Playing like shitebags and rolling over to rangers

[Sir PH]

2 hours ago, Rampant said:

 

Because it removes the anomalous Steve Clarke era, which would otherwise distort, unreasonably, the actual trend which is that Scottish teams who aren't Celtic tend to lose to Rangers.

So it doesn't count because they had Steve Clarke in charge? 😂

 

What about the poor managers they've had? Do we discount their defeats against Rangers? 

[periodictabledancer]

4 hours ago, Pasquale for King said:

RC turnover £3.4m, ours £21m, Rangers £84m, Celtic £120m. 
So ours is 6 times RCs, they have beaten Rangers,as have Motherwell and Kilmarnock, we have beaten Celtic twice.
No matter the financial gulf any team can beat another, especially when one is at a low ebb as Rangers were on Sunday. 
We are allowed to ask our team and management to make a better attempt at beating Rangers, having lost 5 times to them now in our apparently “great” season. 

In short.

[Pasquale for King]

4 minutes ago, periodictabledancer said:

In short.

Some seem determined to say that its unacceptable to do that, just put up with it. 

[Pasquale for King]

2 hours ago, Fozzyonthefence said:

So you exclude results when a team has a good manager?  How about when a team has a shite manager?  

Exactly. That would exclude our last 3 wins against them under Stendel and Cathro 😆

[periodictabledancer]

12 minutes ago, Pasquale for King said:

Some seem determined to say that its unacceptable to do that, just put up with it. 

We're closing the gap, apparently.

Or not, and shouldn't expect to, depending on who's posting. 

In both cases, they don't want anyone to criticise because it's "deluded", "entitlement", or whatever. 

Edited April 23 by periodictabledancer

[Pasquale for King]

27 minutes ago, periodictabledancer said:

We're closing the gap, apparently.

Or not, and shouldn't expect to, depending on who's posting. 

In both cases, they don't want anyone to criticise because it's "deluded", "entitlement", or whatever. 

😆👍🏽

[Debut 4]

52 minutes ago, Pasquale for King said:

😆👍🏽

Imagine someone like Jim Jefferies read JKB for a retirement hobby. 
 

He must be thinking he made a mistake pushing Hearts to the limits his ability allowed that brought a cup win and a league challenge.  
 

 

 

 

[Pasquale for King]

20 minutes ago, Debut 4 said:

Imagine someone like Jim Jefferies read JKB for a retirement hobby. 
 

He must be thinking he made a mistake pushing Hearts to the limits his ability allowed that brought a cup win and a league challenge.  
 

 

 

 

Exactly 👍🏽

[Rampant]

4 hours ago, Fozzyonthefence said:

So you exclude results when a team has a good manager?  How about when a team has a shite manager?  

 

2 hours ago, Sir PH said:

So it doesn't count because they had Steve Clarke in charge? 😂

 

What about the poor managers they've had? Do we discount their defeats against Rangers? 

 

That's not what I meant.  But if you're analysing a trend over time, it's perfectly reasonable, in fact necessary, to overlook outlying data as it may paint an inaccurate picture.

 

How far back do we go with our analysis?  Some posts have extended back 10 years.  It was 9 years ago that Hearts beat Rangers to a league title, something the Kilmarnocks, Motherwells and Ross County's can't claim.  The head to head that season was Hearts taking 7 points to Rangers 4.  The next time we played in the same league, in 2016-17, we each had two wins.

 

If the 2017-18 and 2018-19 Kilmarnock seasons are a shining example of what Hearts should be capable of doing to Rangers, why is it so easy to overlook the 3 seasons immediately prior when Hearts had a similarly successful record.

 

It's not been a great 4 years for us against rangers, but my point is simply that the Ross County, Motherwell and Dundee results; Steve Clarke's Kilmarnock; Hearts' 2014-15 Championship season, these are quite literally the exceptions that prove the rule.  So I think it's fair to react with a bit of perspective rather than resorting to calling Hearts players "shitebags" and accusing them of not trying against one particular team.

[Shooter McGavin]

2 hours ago, Sir PH said:

So it doesn't count because they had Steve Clarke in charge? 😂

 

What about the poor managers they've had? Do we discount their defeats against Rangers? 

