An excellent analysis from Dougie

Three player team, Sinclair, Dembele and Armstrong!

comment by McCannStoleMaCookie (U20688)
posted 6 minutes ago
Three player team, Sinclair, Dembele and Armstrong!
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Only Armstrong escaped our shackles

The team with the best players more often than not win.

Celtic have vastly better players. Vastly.

Sometimes those players play badly - there were 2 occssions where.dembele sprang the trap from a straight up long ball turning your centre halves and didnt finish. Thats not good defending. In fact it was poor defending.

A rash challenge that should have been a penalty is good defending. Its poor defending.

Sinclair wasnt shackled - he played badly. At best rangers limited celtic to less chances than before.and.celtic played.worse than before.

Whit a load of nonsense you lot talk sometimes

'Shackles'

comment by simon_bhoy - standing unseen right in front of dave king (U16215)
posted 4 minutes ago


The team with the best players more often than not win.

Celtic have vastly better players. Vastly.

Sometimes those players play badly - there were 2 occssions where.dembele sprang the trap from a straight up long ball turning your centre halves and didnt finish. Thats not good defending. In fact it was poor defending.

A rash challenge that should have been a penalty is good defending. Its poor defending.

Sinclair wasnt shackled - he played badly. At best rangers limited celtic to less chances than before.and.celtic played.worse than before.

Whit a load of nonsense you lot talk sometimes

'Shackles'


----------------------------------------------------------------------
I'll agree that celtic on their day are a better group of players than Rangers, but I'd say it's naive just to say that celtic and sinclair played badly. Rangers limiting the chances is a sign of them playing well and counter acting the opposition.

Celtic played worse than before but surely you can concede that Rangers having played better than before had at least some part in this? It's not simply celtic not showing up, the fact that Rangers came in ready to play with a good game plan helped to make life difficult and get celtic to struggle to get the level of chances they have in previous games.

Rangers of course didn't defend like AC Milan in 1990 but I don't think (or hope anyway) that anyone is claiming that. Dembele probably should have done better on his breakaways, but so should waghorn with his chances.

The penalty claim was very fortunate though.

Rangers defended better. But if celtic played as they can against better defences than that then the result looks very different.

No one is denying waghorn could have scored. Probably should have scored. But he doesnt score a lot and dembele does. That doesnt mean that rangers suddenly got it tactically spot on.

Sometimes a team draws because it draws. Putting it down to having worked out celtics tactics is naive. And chances werent that limited. Ordinarily celtic win that game with those chances etc.

The jump that.some bears are making is akin to the semi final last year. Of course rangers (and any other team) can compete in a one off. But to say or think that it was astute tactics is nonsense.

Of course celtic have done better against better defences. But it assumes each better defence turned up and were on form doesn't it?. Why can't we assume that if they defended like they're capable that celtic would have got next to no joy against them and results would be different?

But this has always been the case in football. Better players don't always play well v a particular opposition. It's not say celtic got figured out, but on one day rangers played well enough to get a deserved result in my opinion.

Rangers played as well as they could and celtic played badly (according to their own standards as well as the opposition playing well). Any.more than that feels like conjecture to me

I suppose we find out over the.next season really

Comment Deleted by Site Moderator

comment by JuegoDeFuego (U19139)
posted 11 hours, 51 minutes ago
I've said it before - Rangers absolutely did NOT play as well as we could. It is nonsense to say that.

Barry McKay - one of our main potential match winners had no influence on the game whatsoever.

Our best chances fell to Waghorn - probably our least composed finisher of the attacking players. if they had fallen to anyone else like Miller, hyndman or even guys like Forrester then the ball hits the back of the net.

Tavernier did OK in flashes but his touch was uncharacteristically poor on several occasions. As was Danny Wilsons.

And Hyndman played too deep in the first half to influence the game. He took until 3 minutes to go to get a shot on target ffs.

Anyone that thinks that is Rangers playing to their maximum is frankly deluded.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Waghorn is your top scorer though isnt he?? Im willing to be wrong.

And you are dreaming - rangers played the absolute best they could when playing a team that is on an entirely different level.

comment by McCannStoleMaCookie (U20688)
posted 1 day, 8 hours ago
Three player team, Sinclair, Dembele and Armstrong!
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You forgot our wonderkid tierney.