As the dust began to settle following Celtic’s resounding 3-0 victory over Rangers, Graeme Souness reignited debate with a perplexing assessment of the match at Celtic Park.
While most observers agreed that Celtic were the vastly superior side, Souness’s analysis offered a curious and somewhat controversial take on the proceedings.
Celtic’s dominance throughout the match was clear, with goals from Daizen Maeda, Kyogo Furuhashi, and Callum McGregor securing a comprehensive win.
Brendan Rodgers’ side could have extended the scoreline even further had they been more clinical in front of goal. Aside from a brief ten-minute spell at the beginning, Rangers were largely outplayed, with Celtic appearing comfortable for much of the contest.
However, Souness, a former Rangers manager and legendary figure at the club, presented a different interpretation when discussing the match on talkSPORT.
Attempting to argue that the gap between the two Glasgow rivals was not as wide as many believe, Souness cited statistics that, in his view, painted a different picture.
“They have the better players. They have the better strikers. And if you want to win football matches, you have to put the ball in the back of the net,” Souness began, before diving into a statistical breakdown that he believed supported his argument.
“Can I read some stats to you from yesterday’s game? Forget the result, so you don’t know the result. So Celtic had 53% possession, Rangers had 47% at Parkhead, that’s not bad for an away team.
“Celtic had 14 shots. Rangers had 13 shots. Celtic had four on target. Rangers had four on target. Celtic had five off-target. We had five off-target. Does that sound like a game that’s been one-sided to you?”
Souness continued, acknowledging that there is indeed a gap between the sides but implying that it might not be as pronounced as the scoreline suggested.
“There’s no doubt about it. There is a gap. That gap for me, looking at it, is that Celtic have better strikers. Those stats are not suggesting that they are absolutely turning up in mullering Rangers at Parkhead.”
He then concluded with a striking admission: “I’m not watching the game yesterday and sitting there feeling we’re getting absolutely tonked here. I didn’t feel that. Maybe that’s because I’m a blue nose. But I didn’t see Celtic wave after wave of attack or our goalkeeper having to make lots and lots of saves.”
Souness’s remarks have been met with scepticism, with many suggesting that he is in denial about the true nature of Celtic’s dominance.
While he rightly points out that goals win games, his attempt to downplay the extent of Celtic’s superiority by focusing on selective statistics misses the larger picture.
The most significant stat— the 3-0 scoreline— speaks for itself, and no amount of number-crunching can obscure the fact that Celtic were the better team by some distance.
Even Kris Boyd, another Rangers stalwart, acknowledged the disparity between the sides, describing Rangers’ performance as “embarrassing.”
The truth is that Celtic, without shifting out of second gear, outclassed their rivals, and had Maeda, Hatate, and Paulo Bernardo converted their opportunities, the final scoreline could easily have been five or six-nil.
In the end, while Souness’s defence of his old club is understandable, the facts remain indisputable: Celtic were dominant, and the result at Parkhead was a fair reflection of the gulf in quality between the two sides on the day.