To be fair, you wanted me to extend my stats from the last 4 seasons, to the last 10, and then when you realised that the data from that period didn’t suit your argument either, you then decided that we can’t include cup games 😂

 

We can all play funny buggers to find ways to suit our arguments eh.

[Sir PH]

Just now, Shooter McGavin said:

To be fair, you wanted me to extend my stats from the last 4 seasons, to the last 10, and then when you realised that the data from that period didn’t suit your argument either, you then decided that we can’t include cup games 😂

 

We can all play funny buggers to find ways to suit our arguments eh.

I merely asked why four years as you seemed to only go as far back to when Rangers were getting the better of Kilmarnock by some distance, which was helluva handy.😃

 

That's not even close to saying "we should discount Killie's positive results against Rangers, because they had a good manager at the time.😂

[mscjambo]

10 hours ago, periodictabledancer said:

💯

 

The vast majority of the upset from Sunday comes from the fact it's the same old, same old, to some degree.

Lack of intensity, poor (awful - Livi anyone ?) starts , poor first half days displays and compounded on Sunday by poor tactics that gave Rangers a hall pass.

Naturally, that get's ignored by those who're quick to jump down the throats of anyone pointing this out and contorted into some kind of "entitlement" when it's not, in the vast majority of cases.

Sunday proved yet again Hearts don't have the players with the right mentality or physical strength to compete - and we've known that all season long. The disappointment isn't in getting beat, it's that the same  failings & frailties keep appearing. 

 

There's no denying Rangers have better players - they always have, but getting bossed in the manner we were  by two guys from Sheffield United & Norwich is underwhelming  to say the least and doesn't bode well for European football next season. 

Not sure I necessarily agree. Naismith has Improved as a gaffer as the season kicked on. Think there is players there who maybe move on in thr summer.

 

Totally agree that some maybe don't believe enough or are brave enough on the ball.

 

We needed to frustrate them Saturday, not concede get fans on their back. Points in the second half you could hear them getting ancy...we just didn't have the quality or nouce to take advantage. 

[Gambo]

22 hours ago, Chuck Berry said:

 

When did some Hearts fans become so entitled and what happened to make them like that?  stuff like "we should get third every year"  "why are we losing to Ross County"  "Kye Rowles isn't good enough for us" etc etc etc

 

Does my nut in.  The bottom line is, the OF dominate football in this country to an absurd extent, the rest fight over the scraps, and that includes us.  Nobody will ever challenge them unless Abu Dhabi decide to buy a club.

 

Do I like the situation? no, but it's been like that for well over 30 years and that for the remainder, football is a funny old game and nobody is entitled to finish in a particular position or win any given match.

Why do Rangers and Celtic dominate football in this country?

[Fozzyonthefence]

1 hour ago, Rampant said:

 

 

That's not what I meant.  But if you're analysing a trend over time, it's perfectly reasonable, in fact necessary, to overlook outlying data as it may paint an inaccurate picture.

 

How far back do we go with our analysis?  Some posts have extended back 10 years.  It was 9 years ago that Hearts beat Rangers to a league title, something the Kilmarnocks, Motherwells and Ross County's can't claim.  The head to head that season was Hearts taking 7 points to Rangers 4.  The next time we played in the same league, in 2016-17, we each had two wins.

 

If the 2017-18 and 2018-19 Kilmarnock seasons are a shining example of what Hearts should be capable of doing to Rangers, why is it so easy to overlook the 3 seasons immediately prior when Hearts had a similarly successful record.

 

It's not been a great 4 years for us against rangers, but my point is simply that the Ross County, Motherwell and Dundee results; Steve Clarke's Kilmarnock; Hearts' 2014-15 Championship season, these are quite literally the exceptions that prove the rule.  So I think it's fair to react with a bit of perspective rather than resorting to calling Hearts players "shitebags" and accusing them of not trying against one particular team.

Indeed they can’t as none of them were in the lower leagues with Rangers!

[ArcticJambo]

9 hours ago, Pasquale for King said:

Spot on, although they obviously have better players they are in an awful run of form and we missed a good chance to beat them..

