At 1:45 yesterday afternoon the prospects of Celtic stretching their lead at the top of the table by the end of the day appeared slight. The tide has turned in Celtic’s favour in recent weeks but leagues are hard to win and we need only think back to how many chances St Mirren peppered Fraser Forster’s goal with to appreciate the difference between winning games and dropping points.
Teams in the SPL are well organised, even eighth place St Mirren, who are on a run of poor form but apart from a couple of lapses defended well, created more chances than Celtic and played with adventure and confidence.
Celtic are the best team in the league but there will not be a single game before the end of the season in which they will be able to take anything for granted. The result from yesterday we should pay most attention to is bottom of the league Dunfermline’s 0-3 win at Kilmarnock. This is a league without whipping boys.
Click here to view the new issue of CQN Magazine online for free. You can support the online edition by making a discretionary donation here.
792 Comments- Pages:
- «
- 1
- ...
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 16
- ...
- 21
- »
BULL67
I totally understand that, and it does pain me as well, but I see it as a sort of retribution, if they are going to win and on many ocassions win with the help of the cheats with the whistles and flags, why not make a few bob from them.
Many years ago, it was Bobby Taits last game if I recall, and they were beaten 2-1 at home Killie I think, that result cost me a fortune, the draw would have cost me as well mind you, but I sort of made it a mission to make money from their cheating, it carries on to this day, but not for too much longer I hope.
I had 14 up that day out of 15 on the long coupon, 3 from each section, the huns were 1/8 that day, I had 2 of those brit pounds on it, had they won I would have been over 70k richer, irked me ever since.
SFTB
I always read what you post when I come across it.
I fear your last post was a triple waste of thought, energy, oxygen, a few heart beats, skin on the ends of your fingers and so on…
MWD
My preferred midfield would be:
2 from ledley, vic , Kayal
2 from commons, forrest, Sammi
That’s the balance of grit and creativity I like..
JimmyQuinnsBits 22:05
I don’t like Brown in a middle two, and don’t think he’s looked too good out on the wing in the last couple of games. I’d play a midfield 3 of Brown, Wanyama and Ledley, with either one or two of Forrest, Commons and Samaras with both or one of Hooper and Stokes.
MWD
You may well be proven right
My dear,dear,dear,friend..Jimmy Quinn’s Boots
Pal.
Ah like the Mak-Up o’ yer Middy..Forrest Broonie, Victor Ledley Commons.
wan Man Up Front.. fur Maist Games…
Ledley drapped.. when we play 4-4-2
Although, Broonie, Is a Problem
fur
Ma Ideal Middy wid be..
Forrest, Kayal, Victor Ledley and Commons.
and Wan Lonely Linwood Striker ..up Front.
It maks Sense..
UNCOMMON SENSE.. but, guid Sense.. Nevertheless.
Let’s stoap kidding aroon… Broonie should Be sold.. fur..
Ach.,. Ah furgoat..
Naebuddy wanted him.. did they?
So Lenny, is stuck wi’ Him..unless ,he wants tae let him
go fur nowt..in the Summer.. so
Lenny, Hid tae Gie Him a New contract.
Broony, wull dae.. until Kayal comes back.. Hopefully, Fit fur Purpose.
Then..,
Weel… Awe the Pigeons in Toon hiv bin WARNED!
Fur Kayal wull be bringin’ his Cat wi’ him!
Kojo
yer pal..who likes ye aloater
NAKAS bus trick up next on ITV Adrian Childs show,
quick
the long wait,
I’ve had a lot of patience for Sammi, probably more than most on here, and he has had a decent run of games on the left, but not yesterday. He has skill in abundance, but doesn’t have a footballin brain in his head. If he gets the ball when he’s facing the right way, and the defenders have doubled up, he can do damage. With his back to goal, playin on the left, it doesn’t achieve much that I can see, the ball goes straight back. Commons has more guile, and wants to see the ball go forward more, so will look for an aggressive pass.
nwf,
if we were playin one up front, ok. Stokes and Hooper scare defences tho, I believe we need to go with the two of them
is our midfield a problem or have we got an abundance of quality? Looking at also raners, their season went ali oop when naiknees made an innocent flying lunge at somebody.
