Rangers 2 - 2 Celtic (Rangers win 5-4 after penalties)

[boabie 230]

The deluded continue to re-write history. Listen to what this rocket thinks of us humping them -

 

" Of course it was embarrassing. However, we deserved to win that game despite being awful. They had lots of possession, Warburton teams will more often than not because of the way he sets them up. They will also struggle to score because the CF moves away from goal to offer himself short to allow them to keep possession. They concede loads of chances to any semi decent opponent - we had 33 shots, 1 every 4 minutes! "

 

33 shots ? Maybe he was at a different game.

[Scott7 5,662]

These are the stats.

 

He does make a point though not about them deserving a win.

[boabie 230]

These are the stats.

 

He does make a point though not about them deserving a win.

 

I'm sorry Scott, but having watched the whole game again last night I just did not see them have 33 shots on goal. Not unless we are counting attempted crosses or similar.

I've noticed since the match was played that , as is their method, the number of their attempts has continued to rise daily. It'll be over a hundred by the time we play them again.

[Scott7 5,662]

The stats are from BBC, Boabie.

 

Shots on goal mean nothing. A sclaff that trickles out has the same staus as a rocket from twenty yards that smacks off the crossbar.

 

I only saw the highlights and on these, edited of course, celtic had more goes on goal than Rangers. Possession and intricate patterns are very welcome. Deny the opposition time on the ball but a greater degree of penetration is needed.

[buster. 4,974]

The stats are from BBC, Boabie.

 

Shots on goal mean nothing. A sclaff that trickles out has the same staus as a rocket from twenty yards that smacks off the crossbar.

 

I only saw the highlights and on these, edited of course, celtic had more goes on goal than Rangers. Possession and intricate patterns are very welcome. Deny the opposition time on the ball but a greater degree of penetration is needed.

 

Regards that particular game, our options up front were limited and our full backs more measured in their attacking.

Nor did Celtic attack in a way that left space to get in behind as was thought they might.

 

We switched on and concentrated back to middle with very few errors and our success that day was based on it.

The first bad/careless defensive error that I can remember came from Law.

[boabie 230]

The stats are from BBC, Boabie.

 

Shots on goal mean nothing. A sclaff that trickles out has the same staus as a rocket from twenty yards that smacks off the crossbar.

 

I only saw the highlights and on these, edited of course, celtic had more goes on goal than Rangers. Possession and intricate patterns are very welcome. Deny the opposition time on the ball but a greater degree of penetration is needed.

 

The silly mank who made the post was imo saying that despite his side not being able to get near the ball, his team had more attempts and were unlucky not to win. He then compounds his stupidity by analysing how our team are set up and play. We were without key players yet still managed to play his side off the pitch for long periods.

The statistics say the square root of nothing. Anybody neutral watching that game would say that Rangers were the better team and deserved to win and go through.

Edited April 27, 2016 by boabie

[calscot 0]

I've always thought that shots on goal etc that while interesting, should not be used without qualification to measure whether a team "should have won". It's a quantitative analysis, not a qualitative one, which has the benefit of being to some extent a bit objective. There is still some subjectivity in interpreting what constitutes a shot, which can give skewed results.

 

For, a think a better analysis would be to count the number of attacks that we very good chances and also count the good chances. Trouble here is that that is very subjective and goes back to the tinted glasses caveat.

 

However, thinking with the top of my head, I do believe they had more very good chances, like the sitter and hitting the woodwork, plus a couple of good saves. This does mean that fate played a slight hand and we could easily have lost the game had luck turned against us. That does not take away from an excellent and dominant performance, but not only shows that football is a funny old game, it highlights some of our weaknesses.

 

The usual analogy applies that your only as strong as your weakest link, and we a few to strengthen.

 

If it was last year and the game went the other way around, although I wouldn't be arrogantly asserting that we should have won, I would definitely be taking heart in the fact we could have won. However, the difference for them is that doesn't work when you expected to give the opposition a hiding. Any coulda, shoulda just doesn't apply in that context.

Edited April 27, 2016 by calscot

[boabie 230]

I've always thought that shots on goal etc that while interesting, should not be used without qualification to measure whether a team "should have won". It's a quantitative analysis, not a qualitative one, which has the benefit of being to some extent a bit objective. There is still some subjectivity in interpreting what constitutes a shot, which can give skewed results.

 

For, a think a better analysis would be to count the number of attacks that we very good chances and also count the good chances. Trouble here is that that is very subjective and goes back to the tinted glasses caveat.

 

However, thinking with the top of my head, I do believe they had more very good chances, like the sitter and hitting the woodwork, plus a couple of good saves. This does mean that fate played a slight hand and we could easily have lost the game had luck turned against us. That does not take away from an excellent and dominant performance, but not only shows that football is a funny old game, it highlights some of our weaknesses.

 

The usual analogy applies that your only as strong as your weakest link, and we a few to strengthen.

 

If it was last year and the game went the other way around, although I wouldn't be arrogantly asserting that we should have won, I would definitely be taking heart in the fact we could have won. However, the difference for them is that doesn't work when you expected to give the opposition a hiding. Any coulda, shoulda just doesn't apply in that context.

 

Cal, I'm sure we've all seen matches where the if your aunty had baws debate applies. 'IF' Brown had scored. 'IF' Roberts had scored. 'IF' Griffiths shot had went in. The point is, they didn't. How many times this season, even in the past fortnight, have we had 60/65% possession, battered teams, yet failed to win.

Celtic didn't come close to "battering" us yet still the rewriting of history by their fans continues, especially the way they keep throwing up stats. Now that Delilah is receiving his P45 the game against us can be resummarised and they are counted unlucky.

Some might ask why that concerns me. They are only deluding themselves. But I want our team to take some credit for a mighty fine performance. I object to somebody coating that display in matt black paint.

[craig 5,199]

I'm sorry Scott, but having watched the whole game again last night I just did not see them have 33 shots on goal. Not unless we are counting attempted crosses or similar.

I've noticed since the match was played that , as is their method, the number of their attempts has continued to rise daily. It'll be over a hundred by the time we play them again.

 

The stats after the game had their shots on goal as 33. The number hasn't increased at all.

 

Those stats came from Sky Sports I believe.

 

Remember, shots on goal also include trundlers that barely make it to the keeper and "attempts" that go out for a throw-in.

 

Either way, the only Statistic that matters is who made the final.... and that would be us.

[der Berliner 3,547]

Now that is classy ... Rangers - Ecstasy of Gold

 

 

(BTW, no word about home violance figures for some reason. Even though, I guess they will be clad in the Old Firm - mantle anyway ... )