Celtic's Defending

41

Despite the concession of an early goal, alarmingly from a corner kick once again, this was a much improved defensive display from Celtic. Rogne and Majstorovic were generally composed and commanding at centre back and Adam Matthews produced another impressive performance at left back.

Unlike recent games where the goals conceded were a fair reflection on chances allowed, Celtic were generally solid at the back today. One chance for Law from a lofted through ball and a couple of nervous moments from crosses were the sum total of clear threats allowed, and the other ten corners conceded posed little threat to the Celtic rearguard. The standard of defending remains some way below acceptable, particularly the horror show that was the Motherwell goal, but the organisation in open play has undoubtedly improved.

The goal (after 11 minutes) arrived after a brief spell of Motherwell pressure. Celtic were slow to deal with a throw-in on the left flank - one of many frustratingly recurring lapses this season - and coughed up a corner as a result. Wanyama dealt with this at the near post by conceding a second corner but Celtic were undone by a switch in tactics from the home side and failed abysmally in dealing with the second.

Short Corner Threat

While there were individual errors that contributed to the goal, more on that shortly, this was a real failing in planning and organising. A couple of seconds before the corner kick was taken Celtic had adjusted to counter the threat of a short corner. Beram Kayal appeared to be the designated second player to assist Commons in dealing with the short corner so he wandered over to provide assistance but retreated to mark the front post when the corner wasn’t played short immediately. It’s hard to think this retreat was a dereliction of duties from Kayal - as he had made the effort to cover the ground in the first place - but it makes little sense to adopt a system to deal with short corners that is overcome simply by delaying the corner kick.

The first image below shows the Celtic setup as Hateley places the ball initially. The familiar zonal marking system is in evidence but with Rogne now assuming the responsibility for the problematic central zone, Majstorovic moving to the front post and Samaras retaining his back-post role. The expected inswinging corner, and the resultant positioning of the Motherwell attackers, means that Stokes and Cha are as deep as the zonal markers but are responsible for individual players. Nobody has direct coverage of Higdon.

http://www.thefreekick.com/blog/?attachment_id=2903" rel="attachment wp-att-2903]

When the corner is not played short initially Kayal retreats to his usual role at the front post. This looks like a pre-ordained plan, it happened on other corners also, but the logic supporting that decision is dubious at best. If the big concern facing a short corner is getting outnumbered on the flank (which is always the primary defensive worry) then an instruction to ignore that threat after a period of time seems bizarre.

The role of Forrest in defending these corners is also unclear. He has taken up a position on the edge of the box to contest breaking balls but waves his arms frantically when Motherwell have a numerical advantage on the flank as he seems to believe it’s his responsibility to provide support to Commons. Forrest’s concern is ensuring the deeper players are aware of the danger if he leaves his post, but it’s difficult to understand why it wouldn’t be abundantly clear to everyone whether Kayal or Forrest is responsible for marking short-corners. The image below is from the corner immediately before the one that Higdon scores from and Forrest has moved 10 yards towards the ball to deal with the short corner threat. [Forrest’s original starting position Forrest 1 is superimposed on the image] Why does Forrest make this move for one corner and Kayal makes the move for a second corner taken a mere 10 seconds later?

http://www.thefreekick.com/blog/?attachment_id=2904" rel="attachment wp-att-2904]

Individual Errors

Regardless of the worrying lack of organisation in dealing with something as basic as a short corner, there is still ample opportunity to prevent the goal from being scored - and Higdon’s life can certainly be made a lot more difficult than just gifting him the simple opportunity that comes his way.

When Hateley fires in the cross he does so from a far superior angle to the original corner but Celtic have lost all defensive shape in the middle. As the ball is worked around Commons, Kayal leaves the front post to shut down the numerical advantage Motherwell have on the flank. The remaining players are neither pushing out for offside, nor holding their positions. There is less than a second between the two images below and while it’s clear that Matthews is trailing behind the rest of the Celtic players, there is no huge rush to clear the 6-yard box. It’s not an aggressive push for offside, it’s a more familiar failing as the players all turn to walk absentmindedly towards the ball with little care for what they’re leaving behind them.

http://www.thefreekick.com/blog/?attachment_id=2905" rel="attachment wp-att-2905]

http://www.thefreekick.com/blog/?attachment_id=2906" rel="attachment wp-att-2906]

By the time the ball is fired in Matthews is still trailing the rest of the defenders and therefore must assume most responsibility for allowing Higdon all the space and time he needs to nod the ball home. The fact that the rest of the defensive line have barely pushed out at all and their curious alignment with Stokes a couple of yards behind the players at the front post, doesn’t disguise the fact that had Matthews pushed out with a greater urgency he would have played 3 Motherwell players - including the goalscorer - offside.

http://www.thefreekick.com/blog/?attachment_id=2907" rel="attachment wp-att-2907]

The lapse in concentration from Matthews should be addressed as part of a larger review of responsibilities on short corners because the overall strategy is clearly flawed. The failings of the players marking the zones are not as directly culpable for the goal but they’re possibly more concerning overall in any attempt to improve the defence.

The last image above paints a poor picture for Matthews but what exactly have Samaras, Rogne and Majstorovic achieved by moving forward 2 or 3 yards? All three strolled forward at a leisurely pace and can’t claim they were pressing for offside, so their collective abandonment of the zones they were patrolling is indefensible. Higdon heads the opening goal from just inside the 6 yard box and dead centre. Rogne, Majstorovic and Samaras are all a good 5 yards ahead of the goalscorer and the original zones they were guarding are inexplicably vacant. If the three had maintained their positional discipline and held their ground then the chances of Higdon scoring fall off dramatically.

http://www.thefreekick.com/blog/?attachment_id=2908" rel="attachment wp-att-2908]

Blame:

Matthews: 50% - Playing for offside may not be the wisest strategy in this scenario and it’s obvious not everyone was on the same message. However Matthews has time to recognise the situation and react accordingly but he is too slow to push out and ends up neither marking, not playing Higdon (and his team-mates) offside.

