Identifying the problem,and the solution.

[buzzbomb1958]

2 hours ago, kingantti1874 said:

£45 m in wages per season.  
 

the end 

Ayr Utd 40 k in wages gave them a harder game , no friggin excuses for that shitshow

[JamboAl]

28 minutes ago, Bazzas right boot said:

 

No, if we concede fewer goals than we score.

 

It would work. 

That's true - but not quite what you said.

[Bongo 1874]

25 minutes ago, buzzbomb1958 said:

Ayr Utd 40 k in wages gave them a harder game , no friggin excuses for that shitshow

Spot on.

[Pasquale for King]

6 hours ago, liam11 said:

The same 3 worked to perfection against Celtic. The difference in that game was the attitude and application. We were brave on the ball and aggressive in the tackle. Cochrane and Atkinson in particular dominated their respective wings.

Yesterday was the polar opposite. Rangers were allowed to create overloads virtually anywhere they saw fit.
 

Against the other teams though, I agree it’s just not required.

Why though?

I think we will beat Celtic next Sunday, we always seem to play better against them. We have barely laid a glove on Rangers this season. 

[GinRummy]

The problem is we got beat 

 

The solution is win against Hibs 

[Bongo 1874]

Seems the pundits agree with me.

[OTT]

3 minutes ago, Pasquale for King said:

Why though?

I think we will beat Celtic next Sunday, we always seem to play better against them. We have barely laid a glove on Rangers this season. 

 

We almost had them beat during our last trip to Ibrox in fairness. Just a combination of the GFA abusing VAR and our arse collapsing in the 90th minute. 

 

Yesterday was shambolic, but I think it was the slap in the face we were needing. Every game during our run of games we'd been passive in the extreme during the first half with Naisy saving the day with some tactical changes in the 2nd half - that isn't sustainable and I think especially so against teams that can punish you for errors. We have to earn the right to play, and everyone needs to turn up. There will be a few players in that team that quite rightfully should be ashamed of their performance. 

 

Similar to you, I think the Celtic game will be much more competitive than today. Although, the biggie for me is the Derby. If we can put out a solid performance and show this loss against Rangers is already in the rear view mirror then that will be the good sign we need. 

[Hearts1975]

The players and management team have had a brilliant run recently. Don't think they will need anyone to tell them that it wasn't an acceptable, or required level of performance. 

 

However, since we are coming off the back of one of the best bits of form, in recent history, folk need to get a wee sense of perspective, and cut them a bit of slack. 

 

And starting with a 4-2-3-1 would probably not have made a difference to the final result. 

 

 

[gar jambo]

5 hours ago, Bazzas right boot said:

Dinnae concede 5 goals- that was the problem. 

If we conceded less and scored more then we have a solution. 

 

Hopefully Naismith can take on board my sage advise.

 

 

But hopefully he learns from that big time starting from Wednesday 

[Gambo]

7 hours ago, jr ewing said:

A right back would have helped. 

A midfield would also have helped.

[gar jambo]

4 hours ago, mscjambo said:

We can talk about systems all we want at times. But when individuals make poor decisions (don't track a runner, play a hospital pass, lose cheap possession) it doesn't matter. 

 

Personally yesterday and the semi, 352 hasn't worked against Rangers. I'd have preferred an extra body (Devlin) in the middle of the park denying Rangers space..but I'm just like everyone else. All have opinions. You simply can't lose a goal after 2 minutes...

There was no pressure on Hearts yesterday they should have played with Freedom but looked like Rabbits caught in the Headlights! 

[Ked]

57 minutes ago, Bongo 1874 said:

Seems the pundits agree with me.

Did they phone or pm you on here?

[jr ewing]

13 minutes ago, Gambo said:

A midfield would also have helped.

Haven't been waiting on a midfield for 3 years though 😕 

[Bongo 1874]

29 minutes ago, Ked said:

Did they phone or pm you on here?

Nah it's just they know, The Big Bad Booty Daddy 😉.

[Bongo 1874]

1 hour ago, Hearts1975 said:

The players and management team have had a brilliant run recently. Don't think they will need anyone to tell them that it wasn't an acceptable, or required level of performance. 

