Full Version: Walter Myth
I had chicken and chips. Although for some reason, the chicken doesn't want to stay down. It's like a dying cat fighting for it's last breath.
I think he is referring to the fact that Walter Smith apparently has "the Indian sign" over Celtic, the myth that we can never beat his Rangers teams.
Certainly four wins in a row suggested much the same thing, but the last two games we have looked fantastic against them, carving out far better goalscoring opportunities and scoring some great goals.
I never bought into it, and I'm relieved Strachan and Celtic have finally dispelled this stupid myth.
Certainly four wins in a row suggested much the same thing, but the last two games we have looked fantastic against them, carving out far better goalscoring opportunities and scoring some great goals.
I never bought into it, and I'm relieved Strachan and Celtic have finally dispelled this stupid myth.
LOLERSKATEZ!!!!!
QUOTE (Gallacticos @ Apr 27 2008, 17:50) 
I think he is referring to the fact that Walter Smith apparently has "the Indian sign" over Celtic, the myth that we can never beat his Rangers teams.
Certainly four wins in a row suggested much the same thing, but the last two games we have looked fantastic against them, carving out far better goalscoring opportunities and scoring some great goals.
I never bought into it, and I'm relieved Strachan and Celtic have finally dispelled this stupid myth.
Certainly four wins in a row suggested much the same thing, but the last two games we have looked fantastic against them, carving out far better goalscoring opportunities and scoring some great goals.
I never bought into it, and I'm relieved Strachan and Celtic have finally dispelled this stupid myth.
Aye right enough, your goals today were smashing. An offside goal, a deflected strike and a penalty that was given for a foul outside the box. Top drawer indeed.
QUOTE (dave258 @ Apr 27 2008, 20:55)
Aye right enough, your goals today were smashing. An offside goal, a deflected strike and a penalty that was given for a foul outside the box. Top drawer indeed.
Each one will no doubt appear on this months "Goal of the Month" competition
QUOTE (dave258 @ Apr 27 2008, 20:55)
Aye right enough, your goals today were smashing. An offside goal, a deflected strike and a penalty that was given for a foul outside the box. Top drawer indeed.
The offside goal was really well worked, a great and effective counterattack, and yes, it was offside, but that's hardly the detriment of a great move and finish, is it?
The second goal was a superb passing movement, we kept the ball for ages before it went to McDonald, moving from the right wing to the left. McDonald's shot would have gone in anyway I think, it was looping that high, but yes it was deflected.
The penalty was a penalty. But it was great vision by Hartley (or was it Nakamura? Can't remember) to pick out McDonald and a great run from him to get into the position to win it.
Not the best goals we've ever scored but good team goals that I was happy with.
QUOTE (Gallacticos @ Apr 27 2008, 23:55)
The offside goal was really well worked, a great and effective counterattack, and yes, it was offside, but that's hardly the detriment of a great move and finish, is it?
The second goal was a superb passing movement, we kept the ball for ages before it went to McDonald, moving from the right wing to the left. McDonald's shot would have gone in anyway I think, it was looping that high, but yes it was deflected.
The penalty was a penalty. But it was great vision by Hartley (or was it Nakamura? Can't remember) to pick out McDonald and a great run from him to get into the position to win it.
Not the best goals we've ever scored but good team goals that I was happy with.
The second goal was a superb passing movement, we kept the ball for ages before it went to McDonald, moving from the right wing to the left. McDonald's shot would have gone in anyway I think, it was looping that high, but yes it was deflected.
The penalty was a penalty. But it was great vision by Hartley (or was it Nakamura? Can't remember) to pick out McDonald and a great run from him to get into the position to win it.
Not the best goals we've ever scored but good team goals that I was happy with.
The first, Weir was well behind the play, leaving McDonald free and offside. So yes, the fact he was offside WAS 'to the detriment of a great move and finish'.
The second, I don't think was going in, I think it was heading straight for Alexander. That's neither here nor there though, as that one is a matter of opinion, not fact.
The penalty wasn't a penalty, as the contact was made outside the box. Your earlier defence in the other thread about him riding the challenge until he got into the box is a nonsense. So if a player is tripped outside the box but stays on his feet until he gets over the 18 yard line then goes down it's a penalty? No, it isn't.
Take off your green tinted glasses for a while and discuss the game on it's fact's and merits.
Take off your green tinted spectacles and discuss the game on it's merits.
QUOTE (dave258 @ Apr 27 2008, 20:55)
Aye right enough, your goals today were smashing. An offside goal, a deflected strike and a penalty that was given for a foul outside the box. Top drawer indeed.
Aye and the Huns were not much better, a goal off of a 60yrs olds ear lobe while he was looking the other way, then a flick on from a transvestite malteser!
QUOTE (youroldda @ Apr 28 2008, 16:20)
Aye and the Huns were not much better, a goal off of a 60yrs olds ear lobe while he was looking the other way, then a flick on from a transvestite malteser!
It's only fair that Caldewell gets an assist for the elbow used in that one
QUOTE (dave258 @ Apr 28 2008, 08:26)
The penalty wasn't a penalty, as the contact was made outside the box.
The first goal was certainly offside, but the penalty was a stonwall penalty.
It is irrelevant that the contact began outside the box. Comedy Kirk rugby tackled him inside the box.
QUOTE (Jimmy Shaker @ Apr 27 2008, 17:30)
Do we have to work out wtf you are on about or just make up our own threads?
In future, at least provide the bare minimum of information about a topic..
QUOTE (dave258 @ Apr 28 2008, 08:26)
The first, Weir was well behind the play, leaving McDonald free and offside. So yes, the fact he was offside WAS 'to the detriment of a great move and finish'.
The second, I don't think was going in, I think it was heading straight for Alexander. That's neither here nor there though, as that one is a matter of opinion, not fact.
The penalty wasn't a penalty, as the contact was made outside the box. Your earlier defence in the other thread about him riding the challenge until he got into the box is a nonsense. So if a player is tripped outside the box but stays on his feet until he gets over the 18 yard line then goes down it's a penalty? No, it isn't.
Take off your green tinted glasses for a while and discuss the game on it's fact's and merits.
Take off your green tinted spectacles and discuss the game on it's merits.
The second, I don't think was going in, I think it was heading straight for Alexander. That's neither here nor there though, as that one is a matter of opinion, not fact.
The penalty wasn't a penalty, as the contact was made outside the box. Your earlier defence in the other thread about him riding the challenge until he got into the box is a nonsense. So if a player is tripped outside the box but stays on his feet until he gets over the 18 yard line then goes down it's a penalty? No, it isn't.
Take off your green tinted glasses for a while and discuss the game on it's fact's and merits.
Take off your green tinted spectacles and discuss the game on it's merits.
Yes, I'm the one who's not being objective.
Stonewall penalty. And yes, McDonald was offside but that's the way the cookie crumbles. I was happy with the goals we scored as we've been banging in some absolutely terrible ones lately.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.