The Celtic All Seasons thread

[SANTAN]

3 hours ago, RandomGuy. said:

He's been your best player by miles, and dragged you through games single handedly.

This "doesn't look interested" pish about him is just weird from Celtic fans.

You said that in a game where Morelos scored a brace earlier in the season tbf. 

[Drew Brees]

33 minutes ago, RandomGuy. said:

It's wild.

Best striker in Scotland for decades, dragged their abysmal team to 2nd after staying a season longer than his ability deserved, yet because he's not sprinting about for 90 minutes full pelt he's "not interested" and they're happy to get rid of him.

Pushing Willy hard for top stop in the trolling table. 

[DukDukGoose]

36 minutes ago, DMCs said:

Exactly. That's what I mean though. A longer term focus would have meant selling him last summer for more. However perhaps related to the search for 10iar and being scared of fan reaction they kept on to him. The short termism is apparent in other areas such as all these loan signings. Celtic have needed a left winger since Sinclair went off the boil but decided to loan someone in rather than get a guy in that spot of a good age. Or loaning in a left-back when what they needed was a first choice pick. Or not getting a young CB to take over when Ajer leaves.

Yeah that's fair enough. Misinterpreted your other post as you do pretty much confirm that in your second paragraph.

In defence of Celtic, I think we'd be saying similar about Rangers if Celtic had won the league this season. Both teams have stretched themselves financially to win the league this season and the gamble has paid off for Rangers.

[DukDukGoose]

29 minutes ago, G51 said:

Celtic's squad is pretty badly built. Lot of contracts expiring at the wrong time. It's as if they didn't really think about what happens after this season.

They have two assets on long-term contracts: McGregor and Turnbull. Even with that, McGregor turns 28 in June. I think a lot of people who looked at Celtic's squad last year saw this coming.

The size of the job the sporting director has in the summer cannot be underestimated.

I think that is a fair point but they still should have had enough about them to win the league this season. It's not even looked close and that's due to the shocking management.

Swap the management of both teams around and I think you see Celtic romping to the title.

[Jinky67]

5 minutes ago, Merkland Red said:

Yeah that's fair enough. Misinterpreted your other post as you do pretty much confirm that in your second paragraph.

In defence of Celtic, I think we'd be saying similar about Rangers if Celtic had won the league this season. Both teams have stretched themselves financially to win the league this season and the gamble has paid off for Rangers.

To an extent it’s paid off for Rangers, they have accrued significant liabilities to win the league this season and they too may be forced to offload key assets if they fail to reach the Champions League proper next season.

This season may have done more harm than good for both of them despite Rangers success

Edited March 5, 2021 by Jinky67

[DukDukGoose]

1 minute ago, Jinky67 said:

To an extent it’s paid off for Rangers, they have accrued significant liabilities to win the league this season and they too may be forced to offload key assets if they fail to reach the Champions League proper next season.

This season may have done more harm than good for both of them despite Rangers success

Possibly. I'd argue the 'ten' is more important to the team that prevents it rather than the team that wins it. From what I have seen anyway.

[Drew Brees]

5 minutes ago, Merkland Red said:

Possibly. I'd argue the 'ten' is more important to the team that prevents it rather than the team that wins it. From what I have seen anyway.

One of my best days as a fan was the day we stopped the 10

[Jinky67]

10 minutes ago, Merkland Red said:

Possibly. I'd argue the 'ten' is more important to the team that prevents it rather than the team that wins it. From what I have seen anyway.

From a fans point of view, I’d agree. I’ll never ever forget that day and I feel sorry (I don’t really) for Rangers fans that they won’t be able to celebrate it the way they would like to. Not to say they won’t enjoy it but it will be relatively muted compared to what it would have been if restrictions were fully lifted - and thank f**k for that 

 

Edited March 5, 2021 by Jinky67

[G51]

9 minutes ago, Merkland Red said:

I think that is a fair point but they still should have had enough about them to win the league this season. It's not even looked close and that's due to the shocking management.

Swap the management of both teams around and I think you see Celtic romping to the title.

I sort of agree, but they haven't recruited well for a good few years now. That will always catch up with you and I think it was the primary factor in Celtic's issues this season.

Lennon has taken Celtic much closer to their floor than their ceiling, and Gerrard has taken Rangers closer to their ceiling than their floor. The two squads are likely comparable, with Rangers stronger in defensive personnel and Celtic with the edge in attacking personnel. So yeah, switch the management teams about and Celtic probably win the league, but they reduced their scope for errors by not recruiting properly.