Definitely, you absolutely have to take these chances when they're vulnerable as they are this season, and recently. We as fans recognise they (neither Celtic) are anywhere near where they have been in recent years. I'd hope that management would too. I'll be surprised if the gap between 1/2 and 3rd next year isn't back to 30 odd points again.  We had two opportunities vs Rangers this season and blew them both!

[The Old Tolbooth]

On 22/04/2024 at 00:05, cazzyy said:

 

It's nothing to do with being happy but to demand a clear out? Behave yourself.

 

Were you there?

There’s far too much deadwood in this side, and the chances are we could lose Beni, Shanks, Cochrane, and I’ve heard a rumour one other could be on the way out, but don’t know who yet, then it leaves us rather short with the shite that’s left! 

[No Idle Talk]

I think that most reasonable and fair minded Hearts supporters understand the financial gulf between us and Rangers. 

 

In terms of Sunday's game, I don't think the gulf is all that relevant. Rangers played poorly. However much their team is worth on paper, or how much they get paid, they played poorly. That is the bottom line. The fact that they played poorly means that the opportunity was there for us to capitalise on their below par performance and win the match. We absolutely failed to take the opportunity. That is what is irking so many people. 

 

Folk can quote turnover figures and transfer fees till the cow's come home but we missed one of the best opportunities we are ever going to get to beat that lot at Hampden. It's not hard to grasp why a lot of Hearts fans are finding it hard to accept. 

[Hectormasson]

6 minutes ago, No Idle Talk said:

I think that most reasonable and fair minded Hearts supporters understand the financial gulf between us and Rangers. 

 

In terms of Sunday's game, I don't think the gulf is all that relevant. Rangers played poorly. However much their team is worth on paper, or how much they get paid, they played poorly. That is the bottom line. The fact that they played poorly means that the opportunity was there for us to capitalise on their below par performance and win the match. We absolutely failed to take the opportunity. That is what is irking so many people. 

 

Folk can quote turnover figures and transfer fees till the cow's come home but we missed one of the best opportunities we are ever going to get to beat that lot at Hampden. It's not hard to grasp why a lot of Hearts fans are finding it hard to accept. 

its the total doings were getting from them regularly, just give us the odd draw here and there to, stop the rot ? that would be a start...

[JFK-1]

6 hours ago, kingantti1874 said:

 

Specifically against rangers physicality is a real issu. In so many key position they are simply bigger stronger and faster which causes us a real problem.  Lundstram for example strolls about like ****ing zidane .  So often our players just get muscled of the ball.  

That’s just one of the things that money buys. Look at any big money side, littered with athletic giants. 

[gar jambo]

2 hours ago, Gambo said:

Why do Rangers and Celtic dominate football in this country?

If they were that great it would not be 22 years for an old firm final! 

[Diego10]

2 hours ago, Gambo said:

Why do Rangers and Celtic dominate football in this country?

Because they have far more money and consequently better players than the other teams?

[geomac]

11 minutes ago, Diego10 said:

Because they have far more money and consequently better players than the other teams?

 

The question is why do they have more money, we all know they do

[Diego10]

2 minutes ago, geomac said:

 

The question is why do they have more money, we all know they do

Is that a serious question?

[geomac]

2 minutes ago, Diego10 said:

Is that a serious question?

stating the obvious maybe

[Pasquale for King]

2 hours ago, ArcticJambo said:

Definitely, you absolutely have to take these chances when they're vulnerable as they are this season, and recently. We as fans recognise they (neither Celtic) are anywhere near where they have been in recent years. I'd hope that management would too. I'll be surprised if the gap between 1/2 and 3rd next year isn't back to 30 odd points again.  We had two opportunities vs Rangers this season and blew them both!

Spot on.
We have to hope they will buy more average players, not sure either have strengthened at all this season. 

[cazzyy]

2 hours ago, The Old Tolbooth said:

There’s far too much deadwood in this side, and the chances are we could lose Beni, Shanks, Cochrane, and I’ve heard a rumour one other could be on the way out, but don’t know who yet, then it leaves us rather short with the shite that’s left! 

 

That's a better post than the one screaming for players to get emptied that you put up before.

If those players go do you think we would just stick with the shite that's left? I reckon we'd probably try to replace them.

