Exploding the myths

[calscot 0]

There are many angry bears out there and rationality seems to be in short supply. Not many are really analysing the situation and when frustrated attempts are made, they seemed to be blocked time and again by rhetorical myths that, with even a quick level headed scrutiny, do not stand up.

 

Examples are:

 

1. Celtic are much better than us.

 

2. Celtic are shitest they've ever been and so are we.

 

3. Celtic are there for the taking.

 

 

1. The first that Celtic are much better than us does not stand up to the evidence. If you look at last season and this, there has been not much more than a baw hair between the teams. There is no team double figures ahead of the other or winning all the OF games.

 

Rangers were certainly better than Celtic for most of last season winning both cups and being well ahead in the title race, but could not cope with with end of season fixture pileup including a dogily postponed Celtic game which many would would agree would have likely have been won by Rangers on its original date. The OF games were in fact pretty evenly contested. That doesn't sound like they are miles ahead to me. Both teams did well in Europe and so no obvious winner there.

 

This season they've had plenty of lucky decisions and with one more slip up by us, we're 3 points behind but have them to play at Ibrox. Both teams got to the final of the league cup which Celtic narrowly one in extra time, and only Rangers are still in the Scottish Cup. The OF games have been pretty evenly contested again with only Rangers scoring a convincing win. Both teams were exceptionally poor in Europe. The obvious cold conclusion there is that Celtic are ever so slightly ahead of Rangers, but not much.

 

So in the last two seasons where the trophy count is 2 each, there is no evidence that Celtic are much better than Rangers. Both teams seem pretty even with who wins coming down to the same likelihood as the toss of a coin. Unfortunately last year, the coin came down on their side for the SPL, and for us in the cups.

 

This year it's gone for them in the League Cup, probably us in the Scottish Cup and the SPL coin is still spinning in the air and could land either side.

 

 

2. The shitest Rangers and Celtic teams have regularly finished 4th and 5th in the league, us pre-Souness and them during the NIAR years. There's plenty of sites that will show those embarrassing tables for both teams.

 

Even poor OF teams have been miles behind their rivals and had to battle for 2nd place in the league, sometimes losing - Eck and PLG are recent examples there.

 

This season, neither team have had any danger of being caught by the rest of the league so objectively how can they be poor teams in the closed context of our league? They may not be going for the record levels of points that may have been achieved in the past, but there are plenty of seasons throughout the history of the Scottish league where the OF have not been so far ahead.

 

3. One of the biggest self answering questions is asking why we can't take Celtic when they look so bad - and we just seem to be just as bad. The fact is, they are only there for the taking by a superior team and at the moment, as has been mentioned, we are pretty much at the same level.

 

Is it so surprising that should be so? That the OF, in the same league, with similar avenues of income and raw talent, are pretty even? Celtic have always been there for the taking by a better team, but if you are the other half of a duopoly then without exceptional circumstances they won't be easy to beat.

 

Saying St Mirren beat them so they are crap is schoolboy thinking. The best teams lose to the smaller one's often - especially in the cups, and if it wasn't so, then football would not have the following it does.

 

I point again to the fact that both the Old firm are streets ahead of the other SPL teams, so having the odd defeat does not change their status.

 

 

 

I think when you analyse it all the conclusions are pretty simple. Neither of the OLD firm are as weak compared to other Scottish team as they have been, nor are they as far ahead as they have been. Both teams are about as even as they have been in their history with the metaphorical pendulum, swinging not far from the centre.

 

They still dominate the league but the difference is less than in their recent hay-days. They are getting B+'s instead of A+'s but are still easily passing muster with no danger of another team splitting them or indeed winning the league.

 

The answer to why the teams are not gaining high 90's for final points is simple in that the teams are closer.

 

Are the other SPL teams getting better? Probably not although young talent is a tad better than it has been.

 

Are the OF employing lesser players - definitely, it couldn't be any other way.

 

When Souness came along we were signing the best players in Britain, way ahead of Man Utd, Chelsea, Arsenal and Liverpool.

 

If we did so again we'd be in aiming for 100 points and above, but it's impossible for us now.

 

During NIAR we were signing the likes of Boli, Laudrup, Gascoigne, Hateley, McCall, Gough, Goram, Amorusso, Porini, Albertz etc. Our players were streets ahead of the opposition and we were a match for any English team.

 

During Advocaat's spell we were way overspending to compete in Europe and competed for players with the top end of the Premiership.

 

Even in Ecks downsizing we inherited the likes of De Boer and Mols and signed Arteta for 6M and Barry for 5M, so were competing for players with middling English Prem teams while Celtic were competing with the top half of the table.

 

Now with Premiership teams getting a minimum of 50M from TV and charging twice as much for us for seats and advertising we have no chance of competing for the best players in Britain and Europe.

 

We're now competing for players with Championship teams who are starting to outspend us. Walter may have spent some money but it's peanuts in todays terms. 3M is like 750k during Advocaat.