In the past Celtic have splashed out on Kean and Bellamy at this time
Of the year. Wages probably been around the 40 or 50k mark for the duration of the
Short term contract. Who do you think Celtic could sign on a short term deal
For these kind of wages?? My wish would be Drogba!! I can but dream!!
Hail Hail TBhoy
Kean obviously Keane!!
the long wait is over
It’s big controversy. Jelavic was on off side position and again on side position. The excuse for the referee is long time between these two moments and fact that the ball was played away before Jelavic touched it. Did Jelavic gain an advantage from his off side position ? I doubt it.
I see some referees giving it off side. I see some letting the goal stand on.
Call for same rules is right.
A Son of Dan
I suspect I am in a minority, but on a short term basis I would take Heskey.
I wouldn’t want him on a permanent basis, but his pace and strength would be a good plan B , for midweek away from home games.
We now have 14 games to go, and whilst we can never be complacent, we can actually start looking at our fixtures and calculating what we need.
Win the other 11, draw at Tynecastle, and two draws against Them will get us over the line.
Naturally I would prefer we won all 14, but the results above would get us there , and literally 1 or 2 goals from a burly striker would help us do that.
Trossary Bhoy
Is Drogba not away at the African Nations Cup ?
It will no be him then :>)
Would always play 2 upfront in SPL.
I think the problem in midfield is that even when Broonie is not doing well that another is subbed and never him.
Great to have in the team and maybe not everyone’s cup of tea but would you like to play against Broonie.
Also a good problem to have is too many really good midfielders.
Horses for courses however sometimes in the league but Lenny is the man who makes the decisions and we are doing well right now.
sftb
Brilliant! Did you get a response?
Yesterday – fighting performance from champions-elect. Earlier in the season, mant people were saying that the huns clawing their way to victories was a mark of champions. When we do it, some are worried that it suggests we’re not good enough.
To the doubters-we had one good goal disallowed (because last week no-one complained about healy’s position. Consistency is what we want from MIBs) and a stick-on pen. So should have been 4-0. Oh, what a struggle! Silly bhoys!
Our top scorers didnt find the net but wee jamesie and the club captain did. This is what champions-elect do!
The most exceptional factor in interfering with Celtic’s ‘normal’ game was the wind. The effect of this was to nullify our superior skill as a factor. Big Fraser said after the game that it was the worst he had ever experienced!
Unfortunately, cheating MIBs are the norm and they continue to cheat against us and favour the desperates.
In our winning run, 3 of our most influential players have been FF, Sammi and Broonie, the 3 most popular whipping boys on this site!
Victor was poor yesterday. As some have said, the lad is due a rest but there was far more discussion about whether Broonie had a good/bad game.
I do wonder!
I am fecking loving it. Bring it on!
HH
jackie mac says:
22 January, 2012 at 21:25
I wonder how stewart regan sees the almighty mess rfc have got themselves in. I wonder how he sees it playing out and what his gut feeling is on the punishment they should receive.
—————————————————-
I think there is a much bigger issue to be faced and any punishment doled out must be subservient to addressing that issue.
Amongst all the debate about processes ( FTT/administration/insolvency ) , characters (CW Ellis Etc) and motivations (keeping them going/making a profit on their demise) there is one issue arising from Rangers losing the case that has not had much focus on it, but as decision day draws nearer I believe it is a subject that will start to take centre stage and the issue is that of trust , (real trust and not the EB kind of Trust). It is one that I think will be impossible for a civil society and Rangers and their support to avoid. It will ask of them what kind of club are they and what kind of club do they want to support and what does that say about them as people?