[Pasquale for King]

2 hours ago, No Idle Talk said:

I think that most reasonable and fair minded Hearts supporters understand the financial gulf between us and Rangers. 

 

In terms of Sunday's game, I don't think the gulf is all that relevant. Rangers played poorly. However much their team is worth on paper, or how much they get paid, they played poorly. That is the bottom line. The fact that they played poorly means that the opportunity was there for us to capitalise on their below par performance and win the match. We absolutely failed to take the opportunity. That is what is irking so many people. 

 

Folk can quote turnover figures and transfer fees till the cow's come home but we missed one of the best opportunities we are ever going to get to beat that lot at Hampden. It's not hard to grasp why a lot of Hearts fans are finding it hard to accept. 

Spot on 

[Ricardo Quaresma]

[OTT]

2 hours ago, No Idle Talk said:

I think that most reasonable and fair minded Hearts supporters understand the financial gulf between us and Rangers. 

 

In terms of Sunday's game, I don't think the gulf is all that relevant. Rangers played poorly. However much their team is worth on paper, or how much they get paid, they played poorly. That is the bottom line. The fact that they played poorly means that the opportunity was there for us to capitalise on their below par performance and win the match. We absolutely failed to take the opportunity. That is what is irking so many people. 

 

Folk can quote turnover figures and transfer fees till the cow's come home but we missed one of the best opportunities we are ever going to get to beat that lot at Hampden. It's not hard to grasp why a lot of Hearts fans are finding it hard to accept. 

 

Yep this in spades. 

 

Rangers were there for the taking. 

 

I hope it drives home to the board that our attack needs more than just Shankland to succeed. We've struggled to score goals this season, most games have been tight and cagey affairs despite dominating possession. The takeaway there should be that we currently lack the attacking talent to capitalise on that level of possession consistently. 

[Rampant]

3 hours ago, Fozzyonthefence said:

Indeed they can’t as none of them were in the lower leagues with Rangers!

 

What are we debating here?  If it's our record against Rangers, then whatever league or competition we're playing in shouldn't be an issue.  If it's our historic league performances, then I think we're even more comfortably clear of the likes of Ross County, Motherwell and Kilmarnock, even despite our unfortunate and embarrassing, 'blips'.

[Pasquale for King]

32 minutes ago, OTT said:

 

Yep this in spades. 

 

Rangers were there for the taking. 

 

I hope it drives home to the board that our attack needs more than just Shankland to succeed. We've struggled to score goals this season, most games have been tight and cagey affairs despite dominating possession. The takeaway there should be that we currently lack the attacking talent to capitalise on that level of possession consistently. 

Not sure the board have a clue about football tbh, but hopefully the manager realised what we need if he didn’t realise before. 

[JFK-1]

3 hours ago, gar jambo said:

If they were that great it would not be 22 years for an old firm final! 

Why not? They typically meet before the final, it isn’t seeded.

[Dazo]

7 hours ago, Pasquale for King said:

Not sure the board have a clue about football tbh, but hopefully the manager realised what we need if he didn’t realise before. 

But an overweight barman does ? 
 

Loving the goalpost moving gymnastics by those that moan about everything hearts. Same people over a recent timeline wanted Budge, Savage and Naismith gone. Putting dugshit clubs up as some sort of shining light of how we should do things. Our recent record against Rangers is poor no getting away from that but let’s not pretend beating rangers once a year defines our season. Someone posted our record over the last 10 years and it is comparable to those clubs we are meant to follow in their footsteps. It is such a narrow minded focus without looking at the bigger picture. Those clubs would love to have our league placing over the years. Yes getting to and winning cup finals should be a secondary target but finishing 3rd is where we are going to increase our budgets and continue to push away from the other clubs. 

[Chuck Berry]

2 hours ago, Dazo said:

But an overweight barman does ? 
 

 

 

[braveheart]

3 hours ago, Dazo said:

But an overweight barman does ? 
 