Rogne: 25% - The central zone is his and that’s ultimately where Higdon scores from. Rogne is first to leave his station when the corner is played short but he doesn’t appear to have any definitive plan in mind as he wanders forward.

Majstorovic: 25% - A key role of the front player in a zonal marking system is to attack any low-flighted crosses arrowed in. The Swedish centre back ends up in front of the near post and far too far out to either impede or attack the cross.

http://www.thefreekick.com/blog/?p=2902]Read the full story here

42

What a thread.

Well done Rocko. :clap:

43

Thank fuck for that - when I saw your response I was sure it was a typo or factual error.

44

I didn’t have the heart to point out your factual error from the Kilmarnock game but now you mention it…

Goal 2 was not a Shiels left footed strike - it was a Heffernan strike.

45

Celtic’s renewed defensive competence has been breached by a couple of long-range speculative efforts recently and the pattern was repeated yesterday with John Rankin firing home from distance to make the second half an uncomfortable experience for Celtic. Despite the deserved plaudits for the goal it did highlight one or two areas for concern for Celtic management.

By design or attitude Celtic have been consistently relaxed when defending throw-ins all season and it was disappointing that an opportunity to regroup and organise collectively as a defence instead presented Rankin with his shooting opportunity.

As Neilson prepares to take the throw-in from midway inside the Celtic half there is plenty of confusion on marking duties. Izaguirre receives help down the line from Mulgrew, the left sided centre back, which is understandable as Izaguirre is not a strong header of the ball. However as Mulgrew steps across to prevent simple possession down the line both Wanyama and Rogne are attracted to the obvious danger presented by Jon Daly (who himself moves slightly towards the flank), leaving Russell completely alone at the edge of the box.

The two images below highlight the importance of the couple of steps taken by Rogne and Wanyama towards Daly as this frees up Russell to pick up the throw. It looks to be a simple lack of communication, though Wanyama can probably defend himself by arguing he’s stepping in front of Daly as a shield and that Rogne, as the deeper player, should recognise this move and hold his more central position. Further up field Scott Brown has come across from the right wing to mark Rankin, leaving Matthews with responsibility for the right flank.

http://www.thefreekick.com/blog/?attachment_id=3085" rel="attachment wp-att-3085]

http://www.thefreekick.com/blog/?attachment_id=3086" rel="attachment wp-att-3086]

As the ball is thrown to Russell, Scott Brown recognises the danger and moves to try and dispossess the United striker. In doing so he remains goalside of Rankin though his attentions have clearly switched to what he perceives as the greater threat posed by Russell. Wanyama also leaves his position in front of Daly to pursue Russell and despite surrendering possession in a dangerous area very easily the situation doesn’t look alarming yet.

http://www.thefreekick.com/blog/?attachment_id=3084" rel="attachment wp-att-3084]

By the time Russell gains control of the ball he is under significant pressure from both Brown and Wanyama. The Kenyan is still goalside of Russell, and therefore in practical terms he is the primary marker of Russell at this point. Brown’s intervention is possibly unnecessary but hardly grounds for criticism. He has allowed Rankin plenty of space, albeit in a deeper area, but he has a responsibility to go and shut down that space once the ball is transferred back to Rankin.

The next four images illustrate how Brown decides against closing down the shot from Rankin and instead drifts back out towards the wing where he came from. He had abandoned that position before the throw-in was taken so he is not expected to return out wide before the danger is cleared and Matthews is in perfect position to close down any cross if Rankin does switch the ball out to the wing instead of shooting. While neither he nor Wanyama advance towards the ball at any pace, Wanyama still needs to be mindful of Russell behind him and is better served holding his ground. Brown makes the wrong decision in moving laterally (along the yellow arrows below) and exposes a window for Rankin to fire on goal.

http://www.thefreekick.com/blog/?attachment_id=3087" rel="attachment wp-att-3087]

http://www.thefreekick.com/blog/?attachment_id=3088" rel="attachment wp-att-3088]

http://www.thefreekick.com/blog/?attachment_id=3089" rel="attachment wp-att-3089]

http://www.thefreekick.com/blog/?attachment_id=3091" rel="attachment wp-att-3091]

In the last image above Forster’s positioning looks just fine. He is a shade towards his left hand post - which tallies with where Rankin is shooting from. As a result of Brown and Wanyama parting to make a window for the shot, the goalkeeper has a perfect view of the ball and its trajectory from the moment it leaves the United player’s foot.

Forster has certainly improved as a goalkeeper over his time at Celtic Park but he is not (yet) as athletic as one might expect from a top level goalkeeper. While the shot is perfectly struck and moves away from Forster the final image below suggests the Celtic goalkeeper didn’t exactly fling himself at the ball. His feet haven’t moved to his right hand post at all - if anything they’re further to his left. This is more consistent with a goalkeeper falling to his right than an athletic dive.

http://www.thefreekick.com/blog/?attachment_id=3092" rel="attachment wp-att-3092]

Blame:

Rogne - 15% The Norwegian has put in a couple of very decent performances since earning a recall to the team. His error yesterday was more down to communication than a lack of ability or desire but ultimately the concession of possession to Russell from the throw-in is primarily his responsibility. As the ball is thrown both centre backs have been dragged into the same channel on the near touchline. Rogne was attracted there by Daly but needed to consider the position of Wanyama and Mulgrew before leaving the centre. As Arrigo Sacchi put it in a recent interview, “the defender’s point of reference should never be his opponent but a team-mate.”

