8/28: Second Leg, Celtic vs. Basle [R]

[Worm Burner]

This sucks! I thought this was the year that Celtic could actually make it a ways in the Champions League.

It makes you appreciate their run last year more.

[CGoal]

Damn.. I was hoping for better. I didnt see this coming in my head

[SwissGCZ]

2-0 FCB, Basle advances...

It seems the scotish TV stations had insider information and refused to shell out cash for this game :D

Good luck to Celtic in the Uefa Cup (unless they play Grasshoppers)

[Parkhead_Faithful]

MON doesnt seem to have learned from his away games in europe last season, 5 straight losses, only ever won away in amsterdam.
Disappointing.

[markdickson]

The game was shown on Celtic TV.

[Parkhead_Faithful]

terrestrial im talking about mate.

[Liverpool_SC]

Originally posted by Parkhead_Faithful
MON doesnt seem to have learned from his away games in europe last season, 5 straight losses, only ever won away in amsterdam.
Disappointing.

See my post on the Champion's League Surprise/Disappointed Thread - Celtic needs to solidify their defense before they can succeed on the continant.

That gift in the first two minutes at Parkhead was a sign of things to come.

Now that I have sounded like a know-it-all jerk - a question - is it only members of the Champions League that have the opportunity to drop down to the UEFA Cup, or do qualifiers who lose in this round also get a second crack at European Football?

[Parkhead_Faithful]

as far as I know were in, we should be.

[Liverpool_SC]

Originally posted by Parkhead_Faithful
as far as I know were in, we should be.

That is a consolation for sure. Granted it is not the Champion's League but it gives Celtics some time to build some confidence on the road in European football.

When Liverpool had their successful run in the UEFA Cup in '00, I think the most important fruit was not the trophy, but the knowledge that they could go to Nou Camp and Stade Olimpico and come out with a good result. I don't think that Roma or Barcelona took those matches as seriously as they should - and I think the results showed. The next year when Liverpool was playing the likes of Dynamo Kiev, Borussia Dortmund and Boavista on the road - they went with the expectation that they would get a result because they had beaten bigger teams the year before. And they managed to make it through to the Second Group a very tough group and were able to squeak by.

I think that this is a pattern that Celtic could follow. It might be a good thing that they are in UEFA this year, as being a fourth seed the Champion's League itself could be even tougher (more demorolising), the way qualifying matches are shaping up. I hope Liverpool is not going to find this out the hard way, as we are seeded 11th this year after being seeded 8th the year before. But we were in murderous groups last year just the same.

[sydtheeagle]

Sounds to me like Celtic are out of one champions league (Europe), but tonight was a big step towards another (the Premiership). They might have to get in through the Nationwide League, whatever, but surely an inability to overcome the likes of Basel (with all due respect) suggests that playing in an opposition-free league week in, week out, really has outlived its usefulness.

Between them, Celtic and Rangers have invested a lot of money in a lot of good players over the past ten years, but have basically, in Europe, never been able to really overcome the limitations of playing in a poor domestic competition. Is there really any option for those two other than to get out of the SPL as soon as humanly possible? Tonights result underlines the urgency of it all.

[Parkhead_Faithful]

I dont agree its a problem with who we play in the league, it was our tactics, it was our formation and it was our players not performing, its that simple.
Joos Valgaeren was playing as a right back!

[Liverpool_SC]

Originally posted by sydtheeagle
Sounds to me like Celtic are out of one champions league (Europe), but tonight was a big step towards another (the Premiership). They might have to get in through the Nationwide League, whatever, but surely an inability to overcome the likes of Basel (with all due respect) suggests that playing in an opposition-free league week in, week out, really has outlived its usefulness.

Between them, Celtic and Rangers have invested a lot of money in a lot of good players over the past ten years, but have basically, in Europe, never been able to really overcome the limitations of playing in a poor domestic competition. Is there really any option for those two other than to get out of the SPL as soon as humanly possible? Tonights result underlines the urgency of it all.

Any team that wins its modest domestic league year-in and year-out by outscoring its opponents is going to struggle in the continental tournaments. And lets face it, even Celtic's last few matches against the 'Gers have reflected that the Bhoy's are not on form against top sides.

I think that the noise people have made about UEFA not allowing teams to play in leagues in other countries is not likely to prevent the Old Firm from leaving for the Nationwide League if push comes to shove for the following reasons:

a) there are other European precedents - Bastia(?) plays in Le Championnet and is not in native France, correct? Verduz(?) of Lichtenstein plays in the Swiss First Division. Monaco's participation in Le Championnet is often cited as the reason why UEFA does not allow them to field a national team. If that is the case, why has this not resulted in Lichtenstein losing their national team?

b) there are other UK precedents - Swansea, Cardiff, Wrexham and Berwick. Why should a team from the SPL be any different?

