Hearts v Hibernian

[Malcolm Malcolm]

3 minutes ago, JTS98 said:

There's a lot more to football than stats. I think more or less anybody watching the game objectively would have considered Hearts to be the better side.

But they lost. That's fitba.

Like I said, Hibs do this once every five years or so. That's one of those 'facts' you love so much.

Hibs can only dream of our derby record at home, away or neutral venues. We'll be fine. This is a blip.

 

[topcat(The most tip top)]

There's a lot more to football than stats. I think more or less anybody watching the game objectively would have considered Hearts to be the better side.
But they lost. That's fitba.
Like I said, Hibs do this once every five years or so. That's one of those 'facts' you love so much.
Hibs can only dream of our derby record at home, away or neutral venues. We'll be fine. This is a blip.

All part of life’s rich tapestry JTS98

[BawWatchin]

Just now, JTS98 said:

There's a lot more to football than stats. I think more or less anybody watching the game objectively would have considered Hearts to be the better side.

But they lost. That's fitba.

Like I said, Hibs do this once every five years or so. That's one of those 'facts' you love so much.

Hibs can only dream of our derby record at home, away or neutral venues. We'll be fine. This is a blip.

Nope, stats are fact mate and the stats clearly show that Hearts didn't "dominate" as your sore loser fanbase claim. The idea that there is some sort of conspiracy that denied Hearts a dozen penalties yesterday, that nobody without maroon tinted specs took any notice of is equally as hilarous.

It's a blip in your opinion. It's a fact that Hearts are complete bottle merchants under Levein who fear playing against us.

[Guest JTS98]

6 minutes ago, BawWatchin said:

Nope, 1)stats are fact mate and the stats clearly show that Hearts didn't "dominate" as your sore loser fanbase claim. 2)The idea that there is some sort of conspiracy that denied Hearts a dozen penalties yesterday, that nobody without maroon tinted specs took any notice of is equally as hilarous.

It's a blip in your opinion. It's a fact that Hearts are complete bottle merchants under Levein who fear playing against us.

1) Well, obviously. But they don't tell you who the better side was. They just tell you how many times certain things happened.

Some teams like to have possession, some teams don't. Some teams favour having attempts on goal early and often while other teams favour more patience and working the ball into specific positions before having an attempt. Some teams highly value earning corners while some teams don't value them at all and rarely try to win them. Some teams like to make lots of short passes while other teams set up specifically to make fewer passes but move the ball further in one move. Some forwards are tasked with finishing moves and being the primary goalscorers for their side while others are asked to work more selflessly and make runs t hold the ball or bring others into the game or make space for others to run into.

Stats themselves do not tell you which side dominated a game or which forward is doing a better job for their team. It's a primary school-level of understanding of the game.

2) What are you on about? I've mentioned nothing of the sort. Although I do think Hearts should have had a penalty right on half time. That's football.

[BawWatchin]

2 minutes ago, JTS98 said:

1) Well, obviously. But they don't tell you who the better side was. They just tell you how many times certain things happened.

Some teams like to have possession, some teams don't. Some teams favour having attempts on goal early and often while other teams favour more patience and working the ball into specific positions before having an attempt. Some teams highly value earning corners while some teams don't value them at all and rarely try to win them. Some teams like to make lots of short passes while other teams set up specifically to make fewer passes but move the ball further in one move.

Stats themselves do not tell you which side dominated a game. It's a primary school-level of understanding of the game.

2) What are you on about? I've mentioned nothing of the sort. Although I do think Hearts should have had a penalty right on half time. That's football.

1) Some teams just like to win more than others and we wanted to win more than Hearts did yesterday.

2) I never said you did. But only Hearts fans believe they should have had a penalty yesterday. The rest of the world doesn't.

[Guest JTS98]

1 minute ago, BawWatchin said:

1) Some teams just like to win more than others and we wanted to win more than Hearts did yesterday.

2) I never said you did. But only Hearts fans believe they should have had a penalty yesterday. The rest of the world doesn't.

1) I wouldn't say they wanted it more. I think the big moments just went in Hibs' favour. Same could be said for our win in the last derby. A lot of what happens in football is essentially chance and we read too much into it. If the ref gives Hearts a penalty on half-time (and some refs would have done regardless of which of us is right) and we go on to win 2-1 instead, do you still think Hibs 'wanted to win more'? Of course not. It's scoreboard commenting.

2) The rest of the world doesn't care.

[Ira Gaines]

Fucking hell.

[Bairnardo]

Hearts should have had a penalty btw. Not sure what the arguement even is against it, but its wrong.

[BawWatchin]

1 minute ago, JTS98 said:

1) I wouldn't say they wanted it more. I think the big moments just went in Hibs' favour. Same could be said for our win in the last derby. A lot of what happens in football is essentially chance and we read too much into it. If the ref gives Hearts a penalty on half-time (and some refs would have done regardless of which of us is right) and we go on to win 2-1 instead, do you still think Hibs 'wanted to win more'? Of course not. It's scoreboard commenting.

