"Walter, let's face it, you didn't deserve to lose that game"

[Le Chat]

Think it was Charlie Mann?

 

The Prosecution rests m'lud.

[Seymour M Hersh]

I wouldn get angry, of course they deserved to win on possession and chnces. Like we deerved to win that ICT match but it makes it all the sweeter for me that we won it.

 

When did they officially "deserve to win it"? Goals win games. Add to this the years we have seen our team get done just like we did them today? Poetic justice imo. Same again at darkheid please.

[Peebo]

TV fan. shut it.

 

Internet actually. I live in Texas.

[JBHearts]

Who was the interviewer ?

 

Sounds a right fecking Spazzlord whoever it is.

 

 

Beats Chick Young gushing.

 

[benny]

Kello was superb for the first half hour or so.Nothing to do after that.His fingertip save was brilliant but just as good was his punch that got the ball and then Lafferty.I thought the cross had goal written all over it.Thought Rangers movement was superb at the start but once Mrowiec and Wallace got going we were never going to get beat.Ness looks a brilliant prospect as well.

Great to beat any of the old firm playing average at best.Doesn't happen very often.

[rdewar42]

Kello was very good, especially in the first half, but he is a member of the Hearts team, thus his competence doesn't mean that we deserved to lose, (quite the opposite, in fact).

[ArabJambo]

But the one from Ness was immense. The others only looked routine because his positioning was continually perfect, meaning opponents have to hit perfect shots to beat him. It's brilliant: goodness knows how many points he's already won us this season, and psychologically, the presence he has is demoralising for the opposition.

Agree... and as well as his positioning making some of those saves look routine, he also held onto a number of shots that a lesser keeper would have spilled.

[john brownlee]

As Gordon Bamks once said it not the ones you save that count, its the ones you don't that count..

 

 

 

 

 

 

ask the molester

 

we won today because we were better than them Simples

[Hoggie]

I am going to get shot for saying this but i really think a draw would have been a fair result. Hearts were dreadful in the first half however Kello was amazing. That run by Zaliukas in the first half that was then taken away from him by Lafferty was shocking.

However me and my dad were going crazy at the goal and for the win but i do think we need to keep things simple against Celtic the long ball doesnt work unless we have Kyle. Glen would never win a thing against Davie Weir and didnt today.

[bighusref]

I just don't get this "deserved" malarky. The team that scores the most goals deserves to win, it is that simple.

 

I had this argument with a poster that I shall not name (not fair on him tbh) as he was keeping a record of, in his opinion, points that we deserved but were taken away from us by bad refereeing decisions. He told us that he would bump this thread over the season and funnily enough, I don't recall seeing it that much.

 

We absolutely deserved to win yesterday. We defended better and stopped them scoring a goal. They on the other hand could not stop us scoring a goal, therefore, it was our win.

[SE16 3LN]

We F***** the currents, YEEEEEEAAAAAS.

[Only a Game]

Peebo, none of us are disagreeing that they couldn't score and we did. That is fact.

 

You said they rarely threatened our goal. (post 2) That is nonsense.

 

 

They had, in total, and in my opinion, 3 efforts that seriously threatened our goal.

 

1. Ness's shot that Kello saved low down at the near post

2. Ness's shot which Kello brilliantly tipped round the post/over the bar.

3. Jelavic shot that hit the bar.

 

 

I honestly cant remember any other occasion in the game where I held my breath thinking they were scoring.

 

They were on top for the first half. No doubt about that, but they didnt create loads of chances IMO. The second half, once we decided that it might be wise to give Eggert some protection, I thought it was pretty even. We scored during our best period in the game when they just didnt know how to handle Lee Wallace and the one that hit the bar apart, we never looked in danger of conceding after that.

 

Its been said that they "deserved" to win or at least take something from the game. They simply didnt. THEY SCORED ONE GOAL LESS THAN THE OPPOSITION. That is deserving only of defeat.

[Ben Dover]

Sorry if it's been mentioned already on the thread, but if you flip this result over to get a game dominated by Hearts BUT won by Rangers 1-0 ..............then the press would be saying THAT'S WHY THEY ARE CHAMPIONS !!

 

 

Sweet

Roond Ye

GIRFUY

etc

[redm]

The game of football is about getting the ball into the opponent's goal more times than they manage to get the ball in yours.

 

We scored, they didn't. Therefore we're better at the game of football and deserved the 3 points.

