Celtic 178 Barcelona 500

The place to discuss Scottish football
lbb
Posts: 1317
Joined: Thu Jun 22, 2006 10:25 am
Contact:

Celtic 178 Barcelona 500

Post by lbb » Thu Feb 21, 2008 9:37 am

This was the number of passes that each side had made according to TV stats - and this wasn't even at full-time! It was the kind of statistics you might find playing Championship Manager.

It was a bold move by Strachan to play Robson, McGeady and Nakamura in midfield. It backfired, horribly, for Celtic. They were outplayed from start to finish with their players chasing Barcelona strips all night.

It leads to the old question of why our teams are consistently unable to pass the ball. When Ray Wilkins was asked which league he preferred, English or Italian, he said Serie A. When the interviewer said that the Premiership was more exciting, Wilkins replied 'yes, that's because you can't keep the ball'.

nightfire
Posts: 337
Joined: Mon Oct 10, 2005 9:12 pm
Contact:

Re: Celtic 178 Barcelona 500

Post by nightfire » Thu Feb 21, 2008 12:42 pm

lbb wrote:This was the number of passes that each side had made according to TV stats - and this wasn't even at full-time! It was the kind of statistics you might find playing Championship Manager.

It was a bold move by Strachan to play Robson, McGeady and Nakamura in midfield. It backfired, horribly, for Celtic. They were outplayed from start to finish with their players chasing Barcelona strips all night.

It leads to the old question of why our teams are consistently unable to pass the ball. When Ray Wilkins was asked which league he preferred, English or Italian, he said Serie A. When the interviewer said that the Premiership was more exciting, Wilkins replied 'yes, that's because you can't keep the ball'.
That we were and recognised by the Celtic fans in their applause and plaudits after the game.

The passing of the Barca players is sublime almost radar like and in general Scottish based players are not up to the standard and never will be in a kick and rush approach by many teams in the SPL

On a more positive note, with minimal possession Celtic still managed to score 2 goals against a team who gave Celtic the run around as much as PSG did many years ago - the fans at least got value for their money

Lisbon67
Posts: 115
Joined: Sat Jun 11, 2005 5:07 pm
Contact:

Post by Lisbon67 » Fri Feb 22, 2008 5:22 pm

Ask any neutral which game they'd prefer to watch, Wednesday's or that turgid affair in Athens last night. I bet it would be rather more than 500-178 in favour of the former.

Sat31March1928
Posts: 1367
Joined: Sun Jun 12, 2005 7:50 pm
Location: Musselburgh
Contact:

Post by Sat31March1928 » Fri Feb 22, 2008 6:31 pm

Lisbon67 wrote:Ask any neutral which game they'd prefer to watch, Wednesday's or that turgid affair in Athens last night. I bet it would be rather more than 500-178 in favour of the former.
Ask any Celtic fan and you know what result they'd prefer.
Jackson; James; Jackson; James; Jackson

nightfire
Posts: 337
Joined: Mon Oct 10, 2005 9:12 pm
Contact:

Post by nightfire » Fri Feb 22, 2008 7:54 pm

Sat31March1928 wrote: Ask any Celtic fan and you know what result they'd prefer.
Ask any Celtic or Rangers fan which tourney they would prefer to be in even though you know you have no chance of winning it

bobby s
Posts: 816
Joined: Wed Jun 29, 2005 9:15 am
Location: Nittingrange
Contact:

Post by bobby s » Sun Feb 24, 2008 12:39 am

Europe Schmoorop.

The competitions are so loaded for the big countries, that I'm not sure that I get much of a kick any more. Hibs qualify for Europe? So what? We get a tough draw and the prospect of having to beat every team in the top half of the bundesliga to actually win it.

I'm sure telly loves having 16 teams from England, Germany, Italy and Spain in the "champions league" but well I wonder what the point is.
It's the Hope I can't stand

lbb
Posts: 1317
Joined: Thu Jun 22, 2006 10:25 am
Contact:

Post by lbb » Mon Feb 25, 2008 9:43 am

bobby s wrote: The competitions are so loaded for the big countries, that I'm not sure that I get much of a kick any more. Hibs qualify for Europe? So what? We get a tough draw and the prospect of having to beat every team in the top half of the bundesliga to actually win it.

