1-1

[Gods a Jambo]

I've had a think.

 

OP is right.

 

We should have lost.

 

It makes the most commercial sense.

 

**** me.

 

 

Think longer and harder. Nobody is saying we should set out our stall to draw games, so as to get a bigger crowd in the return leg. What is being said is, given that we have drawn the game and we still have a job to finish, the crowd will be bigger and atmosphere better, than it would have been if the tie was done and dusted. Thats a natural and logical observation.

 

You decided to rip the boy early doors, and considering our own manager has came out and basically said the exact same as the op, you're now attempting to save face.

[Gods a Jambo]

What point? I was answering the OP and i haven`t read the managers points yet.

 

Either way i still believe 2-1 is a better result, its all about getting through FFS. I just don`t get the thinking nowadays? It`s all based around money. Money gets made by success and that success is in the shape of progressing through tournaments.

 

I get the feeling im disagreeing with our great manager!

 

 

The point the guy was making is a simple one as I have answered above, just to save me typing it again.

[Debut 4]

Think longer and harder. Nobody is saying we should set out our stall to draw games, so as to get a bigger crowd in the return leg. What is being said is, given that we have drawn the game and we still have a job to finish, the crowd will be bigger and atmosphere better, than it would have been if the tie was done and dusted. Thats a natural and logical observation.

 

You decided to rip the boy early doors, and considering our own manager has came out and basically said the exact same as the op, you're now attempting to save face.

Yes, of course he is going to say that because its only natural and obvious thing to say in light of the result. But im sure JJ would have loved to end the tie last night.

[innerjambo]

I think we're all forgetting one thing here, Paksi beat teams 3 nil in the away leg, so regardless

of the score last night, we will get pumped at Tynie!!

[I.J]

You decided to rip the boy early doors, and considering our own manager has came out and basically said the exact same as the op, you're now attempting to save face.

 

But I'm not, sweetness. I stick by what I said.

 

OP is talking pish, and regardless of what Sir James of Jefferies says, it's an absolute Tom Kite argument. Anyone who says we're better with a 1-1 draw than a win is incorrect.

 

Sorry, babycakes.

 

x

[Gods a Jambo]

Yes, of course he is going to say that because its only natural and obvious thing to say in light of the result. But im sure JJ would have loved to end the tie last night.

 

 

I dont disagree for one second, however, the OP was only poining out that next week could be a cracker, because of the way the tie is balanced, the game is a bigger draw for fans, than it would have been if the tie was over.

[maroonshrew]

hang on a minute, why is there a growing number of people who think drawing was better than winning? Do people really think an extra 1500 people (and theres no proof of that) would help us win.

[portobellojambo1]

I look at it from the point of view that if HMFC want to make money out of the Europa League, the longer we are in it the more money we make. And the tried and trusted means of progressing through to the next game or games is by winning each time you play.

 

Truth is we should have won the game last night, they are a poor side, on a level possibly with NK Siroki Brijeg.

[Tokyo Drifter]

Cautiously optimistic, though I'm worried that they drew their last game one all at home then won 3-0 away. I think our defence is more solid than Tromso's but I'll be relieved if we can get a couple of early goals. Sets it up nicely though, should be a full house, and if the atmosphere is anything like it was for Dinamo Zagreb it'll be a good night. Two-one Hearts, I reckon.

 

On another note, listening to last night's commentary I was struck by two things, one good, one bad. First is that we're already racking up injuries (what's the news on Stevo?). Second, we've got a great squad, real depth in most positions.

[I.J]

I look at it from the point of view that if HMFC want to make money out of the Europa League, the longer we are in it the more money we make. And the tried and trusted means of progressing through to the next game or games is by winning each time you play.

 

Truth is we should have won the game last night, they are a poor side, on a level possibly with NK Siroki Brijeg.

 

Nah man. A few hundred extra folk next week and getting beat is FAR better than a win last night.

 

It makes commercial sense.

[Gods a Jambo]

But I'm not, sweetness. I stick by what I said.

 

OP is talking pish, and regardless of what Sir James of Jefferies says, it's an absolute Tom Kite argument. Anyone who says we're better with a 1-1 draw than a win is incorrect.

 

Sorry, babycakes.

 

x

 

 

I have a hate for the facepalm, but if ever there was an occasion for one, it was that creepy reply. The OP doesnt think its better to get the result we did as was stated earlier, the boy didnt articulate himself correctly in his opening post. His point is simple, next week will be a bigger draw for fans as the tie is in the balance. You continue to ignore this an persisit with the argumemt that he would rather draw than win, as you've made a shop front of yourself.