The issue of trust will also affect the SFA and SPL for Rangers did what they did on their watch and football supporters need to believe that those governing our game are doing so out of the higher needs of the game and not narrow self interests. of one club in particular. That trust has almost evaporated and how the SFA/SPL deal with Rangers if HMRC win is going to be more than anything a battle to restore trust in both them and Rangers.
It’s going to be painful, but no pain, no gain.
If HMRC get the decision, even if the amount turns out to be less, the public perception of Rangers will be not only an organisation that dodged its taxes but one, that when faced with doing the right thing and coming clean, continued to argue there was nothing wrong and even if they lose their case, look like they are trying to find a way of not only not paying what they owe but also continuing to compete in Scottish football as Rangers with all its baggage and traditions.
The implications of this are overwhelming in terms of any comeback they might wish to make. Who would want to play football against a club with that kind of background and ethos that no one trusts?
It is the same argument that got Dougie McDonald the sack, we always suspected that some refs were untrustworthy but when he got caught in the act of lying we knew for sure, and it was that certainty that meant the loss of trust and that saw him removed from his position. Their losing the tax case will mean that suspicion becomes certainty.
Now I think Scottish football does need a club of Rangers stature in terms of support and income drawing power, but that club cannot be anything like a Rangers with an ethos that saw it found guilty of tax evasion all the way to the bitter end (if that is the outcome).
Their best hope in my opinion would be to come clean and throw themselves on the mercy of the footballing public. If they want to continue playing in their old form or in a new form, they will have some convincing to do that they can be trusted, hence the requirement to put much more robust procedures in place regardless of where they continue to start to regain any semblance of trust, not necessarily that Rangers ethos will have changed, but that they will get caught out much earlier if it has not and old ways prevail.
I heard Mark Guidi say on Clyde the other night Scotland need Rangers, not the ones in the FTT dock we do not.
Scottish football can rise from the ashes if it does the right thing or wallow in them until the wind of change blows the ashes away.
In reply to a variety of posts attempting to justify yesterday’s offside decision – please read the following which I originally posted early last year. Its from a terrific Observer article by Keith Hackett first published in March 2008 and should be required reading for officials and pundits alike (whether amateur or professional)
Match of the Day caught offside
Alan Shearer, Alan Hansen and TV pundits everywhere are queuing up to criticise the modern offside law – and the officials who enforce it. The Premier League’s head of referees explains why they’re wrong
Last weekend’s Match of the Day criticised the offside law. Questioning Jérémie Aliadière’s valid goal for Middlesbrough against Arsenal, they made a wider point, which I’ve heard before. Match officials can’t work with or understand the modern offside law: if you had 10 referees in a room, they said, you would get 10 different decisions.
Let’s be clear about this. Match officials do know the laws and apply them to the best of their ability – but time and again pundits criticise perfectly valid decisions. The Match of the Day analysis of the Aliadière decision was a case in point. They suggested the goal should not have been given, that the striker should have been flagged for ‘gaining an advantage’ after being in an offside position from the long ball. That is simply wrong.
It is immensely frustrating. The law, clarified by the International FA Board in 2005, is a good, effective one, but it seems to have totally eluded some in the media. Officials understand it perfectly, and so could the lads in the studio if they wanted to – it’s set out in black and white for anyone who can find the time to read it. Many pundits do a great job, but I hope they respect my right to point out when they are misleading fans, and winding themselves up with old or wrong information.
The law really is simple and well defined. First and foremost, it is important to know the key principle: it is not an offence in itself to be in an offside position. Assistants will not flag the moment someone strays offside. A player is only penalised if he then becomes active.
The source of most confusion is clearly in the definition of ‘active’. Pundits keep falling back on the dictionary definition of the word, or their own version of it, rather than the one set out in the laws. It’s intensely frustrating to see them spreading misinformation – misinformation that leads to the sort of abuse that drives officials out of the game.