Wanyama - 15% Wanyama is the lesser offender in two distinct errors from Celtic. Firstly the lack of communication that leads to he and Rogne standing together with Jon Daly at the throw-in and secondly the failure to close down Rankin’s shot. Neither are serious errors (and to be fair to all involved the defending for this goal was imperfect but not disastrous) but both are areas that can be improved as he gains experience of playing with this group of players.

Brown - 50% Brown probably makes the wrong call in pursuing Russell so aggressively when he gets the ball but that’s not a fault. What is less justifiable is his decision to ignore the threat of Rankin shooting, preferring to jog wide of the goal instead. It seems to be an error of judgement as opposed to any laziness or cowardice but on each viewing of the goal it looks less and less defensible.

Forster - 20% The big goalkeeper has improved markedly as the season has progressed but the shot from Rankin yesterday was stoppable. It would have been a good save to pull off but that doesn’t mean it can’t be expected. He may have been deceived by the flight of the ball and expected it to be closer to his body but he wasn’t really beaten by the pace on the shot, just by its direction. And he shouldn’t be beaten by a well placed shot from that distance.

http://www.thefreekick.com/blog/?p=3081]Read the full story here

46

[font=verdana]I’ve been a harsh critic of Forster but have been delighted with his displays over the past 6 weeks or so. But I’d also question him for that goal yesterday mainly because he didn’t move his feet. He more or less flopped to his side without moving his feet across. A very pure strike but I’d have expected him to get a hand to it. Not too dissimilar to the goals from long range shots conceded to Kilmarnock and Dunfermline.[/font]

47

Celtic’s much improved defensive performances in the past couple of months made way for an unconvincing display today as Falkirk scored once but troubled the excellent Fraser Forster more times than might have been expected.

While the first half display was generally reasonable defensively, apart from the poor goal conceded, the second half was full of nervousness and some questionable decision making. Charlie Mulgrew was assured, as normal, in the centre of defence but looked extremely vulnerable when switched to the left where he was repeatedly dragged infield and left huge holes behind him. A combination of wasteful crossing, good recovery work from Ledley and Wanyama and some excellent goalkeeping kept Falkirk at bay but this was a disappointing effort from a defence that was subject to plenty of justified criticism at the start of the season.

Falkirk’s Goal

The goal itself came from an individual error, some slack covering and a general lack of urgency to stop a dangerous counter-attack from developing at the pace Falkirk chose. The primary culprits are easy to identify but there are extenuating circumstances and a lack of assistance from those who could have helped.

The most obvious candidate for blame is Victor Wanyama who was sloppy with a few passes today and surrendered possession for the goal to Weatherston in a dangerous area. At first review the pass looks simply wayward but a closer analysis suggests the blame might be shared with the recipient, Cha, and Wanyama’s pass was more tentative than wildly misdirected.

The first image below shows Wanyama preparing to pass the ball to Cha. He has a large target to aim at between El Alagui (nearby) and Weatherston who, judging by the centre circle, is about 10 yards towards Falkirk’s goal from Wanyama. The yellow X marks the spot where Weatherston first touches the ball (see second image). Although the pass is played softly and overly compensates for the proximity of El Alagui, Wanyama can still expect Cha to beat Weatherston to the ball. The pace of the pass does allow Weatherston to make up the ground and compete for the ball but Cha is still in a far better starting position to take possession.

http://www.thefreekick.com/blog/?attachment_id=3100" rel="attachment wp-att-3100]

http://www.thefreekick.com/blog/?attachment_id=3101" rel="attachment wp-att-3101]

Once the ball is won by Weatherston, Celtic are caught on the back foot but as the first image above illustrates - they still have bodies in position to recover. Rogne, Cha, Mulgrew and Wanyama are all behind the ball while Brown and Ledley are in position to match the runs of Falkirk’s supporting midfielders.

Crucially while Cha does not win the ball from Wanyama’s pass, he neither stands off to allow himself time to deal with Weatherston, nor competes properly for the ball he should be favourite to win anyway. He gets caught in no man’s land and the result is Weatherston pushes the ball goalside of the Korean and is first to retrieve it.

The Falkirk player races to the touchline, steps over the ball and swivels to pass it inside, taking Cha out of the game completely. His pass finds Higginbotham and the situation is looking more troubling for Celtic. Even so, the next image below shows Higginbotham on the ball with the considerable attention of Wanyama between him and the rest of the Falkirk attack. At this point Wanyama’s aim should be to keep Higginbotham to the left wing (in the yellow shaded area) and ensure he has to run down the channel guarded by Rogne, with Cha able to provide additional cover.

http://www.thefreekick.com/blog/?attachment_id=3102" rel="attachment wp-att-3102]

Once Higginbotham skips inside Wanyama (which is a good piece of skill but surprisingly straightforward) this innocuous looking attack has goal written all over it. Rogne is (rightly) bracing himself for a shot while Mulgrew is still tracking El Alagui’s run. Brown, having started out with a few yards’ advantage on Fulton has almost stopped - waiting for Higginbotham to fire in his shot - and Fulton is 5 yards goalside of Izaguirre who has been caught upfield (more on that later). At this point Brown seems unaware of the danger of Fulton so his failure to intervene seems more to do with the run being on his blindside than a lack of effort. Still if he continued his retreating run at the same pace throughout, something that’s difficult to illustrate with images, he would have been in position to block the through ball to the eventual goalscorer.

http://www.thefreekick.com/blog/?attachment_id=3103" rel="attachment wp-att-3103]

