DoofersDad

One thing I noticed on Sunday and was reminded of when I saw the re-run. With our 2 central defenders red carded, Draper played extra time in central defence. After we won a free kick on the edge of the Hearts box toward the end of the first period, Draper came up for it and took up position in the box. As soon the play broke down, Draper sprinted to get back to his defensive duties. Draper is a big man and I thought that really epitomised the effort and commitment of the team. Top man!

Amidst all the righteous indignation about the injustice of the red cards, we shouldn't lose sight of the fact that the players must share some of the blame - it is not all down to poor refereeing decisions. Warren's second yellow was an awful decision but he wouldn't have been off if he hadn't got the first yellow and I don't think he can have any complaints on that. With no chance of getting the ball he puts his arms up as if to say "I'm here but I'm not making a challenge for the ball" but yet he steps into the Hearts players path. He knew exactly what he was doing and the referee got that one right. He was on a tightrope after that. You could argue that justice was done with Meekings. Whilst the offence that gave him the red was never a sending off offence, it was certainly an intentional and cynical foul and a very unnecessary one. If he hadn't been so petulant then there would have been no decision for the referee to make. Also, he could easily have got a yellow for the foul that led to the second goal in which case his later foul would have seen him off in any case. We can't do anything about poor refereeing decisions but the club should be able to drill some discipline into the players so that they don't pick up cards as a result of challenges where there is clearly no real attempt or chance to win the ball.

On the contrary, the players need to remember just how good it felt to win a league cup semi final and to think just how good it would feel to win a semi final in the main cup competition. I know what you mean though. They can't afford to be complacent and I don't think they will be. Stranraer will defend in numbers but we have the players to stretch them and to get behind the defence. Laying the ball back so that Tansey and co can get a bit of shooting pactice should be the order of the day. Having seen how hard Tansey can hit a ball, I don't think they'll be queueing up to throw their bodies in the way.

Just watched the re-run in full. Still can't believe it!

Who would have taken the spot kick if he had? (always asuming Beaton awarded one!) No pressure, like.

Whilst agreeing that he gave a tremendous performance when he came on yesterday, he wasn't in the starting line up and I think will find it hard to force his way back in. For me I felt Tansey showed the extra drive and determination and willingness to shoot that is often lacking in Ross's game. There's an option for playing him wide but both Doran and Watkins offer more in pace and ability to take players on. I think the competition can do nothing but good for Nick's game and will force him to show the extra forcefulness needed if he wants to be a regular feature in the starting XI.

For all the praise being rightly heaped on the players after that astonishing match, I think it is reasonable to ask why, with such a good all round team performance, we didn't win the match comfortably in normal time against what was not the greatest of Hearts sides. From the start, things looked good. I thought Yogi had the team selection spot on and we started out very strongly. But things just didn't go our way. Had Draper taken his early opportunity I think that team would have over-run Hearts, but bit by bit it began to look as though it might not be our day. We were unable to convert our chances and it was evident that the referee was the joker in the pack. Robinson's foul on Mckay should have been a straight red but only a yellow was shown. The next yellow was for Watkins despite several worse fouls from Hearts players having gone unpunished. Hearts confidence grew and they came more and more into the match although we always looked the better side and the more likely to score. We then got the break with a wonder strike from Tansey and that really should have been that, But the referee intervened with the inexplicable sending off of Warren and Hearts got lucky with the resulting free kick which seemed to deflect off both Tansey and Draper to give Brill no chance. The rest is history. On another day and with a half decent referee, that starting eleven would have taken Hearts apart. The way the game unfolded and the incredible performance after going down to 9 men gives me a lovely warm glow and makes me really proud of the team, but what is also extremely pleasing is that yesterday shows we now have a very solid team that really should be able to compete with Aberdeen and Motherwell for 2nd and 3rd place. One thing that has been lacking is goals from midfield and if others can take a lead from Tansey and shoot from distance as if they mean it, we will score more from that quarter which, in turn will take the pressure off Billy. Yesterday was not just a remarkable football match which will last long in the memory, it was the day which demonstrated we now have a team, with Yogi at the helm, which will take us onward and upward.

