Jump to content

St Mirren (3) The Rangers (1) 12/11/22 (stands)


Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, bennett said:

Another penalty against celtic, it shows what they've been getting away for years.

 

No wonder they're spooked.

 

 

2 hours ago, bennett said:

Clown Job going full celtic da with the Tam Sevco videos. 

 

 


:thumsup2

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, VincentGuerin said:

Far be it from me to stick up for Rangers, but this is a batshit mental comment.

More accurate would be 'Was fucking magnificent pretty much whenever fit'.

Only problem with Souttar is that you'll never get him on the park consistently for more than a few months at a time.

The Maroon Ryan Porteous 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jonah Ayunga insists St Mirren deserved to beat Rangers but had to do it against the referee too because he kept giving the Ibrox side 'every decision'.

The forward scored the opener against Rangers and thought he was on course to help St Mirren make history by beating both sides of the Old Firm at home in the same season. He also scored against Celtic earlier in the season and Ayunga was frustrated that it finished 1-1, but reckons Kevin Clancy was favouring the away side.

And he believes the penalty awarded to Rangers for a tackle on Ryan Kent shouldn't have been given because of a foul on Mark O'Hara just before that. He claims that St Mirren weren't getting anything from the whistler and Giovanni van Bronckhorst's men were always going to get an equaliser because it was impossible to keep them out while getting nothing from the ref.

The striker didn't hold back in his assessment of Clancy and the refereeing team and insists Stephen Robinson's side weren't helped by the man in the middle.

He told Renfrewshire Live: “I’m happy with a point but we feel it could be more if we had just held on. It’s still a good result in the end.

“It didn’t feel like 11 vs 11 after 60 minutes. They were getting every decision, every 50-50.

“That contributes to you feeling under pressure and there’s only so long you can keep repelling attacks without getting anything [from the referee].

“It felt like it was coming towards the end, but some of the decisions didn’t help.

“Before the penalty there’s a foul on Mark O’Hara in their half that doesn’t get given and you think VAR will check that whole phase. I don’t think they did. It’s frustrating.

“It’s the same feeling we have on the season as a whole. We will take it, but we definitely know we could have done more and deserve more throughout the season. We have got a point but we think it could have been three and we think we could have been higher in the table.

“I think we had better chances than them and deserved to win it.”

Link to comment
Share on other sites

40 minutes ago, AW saint said:

Well said Jonah. Its time this was called out. The old firm get a serious bias during games. 

The amount of Celtic da's lapping it up on Twitter without a hint of irony is incredible.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jonah Ayunga insists St Mirren deserved to beat Rangers but had to do it against the referee too because he kept giving the Ibrox side 'every decision'.

The forward scored the opener against Rangers and thought he was on course to help St Mirren make history by beating both sides of the Old Firm at home in the same season. He also scored against Celtic earlier in the season and Ayunga was frustrated that it finished 1-1, but reckons Kevin Clancy was favouring the away side.

And he believes the penalty awarded to Rangers for a tackle on Ryan Kent shouldn't have been given because of a foul on Mark O'Hara just before that. He claims that St Mirren weren't getting anything from the whistler and Giovanni van Bronckhorst's men were always going to get an equaliser because it was impossible to keep them out while getting nothing from the ref.

The striker didn't hold back in his assessment of Clancy and the refereeing team and insists Stephen Robinson's side weren't helped by the man in the middle.

He told Renfrewshire Live: “I’m happy with a point but we feel it could be more if we had just held on. It’s still a good result in the end.

“It didn’t feel like 11 vs 11 after 60 minutes. They were getting every decision, every 50-50.

“That contributes to you feeling under pressure and there’s only so long you can keep repelling attacks without getting anything [from the referee].

“It felt like it was coming towards the end, but some of the decisions didn’t help.

“Before the penalty there’s a foul on Mark O’Hara in their half that doesn’t get given and you think VAR will check that whole phase. I don’t think they did. It’s frustrating.

“It’s the same feeling we have on the season as a whole. We will take it, but we definitely know we could have done more and deserve more throughout the season. We have got a point but we think it could have been three and we think we could have been higher in the table.

“I think we had better chances than them and deserved to win it.”
Beating both cheeks in the same season would not have been "making history". Probably not happened since the 80s but definitely would not have been "historic"
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Billy Jean King said:
3 hours ago, Drew Brees said:
Jonah Ayunga insists St Mirren deserved to beat Rangers but had to do it against the referee too because he kept giving the Ibrox side 'every decision'.

The forward scored the opener against Rangers and thought he was on course to help St Mirren make history by beating both sides of the Old Firm at home in the same season. He also scored against Celtic earlier in the season and Ayunga was frustrated that it finished 1-1, but reckons Kevin Clancy was favouring the away side.

And he believes the penalty awarded to Rangers for a tackle on Ryan Kent shouldn't have been given because of a foul on Mark O'Hara just before that. He claims that St Mirren weren't getting anything from the whistler and Giovanni van Bronckhorst's men were always going to get an equaliser because it was impossible to keep them out while getting nothing from the ref.

The striker didn't hold back in his assessment of Clancy and the refereeing team and insists Stephen Robinson's side weren't helped by the man in the middle.

He told Renfrewshire Live: “I’m happy with a point but we feel it could be more if we had just held on. It’s still a good result in the end.

“It didn’t feel like 11 vs 11 after 60 minutes. They were getting every decision, every 50-50.

“That contributes to you feeling under pressure and there’s only so long you can keep repelling attacks without getting anything [from the referee].

“It felt like it was coming towards the end, but some of the decisions didn’t help.

“Before the penalty there’s a foul on Mark O’Hara in their half that doesn’t get given and you think VAR will check that whole phase. I don’t think they did. It’s frustrating.

“It’s the same feeling we have on the season as a whole. We will take it, but we definitely know we could have done more and deserve more throughout the season. We have got a point but we think it could have been three and we think we could have been higher in the table.

“I think we had better chances than them and deserved to win it.”

Beating both cheeks in the same season would not have been "making history". Probably not happened since the 80s but definitely would not have been "historic"

It happened less than 2 years ago.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...