Happy with a draw.

[munchar]

Thought last night was a good battling performance, but Rangers were poor & there for the taking. Surely 65 minutes at the latest, Murphy & Allan should’ve been on the park, & arguably should have started. JR seems happy in games to plod on & see what happens. Granted the boys were putting a good shift in, but making the subs when we lose a goal with a few minutes to go shows he had no intention of changing things & happy with 0-0. Personally, if he made the changes & it never worked out, I’d have been pleased that he at least tried to win the game.
Are we a better team with or without Allan in the team? Maybe harder to beat without, but definitely better chance of scoring goals with him in the team. Workhorses in the side will get us mid table mediocrity, players like Scotty are game changers that can make us look & play twice as good. Tannadice in cup, cameo at Perth. Superb & that’s what you pay to watch. He’s our ONLY creative midfielder, yet can’t get a sniff. Let him pull the strings & get a worker along side him.

[Paul1642]

To be honest I would have been happy with a draw.

[greenlex]

I don’t get this Rangers we’re poor. I don’t think they were. If they were it was because of us.

[WeeRussell]

I love Scott Allan and hope to see him play a lot more than he has been. But..

I was in agreement with JR in what he said in his interview. We had a degree of control over the game before the penalty was given, and we were comfortable with the way the game was going. Although it wasn’t an excellent performance from us, we were very unlucky to lose the game like that. If it wasn’t for the penalty, who knows - we may well have made the breakthrough with the team that was on the park.

I don’t blame the manager for us not getting something from last night. And I look forward to Motherwell at the weekend.

[munchar]

We’ve lost 6 of our last 7 games, & probably would’ve been all 7 if Saints kept 11 on the park, so obviously the team, or the way they’re set up isn’t good enough?

[ancient hibee]

Rangers were not poor but they were nervous .The new management paid us the compliment of playing a much more defensive game.I shouldn’t think Tavernier has ever spent as much of a game in his own half as he did last night.Boyle was double/treble marked.If it hadn’t been for a miraculous/lucky? interception by Goldson we would have gone into the lead.We were unfortunate to lose-especially for the annoying way referees now treat incidents when one player deliberately runs into the leg of an opponent.

[munchar]

Rangers were not poor but they were nervous .The new management paid us the compliment of playing a much more defensive game.I shouldn’t think Tavernier has ever spent as much of a game in his own half as he did last night.Boyle was double/treble marked.If it hadn’t been for a miraculous/lucky? interception by Goldson we would have gone into the lead.We were unfortunate to lose-especially for the annoying way referees now treat incidents when one player deliberately runs into the leg of an opponent.

Sorry, I don’t see it that way. Was Goldson lucky, or should Newell not have picked out a team mate for a tap in? Although a soft penalty, it was still a rash challenge from Porto.

[Greenbeard]

To be honest I would have been happy with a draw.
Neither side could have complained with a 0-0.
The more I see the penalty decision the more I see Kent as the diving cheat he is and he should have been booked for simulation. But he's not alone, all this "he's entitled to go down" crap. And tbh we've benefited from it too. The authorities, right at the top ie FIFA, need to get it sorted and get refs to take a stronger stance in deciding if the attacking player was actually disadvantaged by the actions of the defender (or vice-versa), and not by his own doing ie putting a leg or foot in an unnatural position to deliberately trip yourself up over a trailing leg, or collapsing like you've taken a bullet when you could quite easily have stayed on your feet and carried on. It's a blight on the game, much more so than it's ever been.

[Smartie]

I don’t get this Rangers we’re poor. I don’t think they were. If they were it was because of us.

I didn't think they were poor either. They weren't the best side we've ever played but I actually thought both teams were very strong defensively, very hardworking and very fit. The game wasn't a classic but it was pretty fascinating and other than a very scrappy spell during the first half both sides played to a high standard with great intensity.

They've got a decent record in Europe against some decent sides. I was pretty heartened by how well we stood up - again - against a decent side.

I did feel that it was a pretty good chance to nick a win against them and when you're presented with a chance like that you have to be a wee bit braver than Jack Ross will ever be.

[ancient hibee]

Neither side could have complained with a 0-0.
The more I see the penalty decision the more I see Kent as the diving cheat he is and he should have been booked for simulation. But he's not alone, all this "he's entitled to go down" crap. And tbh we've benefited from it too. The authorities, right at the top ie FIFA, need to get it sorted and get refs to take a stronger stance in deciding if the attacking player was actually disadvantaged by the actions of the defender (or vice-versa), and not by his own doing ie putting a leg or foot in an unnatural position to deliberately trip yourself up over a trailing leg, or collapsing like you've taken a bullet when you could quite easily have stayed on your feet and carried on. It's a blight on the game, much more so than it's ever been.


For me it all started when players in midfield got given fouls when knocking the ball past an opposing player with no hope of catching it and then running into the opponent.Now it’s commonplace. What we now have is the player who instigates the contact gets the benefit. It turns one of the laws of the game on its head.

[Jones28]

We’ve lost 6 of our last 7 games, & probably would’ve been all 7 if Saints kept 11 on the park, so obviously the team, or the way they’re set up isn’t good enough?

We were playing more than well enough to suggest that we'd have taken at least a point from the St Johnstone game regardless of sending off.

[tamig]

We were playing more than well enough to suggest that we'd have taken at least a point from the St Johnstone game regardless of sending off.

Agreed. No evidence to suggest we wouldn’t have come back even with 11v 11. We were on top even before the sending off.

[Northernhibee]

The midfield three of JDH, Newell and Campbell is very effective at allowing us to play a much, much higher press than normal which put Rangers under some stress throughout the game. Campbell doesn't give a moments rest, Newell is great at intercepting loose passes and even getting further forward too and JDH will recycle the ball from tight spaces well and get it out into space very quickly.

Magennis is great at making late runs into the box for shooting opportunities too.

Our midfield three from the start of a game needs to be a combination of those four as it allows us to win the ball further up the pitch and keep hold of it too.

[jacomo]

I love Scott Allan and hope to see him play a lot more than he has been. But..

I was in agreement with JR in what he said in his interview. We had a degree of control over the game before the penalty was given, and we were comfortable with the way the game was going. Although it wasn’t an excellent performance from us, we were very unlucky to lose the game like that. If it wasn’t for the penalty, who knows - we may well have made the breakthrough with the team that was on the park.

I don’t blame the manager for us not getting something from last night. And I look forward to Motherwell at the weekend.


On the other hand we’d created very little and were a break (or a penalty) away from losing the match.

I know how JR sees the game. I’m not sure I always agree with it.

[Northernhibee]

On the other hand we’d created very little and were a break (or a penalty) away from losing the match.

I know how JR sees the game. I’m not sure I always agree with it.

You could say the same about Rangers though. Possibly the most expensively put together team in the league who set up more defensively to contain us, and if we got a break on them or a penalty then we might have won it 1-0.

It was very even in a game that they should on paper have been able to win comfortably.

[munchar]

We were playing more than well enough to suggest that we'd have taken at least a point from the St Johnstone game regardless of sending off.

