Decade of Dominance?

[Super_Ally 0]

Has this been being discussed on the phone ins?

 

Been reading an interesting thread on FF.

 

Seems the tims are claiming the noughties was a decade of dominance for them. Whilst the bears are arguing they are merely trying to push this agenda to make amends for our dominance in the nineties.

 

Anyway, here's the facts:

 

The "noughties":

 

Now onto last decade. Celtic won 54 points more than us when every season was 3 points per win. They scored 150 more goals in that decade when the rest of the SPL was poor in comparison to the previous decade. Celtic won 24 of the 50 OF games and Rangers won 19. It's hardly dominance, is it? I wonder how many of those OF games were injury time winners?

 

So they won 14 trophies to our 13 in their decade of dominance?

 

Even titles it was only 6-4 plus one treble a piece!

 

And the real decade of dominance, the nineties:

 

During the 90's, the Rangers won 93 more points than Celtic and remember during the early to mid 90's the rest of the Scottish clubs were a hell of a lot better than they are now, infact Celtic never finished 2nd in the 90's until 1996! Also remember that the first couple of seasons it was 2 points for a win! Rangers also scored 165 more goals than Celtic. During this time, Rangers lifted 18 trophies. 9 league titles, 4 Scottish cups and 5 League cups. Celtic lifted a mere 3 trophies all decade, 1 league title, 1 Scottish cup and 1 League cup. Now that's 15 less trophies than us during the 90's. We also won two trebles. Rangers won 26 of the 50 OF derbies and lost only 11. Now that's DOMINANCE!

 

:spl:

[craig 5,199]

Also lets not forget the fallacy that has been perpetuated that MON was the 2nd coming..... and that he completely dominated Scottish Football.

 

Eck actually, despite his OF record, won more tropies than St Martin I believe.

[Super_Ally 0]

Also lets not forget the fallacy that has been perpetuated that MON was the 2nd coming..... and that he completely dominated Scottish Football.

 

Eck actually, despite his OF record, won more tropies than St Martin I believe.

 

In the time they were directly in competition, Eck took more of the available honours. Over their tenures at the club they are fairly equal. And Eck made the knock out stages of the Champions Leagie

 

Kind of funny that O'Neil is held in such high regard over there whilst amongst our own and even the press McLeish takes a lot of flack.

[Cotter 0]

I remember Eck as the man that got us through to the last 16; one of the best nights I've had at Ibrox. However I also remember him as leading us to third place. And Capucho. And Maniero. And Olivier bloody Bernard!

[Wija 0]

Dillusional Timothy once again trying to get some sort of oneupmanship when in reality, the SPL was pi55 poor and we as a force were at times so far off the ball it is hard - even now - to look back and think we got 4 titles. But we did so GIRFUY !!

[Frankie 8,186]

Celtic were the dominant team in the last decade but nowhere near the extent we were in the 90s... For anyone to suggest so is just daft - as the facts prove!

[calscot 0]

Celtic were on average better than us over the decade but the facts show there was no dominance - they had a chance to dominate but did not take it.

 

When you look at that trophy haul it starts to look bad for them considering they cheated their way to the title two seasons ago (IMO anyway, I know many on here disagree and think they deserved it). Had that gone the other way we'd have an even number of championships and we'd also have won one more trophy - would that have made us the "dominant" team...? Not at all but is shows that the decade was fairly evenly contested.

[Super_Ally 0]

I haven't had the joy of listening to Celtic melt down on the radio shows, but it appears they have been pushing this agenda there.

 

I think at best it's about 55% - 45% Celtic. However, as Cal rightly points out if we hadn't succumbed to ridiculous fixture congestion piled upon us by the SPL and the member clubs we could have edged the trophy count.

 

Celtic got the better of the noughties, but we dominated the 90's.

 

Whilst we are weak off the field atm, we have the better of them on the field and need to press home that advantage. Success on the field will transfer to success off it and hopefully lead to another decade more reminiscent of the 90's. :spl:

[craig 5,199]

Celtic were on average better than us over the decade but the facts show there was no dominance - they had a chance to dominate but did not take it.

 

When you look at that trophy haul it starts to look bad for them considering they cheated their way to the title two seasons ago (IMO anyway, I know many on here disagree and think they deserved it). Had that gone the other way we'd have an even number of championships and we'd also have won one more trophy - would that have made us the "dominant" team...? Not at all but is shows that the decade was fairly evenly contested.

 

Whilst I agree that we were stiffed a couple of seasons ago in the league I dont think that should be used as an argument on our behalf because you could then also have the Tims saying "if McDonald hadnt scored twice in the last 3 minutes" or "if Dunfermline hadnt laid down" then we would have won.....

 

My point being the facts are the facts and the stats are the stats. All the rest are ifs and buts and I would rather deal with those. Even with the facts I dont think they were nearly as dominant as they would like us to believe.

[Totti 0]

Celtic were the dominant team in the last decade but nowhere near the extent we were in the 90s... For anyone to suggest so is just daft - as the facts prove!

Correct. This topics pretty pedantic. Post 02/03 has largely not been a good time to be a Rangers fan with an incredible amount of pish players being signed.