2) The rest of the world doesn't care.

1) Who knows what the final result would have been had Hearts been gifted a penalty by a weak referee yesterday. We may have got our tails up and stuck several past Hearts in the second half. We'll never know. It's all ifs and buts.

2) Neutrals cared enough to watch the game and none of them seen any penalty incident.

[BawWatchin]

2 minutes ago, Bairnardo said:

Hearts should have had a penalty btw. Not sure what the arguement even is against it, but its wrong.

How about the arguement that there wasn't even any contact whatsoever? There was only one angle that made it look like there was, because it didn't show the gap between the foot of the Hibs player and the leg of the Hearts player. Every other angle showed this quite clearly.

[NJ2]

1) Who knows what the final result would have been had Hearts been gifted a penalty by a weak referee yesterday. We may have got our tails up and stuck several past Hearts in the second half. We'll never know. It's all ifs and buts.
2) Neutrals cared enough to watch the game and none of them seen any penalty incident.

Hearts should have had a penalty btw. Not sure what the arguement even is against it, but its wrong.

Ooft that’s sare for BawWatchin.

[Ira Gaines]

No they fucking didn't.

[Bairnardo]

How about the arguement that there wasn't even any contact whatsoever? There was only one angle that made it look like there was, because it didn't show the gap between the foot of the Hibs player and the leg of the Hearts player. Every other angle showed this quite clearly.

Id need to see the replays again re what you are saying but id have bet my house that the reverse angle shows clear contact.

[Guest JTS98]

2 minutes ago, BawWatchin said:

1) Who knows what the final result would have been had Hearts been gifted a penalty by a weak referee yesterday. We may have got our tails up and stuck several past Hearts in the second half. We'll never know. It's all ifs and buts.

2) Neutrals cared enough to watch the game and none of them seen any penalty incident.

1) Exactly. Any incident could have changed the direction of the game in any way. This notion that a team in any game won because 'they wanted it more' is simplistic cliched mince.

2) I watched it with a Liverpool fan and a Swansea fan. They were even more convinced than me that Hearts should have had a penalty. Like I said, that's life.

[Ira Gaines]

This is ignoring Stevenson deliberately taking a player out after winning the ball with a scissor tackle in the box as well, which could easily have been penalised.

Not that Hearts deserved anything of course. They were completely incompetent in the final third and deserved the result they got. f**k em.

[topcat(The most tip top)]

1) Exactly. Any incident could have changed the direction of the game in any way. This notion that a team in any game won because 'they wanted it more' is simplistic cliched mince.

Except at Easter Road last December where the result was obviously a reflection on Hearts wanting it more

[Guest JTS98]

1 minute ago, topcat(The most tip top) said:

 

Except at Easter Road last December where the result was obviously a reflection on Hearts wanting it more

Yet Hibs hit the post and the bar. If either of those efforts go in, nobody talks of Hearts 'wanting it more'. They talk of a tight draw between two evenly-matched teams.

[BawWatchin]

6 minutes ago, Principal Flutie said:

This is ignoring Stevenson deliberately taking a player out after winning the ball with a scissor tackle in the box as well, which could easily have been penalised.

Taking a player out after winning the ball isn't a foul. So not sure how it could easily have been penalised.

[Guest JTS98]

10 minutes ago, BawWatchin said:

Taking a player out after winning the ball isn't a foul. So not sure how it could easily have been penalised.

I'd suggest you take a look at the laws of the game. It could quite easily be interpreted as a foul.

Winning the ball does not legitimise all that follows it.

The referee could easily have interpreted it as 'playing in a dangerous manner' (indirect free kick) or as a 'careless, reckless or excessively forceful' tackle (direct free kick). Either of these could easily have seen a penalty given and the referee would probably not have been widely criticised had he done so. Could have gone either way.

Like I said, things went for Hibs yesterday. On another day they might not have. That's where games are won. Not mince about 'wanting it more'.

[Lebowski]

I'd suggest you take a look at the laws of the game. It could quite easily be interpreted as a foul.
Winning the ball does not legitimise all that follows it.
The referee could easily have interpreted it as 'playing in a dangerous manner' (indirect free kick) or as a 'careless, reckless or excessively forceful' tackle (direct free kick). Either of these could easily have seen a penalty given and the referee would probably not have been widely criticised had he done s. Could have gone either way.
Like I said, things went for Hibs yesterday. On another day they might not have. That's where games are won. Not mince about 'wanting it more'.

Gtf. Claire thought he'd been fouled because Stevenson knocked the ball off him. The wrong decision there was that Hearts got a throw in that should have went to Hibs.