Articles

Is Rodgers’ Celtic a prisoner of his philosophy … or ours?

|
Image for Is Rodgers’ Celtic a prisoner of his philosophy … or ours?

The question as to why Brendan Rodgers is struggling to implement a more defensive style at Celtic for our games against continental clubs is, I think, directly related to the club’s ingrained identity.

In a recent article, I pointed out that part of the problem is that we simply don’t have the personnel to play that way. But as I thought about it more, I started to reflect on Ange Postecoglou’s time here and Rodgers’ first stint as manager. A thought occurred to me—perhaps it’s not just the managers or the players. Maybe the issue is Celtic itself.

When it comes to European results, two of the most successful Celtic bosses of recent times were also amongst the hardest to watch. Lennon’s relative successes in Europe came because he viewed the game through a different lens from either Rodgers or Ange. He built teams that were more robust, sides capable of grinding out results by playing more conservatively. The same applied to Gordon Strachan, whose results are as good as anyone’s in the modern era.

But few people enjoyed the football overall, and there was constant pressure – and there is still constant pressure – to play in a certain way.

As I reflected on this, I started to wonder if both Ange and Rodgers have had to contend with a club philosophy that exists independently of their own managerial styles. That philosophy shapes how Celtic plays football, regardless of who is in the dugout. One of the reasons Postecoglou fit so perfectly was that his attacking style matched the club’s romantic vision of front-foot football. The people who advocated for him before many of us even knew his name weren’t guessing; they knew that Ange’s philosophy would slot right into Celtic’s.

Brendan Rodgers, on the other hand, is a manager who has shown tactical flexibility throughout his career. When his Leicester side stunned Manchester City 5-2, they didn’t do it by pressing high and attacking relentlessly. Instead, Rodgers set the team up to frustrate City, hitting them on the counter and allowing players like Jamie Vardy to exploit the spaces left behind. Similarly, during his time at Liverpool, he used two holding midfielders when necessary, showing his capacity to adapt and alter his tactics depending on the situation.

But Celtic isn’t just any club.

There’s a historical and philosophical burden here. Rodgers himself is steeped in that history, in the ethos of how Celtic teams are ‘supposed’ to play. It’s been referred to as the ‘Celtic Way’—an attacking, free-flowing style of football. And it’s clear that this approach suits his natural inclination. At Leicester or Liverpool, he had the freedom to employ more pragmatic tactics, but here, the demands of the job seem to come with a certain level of expectation. He’s not just asked to win but to do it in a way that aligns with the club’s values.

That it also aligns with his own is what makes this even more complicated.

This identity, this expectation, is something Celtic fans have fully bought into as well.

The team’s start to the season was widely praised for its fluid attacking play, and in Europe the Bratislava performance left many of us on cloud nine, not just because of the result but because of the style in which those three home points were achieved.

There’s no question that Postecoglou’s side was one of the most exhilarating we’ve seen in years. On the flip side, very few fans look back with fondness on some of the more cautious football we endured under Lennon or Gordon Strachan, despite the fact that both managed to produce results in Europe.

Even Martin O’Neill, whose teams are still revered, built his side around a 3-5-2 formation that employed two defensive midfielders in Neil Lennon and Paul Lambert. But that team was balanced with sufficient attacking talent—Larsson, Sutton, and Hartson—to pulverise most defences in Scotland. So, while O’Neill’s team could defend and counter when necessary, it never lost sight of its attacking identity, particularly on the domestic front.

That brings us back to today.

Can Celtic fundamentally change its style and adopt a more defensive approach? And if we do, will that compromise the very identity that has shaped the club for so long? In the SPFL, playing with two holding midfielders seems redundant. Most teams sit back and let us attack them, meaning the need for a more defensive structure is rarely necessary. You could argue that by shifting to a defensive mindset, we’d be undermining what makes us successful domestically, where our dominance is based on our ability to break down stubborn defences.

It’s clear that Rodgers is aware of this.

During his first spell, he placed Kristoffer Ajer—who, let’s face it, was never a natural centre-back—in the heart of the defence because he needed someone who could step forward with the ball and help launch attacks. That’s what Pep Guardiola did with Javier Mascherano at Barcelona, using a defensive midfielder in central defence to aid the transition from defence to attack.

Ultimately, it all circles back to Celtic’s philosophy.

Historically, we’ve been a club that plays a certain way, and our greatest successes have come when we’ve stuck to that identity. The best example of this is probably O’Neill’s side, which, even with two holding midfielders, never compromised on its attacking threat.

So perhaps the issue isn’t with the manager, or even with the squad, but with the fact that Celtic is hard-wired to play attacking football.

Rodgers has the tactical nous to play in a different way, but the demands placed on him by history, philosophy, and the fans may be boxing him in. Would he have more freedom at another club? Almost certainly. But here, there’s an unspoken expectation to play in a way that excites, regardless of the opposition or the stage … and he’s down with that. He loves that.

The real question, then, is would we accept a more defensive, cautious Celtic if it brought greater success in Europe? Or is the identity of the club so tied to attacking football that we’d feel uncomfortable if we veered too far from it?

