Why not Murray??

[bigwheel]

Had Oli not done well when he came on (and scored!), there would have definitely been some "No Simon Murray?" rage on here at the moment...brave call from Lennon in a big game- and it worked for us. I wonder what triggered the decision to go with Shaw. Fair play to him.

[Ronniekirk]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Had Oli not done well when he came on (and scored!), there would have definitely been some "No Simon Murray?" rage on here at the moment...brave call from Lennon in a big game- and it worked for us. I wonder what triggered the decision to go with Shaw. Fair play to him.

He has been scoring prolifically for development team in last few games Lennon rates him and goes to all the games so must have felt he could handle the Occassion
Murray has paid the price for missing chances in some of our drawn games that would have won us those Suspect his industry and running alone isn't enough for Lennon
Although against Hearts that may be whats needed Thought Murray may have been played in development games to get his scoring touch back But Lennon knows he can score prolifically at that level Its a catch 22 now If shaw is ready to be used to help his development lets not hold him back ,but Murray will only regain his scoring touch by playing and it wont be doing his confidence any good to not be getting any significant game time
Interesting to see how this develops


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Sammy7nil]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Had Oli not done well when he came on (and scored!), there would have definitely been some "No Simon Murray?" rage on here at the moment...brave call from Lennon in a big game- and it worked for us. I wonder what triggered the decision to go with Shaw. Fair play to him.

We were 3 - 1 down to a team that has not lost a domestic game for over a year, there was nothing to lose I suspect NL had seen Oli score a few recently where Murray had not scored for months and thought let's give the young boy a chance. It will really help his development and let NL know if he could possibly make the step up.

I do agree it was a gamble and there would have been an outcry had it bombed but IMHO it was a calculated gamble taking in to account their recent goal scoring exploits.

[Keith_M]

SM has shown he is a prolific striker, but only against the lower league teams. He's yet to show much against premier sides.


Maybe the Championship is actually his level. It's hard to tell unless he gets an extended run in the side but I don't think he's shown enough to justify that.

[easty]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

SM has shown he is a prolific striker, but only against the lower league teams. He's yet to show much against premier sides.


Maybe the Championship is actually his level. It's hard to tell unless he gets an extended run in the side but I don't think he's shown enough to justify that.

He scored at Ibrox.

[Diclonius]

Murray will start on Tuesday.

[J-C]

Lennon said last season that he wanted to call up Shaw for the 1st team but couldn't as he was on loan, obviously rates him and has been banging them in at development games, looks like a young Alan Gordon type player.

[Hiber-nation]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Murray will start on Tuesday.

Do you know this for a fact? I can't see it at all.

[Hermit Crab]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Do you know this for a fact? I can't see it at all.

We will probably play with two up on Tuesday but no guarantees it will be Stokes and Murray.

[hibsdaft]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Had Oli not done well when he came on (and scored!), there would have definitely been some "No Simon Murray?" rage on here at the moment...brave call from Lennon in a big game- and it worked for us. I wonder what triggered the decision to go with Shaw. Fair play to him.

I'll admit, I thought Lennon had lost the plot with this one, partly because it was Shaw but also because we had a whole 50 mins to go with no further subbies.

[Hermit Crab]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

I'll admit, I thought Lennon had lost the plot with this one, partly because it was Shaw but also because we had a whole 50 mins to go with no further subbies.

NL went for it, I respect him for that.

[Billy Whizz]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

I'll admit, I thought Lennon had lost the plot with this one, partly because it was Shaw but also because we had a whole 50 mins to go with no further subbies.

We were 3-1 down, he needed to do something

[Diclonius]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

We will probably play with two up on Tuesday but no guarantees it will be Stokes and Murray.

I get Shaw played well but it would be madness to start him ahead of an experienced striker in such an important game.

[Tyler Durden]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Had Oli not done well when he came on (and scored!), there would have definitely been some "No Simon Murray?" rage on here at the moment...brave call from Lennon in a big game- and it worked for us. I wonder what triggered the decision to go with Shaw. Fair play to him.