[Paolo]

Obviously in footballing terms a 2-1 win for us would've been better, but we should make more money at the gate and I still think we'll still win well. We may have 2-3k more fans next week because we drew.

 

If that is the mentality of some fans, then I would rather they did not turn up at all. It is an European game at Tynecastle. If you can afford it and you can go, you should, even is we won 10-0.

[I.J]

I have a hate for the facepalm, but if ever there was an occasion for one, it was that creepy reply. The OP doesnt think its better to get the result we did as was stated earlier, the boy didnt articulate himself correctly in his opening post. His point is simple, next week will be a bigger draw for fans as the tie is in the balance. You continue to ignore this an persisit with the argumemt that he would rather draw than win, as you've made a shop front of yourself.

 

You win the internet.

 

Let's make love.

 

Final time - PISH point, PISH argument, PISH discussion, and once again, IJ is BANG ON THE CASH.

 

Glad to be service.

 

x

[colinmaroon]

I have a hate for the facepalm, but if ever there was an occasion for one, it was that creepy reply. The OP doesnt think its better to get the result we did as was stated earlier, the boy didnt articulate himself correctly in his opening post. His point is simple, next week will be a bigger draw for fans as the tie is in the balance. You continue to ignore this an persisit with the argumemt that he would rather draw than win, as you've made a shop front of yourself.

 

 

 

 

Succinct and to the point!

[Wolfstar]

If that is the mentality of some fans, then I would rather they did not turn up at all. It is an European game at Tynecastle. If you can afford it and you can go, you should, even is we won 10-0.

 

This. we dont get many european games so when they do come around you should go, no matter the score.

[Debut 4]

If that is the mentality of some fans, then I would rather they did not turn up at all. It is an European game at Tynecastle. If you can afford it and you can go, you should, even is we won 10-0.

There was still a decent-ish gate V Zagreb after the 4-0 drubbing and i`d expect a good gate next Thursday.

 

Like it or not,( and we could still end up with a red coupon) we sort of know this side aren`t very strong and unfortunately people will keep their money in hope that we get through and save it for undoubtedly stronger opposition in the next round.

 

I think a gate over 12,000 would be admirable next week taking all things into consideration but would love a full house as ever.

[Gods a Jambo]

You win the internet.

 

Let's make love.

 

Final time - PISH point, PISH argument, PISH discussion, and once again, IJ is BANG ON THE CASH.

 

Glad to be service.

 

x

 

 

Cringe!

[I.J]

Cringe!

 

Come back when you've got your own JKB smiley, chief.

 

I run this joint.

 

x

[Gods a Jambo]

Come back when you've got your own JKB smiley, chief.

 

I run this joint.

 

x

 

 

I thought I had won the internet? I run that now.

[Mr Sifter]

Lovin how some here are skewin the OPs point to try and justify their own sarcastic replies.

[Gods a Jambo]

Lovin how some here are skewin the OPs point to try and justify their own sarcastic replies.

 

 

Exactly.

[Dalry]

But I'm not, sweetness. I stick by what I said.

 

OP is talking pish, and regardless of what Sir James of Jefferies says, it's an absolute Tom Kite argument. Anyone who says we're better with a 1-1 draw than a win is incorrect.

 

 

 

That's only because you don't appear to have the intelligence to understand the point. This team are average at best, and we should've beat them last night, maybe inexperience let us down. I believe that we will win reasonably well next week, if we don't we don't have the right to be there. The point I'm making is that at 1-1 the game is set-up better for a closer contest and the supporters will come out in greater numbers making more money for hearts (this is a business) and create a great atmosphere. The players also will be well up for it.

 

Had we won 2-1 plenty of Hearts fans would not come to Tynescastle for the 2ng leg. The crowd could've been quite low 11,000 not sure. I think we'll have at least 3k more fans there as the game is tied at 1-1. Look at Hearts when we played St.Johnstone at Tynescastle in the cup (intimidating atmosphere???) look at Rangers the other night, 26k, low key from the fans may have rubbed off on the players.

 

Some of you are saying we'd be in a better position had we won to go through to the next stage and make more money and you're right, but if we can't beat a very average side this this after an away 1-1 draw then god help us.

[Socrates]

Lovin how some here are skewin the OPs point to try and justify their own sarcastic replies.

Don't mean to be an arse, but the subtitle of the thread, as chosen by the OP, is "better than winning 2-1?". Suggesting that a draw might be better than a win deserves sarcastic replies imo, regardless of whether we'll get a slightly better crowd or not.

[trotter]

So what we're saying - basically - is that results are now secondary to finance.