 

We're reduced to buying from Championship teams and a lot more cherry picking from the SPL than we used to. Yes the standard is lower but that's because both OF clubs have had to move down two or three tiers of players.

 

So of course the football is not so good, of course the SPL teams are closer. We might be spending much more than them but the money is for players who are less of a standard above your bog standard professional.

 

 

Until the financial climate changes, we have no option but to accept this, it's now as ever, doing better than our rivals who are in the same environment. Comparing us to the Premiership - which Scots seem to watch far too much of, just gives false expectations. Like many are saying, we have to wake up and smell the cheap coffee.

[craig 5,195]

I havent sen many on here saying #1 is the case (other than the recent timposter). Most of us agree that Celtic are not much better than us.

 

Re #2 there is a good enough case that both teams are in the doldrums. Both teams are very, very poor. Poorest ever ? Probably not, but you are looking at over 100 years of history. In recent history both teams are as bad as they have been for probably 20 years.

 

Re #3 - Celtic ARE there for the taking, I defy anyone to deny that. They are shit. However, so are we. But we also play tactics which are meant to "not lose" rather than "to win". It isnt a case of saying "they got beat by St Mirren so they are crap" - it is more a case of saying "they got beat by St Mirren so we should be capabe of defeating them" but our tactics are such that we try not to lose to them rather than beating them. And this season we cant say that the St Mirren defeat they had was an abhorration, they have been awful for most of the season.

 

I am more worried by the distance between the two clubs OFF the field than I am on it.

[Norris Cole 0]

Despite expending a lot of words, and no doubt much effort, none of that addresses the fact that we have a manager who is not making the most of what he has got - however little that is. That is the reason we are behind the worst Celtic outfit since Barnes. The financial climate and not being in a rich league like the Premiership are merely convenient excuses.

[maineflyer 0]

We all know we're a poor side and that we have neither money to spend nor credible management to use it wisely. We haven't scored a goal against celtic in the last three outings and have beaten them only once in the last six attempts. And it's preceisely because we all already understand that they are in the same boat as us that this is unacceptable.

 

We've bought very unwisely with the money we did have. We've coached and motivated poorly. We've employed stupid, one-dimensional tactics and played everyone except the goalkeeper in the wrong position.

 

The anger has nothing to do with comparing this Rangers team with what we had in the 1990's. It's about comparing this Rangers team with the current celtic team and being unwilling to lie down and accept more bollocks and failure from Smith. It doen't matter whether anyone thinks celtic are better or worse, it matters that Smith is now in his thrid year at the club and we are still performing like we did on Sunday. We didn't even look like wanting to win yesterday and that's not good enough. There's nowhere left for Smith to hide but he's still in the press today offering pointless platitudes and failing to face up to his own role in this mess.

 

I'm sick of hearing people say that celtic are their for the taking. What the fuck does that matter if we are so poorly prepared and led that we're incapable of doing the taking?

 

I'm sorry but when the writing is on the wall, the only thing left to do is read it. Smith is simply no fucking good to us whatsoever. Regardless of what he once might have been, the man we have today is bereft of ideas and will not achieve what simply must be achieved here.

 

People have a right to be angry. More, they are entirely justified. Everyone with their eyes open knew exactly what Smith shouldn't do on Sunday and everyone saw him do it just the same and with the predictable outcome we all sat through. He has to go.

[Super_Ally 0]

Good post Cal, don't agree with everything 100% but you make some good points.

 

I dont think he's trying to address particular problems or expending words because he likes the pretty patterns they make on his screen, though I do not inted to speak for him.

 

What I would say, from my p.o.v. is that it agains brings a dose of reality to the situation at hand.

 

Losing to Celtic is not acceptable it never is. But losing to them does not make us awful, does not make us a million miles behind them. And I would question whether these two sides are the worst in recent memory.

 

When we put out our first XI, it is arguable stronger than the one that got to a European final last year. What yardstick do you use to mesure the teams quality.

 

Arguably, with the right tactcis and formation, i.e a more attacking outlook, we could have a fairly decent team on our hands. Our major problems right now is a negative manager with a weak squad. look what a Bougherra injury does to us.

[maineflyer 0]

Good post Cal, don't agree with everything 100% but you make some good points.

 

I dont think he's trying to address particular problems or expending words because he likes the pretty patterns they make on his screen, though I do not inted to speak for him.

 

What I would say, from my p.o.v. is that it agains brings a dose of reality to the situation at hand.

 

Losing to Celtic is not acceptable it never is. But losing to them does not make us awful, does not make us a million miles behind them. And I would question whether these two sides are the worst in recent memory.

 

When we put out our first XI, it is arguable stronger than the one that got to a European final last year. What yardstick do you use to mesure the teams quality.

