Aberdeen.

[hibbysam]

Spot on. Budget even shows when it comes to Aberdeen.

It does but we’re closer to Aberdeen, and our recent record is very poor in comparison. Would expect to get a bit closer in regards to them.

[B.H.F.C]

Not having that about those Lennon games. We were hopeless until they scored. Seriously passive and really defensive, sitting back and giving them the ball. It was like a flick of a switch when we went behind. All three of those games we started extremely slow and were nowhere near aggressive or in their faces.

I think our approach was the same as the rangers game. Goals change games though. We got the goal against rangers, we never got the goal against Celtic. It’s no surprise to hear them saying that was far and away their best performance of the season, and when they are at their best there is nothing we can do about it.

Let’s not kid ourselves on, 7 times out of 10 we will lose against the old firm. Whether we like it or not, that’s what budgets do. By the same token we should be beating the bottom teams in the league the same amount of times. By and large we have been. Our real test is Aberdeen and our record should be better there IMO.

Didn’t think the Rangers and Celtic games were remotely similar. You just need to look how rattled Rangers were at full time. We got about them in a way that we didn’t do to Celtic. I’m no sure there is really any debate to be had there to be honest.

Even if you disagree about how we started those games against Celtic a few years ago, you can’t deny that we had a bit dig and belief to get back in to them that we’ve not shown in our last couple against Celtic.

[B.H.F.C]

It does but we’re closer to Aberdeen, and our recent record is very poor in comparison. Would expect to get a bit closer in regards to them.

Agree with you on this point. The gap isn’t such that we should be performing so poorly against them.

[hibbysam]

Didn’t think the Rangers and Celtic games were remotely similar. You just need to look how rattled Rangers were at full time. We got about them in a way that we didn’t do to Celtic. I’m no sure there is really any debate to be had there to be honest.

Even if you disagree about how we started those games against Celtic a few years ago, you can’t deny that we had a bit dig and belief to get back in to them that we’ve not shown in our last couple against Celtic.

The games panned out completely different though. That wasn’t due to our approach, Celtic scored when we never, we were well in the game first half and arguably better for lots of it. Second half was poor but that’s mostly what the second goal did to us.

Easy to say when a player like John McGinn puts his head down and drives us forward. Unfortunately we don’t have him now. We have to understand that. When a team like Celtic go 2-0 up, it’s few and far between that you get back into the game. They were outstanding second half.

[Andy74]

Didn’t think the Rangers and Celtic games were remotely similar. You just need to look how rattled Rangers were at full time. We got about them in a way that we didn’t do to Celtic. I’m no sure there is really any debate to be had there to be honest.

Even if you disagree about how we started those games against Celtic a few years ago, you can’t deny that we had a bit dig and belief to get back in to them that we’ve not shown in our last couple against Celtic.

Perhaps Celtic are actually better than some think?

We played pretty well at Parkhead but we were largely pretty easily dealt with in the end. Think they were much better against us than Rangers were. It’s not all about what we try and do.

[B.H.F.C]

Perhaps Celtic are actually better than some think?

We played pretty well at Parkhead but we were largely pretty easily dealt with in the end. Think they were much better against us than Rangers were. It’s not all about what we try and do.

Didn’t see it that way. Rangers weren’t poor against us. We did everything better than we did the next week though from our quality on the ball to what we did without it.

[B.H.F.C]

The games panned out completely different though. That wasn’t due to our approach, Celtic scored when we never, we were well in the game first half and arguably better for lots of it. Second half was poor but that’s mostly what the second goal did to us.

Easy to say when a player like John McGinn puts his head down and drives us forward. Unfortunately we don’t have him now. We have to understand that. When a team like Celtic go 2-0 up, it’s few and far between that you get back into the game. They were outstanding second half.

We don’t have John McGinn but have had results against Celtic since he left. We totally outplayed them at Easter Road withStevie Mallan playing as a holding midfielder.

As for the way the games panned out we also went behind against Rangers, with a lot less time to play but we had more about us that day. We went behind against Celtic and it was done.

[Andy74]

Didn’t see it that way. Rangers weren’t poor against us. We did everything better than we did the next week though from our quality on the ball to what we did without it.

I didn’t think Rangers were poor either but Celtic were better. Probably played their best game of the season against us and that makes it very difficult to do the same things as in a home game v Rangers.

[hibbysam]

We don’t have John McGinn but have had results against Celtic since he left. We totally outplayed them at Easter Road withStevie Mallan playing as a holding midfielder.

