Scott McDonald facing Celtic exit after row with Tony Mowbray....so says The Times

It's a difficult comparison to make saying who's delivered more in the big games. Samaras has only in the last 20 games or so started looking like a finished article. Seeing as he has done very well in Europe this season and didn't even start against Rangers last game it's not a great comparison.

You can't pick a player because last season he has played well. You have to consider current form which in McDonald's case simply hasn't been as good as Samaras.

The first 11 was absolutly spot on by Mowbray. I think this was justified in how we bossed the game. Secondly the sub to bring on McDonald was also spot on. Of course this is all easy in hindsight but for arguments sake we could've started McDonald and that subtle detriment to our overall play could have swung things in Rangers favour. Remember Samaras done a fantastic job of holding the ball up and continuing attacks.

I think the manager got it spot on, certainly not criminal by any stretch of the imagination.

 

Scott McDonald is our top scorer so far this season as well is he not?

So if Samaras has been so good and McDonald has been poor, as you seem to be suggesting, then how does that come about? They are very different players with different strengths and weaknesses. And I'm not rubbishing Samaras totally here, like I said I thought he did a lot of good things on Sunday. Again though I return to the point that it is pretty criminal to have your best finisher on the bench when you're missing chances by the dozen.

 

Yes he is but firstly (correct me if I'm wrong) he has played more than Samaras. If you were to ratio them per game Samaras has actually a better record. Therefore if for arguments sake they have an identical record - who would you rather, someone who works and creates chances yet scores similar amounts of goals or someone of Boyds ilk who is like an empty shirt +1 goal?

I'm not rubbishing McDonald either, in a previous post I have said he has a place here for us, especially as a 3rd choice striker to come off the bench and add goals. Also going across the season he will be fighting for that 1st/2nd place. But going by current form I think Fortune and Samaras contribute more and TM I reckon thinks that too.

 

But that's exactly it - before the game we didn't know we were going to waltz in and create 500 chances so TM had to make a call.

When it became apparant that our lineup was dominating the game and creating these chances - we needed someone who's prime ability is sticking it in the onion bag, TM got him on and got us the lead. That's not criminal - that's good management.

 

Well to my way of thinking, Old Firm games are a bit of a lore unto themselves. It takes a special kind of player to deliver the goods in an Old Firm game and Scott McDonald has proved beyond reasonable doubt that he is one of the players that can do it. Look at Kris Boyd, he's * in Old Firm games - pure rotten. When you have a player who has a track record of scoring in Old Firm games I think the guy should be playing. I'd speculate that the Rangers defence fear McDonald more than either of our other forwards.

 

I will give you this McDonald does look that bit more clinical in front of goals against the huns but he isn't perfect. But if he were to have a subdued performance (like the game at Ibrox) then it is basically an empty shirt which in this Old Firm would not be acceptable. In fairness to TM we done enough to win (also throw in the should've been a red card) but they got lucky. We need to be dominating teams like this across the entire season as over a season not even dodgy referees woulds top consistent good performances like that.

 

My thoughts exactly, play like that for the rest of the season and the league will be ours.

As for Scott McDonald, I could understand him being dropped simply because he's been poor in recent games, however, he still is our best finisher so I wouldn't want him sold unless we got another natural finisher in first, I'd rather keep him to the end of the season and then sell him, giving our new striker (wishful thinking) time to settle into the team.

Although I'd still rather we improved our defence first before getting a striker, but that's a whole other thread :icon_mrgreen:

 

Plenty of talk about him going to Middlesbrough with Strachan. To be honest though, I would back him to stay. Certainly hope so.

 

Think you're being overly harsh on Samaras. Bar a good instinctive save from McGregor, Samaras would have won us the match on Sunday. But yes, he should have done better with his first chance.

 

should have started simple as.i can understand why he's been linked with a move away,because lets face it we will never get someone to take the long haired lesbian of our hands,unless stevie wonder is the manager!
cant see us bringing in another striker unless skippy goes!please * lets hope it is'nt dave * kitson

 

Extremely harsh on Sammy (and imo totally uncalled for) Sammy has been playing well recently, better than Skippy although Skippy is still the better finisher, unfortunately in several games he's been posted missing this season.

 

There is no use playing like that if we can’t score goals though. I think we need to bring in a new striker that scores goals in order to win the league. If we don’t bring a striker in then I can’t see us winning the league. There are too many games this season where we should have been out of sight and have ended up with either a very nervy ending to a game or dropping points due to not being able to score goals. <?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-comfficeffice" /><o></o>

 

The bottom line is that it's results that count first and foremost, whether it Samaras, Fortune or Mac Donald hitting the back of the net I really don't care, just as long as we score more than our opponents whoever they might be.

Out of the three I would say that Mac Donald is probably the best finisher, but even he has not been as consistent as he has been in previous seasons. Whether it's the fact that the opposition defences get more familar to his moves or what I really don't know, but I think we need to freshen things up if we are to win the league.

 

The problem is we wont play like that for the rest of the month never mind the season,celtic have some very good games and play the way i am sure tony wants them to play 90% of the games but they just cant stay at that level for more than a few games at a time.
I would hope they fix the defence out before they buy a striker,many mnay games we have scored and would have won but for some mess up at the back door.

 

if you were manager of another club who would you buy skippy or sammy??just pointing out a simple fact!he's been playing well ye but without producing the goals on a regular basis,he's so frustrating most of the time,especially when he had 4 good chances against the shame!makes brilliant runs and passes it back to the keeper

 

his agent said he is goin nowhere, good news for me.

 

mc donald is our only natural striker just now and maybe the reason for under par performances is a hernia op needed,also if he is moany and huffy as said it shows he cares ,why not play all 3 use fortune as an attacking mid like sutton dropping deep to start attacks and balls from defence just seemed to stick to him, it may work.

 

Agent is says Scott McDonald only wants to stay at Celtic. That's good enough for me. It's * crazy to suggest we should sell our top scorer!! Absolutely crazy. Unless we have a quality replecement signed and sealed, someone who can guarantee us 25-30 goals a season then it's something i wouldn't even think of entertaining.

Furthermore, this * about a row with Mowbray - when will people start to realise that the crap they read in the papers is always just speculation. Infact it's not even that - most of the time it's lies that draw you in to buying what ever * rag the so called jounalist is scrawling his pish for. The tabloid media gets away with making money out of blatant lies!