 

Well fart on my urethra, we've become hibs.

 

GREAT STUFF.

 

Beautiful use of anatomical nomenclature

[Diego10]

Don't mean to be an arse, but the subtitle of the thread, as chosen by the OP, is "better than winning 2-1?". Suggesting that a draw might be better than a win deserves sarcastic replies imo, regardless of whether we'll get a slightly better crowd or not.

If that's all he'd put, aye. He posed a rhetorical question and used his post to explain what he meant. I fail to see why he's getting slaughtered myself.

[I.J]

I thought I had won the internet? I run that now.

 

[Charlie-Brown]

Paksi now MUST achieve 2 things next week if they hope to progress 1) they must not lose the 2nd leg (obviously) 2) they must score at least 1 goal and get a draw to take it to extra time or penalties or win by 1-0 or more - it's debatable whether us drawing or winning over in Hungary will influence how they approach the 2nd leg given they now must score and get a positive result anyway.

[Eckauskas]

Prize money from winning the game and money made from progressing into the play off rounds > A couple hundred extra folk next week.

[innerjambo]

Paksi now MUST achieve 2 things next week if they hope to progress 1) they must not lose the 2nd leg (obviously) 2) they must score at least 1 goal and get a draw to take it to extra time or penalties or win by 1-0 or more - it's debatable whether us drawing or winning over in Hungary will influence how they approach the 2nd leg given they now must score and get a positive result anyway.

 

 

They did that without any problems in Norway CB, we will have to be in their faces next week or I fear an upset

could happen.

[Slap]

Yeah 1-1 is the bestest score ever ever.

 

 

:D :D

 

Although the OP has a valid point, tighter gane means higher crowd figures, but I'd rather have 2-1 with the next round definately in the bag if that had been the case..................

[Getintaethem]

Would have prefered if we had won last night but we didn't. 1-1 is still a good result though. I think we are the better team, though their no. 39 is a danger. My only worry about the current team is I don't see us scoring many goals, an early goal on Thursday would help calm the nerves. European nights at Tynie, yea canny beat 'em .

[Tommy Wiseau]

One thing I didn't realise when starting this thread was the little amount of intelligence with some of the people on here.

 

Of course a 2-1 win is better than 1-1, if you've made a comment about "eh how can 1-1 be better than a 2-1 win, stupid!!" then you're not reading between the lines and are just making a stupid comment as you don't have the intelligence to see the bigger picture.

 

Yes we are a footballing team blah blah, but we are a business. I reckon business will be much better on the night as the game is very much in the balance, we could get a full house, maybe. If we had won then I think we would only get 10-12k as many people would've not bought tickets as they would hope, like when we played St.Johnstone in the SCUP, that we would get through no problem.

 

Also there is less room for taking the tie for granted and the players could well be more determined at 1-1 and go for it rather than if we had won 2-1.

 

Judging by what I saw last night, we should be able to win no problem, therefore 1-1 may well prove to be a better result (commercially) than if we had won 2-1.

 

 

 

 

Reading between the lines, any Hearts supporter who decided not to go to the game because we were a goal up rather than drawing the tie is making excuses for not wanting to go in the first place and almost certainly wouldn't have turned up anyway. If we had won 5-0 or something, aye, you may have a point. As it is, you don't and the result will make a negligible impact on attendance, if any. Sorry.

 

 

I'd like to point out our manager made the exact same point as the OP in his post match interviews.

 

 

Link please.

[2NaFish]

Link please.

 

"The tie isnt over, its only halfway. If we'd won 2-0 it wouldnt be as big a crowd next week but now it will be a big crowd. A european night at tynecastle is different pressure."

 

It's not the same point. It's stating that if the tie were, effectively, over the crowd would be affected. As it is both 1-1 and 2-1 are both in the balance and should ensure rouhgly the same crowd.

 

To say that JJ made the same point as the OP is nonsense. It's fundamentally different.

[Tommy Wiseau]

"The tie isnt over, its only halfway. If we'd won 2-0 it wouldnt be as big a crowd next week but now it will be a big crowd. A european night at tynecastle is different pressure."

 

It's not the same point. It's stating that if the tie were, effectively, over the crowd would be affected. As it is both 1-1 and 2-1 are both in the balance and should ensure rouhgly the same crowd.

 

To say that JJ made the same point as the OP is nonsense. It's fundamentally different.

 

 

Thanks 2na. I suspected that may have been what he said.

[I.J]

So OP's point is indeed pish.

 

Don't worry folks. I'll pat my own back.