You think so? Granted we were on top, but ANOTHER howler for the goal against us, & then throwing Scotty on as a last throw of the dice panic measure in my opinion. For all SA doesn’t do as much defensively as others, with the sending off, it should’ve been a no brainer to bring him on at half time, especially as we were a man up & so he could’ve had freedom to stay in the final 3rd. Once again though, happy to plod on & see what happens instead of going for the jugular. It’s blatantly obvious JR doesn’t see SA as a starter. He probably saved his job, as if we’d been beaten by 10 men, he would’ve been under serious pressure.

[Pretty Boy]

I just said elsewhere that with 5 or 10 minutes to go last night we very much should have been considering making sure we got the draw. I think resisting the urge to put Allan or Murphy on when it was clearly considered after about 75 minutes was doing that.

A draw would have been a good result last night. As it turned out Rangers nicked it and I don't have too many complaints really. A close game over the piece and I don't think 0-0 or 1-0 either way was or would have been unfair. Had we gone a bit gung ho after 70 minutes it might have given us more attacking impetus, it also would have weakened us as a defensive unit as well. We contained Rangers well by pressing high and hard. Neither Allan or Murphy, for all their qualities, offer that in their skill set.

[MWHIBBIES]

You think so? Granted we were on top, but ANOTHER howler for the goal against us, & then throwing Scotty on as a last throw of the dice panic measure in my opinion. For all SA doesn’t do as much defensively as others, with the sending off, it should’ve been a no brainer to bring him on at half time, especially as we were a man up & so he could’ve had freedom to stay in the final 3rd. Once again though, happy to plod on & see what happens instead of going for the jugular. It’s blatantly obvious JR doesn’t see SA as a starter. He probably saved his job, as if we’d been beaten by 10 men, he would’ve been under serious pressure.

You must have missed our 2 wrongly disallowed goals?

[Jones28]

You think so? Granted we were on top, but ANOTHER howler for the goal against us, & then throwing Scotty on as a last throw of the dice panic measure in my opinion. For all SA doesn’t do as much defensively as others, with the sending off, it should’ve been a no brainer to bring him on at half time, especially as we were a man up & so he could’ve had freedom to stay in the final 3rd. Once again though, happy to plod on & see what happens instead of going for the jugular. It’s blatantly obvious JR doesn’t see SA as a starter. He probably saved his job, as if we’d been beaten by 10 men, he would’ve been under serious pressure.

Come on FFS, how can you class 2 game changing subs as last throw of the dice? Any other manager does it it's a master-stroke, Jack Ross does it its a total gamble.

[WeeRussell]

On the other hand we’d created very little and were a break (or a penalty) away from losing the match.

I know how JR sees the game. I’m not sure I always agree with it.

Correct - both teams were one good chance or slip away from winning/losing the match as we entered the final third of the game. We'd have settled for that scenario before kick-off I reckon?

Last night was a hard one to take but mainly because our performance deserved at least a point. We didn't get the breaks and chances like we did in the semi-final (likely owing to a more solid Rangers defensive display) but it was still a strong performance with positives to take going forward.

[superfurryhibby]

Come on FFS, how can you class 2 game changing subs as last throw of the dice? Any other manager does it it's a master-stroke, Jack Ross does it its a total gamble.

I'm not a huge fan of Jack Ross, but credit where it's due. Ross got it right v Saints.

Whether subs should have been on earlier last night, it's a hard one to call. We were comfortable enough. The manager isn't accountable for a daft sticking out of a leg in the box or a diving wee Hun bassa taking full advantage of it.

[WeeRussell]

Come on FFS, how can you class 2 game changing subs as last throw of the dice? Any other manager does it it's a master-stroke, Jack Ross does it its a total gamble.

Exactly.. going radge about Scott Allan not coming on earlier last night and then using an example of him coming on and winning the game for us as another reason to criticise the manager suggests to me the OP isn't a fan of JR and clutching at straws to have a dig. I honestly don't think I've ever known a Hibs manager to attract such unjustified criticism (in my opinion).

[Unseen work]

I’ve read this quite a few times.

Just because he never put Murphy or Allan on before the goal doesn’t necessarily mean he was happy with a draw. Maybe he thought the best way to win was to keep things as it was? Maybe he thought putting Allan or Murphy on might see us lose control of the game, get overrun and lose?

The majority of that second half we were controlling the game and IMO if any team was going to score I felt like it would be us. Unfortunately it never panned out that way due to a silly mistake.

For as good as Allan is sometimes, there’s also times he’s really poor. Sometimes he comes on or starts and struggles to control the ball as people are on him in a flash and he struggles to have the strength or pace to get away from them. Without doubt he’s the most creative in the squad with his vision and passing but you don’t know you’ll get that each time.

I was in full agreement with Ross not making any changes. IMO those on the pitch were doing very well and never appeared tired.

Also, happy with a draw at home to Rangers? I think before kick off many fans would have been happy with that.

[WeeRussell]

We’ve lost 6 of our last 7 games, & probably would’ve been all 7 if Saints kept 11 on the park, so obviously the team, or the way they’re set up isn’t good enough?

I can only assume the above was a reply to me.

I gave my opinion on last night's performance and the way it was managed - I don't see how your incorrect stat and opinion on the last 6 games prior to that is particularly relevant... but yes, the team hadn't been performing to a high enough standard in our league games up until very recently, and obviously Jack Ross takes a lot of responsibility for that, which he'll be aware of.

I think we're turning the corner now but we need to prove that.. starting with Motherwell at the weekend.

[Nicho87]

Hibs should always be looking to win the game and take the game to the opponent at Easter road

Last night, miserable

[Northernhibee]

Hibs should always be looking to win the game and take the game to the opponent at Easter road

Last night, miserable

Absolute bollocks.

[B.H.F.C]

I’ve read this quite a few times.

Just because he never put Murphy or Allan on before the goal doesn’t necessarily mean he was happy with a draw. Maybe he thought the best way to win was to keep things as it was? Maybe he thought putting Allan or Murphy on might see us lose control of the game, get overrun and lose?

The majority of that second half we were controlling the game and IMO if any team was going to score I felt like it would be us. Unfortunately it never panned out that way due to a silly mistake.

For as good as Allan is sometimes, there’s also times he’s really poor. Sometimes he comes on or starts and struggles to control the ball as people are on him in a flash and he struggles to have the strength or pace to get away from them. Without doubt he’s the most creative in the squad with his vision and passing but you don’t know you’ll get that each time.

I was in full agreement with Ross not making any changes. IMO those on the pitch were doing very well and never appeared tired.

Also, happy with a draw at home to Rangers? I think before kick off many fans would have been happy with that.

What was it that made you think we were the only team going to score out of interest? I know we weren’t terribly troubled, but there was only one goalie who had anything to actually do.

[munchar]

Come on FFS, how can you class 2 game changing subs as last throw of the dice? Any other manager does it it's a master-stroke, Jack Ross does it its a total gamble.

You having a laugh? “Masterstroke” 😂
Murphy on 10 minutes before Allan. SA on 71st minute & got Man of the match. Saints down to 10 men before half time. 100% SA should’ve been on at half time. The manager, as I said, plods on.

