Celtic Banter Archive July 16 2014

 

Use our rumours form to send us celtic transfer rumours.

16 Jul 2014 20:34:37
Ed a take it we are being well compensated for the Commonwealth Games planting themselves @ parkhead?

Would be strange to dislodge ourselves especially as would also imagine that Murrayfield would need compensated for accommodating us mate?

Do you know thanks atb

Believable0 Unbelievable0

{Ed007's Note - I've had a quick look through available audits etc and can't see any figures mentioned for CP. There will be monies involved though and it will cost us to put games on at Murrayfield. Don't worry, Jamie, I'm sure the Unseen Fenian Hand will have made sure we do alright out of it, just look how much the surrounding area has improved.}

Not sure about compo but was down there yesterday to get one of the bhoys the new 3rd kit and the place is a nightmare. I know there is work going on and I accept that but the signposts are a joke. 3 different signs for 3 different car parks and none were right.

Agree0 Disagree0

16 Jul 2014 16:37:18
I think we need some one in the centre of mid that can use both feet mulgrew was terrible that ball only went one way when he got the ball and that was to a defender . There's to many one footed players in the team thy can't switch the ball fast enough they all have to get the body in line to where they want to switch it too? Does any one else see this as a problem?

Believable0 Unbelievable0

{Ed007's Note - Mulgrew is never a CM, I don't know what his best position actually is. The only way I can see him getting a prolonged run in the team is because of Brown's injury butI think when RD manages to get his team (with new signings and a full squad etc) Mulgrew will be benched and used as a utility man who can cover numerous positions when needed but never actually claims a place as his own.}

Think I must have been watching a different game last night. I thought Mulgrew was excellent and our best player by far

Agree0 Disagree0

{Ed007's Note - That just shows how $hite the rest of them played :)

16 Jul 2014 18:39:18
The guy is no good in midfield 90% of the time he got the ball he passed bk to defence that's why he looked good because he never lost the ball!

Agree0 Disagree0

If he's not playing as a CB then I don't think he should be played. A few decent free kicks and corners doesn't justify a game in my opinion. I think RD is using these games to find out the best selection and it will take some time yet

Agree0 Disagree0

RD gave Mulgrew the captaincy last night, it's not really the sign of a man who is going to get dropped is it?

Agree0 Disagree0

{Ed007's Note - Do you think Mulgrew would have been playing if Brown was fit though? He might have been played at CB if RD had thought Ambrose wasn't ready but I think Brown's injury forced the manager's hand, he needed Mulgrew to replace Brown and that meant he had to start Ambrose. He was also the most senior player on the park so that's probably why he was captain.
With everyone fully fit where do you see Mulgrew playing?}

Again, I disagree. I thought he played some nice balls into the the feet of mainly Commons to start most of our best attacks. That said, I would prefer him at CB instead of Ambrose as I sh*te myself every time he has the ball but he does lack a little pace although I would suggest him playing behind Virgil and starting up attacks from the back. With RD looking for a passing style out from the back, this makes sense.

Agree0 Disagree0

16 Jul 2014 21:31:31
Not just Mulgrew, but the whole team consists of average players. They are not bad players, but we need some true quality in the hope that we can take everyone up to another level. This includes the kids coming through.Players play better with better players. Know I,m stating the bleeding obvious, but this has been going on for twenty years or more. As a club, we lack vision and until attitudes change, we will continue to go backwards.

Chasaboy

Agree0 Disagree0

I like Mulgrew playing in the position he played last night . He protects the back four and allows either Virgil or Ambrose to go forward . I think both Lennon and Deila, like to play him as he and Lustig means we have four tall defenders at opponents set pieces . We haven't got Sammi now and I think Ronnie would worry with only 3 . We haven't seen enough of Biton to see if he could do the defensive side of the role.

Agree0 Disagree0

16 Jul 2014 22:02:01
I like Mulgrew but flagged this weeks ago Ed is spot on on this one! No place for Mulgrew (and have fears for Commons although a hope not!)

Think the penny beginning to drop with a real few under NL we bought plenty of midfielders , have plenty of midfielders and now we are only going to play 3 of them IMO it will be Johansen LM, Brown CM , McGregor/Henderson RM we will need a re-think

Agree0 Disagree0

16 Jul 2014 22:35:29
We don't need to play a midfielder to sit infront of the back 2 on spl and games like tues night we should be attack not defending they had like one shot on goal I would have malgrew a back up left bk

Agree0 Disagree0

I see Mulgrew as a utility player he may not like it but he's a good back up for a few positions which is valuable to our squad! But why not commons with the armband he's a senior respected player who will be in the team? I'd like Mulgrew at lb rotate izzy and get a bit of competition for lb position! We obviously need another cm incase anything happens to brown or johansen.

Agree0 Disagree0

I would never want Mulgew at LB he is slower than NL and gets caught out all the time, defos not a LB IMO

Agree0 Disagree0

Izzy gets caught out all the time as well but mulgrews delivery is much better!