 

However, since we are coming off the back of one of the best bits of form, in recent history, folk need to get a wee sense of perspective, and cut them a bit of slack. 

 

And starting with a 4-2-3-1 would probably not have made a difference to the final result. 

 

 

Disagree, almost to the point we are given players, special treatment and trying to give them game time, due to the fact it's a problem setting up 4231 or a 433 ,as it means a few will be benched.

 

Also it makes me want to puke,at the fact like we owe certain players,remind me was it us or Rangers that Resurrected Shankland’s career.

 

 

Edited February 25 by Bongo 1874

[RustyRightPeg]

7 hours ago, RustyRightPeg said:

Rangers were just better than us yesterday. That was the problem. 
 

These boring threads pretending you’re a super fan, when you spent the majority of the summer ripping into the board, several members of the squad and management aren’t lost on us Bongo. Give it a break. 

See above. Still remains true. Still seeing through the facade. 

[Hearts1975]

31 minutes ago, Bongo 1874 said:

Disagree, almost to the point we are given players, special treatment and trying to give them game time, due to the fact it's a problem setting up 4231 or a 433 ,as it means a few will be benched.

 

Also it makes me want to puke,at the fact like we owe certain players,remind me was it us or Rangers that Resurrected Shankland’s career.

 

 

Naismith doesn't play shankland because he thinks we owe him, or if he doesn't play him, he will leave. 

He plays him as he is the one player, out of nothing, that can nab us a goal .... From nowhere. He is to big a threat to be left out, and that's why he almost plays every single game. 

 

2 trains of thought to your second point. Picking the formation then signing players to fit into it ... Nothing wrong with that philosophy but we aren't there yet. Picking our best players and finding the best formation to suit their positions .... We are probably more in this space.

 

Obviously, you don't like the 5-3-2 and you prefer the 4-2-3-1 but just by saying that if we played the 4-2-3-1, we would have won, carries a lot of inaccuracies. I would suggest having 2 in the centre of the park, as opposed to 3, would have allowed them to dominate the game more, and in the middle of the park.

 

For me, the players went into that game with almost a sense of invincibility in them and they have been found crashing back to earth. We have to fight blood, sweat and tears to win, or at least to compete, in every single game, and we forgot that fact when we took to the pitch. 

 

Naisy, and I love Naisy - think he is doing a fine job - talks about mentality all the time and he is right. 

 

It's how we react now that will determine our success this season. Disappointing as that was the other day you way the pros with the cons, and the reality is that we are still very much in a good place and in full control of our own destiny .... One horrible result through there doesn't change the fact. 

Edited February 25 by Hearts1975

[Hearts1975]

We have a manager that is learning, who will make mistakes, but has shown, time and time again, that he isn't afraid to change things, and admitting he got things wrong, doesn't even faze into his thinking. 

 

Would much rather that type of manager than a manager who thinks he is right all the time, when everyone can see he is wrong, but his pride, or beliefs, get in the way of the game outgrowing him and from a tactical perspective. 

 

Make of that what you want. 

[Des Lynam]

49 minutes ago, Bongo 1874 said:

Nah it's just they know, The Big Bad Booty Daddy 😉.

 

 

 

[PHSCAndy]

23 minutes ago, Hearts1975 said:

We have a manager that is learning, who will make mistakes, but has shown, time and time again, that he isn't afraid to change things, and admitting he got things wrong, doesn't even faze into his thinking. 

 

Would much rather that type of manager than a manager who thinks he is right all the time, when everyone can see he is wrong, but his pride, or beliefs, get in the way of the game outgrowing him and from a tactical perspective. 

 

Make of that what you want. 

