Capital Logic

Ian Bell on the semi-final debate

When the draw was made for the Scottish Cup semi-finals last week, the Scottish Rugby Union had their press release primed and ready. Would Hibs and Hearts be welcome at Murrayfield? But of course. No problem.

You can’t blame the SRU for showing a bit of enterprise. They possess an expensive piece of real estate and all revenue is welcome. Besides, after the heroics of the national rugby side against England, Murrayfield, unlike Hampden, could be said to possess a certain cachet.

It also happens to be in Edinburgh. In a “normal” year, meaning an Old Firm year, this would be of no account. But the least-predicted cup campaign in many a season approaches its penultimate stage with the two strongest remaining sides (all due respect, etcetera) hailing from the capital. Logistically, Murrayfield is the obvious choice.

An Edinburgh derby is always a needle match. An Edinburgh semi-final is the complete sewing kit. Carved on the souls of Hibs fans are the numerals 1902, this being the last year, improbably, humiliatingly, that a team from east Edinburgh won the Scottish Cup. For that self-same reason, the Hearts support would like nothing better than to prolong the agony. Game on.

Hibs, by their own estimation, have taken between 30,000 and 35,000 adherents to Hampden during their most recent adventures. Hearts could match that, and then some. With a capacity of 67,000 Murrayfield can contain some 15,000 more spectators than the national football stadium, but even the rugby ground might struggle to cope with demand for the April 2 tie. The logic seems obvious, nevertheless: accommodate as many customers as you can at the most convenient venue.

Let’s assume, in any case – an inescapable assumption, I’m afraid – that the tie is destined for Hampden. The game is scheduled for 12.15pm. How suitable does that sound for 50,000 spectators casting their fates to the M8 (never mind the Edinburgh ring road) or taking their chances with jam-packed ScotRail trains (only two of which are due to run that morning owing to engineering works)? Believe it or not, some people actually like to have breakfast before a football match.

It goes without saying that if Hampden is the choice the fans will get there. They didn’t become known as long-suffering saps for nothing. What, though, of the return to Edinburgh? Short of a draw, one half of a large crowd is likely to be in a foul mood. Neither group of supporters has much of a reputation for serious trouble these days, but putting them together on trains, or side by side on the motorway, in the aftermath of a decisive result does not sound, on the face of it, too clever.

Convinced? If so, drop a line to Easter Road. Some silly arguments have emerged from that venerable ground down the decades, but last week we were given vintage nonsense. Hibs, it quickly emerged, would not support any attempt to stage the semi-final at Murrayfield. To put it kindly, they did not sound like a club confident of beating Hearts any time, anywhere.

Murrayfield, it was said, would involve “additional costs”. Costs that would justify turning away 15,000 paying customers? The open prairies of Hampden, it was argued, would be better suited to the Hibs style of play.

Has the playing surface at the rugby ground begun to shrink? When last observed, it seemed to boast more grass than the national football stadium. Besides, it falls to the SFA, and no one else, to decide the dimensions of the pitch.

Then we had the supposed clincher: Hearts, thanks to a brief, three-match foray into the Uefa Cup, have more “experience” of Murrayfield. Technically, this is perfectly true. But as he remarked on Friday, Graham Rix, the Hearts coach, the man making the tactical decisions (problems with the owner notwithstanding), has only ever driven past the rugby ground. He has never been inside the place. Besides, I’m fairly certain that, starting with captain Steven Pressley, Hearts have more collective experience of Hampden, at domestic and international levels, than the Hibs squad.

Last week, you could find people prepared to say that the high stands of Murrayfield produce an atmosphere that is not conducive to football. I grasp that there are certain differences between rugby and the national game, but that was not the impression one got from the Calcutta Cup, even when muted by television. The passions might arise for different reasons, but if Hibs and Hearts were providing the contest for a full house of 67,000 “atmosphere” would not be an issue.

It is an issue, however, and perennially so, at Hampden. Who loves that ground? I mean honestly, sincerely, above all other stadiums? The old Hampden was a slum in need of torching long before it was replaced.

Unless there is an almighty effort from the crowd the new ground feels, as often as not, as though it has been enveloped by a giant, burst balloon. If they are barred from Murrayfield and obliged to travel to Glasgow, Hibs and Hearts would be better off at Parkhead or Ibrox.

Neither of those superior grounds is an option, of course. The national game has a national stadium. Ergo ... Ergo nothing, actually. There is no logic to playing an Edinburgh cup-tie in Glasgow when a better, more convenient, more suitable neutral venue will be lying empty in the capital. None of the rubbish issuing from Easter Road, dutifully echoed by Tony Mowbray and his players, will alter the fact.

Can the SFA be swayed? Not a chance. Early this week the association will undoubtedly insist that there is no alternative to Hampden. Murrayfield might just be granted the midweek replay, if any, and for all the logistical reasons it should have been granted the tie in the first place. But we can guess what is lurking at the backs of the minds of those who run the game.

An Edinburgh stadium, Scotland’s biggest, packed to the rafters for a game that has nothing to do with the Old Firm, and reminding everyone why Hampden is second-rate? Wouldn’t do.

Fans of Hibs and Hearts had better get their alarm clocks serviced.

Taken from the Sunday Herald