Alistair Johnston

[WestHamCanadianinOxford]

10 minutes ago, kacbru said:

Excuse me?  I stated I'm not a fan of the new format because of the # of uncompetitive games.  You responded that I was wrong, it has always been the case.  I pointed out that there have been 8 already in a fraction of the games and you tell me there is nothing to see here.

Next time I have a thought, I'll try and run it by you for approval first.

5 of your games apparently happened today.

That's not something you base a viable statistic on.  You need more data. 

 

Nothing personal.

 

All the teams involved on the recieving end have had big defeats in this competition recently. 

We know Celtic last year, Salzburg got done by City in knockouts (I think) last year,  Young Boys have been whipping boys before as have Bratislava and Red Star (from our specific Canadian knowledge).  

Edited Tuesday at 11:14 PM by WestHamCanadianinOxford

[WestHamCanadianinOxford]

37 minutes ago, kacbru said:

Yes, but they were less frequent.  E.g. in all of the the group stage last year, there were 4 games decided by 4 or more goals in 72 groups stage games (5.5% of games).  There have been 8 already in the new format in 27 games! (29.6% of games)

Incidently I went back, last year was an incredible year for partity in the group stage - as you point out - just 4 - 4 goals or more margins of victory. 

For statistical context, the year before that (22/23) had 15  - 4 goals or more margins, 21/22 - 9, and 20/21 - 12.

Using the 4 of last year as a baseline is probably a little misleading by whoever did it. 

 

[kacbru]

24 minutes ago, WestHamCanadianinOxford said:

Using the 4 of last year as a baseline is probably a little misleading by whoever did it. 

It was me and wasn't intended as a baseline - just the only year I looked at.

I still think there are way too many meaningless games in the new format - maybe that changes as we get to the pointy-end of the schedule.  But the critics that pointed out this was simply a cash grab to produce more content and water-down the quality may still have a point by the end.

[kacbru]

3 hours ago, Unnamed Trialist said:

You'd figure they'd realize you have to play a defensive game and bunker to eek out a point. But when do they ever do that in Scotland? They're always attacking. 

It's either admirable or dead naive. Didn't watch but that's embarrassing and bothers me that's the setup Johnston is so enamoured with. 

Down 7-1, they remind me of the Monty Python knight claiming it is just a flesh wound...

[BearcatSA]

Is there a list of the top 5 biggest loses by Celtic in Europe?

[CanadaFan123]

2 minutes ago, BearcatSA said:

Is there a list of the top 5 biggest loses by Celtic in Europe?

https://www.transfermarkt.us/celtic-glasgow/rekordspiele/verein/371

[WestHamCanadianinOxford]

4 hours ago, kacbru said:

It was me and wasn't intended as a baseline - just the only year I looked at.

I still think there are way too many meaningless games in the new format - maybe that changes as we get to the pointy-end of the schedule.  But the critics that pointed out this was simply a cash grab to produce more content and water-down the quality may still have a point by the end.

Maybe we are talking past each other in terms of definitions.  

I would say adding teams  is there alongside the change in format but you could have changed the format without adding teams in theory.   The added teams is the watering down for me.  (Don't get old English guys started about how this can't be a Champions League when so many of the teams are champions of nothing) 

 

One argument put forth (not sure myself) about the new format is that it will make the later rounds more competitive by eliminating more bad teams in the league phase.  In theory, before, an easy group meant you got double the games against easier "good" opponents, so a poor team would have better chance of getting through.  Less chance now, again in theory, that both your Pot 1 opponents would be sub par, for instance.  

I guess we will see.

Edited yesterday at 05:07 AM by WestHamCanadianinOxford

[Unnamed Trialist]

7 hours ago, WestHamCanadianinOxford said:

Maybe we are talking past each other in terms of definitions.  

I would say adding teams  is there alongside the change in format but you could have changed the format without adding teams in theory.   The added teams is the watering down for me.  (Don't get old English guys started about how this can't be a Champions League when so many of the teams are champions of nothing) 

 

One argument put forth (not sure myself) about the new format is that it will make the later rounds more competitive by eliminating more bad teams in the league phase.  In theory, before, an easy group meant you got double the games against easier "good" opponents, so a poor team would have better chance of getting through.  Less chance now, again in theory, that both your Pot 1 opponents would be sub par, for instance.  

