On the evidence of Aberdeen yesterday I wouldn't be hugely concerned. I'm amazed at how they are set up, I assumed with guys like Brown, McCrorie, Bates, Hayes, Ferguson and Ramirez they would be physical in your face types which we struggle with. If they made it a battle we would find it tough.
However they seem very expansive and insistent on a back 3 who all seem miles apart. If they set up like that against us and try to play football I'd be comfortable.
Porteous is a good player but completely unreliable. He's only 22 so has a chance to learn from it, right now I don't think you could trust him.
Lewis Ferguson regresses every time I watch him.
He needs to go down south if he’s going to try have a decent career.
comment by NNH (U10730)
posted 14 minutes ago
https://twitter.com/scottyhibs/status/1444988120429178880?s=21
The fact Walsh didn’t even give a foul for this compared to Porteous is probably the big issue. Lundstram comes off the ground and lunges in, it’s every bit as bad yet one was a red and one wasn’t even a foul
Btw Walsh is a good Tim so I’ll be asking his cousin to boot him right in the Baws.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
This is the old get away with one in first few minutes thing we seem to have in Scotland. Which is ridiculous.
Could easily have got into trouble for it
Lundstrams tackle was unneccessary and a bit ugly looking. I am not sure where a tackle like Lundstams sits in the rules these days.
I think the porteous tackle is very different because the players are both running towards the ball and Portous looks like he deliberately goes in higher than he should in order to leave a bit on Ariblo.
Lundstram seemed intent on getting the ball. Not that intent is the key factor these days.
Either way both players need to calm it with challenges like that.
Hibs would have won had Porteous not built his reputation on being a hard man v Rangers. Rush of blood, thinking he's got a 50/50 challenge to win, in his head he's already thumping his chest and commissioning artwork of his challenge.
I'm convinced they would have won if he wasn't such a tadger.
comment by Hot Shot Hamish (U21959)
posted 2 minutes ago
Lundstrams tackle was unneccessary and a bit ugly looking. I am not sure where a tackle like Lundstams sits in the rules these days.
I think the porteous tackle is very different because the players are both running towards the ball and Portous looks like he deliberately goes in higher than he should in order to leave a bit on Ariblo.
Lundstram seemed intent on getting the ball. Not that intent is the key factor these days.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
https://c.tenor.com/6dbwhR6OUbkAAAAd/chewin-the-fat-smell-shite.gif
comment by NNH (U10730)
posted 28 minutes ago
https://twitter.com/scottyhibs/status/1444988120429178880?s=21
The fact Walsh didn’t even give a foul for this compared to Porteous is probably the big issue. Lundstram comes off the ground and lunges in, it’s every bit as bad yet one was a red and one wasn’t even a foul
Btw Walsh is a good Tim so I’ll be asking his cousin to boot him right in the Baws.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Can see why that’d be compared, flys in.
Big difference for me is height of challenge, Porteous managed to fly over the top of the ball, was the bottom of his leg that made contact. Straight leg, studs are facing up, at shin height. It’s a leg breaker if there’s contact.
Lundstram flys in but his foot is pointed downwards and also ahead of the ball. Studs down. So not dangerous for me. Difficult to see from that angle but could be two footed - if it’s two footed it’s a red.
Few folk shuffling their feet and mumbling away trying to minimise that Lundstram lunge.
As much a red as Porteous.
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
comment by My POV (U10636)
posted 3 minutes ago
Few folk shuffling their feet and mumbling away trying to minimise that Lundstram lunge.
As much a red as Porteous.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Nope
That's exactly what Porteous should have done.
Eyes on the ball, leg and foot low, studs down - clean the ball out without trying to take the player.
As I said earlier - Porteous does that he rather than a studs showing, foot high tackle - he stays on the park
comment by deBear (U8633)
posted 8 seconds ago
comment by My POV (U10636)
posted 3 minutes ago
Few folk shuffling their feet and mumbling away trying to minimise that Lundstram lunge.
As much a red as Porteous.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Nope
That's exactly what Porteous should have done.
Eyes on the ball, leg and foot low, studs down - clean the ball out without trying to take the player.
As I said earlier - Porteous does that he rather than a studs showing, foot high tackle - he stays on the park
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Both feet well off the ground and out of control.
It was a wild lunge and a red.
As was said during the game on here yesterday, winning the ball and no contact on the player mean little these days. I said yesterday that it was the type of challenge that got Porteous - rightly - sent off. Lundstram is the same. He could have done as much damage as Porteous could have done, because neither made any contact with the player.