As for the way the games panned out we also went behind against Rangers, with a lot less time to play but we had more about us that day. We went behind against Celtic and it was done.

We responded far better to going a goal down against Celtic than we did against rangers. At 1-0 down we created two good chances and a number more decent half chances. At no point we’re we two behind against rangers. Rangers also could’ve scored multiple more goals against us had they taken fairly straight forward chances.

You disagree which is fine, but goals change games (we scored early against rangers and scored the equaliser against the run of play, failed to take chances against Celtic and they took theirs) and secondly Celtic were extremely good against us whereas it was probably Rangers’ poorest display of the season, we aren’t good enough to have an impact on every single team we play.

[B.H.F.C]

We responded far better to going a goal down against Celtic than we did against rangers. At 1-0 down we created two good chances and a number more decent half chances. At no point we’re we two behind against rangers. Rangers also could’ve scored multiple more goals against us had they taken fairly straight forward chances.

You disagree which is fine, but goals change games (we scored early against rangers and scored the equaliser against the run of play, failed to take chances against Celtic and they took theirs) and secondly Celtic were extremely good against us whereas it was probably Rangers’ poorest display of the season, we aren’t good enough to have an impact on every single team we play.

We did things well against Rangers that we didn’t do well against Celtic. We took some of our chances, we competed better and whilst Rangers missed chances, Celtic probably missed more the next week.

If we compete like we did against Rangers we’ll give Celtic a game tomorrow. If we gift them goals and allow them free hits from 25 yards, like at Parkhead, it’ll be the same outcome.

[MWHIBBIES]

Not having that about those Lennon games. We were hopeless until they scored. Seriously passive and really defensive, sitting back and giving them the ball. It was like a flick of a switch when we went behind. All three of those games we started extremely slow and were nowhere near aggressive or in their faces.

I think our approach was the same as the rangers game. Goals change games though. We got the goal against rangers, we never got the goal against Celtic. It’s no surprise to hear them saying that was far and away their best performance of the season, and when they are at their best there is nothing we can do about it.

Let’s not kid ourselves on, 7 times out of 10 we will lose against the old firm. Whether we like it or not, that’s what budgets do. By the same token we should be beating the bottom teams in the league the same amount of times. By and large we have been. Our real test is Aberdeen and our record should be better there IMO.

Between 2014/15 and 2018/19 I'm willing to bet our record is MUCH better than that. No real reason it cant be again.

[hibbysam]

Between 2014/15 and 2018/19 I'm willing to bet our record is MUCH better than that. No real reason it cant be again.

That’s because Rangers were utter rank. You can find spells all over where our record will be better or worse than that at times, however look back over the history, I’d bet even more that our record is there or thereabouts. If we get better than that then we are seriously overachieving or they are seriously underachieving. Our record at home recently has been good against Celtic, however we have beaten them a couple of times this century away, why folk think that should change now is beyond me.

[hibbysam]

We did things well against Rangers that we didn’t do well against Celtic. We took some of our chances, we competed better and whilst Rangers missed chances, Celtic probably missed more the next week.

If we compete like we did against Rangers we’ll give Celtic a game tomorrow. If we gift them goals and allow them free hits from 25 yards, like at Parkhead, it’ll be the same outcome.

We didn’t compete better first half against rangers than we did against Celtic. We never took a chance like we did against rangers. That’s different to competing. We allowed McGregor a shot yes, but in the same vein we allowed rangers free reign down our left, and left their top scorer unmarked in the box for the equaliser. We had more shots against Celtic than we did against rangers, we just never took any of the chances at key moments.

[B.H.F.C]

We didn’t compete better first half against rangers than we did against Celtic. We never took a chance like we did against rangers. That’s different to competing. We allowed McGregor a shot yes, but in the same vein we allowed rangers free reign down our left, and left their top scorer unmarked in the box for the equaliser. We had more shots against Celtic than we did against rangers, we just never took any of the chances at key moments.

We were better in every aspect of the game in the Rangers game for me. Defensively we didn’t give the same gifts and we were better in the final third. We were definitely more aggressive as well, as demonstrated by the way The Rangers reacted IMO.

[hibbysam]

We were better in every aspect of the game in the Rangers game for me. Defensively we didn’t give the same gifts and we were better in the final third. We were definitely more aggressive as well, as demonstrated by the way The Rangers reacted IMO.

