Glenn Gibbons: Celtic fringe show does little to help Euro cause

Published on Friday 18 December 2009 23:25

WHATEVER Tony Mowbray may have learned about some of his so-called fringe players in Celtic's final Europa League outing in Vienna the other night, his selection told the rest of us all we needed to know about the average manager's attitude to the Uefa co-efficient.

This is obviously a phenomenon which, to those whose needs and desires are deeply rooted in what occurs today, could have inspired the old Spanish axiom that "tomorrow never comes".

Like the overwhelming majority of his professional colleagues, Mowbray will be – perhaps even subconsciously – indifferent to Scotland's ranking with the governing body until it is of immediate relevance to himself. This disinterest stems from the realisation that he may not be around when the implications of the fluctuations of fortune begin to bite.

Indeed, in Scotland as a whole, there are only two clubs who would be truly inconvenienced by the loss of a place in the Champions League that is now threatened, and both are based in Glasgow. Thanks largely to the desperate "contribution" of the non-Old Firm clubs over the past decade or so, opportunities in Europe continue to diminish.

In truth, however, Celtic's chances of victory over Rapid on Thursday – thereby improving the co-efficient – are unlikely to have been appreciably enhanced by Mowbray's choosing to select more recognised first-team regulars.

Football clubs, as a body, tend to be populated by players of a general standard, from the exceptional to the extremely moderate. It is why certain teams/squads are consistently at the top and others at the bottom of the merit table through the years. And if half-a-dozen apparent first choices are missing for whatever reason, their deputies will almost inevitably give a fair representation of the overallstandard at the club.

Celtic fans themselves, for example, will be familiar with the feeling that there is little or nothing to choose between Andreas Hinkel, Mark Wilson, Danny Fox and Lee Naylor as full-backs, and that the team will not be dramatically improved/weakened by the presence/absence of, say, Scott Brown.

In conversation with Alex Ferguson one Friday a few years ago, he said that he was taking what would be called virtually a reserve team to face a moderate Sunderland in a Premiership match the following day. When I asked if that wasn't something of a risk, he replied, "Well, if they can't beat Sunderland, they shouldn't be here."

This was a declaration that the difference between the established first-team players and those emerging as challengers at Old Trafford should not be measured in quality, but merely in experience. It was also confirmation that United's overall standard of performer is higher than most others', capable of maintaining results and impetus towards further honours.

As Celtic and Rangers have demonstrated every time they have confronted (with the possible exception of Sevilla, very mediocre) European opponents this season, they now operate at a level low enough to be almost subterranean.

No sense in backing England for World Cup

AS A betting man long since persuaded that backing horses is the short route to the poor house but that wagering on football is infinitely less rewarding, perhaps this battle-scarred veteran would not be many people's idea of the most reliable preacher in the matter of delivering a sermon on the forthcoming World Cup.

But half a century of jousting with an implacable enemy has not been an entirely fruitless pursuit, in that at least two lessons have been learned. The first is that there are times when bookmakers offer odds about certain occurrences that are too good to be true. These are known in theological circles as occasions of sin and are to be avoided like falling into a fully populated snake pit.

The second is that other promotions are too appalling to be countenanced, even under the intoxicating influence of strong drink. Surely nothing could induce anyone other than a native of the country involved to accept 5-1 about England winning the World Cup.

This black aversion to the odds compilers' come-on owes nothing to some petty cross-border rivalry, or envious resentment, and everything to a rationally arrived-at conclusion that there is more value in a Spanish peseta. Anyone who would plunge on England is surely the victim of mind-bending chauvinism.

A proper examination of their prospects should immediately dismiss as a positive the near-certainty that they will emerge unscathed from the group phase and into the last 16.

Having Fabio Capello as their manager is an advantage to set beside their seeding, but it is not difficult to find potentially serious flaws. Strangely, England are a team with no goalkeeper, a problem at right-back and weaknesses in central defence that would give any would-be investor the DTs. From having the most formidable array of central pillars in the world as recently as two years ago – Rio Ferdinand, John Terry, Ledley King, Jonathan Woodgate, Matthew Upson and Sol Campbell – all but Upson have been palpably diminished either by injury or, in Terry's case, sheer wear and tear.

It is feared, too, that there is too wide a gap in capabilities between Capello's acknowledged first choices, such as Frank Lampard, Steven Gerrard and Wayne Rooney, and their replacements in the event of injury. It is reasonable to suggest that England may not have the squad to cope with the demands of a highly compressed World Cup.

This wary punter would not support Capello's team with counterfeit money.