So why did Izaguirre get caught upfield? Well firstly, in mitigation, the Honduran had just pressed hard and then won the ball back for Celtic and played it back to Wanyama, via Brown, to retain possession. As the Celtic midfielder receives the ball in the image below, Izaguirre is 15 yards ahead of the ball, 5 yards ahead of Fulton and flat-footed. He is entitled to believe that Wanyama won’t give the ball away in that area and is probably also entitled to believe that both Ledley and Brown should be making it back as emergency cover before him if the move breaks down immediately.

http://www.thefreekick.com/blog/?attachment_id=3104" rel="attachment wp-att-3104]

The wide angles below don’t paint a particularly pretty picture for any of Celtic’s retreating players. In the first image, Weatherston has already won the ball from Cha so the threat on goal should be recognised but too many players ignore it. Ledley hasn’t moved from his position in the last image above on the touchline, in fact he’s hardly changed his stance. Izaguirre, by now aware that the ball has been lost, is jogging in pursuit of Fulton when he should be sprinting back to track the player who had a headstart. Wanyama hasn’t really matched the run of Higginbotham but is taking up a covering role so his positioning is conservative but acceptable. One of the two central midfielders should be making the effort to make up the ground to Higginbotham though, with the other taking up a covering role inside.

http://www.thefreekick.com/blog/?attachment_id=3110" rel="attachment wp-att-3110]

Once Higginbotham gets the ball the failure to track runs becomes a much more pressing concern. Izaguirre has started to sprint in pursuit of Fulton but he has left it too late to make up the ground. Brown has oddly already begun to slow his run and even the referee has made up 4 or 5 yards on him by the time the ball is transferred inside. Ledley has disappeared from the picture completely.

http://www.thefreekick.com/blog/?attachment_id=3109" rel="attachment wp-att-3109]

Blame:

There are a number of individuals and factors involved in this goal so the share of culpability is less than clearcut but few will argue with the identity of those involved.

Wanyama: 50% The most obvious case for responsibility on first viewing of the goal is Wanyama’s errant pass to Cha but the weak defending against Higginbotham later in the move is more damaging and less defensible. The pass itself was of the timid and slightly directionless variety but it didn’t favour Weatherston over Cha, it merely asked a question of the Celtic defender where none need have been asked. His role later on is more disappointing however. It’s not just the technique in allowing Higginbotham to step inside, it’s the failure to recognise that he needed to shepherd the Falkirk player down the channel and away from the open space inside. The position of the centre backs and Brown is dependent on Wanyama stopping Higginbotham’s progress across the face of the penalty area and he failed in that task.

Cha: 25% Cha seemed to be in two minds with the pass from Wanyama and ended up with the worst of both worlds. He didn’t attack a ball that was weighted heavily in his favour, so the least you’d expect was a conservative play and forcing the Falkirk player to retreat, or at the very least to stay wide. He is easily beaten and then easily turned and a sloppy pass becomes a far more dangerous situation immediately.

Ledley: 5% Not much to write about here. Ledley didn’t need to track Fulton because Brown could have, because Mulgrew could have picked him up, because Izaguirre had plenty of time to recover. But he certainly could have tried.

Brown: 10% The Celtic captain assumes more culpability than Ledley because he is better placed to prevent the goal and still puts the brakes on when he gets in position to intervene. As a central midfielder he carries a responsibility to cover central areas and he should have provided cover inside Wanyama to prevent the square pass and to impede Higginbotham’s progress at least.

Izaguirre: 10% Judging by the BBC production work it seems the Honduran left back picked up most of the initial blame for the goal but it’s a harsh assessment given his positioning was a result of a successful tackle and not a mindless wander upfield. He takes no blame for his starting position but the pace of the attack is not so breathtaking that he doesn’t have time to close in on Fulton. He is too late recognising the danger and pays the price.

http://www.thefreekick.com/blog/?p=3099]Read the full story here

48

Good article Rocko.

Not really worthy of a new thread but I thought the half time reshuffle didn’t help our defending today. The Ki for Izaguirre substitution resulted in Wanyama moving to centre back and Mulgrew to left back to allow Ki to slot into midfield. We were very uncertain down the left hand side throughout the second half (not that we were solid on that flank in the first half either, mind you).

Similar to Totti’s comment on that match thread, I’d contend that Mulgrew’s a better centre back than Wanyama, Ledley’s a similar standard / possibly slightly better left back than Mulgrew, Wanyama is an important element of our midfield and Ledley hasn’t been nearly as effective in numerous games on the left hand side of midfield as he has been when played in the centre. The point is that we moved key players from their main positions for no apparent reason. Mulgrew should be our main centre back now and Wanyama should be commanding the midfield.

Don’t get me wrong, I’m very pleased with the run of domestic wins on the bounce but I don’t think we’re necessarily playing as well as we can do. I don’t think we’ve hit the heights of this time last season, for example, when we hammered the diets and the huns, and the shuffling around of positions probably isn’t helping continuity.

We’re relying more on moments of class in games, like Wanyama’s strike against Hearts or Forrest’s goal to open the deadlock last week, rather than having concerted spells of high tempo football with good, sharp passing. As I say, it’s great to keep winning but I think we can control games better and play with much more assurance, fluidity and a better team shape if we got our best players out on the pitch in their best positions:

  • Wanyama (centre midfield)
  • Ledley (centre midfield or left back in Izzy’s absence, not left midfield)
  • Cha (in the stand).
  • Mulgrew (centre back).

The only issue is that Forrest and Brown both play their best football on the right hand side. But Brown has done well in the centre lately and, as you mentioned before, there’s no reason why he can’t do the narrow wide midfield role from the left if needs be.

49

Yeah I’d agree with pretty much all of the above Bandage. Rogne and Mulgrew is working as a centre back partnership. It should have taken a problem of epic proportions to disrupt that but we voluntarily moved away from it today. We also had Matthews on the bench who is also capable of playing left back and could have just switched with Izzy if it was about sorting out that area. If the goal was just to get Ki in midfield then the Ledley to left back change is the most obvious one. I’m not a fan of changing multiple positions during a game just to facilitate one player and I’m certainly not a fan of the centre back partnership being broken up to help some other area of the park.