Can't even believe these two challenges are being compared but it's got the spoon burners and Tims beeling. Superb.
comment by My POV (U10636)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by deBear (U8633)
posted 8 seconds ago
comment by My POV (U10636)
posted 3 minutes ago
Few folk shuffling their feet and mumbling away trying to minimise that Lundstram lunge.
As much a red as Porteous.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Nope
That's exactly what Porteous should have done.
Eyes on the ball, leg and foot low, studs down - clean the ball out without trying to take the player.
As I said earlier - Porteous does that he rather than a studs showing, foot high tackle - he stays on the park
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Both feet well off the ground and out of control.
It was a wild lunge and a red.
As was said during the game on here yesterday, winning the ball and no contact on the player mean little these days. I said yesterday that it was the type of challenge that got Porteous - rightly - sent off. Lundstram is the same. He could have done as much damage as Porteous could have done, because neither made any contact with the player.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
What a load of nonsense Unless you’ve got x-ray vision or a different angle it’s very difficult to even see if both legs are off when he’s sliding.
Clear that the height of the challenges, and studs are very different in both though
comment by HB Fash (U21935)
posted 21 seconds ago
Can't even believe these two challenges are being compared but it's got the spoon burners and Tims beeling. Superb.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
of course you can't, you don't want it to be a comparison because then you have to agree Rangers should have had a red card or backtrack and agree Porteous shouldn't have had a red.
When two very similar challenges happen it seems aye bit is the deciding factor
Whether its a red for Lundstrum or not its definitely needless and puts himself at risk. You can't lunge in like that these days.
comment by HB Fash (U21935)
posted 17 seconds ago
Can't even believe these two challenges are being compared but it's got the spoon burners and Tims beeling. Superb.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
comment by RenegadeOF (U9457)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Can see why that’d be compared, flys in.
One of his own.
Not your best day...
Anyway - I don't see anyone beeling about this - I'm quite enjoying folk jumping through hoops and suddenly not knowing where this sits under current rules, when they were jumping into Neil McCann's pocket yesterday to get a loan of his wee book.
First ive seen that Lundstrum tackle - off the ground and flying in
same as Porteous , completely unnecessarily .
you wonder about the intelligence of players at times , why even risk it ?
comment by My POV (U10636)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by deBear (U8633)
posted 8 seconds ago
comment by My POV (U10636)
posted 3 minutes ago
Few folk shuffling their feet and mumbling away trying to minimise that Lundstram lunge.
As much a red as Porteous.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Nope
That's exactly what Porteous should have done.
Eyes on the ball, leg and foot low, studs down - clean the ball out without trying to take the player.
As I said earlier - Porteous does that he rather than a studs showing, foot high tackle - he stays on the park
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Both feet well off the ground and out of control.
It was a wild lunge and a red.
As was said during the game on here yesterday, winning the ball and no contact on the player mean little these days. I said yesterday that it was the type of challenge that got Porteous - rightly - sent off. Lundstram is the same. He could have done as much damage as Porteous could have done, because neither made any contact with the player.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Clearly not though
Compare Lundstram's foot position when he takes the ball with Porteous.
Studs down and foot down - not shin height FFS
That's the tackle Porteous should've made.
comment by RenegadeOF (U9457)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by My POV (U10636)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by deBear (U8633)
posted 8 seconds ago
comment by My POV (U10636)
posted 3 minutes ago
Few folk shuffling their feet and mumbling away trying to minimise that Lundstram lunge.
As much a red as Porteous.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Nope
That's exactly what Porteous should have done.
Eyes on the ball, leg and foot low, studs down - clean the ball out without trying to take the player.
As I said earlier - Porteous does that he rather than a studs showing, foot high tackle - he stays on the park
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Both feet well off the ground and out of control.
It was a wild lunge and a red.
As was said during the game on here yesterday, winning the ball and no contact on the player mean little these days. I said yesterday that it was the type of challenge that got Porteous - rightly - sent off. Lundstram is the same. He could have done as much damage as Porteous could have done, because neither made any contact with the player.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
What a load of nonsenseUnless you’ve got x-ray vision or a different angle it’s very difficult to even see if both legs are off when he’s sliding.
Clear that the height of the challenges, and studs are very different in both though
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You literally - and I mean that word - see him jump off the ground with both feet and lunge into the tackle!!
Are you using Stevie Wonder's Ipad?!?
Its stupid CT, players must know by now that those tackles can be a straight red even if they don't agree they are. Leaving it completely up to the view/discretion of the ref.
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
The studs are down from Lundstrum but he's off the ground and "out of control" as they often say.
