I would like to know fans views on this, Why are we giving Mowbray alot mroe time that we gave Barnes, Both spent roughly the same amount of money, both had plans for the ''long term future''.
Barnes had a better reign as manager than what Mowbray has had, so why arent people forcing him out the door like we did Barnes ?
Discuss Mowbray & Barnes in the Celtic Chat area at TalkCeltic.net.
Page 1 of 2
-
-
The reason is that the players that Barnes inherited were better than the group of players that Mowbray has inherited. Barnes inherited Larsson, Moravcik and Lambert i dont think that tony has inherited any players of that class.
-
Senna s1979
- Joined:
- Jan 21, 2010
- Messages:
- 8,876
- Likes Received:
- 4,854
- Location:
- Kent
- Fav Celtic Player:
- Danny McGrain
Larsson, Lambert, Viduka and Moravcik - Super Caley go ballistic, Celtic are atrocious.
Nothing to do with players - its the results. -
Yes and he still got the sack for better results ? Mowbray has had enough money to spend himself its his own fault for buying guys like fortune etc
-
That won't be the reason but you make a good point BorucNo1... Every manager Celtic have had in the last 14 year period has inherited better players than the donkeys that Strachan left behind.. They gave Mowbray a rebuilding job and they are going to give him time to complete it , unlike some fans , many of whom knew ages ago that Mowbray wasn't upto the job and keep reminding us about it..
-
Barnes inerited some good players who didnt make a good team but Mogga inherited a team who had played in the CL for 3 years, done last 16 twice and come within one game of 4 in a row. And note too that Rangers squad got substantially weaker this season so it should have been easier. So, Mogga has no excuse to (by his own choice apparently) mess around with a near-winning team so much that he turns it into a disaster in results terms (which is all that matters). It feels a lot to me that the team was radically changed when they had only lost by a small margin in a late slump. Why??? That does not seem proportionate to the problems we had if you are being stictly practical. There seems to have been idealism and concerns over style behind that and the fans must accept blame for tranfering this feeling on to the board.
-
John Barnes was and is a poor excuse for a manager. No amount of historical revisionism will change the fact that the last ten years of doing nothing is testimony to how poor he is. Mowbray's record, however, is very, very good.
Personally, I'd compare Mowbray to Dr Joe. Both have a good eye for a bargain, both coach attacking and attractive football, both treated shamefully by a media nowhere near their level of class or intelligence, both unlucky with player injury and both judged unfairly by a large portion of the fans (like this Mowbray is Barnes pish). -
At what, all he has won is the championship and got pumped back down the very next year, he might be good at playing fancy football but wins * all, and resluts are all that matter * fancy football -
Its not all about player quality. Its about how you form a team. The manager has a big role. WGS got miracles out of these 'donkeys'. Remember that in the first season he only had 4 MON regular players in his team and won the league. In his second and third seasons he won the league and took us to the last 16 twice. In the first of these title and last 16 runs he had only one player (Lenny) from MON's normal team. In the 2nd title and last 16 run there were none of MON's players. People really want to play down WGS's achievements and credit old MON players but this is very very far from the truth. Mogga inherited a core who had been involved in the glories of WGS's 2nd and 3rd seasons-Artur, Hinkel, Naylor, Caldwell, Mick, Brown. Robson, Maloney, McGeady and Skippy. That was a core of winners at home and abroad. How did he somehow manage to take them and then horse trade in a way that has turned this core of heros into a side that trail Rangers by double figures.
-
I dont think that mowbray should've made such wholesale changes that he has done. I beleive that he has tried to change too much to quickly but i think in the long term things will work out. Rangers squad has'nt really got weaker, who have they had to sell? They have'nt been able to strengthen granted, but we should have won the laegue easily last season and the same applies to this season.
-
Firstly, the Championship is a considerably more competitive and talented League than the SPL. Secondly, he took West Brom to the semi-finals of the FA Cup, one of the most competitive domestic Cup competitions in the world.
You also can't fault the work he did at Hibs - fourth twice, latter-stages of the Cups and into Europe. Most of his best players also made their way to Glasgow, if you remember.
You're comparing that to Barnes, whose only high point includes a first-place finish with Jamaica in the Caribbean Cup?
So again, enough of the historical revisionism.
I also didn't catch your opinion on the Mowbray is more like Venglos point. -
i am sick of mowbray. i cant get my head round that the puffa jacket wearing * used to be a centre half. jog on
-
I don't care about bringing up Strachans first 2 seasons in particular as the squad had regressed (strachanised is a word people use) by the end of the 3rd season.. The huns threw away that title just like we threw away what should have been 4 in a row...
In his fourth season he got us papped out the Champions league and Europe altogether by finishing last in the group and still managed to turn a 7 point lead into a 4 point deficit in the space of 5 months while getting us papped out of the Scottish cup early on.. We had no fixture congestion as an excuse back then and what has happenned since then has been a continuation of the exact same results.. It had to be changed or we'd have been staring at the huns going for 2 in a row.. Mowbray has changed the personnel but he hasn't got a team out on the park that is gelling or giving consistent performances.. Nobody can argue with that and it's not good enough but there are reasons why it's happened (unlike Strachan who was taking squad progression backwards) and it simply boils down to a person to decided for themselves if they back the manager to be given more time to finish the rebuilding job he inherited , or if they don't..
It's plainly obvious from your posts that you don't back him... You say the English championship title Mowbray won is no good because it's a rubbish league and you say you rather we went for someome like Levein or Hughes who's done a decent job at lesser clubs in Scotland.. That's where your clutching at straws ends for me as Levein has never finished third in the SPL , Mowbray did with Hibs , and Levein was a failure when he tested himself outside Scotland with Leicester , in a league where Mowbray won the title.. You have a real good way of harping on about Strachan and Scottish players (journeyman) and their punch above their weight mentality like they are some kind of winning formula that is essential to a thriving Celtic domestically and in Europe.. Im sorry but your alone in that thought , or at best you are in the minority with that nonsensical theory.. -
-
Think this is a myth. Many SPL sides have an excellent passing game. The championship and even the base of the EPL (those yoyo teams) usually play poor and negative football. I suspect as individuals the players (usually the black guys) are much more athletic but as teams the football is terrible. Many of the teams (Killie, Falkirk, Hibs, Dundee United and Aberdeen today etc) have given us good games based on a very decent passing game. I would go as far as to say that the SPL has developed a far more continental style (passing, possession, tactical) than you see in England where its all about athletics and pace IMO.
-
Heard all this before. It was all luck both at home and in Europe...
You say the squad was 'Strachanised'. He did reduce the amount of MON regulars in his first 11 from four to one to none within 24 months. However, note that we had our last 16s and two of our three title wins when we had one and no MON players in the team respectively i.e our best seasons were with the fully 'Strachanised' side.
You have a common perception of WGS but perception is all it is. His record is there. Its the best in the last 35 years and the 2nd best in 122 years. Like many things, a bit of time and season like this need to pass before people realise how good he was. People claim he was crap and his players were crap but both cannot be correct. He showed a rare talent for building a teams who win on all fronts with really modest players. That is probably the job description of a modern Celtic manager.
Many think MON is the dugs nads and no doubt would explain away how its OK that he won only 1 of his last 3 SPLs and hadnt signed a single first pick player in about 4 years by the time he left. Its also somehow OK for MON to lose a 2 of his last 3 SPLs on the last day of the season to Rangers but its terrible if WGS did it once in 4 years. People say WGS beat weak Rangers sides but MON was in his later years beaten by weak Rangers sides under Eck etc. People have a grossly skewed perception when comparing MON and WGS that just does not stand up to facts.Last edited by a moderator: Feb 13, 2010 -
:56::56::56:
-
Three in a row :bbpd:
I'd take strachan back anyday Why because he is a winner.
Face it mowbrays teams will have the same Problems until he is gone look at WBA promise after promise after promise to those fans broken, he said season after season to them he would improve the defence and didn't.
That's what will happen here.
If the championship Is such a good league why were WBA allowed to win it with the defence they had under TM? -
Gunt i agree with all your posts so far :50:
-
FFS... I've made it clear Im not interested in using Strachans first two seasons as some kind of gauage of where the team was when TM took over.. I've moved on from Strachan but keeping getting dragged back into the Strachan years by people like you who think everything was great throughout his whole tenure and that the turgid pish quality of football on show for the last two seasons was actually a figment of my imagination... The squad had regressed , turning a 7 point lead into a 4 point deficit over a space of 5 months.. That was when and why TM took over , and there's been reasons why it hasn't worked out for him , one of them being injuries to almost the entire team at some point in this season meaning he's never had consistency in team selections and this has been reflected in results..
I was a Strachan supporter and Im grateful for the success he brought and will thank him if I ever meet him but it's totally irrelevant to start harping on about his success when it's got nothing to do with the state the first team was in when he left.. We were full of journeymen who knew what it meant to win but also knew they'd have to grind out a result against any opposition as the ability to outplay and outscore them was very questionable... -
Mowbray Is being given time because he used to play for us WGS would still be here if he used to play for us.
Page 1 of 2