 

 

[Diego10]

"The tie isnt over, its only halfway. If we'd won 2-0 it wouldnt be as big a crowd next week but now it will be a big crowd. A european night at tynecastle is different pressure."

 

It's not the same point. It's stating that if the tie were, effectively, over the crowd would be affected. As it is both 1-1 and 2-1 are both in the balance and should ensure rouhgly the same crowd.

 

To say that JJ made the same point as the OP is nonsense. It's fundamentally different.

Jefferies said that with a better result we'd possibly have got a smaller crowd. so, aye, the same point in my book.

 

2-1 is in the balance but 2-0 is finished?

[2NaFish]

Jefferies said that with a better result we'd possibly have got a smaller crowd. so, aye, the same point in my book.

 

2-1 is in the balance but 2-0 is finished?

 

That's two bouts of obfuscation to make an incorrect conclusion; i'll deal with them in reverse chronological order if i may.

 

1. I never said 2-0 was finished - i said, in parenthesis, it is 'effectively' finished. A team that we can beat 2-0 away from home is pretty unlikely to beat us 3-0 (given away goals) when we're at home. Therefore, in the eyes of the paying public, it's effectively over. That would lead in all likelihood smaller crowd.

 

2. Whilst it is not incorrect to say "Jefferies said with a better result we'd have got a smaller crowd", it is willfully inexact to the point of misquoting - Jefferies specifically said 2-0, so why not work from that rather than alter his words - i'll tell you why, it's because they dont back up what you want them to say.

 

Given the truth of point 1 above, it is not the case that ALL 'better' results would lead to a significantly diminished crowd - 2-1 is a 'better' result but wouldnt lead to a greatly diminished crowd (an argument could be made that the crowd would be larger due to glory hunters, but it would be minimal one way or the other).

 

If i had time i'd make up a venn diagram but trust me, you're wrong.

[Diego10]

That's two bouts of obfuscation to make an incorrect conclusion; i'll deal with them in reverse chronological order if i may.

 

1. I never said 2-0 was finished - i said, in parenthesis, it is 'effectively' finished. A team that we can beat 2-0 away from home is pretty unlikely to beat us 3-0 (given away goals) when we're at home. Therefore, in the eyes of the paying public, it's effectively over. That would lead in all likelihood smaller crowd.

 

2. Whilst it is not incorrect to say "Jefferies said with a better result we'd have got a smaller crowd", it is willfully inexact to the point of misquoting - Jefferies specifically said 2-0, so why not work from that rather than alter his words - i'll tell you why, it's because they dont back up what you want them to say.

 

Given the truth of point 1 above, it is not the case that ALL 'better' results would lead to a significantly diminished crowd - 2-1 is a 'better' result but wouldnt lead to a greatly diminished crowd (an argument could be made that the crowd would be larger due to glory hunters, but it would be minimal one way or the other).

 

If i had time i'd make up a venn diagram but trust me, you're wrong.

 

I don't trust you. I'm perfectly happy with my interpretation of what was said.

[2NaFish]

I don't trust you. I'm perfectly happy with my interpretation of what was said.

 

Why? i've told why your interpretation is wrong. Why do you think its correct, or what i've said wrong?

[jamborich]

Think longer and harder. Nobody is saying we should set out our stall to draw games, so as to get a bigger crowd in the return leg. What is being said is, given that we have drawn the game and we still have a job to finish, the crowd will be bigger and atmosphere better, than it would have been if the tie was done and dusted. Thats a natural and logical observation.

 

You decided to rip the boy early doors, and considering our own manager has came out and basically said the exact same as the op, you're now attempting to save face.

 

The OP said it makes commercial sense, if we had won and the tie was to quote you "done and dusted" we would be in the next round, commercially winning makes better sense

[Jambomuzz]

To be honest, this isn't a debate anymore, its quite clear no-one on this thread is in the position of changing their mind because of personal pride, so lets leave it be and let other people give their opinions?

 

Personally I would have preferred Hearts to win, but a 1-1 away draw in Europe is a sufficient enough result to ensure Hearts arn't complacent at home and stand a really good chance of going through, while enticing a big crowd along to Tynecastle.

[Diego10]

Why? i've told why your interpretation is wrong. Why do you think its correct, or what i've said wrong?

 

your dissection of my last point was very narrowly focussed on the fact I said finished. It's not a linguistics course. you saying it was 'effectively' over was the point I was comparing the 2-1 'in the balance' scoreline with. yes 2-0 is more favourable, but it would still be in the balance to my mind.