Both Rangers had 19 shots to Celtics 20, Rangers had more possession than Celtic had, they were pretty identical in performances (first half especially of the Celtic game). Yes Celtic took over second half but that was more based on their class than anything we did. Ok, we caught them a couple of times first half with elbows (accidentally of course) and got a draw which Porto managed to wind them up about, we took our chances when they came, we didn’t against Celtic. The first goal against rangers, if that’s not a gift then I’ve no idea what is. It took a world class stop from Rocky to get that draw in the end.

[B.H.F.C]

Both Rangers had 19 shots to Celtics 20, Rangers had more possession than Celtic had, they were pretty identical in performances (first half especially of the Celtic game). Yes Celtic took over second half but that was more based on their class than anything we did. Ok, we caught them a couple of times first half with elbows (accidentally of course) and got a draw which Porto managed to wind them up about, we took our chances when they came, we didn’t against Celtic. The first goal against rangers, if that’s not a gift then I’ve no idea what is. It took a world class stop from Rocky to get that draw in the end.

I honestly don’t know how you can describe a 2-2 draw and a 3-0 defeat as an identical performance!

You reference Rocky, he made a world class stop against Rangers and gifted the second at Parkhead. Go through the team, nobody contributed at Parkhead, what they did at Easter Road against The Rangers.

[hibbydog]

Ross has a combined total of 13 games against Celtic, Rangers, Hearts and Aberdeen since joining. 2 wins, 1 draw, 10 losses.

No argument to be made. Must do better.

[hibbysam]

I honestly don’t know how you can describe a 2-2 draw and a 3-0 defeat as an identical performance!

You reference Rocky, he made a world class stop against Rangers and gifted the second at Parkhead. Go through the team, nobody contributed at Parkhead, what they did at Easter Road against The Rangers.

You look at the two results and automatically presume they were worlds apart. Go into detail in them and there’s very little difference. If Wright misses the chance against rangers could we have ended up losing easily? Yes. If one of the chances against Celtic go in, would the game have been different? Yes. Your the one that mentioned standing off from
25 yards out (referencing the McGregor goal) when the exact same thing happened for the rangers first goal. If you can’t look past the results and see huge similarities in our performances then fair enough. Celtic scored right at the start and right at the end of the first half, in between we could’ve score multiple goals due to our intensity and willingness to get up the park.

[James Stephen]

Between 2014/15 and 2018/19 I'm willing to bet our record is MUCH better than that. No real reason it cant be again.

Surely thats the exception that proves the rule though?

Rangers were weaker than they had probably ever been in their entire history, and Hibs had a particuarly strong team, therefore making the gap way narrower than it would normally be.

Rangers are much stronger now, and we are weaker, and the so that gap is way bigger.

It was our strong record that was the anomaly, rather than our current one.

[Iggy Pope]

Surely thats the exception that proves the rule though?

Rangers were weaker than they had probably ever been in their entire history, and Hibs had a particuarly strong team, therefore making the gap way narrower than it would normally be.

Rangers are much stronger now, and we are weaker, and the so that gap is way bigger.

It was our strong record that was the anomaly, rather than our current one.

What kept you Hibs? Line 2 it seems in answer to your question sir.

[B.H.F.C]

You look at the two results and automatically presume they were worlds apart. Go into detail in them and there’s very little difference. If Wright misses the chance against rangers could we have ended up losing easily? Yes. If one of the chances against Celtic go in, would the game have been different? Yes. Your the one that mentioned standing off from
25 yards out (referencing the McGregor goal) when the exact same thing happened for the rangers first goal. If you can’t look past the results and see huge similarities in our performances then fair enough. Celtic scored right at the start and right at the end of the first half, in between we could’ve score multiple goals due to our intensity and willingness to get up the park.

Why ask hypothetical questions? Surely just reflect on what actually happened?

The only similarities are that we created chances and conceded chances in both games. We made less defensive errors in The Rangers game and we were more clinical in the final third so, to me, the performance isn’t identical.

And it just had a different feel in how we went about it for me.

[hibbysam]

Why ask hypothetical questions? Surely just reflect on what actually happened?

The hypothetical questions were what happened in the opposite games and why they ended up so different in terms of scoreline. Fairly straight forward. Nothing to do with aggression.

The only similarities are that we created chances and conceded chances in both games. We made less defensive errors in The Rangers game and we were more clinical in the final third so, to me, the performance isn’t identical.

We never made less defensive errors against rangers though. We were less clinical, that doesnt mean we were less competitive or aggressive though. We had to be aggressive to get into positions to create and miss chances, which was the whole argument.

