The Offical Glasgow Celtic thread

[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

[T Fearon]

See Lennon says Mc Manus will return to Paradise in the summer. Sensible decision, for all his technical faults, Mc Manus is a competent central defender who can weigh in with important goals and more importantly, he possesses leadership and inspirational qualities conspicuous by their absence at Celtic Park in recent times.

[JimStynes]

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.

Mowbray was making progress!!!! ffs wise up

[tyroneStatto]

i know its not celtic but i always liked big lee wilkie. certainly he was better than some of the donkeys masquerading as celtic defenders in recent times.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/teams/d/dundee_utd/8601523.stm

[tyroneman]

Mc Manus is a competent central defender who can weigh in with important goals and more importantly, he possesses leadership and inspirational qualities       

mcManus was a clown. Not fit for Scottish div 1 let alone Celtic. Let him stay where he is. He was a bombscare. Couldn't tackle or head or read the game or pass and most certainly did not inspire those around him.

[Atticus_Finch]

Mc Manus is a competent central defender who can weigh in with important goals and more importantly, he possesses leadership and inspirational qualities       

mcManus was a clown. Not fit for Scottish div 1 let alone Celtic. Let him stay where he is. He was a bombscare. Couldn't tackle or head or read the game or pass and most certainly did not inspire those around him.

Slightly harse TM but agree to an extent.    I wouldn't be clamouring for McManus' return but would still welcome it on the basis that he couldn't be any worse than Thompson.
But bottom line for me is that not only do Celtic have to significantly improve on how they've performed throughout the course of this season, they have to improve on how they performed in the season prior to that as well.
McManus wasn't up to scratch that season and he won't be up to scratch next season.  Same applies to Naylor.
Lennon should realise that.
Just watching Sky Sports News, I think Davie Provan summed it up well ... he said "lennon is fine for the short term but in the long term Celtic need to be looking to someone with a proven track record.  Neil lennon would represent a gamble and considering the position Celtic are in, they can't afford to be taking gambles."
i agree

[T Fearon]

But surely it boils down to who, with a track record, is available and can they be persuaded to come to Celtic with track record in tow? Arguably the job was more attractive last summer, yet Mowbray seems to at best have been 4th or 5th choice.

If Lennon has a successful run in to the end of the season, wins the Cup and the last Old Firm game, then I'm with Hartson, O'Neill, Mjallby and co, and believe that if no one else with this track record is available and willing, then he, Lennon, should be given a chance. It is no bigger a gamble than Mowbray, Coyle etc, none of whom have set the heather alight anywhere really

[tyroneman]

If today's display so far is what Lennon brings to the team then thanks but no thanks Neil.

Absolute rubbish. The worst Celtic team I have ever seen. 

[Archie Mitchell]

Absolute rubbish indeed. Seems to have been no difference from Mowbray's time in charge.