To answer other replies, I’ve nothing against our manager. But it’s a results driven game, & the squad he’s built, are very, very poor at getting them. So i repeat, it’s either his players aren’t good enough, his tactics aren’t good enough to win games, or both?

[Unseen work]

What was it that made you think we were the only team going to score out of interest? I know we weren’t terribly troubled, but there was only one goalie who had anything to actually do.

Just my feeling watching the game was that if anyone was going to score it would be us.

I thought we had the momentum and although we never had lots of shots or target we were putting them under pressure with crosses and making them defend.

Goldsons clearance from Newell cross
Newells pass to Nisbet when he should have it it with his left
Caddens shot
Campbell’s pass to Boyle whose shot was blocked

Other than Nisbet gifting them the ball on several occasions I never thought we were under much pressure.

Everyone views the game differently though

[flash]

Hibs should always be looking to win the game and take the game to the opponent at Easter road

Last night, miserable

We did. We were good last night. You just hate the manager.

[JimBHibees]

You having a laugh? “Masterstroke” 😂
Murphy on 10 minutes before Allan. SA on 71st minute & got Man of the match. Saints down to 10 men before half time. 100% SA should’ve been on at half time. The manager, as I said, plods on.

To answer other replies, I’ve nothing against our manager. But it’s a results driven game, & the squad he’s built, are very, very poor at getting them. So i repeat, it’s either his players aren’t good enough, his tactics aren’t good enough to win games, or both?

Ironically his win record for a Hibs manager is exceptional

[Northernhibee]

But it’s a results driven game, & the squad he’s built, are very, very poor at getting them.

You heading to the cup final in just over a fortnight?

[munchar]

You heading to the cup final in just over a fortnight?

Off course. Why wouldn’t I be?

[Northernhibee]

Off course. Why wouldn’t I be?

Just we needed to chain together some very good results to get there.

[munchar]

Just we needed to chain together some very good results to get there.

Don’t see what the relevance is?
I’ll support the team wherever they play & whoever the manager & players are, whether we’re playing well or terrible. It’s what proper supporters do is it not?
I’m a Hibs supporter.
The point of the post, and if you read it again, I’m saying we played well. Left the game delighted with the performance that’s been missing recently, but it seems pointing out deficiencies in our team isn’t allowed on here? Our performance in last seasons final & collapse in semi final, & also our recent league form is unacceptable. There’s no plan B. Happy to plod on until we have to start chasing the game. The manager has been very well backed & should be doing so much better than he is. Nobody can disagree with this?

[Northernhibee]

Don’t see what the relevance is?
I’ll support the team wherever they play & whoever the manager & players are, whether we’re playing well or terrible. It’s what proper supporters do is it not?
I’m a Hibs supporter.
The point of the post, and if you read it again, I’m saying we played well. Left the game delighted with the performance that’s been missing recently, but it seems pointing out deficiencies in our team isn’t allowed on here? Our performance in last seasons final & collapse in semi final, & also our recent league form is unacceptable. There’s no plan B. Happy to plod on until we have to start chasing the game. The manager has been very well backed & should be doing so much better than he is. Nobody can disagree with this?

You said that the squad were very bad at getting results, I mentioned one manner in which case they have been good at getting results.

The other is Jack Ross's overall win record as Hibs manager which is pretty good.

[Keith_M]

Some people keep rabbiting on about our poor run, conveniently leaving out what was (arguably) our best performance of the season.


As it's all a matter of perspective, then how about considering an alternative take on things...


After being on top against Rangers at Ibrox, we had a player sent off with two thirds of the game still to play and eventually lost by one goal

We then had a very poor run of results, during which multiple players were missing, but the enforced break arguably helped us and I'd say we turned a corner with that semi final performance.

Following that, we lost a game to Ross County that we never looked like losing until we had two players stupidly red carded. On Saturday we finally beat St Johnstone after having two perfectly good goals chalked off and having dominated much of the game.

We then narrowly lost to Rangers... the team that have lost a grand total of one league game in the last fourteen months and just pumped Sparta Prague... due to a soft penalty in the 82nd minute after going toe to toe with them and neutralising their threat.


Now, if some people want to paint a different picture then that's their right, but I respectfully disagree.

[Jones28]

You having a laugh? “Masterstroke” 😂
Murphy on 10 minutes before Allan. SA on 71st minute & got Man of the match. Saints down to 10 men before half time. 100% SA should’ve been on at half time. The manager, as I said, plods on.

To answer other replies, I’ve nothing against our manager. But it’s a results driven game, & the squad he’s built, are very, very poor at getting them. So i repeat, it’s either his players aren’t good enough, his tactics aren’t good enough to win games, or both?

So JR gets no plaudits at all for making the subs, it was the subs that saved Jack Ross? Am I getting this right?

Dunno what’s so ridiculous about the match winner coming on before Scott Allan either?

[jacomo]

Correct - both teams were one good chance or slip away from winning/losing the match as we entered the final third of the game. We'd have settled for that scenario before kick-off I reckon?

Last night was a hard one to take but mainly because our performance deserved at least a point. We didn't get the breaks and chances like we did in the semi-final (likely owing to a more solid Rangers defensive display) but it was still a strong performance with positives to take going forward.


Don’t get me wrong, there were definitely positives to take from last night.

I’m liking this 3-5-2 shape and the players seem up for it. We really need some points on the board this month though.

[greenlex]

Some people keep rabbiting on about our poor run, conveniently leaving out what was (arguably) our best performance of the season.


As it's all a matter of perspective, then how about considering an alternative take on things...


After being on top against Rangers at Ibrox, we had a player sent off with two thirds of the game still to play and eventually lost by one goal

We then had a very poor run of results, during which multiple players were missing, but the enforced break arguably helped us and I'd say we turned a corner with that semi final performance.

Following that, we lost a game to Ross County that we never looked like losing until we had two players stupidly red carded. On Saturday we finally beat St Johnstone after having two perfectly good goals chalked off and having dominated much of the game.

We then narrowly lost to Rangers... the team that have lost a grand total of one league game in the last fourteen months and just pumped Sparta Prague... due to a soft penalty in the 82nd minute after going toe to toe with them and neutralising their threat.


Now, if some people want to paint a different picture then that's their right, but I respectfully disagree.
agree except the penalty was the 85th minute last night.:greengrin

[munchar]

You said that the squad were very bad at getting results, I mentioned one manner in which case they have been good at getting results.

The other is Jack Ross's overall win record as Hibs manager which is pretty good.

His overall record is very impressive. However, the “must win” games not so good. Really disappointing in the big cup games last couple of seasons. Some fans may be happy getting to semis & finals. Great day out, but need to do so much better in these when we have a chance to win trophies.

[munchar]

So JR gets no plaudits at all for making the subs, it was the subs that saved Jack Ross? Am I getting this right?

Dunno what’s so ridiculous about the match winner coming on before Scott Allan either?

Yeah that’s right. Scott Allan involved in both goals. The argument he doesn’t do enough defensively was irrelevant as soon as Saints went down to 10, giving him the freedom to be creative without having to track back, yet we come out 2nd half as if it was still 11 v 11.
I’ve not said anything any different throughout this post. We plod on instead of trying to force the issue & let players express themselves.

