Naismith In!!!!

[kila]

1 hour ago, Bad Religion said:

It’s difficult to decipher what you’re saying here so please correct me if I’m wrong. 
 

Saturdays win had little to do with Naismith’s team selection, setup, tactics and coaching/motivation of the players. The main difference between this performance and the equivalent should Robbie have still been in charge is that Naismith had Haring back and they had two of their better players out?

 

 

It doesn't make much sense does it. Naismith is responsible for the change in mindset to being more attacking. Beni even said training has reflected that, and Naismith wants them to attack instead of being 'safe'.

 

But Peter Haring has been the game changer apparently... 

 

FFS if Robbie was still here he'd be picking Snodgrass over him anyway!

[Mac80]

1 hour ago, Naisys Tackle said:

Can you list these for us mere mortals please?  Not saying you are wrong. 

If you cant see these attributes at the moment, i am not going to bother wasting my time...

[A_A wehatethehibs]

36 minutes ago, KyleLafferty said:

I think tomorrow is the game the hearts board will decide on. McKinley made it clear he wasn’t happy how we perform against rangers. If Naisy can go there, and actually lay a glove on them and make sure the team don’t shite themselves I reckon it’s his. Even if we get beat it’s got to be a performance that we all can say that we gave them a proper game.

 

 

The concept of “shat ourselves” as an explanation for why the better team won a football game has got to go in the bin in my opinion. 

[Mac80]

1 hour ago, Dusk_Till_Dawn said:

Lol, self-entitled to ask a coach with no track record to demonstrate their credentials

 

Thats not what i said, read it again.

[Watt-Zeefuik]

2 hours ago, Bad Religion said:

It’s difficult to decipher what you’re saying here so please correct me if I’m wrong. 
 

Saturdays win had little to do with Naismith’s team selection, setup, tactics and coaching/motivation of the players. The main difference between this performance and the equivalent should Robbie have still been in charge is that Naismith had Haring back and they had two of their better players out?

 

 

It's gone down rabbit holes so I can understand if it's getting muddled, but this is the gist:

 

Naismith hasn't done enough *yet* to merit the full time gig. He's only had 5 games. Yes, it's been a huge improvement over the last days of Neilson's tenure but that's not saying a whole lot.

 

When I say the above, some folks are saying it's because I somehow don't like him or I'm not giving him credit or something which to me is silly.

 

Saturday's win was very good but I'm not going to lose my mind over it. We've looked bad at times under Naismith just as we've looked very good at times.

 

Some folk sound like they're ready to hand him a five year contract on the basis of frankly two good home wins and a decent half against Celtic that got ruined by the ref.

 

If we play at Ibrox and against Hibs the way we did against Aberdeen and get 4-6 points, yeah, I'm ready to give him the gig unless there's a Burley-like candidate waiting in the wings.

[Naisys Tackle]

1 minute ago, Mac80 said:

If you cant see these attributes at the moment, i am not going to bother wasting my time...

No, based on 4 games I can't see why you can claim he has all the attributes to be a top manager really.

 

He could be of course but it's an extremely bold claim.   Nobody really knows tbh.   Yes we have improved (couldn't get much worse tbh) but appointing him as manager would be an extremely large gamble. 

[kila]

3 minutes ago, Led Tasso said:

Some folk sound like they're ready to hand him a five year contract...

 

Dramatising much?

 

[Mac80]

4 minutes ago, Naisys Tackle said:

No, based on 4 games I can't see why you can claim he has all the attributes to be a top manager really.

 

He could be of course but it's an extremely bold claim.   Nobody really knows tbh.   Yes we have improved (couldn't get much worse tbh) but appointing him as manager would be an extremely large gamble. 

Its just my opinion, but anyone can see the players are buying in to his ideas and playing for him.

 

Agree it would be an gamble but bringing in another manager from another team would be be an extremely expensive gamble. Everything is a gamble in Football.

 

 

[KyleLafferty]

15 minutes ago, A_A wehatethehibs said:

 

The concept of “shat ourselves” as an explanation for why the better team won a football game has got to go in the bin in my opinion. 