To be clear, the definition, in the laws, is this: in deciding whether to flag, assistants must watch out for three things, any one of which would make an offside player active.
First, is the offside player interfering with play? As advised by the IFAB since 2005, that means playing or touching the ball. Attempting to play the ball does not count – he must actually play or touch it.
Second, is the player interfering with an opponent’s ability to play the ball, by clearly obstructing the opponent’s line of vision or movements, or by making a gesture or movement which, in the opinion of the referee, deceives or distracts an opponent?
And third, is the player ‘gaining an advantage’? This last point is specific, and is not what Match of the Day seem to think it is. It applies only to an offside player playing a ball that rebounds to him from an opponent, the post or the crossbar. If he does not play the ball from the rebound, then he is not penalised for being in that offside position. Nothing else counts as ‘gaining’.
And that’s it. If a player ticks any one of those three boxes, he is offside. The three-part definition is remembered as ‘PIG’ – if a player doesn’t Play, Interfere or Gain, he is fine.
So, any lingering doubts about the decision……no? Thought not.
The law is a real positive for the game – the pundits should love it. The active definition helps games flow – there are fewer stoppages for offside now – and it makes negative play far less profitable. No sensible team today uses the arms-aloft offside trap made famous by George Graham’s Arsenal in the 80s and 90s. That trap was totally against the spirit of the offside law – it was never intended as a device for earning cheap free-kicks. The active system means that the offside trap is now a dangerous tactic to use and allows the benefit of the doubt to be always with the attacking team.
Of course, the fact that the law is unambiguous does not put an end to split-second mistakes, and we will always try to learn from them and improve. When officials do get it wrong, for example in the Manchester City v Tottenham game last Sunday, or in the same Arsenal v Middlesbrough match when Emmanuel Adebayor was wrongly given offside, we can expect criticism, and the officials concerned are given operational advice. My point is that pundits’ criticism of officials should at least be fair and informed, based on a proper knowledge of the laws, not on some vague idea of what they might be. If I hear one more co-commentator criticise an assistant referee for a ‘late flag’ – when the assistant is clearly waiting to see if an offside player ticks any of the three PIG boxes – my TV will go out of the window.
I’m honestly very proud of the officials who put themselves forward for what is a thankless task. They are hard-working, dedicated and honest, and deserve so much more respect than they get. All I’m asking is that pundits and phone-in critics read the laws before complaining. Failing that, if they really do know better, they should step forward, sign up and have a go themselves.
The Exiled Tim
Would take Drogba when he returned no probs!!
Heaney might be more realistic
TBhoy
TheExiled Tim, was that the one we went to dunfermline the following day to win the league under Wim… the next weekend made up for that disapointment
As an addendum to my previous post here are two case studies cited by Keith Hackett. Does the second one seem at all familiar?
Blackburn v Liverpool
Easter Sunday 16 April 2006
Robbie Fowler chests the ball towards Fernando Morientes, who is onside. But Djibril Cissé, in an offside position nearby, with no defenders around him, sees the ball coming his way, and raises a leg to play it. However, he stops himself just in time, realising he would be flagged for being involved in active play if he made contact. The ball runs on to Morientes, who crosses back to Fowler, who scores. Defenders protest, but the decision is correct. Cissé did not play the ball. ‘Attempting to play the ball’ does not count. He did not interfere – there were no defenders near him – and he didn’t gain an advantage (there was no rebound).
Manchester City v Blackburn
Thursday 27 December 2007
Blackburn cross from the right: the ball goes over the head of David Dunn, in an offside position, and reaches Roque Santa Cruz, running from an onside position, who scores. The assistant referee flags Dunn offside – but quickly realises Dunn wasn’t active: he didn’t play the ball, interfere with an opponent, or gain an advantage. The assistant calls the referee over, explains why the goal should stand, and the referee agrees. This example shows the importance of assistants not being too quick to flag.
