Controversial Celtic Opinions

How? I don’t know if I fully agree with him, but there’s clear logic to what he’s saying: the Lions’s legendary status, affinity with the fans, and, in some cases, (especially Bertie and Billy) media friendly personas made them extremely influential voices. For the board to be seen to go against the opinion of some of the club’d most iconic ambassadors is a huge risk to supporter satisfaction, to merch/ticket sales, and ultimately to the share price.

Whether or not it’s strictly true that DD deliberately takes advantage of there being fewer living Lions is another thing, but it’s hardly ‘bizarre’ or beyond reason to suggest so, especially given his track record.

 

You’d be better addressing those questions to the guy making the argument; I’ve literally just told you I don’t know if I fully agree with him. Would be better asking him those than calling his opinion bizarre without justification.

All I’m saying is it isn’t ridiculous to think that the board take into consideration the voices of club ambassadors and icons, and that they may even take advantage of their being fewer of those individuals around, for instance, by feeling like they can go against fan wishes without having a powerful voice oppose them in the media.

Whether it’s actually true or not, the logic follows that it might be; there’s no crazy leap of faith to be had in saying that a person in power could, in theory, benefit from the absence of a powerful and (potentially) dissenting voice.

As you demonstrate, there are sound arguments against this too - such as DD being a fan, the Lions not often contradicting the board, and more besides - but there’s a huge difference between ‘bizarre’ and ‘untrue imo’.

 

But they still have influence with the support, in the fans eyes they are the pinnacle of what it is to be a celtic player/legend. While they are here the board know that their legacy needs to be respected and built on, with less of them being around sadly the board know they have less to hold on to that legacy.

 

We should have gave the job to Martin d instead of ange , he has the answer for everything it seems.

 

Tbh his answer was spot on and well constructed. I don’t get why you would have a controversial Celtic opinions thread if people are gonna spit the dummy out like this, it’s like these * weirdos that put “comments” under their dps then wonder when someone says they’re ugly * and their botox lips are a * disaster.

 

What answer? I never quoted his post and there's a few if you read them back , so your assuming his post was spot on , and is my post not controversial? So you've just contradicted yourself ?

 

Im sorry but Van Dijk, Wanyama, Forster, Mcgeady, Nakamura and Tierney were better than both.
Edouard hasnt reached the same level as none of the above when they were with us.

 

The few games he played with Moi infront of him, wasn’t a left footed player or 442. Just somebody infront of him that means the wing isn’t just his responsibility. To play one twos off of or overlap.

Vastly different levels of player I’m making this comparison with but it’s like Andy Robertson just getting the wing himself for Scotland. Not the kinda players to be able to beat a man from a standing start, with their back to goal.

I’ve not got much of a leg to stand on with this one and I’m aware of that, and I’ll hold my hands up if/when it’s proven wrong. Just don’t think he’s anywhere near as bad than is made out.

or as slow for that matter infact.

 

Depends how you define it. It could be Dembele, Eddy, Van Dijk and Tierney.

Could also be Broony, McGregor, Lustig and Forrest.

 

No way was Van Dijk better for us than Edouard and Dembele. Of course he is, and was, a very good player for us but there’s some amount of revisionism over him about his time at Celtic.

Wanyama was decent but not exactly a footballer with half decent technical ability. Was good at what he done though.

Nakamura is the only player there that rivals Edouard or Dembele in terms of genuine ability.

 

Reached higher than Van Dijk did with us, better team and management probably the reason because the talent is obvious. Which is why it’s hard to define.

Because for impact and what they done with us Commons and Sinclair could be a solid argument. Comparing Sinclair to Naka, achievement, goalscoring and assists Sinclair looks better. Naka is the superior player in my eyes though.

 

I’d count that as revisionism as well, not many people were surprised he was capable of this sort of technique at the time.

 

Ah I’m not so sure on that. I’m sure I could pluck a few of Scott Brown’s class goals out as well but I couldn’t use that to justify him as having above average technique either tbh..

 

That’s another one I’d argue about being harshly thought of technique wise tbf

But with Wanyama, he was not a McGregor technique wise but we knew at the time what ability he had and the technique he could display. Remember him as an attacking RCB, dribbling round people and delivering dangerous balls in?

People forget the ability he had and think he was just a midfield Bobo. Was much more than that.

 

Tbf we probably just have different parameters in determining technique

I suppose there’s no exact hard and fast rules about what constitutes technique

For me, he made us solid defensively but the combination of him and Brown sometimes stifled us going forward in a creative sense due to their ‘technique’...became heavily reliant on the likes of Commons to create stuff out of nothing at that time

 

And yet that midfield was one of the highest scoring we’ve had between Wanyama, Ledley and Commons. Even discounting Commons it still was.

Stokes was also consistently the biggest creater around that time. Mulgrew was always up there in double figures as well, Samaras was more creative than a goalscorer. And that’s not even bringing Hooper into the conversation.

Izzy was also very dangerous, without actually making many assists, Matthews or Lustig and a young Forrest.

That was a very creative team, that had a lot of different styles of attacking.

The season Wanyama was sold was the season overly reliant on Commons I think.

 

How are you quantify that? As in competition and as part of the team?

I would strongly argue that VVD was able to string together far more class performances, especially domestically, than edouard has.