Articles

Walker’s Suggestion That Celtic’s Defence Was “Bullied” By St Mirren Is Risible Nonsense.

|
Image for Walker’s Suggestion That Celtic’s Defence Was “Bullied” By St Mirren Is Risible Nonsense.

Andy Walker was talking trash this week again, and proving how little this guy who is paid to analyse football matches actually knows about the job he’s been hired to do. Amongst his pearls of wisdom – and it’s one I’ve read elsewhere – is that Celtic’s defenders were “bullied” by the St Mirren front men and that was the reason for the defeat.

The only trouble with that theory is that it bears no resemblance to reality whatsoever.

Even a look at the stats does not bear that out at all.

It is a lazy assessment, but about what you expect from a guy who really has lucked into a gig doing a job that is way bigger than his capabilities. Walker has never been a good commentator, but he sounds like a legend at that compared to those times when he tries to do analysis. Because that’s where his real lack of basic understanding shines through.

St Mirren had two attempts on target and scored them both.

Watch both goals.

It’s not “bullying” that accounts for that first one, it’s bad marking. It’s players not doing the job that they were supposed to do. The second is the same, and an even bigger shambles. There was no bullying got done in either case. It’s not like these guys outmuscled their way to their efforts; in the case of the first one the guy is completely unmarked.

This was a honking bad day at the office.

That’s all it was. Nobody showed up on form.

If you’ve watched Stephen Welsh or Jenz at all you’ll know they are big physical players and more than up for the fight. When he came into the Celtic team initially Welsh steadied a ship that was leaking all over the place, and rarely gave up a ball in the air.

We missed Carter Vickers, but the state of the defending had more to do with a central defensive pairing that had barely played alongside each other than it had to do with people being bullied. St Mirren didn’t have the ball in our half enough for any bullying to happen; they had 20% possession in the entirety of the game, so what is this clown on about?

The first goal is a long cross into the box, and if someone has O’Hara covered and doesn’t let him ghost in at the back post there’s nothing to talk about in terms of that one. The second is a header across goal where the keeper abjectly fails to take command and the defenders all stand around like total strangers.

Walker’s assessment is rubbish.

Honestly, I can’t stand listening to this guy when all he’s doing is telling us why brutal tackles on our players aren’t necessarily free kicks.

But when he actually starts attempting to take apart the mechanics of a game … it’s like watching a toddler attempt a jigsaw designed for adults. He only embarrasses himself.

Share this article

3 comments

  • SSMPM says:

    They were certainly more aggressive than us with more energy, there was a push in the back for one of the goals or at least a more aggressive challenge to win it. So, they only had two chances and scored two goals but our strikers couldn’t hit a barn door. Again. That should be a recurring worry to discuss, not Walker

  • John Gow says:

    For once I believe he ain’t talking rubbish. I said at the game that we were being bullied (and cheated) all over the pitch and we didn’t have an answer. Points aren’t given out for stats.

  • DorsetCelt says:

    Must disagree with you James – Curtis Main (a journeyman pro) unsettled our central defenders throughout the game with his physicality and they couldn’t handle it. Reminded me of the occasions Dykes rag-dolled big Julien.

Comments are closed.