In the end, maybe we, the fans, are part of the problem.

Maybe our romanticised view of how Celtic should play has shaped the club so deeply that any attempt to break from that tradition feels like heresy. Rodgers, for all his tactical flexibility, may simply be a prisoner to Celtic’s ethos, as Postecoglou was before him. And if we demand a different approach, are we prepared for what that might mean? Because a shift in tactics could undermine the very identity – maybe even the success – that has defined this club for generations.

Share this article

9 comments

  • Clachnacuddin and the Hoops says:

    Nothing must EVER EVER undermine the success of Celtic…

    However perhaps the on field identity is altogether another thing that needs looking at –

    I’ll always remember how on earth that magnificent attacking team that Tommy Burns mustered together only won one trophy outta a potential nine…

    The great man himself said it (In Jest) – “When I die write on ma tombstone that Andy Goram broke my heart”

    Wave after wave of attacks, Goram defying gravity drunk or sober, the ball out to Gough, a punt up the field, a flick by Laudraup and McCoist poached an inevitable undeserving last minute winner as ‘Rangers’ as they were then took ‘well legally stole’ the three points…

    All on the pragmatic and awful to watch tactics of The man with no surname…

    Did ‘Walter’ care – not a jot…

    Did The Sevco Hun Hoards care – not a jot either…

    Did we care – Bloody Hell Aye – Heartbroken time after time and feeling robbed…

    I still scratch ma Head at how these tactics brought success to Liebrox –

    They were very UGLY – But they worked !

    • SSMPM says:

      Ah remember it well and the dead club’s supporters revelled in it regardless of piss poor performance. Pierre VH, Dicanio, Cadete what a forward line and that fat twat, aka The Goalie, stopped them all. It was more than anyone but in particular poor Tommy, God rest his soul, deserved.

  • SSMPM says:

    I’m not at all sure about this version of events. Sure we like and admire attacking flair but all out kamikaze attacking against some of Europe’s, if not the world’s, finest clubs? Na nobody or if I give you an out, hardly anybody, I know thinks this how it should go against every team we play. I’d argue it’s not even been since the death of rangers and more since Ange. Mainly that’s because of the Japanese boys that Ange brought with him and their attacking progressive energy.
    Brendan is cuter and more worldly wise than that. I reckon he’s bought into it perhaps because of a great deal of moaning from fans last year at the at times somewhat pitiful performances and the need to try to get the Ange feel good style back into the team. At worst he thought we were playing so well from pre season and domestically that he’d test it against one of the better European outfits and he got his arse felt as a result.
    But if he didn’t know better and I reckon he did but got ambitious, got carried away, then he sure as hell knows now. In Ireland ‘getting the excitement’ has a slightly different connotation but I reckon that’s what got and hopefully it’s back to reality and a tad more pragmatism. I, as a fan, am not taking the rap that gung ho approach

  • DannyGal says:

    I think a lot of the time people seem to think it’s a complete abandonment of “The Celtic Way” to try to adjust the approach to achieve an otherwise unlikely result.
    Brendan knows, as did Ange, that one environment where they could impose their footballing philosophies to 100% effect, whilst receiving great praise for their bravery, was the SPL.
    For some reason they translated this to deploying the exact same approach in CL matches against the likes of Real Madrid, home or away. In some of those matches, especially under Ange, I felt Celtic became caricatures of themselves, almost like the Keystone Cops on fast forward, as though neglecting their defensive responsibilities made it somehow more brave and noble, regardless of the result. Surely it would be acceptable to adapt this approach to away matches against top level CL clubs, and perhaps only in those matches.
    At Celtic Park the fans carry the team to play “The Celtic Way” and give them the energy to maintain it throughout a match, no matter the opposition.
    Okay, make that a non-negotiable and similarly for winnable away games, but tweak it as Jock Stein and Martin O’Neil did when required, with great success. Surely that would be acceptable to Brendan and the fans?

  • Mick in Canberra says:

    Jock Stein, had no problem playing defensively against Dukla Prague, to get to Lisbon

    • Henry Bilotti says:

      Correct. I seem to remember Robert Kelly sticking his oar in afterwards stating that Celtic would not play in that manner ever again. Ridiculous.

  • Brattbakk says:

    The Leicester example is a good one, we might need to practice a plan b more conservative formation. Away from home in Europe we need to defend properly as a unit with a good shape and then when we get it be brave on the ball. Going toe to toe from the first whistle is too risky, first we need to get the opponent’s respect and constantly conceding goals in bunches is embarrassing us. I’m not moaning or raging anymore but we can do better

  • Frank Connelly says:

    and that’s you hit the nail on the head James. O’neill’s teams were built on quality and strength. We had skill and power and this allowed for a solid defensive base whilst still producing the pace and quality up front. In my view if fans are looking for a successful team in Europe then it would result in a complete rebuild and that won’t happen.

  • Henry Bilotti says:

    100% accurate. In 2024 it’s unreasonable to expect the club to have success in Europe playing in this manner. Time to change, time to adapt. If Celtic and its supporters don’t want to change then no progress will be made when the big tests come up- as we’ve seen.

Comments are closed.

×