I guess we will see.

Good points. What was not ideal about the previous format was over calculation in the group stage. You were always watching the rivals, they did this, we need to do that. Oh, the goal average, tie breakers. Instead of just saying, as you do in your home league, "we need to win the next game", or "at least we've got points on the board". Like here. 

Then the last 1-2 games of the group stage the better teams could coast a bit even, if "you'd done your homework", while the weaker ones were already thinking about Europa League or worse.

The tension of a league depending on your ambition is preferable imo because you know every match counts, no rival is easy, you're matching yourselves with this or that team. Many titles, qualifications for Europe, relegation battles, are decided in retrospect by that stupid game when you let some weak opponent take two points from you. This is a bit the same, I think I'll warm up to it.

I also like it that teams from the same league can rivalize on the table, damn the Gunners are ahead of us, Bayern seeing Dortmund ahead. That's a nice added dynamic.

I also have problems with home and away knockout rounds to be frank, they too are over calculated but at least eliminating the away goal rule helps a bit.

Edited yesterday at 10:01 AM by Unnamed Trialist

[InglewoodJack]

There is no system that works the way we hope it does given the economic disparity between the clubs. Unless you remove everyone but the top ~16 (if that) clubs and relegate everyone else to Europa, then you are going to get blow outs, and if you do that, then you basically just have the Super League. 
 

This system is better than the previous one because there will at some point be some upsets, it just won’t happen every match day. Given enough cracks at the bat, Celtic will eventually beat a premier league team. Maybe Zagreb beats a team from Spain. Could happen this year, may be next. These clubs also probably net more revenue from having more big ticket home games per year. 
 

As for Celtic in particular, I would hate to see their domestic run of good form come to an end, but I wouldn’t be completely upset if one of these years while AJ is still there that they lose a title to Rangers (or more appropriately Aberdeen this year?) so they can compete in Europa and try to make some noise there.

[ahmedou]

Alistair Johnston (Talk Celtic Forum Topic): Alistair Johnston | TalkCeltic - The Ultimate Celtic FC Forum

Alistair Johnston (Kerrydale Street Forum Topic): Alistair Johnston || #2 - Kerrydale Street

[Unnamed Trialist]

37 minutes ago, InglewoodJack said:

As for Celtic in particular, I would hate to see their domestic run of good form come to an end, but I wouldn’t be completely upset if one of these years while AJ is still there that they lose a title to Rangers (or more appropriately Aberdeen this year?) so they can compete in Europa and try to make some noise there.

Being far more of a Celtic fan, or maybe someone who really hates Rangers, that did not sit right. 

But I do admit that Rangers being demoted to 4th for the financial mess was actually not good for Celtic, as it weakened SPL and softened Celtic as their main rival, before it happened they had the same no of SPL titles this century, since then Rangers have won just once (and just checked: if Celtic win this year they tie with Rangers on total Scottish league wins in history since 1891)

[InglewoodJack]

23 minutes ago, Unnamed Trialist said:

Being far more of a Celtic fan, or maybe someone who really hates Rangers, that did not sit right. 

But I do admit that Rangers being demoted to 4th for the financial mess was actually not good for Celtic, as it weakened SPL and softened Celtic as their main rival, before it happened they had the same no of SPL titles this century, since then Rangers have won just once (and just checked: if Celtic win this year they tie with Rangers on total Scottish league wins in history since 1891)

Historical gravitas aside, there is a clear gap between Celtic and Rangers as things currently stand and one of those clubs is a heavy favourite to win the league, one is not. In both of Johnston’s years with Celtic, they won the title by 8 and 7 points respectively, and are currently 5 up after 8 games. In fact, Rangers have only beat Celtic once in 16 matches since AJ came to town. 
 

I don’t doubt that the tide will turn and Rangers will one day rattle off a string of titles, but as things stand, Celtic are the betting favourite to win the league every year. 