I was thinking much the same despite the fact that towards the end I think he was beginning to really struggle. It is significant that at the death when Hearts should have been really pressing for the win and the ball was crossed from inside the box for McCallum to head over, there were 7 ICT outfield players in the box but only 5 Hearts players. So Billy and 5 Jambos outside the box. It was also significant that at the end of normal time, the Hearts players looked as though they had lost the game. OK so they would be gutted that Nick had nicked an equaliser, but with a numerical advantage of 10 against 8 outfield players it was still theirs to lose. They should have been getting to the manager quickly, eager for instructions as to how to take us apart in extra time. The difference in commitment and belief between the 2 sides was huge.

I imagine they'll be grateful.

Just as well we had already brought on 3 subs so that Yogi didn't have that difficult decision to make!

I think we should sell the video of that shoot out to Man Utd. Shinnie's was a poor kick but the other four were top class penalties with Tansey's being the pick of the bunch. I can't see Aberdeen wanting the final to go to penalties. Who will be our regular penalty taker now? Note that Vincent, who was our nominated penalty taker before getting injured, had been subbed after 90 minutes and couldn't take one.

Apparently 1300 have bought tickets but aren't going to the match

Unfortunately the yes campaign couldn't even see their way to trying to woo my vote with the proposal that we ditch the royals. They say they want to keep them. Alex is nae daft. Campaigning for independence with the promise of a campaign for a republic to follow would be political suicide. However, once you have independence then I am sure that would open the door to the next stage. I doubt there is a majority in Scotland in favour of doing away with the monarchy but I suspect the proportion who are is far higher amongst supporters of independence. In an independent Scotland it would be interesting to know just how much of the public purse would go to supporting the Royal family and how much benefit we would see from it. My feeling is that the Scots would increasingly feel that the contribution was not worth it. If you favour a republic over a monarchy then you are far more likely to get it in an independent Scotland than remaining in the Union. Of course, the prospect of seeing a once again rotund President Salmond entertaining foreign leaders at the Presidential Palace of Balmoral may, perhaps, persuade you that keeping the monarchy is not so bad after all.

I think there can be a lot of merit in replacing the keeper for the shoot out and I would have favoured that last year but not this. Last year as I recall, Reguero got into the side as a result of an injury to Esson who had been playing well. Requero had taken his chance well but looked unconvincing at penalties. This year I don't think Esson was as sharp early season and nor do I think Brill has shown a weakness at penalties. However, my main reason for favouring keeping Brill on the park is that by the time the game comes to that, one way or another I would have expected us to have used all our subs to have put fresh legs on the pitch to win the game. Whatever the starting line up, there will be players just as good on the bench, so if we are not winning, we need to use them.

Charles, I take it you will be voting "Yes" later in the year so that an Independent Scotland can become a republic and get rid of this drain on the public purse?

Already posted Apparently nobody has any thoughts on it all

Tough choices. Had the players who played so well against Aberdeen also played well against Kilmarnock, then the team would probably have picked itself - but they didn't. That's maybe a blessing in disguise because I think that would not be our best team for this game. In making his selection there are a few factors Yogi needs to consider:- Cup success is all Hearts have to play for this season - they will be 100% up for this. They will be in our faces trying to stop us playing pretty football. The game will go to extra time if all square after 90 minutes. We have a number of players returning from injury who may struggle over 90 minutes and would certainly struggle over 120. We need to prepare for a hard combative match and whilst we should look to win in normal time we need to prepare for 120. I would play Tremarco at left back and keep Shinnie in midfield. The solidity of Vincent and Draper in midfiled will allow Raven and Shinnie to drive forward allowing Doran and Watkins more options. Vincent perhaps is the most likely not to last the pace but draper can drop back and Tansey come into the attacking midfield role. Either Greenhalgh or Williams could come on for Watkins and would provide effective fresh legs if needed. I think this would be a hard team for Hearts to break down but one that will be dangerous on the break. We need to get at them early and get our noses in front. I think Tansey will prove a great signing and whilst I would personally like to see him start, I can't see that happening if he didn't get on at all yesterday. Brill Raven Warren Meekings Tremarco Vincent Shinnie Doran Draper Watkins Mckay Subs. Esson, Devine, Tansey, Williams, Greenhalgh

All I'll say is that Yogi's man mangement skills will be put to the test when speaking to the guys he decides to leave out. There will be 4 or 5 who will be either left out or dropped but who don't desrve to be.