But now most of those good attacking players are leaving Celtic this summer, in addition to their only good defensive one. Celtic are probably looking at an incoming season where they won't be favourites for the title.

[DukDukGoose]

Just now, G51 said:

I sort of agree, but they haven't recruited well for a good few years now. That will always catch up with you and I think it was the primary factor in Celtic's issues this season.

Lennon has taken Celtic much closer to their floor than their ceiling, and Gerrard has taken Rangers closer to their ceiling than their floor. The two squads are likely comparable, with Rangers stronger in defensive personnel and Celtic with the edge in attacking personnel. So yeah, switch the management teams about and Celtic probably win the league, but they reduced their scope for errors by not recruiting properly.

But now most of those good attacking players are leaving Celtic this summer, in addition to their only good defensive one. Celtic are probably looking at an incoming season where they won't be favourites for the title.

Recruitment is key. Celtic had it nailed, then Lawell wanted to force himself in to the picture which was allegedly a massive part of Rodgers leaving. Lennon was a 'yes man' appointment. 

It's only a year ago that we were all laughing at the notion of an Old Firm XI having more Rangers players than Celtic ones. If you were to compile a best XI this season then I really don't think any of the signings Rangers made for this season get in. On the face of things Rangers aren't miles better than they were last season. They're managing to turn defeats to draws and draws to wins. A better squad for sure but if I was choosing the starting XI then they would all be players signed pre summer 2020.

[KnightswoodBear]

7 minutes ago, Merkland Red said:

On the face of things Rangers aren't miles better than they were last season.

We're quite clearly miles better than we were last season.

[DukDukGoose]

Just now, Knight55WoodBear said:

We're quite clearly miles better than we were last season.

You're results are miles better. 

Rangers were a very good team last season.

[G51]

4 minutes ago, Merkland Red said:

Recruitment is key. Celtic had it nailed, then Lawell wanted to force himself in to the picture which was allegedly a massive part of Rodgers leaving. Lennon was a 'yes man' appointment. 

It's only a year ago that we were all laughing at the notion of an Old Firm XI having more Rangers players than Celtic ones. If you were to compile a best XI this season then I really don't think any of the signings Rangers made for this season get in. On the face of things Rangers aren't miles better than they were last season. They're managing to turn defeats to draws and draws to wins. A better squad for sure but if I was choosing the starting XI then they would all be players signed pre summer 2020.

Yeah I think the stories of Lawwell having a hand in recruitment are so widely known at this point that there must be fire generating that smoke. Though I think Rodgers probably leaves for Leicester regardless.

My theory is that recruitment/squadbuilding (call it what you want) sets your floor and your ceiling, and then other factors determine where you finish in that range. Injuries are the most important factor, with sheer raw luck following that and other factors, such as managers, tactics etc. having less impact providing a baseline level of competence is achieved. There are exceptions to that, and Livingston are a great example of an exception in the Premiership. What they've done is really clever.

In terms of Rangers 2020/21 signings making a starting XI, I'd definitely have Roofe in there, and I think Hagi would make a strong claim for a spot too. Some folk would make an argument for Balogun over Helander (I wouldn't, but plenty have). The other signings were a backup keeper, two developmental fullback prospects (classing Patterson as a new signing for this purpose), Zungu (hasn't worked at all), Simpson (won't work out), Wright (will work if he stays fit) and Itten (will replace Morelos but won't be as good). The recruitment's been fine, but the midfield needs overhauled next season as Davis and Arfield get a year older, Jack's injury problems mount and Kamara sees interest. Zungu was clearly brought in to replace Davis but we won't be exercising that option.

[DMCs]

34 minutes ago, Merkland Red said:

Yeah that's fair enough. Misinterpreted your other post as you do pretty much confirm that in your second paragraph.

In defence of Celtic, I think we'd be saying similar about Rangers if Celtic had won the league this season. Both teams have stretched themselves financially to win the league this season and the gamble has paid off for Rangers.

Yeah could have been the case that we'd be saying that Rangers should have sold Morelos last summer and why spend so much on Roofe with his injury record etc.

Our average age is relatively high. Second in the league I believe - so lowering that is the main recruitment task this summer. 

[DukDukGoose]

2 minutes ago, G51 said:

Yeah I think the stories of Lawwell having a hand in recruitment are so widely known at this point that there must be fire generating that smoke. Though I think Rodgers probably leaves for Leicester regardless.

My theory is that recruitment/squadbuilding (call it what you want) sets your floor and your ceiling, and then other factors determine where you finish in that range. Injuries are the most important factor, with sheer raw luck following that and other factors, such as managers, tactics etc. having less impact providing a baseline level of competence is achieved. There are exceptions to that, and Livingston are a great example of an exception in the Premiership. What they've done is really clever.