Lennon said that Shaw has been training well with the squad and he felt it's important to give him a chance soon or the boy would lose faith that the opportunity would come. Proved to be a good gamble.

This place is mad at times. Simon Murray has had a great start for us. It's only in the last 3 games where we've faced the strongest 2 teams in Scotland, that Murray has been on the bench. Now we get nonsense on here like "Lennon doesn't fancy Murray at the moment" etc

Some people went over board with Murrays start and similarly folk now going well OTT writing him off.

I think he'll start on Tuesday and every faith he'll be back in form

[gaz1875]

Here's my take. At the start of the season we looked very sharp (Betfred and Partick), pressed from the front and SM was bagging the goals. We sign Stokes and Lennon changes the system. Stokes is good but nothing sensational, he can't play upfront on his own and constantly drifts wide leaving no one in the centre. SM has potential, and gives us much more option, playing into channels and going over the top. This is Lennon's biggest problem, he changes the team to accommodate certain players. He should have kept the early season tactics of pressing the opposition in their own half, we should be doing a lot more than our current form is showing. Last season was similar, scrapped results and lets be honest limped over the line

[theonlywayisup]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

I'll admit, I thought Lennon had lost the plot with this one, partly because it was Shaw but also because we had a whole 50 mins to go with no further subbies.

Shaw came on on the 70th minute - only 20 minutes to go, unless you mean including extra time if we had got two goals back.

[theonlywayisup]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Here's my take. At the start of the season we looked very sharp (Betfred and Partick), pressed from the front and SM was bagging the goals. We sign Stokes and Lennon changes the system. Stokes is good but nothing sensational, he can't play upfront on his own and constantly drifts wide leaving no one in the centre. SM has potential, and gives us much more option, playing into channels and going over the top. This is Lennon's biggest problem, he changes the team to accommodate certain players. He should have kept the early season tactics of pressing the opposition in their own half, we should be doing a lot more than our current form is showing. Last season was similar, scrapped results and lets be honest limped over the line

Interesting view!

I recall thinking something similar when we had Cummings and Boyle playing well, along with Malonga up until Christmas 2015. Then we sign Stokes and he becomes the unmovable fixture in the team. He had some excellent games for Hibs (ICT away, SC Final etc) but also many games when it didn't work for him.

It would take a brave man to drop Stokes to go back to what we had at the start of the season. The challenge for Lennon is to work out who's best to play with Stokes - maybe Shaw might become that player.

[wookie70]

I remember saying frequently to my mates in the early games of the season how hard we were working off the ball, hunting in packs and winning the ball back high up the park. Contrast that with the last couple of games. Simon Murray's form dropped off when we started playing at a more sedate pace and although he still worked hard he couldn't do it on his own and he was left chasing shadows. I'd like to see what Boyle and Murray were like as a two, wind them up and let them go

[bigwheel]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

I remember saying frequently to my mates in the early games of the season how hard we were working off the ball, hunting in packs and winning the ball back high up the park. Contrast that with the last couple of games. Simon Murray's form dropped off when we started playing at a more sedate pace and although he still worked hard he couldn't do it on his own and he was left chasing shadows. I'd like to see what Boyle and Murray were like as a two, wind them up and let them go

And you would drop Stokes to play Boyle & Murray together ???


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[Hiber-nation]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Here's my take. At the start of the season we looked very sharp (Betfred and Partick), pressed from the front and SM was bagging the goals. We sign Stokes and Lennon changes the system. Stokes is good but nothing sensational, he can't play upfront on his own and constantly drifts wide leaving no one in the centre. SM has potential, and gives us much more option, playing into channels and going over the top. This is Lennon's biggest problem, he changes the team to accommodate certain players. He should have kept the early season tactics of pressing the opposition in their own half, we should be doing a lot more than our current form is showing. Last season was similar, scrapped results and lets be honest limped over the line

I keep thinking this myself but how can you leave out a player with Stokes's quality?