I'm sure telly loves having 16 teams from England, Germany, Italy and Spain in the "champions league" but well I wonder what the point is.
I have some sympathy for this view and I can understand why you say it. It used to be that you could look at the European Cup and think 'maybe, just maybe'. The current tournament simply doesn't allow you such dreams. It's no longer possible to 'fluke' your way (not that I'm suggesting teams ever did :wink: ) into the last eight or even last four without actually beating anyone of note.

Rangers is as far away from winning the EC/CL as at any point in our history. We can now see that 1979, 1988 and 1993 were our best opportunities and, barring some Roman Abramovich figure taking over, we'll never get that close again.

However, the Champions League is a better competition overall. The standards are higher, it's more difficult and, dare I say it, more entertaining. Certainly, my recollection of the European Cup was that your chances of goals decreased as the tournament progressed culminating in a turgid 0-0 or 1-0 in the final. The new format seems to allow greater expression for teams. Some of the matches last week were excellent to watch and I'm looking forward to the second legs.

As for what the point of it all is, I can't answer that. Pity Milton Friedman is dead. We could have asked him onto the forum to explain it all.

What I will say is that I think one of the best things that could happen to the SPL would be a third place in the Champions League. It would fire up the contest between the Edinburgh clubs, Aberdeen, Dundee Utd, etc.

lbb
Posts: 1317
Joined: Thu Jun 22, 2006 10:25 am
Contact:

Re: Celtic 178 Barcelona 500

Post by lbb » Mon Feb 25, 2008 9:51 am

nightfire wrote:The passing of the Barca players is sublime almost radar like and in general Scottish based players are not up to the standard and never will be in a kick and rush approach by many teams in the SPL

On a more positive note, with minimal possession Celtic still managed to score 2 goals against a team who gave Celtic the run around as much as PSG did many years ago - the fans at least got value for their money
I'm not sure all of them would agree with you. I'm sure I saw some heading for the exits after the third goal.

Apart from having millions to spend, why were Barcelona so much better in possession than Celtic? Apart from not closing them down well enough, Celtic didn't keep the ball that well themselves - as Strachan admitted. I just think we should demand more from our own players and ask why they can't control the ball first time or even pass it with either foot.
Lisbon67 wrote:Ask any neutral which game they'd prefer to watch, Wednesday's or that turgid affair in Athens last night. I bet it would be rather more than 500-178 in favour of the former.
Well, Barcelona are one of the most attractive football teams on the planet so that's a no-brainer. I don't think you're saying Celtic are one of the most attractive football teams on the planet (:o) so it's glory by association and, hey, there's no arguing with it. Neutrals would rather watch Barcelona than Rangers or Panathinaikos. That's a fact.

nightfire
Posts: 337
Joined: Mon Oct 10, 2005 9:12 pm
Contact:

Re: Celtic 178 Barcelona 500

Post by nightfire » Mon Feb 25, 2008 10:13 am

lbb wrote:
nightfire wrote:The passing of the Barca players is sublime almost radar like and in general Scottish based players are not up to the standard and never will be in a kick and rush approach by many teams in the SPL

On a more positive note, with minimal possession Celtic still managed to score 2 goals against a team who gave Celtic the run around as much as PSG did many years ago - the fans at least got value for their money
I'm not sure all of them would agree with you. I'm sure I saw some heading for the exits after the third goal.

Apart from having millions to spend, why were Barcelona so much better in possession than Celtic? Apart from not closing them down well enough, Celtic didn't keep the ball that well themselves - as Strachan admitted. I just think we should demand more from our own players and ask why they can't control the ball first time or even pass it with either foot.
Lisbon67 wrote:Ask any neutral which game they'd prefer to watch, Wednesday's or that turgid affair in Athens last night. I bet it would be rather more than 500-178 in favour of the former.
Well, Barcelona are one of the most attractive football teams on the planet so that's a no-brainer. I don't think you're saying Celtic are one of the most attractive football teams on the planet (:o) so it's glory by association and, hey, there's no arguing with it. Neutrals would rather watch Barcelona than Rangers or Panathinaikos. That's a fact.
Previous posts suggested you check the nationality of fans at Celtic games now you're checking for exactly how many left the game before full-time. I was at the game and whilst I can't vouch for everyone, the vast majority stayed behind even if the possibility of an equaliser looked a hopeless cause.

The game was very entertaining and as far as I am concerned it was money well spent - can you say the same when Barca played at Ibrox.

