I’m just back from a week’s drinking so apologies in advance for the rudeness, but point me to where I said that. What I believe I said, while controversial, is the level of competition, week in week out, is more competitive than other European leagues, today as it was back then. In other words its a harder league to win than other European leagues. No doubt the Spanish and German leagues have the best 3 or 4 teams, but the standard drops sharply after that.
Spanish teams regularly win the europa cup, English clubs are shit in it
A mickey mouse competition that no club with aspirations for Champions League football would want a part of. Essentially the further you go in it, the less your chances of a Champions league spot, Sevilla the exception not that it has done them much good.
1 Like
You’re saying the further you go in the Europa League lessens your chances of a Champions League spot.
The furthest you can go in the Europa League is to win the thing.
The winners of the Europa League qualify for the following season’s Champions League.
Your post is nonsense
3 Likes
West Ham already gone. Southampton hanging on for dear life.
The strength in depth in the English Premier league simply isn’t there.
Good point mate
Why is it harder to win a league playing against second rate teams? I think you need another few days on the drink. It might be harder to come 12th in the EPL (though I’d dispute that) but a league with the best 3/4 teams in it is obviously harder to win than a team with a lovely even spread of mediocrity (though its competitiveness is wildly overstated).
Serie A has a much wider depth of competitive teams than the EPL.
2 Likes
Well clamped
We’ve been through this before and I fear my argument will once again fall on deaf ears. If we stick with the 1960s which you seem obsessed about, your argument falls apart when you look at the Spanish league and see that Real won 8 titles, Barcelona one and Atletico one (strangely enough not much has changed other than Real and Barca reversed). If your idea of a good league is one where the same few teams batter everyone else year in year out then we’ll have to disagree on how to rate a good league.
His fav league is the Scotch league mate, so I think we can safely say that the closer you get the one team winning year in and out, then better the league is in his eyes.
1 Like
Malmo lost 1-0 away to 9th place Hacken today playing a largely first choice team.
1 Like
i would agree 100% with that statement
i dont think its a reason for the demise of the scottish club game tho,
Glasgow Rangers, Aberdeen and Dundee United were the driving force behind Scottish football in the 80/90s, the latter 2 were outstanding and Rangers should have won the 93 european cup, the demise of these clubs has been a huge factor
fine post but scotland isnt a country
What team would we go with for the second leg?
Assuming Lustig doesn’t make it (which seems likely based on Ronny’s comments post-game yesterday) then I’d start Janko as opposed to Ambrose. Sutton on BT was suggesting the opposite is more likely and preferable based on Malmo using Berget as an aerial threat. I think Ambrose is capable of turning out the odd decent performance and you’d like to think he could get very basic instructions around doing simple things with the ball and staying on his feet when he doesn’t have it. But I’d be far too concerned about his lapses in concentration and his tendency to try and force passes at the back. He hasn’t learned his lesson after hundreds of scares so far and seems unlikely to mature as a player now.
The other thought is that Griffiths starting yesterday suggested Ciftci might be playing on Tuesday. I think that’s highly unlikely. I think Griffiths started because of a lack of trusted alternatives and because Ronny wanted to keep him sharp and in form. Griffiths is playing terrific football at the moment and showed he can do a lone attacker role in the home game.
Some papers are suggesting today that VVD has been sold and won’t play on Tuesday. I think that’s absolute nonsense. They used him not starting yesterday as partial evidence for their report - but we rested almost the entire starting XI. There is no way Lawwell would risk selling him before Tuesday. I think it’s possible that an agreement to sell has been reached already and it’s even possible that it was a condition of that sale that he wouldn’t play at Dundee United. But there’s no way that he won’t play Tuesday.
Celtic:
Gordon
Janko Boyata Virgil Izaguirre
Brown Bitton
Forrest Johansen Armstrong
Griffiths
SUBS Bailly Ambrose O’Connell (?) Rogic Commons GMS Ciftci
I think they’ll go for:
Whoever their keeper is
Tinnerholm Arnason Bengtsson Yotùn;
Rodic Lewicki Adu Berget;
Djurdic;
Rosenberg
I’d go with that, expect Mulgrew on the bench though or is he injured?
Oh yeah, knew I was forgetting someone. Mulgrew instead of O’Connell.
What did Ronny say about Lustig yesterday? He gave him a good chance of being fit when doing his media stuff on Friday.
I’d start GMS instead of Forrest. I don’t trust the latter despite his display last week.
He said he has a chance but it might be a day or two too soon for him.
GMS wasn’t great again yesterday. I think Forrest is a risk, particularly with an inexperienced or incompetent right back behind him, but his form has been good and he had that Malmo left back in trouble the last time. I think he could have a field day with him again and it might even force Malmo to double up a bit, like they seemed to last time when Carvalho came on.
Forrest’s cowardly cameo away to Inter is playing on my mind. GMS all the way for me.
I didn’t remember the specifics of that but I’ve just looked at the match thread
Hmmm, he was awful alright. I’m just confident he’s turned a corner (even temporarily) and will run himself knackered for an hour and if he does that he’ll be useful. GMS is a good option to have but he seems to be lacking a bit of directness in recent games.