[B.H.F.C]

We never made less defensive errors against rangers though. We were less clinical, that doesnt mean we were less competitive or aggressive though. We had to be aggressive to get into positions to create and miss chances, which was the whole argument.

It was my original argument and I stand by that. The Celtic game was done an hour before the full time whistle blew but we went for 90 minutes in the Rangers game. We fought and scrapped, held on when we had to and got back in.

You’re clearly taking the opposite view to me. But you’ve described things as ‘pretty identical’ and that couldn’t be further from the truth when you break down what each individual player did in each game.

[Andy74]

It was my original argument and I stand by that. The Celtic game was done an hour before the full time whistle blew but we went for 90 minutes in the Rangers game. We fought and scrapped, held on when we had to and got back in.

You’re clearly taking the opposite view to me. But you’ve described things as ‘pretty identical’ and that couldn’t be further from the truth when you break down what each individual player did in each game.

Different games against different opposition though - there is more than one team on the pitch and sometimes you can only do what the opponents allow you to.

Celtic on form at home are a different proposition to Rangers at Easter Road probably not having their best day.

[B.H.F.C]

Different games against different opposition though - there is more than one team on the pitch and sometimes you can only do what the opponents allow you to.

Celtic on form at home are a different proposition to Rangers at Easter Road probably not having their best day.

Surely that works both ways though and they can only do what their opponent (us) allowed them? Celtic had control against us that Rangers didn’t and that was down to us not doing certain things as well as they did the week before IMO.

[USAHibee]

Can we not just set settle the side of positivity.

As fans we seem to jump on every little piece of negativity.

I might be niave but let's just try and support
the team like the good old days.

Everyone seems to be written off after one bad pass, mistake or result.

I suppose we are all a bit board at the moment
And the smallest issues are accentuated but watching the team from afar there is so much to be positive about..

[hibbysam]

It was my original argument and I stand by that. The Celtic game was done an hour before the full time whistle blew but we went for 90 minutes in the Rangers game. We fought and scrapped, held on when we had to and got back in.

You’re clearly taking the opposite view to me. But you’ve described things as ‘pretty identical’ and that couldn’t be further from the truth when you break down what each individual player did in each game.

Our performances were pretty identical. The game wasn’t done an hour before the end. Celtic killed the game second half by being so good. Your completely missing the point that goals change games. If you seriously don’t believe that we were aggressive and competitive in the first half at Celtic park then fair enough, that’s your opinion. The game certainly ran away from us but that’s what happens when a top side turn up against you and play at the top of their game.

We had something to hold onto against rangers, we took a chance, we then got battered a bit and went behind, we then took another chance and then held on in the end. The most important aspects? Taking chances. We will create chances in every game, we will be aggressive in majority of our games. We won’t take chances in every game but that’s football.

[wookie70]

Surely that works both ways though and they can only do what their opponent (us) allowed them? Celtic had control against us that Rangers didn’t and that was down to us not doing certain things as well as they did the week before IMO.

That would be my point of view too. We went toe to toe with The Rangers. We were strong and aggressive and stopped them playing their game. Celtic had a very easy afternoon in comparison although we did create a good few chances. Celtic are under huge pressure as is Lennon. He is a game away from the sack and looking like blowing a chance of history. We need to be right in their face from the first whistle and try to rattle them. Same as we did against a better team In The Rangers. We have been ridiculously passive in far too many games this year including three big games in the semi and two Dons matches. Ross needs to make sure we can play at the level we did against The Rangers far more often

[B.H.F.C]

Our performances were pretty identical. The game wasn’t done an hour before the end. Celtic killed the game second half by being so good. Your completely missing the point that goals change games. If you seriously don’t believe that we were aggressive and competitive in the first half at Celtic park then fair enough, that’s your opinion. The game certainly ran away from us but that’s what happens when a top side turn up against you and play at the top of their game.

We had something to hold onto against rangers, we took a chance, we then got battered a bit and went behind, we then took another chance and then held on in the end. The most important aspects? Taking chances. We will create chances in every game, we will be aggressive in majority of our games. We won’t take chances in every game but that’s football.

I’m not missing that point at all. You’ve just decided that we reacted just as well in the Celtic game, to going behind, which I obviously disagree with. They were two up after half an hour or so. To me, the game was done then.

[hibbysam]

I’m not missing that point at all. You’ve just decided that we reacted just as well in the Celtic game, to going behind, which I obviously disagree with. They were two up after half an hour or so. To me, the game was done then.