[southern hibby]

Said it several times now in several threads I would love to see Boyle and Murray come on in two or three games together around the 60 minute mark and let them run at players.

Defenders in Scotland generally are scared of pace and to have two fast players attacking your defence is probably a nightmare for defenders but to have two attacking when they have been running for an hour must really be a frightening prospect for any defence. Look at the problems Boyle caused Celtic by coming on with his pace, when he did.

One other thing I'd like to see us do more of is ( whatever stage of the game we are at ) is running at defenders who have been booked. Maybe it's just me but we never seem to try and wind up annoy defenders after they've been booked. Run at them with pace and let them challenge and maybe just maybe we'll play against ten men or a defender scared to put a hefty challenge in because he knows he might walk.

GGTTH

[Kojock]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

NL went for it, I respect him for that.

It was mentioned that if the game goes to extra time then a fourth sub is permitted.

[madhatter]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

I keep thinking this myself but how can you leave out a player with Stokes's quality?

When you write out the team sheet you don't put his name in the first 11. Other teams drop players of much better quality than Stokes. The way people talk of Stokes' quality you'd honestly think we had Messi...

The move to containing and dropping back into a solid shape doesnt work for us yet we've done that recently. We struggle to break down teams and absolutely need to press to get the ball further up the park. Yet we don't. Our best move against Celtic was a Whittaker (one of our oldest players) dart forward and Shaw (youngest player) to point behind the defender to where he wanted the ball.

The rest of the game it was all very tippy tappy and our passes were so weak that our play was shockingly slow. Players waiting on a trickling ball while they are being pressed. Hate seeing that, shameful seeing pros not playing passes with impetus. They obviously do it because we have players in our team who have terrible first touch or something...

I'd honestly start Shaw and Murray against Hearts. We need movement. We need players who stick to the middle of the pitch. We need pace. Stokes has ability but he has virtually no pace. Stokes upfront on his own against Hearts will shoot us in the foot.

[hughio]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

When you write out the team sheet you don't put his name in the first 11. Other teams drop players of much better quality than Stokes. The way people talk of Stokes' quality you'd honestly think we had Messi...

The move to containing and dropping back into a solid shape doesnt work for us yet we've done that recently. We struggle to break down teams and absolutely need to press to get the ball further up the park. Yet we don't. Our best move against Celtic was a Whittaker (one of our oldest players) dart forward and Shaw (youngest player) to point behind the defender to where he wanted the ball.

The rest of the game it was all very tippy tappy and our passes were so weak that our play was shockingly slow. Players waiting on a trickling ball while they are being pressed. Hate seeing that, shameful seeing pros not playing passes with impetus. They obviously do it because we have players in our team who have terrible first touch or something...

I'd honestly start Shaw and Murray against Hearts. We need movement. We need players who stick to the middle of the pitch. We need pace. Stokes has ability but he has virtually no pace. Stokes upfront on his own against Hearts will shoot us in the foot.

Got to say I think you are right

[Golden Bear]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

When you write out the team sheet you don't put his name in the first 11. Other teams drop players of much better quality than Stokes. The way people talk of Stokes' quality you'd honestly think we had Messi...

The move to containing and dropping back into a solid shape doesnt work for us yet we've done that recently. We struggle to break down teams and absolutely need to press to get the ball further up the park. Yet we don't. Our best move against Celtic was a Whittaker (one of our oldest players) dart forward and Shaw (youngest player) to point behind the defender to where he wanted the ball.

The rest of the game it was all very tippy tappy and our passes were so weak that our play was shockingly slow. Players waiting on a trickling ball while they are being pressed. Hate seeing that, shameful seeing pros not playing passes with impetus. They obviously do it because we have players in our team who have terrible first touch or something...

I'd honestly start Shaw and Murray against Hearts. We need movement. We need players who stick to the middle of the pitch. We need pace. Stokes has ability but he has virtually no pace. Stokes upfront on his own against Hearts will shoot us in the foot.

Spot on.

[bigwheel]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

When you write out the team sheet you don't put his name in the first 11. Other teams drop players of much better quality than Stokes. The way people talk of Stokes' quality you'd honestly think we had Messi...

