“Cracked” – the stats which show the truth about why Celtic fell

“Cracked” – the stats which show the truth about why Celtic fell
Celtic v Rangers File Photo File photo dated 30-12-2017 of Rangers and Celtic fans segregated during the Scottish Premiership match. FILE PHOTO EDITORIAL USE ONLY PUBLICATIONxINxGERxSUIxAUTxONLY Copyright: xIanxRutherfordx 56079597

We’ve been getting quite a few of our friends from the East coming on Ibrox Noise ‘undermining’ Rangers’ league win on the basis of Celtic being rubbish.

Now, this theme is not something we’re hypocritical about – we’ve long discredited Celtic’s league wins in the past decade either because there was no Rangers or we were rubbish.

So they’re now doing the same thing.

But there’s a difference – Rangers WERE rubbish, having just been promoted, whereas Celtic, this season, were still the 8.5IAR side they had been for the previous 9 years.

That’s right – any Celtic fan arguing that Rangers won the league off the back of their opponents being poor needs to remember that it’s not Celtic who were awful, it’s just that Rangers were THAT good that we made the side currently 14 points clear of Hibs look absolutely useless.

We cannot overstate the truly shocking power swing in Scottish football – Celtic went from Scottish kings and the Establishment to a joke and outcasts in a manner of literally four months between September and December.

That seismic shift, happening THAT quickly, and having absolutely NOTHING to do with a club in crisis like Rangers’ own troubles in 2012, demonstrates that, honestly, Celtic did little wrong.

Rangers were just too good. Sorry, but we were.

Were Celtic rotten? 8 wins out of 9 with a single draw shows they didn’t start that way.

But then Rangers travelled to Parkhead and tonked them.

THEN the saturation of draws, losses mounted up as pressure told. Including the loss to Rangers, they only won one of their next 5.

This was a club put under serious pressure for the first time in 10 years and it absolutely cracked.

No financial issues, no court trauma, nothing – just a city rival that, seemingly from nowhere, was suddenly colossally better.

No, Celtic lost because Rangers were simply too good, and they couldn’t handle that pressure.

The same happened in 2000 the other way around as MON took over Celtic and put Dick Advocaat sadly in his place and took the title.

Gerrard took a bit longer, but Celtic and Neil Lennon simply had no answer. Were they guilty of resting on their laurels? Maybe.

But don’t believe a single word of any Celtic fan who argues their team was rotten and that’s why Rangers won.

Their team wasn’t awful, but Rangers were just too good, and made them completely fall apart.

Pressure tells.

No posts to display


  1. Spot on totally agree a lot of my green supporting mates have been slavering a similar line whilst quoting silly 8-5* Cup Quadruple pish rants against no real opposition . Then we arrive back in charge and they crumbled. They still had the nucleus of the team that stole the 8-5* . Shut TFU please !

  2. I agree with this artical about 95% the pressure got them after the first old firm the need to win every game to keep up with us did crack them and there confidence bt it’s been over since Xmas and the new year old firm killed any last hope they had left…. after tht tho the league was long gone but there poor form has continued no pressure on them and there still choking every other week hopefully it carrys over to next season with the core of the team they keep…… we know how hard it is to get the right mentality into th club some players even need 18 months to settle properly… I still think our team could do with some extra steel in th mentality department th cup exits shouldn’t of happened this term and I’m still kinda annoyed about it. however If I was offered 55 and them winning Feck all at the start of the campaign I would of took it….. mon I gers….. watp

  3. You are absolutely correct IN. They had an excellent start to the season going into the first Old Firm game at the San Giro. If my recollection is correct if we had lost that game we would’ve been 2 points behind and they had a game in hand, so potentially 5 points. It just goes to show the importance of a good start and the first Old Firm game. If you already behind you can’t really afford to lose that game.

Comments are closed.