Loving the goalpost moving gymnastics by those that moan about everything hearts. Same people over a recent timeline wanted Budge, Savage and Naismith gone. Putting dugshit clubs up as some sort of shining light of how we should do things. Our recent record against Rangers is poor no getting away from that but let’s not pretend beating rangers once a year defines our season. Someone posted our record over the last 10 years and it is comparable to those clubs we are meant to follow in their footsteps. It is such a narrow minded focus without looking at the bigger picture. Those clubs would love to have our league placing over the years. Yes getting to and winning cup finals should be a secondary target but finishing 3rd is where we are going to increase our budgets and continue to push away from the other clubs. 

Sensible kickback reply.you don't get it do you.fire up the plane and get the banners out.

[Ron Burgundy]

14 hours ago, No Idle Talk said:

I think that most reasonable and fair minded Hearts supporters understand the financial gulf between us and Rangers. 

 

In terms of Sunday's game, I don't think the gulf is all that relevant. Rangers played poorly. However much their team is worth on paper, or how much they get paid, they played poorly. That is the bottom line. The fact that they played poorly means that the opportunity was there for us to capitalise on their below par performance and win the match. We absolutely failed to take the opportunity. That is what is irking so many people. 

 

Folk can quote turnover figures and transfer fees till the cow's come home but we missed one of the best opportunities we are ever going to get to beat that lot at Hampden. It's not hard to grasp why a lot of Hearts fans are finding it hard to accept. 

Pretty much exactly how I see it.

[Bad Religion]

15 hours ago, No Idle Talk said:

I think that most reasonable and fair minded Hearts supporters understand the financial gulf between us and Rangers. 

 

In terms of Sunday's game, I don't think the gulf is all that relevant. Rangers played poorly. However much their team is worth on paper, or how much they get paid, they played poorly. That is the bottom line. The fact that they played poorly means that the opportunity was there for us to capitalise on their below par performance and win the match. We absolutely failed to take the opportunity. That is what is irking so many people. 

 

Folk can quote turnover figures and transfer fees till the cow's come home but we missed one of the best opportunities we are ever going to get to beat that lot at Hampden. It's not hard to grasp why a lot of Hearts fans are finding it hard to accept. 

We don’t have the quality to compete, simple as that. 
 

The squad requires major surgery over the summer. Clear the deadwood. Bring in quality in key positions. 

[GinRummy]

6 minutes ago, Bad Religion said:

We don’t have the quality to compete, simple as that. 
 

The squad requires major surgery over the summer. Clear the deadwood. Bring in quality in key positions. 

I’d bet we don’t get major surgery.  Naisy pretty much said that he doesn’t like sweeping changes or words to that effect. 

[DaveyT]

13 hours ago, gar jambo said:

If they were that great it would not be 22 years for an old firm final! 

That's what happens in cups !

[Go for it 1308]

15 hours ago, No Idle Talk said:

I think that most reasonable and fair minded Hearts supporters understand the financial gulf between us and Rangers. 

 

In terms of Sunday's game, I don't think the gulf is all that relevant. Rangers played poorly. However much their team is worth on paper, or how much they get paid, they played poorly. That is the bottom line. The fact that they played poorly means that the opportunity was there for us to capitalise on their below par performance and win the match. We absolutely failed to take the opportunity. That is what is irking so many people. 

 

Folk can quote turnover figures and transfer fees till the cow's come home but we missed one of the best opportunities we are ever going to get to beat that lot at Hampden. It's not hard to grasp why a lot of Hearts fans are finding it hard to accept. 

Nailed it 👏 

[RustyRightPeg]

16 hours ago, No Idle Talk said:

I think that most reasonable and fair minded Hearts supporters understand the financial gulf between us and Rangers. 

 

In terms of Sunday's game, I don't think the gulf is all that relevant. Rangers played poorly. However much their team is worth on paper, or how much they get paid, they played poorly. That is the bottom line. The fact that they played poorly means that the opportunity was there for us to capitalise on their below par performance and win the match. We absolutely failed to take the opportunity. That is what is irking so many people. 

 

Folk can quote turnover figures and transfer fees till the cow's come home but we missed one of the best opportunities we are ever going to get to beat that lot at Hampden. It's not hard to grasp why a lot of Hearts fans are finding it hard to accept. 

 

I said before the game if we can't beat them today, given the mental state they were in, how leggy they'd looked in previous games, we never could beat them. 