As for the difference between the teams - I think Celtic's midfield could have done better which echoes Strachan's comments although I think the players were told to stand off the Barca players which was just asking for trouble. It was well documented before the game that Celtic would need to be at their peak and some of the Barca players would need to have an off day. This was reflected in the Bookies price of 4/1 for a Celtic victory. Neither happened and Celtic lost to a much better team and if Barca are up for it in the 2nd leg they will win that easily as well.
Last edited by nightfire on Mon Feb 25, 2008 10:23 am, edited 2 times in total.

lbb
Posts: 1317
Joined: Thu Jun 22, 2006 10:25 am
Contact:

Re: Celtic 178 Barcelona 500

Post by lbb » Mon Feb 25, 2008 10:20 am

nightfire wrote: Previous posts suggested you check the nationality of fans at Celtic games now you're checking for exactly how many left the game before full-time.
They could be seen on TV - particularly behind the goal. I also read on some green-faced forums that some were astonished that supporters near them began leaving at that point. I'm not suggesting a mass exodus.

It was actually quite a relief to hear some Celtic punters didn't go along with the Barcelona love-in and the 'it was just a privilege to be there' line. Some people just want to see their team win and that's that. Nothing wrong with that.
nightfire wrote:As for the difference between the teams - I think Celtic's midfield could have done better which echoes Strachan's comments although I think the players were told to stand off the Barca players which was just asking for trouble. It was well documented before the game that Celtic would need to be at their peak and some of the Barca players would need to have an off day. This was reflected in the Bookies price of 4/1 for a Celtic victory. Neither happened and Celtic lost to a much better team and if Barca are up for it in the 2nd leg they will win that easily as well.
That's all fair enough. I don't think enough was made of Celtic's technicial deficiencies - though Strachan mentioned them at FT - or that they were below par. Barcelona were good but Celtic were poor. One of the reasons Barcelona were good is that Celtic were somewhat tactically naive and too many players brought incompetent performances on the night. People can make as many cracks as they like about Barcelona being 'bored' at Ibrox (in reality, they were petulant because Rangers didn't roll over and applaud them) but Celtic could have done with some of that solidity and organisation on Wednesday night. There's no shame in admitting that.

Scottish
Site Admin
Posts: 7811
Joined: Sat Jun 11, 2005 4:51 pm
Contact:

Re: Celtic 178 Barcelona 500

Post by Scottish » Mon Feb 25, 2008 10:24 am

lbb wrote:Apart from having millions to spend, why were Barcelona so much better in possession than Celtic?
Well, they're certainly one of the richest clubs on the planet but they also appreciate the benefits of rearing their own players. Valdes, Xavi, Puyol, Iniesta, Giovanni, Messi, Oleguer and Bojan of the current squad all cost zero in transfer fees. That's as many home-grown players as the OF can boast COMBINED.

Rangers have McGregor, Adam, Ferguson and Burke. Celtic have McManus, Kennedy, McGeady and O'Dea.

Another difference is that Barcelona have always tried to bring players through the ranks whereas the OF have had it forced upon them due to financial circumstance. By rights it should be the other way around. Those clubs that can least rely on the transfer market should be the ones looking to their youth set-ups to produce players.

If the OF ever did match the spending power of the Premiership I think it's more likely they'd imitate Newcastle United rather than Barcelona.

nightfire
Posts: 337
Joined: Mon Oct 10, 2005 9:12 pm
Contact:

Re: Celtic 178 Barcelona 500

Post by nightfire » Mon Feb 25, 2008 10:32 am

lbb wrote:
nightfire wrote: Previous posts suggested you check the nationality of fans at Celtic games now you're checking for exactly how many left the game before full-time.
They could be seen on TV - particularly behind the goal. I also read on some green-faced forums that some were astonished that supporters near them began leaving at that point. I'm not suggesting a mass exodus.

It was actually quite a relief to hear some Celtic punters didn't go along with the Barcelona love-in and the 'it was just a privilege to be there' line. Some people just want to see their team win and that's that. Nothing wrong with that.
nightfire wrote:As for the difference between the teams - I think Celtic's midfield could have done better which echoes Strachan's comments although I think the players were told to stand off the Barca players which was just asking for trouble. It was well documented before the game that Celtic would need to be at their peak and some of the Barca players would need to have an off day. This was reflected in the Bookies price of 4/1 for a Celtic victory. Neither happened and Celtic lost to a much better team and if Barca are up for it in the 2nd leg they will win that easily as well.
That's all fair enough. I don't think enough was made of Celtic's technicial deficiencies - though Strachan mentioned them at FT - or that they were below par. Barcelona were good but Celtic were poor. One of the reasons Barcelona were good is that Celtic were somewhat tactically naive and too many players brought incompetent performances on the night. People can make as many cracks as they like about Barcelona being 'bored' at Ibrox (in reality, they were petulant because Rangers didn't roll over and applaud them) but Celtic could have done with some of that solidity and organisation on Wednesday night. There's no shame in admitting that.
A "poor" Celtic side managed to score 2 goals - are you saying that if Celtic had played to the best of their ability and got the tactics right, they would have scored more and may be even won the game. :shock:

