Are Celtic better without Rangers?

This could be done the other way around but as Rangers have gone down it is this way. Do local rivalries hold clubs back from becoming what they could? In all the years that the old firm have been playing Celtic have never been closer to reaching the next phase of the champions league and the second Rangers are gone they go and nearly take 4 points off the 'best side in the world'.

It may be just a coincidence but you hear all the time about local rivals being more interested in being the best on their turf than actually winning anything. Once you can see past that narrow view it is possible to achieve more.

tribalism is one of the strengths of football as a sport but could be seen as a weakness for the clubs.

It's a swallow and you know how the phrase goes about swallows and summers.

Btw, they got to the last 16 under Strachan.

Taking a snap judgement this morning it would be easy to say yes, however as time moves on and they get used to 4 less big competitive domestic games well we'll see, it could go either way. There's also the fact that before Rangers demise there were 2 clubs effectively contributing to the coefficient (to some degree) now Celtic are on their own for a while (no offence intended to the Motherwells, Hibs & Dundee Utds of this world but really, the chances of our coefficient going up and making Celtics path into and seeding within the CL are pretty slim. Celtic will have to do it themselves as I don't see any of the others being around in Europe past mid August.

Although I have referred this to Celtic I guess it could just as easily apply to Hearts and Hibs, Killie and Ayr Utd or Arsenal and Spurs. When you have a local rivalry it's easy to get sucked into that and forget that there is something outside it.

Also I would say it may not be an immediate affect that other Scottish teams get into Europe but if Rangers fail to come back up it will happen. Someone will fill the void.

You could look at it another way, I think 9 times out of 10 if Celtic play Barcelona they are gong to get beaten. Anyone giving away 90% possession is likely to struggle.

Last night was a business like performance, backed up by a keeper having a birthday game (as last week). On another day Celtic (or any team with 10% possession) would probably get beaten 5-0.

THey didn't and you have to commend them for that, but it's a long way before Celtic can be considered a team with European standing or credibility.

Well you say that but they only just lost the first match and I never really thought they were going to lose once they scored the first goal. their tactics just seemed to suit the game.

I know you won't like this but in 2005 Wales won a grand slam in rugby with less possession and a lineout that didn't work. It's the same in any sport, if you take your chances you might only need one or two to win the match. It's about being clinical.

With the second goal last night it would be easy to have seen Watt miss that. How many times have you seen a one on one where the shot has been saved or just gone wide. it was all in favour of the keeper but Watt kept his cool and took his chance. In the end it matters not at all how much possession Barca had because they failed to convert and I would actually think Celtic could win 50% of matches against that team for the simple reason they always know they have to work harder. Barca will always assume they will be better and therefore might not be as clinical.

I am not saying that makes Celtic a better team but sometimes a lower team is just set up perfectly for the big fish.

Watched last night as a neutral and have to say that was a well fought 3 points. The refereeing was bang on for most of the time, especially when you look at the replays, although not for the decisions I make a judgement it was purely because he allowed the game to flow.

Mckay, I know what you're saying , however, more often than not, if you ship that sort of possession, you're going to lose a lot of these games.

Celtic didn't (on this occasion), but had it not been for their keeper in both games and the post and bar, they would have got gubbed and the outlook would be different.

Great results (even the 2-1 defeat) but it probably wouldn't work all that often to play that much without the ball.
I'm just saying that the result papers over a lot of cracks, and I don't believe they've reached a new level or anything, just got their game plan almost right, with a huge dose of fortune thrown in.

Are Celtic better without Rangers? Its too early to say just yet but I believe that without Rangers it will allow Neil Lennon to develop into a better manager, he knows how to win games in Scotland however without the need to constantly win week in week out in Scotland it allows him to focus more time and put more planning into European Football and allow him to develop better stratagies.

Anyone like the 'Realist' who almost complains about the dreaded luck Celtic got against Barcelona is anything but a Realist, Chelsea knocked this team out of the Semi-Final of the CL last year despite being completely out-played in both games and conceding 40 odd shots at goal.

Its totally unrealistic to expect Celtic to go into games against Barcelona and go toe to toe with them and come out on top, logic tells us this, what teams like Celtic do have to do is find weaknesses that they can exploit, then they have to develop a stratagy that will allow them to give themselves a chance, again Realist highlights the goalie playing a blinder, well I'm sorry, in what World will any team beat Barcelona and not need their keeper to play well? Its a complete no-brainer, this is a guy who's in the England squad, he should be expected to play well, he made some good saves, maybe only two maybe 3 World Class saves in both games though, I'd say he would be expected to save the rest given his talent!

Also it should be highlighted that Celtic didn't kick Barca off the pitch, we don't play that way, that's something else that should be respected, their performance was unbelievably diciplined but extremely controlled and it wasn't a fluke, I think since both games played out the same way its safe to say it certainly wasn't a fluke, what happened was Neil Lennon, Johan Mjallby, Gary Parker and Danny McGrain devised a stratagy to contain Barcelona as best as they could, it worked once and they where 40 seconds away from it working twice, that's not luck and not flukey.

Are Celtic better without Rangers? I'd say they are more relaxed, whether that makes them better only time will tell

I'm not saying it wasn't a good result, I'm just saying that it's not a tactic (although it's the only tactic available to them) which is going to yield a result all that often.

It was almost a back handed compliment to their resilience, although it does need a bit of luck and all 11 players to be at their best to succeed. Last night it worked, but most often, it probably wouldn't, but the result is not something a sane person would generally expect.

Great result though and they are surprising me this year. Qualification looks likely, and I thought they'd get gubbed and finish bottom. So fair enough, I was wrong.

What else do you do against Barca though? Celtic and Benfica cancelled each other out then they went to Russia and took the game to Spartak and scored 3 goals in the road, something no-one else in this group has managed so far, you've got to play different systems for different games, they where a bit stand offish against Benfica but took the game to Spartak and just went out and fought their hearts out against Barca

Interesting note on Celtic/Barca games, they've played each other 8 times in last 8 years, Celtic have won 2 drawn 2 and lost 4, scored 7 and conceded 10

These games have always been tight

I have noticed this 9/10 stat thrown around a lot, but in four games of the two Chelsea games and the two Celtic games, Barcelona have won one of those, and that was with a last minute goal...

Celtic have collected 21 points from a possible 33 in the SPL losing two matches in the process. When is the last time they had such a poor return? Gaffer will know?

Fantastic result last night for the Hoops nonetheless and good luck to them.

We actually started last season quite patchy too FS, it wasn't until November time in the League that Celtic started doing well, same thing happened in 07/08 and possibly 09/10 although maybe not lose as many points

The league has been very competitive, some may say that Celtic took their eye off the ball to focus on European games but for me that's unfair to the teams who have done well to get results against us so far

I think Celtic will be looking to get 93 points this season, that's what they got last season, I think anything less than that will annoy the manager