Syd- I am surprised at you for bringing up the Nationwide thing because it would only result in two more Premiership caliber clubs in a division that is so far out-classing your beloved Eagles. Are they really playing as miserable as it sounds, reading their match reports? I knew Trevor (not Gerry as you once informed me) Francis is bad, but is he this miserable? Has the Kolinko incident been put behind the team - the press has been much quieter recently. It sounds like Selhurst Park is a poor place for football this season whether a Wimbledon "fan" or Eagles supporter.

[Parkhead_Faithful]

Originally posted by Liverpool_SC


Any team that wins its modest domestic league year-in and year-out by outscoring its opponents is going to struggle in the continental tournaments. And lets face it, even Celtic's last few matches against the 'Gers have reflected that the Bhoy's are not on form against top sides.


Rosenborg?

[Liverpool_SC]

Originally posted by Parkhead_Faithful
I dont agree its a problem with who we play in the league, it was our tactics, it was our formation and it was our players not performing, its that simple.
Joos Valgaeren was playing as a right back!

Doesn't the fact that MON pulls out a formation that he has not used in recent memory (I suppose there was a four back set in one of the friendlies) smack of desparation? I know that they were trying to hang on to their advantage in a difficult environment (the threatened riots and all) but was this really the occasion for experimentation? I would think that a wiser course would be to drop two of the mids very deep and try to maintain possession rather than put your defense on its heals and allow Basel the run of the center of the park.

The adjustment for the defenders is a lot to ask, but to ask your midfielders to suddenly play new roles (4 vs 5) is basically suicidal in continental football. Heck, even Alex Ferguson left his tried and true 442 because he knew that the continental game was won in the center of the park. It sounds like Lambert and company were not very comfortable in the new arrangement and that the possession in the first half was miserably in Basel's favor.

[Parkhead_Faithful]

the space basle had in the first leg it was obvious we needed to play 4 at the back, why he didnt ease us in by playing one against partick or dundee unt I have no idea but it simply had to be tried.

[sydtheeagle]

Originally posted by Liverpool_SC


Syd- I am surprised at you for bringing up the Nationwide thing because it would only result in two more Premiership caliber clubs in a division that is so far out-classing your beloved Eagles. Are they really playing as miserable as it sounds, reading their match reports? I knew Trevor (not Gerry as you once informed me) Francis is bad, but is he this miserable? Has the Kolinko incident been put behind the team - the press has been much quieter recently. It sounds like Selhurst Park is a poor place for football this season whether a Wimbledon "fan" or Eagles supporter.

It's late, and after last night I don't have the energy to deconstruct Palace (again)! So can I answer your second question in the Palace thread tomorrow?

As for the first question, I couldn't give a jot who we're playing or which division we're playing them in. After all these years, I support Palace, not the opposition, and it makes no odds to me whether we're playing Liverpool or Lincoln. I'll still be there. When I was younger, Cup Finals and First Divisions were the holy grail, but now they're not.

Frankly, and unless something changed significantly, were we to go up then we'd come straight back down again anyway, so what's the point? I'd welcome Rangers and Celtic into our division with open arms. If they're better than us then so what? Thay'll deserve to go up instead of us. But meanwhile, we'll have two great clubs to play, and for one year at least four great games. And if we're better than them, then we'll go up and they won't, so there isn't a problem either way.

Let's be honest. Arsenal, Man Utd., Newcastle, Chelsea, Leeds, and Liverpool play in one league (which no other team in England seems likely to me to penetrate any time soon) and below that, what the hell's the difference where you compete? Birmingam, West Brom, Bolton, Charlton, Southampton, Everton, Sunderland (over one third of the Premiership), or Wolves, Ipswich, Nottingham Forest, Sheffield Wednesday, Derby County, Preston, Burnley (first division). You tell me there's any real difference between those two sets? Actually, the latter seven teams have better stadiums, better traditions, and more silverware (historically) than the first lot. Plus, every now and then, we can beat them!

Look, I won't deny that I wish Palace were good enough, rich enough, and big enough to break into that elite six but you know, and I know, that it ain't ever going to happen. So I don't worry about it. There used to be a romance about aspirations within football. There isn't anymore. So rather than cry into my beer, I choose to forget the opposition and just carry on the tradition of supporting my local team. Come Saturday, I'll be in the Goat House and the beer won't taste any different whether we're playing Scousers from Liverpool or (sort of) Scousers from Birkenhead! And yes, I do know that Tranmere song...