I can always except when a team is better than hearts. But I can’t except footballers forgetting how to pass a ball or effort through there. Happens too often. In recent times I think we’ve done okay in Glasgow cause we’ve been brave and believe we can win but majority of the time it’s a mentality thing 

[Naisys Tackle]

2 minutes ago, Mac80 said:

Its just my opinion, but anyone can see the players are buying in to his ideas and playing for him.

 

Agree it would be an gamble but bringing in another manager from another team would be be an extremely expensive gamble. Everything is a gamble in Football.

 

 

Player bought into Kettlewells and Robsons ideas too and they have transformed both Motherwell and Aberdeen - I think it's fair to say we wouldn't want either of them though?

 

True, and Naisy hopefully is on a shortlist of other capable managers based on based experiences and achievements too.   As long as the board don't blindly give him the job without considering or talking to others then he could be the correct choice. 

[Dazo]

1 hour ago, KyleLafferty said:

I think tomorrow is the game the hearts board will decide on. McKinley made it clear he wasn’t happy how we perform against rangers. If Naisy can go there, and actually lay a glove on them and make sure the team don’t shite themselves I reckon it’s his. Even if we get beat it’s got to be a performance that we all can say that we gave them a proper game.

 

On the face of it I agree but it’s also a toughie as SN can set the team exactly has we all would want and ask the players to all the right things but like everything else if they don’t perform that’s it. Yes it’s his job to get them to perform but maybe we don’t have the quality/the players with the right mindset or still on autopilot from what RN has drummed into them. Bar the first hibs game for me he should be judged on every performance he has been in charge of though so I expect a performance tonight but maybe not a result. 

[Mac80]

Just now, Naisys Tackle said:

Player bought into Kettlewells and Robsons ideas too and they have transformed both Motherwell and Aberdeen - I think it's fair to say we wouldn't want either of them though?

 

True, and Naisy hopefully is on a shortlist of other capable managers based on based experiences and achievements too.   As long as the board don't blindly give him the job without considering or talking to others then he could be the correct choice. 

 

Ofcourse we wouldnt want either of them, I am not suggesting that but we do need to tread with caution if looking to bring a manager in from down south or abroad.

 

Im sure there has been plenty work behind the scenes these past few weeks, we just need to trust the board.

 

[Naisys Tackle]

4 minutes ago, Mac80 said:

 

Ofcourse we wouldnt want either of them, I am not suggesting that but we do need to tread with caution if looking to bring a manager in from down south or abroad.

 

Im sure there has been plenty work behind the scenes these past few weeks, we just need to trust the board.

 

👍

[Naisys Tackle]

7 minutes ago, Dazo said:

On the face of it I agree but it’s also a toughie as SN can set the team exactly has we all would want and ask the players to all the right things but like everything else if they don’t perform that’s it. Yes it’s his job to get them to perform but maybe we don’t have the quality/the players with the right mindset or still on autopilot from what RN has drummed into them. Bar the first hibs game for me he should be judged on every performance he has been in charge of though so I expect a performance tonight but maybe not a result. 

Tomorrow mate.  Just in case you thought today  

[Dazo]

1 minute ago, Naisys Tackle said:

Tomorrow mate.  Just in case you thought today  

Oh aye. Old age eh. 😂

[Bad Religion]

4 hours ago, Led Tasso said:

 

 

Of course, but Neilson was (rightfully IMO) sacked for failing to get results with that same wounded Hearts side, with the additional difficulty of not having Haring either, whom Naismith has the good fortune to have back.

 

We sacked Robbie and gave Naisy the interim job on the expectation that they would be better than the current Aberdeen side and finish third. We then met Aberdeen with an additional two players out for them and Haring back for us, at home no less, and came back to win by a single goal. This isn't making excuses for Robbie or dismissing the thumping performance, it's keeping the scales fair.

 

For me if Neilson was judged to be coming up short (and he should have been IMO), then Naismith needs to show a bit more before being given the permanent gig.

 

10 minutes ago, Led Tasso said:

 

It's gone down rabbit holes so I can understand if it's getting muddled, but this is the gist:

 

Naismith hasn't done enough *yet* to merit the full time gig. He's only had 5 games. Yes, it's been a huge improvement over the last days of Neilson's tenure but that's not saying a whole lot.