 

Arguably, with the right tactcis and formation, i.e a more attacking outlook, we could have a fairly decent team on our hands. Our major problems right now is a negative manager with a weak squad. look what a Bougherra injury does to us.

Well I have to disagree with you, it said absolutely nothing new. Worse, it seeks to deflect us from the real issues at hand. It seeks to make excuses for the unacceptable and to lay the blame everywhere except where it should be. If we cannot face up to this then we will just keep on having days like yesterday. This is not about celtic, it's about Rangers and what's wrong with us. Criticise celtic by all means but please - do not use their problems as an excuse for our own. That's just so much cowardice.

[calscot 0]

Re #2 there is a good enough case that both teams are in the doldrums. Both teams are very, very poor. Poorest ever ? Probably not, but you are looking at over 100 years of history. In recent history both teams are as bad as they have been for probably 20 years.

 

So why do we have a two horse race? So Celtic are as bad as they were in 1990 when they finished 5th? 1991 when they finished 3rd? 1992 when they finished 3rd? 1993 when they finished 3rd? 1994 when they finished 4th? 1995 when they finished 4th?

 

Are we as bad as in 2006 when we finished 3rd?

 

Sorry I really don't get what your aiming at unless it's an unmeasurable subjective viewpoint.

 

 

 

Re #3 - Celtic ARE there for the taking, I defy anyone to deny that.

 

I'll deny it, there for the taking by whom? The OF as I have pointed out with evidence, are pretty close and both are well ahead of the rest. They are maybe there for the taking but not by any Scottish club. Their Champions status and position at the top of the SPL proves that.

 

They are shit. However, so are we.

 

Do you not get the oxymoron here? You are saying the two BEST teams in the country by a mile are SHIT. It's a subjective viewpoint that is pretty meaningless in the context of the SPL title.

 

Man U and Liverpool may well be shit compared to the Brazilian World Cup team of 1972 but if they are the best teams in the Premiership, what does that matter?

 

But we also play tactics which are meant to "not lose" rather than "to win".

 

Again that is subjective, doesn't stand up to scrutiny when you count how many games we win and again, what is the relevance?

 

It isnt a case of saying "they got beat by St Mirren so they are crap" - it is more a case of saying "they got beat by St Mirren so we should be capabe of defeating them"

 

Well we are capable of defeating them but it's not because they lost to St Mirren. I repeat that is Schoolboy thinking, the OF and other big teams lose to smaller teams every season. It does not mean a better team than the smaller team can easily beat the top team. It's complete nonsense.

 

Scotland beat France so does that mean everyone better than us should be able to go out and thrash them?

 

but our tactics are such that we try not to lose to them rather than beating them.

 

That's just not true. The tactics possibly were to minimise the chances of a loss, but that's what many teams do during a six pointer or a tough, important game. In the last three games they have not played any more positively than us.

 

And this season we cant say that the St Mirren defeat they had was an abhorration, they have been awful for most of the season.

 

Maybe but they are still top of the league and bar Rangers, miles ahead of anybody.

 

I am more worried by the distance between the two clubs OFF the field than I am on it.

 

That's where I agree.

[calscot 0]

Well I have to disagree with you, it said absolutely nothing new. Worse, it seeks to deflect us from the real issues at hand. It seeks to make excuses for the unacceptable and to lay the blame everywhere except where it should be. If we cannot face up to this then we will just keep on having days like yesterday. This is not about celtic, it's about Rangers and what's wrong with us. Criticise celtic by all means but please - do not use their problems as an excuse for our own. That's just so much cowardice.

 

Very ironic. What I said was FAR more relevant than all the twisting of truth for your witch hunting and proclamations of doom. YOU give nothing to the debate except vitriol and to are totally chasing the wrong problems as you can't even see what the situation is.

 

Of course what I have written is nothing new, it's the state of affairs at the moment, it's truthful, logical and relevant - anyone who cares to look will see it, so how can it be "new"? Your news is 99% fiction, so it's going to easily be new to everyone.

 

There are no excuses in what I've said, YOU are the one making excuses by making up stories and pointing fingers at scapegoats. Nothing you say is backed up by facts or any balanced insight.

 

The fact is, that it is about Celtic as well as us and the rest of the SPL. In the cold light of day we are competing well ahead of the rest and on an almost equal footing with our financial peers. There is obvious reasons behind that - it is very difficult to raise yourself to a level that well above what your environment allows.

 

It's obvious we can't just go out and get a much better team than Celtic on similar money and resources. Their aims are the exact same as ours and so unless one club does something exceptionally better than the other, then the clubs will be pretty equal.

 

Winning the SPL always has been and always will be about gaining more points than any other team in the league.

[Norris Cole 0]

twisting of truth

 

you can't even see what the situation is.

 

99% fiction

 

making up stories

 

Nothing you say is backed up by facts or any balanced insight.

 

 

Welcome back calscot :fish:

[calscot 0]

Are you and Maineflyer the same person?