I can see the headlines tomorrow

[GinRummy]

2 hours ago, BackOfTheNet said:

This is true. I’m not going to lose my head about it, but given that we were 1-0 up until the 90th minute earlier in the season and have drawn 1-1 in the two previous seasons there, it’s not unthinkable to believe we would at least be competitive.

 

So it’s not unexpected to get beat as such through there, so there’s not point being annoyed at getting beat - but perfectly justifiable to get annoyed/fuming at the manner of the defeat. However, this isn’t like previous humpings through there, this was at the end of a very good unbeaten run, so I’m going to give a little slack, while still being pissed.

A bit of sense in amongst the ‘they’ve got more money than us’ and the ‘burn the whole thing down’ posts. 

[bawheed]

5 minutes ago, GinRummy said:

A bit of sense in amongst the ‘they’ve got more money than us’ and the ‘burn the whole thing down’ posts. 

Beat Hibs and no worse than a draw against Celtic job done 

Celtic will not like playing at Tynecastle and are there to be beaten.

[GinRummy]

1 minute ago, bawheed said:

Beat Hibs and no worse than a draw against Celtic job done 

Celtic will not like playing at Tynecastle and are there to be beaten.

Agree. Everyone reacts in the moment as far as football is concerned. It was a sore one today but no better game than Hibs to lift the players. 

[Jim Panzee]

1 hour ago, Sir PH said:

Jeezo, are you intentionally missing the point? I know they have a far superior budget and will beat us a lot more often than we beat them. What I can't accept is getting pumped by umpteen goals on a regular basis. Can you explain why the likes of Kilmarnock (with a lot less money than us) give the Old Firm a decent game and even beat them regularly, when we don't? 

Uh?

 

the arse cheeks beat everyone umpteen goals on a regular basis.?

 

check the results of killie v the uglies over the last umpteen years?

 

the arse cheeks beat everyone regularly - they have a squad worth millions and millions more than ours.

 

Kind of explains why they finish in the top two every year.

[Sir PH]

7 hours ago, Jim Panzee said:

Uh?

 

the arse cheeks beat everyone umpteen goals on a regular basis.?

 

check the results of killie v the uglies over the last umpteen years?

 

the arse cheeks beat everyone regularly - they have a squad worth millions and millions more than ours.

 

Kind of explains why they finish in the top two every year.

Ah well, I did try. 

[Jim Panzee]

1 hour ago, Sir PH said:

Ah well, I did try. 

As did I?

 

money always wins out in the end.

[Wee Mikey]

9 hours ago, Jim Panzee said:

Uh?

 

the arse cheeks beat everyone umpteen goals on a regular basis.?

 

check the results of killie v the uglies over the last umpteen years?

 

the arse cheeks beat everyone regularly - they have a squad worth millions and millions more than ours.

 

Kind of explains why they finish in the top two every year.

 

My pleasure; see below.

 

10 hours ago, Sir PH said:

Jeezo, are you intentionally missing the point? I know they have a far superior budget and will beat us a lot more often than we beat them. What I can't accept is getting pumped by umpteen goals on a regular basis. Can you explain why the likes of Kilmarnock (with a lot less money than us) give the Old Firm a decent game and even beat them regularly, when we don't? 

 

You state that Kilmarnock beat The Rangers regularly whilst we don't.

 

That is a mis-conception ... a 'Kickfact', if you will.

 

The facts (including yesterdays match):-

 

[Sir PH]

25 minutes ago, Jim Panzee said:

As did I?

 

money always wins out in the end.

Which absolutely nobody is disputing. 

[Sir PH]

17 minutes ago, Wee Mikey said:

 

My pleasure; see below.

 

 

You state that Kilmarnock beat The Rangers regularly whilst we don't.

 

That is a mis-conception ... a 'Kickfact', if you will.

 

The facts (including yesterdays match):-

 

I said they get a result against them regularly, they obviously don't beat them regularly. And why 2003? What about the last 5/10 years? 

[manaliveits105]

12 hours ago, Sir PH said:

You're still not grasping it. We lose heavily on a regular basis when we play the Old Firm. We know we will lose a lot more than we win against them, that's expected. But regular drubbings by three, four and five goals, are not.

This - It is not acceptable 

[MCW1976]

12 hours ago, Jim Panzee said:

No. It’s incorrect.

 

how many times do you think Luton or Burnley on average would beat Liverpool  or Man City?

 

How many times on average would they lose 5-0?

Sorry, you’re wrong.

 

Hearts aren’t Rangers. Nor are we Livingston.

