It would be fair to say that there are only a few times that I've watched Hibs put five goals past anyone, and so I feel like I have a bit of a brass neck for not being completely satisfied after Hibs' 5-0 win over Cowdenbeath on Saturday.
Hibs started the game well, and created a number of chances before Paul Hanlon flicked the ball into the top corner of the Blue Brazil's net after just nine minutes. I'd said to my son, Joshua, a few moments earlier that Hibs looked in the mood, and that if the players kept up the momentum we could be in for a huge score (I jokingly predicted a goal every ten minutes), so when Hanlon's tidy finish put Hibs one up both Josh and I lifted our expectations and looked forward to more goals.
Hibs passed up more opportunities before Jason Cummings finished a fine move involving McGeouch and Allan, poking the ball home from Allan's low cross with the game in the 25th minute. So far, so good.
The game then fell into something of a lull, it was evident that Cowdenbeath were largely impotent, and they had no real designs on attacking Hibs, and on the odd occasion when they did break forward, Hanlon and Fontaine proved effective barriers - so much so that Cowdenbeath failed to muster a solitary shot on target in the whole match.
Hibs were able to treat the match almost as a training game. It was as though it was too easy for the players, as ridiculous as that may sound. I have heard interviewed managers speaking to the press about 'game management' (Aberdeen's Derek McInnes and Alan Stubbs have used the phrase -or similar - in recent radio interviews following matches.) and I'm not sure if Hibs, having thrown away a 3-1 lead the weekend before against Falkirk, just decided to 'manage the game' and not give Cowdenbeath any encouragement, or if the players just realised that they weren't going to have to break sweat to win the game, but for the latter part of the first half and the first half hour of the second, the game was notable only for it's lack of incident. Hibs' play lacked the zip and zest that they'd shown against Rangers and Hearts in previous matches. Passes were considered rather than instinctive, runs were controlled rather than lung-bursting, and tackles were few and far between.
It was strange, admittedly, to see Hibs so utterly dominant in the game. I can't remember too many matches where I've seen players able to stroll through a game in the manner that they did, and I suppose that a huge amount of credit must be given to Alan Stubbs and his coaching team that they have taken the side that was such a shambles last season and turned them into a team that could probably have lost a couple of players and still strolled the match, albeit against a lower standard of opponent than they faced last season.
Stubbs' side also deserve credit for apparently learning the lessons from dropping points against Falkirk. And so I feel like I'm being really harsh on the side for complaining about being bored while we were 2-0 up (and I did complain, as did Josh, at the game). However, I have to be honest - I was bored, there's no escaping that fact. Does that make me a bad person? Was I being unrealistic in my expectations for the game (a goal every ten minutes is definitely unrealistic but I was joking with that prediction!) and am I being hugely unfair for voicing that opinion?
I think Stubbs could also see that the players were cruising, and he took the opportunity to rest Scott Allan - a good decision, as the lack of challenge appeared to have a detrimental effect on Allan's game, with many passes missing their mark and the influence Allan was having on the match being overshadowed by that of the more industrious trio of McGeouch, Robertson, and Craig.
Allan was replaced by Jordon Forster, the young defender making his return after a fairly lengthy absence from injury and an operation. The swap of a defender for a midfielder allowed Stubbs to change the shape and formation of the team, moving to a 3-5-2 with Lewis Stevenson and Callum Booth adopting wing-back positions for the latter stages of the match.
Scott Robertson lifted the game with a fine solo goal, a nudge in the back giving him the momentum to burst past the the Cowdenbeath defence and slip a fine shot across the keeper and into the net with a finish reminiscent of his goal against Rangers.
The change in formation brought about a fine end to the game, as did the introduction of Sam Stanton and Danny Handling, who combined to set up Hibs' fourth goal as Stanton played an inspired pass across the box to find Booth charging in at the back post to side-foot the ball home.
The biggest cheer of the afternoon belonged to Lewis Stevenson, his long range effort rounding off the scoring with virtually the last kick of the ball.
The scoreline finally reflected Hibs' dominance in the match, and it was no more than Hibs deserved overall. I do firmly believe that if Hibs had played at the speed and intensity that they can do when they're at the top of their game, that they could have run up a huge scoreline, and this is maybe why, despite the impressive and deserved winning margin, I left the game ever-so-slightly disappointed.
Still, I'd take a disappointing 5-0 win any day of the week!
Couple of points to finish off on, firstly I need to make a correction to my last blog (as pointed out by Falkirk's Assistant Manager, James McDonaugh) - I credited Jason Cummings with a hat-trick against Falkirk, Jason only scored twice, Hibs second goal coming courtesy of a Falkirk defender rather than the King of Zing.
Secondly, Hibs launched their share issue plans recently, with Sir Tom Farmer making arrangements to half the debt, and offering up £2.5m worth of shares to give the supporters the opportunity to own 51% of the football club, either through buying shares directly, or by going through the newly formed Hibernian Supporters Limited. The £2.5m will not go into the pockets of the existing shareholders but will instead go to fund 'sporting ambition'. So it has been disappointing to read that Hands on Hibs - a supporter's group who have already been very vocal and very wrong with some spurious claims - labelling the initiative as a 'shake-down' and claiming it's designed to line the pockets of Sir Tom Farmer and Rod Petrie.
Looking at it at a base level, Hibs have a debt that needs to be repaid, this is not a shake-down, it's basic economics. Hibs will have plans to repay that debt regardless of what money is taken in, be that from season ticket sales, sponsorship, prize money, maybe even a cup run.
However Hibs generate the income, a fixed amount will be required to repay debt. The potential £2.5m income from the share issue means that there will be more money left over after that debt is repaid in order for Alan Stubbs to strengthen his side.
That seems fairly straightforward to me, maybe I'm naive but I can't see what Sir Tom Farmer stands to gain from an arrangement where he has arranged half the debt to be wiped out, and his own shareholding massively diluted without him receiving a penny from the shares.
I think it's a disgrace and distasteful that Hands on Hibs have seen fit to make those accusations against the very person that stepped up to save Hibs in our darkest hour in the early 90's, and I only hope that the vast majority of Hibs fans are sensible enough to see the ridiculous claims for what they are.
No comments:
Post a Comment