Agree0 Disagree0

We need to be building a team capable of playing well in Europe, hence we need a holding midfielder . We also need at least four players who can defend set piece high balls into our area. I think at the moment we need
Mulgrew and maybe that is why Lustig is played ahead of Matthews .

Agree0 Disagree0

16 Jul 2014 14:15:06
How about this for a signing Xavi Hernadez from Bacalona I know this May sound way way out of our grasp but he has been told he can leave and is wanted be an MLS club. He has always stated his love for Celtic! He has a few good seasons in him yet why not at least try and get him in! I'm sure wages would be a big issue but if he really wanted to come for one last swan song! Before everyone says it I know there is one chance and that is no chance!

Believable0 Unbelievable0

{Ed007's Note - New York City FC, the newest MLS franchise,have offered Xavi $24 million (circa £90k a week) over a 3 year deal and he will sign for them after his family holiday.}

Cheers Ed your always the font of all knowledge! That's that then knew it would be to good to be true!

Agree0 Disagree0

16 Jul 2014 17:39:59
Crackin shout gaz would have loved it aswell but with villa at new york aswell can defo see him going there

Agree0 Disagree0

16 Jul 2014 13:13:04
I agreed with Mark McGhee who was assisting with commentary on BBC last night. Although Celtic should not have to go through these qualifiers, the matches are good intense workouts, because they are competitive. We should not fear this type of game and it gives the new manager a 'heads up'.
This is better than glamour friendlies with umpteen subs and no one really tested. It is so important for RD to see what's what early doors and put his plans in place.

Believable0 Unbelievable0

AT least Hoops fans urny singin' " Why? Why? Why? DEILA!! " the day!

The Sno Man

Agree0 Disagree0

16 Jul 2014 10:40:55
I think a lot of people on here need to calm down a wee bit! Yes we only won one nil but we didn't look shaky, we looked quite Solid and could have scored a lot more just didn't happen! But if we are going to play 433 then stoke isn't the man to lead the line I'd have like big balde on last night as they forced us out wide to cross just like we do to barca when we play them so they can't pass through us.

Believable0 Unbelievable0

16 Jul 2014 17:41:22
Big balde's dad has just passed away that's why he wasn't in the squad mate

Agree0 Disagree0

I a know mate got told that the day, but would RD have played him?

Agree0 Disagree0

16 Jul 2014 21:48:43
Doubt it tbh especially still at 0-0 so late on really don't think we would have seen him

Agree0 Disagree0

16 Jul 2014 08:55:12
Here's my view of things, on top of what I've said on the other threads. RD's going to go with a 4-3-3 as his first choice formation and 4-2-3-1 as his backup plan this season.

We lack the players for his favoured option, and barely have the players good enough for the Plan B as well. We need wide players, we've been screaming out for these positions to be filled for a couple of seasons now.

I'd like to see Mulgrew moved back to his POTY winning position at CB with van Dijk and trying Ambrose in the Wanyama-type role:

GK: Forster

RB: Lustig
LB: Izaguirre
RCB: van Dijk
LCB: Mulgrew

RM: Matthews
LM:?
CM: Johansen

RW:?
LW: Commons
FW:?

-------------------------------------------------------------

GK: Forster

RB: Lustig
LB: Izaguirre
RCB: van Dijk
LCB: Mulgrew

RDM: Ambrose
LDM: Johansen

RW: Matthews
LW:?
AMC: Commons

FW:?

-------------------------------------------------------------

Thoughts?

Believable0 Unbelievable0

That's not a bad shout about swapping mulgrew and Efe. At least when Efe has a howler, there'll be cover. I still think Pukki should get a few games to prove himself and Griffiths looks uncomfortable out wide. I don't know how stokes would hold up on the left as he links up play well. I also think Henderson has a lot to contribute, been very impressed with him any time I've seen him.

Agree0 Disagree0

I would be happy with -

Forseter

Matthews
Lustig (could do with another CB)
Van Dijk
Izzy (but really want a new LB)

Biton
Brown
Johanson

Forrest
Watt
Borrigter/Griffiths/Stokes

Obviously this is going off what we got atm but a new CB would leave effe as backup (which I think he is at best), allow lustig an Matthews to fight for RB. Would like a CM/CAM but obviously got a few of them so priority would be a winger and ST, get of Stokes IMO, sick of him and his attitude (which I know is some cheek considering I have Watt in my team, but think he deserves a chance and could potentially be better than anything we could afford)

Agree0 Disagree0

16 Jul 2014 08:09:35
Ok not the best I've ever seen but liked some of the movement in the second half. Oposition set out to defend in depth and were difficult to break down. Team is still warming up and getting used to a new system. I still think we need a creative general in midfield and definitely missed broony but all in all I am happy with Ronnies beginning. It all bodes well for a great season. IRWT HAIL HAIL.