I think he can count himself lucky.
Are you using Stevie Wonder's Ipad?!?
------------------------------------
I think those with the green tinted specs have it.
There's a clear difference in intent and leading foot height.
On the deck - you are playing the ball.
Off the deck you are playing the man.
comment by deBear (U8633)
posted 52 seconds ago
comment by My POV (U10636)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by deBear (U8633)
posted 8 seconds ago
comment by My POV (U10636)
posted 3 minutes ago
Few folk shuffling their feet and mumbling away trying to minimise that Lundstram lunge.
As much a red as Porteous.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Nope
That's exactly what Porteous should have done.
Eyes on the ball, leg and foot low, studs down - clean the ball out without trying to take the player.
As I said earlier - Porteous does that he rather than a studs showing, foot high tackle - he stays on the park
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Both feet well off the ground and out of control.
It was a wild lunge and a red.
As was said during the game on here yesterday, winning the ball and no contact on the player mean little these days. I said yesterday that it was the type of challenge that got Porteous - rightly - sent off. Lundstram is the same. He could have done as much damage as Porteous could have done, because neither made any contact with the player.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Clearly not though
Compare Lundstram's foot position when he takes the ball with Porteous.
Studs down and foot down - not shin height FFS
That's the tackle Porteous should've made.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
He clearly jumps with both feet off the ground and into that challenge. He's out of control, and it could have endagered the opponent.
It's a red card in the modern game. Hibs didn't even get a foul.
comment by deBear (U8633)
posted 7 seconds ago
Are you using Stevie Wonder's Ipad?!?
------------------------------------
I think those with the green tinted specs have it.
There's a clear difference in intent and leading foot height.
On the deck - you are playing the ball.
Off the deck you are playing the man.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You think he slid in, both legs on the ground?! Intent is neither here nor there these days.
At least Smid is being fair on it - he sees he's off the ground, or does he have green tinted specs on?!
Sign in if you want to comment
Hibs
Page 3 of 11
6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10
posted on 4/10/21
On the evidence of Aberdeen yesterday I wouldn't be hugely concerned. I'm amazed at how they are set up, I assumed with guys like Brown, McCrorie, Bates, Hayes, Ferguson and Ramirez they would be physical in your face types which we struggle with. If they made it a battle we would find it tough.
However they seem very expansive and insistent on a back 3 who all seem miles apart. If they set up like that against us and try to play football I'd be comfortable.
Porteous is a good player but completely unreliable. He's only 22 so has a chance to learn from it, right now I don't think you could trust him.
posted on 4/10/21
Lewis Ferguson regresses every time I watch him.
He needs to go down south if he’s going to try have a decent career.
posted on 4/10/21
comment by NNH (U10730)
posted 14 minutes ago
https://twitter.com/scottyhibs/status/1444988120429178880?s=21
The fact Walsh didn’t even give a foul for this compared to Porteous is probably the big issue. Lundstram comes off the ground and lunges in, it’s every bit as bad yet one was a red and one wasn’t even a foul
Btw Walsh is a good Tim so I’ll be asking his cousin to boot him right in the Baws.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
This is the old get away with one in first few minutes thing we seem to have in Scotland. Which is ridiculous.
Could easily have got into trouble for it
posted on 4/10/21
Lundstrams tackle was unneccessary and a bit ugly looking. I am not sure where a tackle like Lundstams sits in the rules these days.
I think the porteous tackle is very different because the players are both running towards the ball and Portous looks like he deliberately goes in higher than he should in order to leave a bit on Ariblo.
Lundstram seemed intent on getting the ball. Not that intent is the key factor these days.
Either way both players need to calm it with challenges like that.
posted on 4/10/21
Hibs would have won had Porteous not built his reputation on being a hard man v Rangers. Rush of blood, thinking he's got a 50/50 challenge to win, in his head he's already thumping his chest and commissioning artwork of his challenge.
I'm convinced they would have won if he wasn't such a tadger.
posted on 4/10/21
comment by Hot Shot Hamish (U21959)
posted 2 minutes ago
Lundstrams tackle was unneccessary and a bit ugly looking. I am not sure where a tackle like Lundstams sits in the rules these days.
I think the porteous tackle is very different because the players are both running towards the ball and Portous looks like he deliberately goes in higher than he should in order to leave a bit on Ariblo.
