Celtic Banter Archive June 26 2015

26 Jun 2015 21:56:29
Who would everyone like to see shown the door this summer derk.stokes.balde I would say mulgrew but can see him playing more left sided center half next season

{Ed007's Note - Balde, Boerrigter, Forrest and Mulgrew for definite and I wouldn't be fussed if Ambrose and Stokes left as long as we brought in better replacements.}

26 Jun 2015 23:01:47
Balde, Fridjonsson, Mulgrew, Boerrigter, Stokes, Ambrose

26 Jun 2015 23:09:20
The way ronny is talking ed forrest will be in his starting 11 every week if fit saying the potential period is over and now is the time to prove it

26 Jun 2015 23:11:14
Really can't understand why some fans want rid of big mulgrew! Think the big man has never let us down! He can play in a number of positions his set piece deliveries are top class and he knows what it means to play for our club! Think it's harsh to want rid of him.watchn him against the Republic after so many months out,I tought he was superb! And dealt with anythin the Republic threw at him! Would be disappointed to see him go

27 Jun 2015 00:41:37
Wiss67 totally agree bhoy charlie is a reliable (most times) squad member that doesn't really cause a fuss in public so if the lads willing to stay nice 1 as u say he covers a few positions hail hail

27 Jun 2015 03:22:54
Essentially it will always depend upon the replacements that would be brought in. But hypithetically:

Balde - Scheidt.

Fridjonsson - hazard to guess he won't cut it.

Stokes - doesn't actually have a position in our system, much better AM and ST out there.

Boerrigter - final year of contract and just about lost hope he can be the player he was. Best to cut losses now.

Ambrose - can't defend. Totally football related too.

Commons - "whoah jim tim, what you sayin?", wasn't bothered if he signed his last deal or not but Johansen has made that CAM his own and Armstrong is great cover. KC can't keep up. Sorry.

McGregor, Fisher, McGeough - decent. But just decent.

27 Jun 2015 07:24:52
Zaluska (gone)
Pukki (gone)
Balde
Boerrigter
Fridjohnsson
Stokes
Rogic
McGregor
McGeouch
Ambrose (always got a smile on his face but its time to go)

None of these players have a future with us.

27 Jun 2015 09:01:59
What is it with some people why lose decent players ( Mulgrew, Forrest, Commons ) for the unknown
Agree with all of the others with the exception of Mcgeouch he will be cover for central midfield not right winger. This is where he played for Hibs We have no cover for Brown and maybe this is where he will end up. Let us give him a try he is only young
Ambrose is a difficult one and perhaps we should hold on to him until January when Denayer might be available if he can't break into Man City first team

27 Jun 2015 10:29:43
I would say keep Rogic think he's best to go on loan in spl see how he performs still think there's a player there of fit and could be KC replacement

26 Jun 2015 10:42:03
Not Celtic related more on the youth international front. What's everyone's thoughts on the current rules regarding the Under 21's Euros as a WHOLE. I was having a look at both England and Italy's team line-ups and there was something like 8 22 year olds in the England team and 3 23 year olds. Italy also had some over age players.

Now I'm not sure on the rules specifically but I'm sure it counts as long as your 21 during the qualifiers then I presume your allowed to go to the finals. For me this is an absolute diabolical rule. Playing rugby league my self I was involved in Scotland 15's right up to the pro squad. And we weren't allowed to play at all if for instance at an under 18's tournament you had to be 18 before a certain date to make that otherwise the squad was mostly made up of 17/16 year olds. I understand rules are rugby are more safety and insurance coverage of the players.

Having 22 year olds playing in an under 21's tournament is bad enough but when there's players at 23 be as well making it an under 25s tournament or even just diminish it.

For me youth development should always come first before the "winning at all costs" mentality so I'm against the competitiveness to an extent.

{Ed007's Note - You played rugby over a season that's why it was Under 15s etc like in football and the cut off dates to what unders you play in are very clear. Did you ever play in a tournament that took two years to complete? You'd be overage by the time the tournament started.
Why should players play their ass off in qualifiers and then not be allowed to take part in the actual tournament? The rules have been the same since 1978, before that it was an Under 23 tournament.
If you're against competitiveness then why bother with football? One of the main reasons Scottish football is in a mess is that 20 years ago some clueless pen pusher decided that at certian youth levels of football if any team reached a 5 goal margin the score went back to 0-0 to save the other team's feelings.

26 Jun 2015 14:25:53
Was just talking to an old coach of my sons yesterday . He was telling Me that you can play 3 years at under 21 , and just to put an extra point to the one you said about putting the score line back to 0-0 he also swear the worst thing to happen in scottish football was the introduction of pro youth set up , he reckons the boys are to young to conform to the rules and regs of it .

{Ed007's Note - But they're not too young to understand the difference between winning and losing.}

26 Jun 2015 16:50:16
We have to down the Dutch route I think and they don't play any competitive games until a certain age. It's all about technical ability

{Ed007's Note - In Holland from the age of 5 you can join organised club football. At that age you start playing 4 v 4, moving up to 7 v 7 in the U7’s and U9’s. From the U11 the youth starts playing 11 v 11. In the Netherlands the key ethos is that all age-group teams should play 4-3-3 and that coaching sessions should be fun, with individuality allowed whether players are future stars of Ajax, PSV Eindhoven and FC Twente or destined to remain in the grassroots game.
Competitive youth football is also played between professional and amateur clubs, which means standards between the sport's two strands are closer. The professional clubs scout the players for their academies from amateur clubs in the area.}

26 Jun 2015 19:45:57
Totally agree with EDs point.

I played school football and in P5 we got beat in a semi final of an all Edinburgh tournament that took place over the course of a season. The following season we could take part again and we won it which was a great achievement. Now they play a round robin tournament with the local league winners taking part and if the teams are tied they share the cup. SHARE?? What an utter nonsense.

Also at school they don't sit exams as there is too much pressure on them? What happens when they have to go for a job and complete an assessment or an interview?

Rant over!

26 Jun 2015 21:17:39
Your points bang on ed , how are these boys meant to learn anything if they protect them from the fundamentals of the game , winning is what it s all about , I don't know the rules for different areas but I've a couple mates who coach in the Cumbernauld league and all teams that aren't playing 11 aside , I think it's fun 4 s , soccer 7 s etc go through season playing each other home and away and they don't play for trophys or medals?? They don't even have player of the year at there clubs , my point is basically the same as yours
Why take the competitive edge out of youth football , turning scored back to 0-0 , no trophy or medals , just seems pointless to me , nothing better as a boy winning things and having a the rewards to show for it , no wonder we try to bring in foreign influences at pro club level because it's slowly been lost down the years