Believable0 Unbelievable0

MMI, I think you are not far from the truth. I thought commons was excellent and just lacking in match fitness. Stokes and Griffiths were poor, and Efe made me cringe.other than that, pleased with the result.

Agree0 Disagree0

16 Jul 2014 17:43:04
Thought griffiths done not bad tbh felt sorry for him stuck out wide

Agree0 Disagree0

Yes I think efe is a car crash waiting to happen but to be fair he probs needs time ro recover from a busy few weeks

Agree0 Disagree0

16 Jul 2014 07:29:17
Okay it was the first competitive game with a new Manager but I can still see the need to strengthen in most positions. I could see a Scottish Premier team would have beat us last night and regardless of what formation is favoured, you need the right players. Could see the difference when Derk came on as a winger.

I thought it wasn't pre season, it was a Champions League game and as my biggest complaint about Neil Lennon was complacency in the team. Didn't look sorted out, well not yet anyway so a wee worry for me.

As always, the Manager is much more experienced than me at this so I need to give Ronny time to build his own team and get his own style of play going which doesn't happen overnight.

Well done Calum McGregor though, good stuff!

Believable0 Unbelievable0

15 Jul 2014 23:44:40
Poor to watch but a wins a win this early in the season. I still think we need a goalscorer. Stokes, Griffiths, Commons, Pukki, Balde, etc aren't the answer in Europe!

Believable0 Unbelievable0

Just to frustrate you more hb .the boy we let go when we signed fridjonnson has scored 13 goals in 15 games and is top scorer in norway . Do we even penny pinch at the 50,000-100,000 level? or could park and lennon not tell a decent striker between them

Agree0 Disagree0

Agreed. Some of the footy was pretty good though I'll just add. Hopefully put the lack of goals down to match sharpness.

Agree0 Disagree0

I agree about Park, I would add Lawwell, I think the only good one we bought was Hooper, who Lennon scouted himself. I think Lennon had not a bad eye for a player, it was his primitive methods that let him down! Deep river bhoy what player are you talking about that we let go? The top scorer in Norway is Kjartansson - he didn't play for us did he?

Agree0 Disagree0

Paul . we had (kjartson)him on trial the same time as fridjonsson but never took it further

Agree0 Disagree0

Paul, hooper was recommended to us by ex player jim melrose

Agree0 Disagree0

I didn't know that mate, cheers! Sounds about right though - I don't think we have ever done a good deal one way or the other via a trial. The baffling thing was we had Fridjohnsson on trial, signed him, Lennon specifically said we had signed him for the here and now, but he doesn't seem to be good enough. Someone told me we had Balde on trial the year before we signed him also, that was under Lennon, so maybe he got lucky with Hooper! The law of averages suggest anyone can at least get some right. Maybe John Park got all his good ones in early, because for the last couple of years the signings have been absolutely terrible. Him and Lawwell better sort it out because the amount of money that is getting wasted, even on all these relatively small wages, on this huge squad is bizarre. Ideally you want a squad of about 16-18 top quality players and maybe 5 from the youth set-up to give you about 22 players. We have a squad of about 35 including the kids, and I wouldn't be bothered if they all left. Sure there is a few that I wouldn't mind keeping - Forster, Lustig, Virgil, Henderson, but I wouldn't be heartbroken if they left also. In saying that, I have high hopes for young Henderson, and if young O'Connell can fill out, and work on his pace, he might become a good centre half!

Agree0 Disagree0

16 Jul 2014 00:03:37
I don't think we need another striker to
Be honest give watt and balde a go and
I still think after a good pre season pukki might
Have something to give to the team as for
Stokes and griffies think they lacked the hunger
Tonight

Believable0 Unbelievable0

{Ed007's Note - Tony Watt played the whole 90 mins with the reserves against Stenhousemuir tonight.}

I'd move Ambrose in to the Wanyama role n stick Mulgrew at CB because he's never a midfielder. We need to punt 4-5 of they strikers n buy a top quality one ASAP! Stokes, Griffiths, Pukki, Balde, Watt, etc aren't European level players.

Agree0 Disagree0

Disagree. We have been lacking up front since hooper left, balde is not a striker. Sooner cut loses with him the better

Agree0 Disagree0

Hopefully that goes with your theory Ed that he has not had enough training/is lacking fitness. Really want to see the bhoy given a real run out this season

Agree0 Disagree0

16 Jul 2014 07:31:09
Why was he no over in iceland ed? was it a fitness issue or just not selected

Agree0 Disagree0

Do you think Ed, Watt playing 90mins for the development side, indicates he is for the off or is he coming back to join the main team.

Agree0 Disagree0

{Ed007's Note - Last night was his first 90 mins in 4/5 months so once his fitness is up to speed I expect he will get the same chances as anyone else to prove himself.}

 
Change Consent