The Offical Glasgow Celtic thread

[lynchbhoy]

Mark Hughes also doesnt have enough exp imo. Though he has more exp than Lennon.

I thought you gave up drink for lent
You are talking about Mark Hughes manager for 10+ years
and saying in his favour that he has more experience than Lennon, who has 1 week at the helm

AFS and MS
yes, 10 years but with wales, blackburn and man city
he might be a great man and knows how to lead underdogs, but the shoe is on the other foot when in spl and with Celtic - and he didnt cover himself in glory when in charge of cash rich Man city when there was the sense of expectation !
He prob does have some good exp in buying cheaper end players.

St MON likes money, but might not necessarily come back for the cash or be put off just because Celtic dont have any (though I'd say there would be a good bit to spend if he requested).
Would also be a big player if Celtic thought the time was right to enter into the english leagues, a push from such a respected man might be a huge help (along with the demands of ESPN/sky)

[Main Street]

Well Wales means european competitive experience of some sort
I do realise that up to very recent years, Blackburn and Man City were the type of epl clubs that Celtic could chew up, spit out and pee on for good measure, in Europe competition without working up a sweat.
But Hughes has a track record (proven at least to a functional degree) of the type of safe manager who Celtic may well be considering as compared to a gamble on the unproven sorts like Lambert.
I suspect if Celtic don't go for Hughes now, then they will take their time over the  appointment.

[lynchbhoy]

Well Wales means european competitive experience of some sort
I do realise that up to very recent years, Blackburn and Man City were the type of epl clubs that Celtic could chew up, spit out and pee on for good measure, in Europe competition without working up a sweat.
But Hughes has a track record (proven at least to a functional degree) of the type of safe manager who Celtic may well be considering as compared to a gamble on the unproven sorts like Lambert.
I suspect if Celtic don't go for Hughes now, then they will take their time over the  appointment.

wouldnt disagree !

[Main Street]

You are agreeing to agree   

[Denn Forever]

Keane is available?

Keane has "resigned" (by invitation I suggest) this morning. Jim Magilton hotly tipped to return to the club as manager, according to Tractorboys website.

[the colonel]

Nigel pearson....

[Main Street]

Keane is available?

Keane has "resigned" (by invitation I suggest) this morning. Jim Magilton hotly tipped to return to the club as manager, according to Tractorboys website.

Tractorboys website are saying much more than that now, apparently Roy told Simon Clegg, Ipswich Town's chief executive, that he was a football ignorant cxnt who wore pink shirts and he didn't have to put up with that cxnt telling him how to manage a team.

[Lamh Dhearg Alba]

I see the Strachan obsession from certain posters continues but still no admission they were very wrong on Mowbray . Lennon has been saying he has been taking advice from MON and Strachan so nice easy scapegoat on here if it doesnt go well for him....all down to WGS.

sacking a manager in the first year doesnt give them much of a chance.
Again should not be taking in the cheaper guys like Mowbray and strachan in the first place.
While mowbray might not be in alex fergusons league, if fergie got the chop when he deserved to many moons ago (in his first couple of seasons with man u) like the celtic board have done - then man u may well be in the div 2/championship by now - where they were headed at that stage - rather than continuing to chase CL's!

Mowbrays biggest fault was that he didnt cull the (strachans) deadwood earlier in his tenure and he paid for it.

He had many faults and that certainly wasnt anywhere near his biggest one. Sacking managers in their first year certainly doesnt give them much of a chance and should only happen when that manager has truly lost the plot and is taking his club backwards with no sign of future progress. Thats the situation Celtic were in.

The comparison with Fergie at Man Utd is a particularly poor one. Celtic in 2010 and Man Utd in 1988 are in very different places. Ferguson also had a superb record at Aberdeen (far in excess of anything Mowbray had achieved pre Celtic) and was able to explain his long term plan and how it would be achieved. Poor Tony could only drone about his football philosophy. That philosophy is one of always playing great attacking football and that ever changing that when needs must, ie pragmatism, was a failure and climbdown. He pretty much admitted he would rather lose playing stylish stuff than change things to achieve a victory. Hence the "postive reasons for the negative result" quote after St.Mirren. Tony actually seemed to thik he had made a courageous call to put 6 men up front and deserved praise for it despite losing 4-0. Unless he changes that philosphy he will never be a great manager.

