Is WGS being judged fairly

Very well put gunt.

Whoever took on the mantle of replacing MON, was always going to to have an impossible job.

No more Henrik, an aging team needing a complete overhaul, no significant money to spend on said overhaul, and having to replace a manager who was a * in the eyes of Celtic supporters.

It's a wonder anyone took up the position, and what WGS has done is nothing short of miraculous, imo.

 

With team selections it's almost a case of "the grass is always greener". If they're on the bench and we lose a game then instantly whoever on the bench SHOULD have been playing.

It's happened with:

Boruc (blunder) - Mark Brown
Naylor - O'Dea
McManus - O'Dea Kennedy Loovens Balde
Hinkel - Wilson
Maloney - McGeady
McGeady - Maloney
Hartley - Crosas Robson
Crosas - Robson Hartley (even * Donati)
Nakamura - Mizuno McCourt
Vennegoor - Samaras Hutchison McGeady Sheriden

In so many of these cases, the players who should have supposedly started have come in and done worse. As Metroboy says how can people say McGeady had to start against the huns when in recent games he's been nothing more than a sand-dancer?

 

Excellent summary Gunt, that is exactly why it is unfair to compare GS with MON teams.

Both managers brought us success under completely different circumstances and both should be congratulated for what they did, the comparison between the two is, as mmmikey has stated, pointless and counter-productive.

 

but my basic point is not that WGS's teams do not have big flaws but that MON also had many failures, including losing the league twice to poor Rangers sides on the last day (a crime WGS is being tried for before it happens), failing in the CL and not signing any good players for 4 years/letting the team run down when money got tighter. They both had flaws and failures but I do not remember 10% of the criticism for MON. He was almost above criticism but WGS has had a 100% record to date and only gets the most grudging acknowledgment and the slightest slip and the knives are out for him.

So, in terms of the point of this thread, nonone has convinced me one jot that WGS is getting anything like equality of treatment compared to MON even though post-Seville MON and WGS's reign (which is the only fair comparison I may add) are very similar (albeit that WGS has not actually lost yet). So, it is indeed about perception and affection because it does not make sense in football terms.

The common denominator in the slow decline of MON's sides and problems with player standard in some positions in WGS's side is lack of generous funding given in a single lump rather than drip fed. I think people are overlooking the fact that a sudden end to our breif ability to dabble in the market started 8 years ago and started to bite 6 years ago and this decline cuts across both MON's and WGS's reign. No team in the world will not decline if a single season 25 million transfer fee injection into a team that also has 3 inherited but slowly ageing world class players is followed by hugely reduced kitty for the next 8 years and moving to an average signing fee of 1-2 million.

Seriously, people need to see that the huge problems in finding quality is down to the funding. I personally think WGS has excelled to get this young squad together/nourish our own youth (Boruc, Hinkel, Caldwell, Broony, Crosas, Robson, Naka, Maloney, McGeady, Koki and Skippy is three-quarters of a good side). Only Broony cost more than a couple of million and the averaged cost of them is probably around 1 million. However, he has for 2 or 3 seasons suffered from not being able to fill in the gaps at LB, LCB, striker etc with any sort of quality. MON had the same problems when Lubo then Lambo and Mjallby then Henke left and Thommo declined. We got players in like Fernadez, Sylla, Petta, Camera, Juninho etc -limited cheapo signings instead.

I think people need to remember that the first MON years were down to a unique cash injection and both MON in his later years and WGS have had an impossible struggle to maintain quality with reduced funds. If fans set as the benchmark the pre-Seville MON era and the massive funding injection a couple of seasons before which it was built on then they need to look at the board not the manager because MON struggled even more post-Seville when it came to both maintaining player quality with limted funds and winning the league than WGS did. MON's parting words (cant remember the quote exactly) admitted that he knew his expensive team which had already been reduced badly was never going to be replaced due to funding issues.

For a fair comparison with similar funding compare post-Seville MON with WGS. Any other comparison in pure nonsense. That WGS has won his last three while MON lost 2 or his last 3 (in both managers cases every one of them against poorish similarly underfunded Rangers sides) makes it all the more remarkable who is often treated as the hero and who is treated as a problem right now. Forget pre-Seville MON, that was unique and all about money. However, if you can persuade the board to give WGS in a lump sum the modern equivelent of 25 million in transfer fees 9 years ago and to fund the wages too then we might have a fair comparison in a couple of years time.

