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]

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

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]

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

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]

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

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]

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

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]

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

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]

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

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]

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

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]

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

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]

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

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]

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

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]

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

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]

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

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]

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

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]

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

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]

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

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]

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

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]

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

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]

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

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]

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

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]

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

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.