Edited 20 hours ago by InglewoodJack

[Unnamed Trialist]

7 minutes ago, InglewoodJack said:

Historical gravitas aside, there is a clear gap between Celtic and Rangers as things currently stand and one of those clubs is a heavy favourite to win the league, one is not. In both of Johnston’s years with Celtic, they won the title by 8 and 7 points respectively, and are currently 5 up after 8 games. In fact, Rangers have only beat Celtic once in 16 matches since AJ came to town. 
 

I don’t doubt that the tide will turn and Rangers will one day rattle off a strong of titles, but as things stand, Celtic are the betting favourite to win the league every year. 

But I think your point is well taken, Celtic need to be really pushed at home to be ready for Europe. As I posted yesterday, in 2012 they beat Barça 2-1 at home and lost here 2-1. (Recall I took an employee of mine, Marco, who was an Edinburgh Protestant with an Italian dad, fanatic Celtic supporter). Last season Rangers was in SPL before the demotion. That team was nothing special, let's say, or Barça was far superior on paper, but they competed like demons. And that win was not the last match in group stage, Barça had not qualified for knockouts yet. So that suggests Celtic would seriously benefit from being pushed, and also suggests Johnston's dream scenario at Celtic is really not ideal for his development or role for Canada in the longer term.

Edited 20 hours ago by Unnamed Trialist

[InglewoodJack]

33 minutes ago, Unnamed Trialist said:

But I think your point is well taken, Celtic need to be really pushed at home to be ready for Europe. As I posted yesterday, in 2012 they beat Barça 2-1 at home and lost here 2-1. (Recall I took an employee of mine, Marco, who was an Edinburgh Protestant with an Italian dad, fanatic Celtic supporter). Last season Rangers was in SPL before the demotion. That team was nothing special, let's say, or Barça was far superior on paper, but they competed like demons. And that win was not the last match in group stage, Barça had not qualified for knockouts yet. So that suggests Celtic would seriously benefit from being pushed, and also suggests Johnston's dream scenario at Celtic is really not ideal for his development or role for Canada in the longer term.

I forgot to address that point, but you are right. I am a Celtic fan, it’s nice to see them win every week and watch players like Johnston put up amazing performances week in week out, get embraced by their culture, so on, but I agree for everyone, it is good when Rangers are particularly strong- they should be giving Celtic a hard challenge, it’s best for everyone. This year too, Aberdeen is actually tied for pole position- they’ve won all 6 games. Not sure how sustainable it is, but if there are 3 teams in Scotland that can give each other tough matchups, it will prepare Celtic for the European teams better and will build our player’s experience in a much more valuable way. 

[SthMelbRed]

My understanding, from having two of my best mates as Celtic supporters, is that Rangers are still heavily in debt, or at least making annual losses. Meanwhile, Celtic keep piling up their bank balance. This upsets the Celtic supporters, 'cause they don't see any actual plan from the board for a war chest approaching 9 figures. So, basically, the gap between Celtic and Rangers could be even larger, if the Celtic board stopped being so tight with the funds.

[Cheeta]

Sitting on a pile of cash.  The 2022/23 season was fat.  Budget for Europa League, play Champions League and watch the accounts grow.   Made a tidy profit on transfers as well, including compensation for letting Ange go over to the English.  Unless something big happens in between now and season's end, which I doubt will, that line item will look good on the ledger again this season.

Spending a pile on spiff new training facilities for the Ladies side and doing improvements to Lennoxtown as well.  Recall there's some heavy work scheduled for Celtic Park but don't remember the time frame.  So yeah, some infastructure bills coming in.  Nowhere near 70M sterling though.  Not even close.     

[SpursFlu]

I know people don't want to hear it but Scottish teams should be in the English structure. Belfast should create a giant club and NIreland should be in there also. I know people will throw tomatoes at me but it's true

[Unnamed Trialist]

46 minutes ago, SpursFlu said:

I know people don't want to hear it but Scottish teams should be in the English structure. Belfast should create a giant club and NIreland should be in there also. I know people will throw tomatoes at me but it's true

Olympics, the UK team.

Pan national rugby leagues. 

I love the separation honouring the historical roots of the sport, as well as their representatives on the International Board, but it doesn't benefit N Ireland football. Wales and Scotland at least have results.

Edited 4 hours ago by Unnamed Trialist