50

I’m a bit surprised at Neil’s post match comments on Izzy too. He could just have said he’s still striving to get back to match fitness but he said he was ‘pedestrian’ and was struggling to get the ‘snap’ back in his game. As you say, the Rogne/Mulgrew partnership has been going well so I hope the unnecessary move of Mulgrew to left back wasn’t done as a forerunner to reintroducing the fit again Majstorovic to the centre of defence and having Mulgrew do another stint at left back.

51

Interesting stuff here lads. Keep it up.

52

Thanks buddy, that’s the sort of post that makes everything worthwhile.

53

With no goals conceded in the comfortable 2-0 win at Inverness, TFK’s defensive analysis takes a brave step forward into uncharted territory by reviewing the overall performance of the four man defence that kept a clean sheet at Inverness. There’s even some statistics provided for those who don’t feel the usual forensic study is quite nerdish enough.

The most striking feature of the defence on Saturday was the sense of effortlessness about it. This wasn't a rearguard battle from the trenches, but a composed and intelligent defensive display that eliminated the opposition's primary threats.

The composition seemed curious with Kelvin Wilson returning to the centre of defence after a spell on the bench post-injury and Charlie Mulgrew moving over to left back. Breaking up the centre back partnership that has been very successful and solid looking recently appeared a strange move but was ultimately justified by the result, the performance and the restrictions it put on the home team’s most obvious attacking strategy.

Wilson’s Sweeping

Tadé has caused Celtic problems in the past with his movement and Inverness built their early gameplan entirely around hitting balls up to him or over the top for him to chase. In the first 11 minutes of the game the ball was played over Kelvin Wilson’s head 4 times and each time the defender beat Tadé to the ball in behind. That might have been a very different story if Rogne and Mulgrew were left as the centre backs. While both Matthews and Izaguirre are blessed with recovery pace, neither defends deep and there have been countless occasions in the past two seasons when weaker opposition have benefited from playing straightforward punts behind a cumbersome Celtic back four.

After the initial salvo at launching balls over the top for Tadé, Inverness were either disheartened by their lack of success or instructed to find a new route to goal and the tactic died out by the second half. Kelvin Wilson swept up behind his defence on six occasions in the opening period, and only once after the interval. Wilson’s pace was in evidence each time and he was blessed with enough composure, even in windy conditions, to either win fouls or play his way out of trouble every time. It was the type of classy defending that he has threatened to look capable of in a few appearances so far for Celtic but this was probably his best overall display.

Rogne’s Aerial Ability

Thistle’s efforts to find Tadé in the air and get Shinnie and Hayes exploiting any breaking ball were just as unsuccessful. While Wilson swept behind the defensive line, that gave Rogne the license to attack the ball in the air and the Norwegian centre back was dominant throughout. A couple of misplaced and weak headers glanced off his head occasionally but he was generally imperious in the air all afternoon. Excluding a couple of set pieces where there was zonal responsibility, Rogne attacked 28 balls in the air and won 24. That’s a phenomenal statistical achievement against 6’2" Grégory Tadé.

The dovetailing of Rogne and Wilson was clearly orchestrated with the opposition in mind and the imbalance in their play was by design, not some statistical aberration. Kelvin Wilson only attacked one header in open play in the entire game.

http://www.thefreekick.com/blog/?attachment_id=3120" rel="attachment wp-att-3120]

It was noticeable that Rogne was far less comfortable when Inverness succeeded in playing balls over his head and into the space behind Adam Matthews. Rogne is appreciably slower than Wilson and while he was never burned he wasn’t quick enough to win any footraces to the corner. Generally Celtic managed this situation very well however. Matthews played deeper than Mulgrew for most of the game and Rogne was only really exposed for pace when Matthews was caught upfield.

This co-operative defending and covering, while playing to strengths is very encouraging. It’s a far cry from the finger pointing that was present in the Celtic team in recent years and even months.

Use of the ball

The defenders’ tactics with the ball was just as strikingly different. The deployment of Mulgrew on the left flank freed him up to create opportunities from that flank and, further weighted by the absence of Forrest as a right wing attacking threat, Celtic shifted most play in deep areas over to Mulgrew. Rogne only completed an extraordinarily low 3 short passes all game (short being under 30 yards or so) while Wilson played 15 short passes. Matthews managed 15 short passes while Mulgrew completed 30.

Mulgrew has had better days on the ball but it was evident that Lennon wanted Celtic to play through him as much as possible. With Commons ahead and both Hooper and Samaras prepared to run the channels Mulgrew played a lot of percentage balls down the left flank. Of his 19 long passes forward (pure clearances are excluded) only 6 found a Celtic player. His crossing statistics were no more accurate but for a left back to be getting on the ball as frequently as Muglrew did he is clearly very comfortable in possession. Celtic will undoubtedly continue to use him as a modern day Gary Caldwell playing out from the back and if he manages the same number of crosses from left back in future games he will inevitably contribute more.

To stray further from the positivity that this analysis began with, the contribution of Rogne with the ball at his feet is a concern. Playing his way into form his first priority has understandably been to sort out the basics of defending first, but he is more wasteful in possession than he needs to be. While Kelvin Wilson only found it necessary to play the ball long 3 times (from his 18 passes), Rogne hit 10 long balls to 6 short passes and less than half found their intended target. His more combative style than Wilson (or Mulgrew for that matter) means he will find himself hurried in possession more frequently than his partner but there were times yesterday when a simple pass to a midfielder or fellow defender was ignored.

