Gazza_8 233 Posted March 1, 2011 Share Posted March 1, 2011 2-1 Celtic. We can't handle their attack. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
calscot 0 Posted March 1, 2011 Share Posted March 1, 2011 1-1, ET and pens ........... Wouldn't be surprised with that at all. The interesting question is which team has the most bottle for it? I can't think of too many penalty takers for us but I'd go for Whittaker, Jelavic, Diouf, Lafferty and Davis - presuming they start and are still on. Healy, Weiss and Fleck could be reasonable shouts if they come on. Bougherra and Papac are dark horses from defence. Wouldn't want Weir to take one and not sure about the bottle holding ability of Edu. Bartley is a bit young as well as new to the team for that kind of pressure. I'm assuming Naismith won't play. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
craig 5,199 Posted March 1, 2011 Share Posted March 1, 2011 I dont think you can say that "Celtic have obviously dipped" - they lost one game because they believed their own hype, that is far different from their form dipping - and suggesting their form has dipped because they have lost one game is naive at best. We have "improved" ? We have ? Lisbon was, apparently (never saw the game) was another poor performance and St Johnstone put up ZERO resistance - the 4-0 scoreline was probably a fair reflection of the game but not because we were any great shakes. We still defended too deep and we still allowed ourselves to be put under pressure until the 3rd goal went in. I keep hearing how the previous cup tie we were unlucky - why is that ? Celtic had as good a chance to win that game as we did, and but for a McGregor wonder save we would have been beaten by a team who played more than half the game with 10 men. Yes, we also had chances but you only really can suggest we were unlucky if you apply the blue-tinted specs. We were played off the park by a team who were a man down. Fast forward 10 days and we were completely outclassed and it really was a 3-0 doing going on 5 or 6. The fact that Celtic have since lost to Motherwell may suggest a dip in form to you - but to me it could just as easily result in the kick up the arse they need that they need to apply themselves to win games - and none of us can deny that they have applied themselves far better than we have in both of the previous two games. Sure, those games could also be the boot up the arse we need too. The form book usually gets thrown out in these games, which would be good for us.... but they just look like they have the belief that we cant beat them. Hopefully that belief is mis-judged. But I am pessimistic heading into this game. I will be annoyed if we lose but only really because it is against THEM - we could be doing with fewer games as we dont really have the squad to cope - and our big target for the season is the league, 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
calscot 0 Posted March 1, 2011 Share Posted March 1, 2011 I dont think you can say that "Celtic have obviously dipped" - they lost one game because they believed their own hype, that is far different from their form dipping - and suggesting their form has dipped because they have lost one game is naive at best. I think I left enough balance in my post and ambiguity in my conclusions to be called naive. A bad loss is a dip in form, even if it's just a pot-hole - some drivers can be rattled, to some it can be a reminder to vigilant and focus. What effect it will have on Celtic is anyone's guess - which is pretty much what I was saying before. We have "improved" ? We have ? Lisbon was, apparently (never saw the game) was another poor performance and St Johnstone put up ZERO resistance - the 4-0 scoreline was probably a fair reflection of the game but not because we were any great shakes. We still defended too deep and we still allowed ourselves to be put under pressure until the 3rd goal went in. Cruising to a 4-0 when appearing not to play well sounds like improvement to me. The Lisbon game might not have been wonderful but it was a vast improvement over the last Celtic game. There was a load of mistakes and we were pushed back for much of the time and rode the storm but he massive difference in attitude and application was that we didn't capitulate - which ultimately paid off. I doubt Sporting are a worse team than Celtic and I personally seen quite a few positives from that game which I also think it can give the players a lift. But maybe not... I keep hearing how the previous cup tie we were unlucky - why is that ? Celtic had as good a chance to win that game as we did, and but for a McGregor wonder save we would have been beaten by a team who played more than half the game with 10 men. Yes, we also had chances but you only really can suggest we were unlucky if you apply the blue-tinted specs. We were played off the park by a team who were a man down. Maybe we were lucky maybe we weren't - we may not have dominated but we had the better chances in my eyes. We were probably the lesser team but not badly enough for them to win easily or stop us from having great chances including smacking one of the woodwork. I also thought they had the better of the referee which helped them significantly. 