[hibsbollah]

3 points for a win came in in when I was in my last year at secondary, so that’s a long time for coaches and analytics people to realise that gambling for the win is a valid strategy over the course of a season. There are plenty of folk of my generation and older who still seem to think a draws an average result, when it’s below average.

[Jones28]

Yeah that’s right. Scott Allan involved in both goals. The argument he doesn’t do enough defensively was irrelevant as soon as Saints went down to 10, giving him the freedom to be creative without having to track back, yet we come out 2nd half as if it was still 11 v 11.
I’ve not said anything any different throughout this post. We plod on instead of trying to force the issue & let players express themselves.

We were dominating the match. We were forcing the issue. It just so happens the players who made the difference came off the bench. Both substitutes more than played their part but it’s a team game.

[Since452]

I'd have been happy with a draw.

[greenlex]

3 points for a win came in in when I was in my last year at secondary, so that’s a long time for coaches and analytics people to realise that gambling for the win is a valid strategy over the course of a season. There are plenty of folk of my generation and older who still seem to think a draws an average result, when it’s below average.
Should go back to 2 for a win and 1 for a draw. I’d add a wee caveat of brussel sprout for a goalless draw. That might open teams up a bit. Goals the name of the game.

[munchar]

We were dominating the match. We were forcing the issue. It just so happens the players who made the difference came off the bench. Both substitutes more than played their part but it’s a team game.

Were you at the game? Only asking, as when watching live, you can see the game developing. Surely the opportunity to play with more creativity when 1 down against 10 men is a no brainer?
Folk here saying we were dominating the game, but we were still losing!

[J-C]

So JR gets no plaudits at all for making the subs, it was the subs that saved Jack Ross? Am I getting this right?

Dunno what’s so ridiculous about the match winner coming on before Scott Allan either?
Made the subs with 30 mins and 20 mins to go allowing both players a chance to affect the game, last night they came on with 5 mins to go, no time to do anything.
So plaudits against St Johnstone but not so much last night, that's how it works.

[tamig]

Were you at the game? Only asking, as when watching live, you can see the game developing. Surely the opportunity to play with more creativity when 1 down against 10 men is a no brainer?
Folk here saying we were dominating the game, but we were still losing!

I think you’re mischief making looking for reactions. You’ve come out with some nonsense on this thread. You can dominate a game and still be losing. It happens.

[munchar]

I think you’re mischief making looking for reactions. You’ve come out with some nonsense on this thread. You can dominate a game and still be losing. It happens.

What nonsense have I came out with?

If your losing a game your dominating, is it unlucky or bad play? Seemingly we shouldn’t have lost last night or to Ross County, but we did?

[greenlex]

What nonsense have I came out with?

If your losing a game your dominating, is it unlucky or bad play? Seemingly we shouldn’t have lost last night or to Ross County, but we did?

Not this bad play v luck ***** again.

[90274]

I'd have been happy with a draw.

In reality it could be looked at as a free hit, so there is no reason to not have a go for the win.

We should always have a go at home against the Old Firm.

Hibsbollah made a very good point about 3 points for a win, it is worth the gamble having a go. Attack is the best form of defence and all that.

[Smartie]

There's also the idea that the changes might have helped us earn the draw.

Rangers made changes and appeared to seize the initiative a bit.

If we'd put on Allan and/ or Murphy then we'd have given them something different to think about defensively. We might not necessarily have scored or won but we might have forced another change of approach from Rangers - who had made changes themselves with a view to winning the game.

It might have just sown a bit of doubt or made them make another change, such as dropping deeper still to ensure Allan didn't spring Boyle in behind, or employing someone tight on Allan to stop him playing those passes thus leaving space that could be exploited elsewhere.

We'll never know - we stuck with what we had and we lost. I get folk saying that we were doing fine but it's a wee bit "the operation was a success but the patient died" again.

[theonlywayisup]

Don’t see what the relevance is?
I’ll support the team wherever they play & whoever the manager & players are, whether we’re playing well or terrible. It’s what proper supporters do is it not?
I’m a Hibs supporter.
The point of the post, and if you read it again, I’m saying we played well. Left the game delighted with the performance that’s been missing recently, but it seems pointing out deficiencies in our team isn’t allowed on here? Our performance in last seasons final & collapse in semi final, & also our recent league form is unacceptable. There’s no plan B. Happy to plod on until we have to start chasing the game. The manager has been very well backed & should be doing so much better than he is. Nobody can disagree with this?

I think it's clear to many on this forum that the Summer Transfer Window was a disaster. We've not recruited enough players and some of those recruited before that haven't been of enough quality. Does one honestly believe that our manager was happy with his squad at the end of the transfer window? They might make positive comments in public, but Jack Ross would know that we were seriously under resourced for the season ahead.

Last night, we were able to match The Rangers because those on the pitch had the energy and willingness to match the oppositions forward runs. There was no-one on the bench on Wednesday night that could have come on and matched their workrate. Whilst bringing on Murphy and Allan worked against a Saints team that was bedded in for the second half, doing so against The Rangers would have been handing the initiative to them from the second that they arrived on the pitch. Yes, we could have had a more creative spark, but no-one knows that for sure. As others have said, I was happy with how we played up to the 84th minute. Yes, I felt Jack Ross needed to make a sub, but he didn't have the right type of player to bring on.

[Keith_M]

Made the subs with 30 mins and 20 mins to go allowing both players a chance to affect the game, last night they came on with 5 mins to go, no time to do anything.
So plaudits against St Johnstone but not so much last night, that's how it works.


We were 1-0 down against St Johnstone despite dominating the game, so the subs were undoubtedly a good idea. There was very little danger that the change could potentially have worked in the opposition's favour.

Up until the 82nd minute, were were equally balanced against Rangers, with the players and the way they were set up pretty much nullifying any threat.

There was a possibility that making the subs could have changed the game in our favour, but also a very strong possibility it could have gone the other way.

[munchar]

We were 1-0 down against St Johnstone despite dominating the game, so the subs were undoubtedly a good idea. There was very little danger that the change could potentially have worked in the opposition's favour.

Up until the 82nd minute, were were equally balanced against Rangers, with the players and the way they were set up pretty much nullifying any threat.

There was a possibility that making the subs could have changed the game in our favour, but also a very strong possibility it could have gone the other way.

So if there was no danger in making changes at Saints, why wait until 71 minutes to bring SA on?
Rangers made positive changes trying to win the game. Your saying we shouldn’t have made subs “incase” it cost us. Well we never, & it still cost us. Throwing Murphy & Boyle on in 86th minute was ridiculous. If we continue with the keep it tight mentality, we won’t win many games, or be trying to grind out 1-0 wins. Fans want to be entertained. They won’t come to watch negative football.

[90274]

We have a pessimistic manager and reading a number of the posts on this thread, we appear to have a number of pessimistic fans.

Game was there to be won, have a go, bring on the attacking players.