 

No doubt Hearts were really poor yesterday and Rangers quite the opposite.

 

But on current form, 5-0 cannot be shoulder-shrug acceptable as though it’s Man U v Luton.

 

How did Fulham get on at Old Trafford this weekend?

 

 

Edited February 25 by MCW1976

[Wee Mikey]

13 minutes ago, Sir PH said:

I said they get a result against them regularly, they obviously don't beat them regularly. And why 2003? What about the last 5/10 years? 

 

You literally stated:-

 

"Can you explain why the likes of Kilmarnock (with a lot less money than us) give the Old Firm a decent game and even beat them regularly, when we don't?" 

 

Now, you have denied that with a classic reverse ferret and changed it to:-

 

"I said they get a result against them regularly, they obviously don't beat them regularly."

 

Now, to answer your question.

 

Clearly, a decent time span is required so as not to be focussing on a distortion.

 

Albeit no great shakes, my stats show Hearts, over a sensible time-span, to be superior against The Rangers vis-a-vis Kilmarnock.

 

Please choose your own stats that back up your assertion if you think that I am wrong.

[Jim Panzee]

10 minutes ago, MCW1976 said:

Sorry, you’re wrong.

 

Hearts aren’t Rangers. Nor are we Livingston.

 

No doubt Hearts were really poor yesterday and Rangers quite the opposite.

 

But on current form, 5-0 cannot be shoulder-shrug acceptable as though it’s Man U v Luton.

 

How did Fulham get on at Old Trafford this weekend?

 

 

Fulham win.

 

as did we v Celtic recently. It happens.

 

but more often than not it doesn’t happen.

 

 

[Sooks]

14 hours ago, Jim Panzee said:

Football team worth 10 times more than another football team win match in “no-shock” shocker.

You would think so . One look at the absolute roasters in our own supports reaction however ………….. genuinely think some have been upset at our tremendous run because they were unable to whine their tits off , and now they are as happy as pigs in shit

 

We have some of the worst supporters on the planet in amongst the best 

[Sir PH]

46 minutes ago, Wee Mikey said:

 

You literally stated:-

 

"Can you explain why the likes of Kilmarnock (with a lot less money than us) give the Old Firm a decent game and even beat them regularly, when we don't?" 

 

Now, you have denied that with a classic reverse ferret and changed it to:-

 

"I said they get a result against them regularly, they obviously don't beat them regularly."

 

Now, to answer your question.

 

Clearly, a decent time span is required so as not to be focussing on a distortion.

 

Albeit no great shakes, my stats show Hearts, over a sensible time-span, to be superior against The Rangers vis-a-vis Kilmarnock.

 

Please choose your own stats that back up your assertion if you think that I am wrong.

Fire up the stats from the last 5 years. 

[Sooks]

43 minutes ago, Wee Mikey said:

 

You literally stated:-

 

"Can you explain why the likes of Kilmarnock (with a lot less money than us) give the Old Firm a decent game and even beat them regularly, when we don't?" 

 

Now, you have denied that with a classic reverse ferret and changed it to:-

 

"I said they get a result against them regularly, they obviously don't beat them regularly."

 

Now, to answer your question.

 

Clearly, a decent time span is required so as not to be focussing on a distortion.

 

Albeit no great shakes, my stats show Hearts, over a sensible time-span, to be superior against The Rangers vis-a-vis Kilmarnock.

 

Please choose your own stats that back up your assertion if you think that I am wrong.

It hurts to admit it and nobody likes saying it but Rangers are a better team than we are . They have the resources that make that a very difficult fact to remedy . When any Scottish team other than Celtic beat them , it is almost invariably because they have underestimated the smaller team and had a bit of an off day . That rarely happens against us because we are by far the best team outside of the old firm at the moment . When Rangers see this fixture coming up they know it is one they have to win and not take their eye off the ball . A team like Kilmarnock or St Mirren or whoever can sometimes be taken for granted as three points and spring a shock . The run we were on and the possibility of getting within ten points of them ensured that we were never going to catch them cold yesterday . You just have to accept when a team is better than you sometimes . Do not know about anyone else , but I thought they were very impressive yesterday . The pace and accuracy of their passing was unreal . They are a very good side 

[Wee Mikey]

10 minutes ago, Sir PH said:

Fire up the stats from the last 5 years. 

 

Your job, methinks.

 

I'm working on the basis of flattening out peaks & troughs ... oh and simply rubbishing your assertion by demonstrating, unequivocally, that Hearts do better v The Rangers than do Kilmarnock.