Lundstram seemed intent on getting the ball. Not that intent is the key factor these days.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
https://c.tenor.com/6dbwhR6OUbkAAAAd/chewin-the-fat-smell-shite.gif
posted on 4/10/21
comment by NNH (U10730)
posted 28 minutes ago
https://twitter.com/scottyhibs/status/1444988120429178880?s=21
The fact Walsh didn’t even give a foul for this compared to Porteous is probably the big issue. Lundstram comes off the ground and lunges in, it’s every bit as bad yet one was a red and one wasn’t even a foul
Btw Walsh is a good Tim so I’ll be asking his cousin to boot him right in the Baws.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Can see why that’d be compared, flys in.
Big difference for me is height of challenge, Porteous managed to fly over the top of the ball, was the bottom of his leg that made contact. Straight leg, studs are facing up, at shin height. It’s a leg breaker if there’s contact.
Lundstram flys in but his foot is pointed downwards and also ahead of the ball. Studs down. So not dangerous for me. Difficult to see from that angle but could be two footed - if it’s two footed it’s a red.
posted on 4/10/21
Few folk shuffling their feet and mumbling away trying to minimise that Lundstram lunge.
As much a red as Porteous.
posted on 4/10/21
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
posted on 4/10/21
comment by My POV (U10636)
posted 3 minutes ago
Few folk shuffling their feet and mumbling away trying to minimise that Lundstram lunge.
As much a red as Porteous.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Nope
That's exactly what Porteous should have done.
Eyes on the ball, leg and foot low, studs down - clean the ball out without trying to take the player.
As I said earlier - Porteous does that he rather than a studs showing, foot high tackle - he stays on the park
posted on 4/10/21
comment by deBear (U8633)
posted 8 seconds ago
comment by My POV (U10636)
posted 3 minutes ago
Few folk shuffling their feet and mumbling away trying to minimise that Lundstram lunge.
As much a red as Porteous.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Nope
That's exactly what Porteous should have done.
Eyes on the ball, leg and foot low, studs down - clean the ball out without trying to take the player.
As I said earlier - Porteous does that he rather than a studs showing, foot high tackle - he stays on the park
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Both feet well off the ground and out of control.
It was a wild lunge and a red.
As was said during the game on here yesterday, winning the ball and no contact on the player mean little these days. I said yesterday that it was the type of challenge that got Porteous - rightly - sent off. Lundstram is the same. He could have done as much damage as Porteous could have done, because neither made any contact with the player.
posted on 4/10/21
Can't even believe these two challenges are being compared but it's got the spoon burners and Tims beeling. Superb.
posted on 4/10/21
comment by My POV (U10636)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by deBear (U8633)
posted 8 seconds ago
comment by My POV (U10636)
posted 3 minutes ago
Few folk shuffling their feet and mumbling away trying to minimise that Lundstram lunge.
As much a red as Porteous.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Nope
That's exactly what Porteous should have done.
Eyes on the ball, leg and foot low, studs down - clean the ball out without trying to take the player.
As I said earlier - Porteous does that he rather than a studs showing, foot high tackle - he stays on the park
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Both feet well off the ground and out of control.
It was a wild lunge and a red.
As was said during the game on here yesterday, winning the ball and no contact on the player mean little these days. I said yesterday that it was the type of challenge that got Porteous - rightly - sent off. Lundstram is the same. He could have done as much damage as Porteous could have done, because neither made any contact with the player.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
What a load of nonsense Unless you’ve got x-ray vision or a different angle it’s very difficult to even see if both legs are off when he’s sliding.
Clear that the height of the challenges, and studs are very different in both though
posted on 4/10/21
comment by HB Fash (U21935)
posted 21 seconds ago
Can't even believe these two challenges are being compared but it's got the spoon burners and Tims beeling. Superb.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
of course you can't, you don't want it to be a comparison because then you have to agree Rangers should have had a red card or backtrack and agree Porteous shouldn't have had a red.
When two very similar challenges happen it seems aye bit is the deciding factor
posted on 4/10/21
Whether its a red for Lundstrum or not its definitely needless and puts himself at risk. You can't lunge in like that these days.
posted on 4/10/21
comment by HB Fash (U21935)
posted 17 seconds ago
Can't even believe these two challenges are being compared but it's got the spoon burners and Tims beeling. Superb.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
comment by RenegadeOF (U9457)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Can see why that’d be compared, flys in.
One of his own.
Not your best day...
Anyway - I don't see anyone beeling about this - I'm quite enjoying folk jumping through hoops and suddenly not knowing where this sits under current rules, when they were jumping into Neil McCann's pocket yesterday to get a loan of his wee book.
posted on 4/10/21
First ive seen that Lundstrum tackle - off the ground and flying in
same as Porteous , completely unnecessarily .
you wonder about the intelligence of players at times , why even risk it ?
posted on 4/10/21
comment by My POV (U10636)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by deBear (U8633)
posted 8 seconds ago
comment by My POV (U10636)
posted 3 minutes ago
Few folk shuffling their feet and mumbling away trying to minimise that Lundstram lunge.