[Keith_M]

So if there was no danger in making changes at Saints, why wait until 71 minutes to bring SA on?
Rangers made positive changes trying to win the game. Your saying we shouldn’t have made subs “incase” it cost us. Well we never, & it still cost us. Throwing Murphy & Boyle on in 86th minute was ridiculous. If we continue with the keep it tight mentality, we won’t win many games, or be trying to grind out 1-0 wins. Fans want to be entertained. They won’t come to watch negative football.


Wow, now you're claiming Ross was too slow to make the changes on saturday despite the fact it worked out perfectly for us!

You need to get a different hobby, cos' trolling isn't really your game.

[munchar]

Wow, now you're claiming Ross was too slow to make the changes on saturday despite the fact it worked out perfectly for us!

You need to get a different hobby, cos' trolling isn't really your game.

What are you talking about? You obviously know nothing about football. Your claiming there was no danger in making a sub in Saturday, but even against 10 men, he wouldn’t make changes till late in the game. He then chucks players on with 4 minutes to go expecting them to make an impact!!
You don’t think that’s negative tactics?

[Jones28]

We have a pessimistic manager and reading a number of the posts on this thread, we appear to have a number of pessimistic fans.

Game was there to be won, have a go, bring on the attacking players.

Bring on the attacking players, potentially compromising the good work of the team over the 80 minutes or so gone as we have to either change the shape to accommodate them or lose some of the midfield chasing that served us well in the game.

What would you have said if he had brought Scott Allan on and we lost 2/3 nil?

[Crunchie]

Bring on the attacking players, potentially compromising the good work of the team over the 80 minutes or so gone as we have to either change the shape to accommodate them or lose some of the midfield chasing that served us well in the game.

What would you have said if he had brought Scott Allan on and we lost 2/3 nil?
:top marks

[hibbysam]

What are you talking about? You obviously know nothing about football. Your claiming there was no danger in making a sub in Saturday, but even against 10 men, he wouldn’t make changes till late in the game. He then chucks players on with 4 minutes to go expecting them to make an impact!!
You don’t think that’s negative tactics?

He never made the subs at Perth because we were hammering them. He then made them at the perfect time and it won us the game. Not quite sure how this is a negative. Rangers game is completely different - game was in the balance and while hindsight the subs may have helped, on another day they don’t get the penalty and we get a point at least and we go home satisfied. If we make the subs and they go and score then folk would go nuts about changing it when comfortable.

[Jones28]

He never made the subs at Perth because we were hammering them. He then made them at the perfect time and it won us the game. Not quite sure how this is a negative. Rangers game is completely different - game was in the balance and while hindsight the subs may have helped, on another day they don’t get the penalty and we get a point at least and we go home satisfied. If we make the subs and they go and score then folk would go nuts about changing it when comfortable.

:agree:

I wasn't at the game though, so my opinion doesn't count. :rolleyes:

[B.H.F.C]

Bring on the attacking players, potentially compromising the good work of the team over the 80 minutes or so gone as we have to either change the shape to accommodate them or lose some of the midfield chasing that served us well in the game.

What would you have said if he had brought Scott Allan on and we lost 2/3 nil?

What if we’d won 2 or 3-0 though?

They cut right though our midfield in the build up to the penalty anyway.

I’d rather lose trying to win a game than just lose without doing anything but each to their own I suppose.

[Jones28]

What if we’d won 2 or 3-0 though?

They cut right though our midfield in the build up to the penalty anyway.

I’d rather lose trying to win a game than just lose without doing anything but each to their own I suppose.


If someone turns around to me and says you're coming in to this game with 1 win in 7 in the league, do you want a point against Rangers to follow up a good win away from home? I'd bite their hand off and so would you.

[Since452]

If someone turns around to me and says you're coming in to this game with 1 win in 7 in the league, do you want a point against Rangers to follow up a good win away from home? I'd bite their hand off and so would you.

Absolutely.

[B.H.F.C]

If someone turns around to me and says you're coming in to this game with 1 win in 7 in the league, do you want a point against Rangers to follow up a good win away from home? I'd bite their hand off and so would you.

I’d have taken a point, absolutely. I just don’t think a positive change would have hindered our chances of getting it and would also have increased our chances of getting more. There seems to be an assumption any such change would have left us wide open but that happened when they broke on us anyway.

[munchar]

:agree:

I wasn't at the game though, so my opinion doesn't count. :rolleyes:

Your right. You weren’t at the game so how can you comment on it? You never seen how the game was developing so your just surmising. How can you possibly have a debate on a game you never seen?

[munchar]

He never made the subs at Perth because we were hammering them. He then made them at the perfect time and it won us the game. Not quite sure how this is a negative. Rangers game is completely different - game was in the balance and while hindsight the subs may have helped, on another day they don’t get the penalty and we get a point at least and we go home satisfied. If we make the subs and they go and score then folk would go nuts about changing it when comfortable.

You could say the same about Rangers. If they’d lost would their fans have complained? They tried to be positive & got the rewards. SA also brought in late at Ross County, again after we lost a goal. We have a negative approach to how we try & win games if they’re in the balance. Happy to plod on & collect a point.

[hibbysam]

You could say the same about Rangers. If they’d lost would their fans have complained? They tried to be positive & got the rewards. SA also brought in late at Ross County, again after we lost a goal. We have a negative approach to how we try & win games if they’re in the balance. Happy to plod on & collect a point.

Or the manager reckons our best chance of winning the game was as it was going. Loading the team with attacking players doesn’t give you more of a chance of winning a game.

[SMAXXA]

Or the manager reckons our best chance of winning the game was as it was going. Loading the team with attacking players doesn’t give you more of a chance of winning a game.

No point he’s not for moving on his view and to slag someone else saying the obviously don’t have a clue about football 😂. Hibs were trying to win the game and as an offshoot of that we were getting hit on the counter which for the most part we were coping with. To make changes and bring on the players mentioned compromises the whole structure of a team tjay for 80m made rangers look average.

And for the comments about the St J game it’s like he’s having a moan about everything I.e we only won as they had 10 men apart from the fact we we’re the better side 11v11.

I’m guessing he’s in the wanting on JR out camp

[90274]

Why try and go for it when you are already behind reacting to a situation? Just go for it in the first place?

A point that is under estimated is the number of games we have and making late changes really makes no sense.

[90274]

Loading the team with attacking players doesn’t give you more of a chance of winning a game.

I never thought I'd ever read such a quote on here given our heritage and traditional style of play.

[B.H.F.C]

No point he’s not for moving on his view and to slag someone else saying the obviously don’t have a clue about football 😂. Hibs were trying to win the game and as an offshoot of that we were getting hit on the counter which for the most part we were coping with. To make changes and bring on the players mentioned compromises the whole structure of a team tjay for 80m made rangers look average.

And for the comments about the St J game it’s like he’s having a moan about everything I.e we only won as they had 10 men apart from the fact we we’re the better side 11v11.

I’m guessing he’s in the wanting on JR out camp

We were trying to win the game, I’d agree.

But we were lacking any quality to make it happen. The most common argument for not making any changes was that it’d leave us more open but, as you say, there was a risk of that happening anyway. Why not have someone that might actually make something happen? It might actually have gave them something and prevented them countering?

[90274]

We were trying to win the game, I’d agree.

