Who was a worse Celtic manager in your opinion: John Barnes or Tony Mowbray?

By the way for everyone using Larsson's absence as an excuse for Barnes, Mowbray didn't have Larsson either, or anyone even remotely lose to his calibre.

 

As a manager I'd say that Barnes is worse overall but Mowbray was a very poor Celtic manager considering just how much managerial experience he had while JB had none upon becoming the gaffer here. Mowbray tried to change too much, too quickly. Wasted too much of his transfer budget on a striker that wasn't prolific enough, when we really needed a prolific one to take the weight off McDonald. Selling him was a huge mistake at the time. He brought in and played too many players that didn't seem to care enough. He pretty much publicly slated the team he inherited and didn't seem to have control of a dressing room that had championship winning players in it. I doubt he had the respect of several players at the club. Rogne and Ki were good signings from Mowbray although both were fairly young and at the time, didn't seem ready to be the players the club needed them to be. Hooiveld, while having done well since leaving us, was poor here and spent too much time mouthing off in the press instead of focusing on being the best player he could be for Celtic. Thomson, Fox, Braafheid, NGuemo, Zhi, Rassmussen and Kamara were awful signings and Mowbray would most likely have lost his job a lot sooner were it not for Keane helping the team to a few wins.

Barnes signed a good player in Berkovic (ignoring his bad attitude) and a player with a lot of potential (Petrov) but his signings were awful bar these two. Scheidt was far too expensive for the amount of games he played but it's impossible to know if he would have been better had he not been plagued by injury adding to the fact that he apparently found it difficult to settle here. Scheidt was a weird one because he featured regularly for every club he played for bar Celtic. Bobby Petta was a player that we didn't see his best out of until Saint Martin came in.

While Barnes can have the excuse of having no previous managerial experience, Mowbray couldn't and based on that I feel that he was worse.

 

Mowbray was worse, if Larsson didnt get that leg break Barnes might have won something.

 

I think while Mowbray has proven himself at others clubs (therefore better than Barnes by default), I think he did a worse job at Celtic. For the simple reason that Barnes took over an ok celtic side and made them bad. Mowbray took over a good celtic team, demolished it, and spent millions in doing so. I like and respect Mowbray, and I have little time for Barnes, but there is no denying that Mowbray was an utter disaster for Celtic.

 

It's like choosing between crabs and piles.

 

The team Barnes inherited had far more talent in it than the team Mowbray inherited.

 

The first answer that comes into your mind is invariably right one.

John Barnes

 

Maybe both managers would have done a bit better if they were afforded the same time as Lennon got. If Henrik never got injured against Lyon you never know what kinda season we might have had with Barnes. Would Martin Oniells 1st season been as good if you had taken Larsson out of his team??? Viduka and Larsson leading the line all season ?? Same with Mowbray, he had to change over a full squad but didnt do it when he first came in as i think he thought the squad was better than what it was. He then tried to overhaul it at Christmas and was also flung a last minute loan signing of Robbie Keane. No matter how hard you try it takes time to gel a team and doing it will never be done overnight so if maybe he was given another season as Lennon was given you never know what he might have done as he has done a pretty decent job everywhere else he has been. Thin line between success and failure.

 

Pius IX

Mowbray was a complete and utter failure and no amount of time or Celtic links from the 1990s can change that mate, accept it and don't worry I wouldn't say he was worse than Barnes by a massive distance. Close vote tho, interesting.

 

barnes-he was black!just kidding pc nutters-mowbray was worse for my money cos he was an experienced manager-john barnes was just idealistic-and who knows-if henrik hadnt got injured???KD takes the derry imo for leaving JB to take the flak when things went * up

 

Have I said that Tony Mowbray didn't fail as Celtic manager? No, I haven't.

If you want me to accept that Mowbray was a worse manager than John Barnes then you'll be waiting a while. I won't ever accept that because I don't believe it's true.

 

This. both were painful, irritating and should of been avoided!!! But like Piles and Crabs one is more embarrassing so Im going to go with Barnes. its close but.

 

I'll say this - either of them could easily have had us top of division three after three games.

 

was to young to remember barnes season so i'll go with mowbary will never forgive him for the 4-0 game against st mirren embarrassing