Celtic v OFFC, Saturday 3rd September at 12:30pm (Parkhead timezone)

Imatim said:
On another day, against more clinical opposition, allowing the time and space for crosses like that to be delivered in to our penalty box, is really going to hurt us imo…
Click to expand...
We would possibly have to totally change shape and formation if we want to just stop a handful of crosses imo.
It's the scums way of playing of hoofing the ball into the box and hoping for the best and still got fuck all joy from it, yet look at the success and joy we got from O'Reilly and abada.
So imo we have to take to much away from our attacking play with expecting O'Reilly and abada to do more defensive work than attacking duties to cut out a handful of crosses.
Not Ange's way and no matter the risk involved, I much rather the plan Ange has adopted, especially when I thought O'Reilly and abada were outstanding and played huge roles for us gaining such a handsome victory imo.
Josip can only do so much and easily won his main battle against the banjo boy, so overall I think its a little bit of nitpicking from a superb all round team performance imo.
 
John nó said:
We would possibly have to totally change shape and formation if we want to just stop a handful of crosses imo.
It's the scums way of playing of hoofing the ball into the box and hoping for the best and still got fuck all joy from it, yet look at the success and joy we got from O'Reilly and abada.
So imo we have to take to much away from our attacking play with expecting O'Reilly and abada to do more defensive work than attacking duties to cut out a handful of crosses.
Not Ange's way and no matter the risk involved, I much rather the plan Ange has adopted, especially when I thought O'Reilly and abada were outstanding and played huge roles for us gaining such a handsome victory imo.
Josip can only do so much and easily won his main battle against the banjo boy, so overall I think its a little bit of nitpicking from a superb all round team performance imo.
Click to expand...

I think things are being over complicated…..to me it’s a simple matter of getting tighter on players and preventing them wherever possible from crossing dangerous balls in to our penalty area…..allowing the same opposition player the time and space to fire numerous quality crosses in to our box is clearly asking for trouble imo…..if anyone disagrees with this then they see the game much differently than I do…..I fail to see where attempting to be logical and constructive is nit picking…
 
John nó said:
Not really imatim, discussed it with SMG and imo believe it was a tactical decision taken by Ange.
Having O'Reilly and abada pushing up higher left that space to be exploited with the overload by Barasic as josip was matched up by the banjo boy moreso.
Was addressed and sorted out at h/t when the damage had been done by abada and O'Reilly in an attacking sence imo where Barasic was nowhere to be seen upon the goals scored.
Ange is prepared to take such risks but also had enough confidence with our CB to deal with the crosses which they did overall.
So if Barry Fergushun thinks that the orange midget had Ange sussed out, think it was a case of Ange sussed the orange midget out moreso myself and clearly winning the battle of wits imo.
Click to expand...
Imagine if Van Bronkhorst didn't have 'Ange sussed out' ?
Barry the dribblewit, and peanut heid (thanks for that one, whoever said it) ;-) paid to spout shite in the media, anyone else would be embarrassed by it, but they're another in a long line of Hundits, like monster munch and fat Sally
Let them gee up the Hun support, and take their 30 pieces (in Boyd's case...30 pies) of silver
Special mention to the North Curve, excellent atmosphere and what a banner
https://twitter.com/x/status/1566418712135098369
 
Imatim said:
If Benzema is on the end of crosses like that delivered by Barasic it could be a very different story…..if we want to make an impression in Europe in my view, we have to judge ourselves by a higher standard that the majority of what we play against domestically…..it’s simply constructive criticism on a potential problem that I saw….so bite me…
Click to expand...
Consider yourself well and truly bitten🤣
 
Imatim said:
I think things are being over complicated…..to me it’s a simple matter of getting tighter on players and preventing them wherever possible from crossing dangerous balls in to our penalty area…..allowing the same opposition player the time and space to fire numerous quality crosses in to our box is clearly asking for trouble imo…..if anyone disagrees with this then they see the game much differently than I do…..I fail to see where attempting to be logical and constructive is nit picking…
Click to expand...
See to myself it's questioning Ange's tactical decisions, which I personally think he got spot on imo.
As regards the crosses into the box, the scum were already chasing the game and was there only potential outlet, in one that has been used for years and with a fair degree of success also.
Yet we still had any runners covered and dealt with that threat very well imo, will it be an issue come Tuesday against Madrid, I've got no idea as Ange and his coaching team I would expect to have analysised Madrid and have a decent idea upon where there main threats come from, like the weeknesses we hope to exploit.
Regards Ange tactics yesterday, I also believe it was a deliberate ploy to stand off a little bit more instead of engaging more so with the pressing in the full knowledge that the scum haven't got the movement and ball passing skills with no imagination to really hurt us and couldn't either.
Could we take a different approach against a Madrid team that I wouldn't expect to be on a mission to maim our players?
Every game is different and believe that Ange prepares our team very well for each challenge faced, and even if given up possession turned out to be part of the plan than getting involved in a slug fest and risk the higher risk of injury, then that could have been a poor call from Ange imo.
Never done stats and yesterday showed the reason why.
45% possession, yet were in total control of the game, scored 4 and created a few more also, against 1 cross of danger and 55%possession.
Know what stat I'm more content with.
 
DILLIGAF said:
Imagine if Van Bronkhorst didn't have 'Ange sussed out' ?
Barry the dribblewit, and peanut heid (thanks for that one, whoever said it) ;-) paid to spout shite in the media, anyone else would be embarrassed by it, but they're another in a long line of Hundits, like monster munch and fat Sally
Let them gee up the Hun support, and take their 30 pieces (in Boyd's case...30 pies) of silver
Special mention to the North Curve, excellent atmosphere and what a banner
https://twitter.com/x/status/1566418712135098369
Click to expand...
That for me is a work of art!!class how they done that👏
 
Imatim said:
For the most part we were on our game…..so why allow a team the potential opportunity to get back in to the game, by allowing them the time and space to cross uncontested quality balls in to our penalty box?…..for me that’s just simple logic…
Click to expand...
Aye completely agree imatim , domestically, against the joint EL winners excluding penalties we can deal with that and allow them that one outlet as long as we perform.
Against Madrid lol I dont think so , not on any flank.
I'd say probably the same against Leipzig ( who'll be out for joy for once against a Glasgow side) and shakhtar, it's a whole new level.
It's also exciting to see where we're at with this approach.
I'm pretty excited as I think we can go toe to toe with the other 2 but madrid are a different proposition completely, the side who kod city and beat liverpool in the final last season will be looking at any perceived weaknesses.
Just got to believe Ange knows this and will act accordingly, and that doesnt mean changing our shape or approach by having our LB play as one, and get forward as much as possible.
It's well within our game to do this.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Members online

Total: 286 (members: 5, guests: 281)

Latest posts

Share this page

Back
Top