But we were lacking any quality to make it happen. The most common argument for not making any changes was that it’d leave us more open but, as you say, there was a risk of that happening anyway. Why not have someone that might actually make something happen? It might actually have gave them something and prevented them countering?

The real question is, what is Jack Ross going to do v Celtic in the final? Is he savvy enough to realise that how to play against Celtic is pressing them, being in their faces and having a go?

[munchar]

No point he’s not for moving on his view and to slag someone else saying the obviously don’t have a clue about football 😂. Hibs were trying to win the game and as an offshoot of that we were getting hit on the counter which for the most part we were coping with. To make changes and bring on the players mentioned compromises the whole structure of a team tjay for 80m made rangers look average.

And for the comments about the St J game it’s like he’s having a moan about everything I.e we only won as they had 10 men apart from the fact we we’re the better side 11v11.

I’m guessing he’s in the wanting on JR out camp

Am I missing something here?
We LOST v Rangers & your still saying it was correct to plod on?
We were better team v Saints 11 v 11. We were LOSING the game.
Never said I wanted JR out, I’m saying we have a negative approach to games in the balance. Don’t make positive changes until we are chasing the game.,

[GRA]

Based on our previous form of 3 points out of 18, and how the game went during the first 70 minutes, I'd have been happy with a point against the current league champions. Wasn't as if we were under the cosh the whole game and clinging on. Game was decided by a marginal call where if Porto had pulled his foot back 0.25 seconds sooner we'd have probably got a point.

I still stand by the call that the subs were too late and reactive. We needed fresh legs about the time Rangers brought on Arfield. Last 15 minutes before their goal they were starting to apply more pressure and our heavy schedule was starting to take its toll.

Not saying that would have won us the game or even got a point but Allan and Murph helped win the game at the weekend. Wrong call to save them and only to bring them on reactively as soon as we were chasing the game.

[90274]

Am I missing something here?
We LOST v Rangers & your still saying it was correct to plod on?
We were better team v Saints 11 v 11. We were LOSING the game.
Never said I wanted JR out, I’m saying we have a negative approach to games in the balance. Don’t make positive changes until we are chasing the game.,

FWIW I agree with you, it was a missed opportunity on Wednesday night to show initiative and try and win the game by having a go at Rangers with 25 mins to go onwards.

I just hope it's not the same timid pragmatic performance in the final where its a close game that we ultimately lose. We have seen that before in the 2013 final, a very tame performance. I fear we will see a repeat of that, hopefully not though.

[Danderhall Hibs]

The real question is, what is Jack Ross going to do v Celtic in the final? Is he savvy enough to realise that how to play against Celtic is pressing them, being in their faces and having a go?

Is that the way to do it though? How are you savvy enough to know this?

[hibbysam]

I never thought I'd ever read such a quote on here given our heritage and traditional style of play.

What? Just firing loads attacking players on a pitch isn’t going to help you score - hence why games very rarely turn around when teams go behind and end up with 4/5 strikers on the pitch. That’s heehaw to do with ‘heritage and traditions’ 😂

[90274]

Is that the way to do it though? How are you savvy enough to know this?

We saw what happened in the first half against them at Easter Road.

[jeffers]

We were trying to win the game, I’d agree.

But we were lacking any quality to make it happen. The most common argument for not making any changes was that it’d leave us more open but, as you say, there was a risk of that happening anyway. Why not have someone that might actually make something happen? It might actually have gave them something and prevented them countering?

I agree with you, the fact he made the two attack minded changes after we lost the goal suggests to me he thought the players he brought on gave us a better chance of getting one back ourselves. Your last sentence is telling for me. Last season we were 2-1 up against Celtic, they made attacking changes to try and get an equaliser, we made defensive ones, sat back and they scored. Had we made a more attack minded one that may have given them something to think about.

[90274]

What? Just firing loads attacking players on a pitch isn’t going to help you score - hence why games very rarely turn around when teams go behind and end up with 4/5 strikers on the pitch. That’s heehaw to do with ‘heritage and traditions’ 😂

Nobody is daft enough to chuck attcking players aimlessly on, but when it's clear as it was in Wednesday, to show initiative with creativity and fresh legs, surely you have a go to attack and win the game.

[Jones28]

Your right. You weren’t at the game so how can you comment on it? You never seen how the game was developing so your just surmising. How can you possibly have a debate on a game you never seen?

Well, the next best thing is to listen to the radio, read the match reports, look at the stats and to read Johnny's excellent summaries and testimony from people on here.

All theses told me we did more than enough to win the game, and would have been good value for the win even if Saints had kept 11 men on the pitch.

Do I still not count?

[90274]

Well, the next best thing is to listen to the radio, read the match reports, look at the stats and to read Johnny's excellent summaries and testimony from people on here.

All theses told me we did more than enough to win the game, and would have been good value for the win even if Saints had kept 11 men on the pitch.

Do I still not count?

That is interesting that you weren't at the game and didn't watch it.

[Jones28]

I’d have taken a point, absolutely. I just don’t think a positive change would have hindered our chances of getting it and would also have increased our chances of getting more. There seems to be an assumption any such change would have left us wide open but that happened when they broke on us anyway.

I'll meet you in the middle and say that fresh legs would have been good, I just don't necessarily agree that we had the right personnel to make the changes we should have made. It all goes back to how poor recruitment was in the summer.

[Jones28]

That is interesting that you weren't at the game and didn't watch it.

The St Johnstone game? No I wasn't.

[90274]

I'll meet you in the middle and say that fresh legs would have been good, I just don't necessarily agree that we had the right personnel to make the changes we should have made. It all goes back to how poor recruitment was in the summer.
The summer window is long gone and an easy way out, the manager can't hide behind that or anyone really as we had attacking options on the bench.

A good manager will perform with what he's got and find a way to get results.

[90274]

The St Johnstone game? No I wasn't.

It was on alba at 6pm as live.

[Jones28]

The summer window is long gone and an easy way out, the manager can't hide behind that or anyone really as we had attacking options on the bench.

A good manager will perform with what he's got and find a way to get results.

So what you're saying is that no manager thats ever been sacked is a good manager?

You can't say the summer window is not a mitigating factor for a disappointing season.

[Jones28]

It was on alba at 6pm as live.

I was putting my kids to bed, not that I need to explain myself to anyone.

[90274]

So what you're saying is that no manager thats ever been sacked is a good manager?

You can't say the summer window is not a mitigating factor for a disappointing season.

A good manager will just get on with it and deliver results with what he has through good coaching and management. 2 wins from 8 isn't great.

[Jones28]

A good manager will just get on with it and deliver results with what he has through good coaching and management. 2 wins from 8 isn't great.

No one is suggesting it is :confused:


Ah well, thats the mystery solved now anyway. I do hope the club read this, and that they just have to get on with it. Clearly no-one has told them this.

[90274]

No one is suggesting it is :confused:


Ah well, thats the mystery solved now anyway. I do hope the club read this, and that they just have to get on with it. Clearly no-one has told them this.

What happened in the 70s when clubs had a squad of 14 players with worse facilities and pitches.

Yet a common theme on is here, let's blame the Summer window. Just get on with it.

[Jones28]

What happened in the 70s when clubs had a squad of 14 players with worse facilities and pitches.