TET
Do you mean the Tommy Johnson 1-2 winner at Ibrox?
u
Kojo,
I fundamentally… yes, mentally, disagree with this one up front. Under that abomination (gaun yersel big Paisley) of a formation, the ball skits along the midfield with a final cross ball in from the wings and the lone striker in the wrong position – back lookin for the baw.
Kayal’s a wee tiger, and a far better player than Broony. However, a wee story… There was a bunch of us used to go out for the occasional slurp. Me, Garvie – who I luv’d to bits, and Davie Broon (no relation). Now and again we’d end up in the rougher boozers at the rougher time of night. Wee Garvie wis a firework, wouldn’t back down from a fight, but couldn’t avoid one…. cos folk believed they could beat him. Davie however never got into a fight in all the years I knew him; he won it before it kicked off. Davie had a look in his eyes that told everybody… I’m goin to keep on comin back at you.
Kayal minds me of wee Garvie, but Broony is Davie… a wee bit mad, in the best sense.
Bull67
I think we won it beating St Johnstone the next week, I could be wrong, my memory ain’t that good these days, too much vino fuddles they grey matter that I didn’t have too much of in the first place.
My dear,dear,dear,friend.. Bhoy67 @ 22.11
Thanks fur the Nod, pal.
Ah am Pleased as Punch..that Ma Thoughts oan Yesterday
Confronto.. Are in Lock Step with those o’ yourgoodsel’ and yer Guid Buddies.
Ah always tell is Like if Lays!
and ,in daeing so.. Ah, invariably.. Smash a Few Ikons that are oan the Mantlepiece… Tramp, oan mair than a goodly Few Toes, and
Slaughter an even Larger Number o’ Sacred Coos!
But, That is Jis Me.. and
That is whit Ah dae,dae!
Nice Chatting Pally.
Kojo
yer pal.. who likes ye,already.
Omer Damari
Linked with him in the summer but he moved to Hapoel Tel Aviv. He has continued scoring with 15 goals in 30 appearances. Rumour has it he has a buy out clause of 3 Million Euros.
Erik Huseklepp might be on the radar again as Portsmouth in financial trouble.
On that note, Goodnight and God Bless.
Trossary Bhoy
Who is Heaney ?
Hearing Aberdeen and Hun Casuals had a field day yesterday.. Female police officer dragged off her horse and assaulted… What a bunch of morons..!
Naka catching the bus
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qAFiRRlcbG8
HH
ulysses mcghee
No , the game was when they were beaten 1-2 at home by Killie, it was the game Tait had asked for and he added much more time on in the hope the hun won the game, Killie scored after about 95 mins if I recall, he cheated for all the world to see, and they still cheat for all the world to see, and sfa is done about it.
This league may not have a team that can be considered whipping boys but our own players seem to provide such a service for some posters.
12 wins in a row but Neil still seems to be getting it wrong, funny that?
BULL67
If I had read your post correctly :>)
I honestly can’t remember if we went to Dunf the next day, I will take your word for that.
goldstar10 says:
22 January, 2012 at 21:53
This puts it beyond doubt.
http://www.scottishfa.co.uk/scottish_football.cfm?page=843
Excellent contribution.
Who`d be a referee?
Doesn`t curb my “paranoia”,however.
our best midfield?
i have no idea what our best midfield is because it depends on what type of game Celtic are playing.
it a bit horses for courses i think.
I would hope Celtic set up slightly different at home to inverness than away to hearts.
I know one thing Ki in a 4 man mid away from home kills the tempo of our game i.m.o.p
tictalker talking tic
somtimes
dwptom at 22:30
Really don’t want to be defending Andrews, but I don’t think that definition gives a clear cut answer to the Rogne “goal”.
Ledley (if it was him) in trying to head the ball draws a defender who otherwise might have challenged Rogne for the ball – therefor he is distracting an opponent.
shportsheen
on now
BBCwan(yama)
ok. bhoys , spotscene sweep time.
who’s on first ?
Whit ?! us !!