 

When I say the above, some folks are saying it's because I somehow don't like him or I'm not giving him credit or something which to me is silly.

 

Saturday's win was very good but I'm not going to lose my mind over it. We've looked bad at times under Naismith just as we've looked very good at times.

 

Some folk sound like they're ready to hand him a five year contract on the basis of frankly two good home wins and a decent half against Celtic that got ruined by the ref.

 

If we play at Ibrox and against Hibs the way we did against Aberdeen and get 4-6 points, yeah, I'm ready to give him the gig unless there's a Burley-like candidate waiting in the wings.

 

You're just backtracking now.

 

The implication in your post above is that the difference in performance was down to 'good fortune' having Haring back and them having players out injured, nothing to do with Naismith. Unsurprisingly, you failed to refer to that again in your response.

 

Naismith wasn't given the interim job on the 'expectation' that he would finish third. He was given the job as he was seen as the best short term appointment to see out the season on the assumption that third was more than likely, already gone.

 

Whether we finish third or not won't be the deciding factor in whether or not Naismith is offered the job on a full time basis. He's probably already exceeded expectation but as you correctly say, there are still two matches to be played and there is no need to rush into appointing him. We also don't know who the other candidates are.

 

You can't blame the fans wanting to see him appointed. The transformation in performance (with Neilson's players) in such a short time has me on board. Haven't seen anyone calling for 5 year deals.

 

 

 

 

[Dazo]

14 minutes ago, Bad Religion said:

 

 

You're just backtracking now.

 

The implication in your post above is that the difference in performance was down to 'good fortune' having Haring back and them having players out injured, nothing to do with Naismith. Unsurprisingly, you failed to refer to that again in your response.

 

Naismith wasn't given the interim job on the 'expectation' that he would finish third. He was given the job as he was seen as the best short term appointment to see out the season on the assumption that third was more than likely, already gone.

 

Whether we finish third or not won't be the deciding factor in whether or not Naismith is offered the job on a full time basis. He's probably already exceeded expectation but as you correctly say, there are still two matches to be played and there is no need to rush into appointing him. We also don't know who the other candidates are.

 

You can't blame the fans wanting to see him appointed. The transformation in performance (with Neilson's players) in such a short time has me on board. Haven't seen anyone calling for 5 year deals.

 

 

 

 

[May one-six]

54 minutes ago, Led Tasso said:

 

It's gone down rabbit holes so I can understand if it's getting muddled, but this is the gist:

 

Naismith hasn't done enough *yet* to merit the full time gig. He's only had 5 games. Yes, it's been a huge improvement over the last days of Neilson's tenure but that's not saying a whole lot.

 

When I say the above, some folks are saying it's because I somehow don't like him or I'm not giving him credit or something which to me is silly.

 

Saturday's win was very good but I'm not going to lose my mind over it. We've looked bad at times under Naismith just as we've looked very good at times.

 

Some folk sound like they're ready to hand him a five year contract on the basis of frankly two good home wins and a decent half against Celtic that got ruined by the ref.

 

If we play at Ibrox and against Hibs the way we did against Aberdeen and get 4-6 points, yeah, I'm ready to give him the gig unless there's a Burley-like candidate waiting in the wings.

I agree that it makes sense to wait until the weekend to make a decision, but Naismith has had a positive impact so far. On the negative side people are highlighting the draw in Paisley without recognising that, whether you like them or not, St Mirren are one of the most improved sides this year. They're the only side to beat both Celtic and Rangers, they turned us over at Tynecastle and they've beaten Aberdeen. Assuming we can simply turn up at their ground and give them a going over is just daft. You can't assess Naismith's performances without fully taking into account the quality of the opposition and their actual strengths not perceived weaknesses. 

[Naisys Tackle]

32 minutes ago, Dazo said:

Oh aye. Old age eh. 😂

 

[Firefox]

I've said this before, but I think Naismith has always been earmarked as a future Hearts manager, his chance has just come earlier than expected.  The board obviously think highly of him and were confident enough to let him try to salvage something from the remaining games of the season.   He's done a good job so far and has us playing the kind of football that everyone has been screaming out for since before Nielson got the job. 