As much a red as Porteous.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Nope
That's exactly what Porteous should have done.
Eyes on the ball, leg and foot low, studs down - clean the ball out without trying to take the player.
As I said earlier - Porteous does that he rather than a studs showing, foot high tackle - he stays on the park
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Both feet well off the ground and out of control.
It was a wild lunge and a red.
As was said during the game on here yesterday, winning the ball and no contact on the player mean little these days. I said yesterday that it was the type of challenge that got Porteous - rightly - sent off. Lundstram is the same. He could have done as much damage as Porteous could have done, because neither made any contact with the player.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Clearly not though
Compare Lundstram's foot position when he takes the ball with Porteous.
Studs down and foot down - not shin height FFS
That's the tackle Porteous should've made.
posted on 4/10/21
comment by RenegadeOF (U9457)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by My POV (U10636)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by deBear (U8633)
posted 8 seconds ago
comment by My POV (U10636)
posted 3 minutes ago
Few folk shuffling their feet and mumbling away trying to minimise that Lundstram lunge.
As much a red as Porteous.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Nope
That's exactly what Porteous should have done.
Eyes on the ball, leg and foot low, studs down - clean the ball out without trying to take the player.
As I said earlier - Porteous does that he rather than a studs showing, foot high tackle - he stays on the park
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Both feet well off the ground and out of control.
It was a wild lunge and a red.
As was said during the game on here yesterday, winning the ball and no contact on the player mean little these days. I said yesterday that it was the type of challenge that got Porteous - rightly - sent off. Lundstram is the same. He could have done as much damage as Porteous could have done, because neither made any contact with the player.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
What a load of nonsenseUnless you’ve got x-ray vision or a different angle it’s very difficult to even see if both legs are off when he’s sliding.
Clear that the height of the challenges, and studs are very different in both though
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You literally - and I mean that word - see him jump off the ground with both feet and lunge into the tackle!!
Are you using Stevie Wonder's Ipad?!?
posted on 4/10/21
Its stupid CT, players must know by now that those tackles can be a straight red even if they don't agree they are. Leaving it completely up to the view/discretion of the ref.
posted on 4/10/21
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
posted on 4/10/21
The studs are down from Lundstrum but he's off the ground and "out of control" as they often say.
I think he can count himself lucky.
posted on 4/10/21
Are you using Stevie Wonder's Ipad?!?
------------------------------------
I think those with the green tinted specs have it.
There's a clear difference in intent and leading foot height.
On the deck - you are playing the ball.
Off the deck you are playing the man.
posted on 4/10/21
comment by deBear (U8633)
posted 52 seconds ago
comment by My POV (U10636)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by deBear (U8633)
posted 8 seconds ago
comment by My POV (U10636)
posted 3 minutes ago
Few folk shuffling their feet and mumbling away trying to minimise that Lundstram lunge.
As much a red as Porteous.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Nope
That's exactly what Porteous should have done.
Eyes on the ball, leg and foot low, studs down - clean the ball out without trying to take the player.
As I said earlier - Porteous does that he rather than a studs showing, foot high tackle - he stays on the park
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Both feet well off the ground and out of control.
It was a wild lunge and a red.
As was said during the game on here yesterday, winning the ball and no contact on the player mean little these days. I said yesterday that it was the type of challenge that got Porteous - rightly - sent off. Lundstram is the same. He could have done as much damage as Porteous could have done, because neither made any contact with the player.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Clearly not though
Compare Lundstram's foot position when he takes the ball with Porteous.
Studs down and foot down - not shin height FFS
That's the tackle Porteous should've made.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
He clearly jumps with both feet off the ground and into that challenge. He's out of control, and it could have endagered the opponent.
It's a red card in the modern game. Hibs didn't even get a foul.
posted on 4/10/21
comment by deBear (U8633)
posted 7 seconds ago
Are you using Stevie Wonder's Ipad?!?
------------------------------------
I think those with the green tinted specs have it.
There's a clear difference in intent and leading foot height.
On the deck - you are playing the ball.
Off the deck you are playing the man.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You think he slid in, both legs on the ground?! Intent is neither here nor there these days.
At least Smid is being fair on it - he sees he's off the ground, or does he have green tinted specs on?!
Page 3 of 11
6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10