This.
Naismith’s managerial career is still in its infancy - a rookie for want of a better word. 
We’ve had a terrific run of results and been brought back down to earth in dramatic style. 
Naismith is a winner and I really believe he’ll go on to a great manager - how much that will be with us is another question. 
If we’d been going into Wednesdays match with Neilson at the helm I’d be concerned however they always say that managers learn more about their team from  a defeat than a win. 
IMHO Naismith will have the team ‘chomping at the bit’ to get up at them from the start on Wednesday. 
HHGH

[Hearts1975]

22 minutes ago, PHSCAndy said:

This.
Naismith’s managerial career is still in its infancy - a rookie for want of a better word. 
We’ve had a terrific run of results and been brought back down to earth in dramatic style. 
Naismith is a winner and I really believe he’ll go on to a great manager - how much that will be with us is another question. 
If we’d been going into Wednesdays match with Neilson at the helm I’d be concerned however they always say that managers learn more about their team from  a defeat than a win. 
IMHO Naismith will have the team ‘chomping at the bit’ to get up at them from the start on Wednesday. 
HHGH

Agree with every single word of that post. 

[tian447]

5 hours ago, Bazzas right boot said:

 

No, if we concede fewer goals than we score.

 

It would work. 

 

Have you considered a job in football management? 

 

Insight like that would do you well! 

[TexasAndy]

9 hours ago, PHSCAndy said:

This.
Naismith’s managerial career is still in its infancy - a rookie for want of a better word. 
We’ve had a terrific run of results and been brought back down to earth in dramatic style. 
Naismith is a winner and I really believe he’ll go on to a great manager - how much that will be with us is another question. 
If we’d been going into Wednesdays match with Neilson at the helm I’d be concerned however they always say that managers learn more about their team from  a defeat than a win. 
IMHO Naismith will have the team ‘chomping at the bit’ to get up at them from the start on Wednesday. 
HHGH

Very good post.  The experience of guys like JJ and Craig Levein didn't prevent them from taking a hammering or two from the OF.

[Firefox]

11 hours ago, Bongo 1874 said:

Nah it's just they know, The Big Bad Booty Daddy 😉.

 

[Batistuta87]

20 hours ago, Bongo 1874 said:

Playing the back three to suit and give players a game,Is not beneficial to Heart Of Midlothian Football Club.

 

3 goals first half yesterday,chashing the game we then changed to a back four.

 

I'm a massive supporter of Naismith and club,but they got it wrong yesterday.

 

Forrest shouldn't of been dropped,he would occupy Tavernier due to him having pace and his workrate.

 

This left us exposed.

 

The centre of the pitch we didn't get near Diomande or Lundstram.

 

Shankland not good enough yesterday for me.

 

He's captain he takes responsibility and steps up.

 

Need to show a massive performance on Wednesday.

 

Sorry Bongo. Back 3, back 4, back 7, Cesc Fabregas in centre mid, whatever we did differently we still would have got thumped.

Rangers were incredible on Saturday and would have beaten anyone with a performance like that. 

 

Edited February 26 by Batistuta87

[Nookie Bear]

14 hours ago, buzzbomb1958 said:

Ayr Utd 40 k in wages gave them a harder game , no friggin excuses for that shitshow

 

Yes but the way rangers approached that game is different. Saturday was massive for them and they are hunting down a title and were playing a team in form. They were always going to beat Ayr and just needed to do enough to get through it unscathed.

 

The same way we will approach the hibs game in a very different manner to how we played Spartans.

[ArcticJambo]

Incredible, really?

 

First goal I reckon most top tier keepers push that round the post.

Second goal fair enough butthe errors that led to it, and the space jings!

Third goaldeep looping cross into 6 yard box, CB and keeper static

Fourth goal foul/push by Tam Lawrence on Kent

Fifth goal see first goal

 

Good enough to beat us but incredible, nope.  That mid nineties rangers side were incredible at times.

[Nookie Bear]

4 minutes ago, Batistuta87 said:

 

Sorry Bongo. Back 3, back 4, back 7, Cesc Fabregas in centre mid, whatever we did differently we still would have got thumped.

Rangers were incredible on Saturday and would have beaten anyone with a performance like that. 

 

 

I watched newcastle get absolutely rogered on Saturday because they came up against a better team that was absolutely on it. Newcastle were poor - as were we - and that is just how it goes sometimes.

 

Obviously you don't want it to happen too often but it's always likely if you drop your level against a team that is 100% on it.