I'm 28 mate, I haven't got a ****ing clue.

Hibs won 1 trophy though. 10 points to Gryffindor.

[Shrekko]

A good manager will just get on with it and deliver results with what he has through good coaching and management. 2 wins from 8 isn't great.

It's the players that deliver results- you do realise that aye? The manager isn't controlling them with a joy-stick.

It was sooooo predictable that because we lost a late debateable penalty that it would all be the fault of "Ross" because he didnae bring on Murphy and Allan- and that it's only when you have 'creative' players on that you win games.

The truth is- the only time Rangers looked dangerous was when they were countering on our attacks and space opened up.

The same team hammered Rangers at Hampden without Murphy and Allan on at all. Just because you don't fill the team with players who are supposedly 'attacking' doesn't mean you're not trying to win. The first thing Jack Ross has to deal with is the fact they have better players than us- it's funny how folk conveniently forget stuff like that.

JR had the team set up in a way where Rangers rarely looked a threat- THAT is good coaching.

What is to blame for this new culture where people genuinely believe they know so much about the game of football? The truth is most of us are utterly clueless but yet some think it's so simple to 'deliver' results like it's some kind of exact science or a computer game.

People have been asking the question already but who exactly is ever going to make these fans happy? The sorry fact is that if Klopp got the Hibs job we're unlikely to be getting any higher than 3rd, or as some put it 'accepting mediocrity'.

[Crunchie]

I never thought I'd ever read such a quote on here given our heritage and traditional style of play.
I remember going to a game at Ibrox under Alex Miller with a team full of attacking players and we were walloped 7-0 with barely a sniff at their goal. as he says, loading the team with attack minded players isn't always a guarantee of a win, or anything for that matter.

[Jones28]

It's the players that deliver results- you do realise that aye? The manager isn't controlling them with a joy-stick.

It was sooooo predictable that because we lost a late debateable penalty that it would all be the fault of "Ross" because he didnae bring on Murphy and Allan- and that it's only when you have 'creative' players on that you win games.

The truth is- the only time Rangers looked dangerous was when they were countering on our attacks and space opened up.

The same team hammered Rangers at Hampden without Murphy and Allan on at all. Just because you don't fill the team with players who are supposedly 'attacking' doesn't mean you're not trying to win. The first thing Jack Ross has to deal with is the fact they have better players than us- it's funny how folk conveniently forget stuff like that.

JR had the team set up in a way where Rangers rarely looked a threat- THAT is good coaching.

What is to blame for this new culture where people genuinely believe they know so much about the game of football? The truth is most of us are utterly clueless but yet some think it's so simple to 'deliver' results like it's some kind of exact science or a computer game.

People have been asking the question already but who exactly is ever going to make these fans happy? The sorry fact is that if Klopp got the Hibs job we're unlikely to be getting any higher than 3rd, or as some put it 'accepting mediocrity'.

:aok: Good post

[B.H.F.C]

I remember going to a game at Ibrox under Alex Miller with a team full of attacking players and we were walloped 7-0 with barely a sniff at their goal. as he says, loading the team with attack minded players isn't always a guarantee of a win, or anything for that matter.

Don’t think anyone is asking for it to be loaded with attacking players. A tweak here or there. It’s not as if we weren’t on the front foot, but with the players we had on the park making things happen in the final third isn’t exactly playing to their strengths and was a big part IMO, why we failed to score again.

[munchar]

Well, the next best thing is to listen to the radio, read the match reports, look at the stats and to read Johnny's excellent summaries and testimony from people on here.

All theses told me we did more than enough to win the game, and would have been good value for the win even if Saints had kept 11 men on the pitch.

Do I still not count?

😂 So your just going by someone else’s opinions then? Not your own!
And if you want to go by stats, they say 11 v 11 we were losing, & it wasn’t until SA came on with 19 minutes to go & was involved in both goals that won us the game. Which statistically says if you play creative players, you have more chance of winning the game?

[Jones28]

😂 So your just going by someone else’s opinions then? Not your own!
And if you want to go by stats, they say 11 v 11 we were losing, & it wasn’t until SA came on with 19 minutes to go & was involved in both goals that won us the game. Which statistically says if you play creative players, you have more chance of winning the game?

Right so now reading about something and forming an opinion doesn't count? Do you know how ****ing bonkers that is?

[munchar]

Right so now reading about something and forming an opinion doesn't count? Do you know how ****ing bonkers that is?

“Reading Jonnies summaries” that’s his opinion, not yours. You’ve not seen the game How honkers is that?

[Unseen work]

It's the players that deliver results- you do realise that aye? The manager isn't controlling them with a joy-stick.

It was sooooo predictable that because we lost a late debateable penalty that it would all be the fault of "Ross" because he didnae bring on Murphy and Allan- and that it's only when you have 'creative' players on that you win games.

The truth is- the only time Rangers looked dangerous was when they were countering on our attacks and space opened up.

The same team hammered Rangers at Hampden without Murphy and Allan on at all. Just because you don't fill the team with players who are supposedly 'attacking' doesn't mean you're not trying to win. The first thing Jack Ross has to deal with is the fact they have better players than us- it's funny how folk conveniently forget stuff like that.

JR had the team set up in a way where Rangers rarely looked a threat- THAT is good coaching.

What is to blame for this new culture where people genuinely believe they know so much about the game of football? The truth is most of us are utterly clueless but yet some think it's so simple to 'deliver' results like it's some kind of exact science or a computer game.

People have been asking the question already but who exactly is ever going to make these fans happy? The sorry fact is that if Klopp got the Hibs job we're unlikely to be getting any higher than 3rd, or as some put it 'accepting mediocrity'.

Couldn’t agree more.

I think often it’s forgotten/not appreciate how hard it is to get the right balance.

Good going forward but poor defensively = boy band
Poor going forward but good defensively = Not good enough we’re Hibs etc
We need a defensive centre mid = Sign Gogic
Gogic plays = He’s got but not good enough on the ball

It’s endless and so tiring.

I get why some are frustrated over recent form but I still have 100% faith in Ross. IMO he has got the balance right more often than not, made us hard to beat and gets us creating chances and being clinical when we get them.

January will be a huge window and I think we’ll see a fair change in our squad.

He’ll get us 4th this season at least.

[Danderhall Hibs]

We saw what happened in the first half against them at Easter Road.

We did. What did Hearts do last night? That nearly worked.

[90274]

“Reading Jonnies summaries” that’s his opinion, not yours. You’ve not seen the game How honkers is that?

I thought exactly the same thing.

[90274]

He’ll get us 4th this season at least.

At this moment in time that is a big prediction. I do hope you are right.

[JimBHibees]

At this moment in time that is a big prediction. I do hope you are right.

Have a bit of faith.

[J-C]

We were 1-0 down against St Johnstone despite dominating the game, so the subs were undoubtedly a good idea. There was very little danger that the change could potentially have worked in the opposition's favour.

Up until the 82nd minute, were were equally balanced against Rangers, with the players and the way they were set up pretty much nullifying any threat.

There was a possibility that making the subs could have changed the game in our favour, but also a very strong possibility it could have gone the other way.

