Mowbray fears over Murrayfield switch

THE diplomatic jockeying over the venue for next month's Scottish Cup semi-final continued yesterday when Tony Mowbray first said that Hibernian had not adopted an anti-Murrayfield stance - and then effectively took that stance himself by explaining at length why he wanted to play Hearts at Hampden Park.

The Hibs manager is no stranger to such subtleties, and in this case he is not the only one employing them. Neither Edinburgh club wishes to throw too much weight behind one venue, lest its players be adversely affected if the other is chosen. Mowbray's insistence that Hibs had not adopted a militant anti-Murrayfield position is mirrored across the city, where Hearts have so far done no more than write to the SFA asking them to consider the possibility of using the rugby venue.

It now appears that, because of an antipathy to rugby, senior figures in the governing body have no intention of doing that. Rather than indulge in any such prejudice, however, Mowbray advanced a number of arguments against Murrayfield based on notions of fair play.

He began by saying that many people had mistakenly presumed that Hibs had offered a cut-and-dried position. What they had done instead was to ask a pertinent question about the national rugby ground.

"They've tried to insinuate that we've laid our hat on a very anti-Murrayfield, pro- Hampden [position]," Mowbray stated. "I just asked the question: Is it a neutral venue?

"There's the fact that Hearts played there three times last year and are potentially going to use it again next year," the Easter Road manager continued, referring to Hearts' UEFA Cup matches last season and their plan to use it in European competition next season too should they qualify. "They've trained there in the build-up to those games.

"I've got great sympathy and respect for all the supporters that would make the trip, and if it's going to be Hampden we're very aware of all those issues. But in a sporting context the question has got to be asked about what a neutral venue is.

"There's a lot at stake. So let's take that question out of the arena. The fact it popped into my head suggests the question has to be asked."

While Hearts have indeed played at Murrayfield three times recently compared to Hibs' nil, there are factors which suggest they would not have a great advantage there. Of the three UEFA games they played, two - against Schalke and Ferencvaros - were lost, while the other was a first-leg win over Braga. Several members of the Hearts team then have since moved on, so many of the players in maroon and white on Sunday, 2 April would have no prior knowledge of the venue at all. And, just as pertinently, the fact that Hearts have more Scotland regulars than Hibs could mean that they would feel more at home at Hampden than they would at Murrayfield.

Rather than analyse individual factors such as those, however, Mowbray appears convinced that the whole feel of a match at Murrayfield would be too close for his squad to a game at Tynecastle, where they have lost 4-0 and 4-1 this season.

"I don't know Edinburgh that well. People tell me [Murrayfield] is pretty close to Tynecastle. It maybe gives them [ie Hearts] an advantage in that their match-day preparation is exactly the same.

"We haven't played there in the stadium with the supporters. You go to a football ground [and] you get to know the bowels of it. Why do teams win at home? Because they know the ground, they've got the supporters, they know the pitch.

"Malcolm Allison, when I was a lad playing at Middlesbrough, he used to try and take us to away grounds early, walk round the pitch, take a look at the advertising hoardings.

"I know you get a feel for a stadium. When players are on the pitch they know where they are.

"All I'm trying to say is the question has to be asked. Did it ever enter your head? So why not take it out the equation, let's go play it at Hampden and the best team win on the day. We want to try and win the cup for our supporters and for the football club, so if there is any question of there being a slight advantage to the opposition, why allow that?"

A 3pm start on Sunday would make Hampden a more appealing prospect for both sets of supporters than the actual 12.15pm kick-off , but, while expressing sympathy for their plight, Mowbray said the timing was just something that had to be tolerated in the modern game.

"That is the penance that you pay for the TV rights," he stated. "Television money pays to help in the running of football clubs."

Mowbray added that he expected a reasonably early decision, and said Hibs would abide by whatever that decision was. "I would assume the SFA would decide as quickly as possible. And if it's Murrayfield, then as a club we'd say fine, that's the decision."

While Mowbray said that Hibs had been misrepresented over their supposed anti-Murrayfield stance, his own club's website did something similar to Hearts yesterday. Whatever their private inclination, the Tynecastle club have done no more publicly than request an examination of the pros and cons for using Murrayfield - but an article on Hibs' official website has taken this to be tantamount to an official request.

"Following media speculation regarding the venue, Hearts have written formally to the SFA with a request to use Murrayfield, the home of Scottish Rugby," read the statement on hibernianfc.co.uk, in an article about ticketing plans for the semi-final.

"The SFA is the body responsible for organising the competition and neutral venue selection. The club understands that a decision will be made soon so that arrangements for the match can be put in place.

"The club will abide by whatever the SFA determines for this prestigious tie in the major cup competition in Scotland. Full ticketing details, including dates for priority group sales for . . . tickets will be issued once the full match arrangements have been confirmed with the SFA."

The 15,000 difference in capacity between the two venues will clearly have a major effect on ticketing arrangements, and goes some way to explaining why many Hibs fans who hope to attend the match would rather it went ahead at Murrayfield. Both clubs could expect an allocation of around 30,000 in that case, whereas they would probably receive no more than 23,000 each for Hampden. Any desire to maximise the attendance and minimise the inconvenience suffered by supporters, however, increasingly looks like being subordinated to other arguments.

Taken from the Scotsman