Honestly, where on earth do some football journalists get their ideas? I have recently come across an assertion, enthusiastically circulated by certain members of the mainstream media, that this Celtic team is one of the worst sides in the club’s entire history.

And the person particularly keen to promote this rather extraordinary piece of journalistic wisdom is none other than Calum Crowe.

Now, Calum, I have a little suggestion.

Before reaching for your next dramatic headline, perhaps you should spend five minutes familiarising yourself with Celtic’s history.

You know, the history that existed long before you decided to inform the rest of us about how terrible our football team supposedly is.

Now, we are bad right now. No doubt. Perhaps we’re going to get worse as this season wears on. But that club is ridiculous no matter how bad things presently look. To call this one of the worst teams in Celtic’s history is outrageous.

In fact, with all due respect, and I am struggling to find any at this particular moment, calling this one of the worst Celtic teams ever is an absolute load of pish.

Seriously, have you forgotten the 1990s?

Were you too young to remember them? Or perhaps you have conveniently developed a selective memory because historical facts are rather inconvenient when they interfere with a sensational newspaper article?

Let me examine this assertion properly, because I think a little historical perspective is desperately needed.

Now, as I’ve already said, I am certainly not going to sit here pretending that Celtic are currently playing wonderful football. Far from it.

I have been openly critical of the performances, the tactics, the recruitment, the management and, above all, the complete lack of leadership at our football club. I have watched enough this season to know that something is seriously wrong.

The defeat to Falkirk was another painful reminder of just how far below our standards this team can operate.

But there is a difference between being disappointed with a Celtic team and declaring it one of the worst in the club’s history.

And if Calum Crowe wants to make such an extraordinary historical claim, I would suggest that he should at least familiarise himself with some of the teams which actually deserve to be mentioned in that conversation.

Let us travel back to 1947–48.

Under Jimmy McGrory, Celtic finished twelfth in a sixteen-team league, winning just ten of their thirty matches.

More worryingly, the club came dangerously close to relegation. Celtic needed victory against Dundee in their final league fixture to be certain of avoiding the drop, and Jock Weir eventually scored the decisive goal in an extraordinary 3–2 victory.

Imagine that for a moment.

Celtic, one of Scotland’s biggest football institutions, fighting to remain in the top division.

Perhaps Calum would like to explain how that compares with a Celtic side which finished last season as champions. And he said much the same about that team as he’s saying about the current one, which makes it all the crazier a claim.

Then there was 1989–90 under Billy McNeill. Celtic finished fifth in a ten-team league, winning just ten of their 36 matches. Ten.

They lost more matches than they won, scored only 37 league goals and finished behind Hearts, Dundee United and Aberdeen.

That was only two seasons after our glorious centenary double.

Talk about falling from Paradise.

Or perhaps we should examine 1994–95, when Tommy Burns’ Celtic won only eleven of their 36 league matches. Eighteen draws. Thirty-nine goals scored. A fourth-place finish. Yes, we won the Scottish Cup, and Burns was beginning to assemble a team containing some genuinely gifted footballers.

But the league campaign was hardly something to celebrate.

And let us not forget 1993–94 under Lou Macari. Twenty draws from 44 league matches, another fourth-place finish and a football club fighting for its very survival off the pitch. Fergus McCann’s takeover was approaching, and Celtic were experiencing one of the most turbulent periods in their existence.

These were genuinely difficult years. Years when Celtic supporters had every reason to worry about the future of their club.

So, Calum, I have a question.

Have you actually looked at these records before announcing that the present Celtic team belongs among the worst ever?

Perhaps some additional numbers will help.

In 1947–48, Celtic won ten of thirty league games, a win rate of 33.3 per cent. In 1989–90, it was ten wins from 36, just 27.8 per cent. In 1994–95, it was eleven from 36, or 30.6 per cent. In 1993–94, Celtic won fifteen times in 44 league matches, 34.1 per cent. The 1951–52 side finished ninth and won ten of thirty matches, another 33.3 per cent.