 

We weren't outplayed by Hubz  in his first game, bearing in mind he only had a few days to try and change the mindset of the squad beforehand.

We lost to one of the best Celtic sides in many years, although we more than held our own against them until the farcical Cochrane Red card

We came from behind to draw with St Mirren away with 10 men - the same St Mirren that inflicted one of only two defeats for Celtic this season and nearly snatched another win against them at Parkhead on Saturday 

We thrashed Ross County, a team we've struggled against this season

We came from behind to beat third placed Aberdeen, leaving us only 2 points behind them and still in with a shout of finishing 3rd

 

He also comes over very well in TV interviews. The dilemma the board has now is that going by his performance so far other clubs will be looking at him, more especially if he gets results in the remaining 2 games. Do they take a chance on him or another outside unknown quantity. No doubt they will have looked at all the CVs that have been sent in and earmarked the ones they are interested in as a plan B if Naisy doesn't work out.

 

Personally I hope he proves his worth and gets the gig. 

 

 

[Mr Sifter]

1 hour ago, A_A wehatethehibs said:

 

The concept of “shat ourselves” as an explanation for why the better team won a football game has got to go in the bin in my opinion. 

Why? It’s a perfect metaphor for some of our displays against the old firm in recent years. Granted, the chances are a better football team will nine times out of ten beat their inferior opponents, but between team selection/set up/passive approach to games against the OF, “shat it” explains exactly how we’ve acted. 

[A_A wehatethehibs]

14 minutes ago, Mr Sifter said:

Why? It’s a perfect metaphor for some of our displays against the old firm in recent years. Granted, the chances are a better football team will nine times out of ten beat their inferior opponents, but between team selection/set up/passive approach to games against the OF, “shat it” explains exactly how we’ve acted. 

No it doesn’t - it is completely divorced from the reality of a £2k a week player vs a £20k a week player. The better players won the game, the better team won, for some folk has now become “we shat it” - it’s not reflective of reality. We go into games with the best intention of trying to get a result. Managers have tried all sorts of different approaches. High press wunder manager got smashed 5-0 by Celtic, but a park a bus defend for our lives manager beat them 4-0. We’ve had managers try and play keep-ball and go toe to toe. We’ve had many different attempts. But for some folk it matters not if we lose that = we shat it. It’s become the default explanation for what is a bit of basic football logic, the better team won. 
 

There’s many different approaches to trying to get a result against a better team than you. Looking to defend your box strongly is a perfectly valid approach to take and does not constitute “shat it”

[Mr Sifter]

17 minutes ago, A_A wehatethehibs said:

No it doesn’t - it is completely divorced from the reality of a £2k a week player vs a £20k a week player. The better players won the game, the better team won, for some folk has now become “we shat it” - it’s not reflective of reality. We go into games with the best intention of trying to get a result. Managers have tried all sorts of different approaches. High press wunder manager got smashed 5-0 by Celtic, but a park a bus defend for our lives manager beat them 4-0. We’ve had managers try and play keep-ball and go toe to toe. We’ve had many different attempts. But for some folk it matters not if we lose that = we shat it. It’s become the default explanation for what is a bit of basic football logic, the better team won. 
 

There’s many different approaches to trying to get a result against a better team than you. Looking to defend your box strongly is a perfectly valid approach to take and does not constitute “shat it”

Any game plan which doesn’t involve any intention to cross the half way line constitutes “shittin it” in my book. We can happily disagree though 👍🏼

[Jim Panzee]

I think we also need to consider that the £20k a week players will make your £2-£5k a week players look ordinary and chase shadows for much of a game. 

 

I've said before, if it was case of mental strength / belief, then why do the ugly sisters spend millions and millions every year on £20k a week players??

 

Why don't they save an absolute fortune and bring in the level of players we do and just tell them not to "shit it" when up against us, h1b5 and the sheep?