Narrow Defending

What was intended to be a piece in praise of Celtic’s defence will now continue with the pessimistic outlook and address the most glaring flaw of playing Mulgrew at left back. He may be a natural full-back but whatever instincts he has honed from spells in the centre of defence he now plays very narrow when selected on the flank. A combination of an honest attitude in attacking the ball wherever it may be and a possible reluctance to face a speedy winger in isolation out wide, means Mulgrew is sucked inside repeatedly when the play develops on Celtic’s right flank.

http://www.thefreekick.com/blog/?attachment_id=3119" rel="attachment wp-att-3119]

This was a gamble worth taking against Inverness who were never able to capitalise on the vacant area, and Kelvin Wilson’s positioning as the left centre back meant he covered across to that touchline when required. It is a recurring theme when Mulgrew plays as fullback however and the danger is probably heightened when Commons (not a naturally defensive winger) plays ahead of him. Whether Lennon would go with the same personnel against a team with a better right wing threat remains to be seen.

On the other side, as mentioned above, Adam Matthews was generally deeper and wider than Mulgrew so left less space behind to exploit. However he was caught up the pitch a couple of times in the first half, through no fault of his own, and Rogne was far less comfortable covering across to that side.

Overall Assessment

Despite the couple of areas of weakness discussed above (and I’ll save my criticism of our throw-in defending for another week) this was a very assured defensive effort. Not only did the two centre backs play very well individually and as a partnership, both also played well in tandem with their respective full-backs. Thistle had scored in all but one game since another 2-0 defeat to Celtic back in November but were toothless all day against this defence and failed to carve out any goalscoring opportunity of note in the entire game. Even a flurry of corners in the first half, no longer the heart-in-mouth events they were earlier this season, brought little other than minor mayhem to the penalty area. Defending doesn’t get much more dominant than that.

While all four defenders played well on the day, Kelvin Wilson was probably the pick of the bunch. He played like someone who has been at the heart of that quartet all season (though they had never played together before) and was a model of composure all game. His passing was simple but precise and moved about the defensive line effortlessly.

Thomas Rogne was a tower of strength beside him, winning a ridiculous amount of ball and attacking everything that came his direction. He could afford to take chances with Wilson sweeping behind but Inverness can hardly have counted on him winning that much ball in the air. Matthews, while the quietest of the four, was admirably efficient at right back. He put in a number of timely blocks on the flank and battled well in the first half when Inverness played down his flank through Tadé and Hayes. Mulgrew was much more involved in an attacking sense, linked well with Commons and Ledley, but found his percentage balls down the line were a little too straightforward for the home side’s defence.

It will be interesting to see whether the same four are retained for the trip to Hearts on Wednesday night. Though few would have argued for the Mulgrew-Rogne partnership to be disturbed before Saturday’s game, not many would suggest it should be immediately restored now.

Statistics

[table id=47 /]

http://www.thefreekick.com/blog/?p=3118]Read the full story here

54

Good post Rocko (I only read the bit on Rogne and Wilson). Thought Wilson played very well yesterday, he was a little to lax on the ball a couple of time though.

55

Celtic earned a third successive clean sheet on Saturday, despite a man disadvantage for much of the second half. Since Christmas they have conceded every 405 minutes on average - as a comparison the equivalent figure for Rangers is 103 minutes. This wasn’t as composed or assured as recent games however, with a few moments of concern in both halves.

Majstorovic Replacing Rogne

The muscle strain picked up by Rogne during the week meant a return to the starting line-up for Majstorovic and a continuance of the contrasting centre back partnership with Majstorovic fulfilling the “combative” role and Wilson remaining as the “sweeper” behind.

A shift in tactics from the visitors since the away fixture last weekend however meant Majstorovic was less dominant than Rogne had been. Claude Gnakpa replaced Tadé in the starting line-up and played wider with Thistle looking to use him to drag the centre backs wide before springing Hayes or Ross through the centre. Majstorovic was certainly comfortable against Gnakpa in the air but Inverness had clearly identified the futility in thumping the ball long down the centre so their long punts were aimed to the corners and they favoured quick passes to release Gnakpa in behind rather than flighty balls over the top.

The big Swedish defender won 8 headers and lost just 1 in open play. He offered protection to both Wilson and Matthews in their aerial contests but Inverness generally succeeded in moving him out of his comfort zone and dragging him down the right channel in particular where his pace was more likely to be exposed.

At the very start of the game the Majstorovic-Wilson partnership was nearly picked apart by a simple passage of play. Majstorovic followed Gnakpa up the field to win a header 10 yards inside the other half but the ball broke to Richie Foran. Wilson, having taken up his usual position directly behind the aerial duel, left a big gap between himself and Mulgrew on the left for the visitors to exploit. Scott Brown initially read the danger and tracked the run of Ross from midfield but switched off (or stopped for an offside appeal) when Gnakpa received the return pass and checked inside Wilson. Only excellent work from the covering Mulgrew rescued the situation.

http://www.thefreekick.com/blog/?attachment_id=3128" rel="attachment wp-att-3128]

Majstorovic was perhaps too comforted by the presence of Wilson behind and allowed himself get dragged too far forward in that situation. He won the initial header but having done so, he needed to be aware of the space behind him. Kelvin Wilson had no option but to fill across once the ball is slipped behind Majstorovic. While there is scope for defenders to play behind one another in certain circumstances, they should rarely find themselves both so wide of the goal.

Interventions from Full Backs

The recovery challenge from Mulgrew in that early situation was a crucial intervention and both full backs were called upon to sweep across and snuff out danger throughout the game. Mulgrew in particular was heavily involved defensively in central areas and almost played as a third centre back on occasion. The left back won 13 headers during the match (more than either centre back) and followed Ross inside to prevent a number of potentially dangerous situations from escalating.