Its one of the strangest aspects of Mowbray's tenure that he also didnt understand the demands of the Celtic job. He actually said a few weeks ago that maybe if Celtic won a treble in 2 or 3 years time that people would look back on this season and say it was worth it. That isnt how the Old Firm work. Its fine to build a team over a period of a few years but when you only have 1 realistic competitor for the title there is no excuse, even in a rebuilding period, for falling so far behind your rival. He could have started building his own team and finished 2nd this season and still kept his job if there were signs there was progress being made towards the long term. Packing his team with loan signings and seeing his philosophy as being more important than winning showed there wasnt.

[lynchbhoy]

He had many faults and that certainly wasnt anywhere near his biggest one. Sacking managers in their first year certainly doesnt give them much of a chance and should only happen when that manager has truly lost the plot and is taking his club backwards with no sign of future progress. Thats the situation Celtic were in.

The comparison with Fergie at Man Utd is a particularly poor one. Celtic in 2010 and Man Utd in 1988 are in very different places. Ferguson also had a superb record at Aberdeen (far in excess of anything Mowbray had achieved pre Celtic) and was able to explain his long term plan and how it would be achieved. Poor Tony could only drone about his football philosophy. That philosophy is one of always playing great attacking football and that ever changing that when needs must, ie pragmatism, was a failure and climbdown. He pretty much admitted he would rather lose playing stylish stuff than change things to achieve a victory. Hence the "postive reasons for the negative result" quote after St.Mirren. Tony actually seemed to thik he had made a courageous call to put 6 men up front and deserved praise for it despite losing 4-0. Unless he changes that philosphy he will never be a great manager.

Its one of the strangest aspects of Mowbray's tenure that he also didnt understand the demands of the Celtic job. He actually said a few weeks ago that maybe if Celtic won a treble in 2 or 3 years time that people would look back on this season and say it was worth it. That isnt how the Old Firm work. Its fine to build a team over a period of a few years but when you only have 1 realistic competitor for the title there is no excuse, even in a rebuilding period, for falling so far behind your rival. He could have started building his own team and finished 2nd this season and still kept his job if there were signs there was progress being made towards the long term. Packing his team with loan signings and seeing his philosophy as being more important than winning showed there wasnt.

Firstly you are correct - sacking a manager in his first season is pointless unless the club is going backwards
but it seems a lot of people have panicked about this including the Celtic board. A manager with loads of defenders
inj is going to have a difficult time keeping clean sheets but in recent months Celtic had started to do this more
than before Christmas. I'd be intrigued what you or others would have said if Celtic had put on 6 defenders when
chasing the game - if strikers are not called for there and then well I dont know what is ! Ludicrous to point
that out as a mistake !!!
It is as true now as back in the 80's/90's that a manager needs time. Soccer on the pitch is still much the same.
Less physical but thats about it really ! Christian gros, paul le guen, even benitez etc etc all had a fantastic
records in prev clubs. They dont always mean much.Again your point is flawed - time when a manager is making
improvements is all he needs. IMO Mowbray was making progress at last. He took too long in getting to that point.

IMO taking players on an approbation basis is fantastic business. if they work you have the player, if they dont
you can send them back and not have cost the club too much money. Very shrewd imo. It would be lauded in the
business arena.
thats half the problem with people in scotland and the Celtic directors. There IS no difference between there and
the rest of the world. People demand success straight away. Thats fairy tale stuff, only the true genius types
like Martin ONeill or seriously lucky managers manage to do that (and remain consistent)

Alloa are looking good right now

[T Fearon]

There was absolutely no progress being made under Mowbray at any stage but consistent serious regression, typified by his final two results, 3 0 win at home followed by a 4 nil defeat away. At best it was one step forward and two steps backward.

Board did the right thing in sacking him although they could have acted earlier

[Main Street]

I'd look upon it as a mercy sacking. Mowbray had lost the confidence of everybody in him to do the job. He would have been -  a lame duck? manager for the rest of the season.
Regardless, it was a sad day that it came to pass.

[Lamh Dhearg Alba]

Im not sure you read the previous post properly lynchbhoy. Its pretty clear Mowbray wasnt sacked due to his failure to deliver "instant success". Nor was anybody expecting a "fairytale". I dont know how many times its been stated here that he would have been given time to rebuild the squad over a period of 2 or 3 seasons had he even kept the team competitive in the SPL whilst he was building his own squad. Given Celtic's resources in comparison to the rest any competent manager could have achieved that. Im not sure where the problem is in understanding this point. How football has changed over the past 20 years is not relevant in the slightest.