10 men teams often step things up and somehow play better than the 11, we've done it loads of times and even won a final with 9 men. It's a paradox but I can't see how it can be the true measurement of two teams in one match. Fast forward 10 days and we were completely outclassed and it really was a 3-0 doing going on 5 or 6. The fact that Celtic have since lost to Motherwell may suggest a dip in form to you - but to me it could just as easily result in the kick up the arse they need that they need to apply themselves to win games - and none of us can deny that they have applied themselves far better than we have in both of the previous two games. Sure, those games could also be the boot up the arse we need too. It could be a kick up the arse or it could knock their confidence - who knows? Nothing wrong with perusing the possibilities. It's like Schrodinger's cat, we'll only know for sure after we open the box. The form book usually gets thrown out in these games, which would be good for us.... but they just look like they have the belief that we cant beat them. Hopefully that belief is mis-judged. Confidence can help but it can also backfire when it leads to delusion, and when it's knocked it can be a big setback. The way Lennon works, I think their team could end up verging on manic-depressive. I believe he's hyping them too much which rarely works for long. But I am pessimistic heading into this game. I will be annoyed if we lose but only really because it is against THEM - we could be doing with fewer games as we dont really have the squad to cope - and our big target for the season is the league, You can be as pessimistic as you like but I don't believe it makes you any wiser than the "naive" optimist. This game is like Brownian motion, with a reasonably high standard deviation. Even with a drift factor to favour Celtic, it's impossible to accurately predict which way it will go. Optimism is no wiser either - except perhaps it's a trait of many successful people and those that live longer... 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
craig 5,199 Posted March 1, 2011 Share Posted March 1, 2011 I'm assuming Naismith won't play. He is suspended after being sent off in the 1st game 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
maineflyer 0 Posted March 1, 2011 Share Posted March 1, 2011 2-1 Celtic. We can't handle their attack. Our fullbacks are the problem against celtic. Can't get forward, can't handle their wide play. Whittaker is a liability most games, against celtic he was a self-destruct button. Papac was simply an out ball for Weir and a punt up the park. If you can solve this weakness and you can get our fullbacks to attack you'll stem much of their play going forward. I can't see how we do it without different personnel. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Norris Cole 0 Posted March 1, 2011 Share Posted March 1, 2011 3-1 Rangers. Quite confident, with no basis whatsoever. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ian1964 10,532 Posted March 1, 2011 Author Share Posted March 1, 2011 Our fullbacks are the problem against celtic. Can't get forward, can't handle their wide play. Whittaker is a liability most games, against celtic he was a self-destruct button. Papac was simply an out ball for Weir and a punt up the park. If you can solve this weakness and you can get our fullbacks to attack you'll stem much of their play going forward. I can't see how we do it without different personnel. If Foster was to play RB with Whittaker RM this would strengthen the right side, I think that might just be what WS does,with Naismith out and if Weiss is out I'd have Lafferty LM and that IMO would strengthen the left side,but I can see Diuof being @ LM leaving Jelavic as lone striker??? 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
maineflyer 0 Posted March 1, 2011 Share Posted March 1, 2011 If Foster was to play RB with Whittaker RM this would strengthen the right side, I think that might just be what WS does,with Naismith out and if Weiss is out I'd have Lafferty LM and that IMO would strengthen the left side,but I can see Diuof being @ LM leaving Jelavic as lone striker??? It's better but the problem with that is it still leaves a weak Whittaker on the right and while Foster can get forward, he's not the best defender. He is however a solid improvement on Whittaker. As we saw a week ago, the threat from celtic comes mainly down our right flank and if we give them as easy a time again I fear the result will be no different. I'd be tempted to play Bougherra at right back with Foster in front of him and SDOW and Bartley at CB. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ian1964 10,532 Posted March 1, 2011 Author Share Posted March 1, 2011 It's better but the problem with that is it still leaves a weak Whittaker on the right and while Foster can get forward, he's not the best defender. He is however a solid improvement on Whittaker. As we saw a week ago, the threat from celtic comes mainly down our right flank and if we give them as easy a time again I fear the result will be no different. I'd be tempted to play Bougherra at right back with Foster in front of him and SDOW and Bartley at CB. Aye,another option. I'd actually like to see Jelavic & Diuof play as the front two,but I can't see that happening either 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.