 

[boag1874]

2 hours ago, kila said:

 

 

It doesn't make much sense does it. Naismith is responsible for the change in mindset to being more attacking. Beni even said training has reflected that, and Naismith wants them to attack instead of being 'safe'.

 

But Peter Haring has been the game changer apparently... 

 

FFS if Robbie was still here he'd be picking Snodgrass over him anyway!

 

I liked Robbie a lot and even I can see this is true, especially the last part

[A_A wehatethehibs]

28 minutes ago, Mr Sifter said:

Any game plan which doesn’t involve any intention to cross the half way line constitutes “shittin it” in my book. We can happily disagree though 👍🏼

 

Tell me, do you think it was Real Madrids “game plan” not to cross the half way line for basically the whole game against Man City? Took them 25 minutes to even complete 1 single pass in Man City half. Bit of a shite plan that eh. Thing is, that wasn’t their plan. 
 

They weren’t able to execute their game plan. Because the better team won. 

[Tom Hardy’s Dug]

Performances are important but can be overrated.

 

I’d love us to provide a swashbuckling display tomorrow and win 3-2 or similar.

 

But performing admirably and losing is meaningless. Surely we’d prefer a smash and grab 1-1 tomorrow at the very least (like last season) than some sort of Hibs-like scenario where we get clapped off the field having lost because we have it a damn good show.

Edited May 23, 2023 by Tom Hardy’s Dug

[mr fox]

2 hours ago, kila said:

 

 

It doesn't make much sense does it. Naismith is responsible for the change in mindset to being more attacking. Beni even said training has reflected that, and Naismith wants them to attack instead of being 'safe'.

 

But Peter Haring has been the game changer apparently... 

 

FFS if Robbie was still here he'd be picking Snodgrass over him anyway!

 

And Halliday 

[mr fox]

26 minutes ago, boag1874 said:

I liked Robbie a lot and even I can see this is true, especially the last part

Robbie is a poor manager good at destroying peoples confidence that’s about it. 
So so glad he is gone 

[Bad Religion]

13 minutes ago, Tom Hardy’s Dug said:

Performances are important but can be overrated.

 

I’d love us to provide a swashbuckling display tomorrow and win 3-2 or similar.

 

But performing admirably and losing is meaningless. Surely we’d prefer a smash and grab 1-1 tomorrow at the very least (like last season) than some sort of Hibs-like scenario where we get clapped off the field having lost because we have it a damn good show.

 

I can't see any posts saying they'd be happy for us to play well and lose. People just want to see a bit of fight, that's all. 

[JimmyCant]

3 hours ago, Naisys Tackle said:

No, based on 4 games I can't see why you can claim he has all the attributes to be a top manager really.

 

He could be of course but it's an extremely bold claim.   Nobody really knows tbh.   Yes we have improved (couldn't get much worse tbh) but appointing him as manager would be an extremely large gamble. 

I think having seen the improvement in a short space of time, he’s no more of a gamble than most managers we could afford and attract.

 

The one black mark for me was that horrible performance against St Mirren. If he wins that we’re sitting pretty right now and the job is probably his.

[Naisys Tackle]

1 minute ago, JimmyCant said:

I think having seen the improvement in a short space of time, he’s no more of a gamble than most managers we could afford and attract.

 

The one black mark for me was that horrible performance against St Mirren. If he wins that we’re sitting pretty right now and the job is probably his.

I agree but theres many who think Robson will eventually be the wrong choice for Aberdeen despite their remarkable improvement so unsure what the difference is really? 

[GinRummy]

1 minute ago, Naisys Tackle said:

I agree but theres many who think Robson will eventually be the wrong choice for Aberdeen despite their remarkable improvement so unsure what the difference is really? 

It doesn't really matter who Aberdeen or Hibs take as boss, folk on here are going to slate them.

[Naisys Tackle]

1 minute ago, GinRummy said:

It doesn't really matter who Aberdeen or Hibs take as boss, folk on here are going to slate them.

Fair point mate.

[JimmyCant]

7 minutes ago, Naisys Tackle said:

I agree but theres many who think Robson will eventually be the wrong choice for Aberdeen despite their remarkable improvement so unsure what the difference is really? 