While neither Majstorovic nor Wilson was terribly exposed during the game, the full-backs (and Joe Ledley) each had to make a couple of last ditch tackles. Mulgrew had to keep a watchful eye on Ross throughout, while Hayes found himself denied by Matthews all the way over on the left side of the box late on in the first half. The full backs are defenders first and foremost but they were more occupied in central areas than might have been expected and Matthews in particular had a tough time early on with a number of crosses fired in from his flank. Inverness didn’t need to beat the Welsh full-back to fire in crosses, they simply overloaded the left flank once or twice and with wide players running inside Matthews (and Majstorovic understandably reluctant to commit himself to wide areas) they found space on their left flank to get crosses away with Matthews scrambling to recover. He did manage to block a number of crosses in the first half however and once Celtic recognised the danger and supplied Matthews with adequate reinforcements he more than held his own at right back.

http://www.thefreekick.com/blog/?attachment_id=3130" rel="attachment wp-att-3130]

Mulgrew’s Narrow Defending

As mentioned above, http://www.thefreekick.com/blog/?p=3118]and in last week’s game against the same opposition , Mulgrew has a tendency to play very narrow when selected at left back. That brings advantages and disadvantages - on Saturday the good certainly outweighed the bad. Apart from his early recovery to help out his centre backs and Scott Brown, he tracked a number of runs and Inverness rarely got any joy trying to cross the ball from his flank. The image below shows his value in covering across to the centre back area where his positioning removed the danger from a good cross whipped in by Hayes from the other flank.

http://www.thefreekick.com/blog/?attachment_id=3133" rel="attachment wp-att-3133]

There was a reminder of the downside of his central positioning with about 10 minutes remaining when, distracted by the presence of Foran inside, he got caught too narrow and Ross had a great chance on the outside from an innocuous looking long ball forward which he fluffed. In general Inverness didn’t enjoy enough possession on their right hand side to cause Mulgrew many problems on his outside however and his versatility in playing wide and narrow (mirrored by Ledley in front) was a big help to Celtic for the period when the visitors had a man advantage.

Better use of ball

It is to Mulgrew’s credit that he didn’t hide on the wing when ICT had the ball, nor did he stay conservatively at the back when Celtic were in possession. Once again he was by far the most productive Celtic defender with the ball - completing 37 short passes, 4 long passes and finding a Celtic player with 4 crosses. He also managed to hit a couple of shots, was dominant in the air as highlighted already and even took on and beat his man 4 times. There aren’t many defenders who get that involved in a game in any league.

Even his long pass statistics (4 from 13) disguise a few cleverly weighted balls down the wing in the second half that gave Celtic not just breathing space but throw-ins in the Inverness half. He was generally more accurate and less hurried than last weekend, which was true of the other defenders too. Matthews in particular was very precise with his passing and it was his perceptive through ball to Brown, which had to be played at pace to force it through a relatively narrow window, that sparked off the move for the only goal of the game.

Overall Assessment

The disruption caused by the injury to Thomas Rogne certainly didn’t help Celtic on Saturday but the defending was far from poor in his absence. The partnership between Majstorovic and Wilson didn’t look as solid as either Rogne and Wilson or Rogne and Mulgrew in recent weeks but it was certainly sufficient for the game and the clean sheet was merited.

Mulgrew was probably the best defender on show with one or two crucial interventions on the deck, plenty of headers won and an influential role on the ball. Matthews had a fine game at right back once again. He was a little overrun early on, as he had been against Hearts in midweek, but once he got adequate support he was very sure defensively and used the ball well. Wilson didn’t enjoy the same sort of classy game that he had last weekend but was generally untroubled, despite one or two moments of sloppiness. And Majstorovic had been battling well on his return from injury before the moment of carelessness that lead to his sending-off (however ridiculous the decision). Rogne will surely return, if fit, regardless of the outcome of any appeal.

Statistics

[table id=48 /]

http://www.thefreekick.com/blog/?p=3127]Read the full story here

56

Very good Rocko, I like the specific video examples. I would be a bit concerned at Lennon’s eagerness to bring Majstorovic back into the fold, think we would have been far better concerned bringing Izaguirre in yesterday for the injured Rogne. Didn’t see the game myself and I’ve heard the red card was a ridiculous decision but Majstorovic is rash and erratic and the best of times and will always be a liability.

57

+1 to all that.

It was an awful decision to send him off (I see Jonny Hayes’ quotes today saying Majstorovic got the ball and his own reaction was to get up and head back into position on the wing) but he didn’t see Hayes coming on his blind side and his carelessness put him in the awkward position.

He improved quite a good deal in November and December after some horrific early season displays but he looks past it over all. And he’s rusty enough after being out for 6 weeks too so his lack of sharpness could have been costly.

58

I was discussing this with Bandage offline (which was very selfish of us) on Friday and we were thinking that Lennon might be comfortable with one aggressive defender and one who prefers it on the deck. Rogne, because of all his injuries, wouldn’t strike you as being the most physical defender in the world but he’s very good in the air and he attacks everything - unlike Wilson who stands off. Mulgrew and Loovens are probably a hybrid but Lennon may feel he can’t play either Mulgrew or Loovens with Wilson.

I think Dan did his job ok and showed the required aggression but still will make mistakes and bad as the refereeing was he was very slack for the sending off initially, though Wilson was poor also just beforehand.

I too would be bringing Izzy back at this stage, though the talk on Rogne seemed generally positive so if he comes back then I’d say revert to the Matthews-Rogne-Wilson-Mulgrew lineup.

59

I’ve been very impressed with Rogne, seems to be getting much better with the physical stuff.