Last season? Celtic won 26 of 38 league games. A 68.4 per cent win rate.

They accumulated 82 points. They finished champions.

Now, I am not suggesting that statistics tell us everything about football. Different eras bring different challenges, different financial circumstances and different levels of competition. But they certainly help distinguish between a genuinely dreadful Celtic team and a disappointing championship-winning one.

Was last season’s team particularly impressive? No. Was it anywhere near the standards I expect from Celtic? Absolutely not.

But one of the worst teams in the club’s history?

Come on, Calum you prick. Get a grip.

Even a particularly enthusiastic supporter of dramatic newspaper headlines should recognise that there is a rather substantial difference between those descriptions.

What makes Crowe’s argument even more interesting is the way he uses this supposed awfulness of Celtic to construct his wider case.

On the one hand, he describes last season’s champions as one of the poorest Celtic teams in history. On the other, he uses that same supposed weakness to criticise Danny Röhl and discuss the failure of other clubs to take advantage of Celtic’s shortcomings.

There is something rather amusing about that contradiction. If Celtic were genuinely as dreadful as he suggests, surely the failure of our competitors to finish above us would deserve considerably more condemnation than his off-hand criticism? Would Derek McInnes not deserve even more contempt than the boss at Ibrox got?

You cannot have it both ways, Calum.

Of course, there is a perfectly legitimate discussion to be had about Celtic’s declining standards. I would happily take part in that discussion myself. In fact, I have written repeatedly about the club’s recruitment failures, managerial decisions, tactical problems and the board’s apparent inability to recognise the seriousness of the situation.

But I do not need to rewrite Celtic’s history to make my argument.

And neither should he.

Here is where I believe the real criticism should be directed; Celtic have enormous financial advantages compared with the club which struggled through the early 1990s. We have infrastructure, commercial revenue, facilities, supporters and resources that those teams could scarcely have imagined.

We should be producing considerably better football.

That is precisely why the current situation is so frustrating and I am angry because I know what Celtic should be capable of achieving. I am angry because our supporters deserve better. I am angry because the people running this football club appear incapable of matching their ambitions with the decisions required to make them a reality.

And I am certainly not going to pretend everything is wonderful simply because Celtic have won championships in recent seasons.

But there is a difference between acknowledging that our standards have fallen and claiming that this is one of the worst Celtic sides ever assembled.

The latter is sensationalism, not historical analysis.

I would even accept an argument that last season’s team was among the weaker championship-winning Celtic sides of the modern era. That is a debate worth having. There are legitimate questions about the quality of the squad, the performances and the circumstances surrounding our title success.

You could even argue that the present Celtic team is performing extraordinarily poorly relative to the financial advantages it enjoys over most of Scottish football.

That would be a serious argument. But describing it as one of the worst Celtic teams ever is an entirely different proposition.

As an English teacher, I have always believed that making a bold statement is one thing.

Providing the evidence to support it is quite another.

And if I were marking Calum Crowe’s historical argument, I would have to send it back with a rather substantial amount of red ink.

The conclusion? Insufficient historical research. Excessive journalistic exaggeration. A disappointing understanding of context.
Listen, I am a Celtic supporter. I want better football, better recruitment, better leadership and a club which behaves like the institution it claims to be. I have absolutely no intention of lowering my expectations simply because the current team is struggling.

But I also refuse to allow somebody to casually dismiss more than a century of Celtic history to produce a dramatic newspaper headline.

Calum, the 1990s happened. The 1940s happened. The 1980s happened. Celtic supporters remember some of those years and we are aware of all the others, and some of us remember rather more than you apparently do.

So, the next time you decide to announce that this is one of the worst Celtic teams ever, perhaps take a little trip through the history books first.

And if you still believe it after examining the evidence, I can only suggest that you have a rather interesting understanding of the word “worst”.

In my opinion, Calum Crowe’s assertion is an absolute load of pish.

Fucking ridiculous.

And that, Calum, is my final mark on your little piece of historical analysis.

A big, fat F. Off.

Choose The CelticBlog as a Preferred Source on Google News…