In terms of Rangers 2020/21 signings making a starting XI, I'd definitely have Roofe in there, and I think Hagi would make a strong claim for a spot too. Some folk would make an argument for Balogun over Helander (I wouldn't, but plenty have). The other signings were a backup keeper, two developmental fullback prospects (classing Patterson as a new signing for this purpose), Zungu (hasn't worked at all), Simpson (won't work out), Wright (will work if he stays fit) and Itten (will replace Morelos but won't be as good). The recruitment's been fine, but the midfield needs overhauled next season as Davis and Arfield get a year older, Jack's injury problems mount and Kamara sees interest. Zungu was clearly brought in to replace Davis but we won't be exercising that option.

Yeah Roofe is a fair shout but I'd still have Morelos in there with 1 up top. The recruitment has been good. Beefing up a squad IMO but it was needed. When I'm saying above that Rangers aren't miles better I say that because they were good last season. Now they have better options to come on and change a game.

Look at Motherwell away. Throw on the big man and he scores a header that nobody else likely scores. 

1 minute ago, DMCs said:

Yeah could have been the case that we'd be saying that Rangers should have sold Morelos last summer and why spend so much on Roofe with his injury record etc.

Our average age is relatively high. Second in the league I believe - so lowering that is the main recruitment task this summer. 

Surely the likes of Defoe and McGregor are affecting that. A goalkeeper and a squad player. Most of your best XI are around their 'peak'.

[AJF]

1 hour ago, Jinky67 said:

That wasn’t my logic though was it? I even alluded to it a few posts back so really surprised you have tried to dumb it down to Team A winning most trophies over a set period = dominating

My logic was based on the % of major trophies won over that period which in Celtics case amounts to almost half which is huge. The next most successful club in that period which ofc is Rangers account for around 30% of all major trophies won. That is a significant margin between the 2. 

The same logic could be applied in Rangers favour for the 25 year previous to that from around 72 to 97 which despite that period starting during Celtics 1st 9iar row era, Rangers won a much higher % of major domestic honours than anyone else. 

The margin between major domestic honours won between Celtic and Rangers over a 130 year period is less than1% hence my answer of no.

So seems a bit silly to criticise my logic when it seems you didn’t have a grasp of it in the first place, eh 

 

 

 

This then begs the question, who determines what percentage of trophies won is considered dominating? You seem to want to pick and choose periods of time to suit this narrative.

My main point was that the original claim of 25 years of dominance is seriously flawed considering there wasn't a significant swing in favour of either club until 2012.

[8MileBU]

37 minutes ago, Merkland Red said:

On the face of things Rangers aren't miles better than they were last season. They're managing to turn defeats to draws and draws to wins. A better squad for sure but if I was choosing the starting XI then they would all be players signed pre summer 2020.

They are miles better than last season, particularly defensively and undoubtedly mentally. Last season they were alright but plenty of room for improvement. The core of the team has largely remained the same this season and that’s the key point. This season the core of the squad have been there for a season or more, settled and bedded in then bolstered with a couple of key signings. Rangers were never going to be a quick fix. They were still a team/club in transition even under Gerrard’s tenure and it’s rare that a series of signings immediately click and are successful immediately. Perhaps not the analogy the staunchest of the staunch would approve of but “Rome wasn’t built in a day”.

Edited March 5, 2021 by 8MileBU

[bennett]

23 minutes ago, Merkland Red said:

You're results are miles better. 

Rangers were a very good team last season.

Ridiculous as it sounds I kind of agree with this, we had a good footballing side but..

We were soft last season, too easily knocked about in games that got physical and we struggled to break down teams playing a low block.

Coaching and squad strength have improved this season and the team look miles better for it.

 

[Drew Brees]

To paraphrase kinky “Get off our thread”.  

[Jinky67]

6 minutes ago, AJF said:

This then begs the question, who determines what percentage of trophies won is considered dominating? You seem to want to pick and choose periods of time to suit this narrative.

My main point was that the original claim of 25 years of dominance is seriously flawed considering there wasn't a significant swing in favour of either club until 2012.

Considering the point was in reply to the post recognising our achievements since Fergus McCann helped steady the ship and start bringing success back to Celtic - which is ironically almost 25 years - then why would I focus on any other timeline?  The narrative was already set before I posted.

I’m not sure why you have an issue with it, I also recognise Rangers dominance of the 25 years prior despite there being no significant swing until the late 80’s.

Who decides what % differential can define a period of dominance? No one it’s my opinion which seems to have triggered a couple of you