Oddquine, I admire your passion for the cause but I think you are so passionate about the subject that you are allowing yourself to get paranoid about everything the BBC says or does. I don't disagree that they are biased. I have experienced first hand gross misrepresentation of things I have said and written. Actually I find your indignation somewhat ironic because if you were an activist in one of the minor parties you would feel that the BBC were hugely biased toward the SNP! The hugely greater air time SNP politicians get compared with those of the minor parties relative to the proportion of the popular vote received, has always been in a totally different league to any disparity in the independence debate. The thing is, the BBC have a difficult job to do. Outside of elections when there is a specific code, the BBC have to strike a balance between what might be considered fair coverage of views and what people want to hear or watch. It's the same with football - ICT get less coverage than a certain Glasgow team 2 divisions below us simply because more people are interested in them than us. It's not fair but that's the way it is. We have to live with it. But where your paranoia goes into overdrive is in your response to my example of the reporting of "postcode prescribing" as mentioned in the report on the BBC "The Mantis" drew attention to. Can you not accept that the BBC reported the fact that a patient was denied a drug in Scotland which was available in England, primarily as a human interest story and secondly a story about the policies of the NHS in Scotland? The logic of what you are saying is that if the BBC were actually biased in their reporting in favour of independence, they would not have broadcast the story. That is frankly absurd. Further, the logic of what you are saying is that any "bad news" reporting of a devolved government function is an implied sideswipe at independence. The BBC's job is to report news. Your argument seems to suggest that every time there is a news story which shows a devolved function in bad light, another story should be broadcast which shows it in a good light so that no bias is shown. Doing that would not only have us all switching off, it would also rightly result in accusations of a lack of objectivity when a devolved function was actually demonstrably better or worse than the same function south of the border. As I said, I do agree that the BBC is biased in a number of ways but I also believe that the nature of broadcasting and the decision making about what is appropriate to broadcast and what is not, is a very difficult one. The suggestion that the BBC has a unionist stance and that this influences the way general news items are presented seems fanciful to me. The constant accusations of bias from the "yes" camp don't go down well with the voters and are self-defeating as they smack too much of getting your excuses in early for losing the vote. Let's get real here. The "yes" campaigners have had and will continue to have hours and hours of coverage on the BBC where they can say what they like, live on air. There are a wide range of other media options and an excruciatingly long period of time for the campaign. There is therefore an unprecedented opportunity for the "Yes" campaign to get their message across. Frankly, all this constant harping on about BBC bias smacks of desperation.

I think this simply illustrates that Yogi has a sense of humour.

How about this for something different? http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-25852634 I think this could be really good. The idea of forming a strategic alliance with one of the other sides and then betraying that alliance to pop a goal past them when the opportunity arises seems fascinating. If it was played to any extent, the format of it presumably would prevent any side dominating. The possibilities seem endless. Don't think it could ever replace proper football but it certainly sounds far more interesting than some other contrived sports - such as American "football".

That'll be Welbeck and Jones confirmed for the England World Cup squad then!

Looks like Man U need to practice penalties. Even though Sunderland managed to miss 3 of their 5, Utd missed 4! Quite astonishing and surely a new low for Utd. When was the last time as many as 7 of the first 10 penalties were missed in a shoot out I wonder?

I see nothing wrong with the BBC seeking the raw data before reporting on this. Why on earth should they report on research which criticises them if they genuinely feel the findings are flawed. We all know that mud sticks and if they were to dutifully report it but make a statement that they were challenging the findings, the perception that they were biased would persist even if subsequent analysis of the raw data showed otherwise. Let's face it, this type of social science research is open to a lot of subjectivity and there is some seriously bad research about even where there is absolutely no intentional bias. If the BBC see content in the paper which suggests that the evidence may not reasonably lead to the conclusions reached, they have every right to challenge that. As an example, the report cites a story about a Scottish patient being denied a cancer drug which was available to patients in England. The implication here is that because Healthcare is already devolved matter, independence will lead to more of this. The BBC reporting the patient being denied the drug is therefore interpretted as taking an anti-independence stance! It goes on to state that there are examples of patients in England being denied drugs available to patients in Scotland but that this was not reported thereby increasing the bias. But why would a patient in England being denied a drug be a news story for the BBC in Scotland? The story may be a criticism of the NHS in Scotland and it may be an unfair criticism, but to interpret it as taking an anti - independence bias really is stretching it. Don't get me wrong. I'm not saying the BBC is not biased, but I do think that this illustrates just how complex these issues are. The kind of soft research identified here is fraught with difficulties and the BBC are quite right to seek the raw data before reporting on this. Of course, once they have seen the raw data they should then report it objectively and offer their comments accordingly.

Brill should stay - direct flights to Luton from Dalcross.