The move to containing and dropping back into a solid shape doesnt work for us yet we've done that recently. We struggle to break down teams and absolutely need to press to get the ball further up the park. Yet we don't. Our best move against Celtic was a Whittaker (one of our oldest players) dart forward and Shaw (youngest player) to point behind the defender to where he wanted the ball.

The rest of the game it was all very tippy tappy and our passes were so weak that our play was shockingly slow. Players waiting on a trickling ball while they are being pressed. Hate seeing that, shameful seeing pros not playing passes with impetus. They obviously do it because we have players in our team who have terrible first touch or something...

I'd honestly start Shaw and Murray against Hearts. We need movement. We need players who stick to the middle of the pitch. We need pace. Stokes has ability but he has virtually no pace. Stokes upfront on his own against Hearts will shoot us in the foot.

Just so I understand - as well as playing an untried pair upfront, neither of whom are anywhere near as good as Stokers - to play two up front would you also revert to a four in midfield ? Which has never worked for us any time we have played it this season. or would you go a three in defence?

[MB62]

The problem is not Stokes, it is he is being played on his own up front. The reason he is on his own is because we play big Marv as a holding player between defence and midfield. Therefore, we have to lose a man somewhere and a striker is where Lennon has chosen to lose the player from.
Stokes in recent games, has looked so frustrated being up there on his own. From what I can see, it looks like Dylan has been the man tasked with supporting Stokes from midfield, but I could count on one finger how many goals D.M has scored for us. Neither SJM or DM are prolific goal scorers from central midfield and that leaves A.S. isolated up front.
Our 4-1-4-1 set up is designed mainly to not lose goals (that's not worked) rather than scoring goals.

I felt on Saturday we should have been running at them from the start, trying to run the legs off them after their trip to Munich midweek, instead of trying to contain them, played in to their hands a bit. We might have still lost, celtc are not 60 games undefeated domestically without being able to handle all kind of different tactics, but at least we would have been having a dash from the start.
Individual errors cost us in that first half, nobody can legislate for that, but if we had been more on the front foot rather than the containing foot, they might not have those same chances.

All just different opinions of course, and that's mine, which is a wee tad less important than NL's

[calumhibee1]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

I keep thinking this myself but how can you leave out a player with Stokes's quality?

Stokes has played 12 games and scored 8 goals. Now keep in mind that he never got the benefit of boosting his numbers in the league cup games where we scored a barrel load and the idea of dropping Stokes just doesn’t make sense to me.

[BSEJVT]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

The problem is not Stokes, it is he is being played on his own up front. The reason he is on his own is because we play big Marv as a holding player between defence and midfield. Therefore, we have to lose a man somewhere and a striker is where Lennon has chosen to lose the player from.
Stokes in recent games, has looked so frustrated being up there on his own. From what I can see, it looks like Dylan has been the man tasked with supporting Stokes from midfield, but I could count on one finger how many goals D.M has scored for us. Neither SJM or DM are prolific goal scorers from central midfield and that least A.S. isolated up front.
Our 4-1-4-1 set up is designed mainly to not lose goals (that's not worked) rather than scoring goals.

I felt on Saturday we should have been running at them from the start, trying to run the legs off them after their trip to Munich midweek, instead of trying to contain them, played in to their hands a bit. We might have still lost, celtc are not 60 games undefeated domestically without being able to handle all kind of different tactics, but at least we would have been having a dash from the start.
Individual errors cost us in that first, nobody can legislate for that, but if we had been more on the front foot rather than the containing foot, they might not have those same chances.

All just different opinions of course, and that's mine, which is a wee tad less important than NL's

Exactly as I see it.

Stokes is a far better footballer than I had previously given him credit for but IMO cannot play as a lone striker.

I am sure the reason he drops wide is that he knows he cannot hold the ball in against 2 big heifers coming through the back of him and that does leave us light in the middle

[pacoluna]

people suggesting we drop stokes for the derby.