match thread (image) [FT] Celtic 5 - 0 Rangers

[der Berliner 3,245]

38 minutes ago, Rousseau said:

If we lack defensive "discipline" with Tavernier and Candeias, we're giving them a free run at goal with just Candeias. It's silly... IMO, of course.

 

Playing Windass is not "audacious"; in fact, it's the only way to go if we have any desire to press them.

If we defend badly with Tav, we can try Martin as right-centrehalf / rightback too. It's not like him being glued to position. But if anything, he'll be more disciplined than Tav who is being caught too far forward time and again ... which, as I said, leaves the CHs exposed and draws them to his wing. Having three at the back allows one to step out while two remain more central.

 

If anything, Cummings presses the opposition. Windass runs into good positions and waits for the ball (that may not come). That is fine, if we play from a position of strength and on the counter. Not if he has to do some stuff himself. During the last two OF games, he was chasing the ball-playing Yahoo more often than playing the ball himself. Cummings is a pest, similar to Morelos.

[Darthter 542]

I don't think there will be any surprises wrt formation....too much of a gamble.  

The players (should) know the 4-2-3-1 formation by now & appear to be comfortable with it.  While a change may throw Ceptics plans out slightly, I think it would have a more negative effect on us.

[TheUKCrazyhorse 96]

Teams up for Sunday - its on the Record site, but as long as they aren't telling porkies, it looks like they got it from Murty himself.

 

[buster. 4,808]

On Sunday, it comes more down to how much the players want and believe than the vageries of formation set-up.

 

The players won't be looking to Murty for motivation. It'll have to come from themselves and I reckon we'll start well but will get worn down and buckle at the back.

 

I watched a good part of all the three domestic defeats of Celtic this season and in all three, when asked 'a difficult question', they seemed to simply not be properly at the races and nor did they at any point look like finding their mojo.

 

However, last season in the Scottish Cup Final when Aberdeen asked the same questions, Celtic dug-in and clawed their way back and I think it was because they really wanted it badly, opposed to the three league defeats that saw a comparitive shrug of the shoulders.

 

What I'm saying is that even if we get in their faces, I think they'll react in a more proactive way than in their previous league defeats and the reason being is the importance of the game to them and their support.

 

 

For me, I primarily want to see real determination, effort and committment from our players and see where it takes us.

Next season will hopefully bring reason for optimism.

[DMAA 3,603]

48 minutes ago, Darthter said:

While a change may throw Ceptics plans out slightly, I think it would have a more negative effect on us

Well the benefit of a surprise change in formation is that we've had a week (or at least a few days) being drilled in this formation whilst they've had zero preparation. The advantage of the diamond over a 3-5-2 is that we've played it a few times already too.

Edited April 27, 2018 by DMAA

[DMAA 3,603]

1 hour ago, TheUKCrazyhorse said:

You want the element of surprise - start O'Halloran instead of Windass

I actually think O'Hallaron is a great player to have on a bench because he will always offer something very different to what you have. and offers a genuine threat in his pace which Herrera/Miller don't really have.

 

However bizarrely after getting on the pitch last week he's not even in the provisional squad this time!

[Rousseau 9,370]

MOH's pace is frightening, but his decision-making is awful. It needs to be taken away from him, like Stirling at Man City. Stirling was poor initially, as he just ran without any end product; in comes Guardiola, giving him a specific job to do. 

 

MOH could be useful up front. Morelos, Windass and MOH pressing, and breaking, would cause any team trouble. 

[DMAA 3,603]

6 minutes ago, buster. said:

I watched a good part of all the three domestic defeats of Celtic this season and in all three, when asked 'a difficult question', they seemed to simply not be properly at the races and nor did they at any point look like finding their mojo.

Despite all the pundits waxing lyrical about Hibs last weekend, none of them seemed to mention that Celtic had every incentive to lose the game.

 

It's a scandal that the SFA put Celtic in a position where they had a very strong incentive to lose to Hibs one week and win against Rangers the next, giving Hibs a huge advantage in the fight for 2nd. This is a far bigger scandal than the fact alone that they allowed the title to be won in an old firm match.

[DMAA 3,603]

3 minutes ago, Rousseau said:

MOH's pace is frightening, but his decision-making is awful. It needs to be taken away from him, like Stirling at Man City. Stirling was poor initially, as he just ran without any end product; in comes Guardiola, giving him a specific job to do. 

 

MOH could be useful up front. Morelos, Windass and MOH pressing, and breaking, would cause any team trouble. 

I'm a huge fan of fast players and I think we've under-utilised them over the years. And as you say it's all about creating a system where their strengths are made very prominent in the game and their weaknesses mitigated. Man City are brilliant at getting the most out of Sterling's pace with the balls in behind. Spurs were great at getting the most of Aaron Lennon's pace too. And Neil Lennon has made Martin Boyle look very good in that Hibs team, whereas he would look bang average for us.

[buster. 4,808]

3 minutes ago, DMAA said:

Despite all the pundits waxing lyrical about Hibs last weekend, none of them seemed to mention that Celtic had every incentive to lose the game.

 

It's a scandal that the SFA put Celtic in a position where they had a very strong incentive to lose to Hibs one week and win against Rangers the next, giving Hibs a huge advantage in the fight for 2nd. This is a far bigger scandal than the fact alone that they allowed the title to be won in an old firm match.

I don't think the game was deliberately lost. For me, Hibs went out and won it, playing in such a way that exposed perhaps, a lack of urgency or degree of complacency. It was very similar to the Hearts 4-0 defeat in that respect.

 

The order of the fixtures seemed to be a contrived fudge after whatever negotiations went on between various authorities.

It didn't have the OF game first up but provided the best possibility for it to be delayed until the second round and the OF game.