The idea he was starting to make progress is one of the most bizarre things Ive read on here but I suppose its all about opinions .  The truth is, as Main Street said, that this was something of a "mercy sacking". Mowbray was a beaten man who had no more answers. There was no panic from the Celtic board with this decision, they just knew it was beyond Mowbray to turn the club around.

You didnt seem to understand the point about the St.Mirren game either, the point you make about 6 defenders is totally irrelevant. Mowbray suggested that playing a 3-1-6 in the Second Half against St.Mirren was a courageous call and one for which he deserved praise. "You can either be a brave coach or a negative one" were his words. That shows his flawed philosophy. You can also be a pragmatic coach. There is no glory for a Celtic manager in putting 6 men up front against St Mirren and losing 4-0 yet Mowbray seemed to believe he had been brave and deserved praise. In fact he seemed to suggest it was better to go gung ho and lose 4-0 rather than play it tight when required and grind out a 2-1 or 1-0. Again, unless that changes he will never be a good manager.

[T Fearon]

Quite right. Innovative gambles/bold risks are only acceptable in football if they pay off not if they backfire

[lynchbhoy]

Im not sure you read the previous post properly lynchbhoy. Its pretty clear Mowbray wasnt sacked due to his failure to deliver "instant success". Nor was anybody expecting a "fairytale". I dont know how many times its been stated here that he would have been given time to rebuild the squad over a period of 2 or 3 seasons had he even kept the team competitive in the SPL whilst he was building his own squad. Given Celtic's resources in comparison to the rest any competent manager could have achieved that. Im not sure where the problem is in understanding this point. How football has changed over the past 20 years is not relevant in the slightest.

The idea he was starting to make progress is one of the most bizarre things Ive read on here but I suppose its all about opinions .  The truth is, as Main Street said, that this was something of a "mercy sacking". Mowbray was a beaten man who had no more answers. There was no panic from the Celtic board with this decision, they just knew it was beyond Mowbray to turn the club around.

You didnt seem to understand the point about the St.Mirren game either, the point you make about 6 defenders is totally irrelevant. Mowbray suggested that playing a 3-1-6 in the Second Half against St.Mirren was a courageous call and one for which he deserved praise. "You can either be a brave coach or a negative one" were his words. That shows his flawed philosophy. You can also be a pragmatic coach. There is no glory for a Celtic manager in putting 6 men up front against St Mirren and losing 4-0 yet Mowbray seemed to believe he had been brave and deserved praise. In fact he seemed to suggest it was better to go gung ho and lose 4-0 rather than play it tight when required and grind out a 2-1 or 1-0. Again, unless that changes he will never be a good manager.

those points were in response to the 'points' raised by yourself - so relevant as answers to yourself/your post.
Also people with an iota of understanding would see the comments about the six strikers as being from a man who is awaiting the chop and trying to make excuses and justify how having 6 strikers/forwards on a team at the end of a game can be positively viewed. Detractors will obv gloss over this. Its a nothing comment. He should have told them all to bugger off.

we all know about the phrase regarding directors and their knowledge of soccer.

IMO Mowbray was making pogress - too slowly perhaps - certainly made plenty of mistakes (Fortune being one). Getting rid of deadwood showed that he spotted the players that were so obviously not good enough straight off. I know a lot of scots and some Celtic fhans thought the sun shone in the likes of caldwell, mcmanus, robson (when not inj), mcdonald,kileen, maloney - but these players were never good enough and gotten rid of for  reason.
That was progress - simple identification. Left backs and strikers were required as well as centre halves.
Not only did Mowbray eventually get around to doing this - he made a lot of the signings on an approbation basis - so that if they didnt work out, Celtic wouldnt be financially lumbered.
But most people and most importantly the directors all panicked and mowbray was not given the time to turn things around. Lennon is fine until the end of the season but Celtic need a proper man that is a level above the prev two incumbents installed as early as possible in the summer.

[T Fearon]

LB, I do not disagree with the logic of your posting but would question where is the pragmatism? Strachan, Mowbray, Lennon is the calibre of manager Celtic are in the market for presently and I doubt if O'Neill would have done any better with the resources Strachan had.

Also don't disagree with the weaknesses of the players let go that you have listed but again my contention is that the replacements Mowbray brought in are no better (Robbie excepted) and indeed are arguably considerably worse