[Shah]

Originally posted by Liverpool_SC


Any team that wins its modest domestic league year-in and year-out by outscoring its opponents is going to struggle in the continental tournaments. And lets face it, even Celtic's last few matches against the 'Gers have reflected that the Bhoy's are not on form against top sides.

I think that the noise people have made about UEFA not allowing teams to play in leagues in other countries is not likely to prevent the Old Firm from leaving for the Nationwide League if push comes to shove for the following reasons:

a) there are other European precedents - Bastia(?) plays in Le Championnet and is not in native France, correct? Verduz(?) of Lichtenstein plays in the Swiss First Division. Monaco's participation in Le Championnet is often cited as the reason why UEFA does not allow them to field a national team. If that is the case, why has this not resulted in Lichtenstein losing their national team?

b) there are other UK precedents - Swansea, Cardiff, Wrexham and Berwick. Why should a team from the SPL be any different?



Bastia is in Corsica, Corsica is part of France. Corsica also has AC Ajaccio in the Championnat and CFCO Ajaccio play in the lower divisions. Just because it is an island does not mean it is not part of France. Just like the Portugese league has Santa Clara the Azores Islands and Maritimo from Madiera. The Spanish League has Las Palmas (relegated I know) from the Canary Islands, and Mallorca and Tenerife from the Baeleric Islands. The Italian league has Cagliari from Sardinia and Palermo (lower divisions) from Sicily. I am sure Sicily and Sardinia have more teams, I don't really follow it that closely. And so on and so on.

As for Vaduz, well Lichetenstein has no league. They just have a national cup. Vaduz plays in the Swiss lower divisions, not in the top flight.

I have no idea why UEFA banishes Monaco from having a national team. I don't think there would be much interest in one anyway. AS Monaco is the attendance laughingstock of the French league as it is.

The Wrexham, Swansea and Cardiff precedents were set a long time ago, and those clubs cannot play in the Welsh Cup. I don't think UEFA would object because they seem to realize the situation. However, I don't think the Old Firm would be allowed to play in the Scottish Cup or League Cup (well naturally they would already be out of the league cup I guess). If they were allowed to play in the Scottish Cup I am sure they would not be allowed to use it as a method to Europe.

[Shah]

Originally posted by sydtheeagle



Let's be honest. Arsenal, Man Utd., Newcastle, Chelsea, Leeds, and Liverpool play in one league (which no other team in England seems likely to me to penetrate any time soon) and below that, what the hell's the difference where you compete? Birmingam, West Brom, Bolton, Charlton, Southampton, Everton, Sunderland (over one third of the Premiership), or Wolves, Ipswich, Nottingham Forest, Sheffield Wednesday, Derby County, Preston, Burnley (first division). You tell me there's any real difference between those two sets? Actually, the latter seven teams have better stadiums, better traditions, and more silverware (historically) than the first lot. Plus, every now and then, we can beat them!



You are telling me Portman Road, Hillsborough, and Turf Moor are better stadiums than the Reebok, Stadium of Light and Provident St Mary's Stadium?? I don't agree with that at all.

[sydtheeagle]

Originally posted by Shah


You are telling me Portman Road, Hillsborough, and Turf Moor are better stadiums than the Reebok, Stadium of Light and Provident St Mary's Stadium?? I don't agree with that at all.

I could argue semantics and say that Molineux, Pride Park, and the City Ground are better than the above, but I rather think that you have so totally missed the point I was making that it's not really worth my saying any more.

[ads_uk]

douglas, agathe, guppy, valgaren, sylla, larsson, hartson, sutton, petrov, lambert, lennon, mjallby and balde (I think thats all who played) they were all on tonight so its relatively full strength team there. There can be no excuses and andy walker and tommy coyne said Basel were the better team and MON admitted fault too.....

http://uk.sports.yahoo.com/020828/4/d8epp.html

parkhead_faithful I sympthasise with you when you talk about how MON should have changed the formation, everytime I'm at Ibrox I want to change it to a 4-4-2 but 4-3-3 seems to work for the scottish league for rangers as does 3-5-2 for celtic but the scottish league and the champions league are completely different. celtic have a poor champions league record away from home since MON took over only beating the off guard ajax team. My opinion matches yours I think you need 4 at the back away from home in europe because the three seem to get ripped apart and give away possesion with the long ball which doesnt matter in scotland, except against rangers, because teams like aberdeen are absolute diddies and they dont know what to do when they get the ball. With all respect Larsson yet again failed to shine against half decent opposition, just my opinion I know it will be disputed :P