[Bazzas right boot]

10 hours ago, tian447 said:

 

Have you considered a job in football management? 

 

Insight like that would do you well! 

 

As per the op, I identified the problem and offered a solution. 

 

I'll be here all week and happy to put out more fires. 

 

 

[RustyRightPeg]

1 hour ago, Batistuta87 said:

 

Sorry Bongo. Back 3, back 4, back 7, Cesc Fabregas in centre mid, whatever we did differently we still would have got thumped.

Rangers were incredible on Saturday and would have beaten anyone with a performance like that. 

 

 

Yep. Happens sometimes.

 

No better game to bounce back in than Wed.

[Hansel]

Doesn't matter what formation we chose yesterday. Rangers have a far superior squad to us and they have the bit between their teeth with celtic tripping up recently. 

 

For us to have taken anything we needed to not concede an early goal, for them to have an off day and for us to be on our game. In other words, the perfect storm.

[luckyBatistuta]

23 hours ago, jr ewing said:

A right back would have helped. 

If only SN had one😞 

[Bongo 1874]

4 hours ago, Firefox said:

 

My patter is irrelevant,I'm hurting from that result because i care, and fully know that, Hearts might get beat but 5-0,sorry i can't accept that.

 

4 hours ago, Batistuta87 said:

 

Sorry Bongo. Back 3, back 4, back 7, Cesc Fabregas in centre mid, whatever we did differently we still would have got thumped.

Rangers were incredible on Saturday and would have beaten anyone with a performance like that. 

 

Disagree, when you set up the way we did,it gave Rangers confidence, any team playing against Rangers will cause them problems,when they have widemen,this pins back Tavernier, and Barisic or Yilmaz, why ? Because you are giving them a threat ? Cochrane and Atkinson aren't blessed with pace.

 

This then gives Rangers Confidence to step up and play a very high line.

 

In the last 5 matches against Rangers we have been caught out with long balls,why ? Because there is no pressure on the ball.

 

See Rangers 3rd goal.

 

both these games exactly the same.

 

Before the game i said Rangers have four outlets,Cantwell didn't start,Diomande,Lundstram, Tavernier, 

 

Stop them you stop Rangers.

 

 

 

[RustyRightPeg]

43 minutes ago, Hansel said:

Doesn't matter what formation we chose yesterday. Rangers have a far superior squad to us and they have the bit between their teeth with celtic tripping up recently. 

 

For us to have taken anything we needed to not concede an early goal, for them to have an off day and for us to be on our game. In other words, the perfect storm.

 

Factually incorrect. Bong man says it's the 5 at the back. Must be that.  

[jr ewing]

1 hour ago, luckyBatistuta said:

If only SN had one😞 

3 years in the making and waiting.....

[Sooks]

The problem :

 

We do not have the resources or players to compete with the two biggest teams in our league

 

The solution :

 

Hang on to their coat tails and leave the rest behind

 

 

[Fozzyonthefence]

If only we’d played 4 at the back when we beat Celtic 2-0.  Imagine how many we could have won by……

 

It’s not always down to systems, you can’t legislate for brain farts and players having absolute stinkers.  Or for the other team simply being much better on the day.  

[Fozzyonthefence]

1 hour ago, Sooks said:

The problem :

 

We do not have the resources or players to compete with the two biggest teams in our league

 

The solution :

 

Hang on to their coat tails and leave the rest behind

 

 

True, but we should be able to compete better with them in one off games than we have in the last few years.  Obviously we did in the last couple of league games in Glasgow so hopefully it was a one off.  

[boag1874]

On 25/02/2024 at 13:59, RustyRightPeg said:

Rangers were just better than us yesterday. That was the problem. 
 

These boring threads pretending you’re a super fan, when you spent the majority of the summer ripping into the board, several members of the squad and management aren’t lost on us Bongo. Give it a break. 

Yup, now laying into our best player, who’s the leagues top scorer & has scored more Hearts goals than any striker since Robbo 2 years running because of one poor game after what? 14/15 games in a row where he’s scored in almost every single one?

 

An absolute fruitloop