Questions are good, they are essential in the development of the human condition and a free society. Everyone has the right to question anything without fear or prejudice. You might not like some questions, you also may not like the person asking them but no one should be belittled or chastised for asking questions.
Yesterday’s poor performance raised some questions regarding tactics by the manager and the board. First lets turn to the manager.
Why did he wait so long to change personnel and the organisation of the team ? It was clear that our opponents although well organised were panicking when we got the ball in and around the box. Therefor why did the manager persist with playing Sammy on his own in the middle ? Would it not have been better to reorganise at halftime ? Surely Sammy out on the left with Stokes or Baldy through the middle would have been a more potent threat in the second half ? Would Charlie Mulgrew not have served us better as a Centre half ? At halftime the game was there to be won.
I personally see the previous set of questions as legitimate. Obviously not everyone will agree and I could be proved wrong by someone with more tactical knowledge than me. I don’t have a problem with that, it’s all about opinions and if mine is wrong then I’ll take that on board and hopefully learn something in the process. That’s one of the reasons why questions are good.
Now I’ll move onto some questions posed about our board and the ‘gamble’. There is no doubt that to successfully manage and run any business you will need to take the odd gamble. There is absolutely nothing wrong with that however you should endeavour to stack the odds in your favour.
My questions for the board would be; Given that the odds of Hooper and Wanyama being with Celtic for this season were low why were direct replacements not brought in as soon as the transfer window opened ? Was there a problem in identifying replacements ? Were any replacements sought ? If we did identify replacements was the cost prohibitive ? or were we ‘duped’ by both players agents into thinking they would stay and thus we never bothered looking for replacements ?
Now we have spent money and brought in players in the shape of Virgil van Dijk, Amido Baldy, Derk Boerrigter and Steven Mouyokolo. However was this use of money wise ? Only time will tell. The reason I’m questioning our transfer activity is because we lost two vital players in key positions and our team looks weaker for it. We may be able to get by without Victor but when you are ‘gambling’ with our Champions League future we certainly will miss Hooper and his goals. If you take the first Cliftonville games out of the equation we have only scored five goals in five competitive games. Now if you also take into account that we have conceded three goals in those games it goes to show that we a treading a very thin line between success and failure. It’s clear to see why fans are nervous, it’s a lack of goal threat.
I must say I seen some nonsense by those supporting the ‘gamble’ trying to shout down those who questioned why we never brought in a goal scorer by referring them to what happened at Rangers. That is a total red herring. Celtic to the boards credit are not anyway near the shambles that was Rangers FC. Firstly that club was living well outside their means. They were buying in over priced players on over sized wages while running tens of millions of pounds of debt. We are not. Also I don’t think any Celtic fan is asking the board to pay stupid money just for one player goal scorer or not.
To me it comes down to how you take the ‘gamble’ Do you take it by waiting to see if your in the Champions League before you buy a genuine goal scorer or do you gamble £5m beforehand to stack the odds of a £20m return in your favour ?
Feel free to disagree but don’t ask me not to ask questions because that is what happened at the dead Rangers and that is largely why they are dead.