They brought Arfield on and started to be the more dominant looking likely to score, Ross allowed that to happen, one or two were tiring after 60 mins but he did nothing till after the penalty.

[Jones28]

“Reading Jonnies summaries” that’s his opinion, not yours. You’ve not seen the game How honkers is that?


I thought exactly the same thing.

Funny that.

[Since452]

I'm not a manager and i don't know the status of everyone's fitness but i did think that he made the subs too late. Especially with the sheer number of games we have to play this month and the effort the lads put in in Perth at the weekend. Maybe Ross didn't want to disrupt the game too much. If it wasn't for the penalty we'd have got a deserved draw so i'm not going to be too critical of him.

[Shrekko]

They brought Arfield on and started to be the more dominant looking likely to score, Ross allowed that to happen, one or two were tiring after 60 mins but he did nothing till after the penalty.

Nobody was tiring after 60 - absolutely nobody. We were probably on top at that stage and for a good bit of the 2nd half.

[Jones28]

“Reading Jonnies summaries” that’s his opinion, not yours. You’ve not seen the game How honkers is that?

Johnny who goes to matches and writes very articulate, honest summaries that I wouldn't disagree with in the vast majority of cases. You also forgot about the bit where I read match reports and listened to experts.

I don't have to justify where I get my information from in the slightest anyway, this isn't a conspiracy theory, it's a football game. You're opinion is different to mine, thats fine, what isn't fine is questioning the validity of someone elses opinion, especially when the person has taken their information from reliable sources and statistics.

[90274]

Johnny who goes to matches and writes very articulate, honest summaries that I wouldn't disagree with in the vast majority of cases. You also forgot about the bit where I read match reports and listened to experts.

I don't have to justify where I get my information from in the slightest anyway, this isn't a conspiracy theory, it's a football game. You're opinion is different to mine, thats fine, what isn't fine is questioning the validity of someone elses opinion, especially when the person has taken their information from reliable sources and statistics.

Accredited journalists fair enough. But, not sure I'd cite a fellow posters opinion as a source to debate on other threads though.

[greenlex]

Accredited journalists fair enough. But, not sure I'd cite a fellow posters opinion as a source to debate on other threads though.

Depends who the poster is. The one in question has a good knowledge of the game and all things Hibs. He’s probably seen more of Hibs than you’ve seen daylight. He’s certainly up there with any accredited journalist you care to mention.

[munchar]

Depends who the poster is. The one in question has a good knowledge of the game and all things Hibs. He’s probably seen more of Hibs than you’ve seen daylight. He’s certainly up there with any accredited journalist you care to mention.

Nobody’s questioning Jonnies opinion, but that’s what it is, his opinion. You can’t have a debate & use someone else’s opinion ffs

[Jones28]

Nobody’s questioning Jonnies opinion, but that’s what it is, his opinion. You can’t have a debate & use someone else’s opinion ffs

Why not? It's a credible opinion in the Hibs.net, probably one of the best, there are others out there too. At the end of the day thats what we are doing, debating on a football forum.

[greenlex]

Nobody’s questioning Jonnies opinion, but that’s what it is, his opinion. You can’t have a debate & use someone else’s opinion ffs

Nonsense. You don’t just form an opinion on something from first hand experience. You form it from various sources including trusted opinions. You don’t have to be at a game to have an opinion on how it’s gone. That’s plain daft. In any case the post I was commenting on was saying if you’re an accredited journalist your opinion is more valid than someone else’s. Probably even more daft. In fact no probables about it. Let me see Any Daily record journalist Keith Jackson, Jim Traynor or Johns?

[Jones28]

Nonsense. You don’t just form an opinion on something from first hand experience. You form it from various sources including trusted opinions. You don’t have to be at a game to have an opinion on how it’s gone. That’s plain daft.

Someone better let munchkin know about things like academic work, reference books etc.

[Shrekko]

Nobody’s questioning Jonnies opinion, but that’s what it is, his opinion. You can’t have a debate & use someone else’s opinion ffs

For me he speaks for the sane and knowledgeable element of the support- which is very refreshing in terms of what you see on the internet. The reports are free from hyperbole either way with a slight bias towards Hibs which is what all Hibs "supporters" should have and he doesn't try to write like he's a football expert. In short, most reasonable Hibs fans will most likely more or less agree with most of the report and will certainly believe they were at the same game. The hysterical cry babies looking for blood after every dropped point not so much.

I'm going to take a knowledgeable Hibs fan - which he is, over a Scottish football journalist any day of the week. Perfectly good reference on a Hibs game.

[munchar]

Nonsense. You don’t just form an opinion on something from first hand experience. You form it from various sources including trusted opinions. You don’t have to be at a game to have an opinion on how it’s gone. That’s plain daft.

Deary me. “Trusted opinions”? That’s someone else’s opinion. How can you possibly debate on a game you’ve not watched? It’s an accumulation of random folks thoughts, 0% of your own.

[Shrekko]

Deary me. “Trusted opinions”? That’s someone else’s opinion. How can you possibly debate on a game you’ve not watched? It’s an accumulation of random folks thoughts, 0% of your own.

So if you were arguing the merits of a player you wouldn't think it relevant to mention certain managers/pundits/ex-players opinions of that player?

[Jones28]

Deary me. “Trusted opinions”? That’s someone else’s opinion. How can you possibly debate on a game you’ve not watched? It’s an accumulation of random folks thoughts, 0% of your own.


Wrong, professional journalists and expert pundits - some of whom have actually played the game, and trusted contributors on this site.

[munchar]

Wrong, professional journalists and expert pundits - some of whom have actually played the game, and trusted contributors on this site.

It’s not YOUR opinion. “Boyle played well, Hanlon was poor” because someone who watched the game said so.

[B.H.F.C]

For me he speaks for the sane and knowledgeable element of the support- which is very refreshing in terms of what you see on the internet. The reports are free from hyperbole either way with a slight bias towards Hibs which is what all Hibs "supporters" should have and he doesn't try to write like he's a football expert. In short, most reasonable Hibs fans will most likely more or less agree with most of the report and will certainly believe they were at the same game. The hysterical cry babies looking for blood after every dropped point not so much.

I'm going to take a knowledgeable Hibs fan - which he is, over a Scottish football journalist any day of the week. Perfectly good reference on a Hibs game.

Interestingly, the knowledgable poster in question noted “ Jack Ross – It seemed to me as though he was settling for a point and should have reacted in kind when the Rangers made their first two changes” in his match report, which is what a lot of the debate has centred on in this thread.

Does that fall under your observation about the new culture of folk thinking they know so much about the game, it not being a computer game etc?

[Jones28]

It’s not YOUR opinion. “Boyle played well, Hanlon was poor” because someone who watched the game said so.

Right ok.

I'll leave it at that.

[90274]

Interestingly, the knowledgable poster in question noted “ Jack Ross – It seemed to me as though he was settling for a point and should have reacted in kind when the Rangers made their first two changes” in his match report, which is what a lot of the debate has centred on in this thread.

Does that fall under you observation about the new culture of folk thinking they know so much about the game, it not being a computer game etc?

Exactly, brilliant observation.