[Bert Le Clos]

I'm perfectly happy for the biased press to continue stroking the uglies egos. If it makes them believe they deserve to win games, and turn up expecting to win I'm quite happy.

 

I'm also quite happy for our players to fight tooth and nail as they don't get the recognition they deserve. Let Celtic and Rangers believe they are still far superior to us. If we quietly carry on doing what we are doing we'll get the recognition we deserve soon enough.

[Jaap's Sigh]

They had, in total, and in my opinion, 3 efforts that seriously threatened our goal.

 

1. Ness's shot that Kello saved low down at the near post

2. Ness's shot which Kello brilliantly tipped round the post/over the bar.

3. Jelavic shot that hit the bar.

 

 

I honestly cant remember any other occasion in the game where I held my breath thinking they were scoring.

 

They were on top for the first half. No doubt about that, but they didnt create loads of chances IMO. The second half, once we decided that it might be wise to give Eggert some protection, I thought it was pretty even. We scored during our best period in the game when they just didnt know how to handle Lee Wallace and the one that hit the bar apart, we never looked in danger of conceding after that.

 

Its been said that they "deserved" to win or at least take something from the game. They simply didnt. THEY SCORED ONE GOAL LESS THAN THE OPPOSITION. That is deserving only of defeat.

OAG. They may only have had 3 efforts which seriously threatened our goal, but there were plenty others which Kello had to deal with too. These may have just been routine stops, but they were saves which had to be made nonetheless.

If a keeper has to make any save (routine or special) then the goal has been threatened.

Kello was very busy in the first 30 minutes of the game. I will say this one last time - to say they rarely threatened our goal is nonsense. IF A KEEPER HAS TO MAKE A SAVE THE GOAL HAS BEEN THREATENED!

[son of jerel]

They didn't really deserve to win it, either. They had lots of possession, but actually rarely threatened our goal.

 

dear oh dear. did you actually read that before you posted?

 

how the huns didn't breach our goal, first half especially, i will never know. kello made some outstanding saves and the boy almost broke the bar in the second half.

 

football fans' inability to see the woods for the trees is unbelievable.

[MacDonald Jardine]

dear oh dear. did you actually read that before you posted?

 

how the huns didn't breach our goal, first half especially, i will never know. kello made some outstanding saves and the boy almost broke the bar in the second half.

 

football fans' inability to see the woods for the trees is unbelievable.

 

Not just that. They were called offside a number of times in the first half, a few of which were at best debateable.

 

For those who don't think Rangers deserved anything, bear that in mind the next time Hearts dominate a game and lose or draw.

 

Still. it is the mark of good teams to win in these situations.

[bighusref]

dear oh dear. did you actually read that before you posted?

 

how the huns didn't breach our goal, first half especially, i will never know. kello made some outstanding saves and the boy almost broke the bar in the second half.

 

football fans' inability to see the woods for the trees is unbelievable.

 

Son of Jerel,

 

You seem a little vexed this morning, it cannot be that bad, can it? Gives a hug.

 

Quick question; What barometer do we use to award victories and draws in football? I know the answer, and hope you do too, it's goals. Goals win games.

 

So, when talking about "deserving", which of the two teams yesterday gained more of these "goals"?

 

Once you have these answers, I'd like to think you will recognise the error of your ways.

[Only a Game]

Not just that. They were called offside a number of times in the first half, a few of which were at best debateable.

 

For those who don't think Rangers deserved anything, bear that in mind the next time Hearts dominate a game and lose or draw.

 

Still. it is the mark of good teams to win in these situations.

 

They were caught offside 8 times in the whole match (according to Sky Sports). At least 4 of those were Lafferty showing his intelligence (McCoist was tearing his hair out- whats left of it.)

 

I dont remember one debatable offside in the whole game TBH.

 

As one of the best posters on the board has already stated..........There is only one method of measuring who deserved to win a football match - Goals scored.

[MacDonald Jardine]

They were caught offside 8 times in the whole match (according to Sky Sports). At least 4 of those were Lafferty showing his intelligence (McCoist was tearing his hair out- whats left of it.)

 

I dont remember one debatable offside in the whole game TBH.

 

As one of the best posters on the board has already stated..........There is only one method of measuring who deserved to win a football match - Goals scored.

 

Yes there is but that doesn't mean the result always reflects what should have happened.

If goals are all that matter a lot of posts on this board are redundant.