 

Gunt I agree with you that both managers have had their faults and that GS has his thrown back at him on a regular occurance. It is not fair to compare him to MON becuase of the hugely different circumstances both managers found themselves in.

I also agree that GS is not fairly treated by a section of our support, my only point was that some people who do criticise him for reasonable reasons are lumped in as anti-GS or GS-haters which imo is also not right. People have the right to criticise if in their opinion something is not right but that criticism has to be measured not just because they don't like GS.

 

Totally agree with that.

There is far too much of a line drawn between critics and supporters of GS

But to be fair to gunt and yourself Dannighirl, I would like to think we all know who is constuctive in their critisism and who isn't.

But it's definetely too black and white sometimes, I've never known the Celtic support to be so divided.

 

I totally take your point that the 'anti-WGS' term is lazy and puts everyone in one box. There are plenty people of that view who put a fiar case and there are points I agree with like WGS's McManus blind spot and his overdoing the tinkering (which I think should be kept for the CL when we are outclassed). Other pointds I disagree with, I think overall his ins and outs with players have cost the club little net spend and we now have a really good core of good youngish players just needing 3 or 4 more to may it a good team.

MY issue I suppose is that as well as the people who criticise WGS fairly, there is a group whose attitude to WGS compared to MON just is illogical and full of special pleading when only football matters and results is looked at. They are missing the big picture of funding or ignoring it. They are the real 'anti-WGS' brigade because they seem to will WGS to failure and what he does cannot change that. The real manifestation of that was seen on this site when after a 9 game 100% record, one loss to a good Hibs team and we had thread after thread panning WGS. They just hate the guy.

 

My wanting Strachan to leave has nothing to do with MON. It has to do with the fact that under him we are boring, predictable and seem to be getting worse!
We struggle against very poor teams and rarely rise above mediocraty.
Most of the time the players just stand still and wait for something to happen rather than running into space and trying to make something happen.
If Strachan isn't to blame for this then who is?
He should have been given more money to spend, but if we hate him £5 million, I bet he'd try and sign 5 decent players rather than one excellent player.
Even if we win the league, he should still go.

 

yes he is being judge fairly.when will people stop talking about 2/3 years ago when we won the league last 16 twice,this is all about now.
we had a chance to strengthen and didn,t take it and drive home our advantage that would have see us rule scottish football for years to come ,now we are on the verge of giving rangers life saving money from the champions league.
even if we win the league on sunday it was still 20 pts to close for comfort.

 

I agree,comparisons are pointless and counter productive,so why do the same posters keep making the same pointless comparisons?

In the spirit of comparisons,MON inherited a side that finished 21 points behind Rangers,world class players or not,thats still a bit of work to turn that gap around eh?Did WGS have as big a gap to turn around when he took over?This particular fact seems forgotten when these regular threads are resurrected.

 

He also took in 12m in sales!

 

Do you agree? Because you just went ahead and made a pointless comparison...

 

Comparisons aren't pointless. It's only fair to make them.

I'd like to agree with you that when MoN took over, he did very well. The treble in you first season is fantastic in fact. He then beat Ajax to qualify for the CL. I liked MoN as much as the next supported. I'm just pointing out that he blew two titles that we should have scooshed and not a lot was said. I can live with that but the criticism that WGS gets for losing nothing has been criminal.

Also, it must be far easier to work when you have the backing of the whole support.

 

Thats true but thats also true of WGS who got a lot of money for Stan and significant for Marshall, Beattie, Pearson, Wallace and several others fringe players as well as some recouping on his won signing he sold on like JJ, Magic and others. I would be amazed if that also didnt come to 12m. The main difference is MON got enough money to go out and buy and pay the wages of half a team in one year consisting of seasoned EPL players. All the trasnfer activity that brought in first pick players happend in his first year. I think it was 25 million in fees (probably the equivelent of 40 million transfer fees in WGS's time) and lord knows how much on their wages/contracts, probably double the present average. So you can add a lot of millions extra per year on wages. There is simply no comparison to what was invested to build the team that peaked at Seville and what WGS faced when he arrived.