They scored their second after 35/40 minutes, after we missed a couple of great chances. It wasn’t aggression that missed those chances, it was lack of composure, and that ultimately cost us the game as it allowed Celtic to relax and dominate thereafter. The way your talking we were never in the game which couldn’t be further from the truth. Lennon himself admitted that they had to be at their very best to get through that first half.

[B.H.F.C]

They scored their second after 35/40 minutes, after we missed a couple of great chances. It wasn’t aggression that missed those chances, it was lack of composure, and that ultimately cost us the game as it allowed Celtic to relax and dominate thereafter. The way your talking we were never in the game which couldn’t be further from the truth. Lennon himself admitted that they had to be at their very best to get through that first half.

Nope, never said we weren’t in the game at all. We quite obviously were early on. Once they scored their second on 35 minutes (about an hour of play left if you chuck in stoppage time) we never looked remotely like getting back in to it though. We were actually quite lucky to get out with a 3-0.

[The Harp Awakes]

Ross has a combined total of 13 games against Celtic, Rangers, Hearts and Aberdeen since joining. 2 wins, 1 draw, 10 losses.

That's a very poor record it has to be said. On the plus side his record against the so called lesser sides must be far better than previous Managers.

My worry about Ross is that he seems to be incapable of getting the team motivated for the bigger games. With a few exceptions the players don't seem to be at it in these games, and I don't think it is just down to lack of ability.

Lennon's Hibs had their limitations, but under his tenure we'd be gunning for Celtic tomorrow given their recent results. Not sure many Hibs supporters are looking at tomorrow's game optimistically.

[hibbysam]

Nope, never said we weren’t in the game at all. We quite obviously were early on. Once they scored their second on 35 minutes (about an hour of play left if you chuck in stoppage time) we never looked remotely like getting back in to it though. We were actually quite lucky to get out with a 3-0.

You can’t legislate for missed chances, you can’t factor them into a game plan. Our aggression and style of play allowed us to create very good chances, if we take them the hour that you talk about is completely different. Just like if we don’t take the chances in the rangers game then that game is totally different. We approached both games in the same vein and having watched the first half of both games numerous times over, we were as aggressive in both, we created as many chances in both, we gave away as many chances in both, and we should’ve been at worst level in both at half time. The difference was the taking of chances which again, has heehaw to do with aggression or game plan.

[B.H.F.C]

You can’t legislate for missed chances, you can’t factor them into a game plan. Our aggression and style of play allowed us to create very good chances, if we take them the hour that you talk about is completely different. Just like if we don’t take the chances in the rangers game then that game is totally different. We approached both games in the same vein and having watched the first half of both games numerous times over, we were as aggressive in both, we created as many chances in both, we gave away as many chances in both, and we should’ve been at worst level in both at half time. The difference was the taking of chances which again, has heehaw to do with aggression or game plan.

That was one of the differences. You’ve used the words should, could and if an awful lot throughout this debate. As I said earlier, you can only really judge on what actually happened and IMO, no aspect of our game was as good at Parkhead as at ER the week before. Including the fact that we were much more passive, which you obviously disagree on. That goes for in possession as well where our quality of football was nowhere near as good. We got in to a few decent positions that resulted in a couple of tame efforts. I honestly don’t think there was any comparison between the two performances but maybe best to leave it there as I’m not going to budge on that!

[MWHIBBIES]

Surely thats the exception that proves the rule though?

Rangers were weaker than they had probably ever been in their entire history, and Hibs had a particuarly strong team, therefore making the gap way narrower than it would normally be.

Rangers are much stronger now, and we are weaker, and the so that gap is way bigger.

It was our strong record that was the anomaly, rather than our current one.

Our record against Celtic would also have been better than 7 losses in 10. A Celtic side who have won 3 trebles

[Brightside]

It mentioned Kyle is a long term injury?

[hibbysam]

Our record against Celtic would also have been better than 7 losses in 10. A Celtic side who have won 3 trebles

We have won 50 odd out of over 300 games against them (if the stats I seen were correct), that’s 1 in 6. Our recent home record vs Celtic is fairly good, however our away record is absolutely abysmal.

Our recent records against rangers were very good, mostly when they were murder, prior to that our record against rangers was abysmal, we got pumped fairly often by them.

Any result against those two sides is absolutely huge, the gulf in finances is astronomical, both of their revenues up at £50/60m in a year that was hit with Covid. Ours is about 1/5th of that on a good year.

That may sound defeatist but that’s just the reality of the world, the clubs who spend the most in the main win the most.

[Stuart93]

Hope we put up a decent fight today. Would be pissed off to see us steamrollered again