There’s no difference. Robson was appointed on the back of a far better set of results than Naismith has had but he’s still a gamble. as is any manager they could afford and attract and their recent track record of managerial appointments, post McInnes,is as bad as ours, post Neilson.

 

I think Naismiths Hearts will finish above Robson’s Aberdeen, if not this season, definitely next season, but I’m biased. Either could fail. Either could succeed. Proof of the pudding and all that.

Edited May 23, 2023 by JimmyCant

[Fozzyonthefence]

38 minutes ago, Tom Hardy’s Dug said:

Performances are important but can be overrated.

 

I’d love us to provide a swashbuckling display tomorrow and win 3-2 or similar.

 

But performing admirably and losing is meaningless. Surely we’d prefer a smash and grab 1-1 tomorrow at the very least (like last season) than some sort of Hibs-like scenario where we get clapped off the field having lost because we have it a damn good show.

A 1-1 tomorrow is unlikely to be much use to us.  
 

We did get a smash and grab 2-2 (a decent result there given our track record and their home form) at St Mirren with a shite performance but strangely you only seem interested in the performance for that game yet only interested in the results, ignoring the performances against Ross County and Aberdeen.  
 

It’s the manor of those victories against County and Aberdeen and also the performance against Celtic prior to an extremely harsh red card that are getting fans on board with Naismith not just the results.  

[kingantti1874]

10 minutes ago, Naisys Tackle said:

I agree but theres many who think Robson will eventually be the wrong choice for Aberdeen despite their remarkable improvement so unsure what the difference is really? 

Because Aberdeen have been ultra defensive. Very effective but very defensive

 

eventually that type of football catches up with you.  The fans are fine when you play that style and winning but as soon as it flips the fans flip.   They are very solid and reliant on Duk but that aside very average.

 

I don’t think we will ever do that under Naismith.  Sure some games we will have to play a more controlled game but never will we try and just suck up pressure

 

At our level, hibs level aberdeens level thete is always a material risk.  We just are not in the market for sure fire things 

[Tom Hardy’s Dug]

33 minutes ago, Bad Religion said:

 

I can't see any posts saying they'd be happy for us to play well and lose. People just want to see a bit of fight, that's all. 

Ok, we’re all happy if we show a bit of fight and lose?

 

Weve already shown a bit of fight against Celtic twice at Parkhead this season and lost but not a ripple….

 

13 minutes ago, Naisys Tackle said:

I agree but theres many who think Robson will eventually be the wrong choice for Aberdeen despite their remarkable improvement so unsure what the difference is really? 

Indeed

 

1 minute ago, Fozzyonthefence said:

A 1-1 tomorrow is unlikely to be much use to us.  
 

We did get a smash and grab 2-2 (a decent result there given our track record and their home form) at St Mirren with a shite performance but strangely you only seem interested in the performance for that game yet only interested in the results, ignoring the performances against Ross County and Aberdeen.  
 

It’s the manor of those victories against County and Aberdeen and also the performance against Celtic prior to an extremely harsh red card that are getting fans on board with Naismith not just the results.  

**** me - why are people hamming up our awful performance and result against St Mirren? 
 

It was dogshite. It was no less dogshite than our last performance there. That looks to be the game that will cost us Euro group football yet you hold it up as an example of good fight?

[MattyK82]

3 minutes ago, Fozzyonthefence said:

A 1-1 tomorrow is unlikely to be much use to us.  
 

We did get a smash and grab 2-2 (a decent result there given our track record and their home form) at St Mirren with a shite performance but strangely you only seem interested in the performance for that game yet only interested in the results, ignoring the performances against Ross County and Aberdeen.  
 

It’s the manor of those victories against County and Aberdeen and also the performance against Celtic prior to an extremely harsh red card that are getting fans on board with Naismith not just the results.  

Only if the 🐑 win. And it wouldn’t surprise me if Midden get something..

[Naisys Tackle]

13 minutes ago, JimmyCant said:

There’s no difference. Robson was appointed on the back of a far better set of results than Naismith has had but he’s still a gamble. as is any manager they could afford and attract and their recent track record of managerial appointments, post McInnes,is as bad as ours, post Neilson.