lbb
Posts: 1317
Joined: Thu Jun 22, 2006 10:25 am
Contact:

Re: Celtic 178 Barcelona 500

Post by lbb » Mon Feb 25, 2008 11:06 am

nightfire wrote: A "poor" Celtic side managed to score 2 goals - are you saying that if Celtic had played to the best of their ability and got the tactics right, they would have scored more and may be even won the game. :shock:
They might have done or they might not have done - there being no way to accurately predict what will happen. Sometimes you can play well and not score at all. They've already beaten Barcelona at home - albeit 4 years ago when Barcelona didn't have quite the team they have now - and Rangers drew with Barcelona earlier on this season. So it's by no means unrealistic to say that Celtic might have managed better than a 3-2 defeat - and most commentators seem to accept that 3-2 was a fortunate scoreline for Celtic.

The tie is over two legs and I think Strachan would have wanted something to defend over there. He could have done so with a more pragmatic approach, I feel.

nightfire
Posts: 337
Joined: Mon Oct 10, 2005 9:12 pm
Contact:

Re: Celtic 178 Barcelona 500

Post by nightfire » Mon Feb 25, 2008 11:11 am

lbb wrote:
nightfire wrote: A "poor" Celtic side managed to score 2 goals - are you saying that if Celtic had played to the best of their ability and got the tactics right, they would have scored more and may be even won the game. :shock:
They might have done or they might not have done - there being no way to accurately predict what will happen. Sometimes you can play well and not score at all. They've already beaten Barcelona at home - albeit 4 years ago when Barcelona didn't have quite the team they have now - and Rangers drew with Barcelona earlier on this season. So it's by no means unrealistic to say that Celtic might have managed better than a 3-2 defeat - and most commentators seem to accept that 3-2 was a fortunate scoreline for Celtic.

The tie is over two legs and I think Strachan would have wanted something to defend over there. He could have done so with a more pragmatic approach, I feel.
I think Strachan was damned if he did and damned if he didn't. He got quite a bit of bad press for Celtic's approach against AC Milan at the same stage last year where they did dig in.

Bottom line as I said at the outset, the Barca performance was the best I had seen since a PSG side (that contained Paul Le Guen & Stephane Mahe) hammered Celtic 3-0

lbb
Posts: 1317
Joined: Thu Jun 22, 2006 10:25 am
Contact:

Re: Celtic 178 Barcelona 500

Post by lbb » Mon Feb 25, 2008 11:15 am

scottish wrote: Well, they're certainly one of the richest clubs on the planet but they also appreciate the benefits of rearing their own players. Valdes, Xavi, Puyol, Iniesta, Giovanni, Messi, Oleguer and Bojan of the current squad all cost zero in transfer fees. That's as many home-grown players as the OF can boast COMBINED.
I didn't realise so many of their team came from their youth setup. I always imagined Messi, for starters, came from one of the big Argentinian clubs for a ridiculous fee.
scottish wrote: Adam
The next big-money sale down south, I reckon. Ballack is making noises about leaving Chelsea.
scottish wrote:Another difference is that Barcelona have always tried to bring players through the ranks whereas the OF have had it forced upon them due to financial circumstance. By rights it should be the other way around. Those clubs that can least rely on the transfer market should be the ones looking to their youth set-ups to produce players.
I agree. Though I think there's a lot of factors that we need to examine as to why, even when we do introduce young players, they don't seem capable of making the leap to good experienced players. How many times have we had good Under-18 and Under-21 teams only for the majority to disappear off the radar.

We have a supposedly professional set up in this country but 3 or 4 clubs have bothered to invest in indoor training facilities. I do agree that the OF should play more youth players, though. I've always felt Rangers should rely on youth for their squad players and only purchase key first team players that are difficult to bring through via the youth system. The signings of players like Broadfoot and Gow was insane, for example.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest