stop this ungrateful snipping at WGS

No offence mate, but the fact it gets on your nerves doesn't alter the fact that it's true.

Gordon Strachan was our most successful manager since Jock Stein.

And the main factor in that success was getting to the Champions League knockout stage two years in a row. The quality or otherwise of the Huns don't come into it. We had bigger fish to fry, and we feckin fried 'em.

I have high hopes for Tony, but he'll have to do a * of a job to equal what Gordon achieved...

 

Wgs had his time , love him or hate him he is gone.
I didn't like his style of football or his attitude.

Thanks for the trophy's Gordon.

Time to move on and get behind big Mogga.

 

AYE ok m8...everyone to there own..i think your gordon strachan

 

i think its time to let this rest and look to the future,this could be argued all day evey day, both mon and wgs gave us times to celebrate and enjoy and that is wot life is all about so lets hope and pray theres more to come and give respect to their acheivments no matter how grudgingly .

 

his style of football was pish, thank * he is away.:bbpd:

the mans arrogance did my head in.:bbpd:

 

If you thought Strachan's style of football was pish, you're going to hate Mowbray because we're in for more of the same. In every match we've played, he's used the same team, the same methods and almost the same tactics.

Strachan's team liked to keep the ball on the deck and play a short passing game. I don't know about you, but that's the kind of football I want to see us play. And Mowbray looks like he wants to continue using those methods which I'm very happy about. But obviously you won't be.

 

he was an average manager at best - and he was a total pr*ck. i'm really glad he's gone. wow he managed to win 3 league titles, against 10 dross SPL teams and Rangers, who have spent a net total of minus £5 million in the last 4 years.

Congratulations. Anyone, literally anyone, could have won the first two - and the the third one was in the balance.

we got beaten fair and square last season, by a selling club. but still, what a brilliant manager strachan was, yeah sure, dont talk *.

look he was trying to sign before he left, McCarthy and Fletcher, both of whom are overated and average. Typical Strachan signings therefore.

apart from boruc he didnt make any outstanding buys. Nakamura was overated, and Scott Brown is quite good, probably worth £4 million but nothing more.

* and an average manager. really boring football and a team steadily getting worse.

 

and if he was still manager, we would have resigned hartley and venegoor - no doubt.

and we would be carrying on down the same path of being * and boring. glad he's gone

 

So can you explain how he got us to the knockout stages of the Champions League two seasons in a row? When a previous excellent manager (MON) with a bigger budget, never managed it once in five years of trying?

Feel free to admit you dislike this Celtic manager for whatever personal reason you may have, but don't insult our intelligence by saying he was an average manager at best. When it's crystal clear that his achievements in the Champions League - i.e. in real football - were simply exceptional. No other word for it - exceptional.

 

WE COULD SAY that mon was unlucky not to make it to the last 16 with the same points in the group stages as strachan got,when other teams made it with 8pts i think rangers made it with 7pts one year

comparing what the 2 managers did in compitition is not what we disliked him for.
i disliked the constant pish football we were seeing .

watching celtic struggle most weeks is painfull and should not be the celtic way

its says something when in our seville year when we won nothing fans say the wouldent have changed that season for the world as it was a great ride
celtic fans young and old had a reason to celebrate the beauty that was the celtic road show

seville will never be forgotton and we LOST.. the occasion was more important.. its the stuff of legends

 

You could indeed say that - and in my book you'd be right. MON was unlucky not to make the knockout phase.

But the point I'm making is that Gordon actually managed it, and it wasn't a fluke, cos he did it again the very next year. So for the poster above to say he was "average at best", is not only an insult to Strachan, but an insult to MON too.

 

i agree

in my case it was just the way we played,, it was the way strachan never seemed to listen to people,it was his way or your not playing,

he even had the gaul to address the fans and say sorry and that he made mistakes /wrong decisions on TBs big charity day just weeks ago

i never said anything at the time but i thought him speaking at celtic park was even more arrogant than ever

we always new his decisions were wrong we knew his selections were wrong,,he waited till we were no longer champions to tell us what we had been saying for 2/3 years previously

the man was a * of the highest order

 

No.

 

agree 100%, Nothing against WGS, But just look at the future now.

 

Some fantastic points Gunt.

 

I liked O'Neill, I didn't like Strachan and I can tell already I like Mowbray.

O'Neill and Mowbray have an aura about them, they always tell everything how it is and don't mess about making excuses or trying to kid people. Strachan always messed about saying green was blue and everything was fine.

Strachan and Mowbray's styles are nothing alike at all either.

Strachan played a standard static 4-4-2, no-one had any freedom and the players played like they had a 20 square meter box they weren't allowed out of. We zonal marked at set-peices. We had no playing style, everything relied on going down the wings and trying to get goals from somwhere but there was no set pattern or style or tactic. In matches Caldwell and McManus would pass the ball to and back each other all the time in every game because we always tried to do the same thing.

Mowbray has a style which he trains the players everyday that involves the whole team, in training they play pass and move and constantly trains that into the players. Always wants to keep posession, pass and move, attack from all angles our "wide players" are no longer stuck out wide and only there. We have played in a 4-4-2 but we can easily transform from his style of 4-4-2 which at times is usually 2-4-4 with McGeady and Maloney acting like second forwards in free roles and the full-backs pushing up beside the two central midfielders. We attack from all areas, we pass it through the middle, attack from out wide through the full-backs and all different stuff. McGeady and Maloney constantly changes sides and stay central so that we can come through the middle of the park and have them in behind the two strikers and feed the ball through. Not only that but we don't do the zonal marking any more, all throw-ins are taken by the full-backs and we leave atleast 3 players up the pitch now when the opposition have a corner, Strachan would leave no-one most of the time. There's more risk taking with all the players McGeady and Maloney play much higher up the pitch, the full-backs play much higher up the pitch, the centre backs play higher up the pitch, our centre-mids sit around the half way line, not half way in our own half.

That person who said Strachan and Mowbray play the same way must be blind.

 

1. Opposition

People say that WGS beating rangers was easy because they were poor. Well why did you fail to develop the same attitude to MON when he lost to two equally * Rangers side in 2 out of his last 3 season. People say MON had to play better Rangers sides but that is strangely only true of the first two seasons when he wiped them. Oddly, when Rangers got worse he started to lose to them. Poor Rangers sides beat MON's side 2 out of 3 times in his last 3 years. That of course is never mentioned.

Also conveniantly forgotten is the so called pish Rangers side that WGS bear got through loads of ties against good sides to get to the UEFA final. OK football was ugly but it worked and it was an achievement to stop them. The same style took under the same managers allowed Scotland to beat France twice and Italy etc. It works. We should know because we used it ourselves in the CL. Even this season, Rangers ability to grimly mass defend a 1-0 was still something that was a formidable weapon. We just never stooped to playing that way in the SPL.

Also, if it was all down to a * Rangers how come that in addition to the best SPL records since Stein he has the best European record since Stein too? Luck? You make your own luck. Our CL runs were entirely down to WGS's tactics. No other manager who felt tied to the Celtic way would have attempted to shut up shop for 80 minutes then hit then in the last few at home. All other managers would have played more open and they would have been well beaten by 5-2 sort of scorelines. WGS is the only manager we have ever had that accepted our huge limitations against top sides. The Celtic way hasnt worked in Europe since Stein. If Mowbray plays open attacking football expect high score 6-2 type loses against the top sides. Then again I think there are some dafties who would prefer that.


2, Running down/ruining a good side


That is pure madness to acuse WGS of that. Strange thing is people talk about the slow decline of the team in WGS's last couple of seasons but ffs the decline under MON was worse in terms of results and style and he has to take the blame for not being able to find decent low budget players. His signings were useless in his last 4 seasons meaning 5 years on we had a team of players past their best so if anyone almost destroyed a good side it was MON. WGS has left a great legacy in 1st team players and reserves.

3. Style

As for style, no Celtic side I can remember played as ugly football as post-Seville MON's side. Many people were begging for creative players and real wide players and in WGS first season, we played some of the best passing winning football we had seen in many years at the time. It was a huge improvement on the previous couple of seasons fair. The dislike for WGS and fetish for MON among some of our fans means that this is not openly admitted.

conclusion

I hate to be sucked into using MON as an instrument to point out thay the crazy biased attitudes against WGS and lame excuses for it just make no sense. But the difference in attitude to MON and WGS is so huge and so detached from reality it has to be done. This attitude relies on completley airbrushing MON's failures and then explaining away WGS success as down to luck and bad oppostion, things that do not stand up to examination. Even comments about style of play make no sense without rose tined galss airbrusing away the post-Seville years. Even the accusations about his dislike and disprespect for hacks makes no sense when you consider many tims spend a lot of time feeling the same way about the Scottish press.

The truth is that none of the reasons given for the love for MON and the hate of WGS stand up to facts and are just excuses. Many people just hated him from the start and only very grudgingly and in a qualiied way acknowledged even the greatest heights of success. There is clearly just something about WGS that made fans hate him from the start.

I think the main reason is that there are a lot of over emotional types in our fanbase who take the club and themselves far too serously are far too easily impressed by people who say and are seen to do the right thing and put on the big solem dead earnest face on and talk all the talk and cliches about Celtic being more than a club etc etc. A lot of tims lap up this sort of rather cheesy homage and demand the whole big respect thing. That type of supporter seems to have to be constantly soothed and praised like an insecure child. MON was slick and did all these platitudes but WGS is a football man first and last and wouldnt do all that false sincerity stuff.

 

How can you use these two sentences in the same paragraph?

What exactly does the 'demise of Rangers' have to do with our opposition in the Champions League?

 

Madness. All we saw was games where opposition midfield and especially defensive marking was exceptionally poor which allowed us to pass with some more comfort.

 

1. Rangers when Martin O'Neill was against them were a lot better than Rangers now. They were atleast a level above them, I would say at the time Rangers always had atleasy 4 good players. Rangers now I wouldn't even class a single player of theirs as a good player.

Martin O'Neills team was also great to watch as we attacked all game every game and would win more often than not 3-0+ in every home game, sometimes we'd win 5-0, 6-0, 4-0, 5-1. We always humped everyone at home. In Europe we knew we were a very good team, scared of no-one and able to beat everyone at home which we always did. Under Strachan we knew we weren't that good, we rarely outplayed anyone in Europe and a lot of our wins were fortunate late wins. Strachan also never bettered Martin O'Neill in Europe, O'Neill's team twice got 9 points in the Group Stage, Strachan only done that once, so O'Neill's team clearly performed better.

Also I bet if you looked to the tables, Strachan's team would never once have got more points than O'Neill's I bet O'Neills lowest points tally in the SPL was higher than Strachan's highest.

2. I agree with both points, O'Neill left a highly paid aging team but to have as good a team as we did we couldn't afford wages of loads of squad players or to sign many other players but it worked as we won the League more than Rangers then and since. Strachan I think went stale after two years he had to change his style as we were being found out in the SPL, players were man marking McGeady but we still played the same way for two more years and as a result nearly lost the League in both seasons despite having better and more players, unlike O'Neill Strachan was lucky to win it one season and almost lucky to win it again last season O'Neill was unlucky to lose it on both occasions we did.

3. O'Neill's teams always performed at home and abroad their style wasn't to play fancy passing football. It was to run all over the top of the other team and win by piling the ball into the net and it worked, every game of every season was enjoyable. Strachan had not pattern to his play, we played good football in his first season but after that honey moon and his style was worked out we just scraped through for 3 seasons because we had better players than everyone but the games were always boring and there was no fun in going to them.

Conclusion

I liked O'Neill because we had a very good team, we always beat the Rangers(way more often than not anyway), we feared no-one in Europe, we won all our home games and were unlucky loads of times on the road, Juventus, Lyon last minute dodgy penalties to lose the game, Bayern Munich two late Hedman howlers or we'd have won, AC Milan two late Inzaghi goals or we'd have got the draw. It was brllliant every game was enjoyable and our play deserved to win 5 in a row, Rangers were lucky to win those two Leagues. O'Neill also had an aura of being a great manager about him, he knew what he wanted and how to make it happen.

Strachan I dislike because I never got much joy out of watching us with him as manager. The team was a poorer standard than O'Neills, Strachan was a funny character that I don't particularly like. He brought success but he was lucky to have, Like I said previous O'Neill should have won 5 in a row, Strachan could have won 4 in a row but he should only have won 2. Like how I mentioned in Europe also we were lucky on occasion, late goals against AC Milan and Shakhtar Donetsk. Undre O'Neill we always well deserved everything we got.

Like I said with O'Neill we were unlucky away to AC Milan, Juventus, Bayern Munich, Lyon and extra time of the UEFA Final and Valencia on penalties. With Strachan I always thought we were lucky instead of that good.

I believe there is a saying "I'd rather be a lucky team than a good team" but I would rather be a good team than a lucky team. At least when your good, you know you are and have that confidence about you. The confidence of being a good team has returned already with Mowbray and the nervousness of being lucky has disappeared since Strachan left.