Sportsound Watch

[Estragon]

1 hour ago, Darren said:

It's not semantics, there's no confusion about what Tom English said. He made an arse of it.

So you think Rodgers has done well in Europe over the piece?

[Guest JTS98]

15 hours ago, kingjoey said:

Not sure if you’re referring to yourself with the last word. Tom English is spot on. The “Celtic can beat anyone at home in Europe” mentality has disappeared during Rodgers tenure at Celtic Park. Strangely as Celtic have become more dominant in Scotland, their relevance in Europe has been watered down.

I think the point about domestic dominance is well off the mark.

Look at 2000-2004. In that time Celtic achieved the following domestically.

2000-01 : 97 points, won the league by 15 points, 31 points ahead of third place, won the treble.

2001-02: 103 points, won the league by 18 points, 45 points ahead of third place, 98 goals scored.

2002-03: 97 points, 98 goals scored, missed out on the title by a goal, beat Aberdeen 7-0 and 4-0, beat Killie 5-0, beat Dundee 6-2, beat Dunfermline (top 6) 4-1 away from home twice, won 4-1 at Tynecastle.

2003-04: 98 points, 105 goals scored, won the league by 17 points, finished 30 points clear of third place, beat Hibs 6-0, beat Hearts, Killie and Dundee United 5-0, also beat United and Livi 5-1, beat Aberdeen 4-0... Also won the Scottish Cup.

So, we can see that domestic football was an absolute stroll for Celtic. They won the league by 15, 17, and 18 points. They routinely battered non-Old firm teams by huge scorelines, they scored a huge number of goals.

Did this hold them back in Europe?

2000-2001: UEFA Cup Third Round. Beaten 3-2 by Bordeaux. Hardly a catastrophe.

2001-02: Won 3-1 at Ajax in the qualifiers, home wins against Juventus, Porto and Rosenborg in the Champions League, only lost in Turin because of a soft penalty. Unlucky to go out. Beaten on penalties by Valencia in the UEFA Cup. Decent showing.

2002-03: Beat Blackburn, Celta Vigo, Stuttgart, Liverpool, Boavista to reach the UEFA Cup final.

2003-04: Minutes away from getting out of their Champions League group. Home wins over Anderlecht and Lyon, draw and a narrow defeat to Bayern. Went on to knock Barcelona out of the UEFA Cup before losing in the quarter finals.

So, we can see that Celtic's European performances over these four seasons were generally pretty good. Impressive wins in the Champions League and two deep runs in the UEFA Cup. All this despite routinely battering domestic opposition senseless.

The bottom line is that Martin O'Neill was able to come in and sign good English Premier League level players such as Sutton, Thompson, Lennon and Hartson, as well as Valgaeren and add them to a squad that already had Larsson, Lambert and Petrov in it. These days a Scottish side would never be able to maintain a squad of that quality as they would quickly be signed by Everton or the likes.

The lack of domestic competition week-to-week didn't matter because their players were very good. The simple truth is that Celtic's trouble in Europe is nothing to do with domestic competition, it's just that they can no longer afford players good enough to compete. The idea of blaming a lack of competition completely ignores history.

Edited February 16, 2019 by JTS98

[Joey Jo Jo Junior Shabadoo]

32 minutes ago, JTS98 said:

I think the point about domestic dominance is well off the mark.

Look at 2000-2004. In that time Celtic achieved the following domestically.

2000-01 : 97 points, won the league by 15 points, 31 points ahead of third place, won the treble.

2001-02: 103 points, won the league by 18 points, 45 points ahead of third place, 98 goals scored.

2002-03: 97 points, 98 goals scored, missed out on the title by a goal, beat Aberdeen 7-0 and 4-0, beat Killie 5-0, beat Dundee 6-2, beat Dunfermline (top 6) 4-1 away from home twice, won 4-1 at Tynecastle.

2003-04: 98 points, 105 goals scored, won the league by 17 points, finished 30 points clear of third place, beat Hibs 6-0, beat Hearts, Killie and Dundee United 5-0, also beat United and Livi 5-1, beat Aberdeen 4-0... Also won the Scottish Cup.