60

The return to action after the international break was predictably problematic for Celtic. There were deficiencies all over the park with Hooper oddly out of touch up front, a midfield lacking a little balance and a defence with two debutants. Even so, the goal conceded was extremely avoidable and not the product of anything particularly inventive from the Aberdeen attack.

A long ball thumped forward by Arnason should have caused few problems for Celtic's back four, all of whom were in decent position. As has recently become standard, Kelvin Wilson stepped back from the aerial challenge to allow Rogne contest the ball with Fallon while Wilson covered in behind for any flick-ons. Blackman was well placed goalside of Vernon (who was Fallon's closest support) and Mulgrew and Lustig were both in position to deal with any runs from deeper areas.

http://www.thefreekick.com/blog/?attachment_id=3169" rel="attachment wp-att-3169]

As the ball reached Fallon, Rogne decided not to compete in the air presumably as he felt he could only win the ball by fouling the Aberdeen striker. He did the right thing therefore in dropping off with Wilson to ensure no danger could come from any flick on from Fallon. The two Celtic centre backs in both the image above and the next image below are at least anticipating danger and their body position suggests they’re posed to react to any threat. The same cannot be said of Blackman or Mulgrew (or Lustig to a lesser extent). The left back is too square against Vernon allowing his man a chance to run off him, Mulgrew has slowed to a walk and Lustig is somewhere in between a stroll and a jog.

http://www.thefreekick.com/blog/?attachment_id=3170" rel="attachment wp-att-3170]

Fallon flicks the ball into the only area that can cause Celtic a problem but it should still be Blackman’s ball. The angle takes it away from Kelvin Wilson and Vernon reacts far quicker than Blackman to the ball breaking into space. The young defender is probably surprised by Vernon’s pace off the mark but he needed to read the danger better, should have reacted quicker and at the very least should have forced his opponent to run outside him. Instead Blackman drifts towards the touchline and not only does Vernon reach the ball first, he is inside Blackman so doesn’t have to beat him to get through on goal.

http://www.thefreekick.com/blog/?attachment_id=3171" rel="attachment wp-att-3171]

By this stage the situation is looking more ominous for Celtic. Rae has moved ahead of Lustig who was slow to react to the flick-on and Charlie Mulgrew has barely moved (out of picture now) from his original position. Rae has set off on a run of his own through the middle and Fallon is now joining up with play.

Celtic importantly still have 3 defenders in decent position however and are helped by Fallon’s decision to offer Vernon an outlet to his right, which brings Blackman back into the game. The obvious danger area is to the other side (shaded in red below) but unfortunately Thomas Rogne fails to recognise this and moves inside to assist Wilson who has held up Vernon by getting goalside.

http://www.thefreekick.com/blog/?attachment_id=3172" rel="attachment wp-att-3172]

Vernon, to his credit, is patient and delays his pass to Rae sufficiently to ensure Rogne is taken out of the game by taking up a narrow position. The pass plays Rae slightly wide of the goal but doesn’t allow Lustig any chance to make up the ground he lost earlier on and Rae is given a clear shooting chance.

Blackman’s problems continue with his deflection on Rae’s scuffed shot. The ball was travelling wide of the goal and the left back dangled a leg at it to divert it past Forster who stood no chance despite getting a hand to the ball. Apportioning too much blame to the deflection would be harsh but there’s a world of difference between a diving block that cannons the ball goalwards against a dangled leg that can only ever cause a goalkeeper problems. Blackman probably has little time to retract his leg despite the tame shot but should be putting in a stronger block regardless.

http://www.thefreekick.com/blog/?attachment_id=3176" rel="attachment wp-att-3176]

Culpability:

Wilson: 0% - Wilson is everpresent in the images above but can take no responsibility for the goal. He sweeps behind Fallon as is his job and while he is beaten to the flick by Vernon, he reacts much sharper than Blackman and does his job in checking Vernon and forcing him to play it to his support.

Mulgrew: 20% - Mulgrew was goalside of Rae to begin with and hardly moved once Aberdeen won the initial header. He can be forgiven for losing a race back from midfield if he’s caught unaware but he showed no inclination to react at all so never gave himself a chance to recover. Not his natural role so can be forgiven the lapse but Rae was primarily his responsibility.

Rogne: 20% - No blame for not contesting the header as every ball can’t be won in the air and Rogne’s decision making in considering when to attack a ball in the air has been impeccable in recent weeks. He takes up a good position beside Wilson after the flick on, albeit a little slower than his centre back partner to get back, and perhaps it’s this slight delay that denies him the chance to take stock of the situation and assess the danger area. The area covering the right hand side of the goal is his natural responsibility and by the time Vernon is bringing the ball inside it is obvious that the danger is from the runs of Rae and Fallon - not Vernon himself. A couple of steps to his right and Aberdeen would have been forced to try and hold onto possession, but his positioning facilitated the straightforward pass to play Rae through on goal.

Lustig: 20% - Not dissimilar to Mulgrew in getting caught flat-footed in the race back from the centre of the pitch. In his favour he did at least make the effort to get back and if the ball had been held up a little longer he may well have made up the distance. Unlike Mulgrew however, he had a direct positional responsibility for that area however and though the goal came from a central midfielder, it came in his area of the pitch.

Blackman: 40% - Probably deserves a little more of the blame but there’s only 40% left after sharing some blame among the others. He got caught flat-footed by Vernon, who did show good pace to get to the ball first. It was naive defending not only to react slowly but he allowed Vernon to get inside him and even to muscle him out of the way so he could continue on his path across the goal. The deflection owed a bit more to misfortune but it was the type of timid effort to block a shot that all too frequently ends up in a goal. Forster’s frustration at this interference was plain for all to see.

http://www.thefreekick.com/blog/?p=3168]Read the full story here