 

as for the 2nd point, I don't believe it's wilfully inexact to be honest. you're focussing on hypothetical scorelines plucked out of the air by the OP and our manager. Yes in JJ's case the scoreline used would indicate the game was somewhat less in the balance, but I don't see it as a massive leap to arrive at what I said.

 

that all said, I don't understand anyone who would not go because of the first leg score, unless we'd been royally horsed. so while I think the OP was needlessly harsly treated I don't really agree with his point.

[2NaFish]

your dissection of my last point was very narrowly focussed on the fact I said finished. It's not a linguistics course. you saying it was 'effectively' over was the point I was comparing the 2-1 'in the balance' scoreline with. yes 2-0 is more favourable, but it would still be in the balance to my mind.

 

 

If it was still in the balance then why would the crowd be less? What would be the point of everything you've said?

 

as for the 2nd point, I don't believe it's wilfully inexact to be honest. you're focussing on hypothetical scorelines plucked out of the air by the OP and our manager. Yes in JJ's case the scoreline used would indicate the game was somewhat less in the balance, but I don't see it as a massive leap to arrive at what I said.

 

Ofcourse i'm focuing on the hypothetical scoreline used by our manager - because thats what begbie asked about. To talk about anything else would be redundant. As for you "non-massive leap" - why leap at all? Why not just use the words he used - once again, i'll tell you why, because it is different. Not hugely different, but different enough in the context of the debate. (bearing in mind the debate is not actually over the value of the OP but whether JJ agrees with the OP - which he doesnt)

[skene11]

[Big_Hearts_Runner]

No 1-1 is dodgy tactically. Do we sit back and play patient or come out and attack? Finely balanced and a bit awkward. 2-1 would have been comfortable and we could have just grind them down.

I'd like to think 1-2 or 1-1 would make no difference to Hearts fans about attending the home leg. Understandable if it were 4 or 5-0.

[Gods a Jambo]

 

 

To me that seems fitting, as that dougnut get killed, and seeing as I run a cemetery, I've booked you a spot.

[jock _turd]

I've been on this thread from early on. AND ANYBODY WHO SAYS 1-1 DRAW IS BETTER THAN A 2-1 WIN IS TALKING TOM KITE. As a club we want to progress its not about finance its about winning and PRIDE who the f wants to be like the squibs al la "our books balance2 its about being top dog. THE op WAS SMOKING BALDRICKS OLD UNDER PANTS WHEN HE POSTED END OF. I have never read so much pish in my life go to any big team supporter and ask them if the would rather draw than win!! What a lot of crap honestly ask yourself! I'm off to launder my smalls now! aye right what a lot of guff!

[Snake Plissken]

To be honest, this isn't a debate anymore, its quite clear no-one on this thread is in the position of changing their mind because of personal pride, so lets leave it be and let other people give their opinions?

 

Personally I would have preferred Hearts to win, but a 1-1 away draw in Europe is a sufficient enough result to ensure Hearts arn't complacent at home and stand a really good chance of going through, while enticing a big crowd along to Tynecastle.

 

Or as I prefer to call it: common sense.

 

The tagline to the thread asked if it was better to have drawn 1-1 than to have won 2-1, clearly that is not the case.

 

The argument it would entice a bigger crowd is redundant - if we go through to the next round, as winning 2-1 would have all but ensured, we'll make more money than if a few hundred extra bodies packed in. Not that I buy that reasoning in any case, we'll still get a decent crowd in regardless.

 

It's an utterly ridiculous argument to make.

[J Cheever Loophole]

Or as I prefer to call it: common sense.

 

The tagline to the thread asked if it was better to have drawn 1-1 than to have won 2-1, clearly that is not the case.

 

The argument it would entice a bigger crowd is redundant - if we go through to the next round, as winning 2-1 would have all but ensured, we'll make more money than if a few hundred extra bodies packed in. Not that I buy that reasoning in any case, we'll still get a decent crowd in regardless.

 

It's an utterly ridiculous argument to make.

I think maybe,the OP,was taking into account,how poor ******* appeared to be.We would all like a TYNIE night next week,so maybe he/she is confident of a result,so much so he/she was thinking of a financial benefit for our club.

 

 

 

[Smack]

I think it would have made more commercial sense not to be in the Europa league at all. We are sacrificing a potential money spinner in the league cup (where the mafia have given us a bye).

 

And just imagine how much it took to fly the squad over to Hungary and house them in a hotel, that's assuming they hadn't already booked up for Tromso - doesn't bear thinking about. Add on to all that the cost of ferrying David Obua all over the world in search of a few more pages for his passport and a visa card and it becomes clear that playing in Europe is commercially unviable.