So, we can see that domestic football was an absolute stroll for Celtic. They won the league by 15, 17, and 18 points. They routinely battered non-Old firm teams by huge scorelines, they scored a huge number of goals.

Did this hold them back in Europe?

2000-2001: UEFA Cup Third Round. Beaten 3-2 by Bordeaux. Hardly a catastrophe.

2001-02: Won 3-1 at Ajax in the qualifiers, home wins against Juventus, Porto and Rosenborg in the Champions League, only lost in Turin because of a soft penalty. Unlucky to go out. Beaten on penalties by Valencia in the UEFA Cup. Decent showing.

2002-03: Beat Blackburn, Celta Vigo, Stuttgart, Liverpool, Boavista to reach the UEFA Cup final.

2003-04: Minutes away from getting out of their Champions League group. Home wins over Anderlecht and Lyon, draw and a narrow defeat to Bayern. Went on to knock Barcelona out of the UEFA Cup before losing in the quarter finals.

So, we can see that Celtic's European performances over these four seasons were generally pretty good. Impressive wins in the Champions League and two deep runs in the UEFA Cup. All this despite routinely battering domestic opposition senseless.

The bottom line is that Martin O'Neill was able to come in and sign good English Premier League level players such as Sutton, Thompson, Lennon and Hartson, as well as Valgaeren and add them to a squad that already had Larsson, Lambert and Petrov in it. These days a Scottish side would never be able to maintain a squad of that quality as they would quickly be signed by Everton or the likes.

The lack of domestic competition week-to-week didn't matter because their players were very good. The simple truth is that Celtic's trouble in Europe is nothing to do with domestic competition, it's just that they can no longer afford players good enough to compete. The idea of blaming a lack of competition completely ignores history.

I disagree. The plucky underdogs only won anything through excellent football knowledge and that certain je ne sais quoi. There's no evidence for it, but it is scientific fact.

[101]

17 hours ago, Darren said:

Good news, Scott McDonald has joined Partick Thistle. Should hopefully keep him off the radio a bit.

Hopefully or we will be treated to him talking about Celtic as "we" again only for no-one to say hold on Scott you play for Partick thistle you roaster

[Monkey Tennis]

6 hours ago, JTS98 said:

I think the point about domestic dominance is well off the mark.

Look at 2000-2004. In that time Celtic achieved the following domestically.

2000-01 : 97 points, won the league by 15 points, 31 points ahead of third place, won the treble.

2001-02: 103 points, won the league by 18 points, 45 points ahead of third place, 98 goals scored.

2002-03: 97 points, 98 goals scored, missed out on the title by a goal, beat Aberdeen 7-0 and 4-0, beat Killie 5-0, beat Dundee 6-2, beat Dunfermline (top 6) 4-1 away from home twice, won 4-1 at Tynecastle.

2003-04: 98 points, 105 goals scored, won the league by 17 points, finished 30 points clear of third place, beat Hibs 6-0, beat Hearts, Killie and Dundee United 5-0, also beat United and Livi 5-1, beat Aberdeen 4-0... Also won the Scottish Cup.

So, we can see that domestic football was an absolute stroll for Celtic. They won the league by 15, 17, and 18 points. They routinely battered non-Old firm teams by huge scorelines, they scored a huge number of goals.

Did this hold them back in Europe?

2000-2001: UEFA Cup Third Round. Beaten 3-2 by Bordeaux. Hardly a catastrophe.

2001-02: Won 3-1 at Ajax in the qualifiers, home wins against Juventus, Porto and Rosenborg in the Champions League, only lost in Turin because of a soft penalty. Unlucky to go out. Beaten on penalties by Valencia in the UEFA Cup. Decent showing.

2002-03: Beat Blackburn, Celta Vigo, Stuttgart, Liverpool, Boavista to reach the UEFA Cup final.

2003-04: Minutes away from getting out of their Champions League group. Home wins over Anderlecht and Lyon, draw and a narrow defeat to Bayern. Went on to knock Barcelona out of the UEFA Cup before losing in the quarter finals.

So, we can see that Celtic's European performances over these four seasons were generally pretty good. Impressive wins in the Champions League and two deep runs in the UEFA Cup. All this despite routinely battering domestic opposition senseless.