[bighusref]

They were caught offside 8 times in the whole match (according to Sky Sports). At least 4 of those were Lafferty showing his intelligence (McCoist was tearing his hair out- whats left of it.)

 

I dont remember one debatable offside in the whole game TBH.

 

As one of the best posters on the board has already stated..........There is only one method of measuring who deserved to win a football match - Goals scored.

 

 

All jokes aside, "one of"??

[Only a Game]

They may only have had 3 efforts which seriously threatened our goal,

 

I will say this one last time - to say they rarely threatened our goal is nonsense. IF A KEEPER HAS TO MAKE A SAVE THE GOAL HAS BEEN THREATENED!

 

In that case, lets only worry when the goal has been seriously threatened or we'll end up worrying every time the opponents cross into our half.

 

Serious threats happened rarely yesterday, as youve agreed. 3 times in total. MInor threats leading to routine saves only count if your trying to make Rangers look significantly more in command of the game that they actually were yesterday.

[Only a Game]

 

All jokes aside, "one of"??

 

 

Top 3, pushing for the title.

[Only a Game]

Yes there is but that doesn't mean the result always reflects what should have happened.

If goals are all that matter a lot of posts on this board are redundant.

 

 

Honestly, who gives a shit about what SHOULD have happened, especially Hearts fans of a certain age.

 

SHOULD have, wins you feck all. SHOULD have causes you nothing but pain and angst. SHOULD have does not win you a game and it doesnt win you the league.

The best place for SHOULD have is in redundant message board posts because out there in the real world........ SHOULD have means JACK shit.

[Jaap's Sigh]

In that case, lets only worry when the goal has been seriously threatened or we'll end up worrying every time the opponents cross into our half.

 

Serious threats happened rarely yesterday, as youve agreed. 3 times in total. MInor threats leading to routine saves only count if your trying to make Rangers look significantly more in command of the game that they actually were yesterday.

Ha ha who's worrying. Certainly not me. I don't want to get embroiled in a debate with you on this. Another poster stated that they rarely threatened our goal. I didn't agree.

I never said we didn't deserve to win. I have never said that Rangers deserved to win either. I am certainly not trying to make Rangers sound more in command than they were as you are insinuating. You should look back on this thread and quote me where I do this. For the record I feel we merited our win on the basis that we scored and they didn't.

However for anyone to say they rarely threatened our goal is ridiculous. That is the only argument I have.

 

Now run along.

[Groot]

Honestly, who gives a shit about what SHOULD have happened, especially Hearts fans of a certain age.

 

SHOULD have, wins you feck all. SHOULD have causes you nothing but pain and angst. SHOULD have does not win you a game and it doesnt win you the league.

The best place for SHOULD have is in redundant message board posts because out there in the real world........ SHOULD have means JACK shit.

 

This post gets the MalkyMcFrench seal of approval

 

All this shite about who deserves what reminds me of the Leith warrior poets justifying their existence

 

To reiterate some of the earlier points on the SPL league table they measure games played, how many games have been won lost or drawn, how many goals have been scored and conceded and finally the total number of points you have

 

Now when they add a column to add points that people think you deserve then I'll care, until then I am absofeckinlutely delighted that we have beaten der hub after arguably one of our poorer performances this season

 

FFS enjoy it you bunch of spanners instead of beating yourselves up

[son of jerel]

Son of Jerel,

 

You seem a little vexed this morning, it cannot be that bad, can it? Gives a hug.

 

Quick question; What barometer do we use to award victories and draws in football? I know the answer, and hope you do too, it's goals. Goals win games.

 

So, when talking about "deserving", which of the two teams yesterday gained more of these "goals"?

 

Once you have these answers, I'd like to think you will recognise the error of your ways.

 

biggest of husref's, if you can refer me to the part of my post which says rangers deserved to win then be my guest.

 

whilst goals win matches i think only a fool would say we didn't ride our luck at times and were fortunate enough to score with our only shot on target.

 

if we go to parkhead on Wednesday and play them of the park, have 30 efforts on target but lose a goal in injury time to get beaten will you say the same?

[bighusref]

biggest of husref's, if you can refer me to the part of my post which says rangers deserved to win then be my guest.

 

whilst goals win matches i think only a fool would say we didn't ride our luck at times and were fortunate enough to score with our only shot on target.

 

if we go to parkhead on Wednesday and play them of the park, have 30 efforts on target but lose a goal in injury time to get beaten will you say the same?