 

The smaller the time-frame, the more likely to land on a distortion - one particular manager, a purple patch, an unusually decent squad, the bigger team being compromised for whatever reason(s) when these matches were played.

 

So, like I said, it's your job should you think that my logic isn't sound.

Edited February 25 by Wee Mikey

[BackOfTheNet]

1 hour ago, MCW1976 said:

Sorry, you’re wrong.

 

Hearts aren’t Rangers. Nor are we Livingston.

 

No doubt Hearts were really poor yesterday and Rangers quite the opposite.

 

But on current form, 5-0 cannot be shoulder-shrug acceptable as though it’s Man U v Luton.

 

How did Fulham get on at Old Trafford this weekend?

 

 

Most certainly wouldn’t say it’s a shoulder shrug. But I do believe in the context of this season, we do need to move on quickly from yesterday. It was absolutely unacceptable and the players and manager deserve all the criticism for how we played - yesterday.

 

But this isn’t like previous seasons where we get a Glasgow humping in the middle of a drab 1-0 win v Livingston, draw at Motherwell and a loss in Perth. Yesterday was an anomaly. Using the Premier League analogy, we need to view it more like Newcastle getting humped 4-1 off Arsenal yesterday. Doesn’t make Newcastle a terrible side, they’re still capable of giving any team in the league a game on their day, but they *** up yesterday.

 

Likewise with us we need to view yesterday as a blip. Not forget about it - it needs to be made abundantly clear that losing 5-0 to anyone in our own domestic league, regardless of their millions, is never acceptable. But right now the derby is the main focus, as it has to be.

Edited February 25 by BackOfTheNet

[Sir PH]

4 minutes ago, Wee Mikey said:

 

Your job, methinks.

 

I'm working on the basis of flattening out peaks & troughs ... oh and simply rubbishing your assertion by demonstrating, unequivocally, that Hearts do better v The Rangers than do Kilmarnock.

 

The smaller the time-frame, the more likely to land on a distortion - one particular manager, a purple patch, an unusually decent squad, the bigger team being compromised for whatever reason(s) when these matches were played.

 

So, like I said, it's your job should you think that my logic isn't sound.

Ok.

 

In 16 league games v Rangers, we have taken a grand total of 6 points. We've scored 9 goals and conceded 44.

 

Killie's stats from the same period. 

 

Killie have taken 18 points, scored 16 goals and conceded 26.

[pettigrewsstylist]

"Pumped dry as individual bottles crash, causing defence to fall apart"

"Best midfielder outside OF dissapears at HT again"

 

 

[Deevers]

2 minutes ago, pettigrewsstylist said:

"Pumped dry as individual bottles crash, causing defence to fall apart"

"Best midfielder outside OF dissapears at HT again"

 

 

It’s all about mentality and resilience when playing through there.  Lose an early goal and any preparation is thrown to the wind. The manager can prepare the team tactically, but when the players cross that while line it’s all about concentration and bottle. Losing by five is totally unacceptable.

[Go for it 1308]

15 hours ago, Sir PH said:

Regardless of budgets, we shouldn't be losing 5-0 to any Scottish club.

💯 percent 

[Gordon Ramsay]

47 minutes ago, Sir PH said:

Ok.

 

In 16 league games v Rangers, we have taken a grand total of 6 points. We've scored 9 goals and conceded 44.

 

Killie's stats from the same period. 

 

Killie have taken 18 points, scored 16 goals and conceded 26.

 

That is embarrassing.

 

"ThEy'Ve GoT mOrE mOnEy ThAn Us ThOuGh"

Edited February 25 by Gordon Ramsay

[Go for it 1308]

52 minutes ago, Sir PH said:

Ok.

 

In 16 league games v Rangers, we have taken a grand total of 6 points. We've scored 9 goals and conceded 44.

 

Killie's stats from the same period. 

 

Killie have taken 18 points, scored 16 goals and conceded 26.

Quite frankly.....that's f*****g embarrassing 😳 

[MCW1976]

2 hours ago, Jim Panzee said:

Fulham win.

 

as did we v Celtic recently. It happens.

 

but more often than not it doesn’t happen.

 

 

True to a point, yes. However, given how things have been going, you surely cannot hide behind the ‘Ah, well, it’s Rangers’ rule.

 

We were perfectly capable of going there and representing ourselves properly.

 

Yet again, we froze in Glasgow.

[MCW1976]

Not so long ago we got beat 5-0 away to Livingston.

 

Shit happens, but I expected so much more from this Hearts team.

 

Rangers are hardly full of household names.

Edited February 25 by MCW1976