The bottom line is that Martin O'Neill was able to come in and sign good English Premier League level players such as Sutton, Thompson, Lennon and Hartson, as well as Valgaeren and add them to a squad that already had Larsson, Lambert and Petrov in it. These days a Scottish side would never be able to maintain a squad of that quality as they would quickly be signed by Everton or the likes.

The lack of domestic competition week-to-week didn't matter because their players were very good. The simple truth is that Celtic's trouble in Europe is nothing to do with domestic competition, it's just that they can no longer afford players good enough to compete. The idea of blaming a lack of competition completely ignores history.

Excellent post.

As well as expertly shining light on the main reason for Celtic being shite in Europe these days, it also undermines the crap that says we had a constant stream of helicopter Sundays when Rangers and Celtic were together at the top of Scottish football, only for us to get one horse strolls when any version of Rangers was out the picture.

The reality was that even if you gave a shit about who had the upper hand, it was very often extremely dull.  

[Guest JTS98]

36 minutes ago, Monkey Tennis said:

Excellent post.

As well as expertly shining light on the main reason for Celtic being shite in Europe these days, it also undermines the crap that says we had a constant stream of helicopter Sundays when Rangers and Celtic were together at the top of Scottish football, only for us to get one horse strolls when any version of Rangers was out the picture.

The reality was that even if you gave a shit about who had the upper hand, it was very often extremely dull.  

If we look to the seasons around that time, we see strolls to the title were pretty common.

1999-2000: Rangers by 21 points.

2000-04: Covered above.

2004-05: Genuine title race.

2005-06: Celtic by 17 points (18 from Rangers).

2006-07: Celtic by 12 points.

2007-08: Genuine title race.

2008-09: Genuine title race.

2009-10: Rangers by 6, although Mowbray's Celtic were so poor that it wasn't really in doubt.

2010-11: Genuine title race.

2011-12: Celtic by 10 points (20 after points deduction).

So, over 13 seasons there were five genuine title races between two clubs who could vastly out-spend everyone else. All the other years were a procession with the league being won by 21, 18, 17, 15, 12 points. Like you say, even if you actually gave a flying one who won it, it wasn't really exciting. It's hard to say that it was a genuinely competitive environment.

Yet in this environment Rangers managed to beat or go to penalties with PSV, Dortmund, Monaco, Dynamo Moscow, PSG, Copenhagen, Stuttgart (twice), Porto, Lyon, Werder Bremen, Sporting, Fiorentina and managed draws with Inter and Barcelona.

Celtic had the results mentioned above and also added wins over Manchester United, Benfica (twice), Shakhtar, AC Milan, Barcelona (again), as well as draws with Milan and Barcelona (again).

They simply had better players because they had (comparatively) more money. It had nothing to do with this mythical era of competition in Scottish football.

Edited February 16, 2019 by JTS98

[Monkey Tennis]

31 minutes ago, JTS98 said:

If we look to the seasons around that time, we see strolls to the title were pretty common.

1999-2000: Rangers by 21 points.

2000-04: Covered above.

2004-05: Genuine title race.

2005-06: Celtic by 17 points (18 from Rangers).

2006-07: Celtic by 12 points.

2007-08: Genuine title race.

2008-09: Genuine title race.

2009-10: Rangers by 6, although Mowbray's Celtic were so poor that it wasn't really in doubt.

2010-11: Genuine title race.

2011-12: Celtic by 10 points (20 after points deduction).

So, over 13 seasons there were five genuine title races between two clubs who could vastly out-spend everyone else. All the other years were a procession with the league being won by 21, 18, 17, 15, 12 points. Like you say, even if you actually gave a flying one who won it, it wasn't really exciting. It's hard to say that it was a genuinely competitive environment.

Yet in this environment Rangers managed to beat or go to penalties with PSV, Dortmund, Monaco, Dynamo Moscow, PSG, Copenhagen, Stuttgart (twice), Porto, Lyon, Werder Bremen, Sporting, Fiorentina and managed draws with Inter and Barcelona.

Celtic had the results mentioned above and also added wins over Manchester United, Benfica (twice), Shakhtar, AC Milan, Barcelona (again), as well as draws with Milan and Barcelona (again).