 

Sorry, but I don't think it's fair to say we "rode our luck" on more than one occasion. There were no spawny deflections or penalty claims, the only time we rode our luck was the rebound from the bar.

 

As for your last bit, yes, I would. A team wins games by scoring goals, if we go there and have a hundred shots on target but don't score whilst C*lt!c score a goal, we don't deserve to win.

 

Goals win games.

 

 

p.s. am I not getting a cuddle?

[Groot]

Since when did having a vastly superior goalie count as being lucky

 

If that's the case we've been lucky for quite some time

 

It's Kello/McGregors job to keep the ball out the net, one person did their job yesterday the other didn't

 

It also means that Hearts are a more efficient team, we only needed one shot on target to score, Rangers needed lots more and couldn't score

 

Surely that shows we deserve it more

[JamboAl]

I kinda agree with Peebo, that first half hour Kello was just sublime making some really good saves, that one from Ness was almost world class.

 

In the second half though they did nothing really threatening. A lot of possession in our half of the field but apart from Jelavic's wonder strike that came off the bar, Kello didn't have a save to make.

 

Don't get me wrong, they deserved to win....but all that does is make the result even more pleasing.

 

They did enough to win most games but didn't deserve to win nor were they unlucky. You have to put the ball in the net at least once more than your opponents to win and the Huns didn't. End of.

Kello was there to try and prevent goals being scored against us and that he did. He is part of the team. They might have been unlucky if they had been beaten by an offside goal, a wrong ref decision or something like that. One could easily argue that Kello would not have had to make two of these saves if Ness (like Kello) had not been performing so well.

[winston churchill]

yesterdays game was just like when we battered ICT a few weeks ago and only got a draw.

 

the boy next to me summed it up perfectly..........smash and grab

[bighusref]

Since when did having a vastly superior goalie count as being lucky

 

If that's the case we've been lucky for quite some time

 

It's Kello/McGregors job to keep the ball out the net, one person did their job yesterday the other didn't

 

It also means that Hearts are a more efficient team, we only needed one shot on target to score, Rangers needed lots more and couldn't score

 

Surely that shows we deserve it more

 

Don't be silly Malky, we are so jammy. We should make sure that Kello intentionally lets two in so that R@ng*rs get the three points they so clearly "deserved".

 

Jokes aside, your point is a good one. For attacking players, performing well is going for goal, creating chances and scoring goals. For defenders and goalkeepers, it is stopping the other team from scoring goals. I put it to the jury that we could just as easily say that we deserved to win as our goalkeeper was better than theirs.

Hearts 1

R@ng*rs 0

 

It's a big boys business folks.

[Groot]

Wow, one if the top 3 posters on JKB saying I made a good point, I'm honoured

[Miller Jambo 60]

the guy on the radio just said....well tough, they did lose the game because at the end of the day, goals count. We scored, they didn't. How many times have deserved something and taken nothing? You want sympathy? Feck off!

 

Ha Ha they lost we won Gorgie rule

[bighusref]

Wow, one if the top 3 posters on JKB saying I made a good point, I'm honoured

 

"one of"

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[winston churchill]

Wow, one if the top 3 posters on JKB saying I made a good point, I'm honoured

 

talking of top posters.

 

we popped into the athletic arms for a pint on our way up to the rule.

 

i clocked a few of the KB top boys holding court in the wee cubby hole through the back beside the lavy.

[Groot]

"one of"

 

 

 

 

 

Damn predictive text

[bighusref]

Damn predictive text

 

See, I wasn't having a dig at the spelling, it was meant to be a dig at "one of", suggesting that I don't understand how I can be so downgraded as "only" one of the best.

 

It didn't work though, didn't it. :(

[Groot]

BH if it makes you feel better I was only quoting a statement from earlier today

 

I'd at least put you in the top 2

[bighusref]

BH if it makes you feel better I was only quoting a statement from earlier today

 

I'd at least put you in the top 2

 

I know man, I know. The response I posted to you was the same as the response to OAG (true story, I've met him, he is a nice guy) when he said it, whilst he was being very tongue in cheek.

 

It's all a bit of fun bud.

[Only a Game]

I know man, I know. The response I posted to you was the same as the response to OAG (true story, I've met him, he is a nice guy) when he said it, whilst he was being very tongue in cheek.

 

It's all a bit of fun bud.

 

Shhhhh that was meant to be a secret !!!