People forget how very black things looked and Rangers were a cert to win but WGS added Naka, Artur, Maloney and Magic to the starting lineup and squeezed on last good year out of BBJ and Lenny. That team won by miles and the style was hugely improved on. That to me that was a minor miracle given the low costs.

I think after that the team we had a lot of issues the following season as Lenny and BBJ were done/past it, Maloney and Petrov were sold (not WGS's choice), Balde became crocked, Magic mysteriously lost it etc etc. The signings WGS made were good on paper but dissapointed. JJ couldnt handle SPL pace, JVOH was a hit but for the first time in his career became a permacrock and Graveson turned out to be barking. That was pretty * unlucky.

I think that combination of factors blew WGS's project off course and it never 100% recovered. The board became tight and there was very little prospect of improving this team quickly. OK for some reason they shelled out for Broony but other than him they never showed the willingness to pay the going rate for quality players fees or wages since the summer between WGS's first and second seasons respite 2 last 16 CL runs and 2 more SPLs. Again, I think the board need looked at more than WGS. MON also couldnt halt the decline when he was not funded well and players got older and he couldnt replace them. The question is, could anyone secure a lot of quality players when we spend an average of 1 million on them and probably dont pay half of what EPL teams do? I think people need to think about that before calling for WGS's head. Will we replace a guy who now has a lot of CL experience for a guy with none who will have to learn all over again?

 

I can't be arsed getting drawn into this who's the best manager *. All i want to say is all my years supporting celtic i've never saw a successful celtic manager viewed with so much hatred as strachan! We don't play mouth watering football i agree, but that can change with a few wise purchases in the transfer market. With regards to our current squad & strach's so called lack of motivational skills, You can show a horse to water but you can't make it drink!

 

Obviously I havent seen mcgrain, I wasnt even born mate. I know mcgrain was far and away the best right back in the world in his prime. You must have a short memory, Juventus and Valencia were both after Agathe, the barcelona team and manager also said agathe was different class, and those teams wouldnt touch our current crop of playersd. Bobo is better than what we currently have so how can he be the worst you have seen? You trying to tell me Mcmanus etc are better than Bobo, madness lol. And please dont insult me by saying wilson is better than agathe honestly.

 

I personally dont think comparison is pointless if its fair and takes into account differences in funding etc. The reason why the WGS-MON comparison is valid is that supporters always have a yardstick and I would guess a clear majority see pre-Seville MON as it. I cant see what else is likely to be the yardstick without going back a long way - they cant seriously use Venglos, Barnes, Burns etc etc as yardsticks that WGS doesnt match up to unless image is all and football sucess means nothing. Before that was the long Rangers 9. If you are looking back beyond MON, I think supporters would have to get back at least to some of Billy McNeills stints to find a manager they were happy with and who was successfull and could in any way be used as a yardstick. In reality maybe they even need to go back to big Jock.

So, I am fairly certain a big majority of supporters are using pre-Seville MON as a yardstick and weapon to beat WGS about the ginger knapper with. So, comparison of WGS and MON is very relevant to WGS's lack of popularity.

 

Caldwell is a far better player than Balde.

Hinkel is a German internationalist and IMO better than Agathe. Remember all the running but rubbish crosses?

 

where did Agathe go?

 

Badle was the most dominant centre back we have had, and is something we have been crying out for. Can u remember the spell were we couldnt buy a clean sheet, who was brought in to sort that out and subsequently did? So please dont tell me he is one of the worst you have seen in a celtic jersey, that is an insult.

Hinkel is a good right back I love hinkel. But agathe was amazing mate, say all you want about the crosses. But watch through all the 'BIG' games we played down the years ie Juventus, Barcelona, Rangers etc. Agathe made countless assists through 'poor crossing' lol? watch back all the match highlights like I do, and you will see that agathe provided assists at the most important times. One of the worst in a Celtic jersey, that is terrible judgement. Juve and valencia must have * scouts, they should sign you up