They simply had better players because they had (comparatively) more money. It had nothing to do with this mythical era of competition in Scottish football.

Another good one.

The last paragraph of course captures it all, but don't tell wastecoatwillie.

[Guest JTS98]

16 minutes ago, Monkey Tennis said:

Another good one.

The last paragraph of course captures it all, but don't tell wastecoatwillie.

Also worth pointing out that Hearts won the Scottish Cup in 1998 and 2006.

In that eight year spell the only other non-Old Firm club to win a major trophy were Livingston when they won the League Cup in 2004.

Hibs (League Cup 2007) and Dundee United (Scottish Cup 2010) were next.

That's five non-Old Firm cup wins in 12 years.

So we had two clubs taking it in turns to stroll to the league title and hoovering up all the cups.

How can you not long for a return to this golden age?

In the 7 years since Rangers entered admin, cups have been won by Kilmarnock, Hearts, St Mirren, Aberdeen, St Johnstone, Ross County, Inverness, Hibs. I know what kind of 'competitive' I prefer.

Edited February 16, 2019 by JTS98

[Monkey Tennis]

2 minutes ago, JTS98 said:

Also worth pointing out that Hearts won the Scottish Cup in 1998 and 2006.

In that eight year spell the only other non-Old Firm club to win a major trophy were Livingston when they won the League Cup in 2004.

So we had two clubs taking it in turns to stroll to the league title and hoovering up all the cups.

How can you not long for a return to this golden age?

Yes, while the period that saw unprecedented sharing of trophies, with some winning their first in generations and others their first ever, was somehow awful.

[Guest JTS98]

2 minutes ago, Monkey Tennis said:

Yes, while the period that saw unprecedented sharing of trophies, with some winning their first in generations and others their first ever, was somehow awful.

Aye, added that in my edit.

It's a bizarre view of football to think that the period from 1998-2012 was somehow a better time to be a Scottish football fan than what has come since.

[ThomCat]

Shocked that neither Dodds nor McDonald have seen Only Connect tbh

[Monkey Tennis]

26 minutes ago, ThomCat said:

Shocked that neither Dodds nor McDonald have seen Only Connect tbh

That is surprising.

A high brow television quiz that references EM Forster, sounds like it should be right up their streets.

[Armand 2]

Pat Bonner wondered whether Paul Heckingbottom will be able to cope being at a big club.

Paul Heckingbottom who started his career at Man United, and has managed Barnsley and Leeds United.

An utter moron.

[johnnydun]

2 minutes ago, Armand 2 said:

Pat Bonner wondered whether Paul Heckingbottom will be able to cope being at a big club.

Paul Heckingbottom who started his career at Man United, and has managed Barnsley and Leeds United.

An utter moron.

TBF I see Hibs as a bigger club than Barnsley or Leeds Utd.

[Bairnardo]

TBF I see Hibs as a bigger club than Barnsley or Leeds Utd.

Bigger than Leeds? Are u high brother?

[RandomGuy.]

13 minutes ago, johnnydun said:

TBF I see Hibs as a bigger club than Barnsley or Leeds Utd.

Tbf you are an utter moron.

[johnnydun]

2 minutes ago, Bairnardo said:

13 minutes ago, johnnydun said:

TBF I see Hibs as a bigger club than Barnsley or Leeds Utd.

Bigger than Leeds? Are u high brother?

Aye. Hibs are a massive club. Juts because they don't play in England doesn't mean to say they are not big.

[johnnydun]

2 minutes ago, RandomGuy. said:

Tbf you are an utter moron.

^^^^ Small club syndrome.

[Bairnardo]

Aye. Hibs are a massive club. Juts because they don't play in England doesn't mean to say they are not big.

Well no, but the fact that Leeds are a much bigger club than Hibs doesnt mean Hibs cant be big.

Theres no comparing the two though. On what possible categories are Hibs bigger than Leeds?

[johnnydun]

Just now, Bairnardo said:

Well no, but the fact that Leeds are a much bigger club than Hibs doesnt mean Hibs cant be big.

Theres no comparing the two though. On what possible categories are Hibs bigger than Leeds?

I could also ask on what possible categories are Leeds bigger than Hibs?*

*Awaiting crowd w**k answer.