 

I think Naismiths Hearts will finish above Robson’s Aberdeen, if not this season, definitely next season, but I’m biased. Either could fail. Either could succeed. Proof of the pudding and all that.

All true yeah.

[Fozzyonthefence]

7 minutes ago, Tom Hardy’s Dug said:

Ok, we’re all happy if we show a bit of fight and lose?

 

Weve already shown a bit of fight against Celtic twice at Parkhead this season and lost but not a ripple….

 

Indeed

 

**** me - why are people hamming up our awful performance and result against St Mirren? 
 

It was dogshite. It was no less dogshite than our last performance there. That looks to be the game that will cost us Euro group football yet you hold it up as an example of good fight?

 No I was highlighting your hypocrisy. Just look at results when it suits you then just look at performances when it suits you.  The performance at St Mirren was shite, the result was ok (a Neilson like performance if you like).  It didn’t cost us 3rd place, if we don’t get it, Neilson losing the plot and his players, as well as a 10 point lead or whatever it was, did. 

Edited May 23, 2023 by Fozzyonthefence

[Fozzyonthefence]

5 minutes ago, MattyK82 said:

Only if the 🐑 win. And it wouldn’t surprise me if Midden get something..

If they don’t win we can likely afford to lose tomorrow. 

[Naisys Tackle]

7 minutes ago, kingantti1874 said:

Because Aberdeen have been ultra defensive. Very effective but very defensive

 

eventually that type of football catches up with you.  The fans are fine when you play that style and winning but as soon as it flips the fans flip.   They are very solid and reliant on Duk but that aside very average.

 

I don’t think we will ever do that under Naismith.  Sure some games we will have to play a more controlled game but never will we try and just suck up pressure

 

At our level, hibs level aberdeens level thete is always a material risk.  We just are not in the market for sure fire things 

He has them playing to their strengths though with being allowed to bring anyone in.  Our strengths of the squads clearly attack at the moment so you can't really judge the guy on being extremely effective.

 

Probably not but if Naisy came in and our best players happened to be defensive players who hit on the counter attack mid season he would probably do the same. 

[Bad Religion]

5 minutes ago, Tom Hardy’s Dug said:

Ok, we’re all happy if we show a bit of fight and lose?

 

Weve already shown a bit of fight against Celtic twice at Parkhead this season and lost but not a ripple….

 

 

No one expects to go there and win. It should go without saying that the bare minimum expectation is to go there and compete. We never did that under Neilson.

[JimmyCant]

13 minutes ago, Fozzyonthefence said:

 No I was highlighting your hypocrisy. Just look at results when it suits you then just look at performances when it suits you.  The performance at St Mirren was shite, the result was ok (a Neilson like performance if you like).  It didn’t cost us 3rd place, if we don’t get it, Neilson losing the plot and his players did. 

There is a whole ledger of poor performances and results which have delivered us to this position this season. You could point to any single defeat or draw and say if it had been a win, we’d probably be 3rd.

 

Neilson was in charge for 16 of those adverse results and he’s gone. Naismith has been in charge for 3 of them. We have missed opportunities under Naismith, hard as it might be to hear it

Edited May 23, 2023 by JimmyCant

[Slevinkelevra]

https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/hearts-put-john-kennedy-under-30055053 

[jamboinglasgow]

Daily Record saying that Celtics John Kennedy on the shortlist along with Naismith (I suspect there will be others on the short list too.)

 

https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/hearts-put-john-kennedy-under-30055053

[GinRummy]

4 minutes ago, Slevinkelevra said:

https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/hearts-put-john-kennedy-under-30055053 

Pish imo. Total lies.

[We_are_the_Hearts]

5 minutes ago, Slevinkelevra said:

https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/hearts-put-john-kennedy-under-30055053 

Never unite the support, surely a non starter

[JimmyCant]

3 minutes ago, jamboinglasgow said:

Daily Record saying that Celtics John Kennedy on the shortlist along with Naismith (I suspect there will be others on the short list too.)

 

https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/hearts-put-john-kennedy-under-30055053

Nope. No thanks. Probably not even true. Certainly hope not.