 

I don't care if we lose 3/4-0 if we have a go. It's the manner we lose to them. Yet again it's soft as shite - that's what gets to me, and 4 days later still is getting to me.

[Shooter McGavin]

1 hour ago, Bad Religion said:

We don’t have the quality to compete, simple as that. 
 

The squad requires major surgery over the summer. Clear the deadwood. Bring in quality in key positions. 

Major surgery is an exaggeration, in my opinion.

 

Strengthened? Absolutely, but it’s hardly like the squads we’ve had in the past that required 3/4 transfer windows to fix.

 

We’ve done some good business already securing Penrice, Dhanda and Spittall, and I’m sure more we’ll maybe get 1 or 2 more and move some players on.

[RustyRightPeg]

4 minutes ago, Shooter McGavin said:

Major surgery is an exaggeration, in my opinion.

 

Strengthened? Absolutely, but it’s hardly like the squads we’ve had in the past that required 3/4 transfer windows to fix.

 

We’ve done some good business already securing Penrice, Dhanda and Spittall, and I’m sure more we’ll maybe get 1 or 2 more and move some players on.

 

Think you'll be surprised.

 

Likely departures, Cochrane, Beni & Shanks. Add in Haring & Halliday who are EOC. Dexter and Fraser's loans likely won't be extended and we're on 7 players already. 3 automatic starters this season.

 

3 already confirmed incoming, but it's huge holes being left.

 

Off topic but still.

[Dazo]

32 minutes ago, Shooter McGavin said:

Major surgery is an exaggeration, in my opinion.

 

Strengthened? Absolutely, but it’s hardly like the squads we’ve had in the past that required 3/4 transfer windows to fix.

 

We’ve done some good business already securing Penrice, Dhanda and Spittall, and I’m sure more we’ll maybe get 1 or 2 more and move some players on.

 

Major surgery to finish 3rd again ? Some people are delusional in their expectations. This squad has done well and with a few tweaks we can finish 3rd again. 

[jr ewing]

Constant revolving door 🚪 It's the way it is.

[Ricardo Quaresma]

2 hours ago, Bad Religion said:

We don’t have the quality to compete, simple as that. 
 

The squad requires major surgery over the summer. Clear the deadwood. Bring in quality in key positions. 

 

But we comfortably dealt with celtic twice, home and away, a team rangers can't beat?

[HopeDiouf]

Just now, Ricardo Quaresma said:

 

But we comfortably dealt with celtic twice, home and away, a team rangers can't beat?

tbf, one of those was cause they played most of the game with 10 men.  we were struggling till they got a man sent off.

[Ricardo Quaresma]

2 minutes ago, HopeDiouf said:

tbf, one of those was cause they played most of the game with 10 men.  we were struggling till they got a man sent off.

 

What? Na, that's not what I saw, struggling, na

 

-

Edited April 24 by Ricardo Quaresma

[HopeDiouf]

1 minute ago, Ricardo Quaresma said:

 

What? Na, that's not what I saw, struggling, na?

well put it another way.  once they had a man sent off, we took total control.  Very impressive how good we were once we had the extra man.  Up till then, they'd missed a dodgy penalty and we had not looked in control.  if you're pretending the early red card didn't give us control of that particular game you are kidding yourself.

Edited April 24 by HopeDiouf

[soonbe110]

1 hour ago, RustyRightPeg said:

 

I said before the game if we can't beat them today, given the mental state they were in, how leggy they'd looked in previous games, we never could beat them. 

 

I don't care if we lose 3/4-0 if we have a go. It's the manner we lose to them. Yet again it's soft as shite - that's what gets to me, and 4 days later still is getting to me.

To be honest I felt the same leaving Hampden on Sunday. Having watched the highlights a couple of times it’s pretty clear that with just a little better decision-making in the final third we probably have two or three great scoring opportunities. Oda should have done better with his shot at the end as well. Had one or two of them gone in I think we would have won the game.  Had we got our noses in front they wouldn’t have come back. Don’t think anyone disagrees that we need better up front supporting Shankland.  Oda and Vargas may or may not have potential that they will fulfil with us but as they are at the moment they are not nearly clinical or savvy enough.