Not a false flag mate, a false dawn.
2 Likes
Utter tosh ; no one seriously fancied Rangers to win league
There was no significant money put on them. A few in the Rangers support , media who have skin in the game , and other had an interest in talking it up.
Ye mock fans need to grow up. Rangers are shit . Celtic are decent and the rest of jock soccer in shit .
āMock fansā?
Itās strange to me that one of those Asians/Yanks buying up EPL teams wouldnāt look at a Scottish club.
Glasgow is hardly an Alpha City but it has a good history and a strong footballing history. Youāve an easy enough route to the Champions League with a bit of investment and a 90% chance of winning trophies.
I mean those Yanks that bought Swansea City, why? Yes thereās the āglamourā of the EPL but you are basically buying mid table mediocrity at best, with relegation a strong possibility within a few years. Add to that that Swansea is a complete toilet of a city.
I have no idea what you are talking about.
1 Like
Rodgers got a lot of stick at Liverpool for his record in the big games, especially away from home. A big blot against him at Liverpool as well was his derby record, unbeaten but just 1 win in 7 in a fixture Liverpool have dominated since the turn of the century. At Liverpool, he seemed fine against run of the mill domestic rivals but once there was any sort of tactical input required he was found out. That can still get you a long way in the SPL and even the EPL, but the European group exit he presided over at Anfield with Basle and Ludogorets in the group was a shambles.
I said it for the 3 years or so he was thereā¦A good man to deploy plan A but he was often stood frozen when in game changes were needed.
And yet one of the biggest criticisms of him was that he changed too often in matches. I donāt know which is more accurate but he seems to get contradictory criticism from Liverpool fans who do seem to suffer from delusions of grandeur.
1 Like
Well Iāve never heard the latter but bar TFK I donāt talk football at all so Iām going off my own appraisal. Iāve always liked Brendan but think heās, or at least was, tactically naive. āThatā Chelsea game summed him up in lots of ways, went all out to win when avoiding defeat is all he had to do, Mourinho was happy to park the bus, Brendan should have obligedā¦ anyways, historyā¦what Liverpool fans are you listening to? I wouldnāt pay heed to 75% of them, they are insufferable.
You say naive but thatās his philosophy. Heās a proactive, front-foot, aggressive manager and looks to dictate the play, dominate possession and score goals. That can leave his teams more open than reactive managers who focus on counter-attacking but his view is you have a better chance of winning / not conceding if you have the majority of the ball and control of the game.
I guess he could have set up Liverpool to sit off and play a containing game against Chelsea but thatās not his way. Itād be interesting to know what heād do if he had another chance at it (like when you lost the CL final on Championship Manager but didnāt save it so you could play the match again).
Heās shown some good in game changes as Celtic manager so far. Armstrong and McGregor switching sides in front of Brown at half time yesterday worked a treat and he brought on Roberts at the right time too.
Did he not show tactical variation at a Liverpool? The 4-1-2-3 nearly won the league but then things went a bit awry when Suarez left and he responded by changing to 3-4-3 with his box midfield and went on 11 EPL wins in a row.
I think he was still inexperienced at Liverpool and Iām sure heād approach a lot of things differently. Like I said, it was more his ability to make in game changes that left him down.
Whatever formation he played his defence was a bomb scare and that never improved over his tenure. You can play as attacking as you want but at least have your team comfortable playing it, that never materialized and without seeing a lot of Celtic they seem to be the sameā¦ Thatās handicapping your team .
Rodgers was absolutely right not to change his tactics against Chelsea. Itās not as if Chelsea scored from any sort of creative play in that game. We all know why Liverpool lost, it was because of a freak mistake. And Suarez was blatantly fouled in the box in the second half which should have been a penalty.
Mourinho was written into a genius after that game based on a complete fluke result. Three days later he played the same tactics against Atletico Madrid and was brutally exposed.
Rodgers proved in the 2013/14 season that he could successfully operate both an attacking possession game and a rapier-like counter-attacking game when needed, such as in the 3-0 win away to Manchester United.
3 Likes
Mark Walters 1991, bananas, etc
Why was Gerrard the last man back and so far up the pitch? Overall Rodgers was good but Suarez covered over a lot of the teams deficienciesā¦ Thereās nothing wrong with having an attacking philosophy but veering left or right every now and again is not a sign of weaknessā¦ You also canāt neglect your defence and as stated, his defence at Liverpool seemed to get worse instead of progressing. I hope and wish Brendan every success, heās a good guy.
Because the full backs push on and the deep midfielder in the 4-1-2-3 drops back between the centre backs to receive the ball and launch attacks.
1 Like
Every team plays the ball around at the back these days.
If the last man slips in such a manner in any position, an attacker will likely get the chance of a 1 on 1 with the goalkeeper.
The position Gerrard was in on the pitch was irrelevant, if anything it made it less likely such a chance would occur due to the distance from goal.
If, say, Skrtel was the last man and had slipped 30 yards closer to goal in a similar manner, itās even more likely itāll result in a goal.
The bottom line is it was a freak occurrence and not down to any tactical failings on Rodgersā part.
thatās a very good post and also from @Sidney below
i was reading my Panini 1990 album last night post our discussion and was surveying the SPL squads ( i could never get Ian Westwaters the Dunfermline keeper BTW)
i remember the 1990-91 season well , in the Skol cup final Paul Elliot put Celtic ahead against Rangers but they nicked it i think Richard Gough in injury time.
Celtic had virtaully zero success against Rangers between sept 1988 to Jan 1998, save for joe millerās winner in the 1989 scottich cup final and also a chaotic 3-0 win on St,patrickās day in 1991 when Terry Hurlock i think was sent off
Rangers replaced Chris Woods with Andy Goram, the various Goramās were virtually an imovable object in the Rangers goal, throughout the latter stages of rangers dominance up to that old firm game in jan 1998 he signlehandely kept Cadete, Van H, di canio et al at bay
thanks for the replies
i remenber in the 1990s i was a huge celtic fan and had that Ford peoples jersey, i used to despair at the quality we had, Mike galloway, Bernie Slaven, wayne biggins, gerry creaney, derek whyte and an ageing Charlie Nicholasā¦
i fell out of love with it dramaically in 1999, for me celtic became like munster rugby upon refelction now,
ironically the death of the 5 nations, the onset of the heineken cup and my falling out of love with celtic were all over the same timeframeā¦
Thatās fine, mate. But in the game in question there was no need to go all outā¦ It was the third last game of the season and all you had to do was draw, the opposition had no interest in attacking but hitting you for a sucker punch. I think he saw that meme doing the rounds where he asked Bill Shankley above in heaven how he was doing and Bill answered back saying āgreat my sonā or something along those linesā¦ He got caught up in the hype ā¦ Even against Palace in the next game, shut up shop and kill the game, but no.
Situational football, matesā¦ Itās what Herr Klopp is always banging on about.
thatās a lovely post but youāre really getting a bit old for cheering on these fellas now
1 Like