Defeat to Livingston was as abject as any in recent memory. To be comprehensively out fought and out thought by a team of players that would do well to hold their own in English League Two was an eye opener.
Much has been made of playing on artificial surface and also of playing a few days after a (home) European tie.
Does the data support either of these as mitigating factors?
Playing on Plastic
It is increasingly common for smaller clubs to install all weather pitches as a means to generate income throughout the year from the community, and to reduce the overheads of grass pitch maintenance. It is perhaps understandable for clubs with minimal budgets. In Scotland there are not enough clubs with 10k+ average gates to not have smaller community clubs in the top flight.
Whatever the merits of the arguments, the current reality is Celtic get exposure to playing on artificial surfaces both in Scotland and in Europe.
To compare Celtic’s form on such surfaces, it is necessary to compare to Celtic’s away form overall.
I have taken all Celtic away matches (not including those at neutral venues as Celtic do not play any neutral ties on artificial surfaces) for the last 6 seasons and compared it to their record on artificial surfaces.
Pts% is the key metric here. This assigns 3 points for a win and 1 for a draw to every match irrespective of the competition and assesses the % points Celtic won over those matches. It gets around the weakness of Win % which ignores that a draw is a legitimate result.
Since 14/15 Celtic have played 153 away matches and average 65% Points%. As an aside, I discovered Deila’s away record (66%) was better than Rodgers (63%). Anyway.
On plastic, Celtic have played 26 matches over the same period and average 67% Pts%.
So, simplistically, Celtic’s record away on plastic is slightly better than their overall away record over the same period.
It should be restated that it is generally smaller teams that have artificial surfaces so this includes wins over Albion Rovers, East Kilbride and FC Stjarnan (but also Kilmarnock, Astana and Molde).
My conclusion is: you cannot blame the plastic for the Livingston debacle.
European Hangover
Playing Thursday / Sunday is demanding especially if travel is from the far reaches of what UEFA classify as “Europe”. That wasn’t the case here.
Nevertheless, I compare all Celtic matches post a European tie within 3-4 days with their record in all domestic matches over the same period. The reason for only including domestic matches is that all post European matches are domestic.
Since 14/15 Celtic have played 243 domestic matches with a success rate of 82% points.
Post European ties, Celtic have played 60 times and their Pts% is 81%.
I am not calling that significantly different but let me know if you disagree.
A further aside is that post Europe Celtic have played 29 away games, 6 on neutral grounds and 25 home matches.
The conclusion, however, is that in Scottish football, Celtic perform broadly the same whether they are coming off the back of a European match or not.
Summary
Sunday at Livingston was awful in every way with no redeeming features. However, given Celtic have a slightly better record on artificial surfaces than grass, and that their record coming off a European tie is almost identical to their overall domestic record, then the excuses of pitch and Europe don’t hold.
Players and management have two weeks to ponder what went wrong before the next assignment. As it is in the realms of player and management performance where the necessary corrective actions lie.
Duncan says
Anyone who has ever played at any level on these pitches knows that this type of surface is a leveller.
The data is irrelevant under these circumstances.
The bounce of the ball is ridiculously inaccurate by comparison to grass.
The speed at which the ball can be passed or anticipated is down to how much water is added or the density of the rubber.
Teams like Livi can alter the state of play to suit themselves.
At top level these pitches should be binned unless you play in an environment where conditions are so bad grass pitches aren’t a viable option.
The officiating was ridiculous on Sunday.
They were given free reign to put in late tackles all day without caution and while Christie’s tackle was a red ( numpty) the tackle on Hayes was far more reckless.
The pitch was a leveller we are as well putting out the Development squad (who play on these pitches regularly) in these games with a mix of those who like to kick back.
We put a side out that has done well in Europe and it is no coincidence we struggle on these surfaces regardless of who we are playing.
I some times wonder if those who spend their lives talking about football have ever actually played ?
Get them back to CP and batter them.
I’ve played on Black Ash,Red Blaze,Astro Turf,Indoor and 3G and NONE OF THEM compare in the slightest to a decent grass pitch.
Except perhaps a half frozen one.
It’s a nonsense.
Kel says
I can remember the Motherwell pitch a few years back when they were spreading dyed green sand over it because there was no grass whatsoever. The stats clearly show that plastic is not the problem. I prefer plastic to sand and mud combinations/
But Scottish football needs to decide whether there is really any quality entertainment on plastic. I know this is anecdotal evidence but I cant remember seeing good football played on them.
Regarding the post Europe hangover theory. I would be interested to know whether performance drops off after a ‘big’ wins rather than routine performances.
celticbynumbers@btinternet.com says
I think pitch technology plus climate change means the quagmires of the 70s and 80s (and earlier) are largely consigned to history. The problem is the cost of avoiding that scenario hence why smaller clubs opt for artificial. I agree with you re the entertainment value for the public is questionable – that game on Sunday was horrible.
SFTB says
I think you have made a good case of disproving the post-Europe Hangover Hypothesis but the plastic pitches rationale/excuse needs to be more carefully looked at.
As you said, the 3 plastic pitches are owned by Kilmarnock, Livi and Hamilton. Two of those 3 are poorly funded perennial bottom 6/ Scottish Championship level. Only Killie are a top 6 outfit by size and finance, and they are barely so.
What would be fairer would be to judge our away ground plastic pitch results versus away results against 3 reasonably equivalent teams, I would suggest either Well or St. Johnstone for Killie and St. Mirren and either Ross Co. or ICT to replace Livi and Hamilton.
This is needed as our toughest away games (at Ibrox, Pittodrie, Tynecastle and Easter Road traditionally) would lead to more dropped points through quality of opposition i.e. these are usually stronger teams than Hamilton, Livi and Killie. That could mask the plastic pitch effect.
If, using my type of comparators, weighted for skill level, you still found no difference in results then the plastic pitch thing becomes clearly an excuse too.
At the moment, the Jury is still out for me.
celticbynumbers@btinternet.com says
The problem is you can make a case for every match / pitch being unique and end up with a sample of 1.
Comparing results on plastic with all results is necessary due to coming across artificial surfaces in Europe – eg Spartak Moscow – TRFC played on one in Berne the other night to.
It isn’t wholly small clubs, therefore, that Celtic play artificial. Astana, for example – would you classify them as worse than Hamilton or Ross County?
Duncan says
Data doesn’t play Football.
Players do.
Most if not all top players would rather play on grass and most if not all at the top level do not like Artificial Surfaces.
Perhaps you should look into why that is rather than trying to find data that argues a point which most players disagree with.
To suggest that playing on these pitches does not give the home side an advantage is ridiculous.
They play on it and train on it WEEKLY.
Our players play on them perhaps 8 times a Season.
Twice at each Ground and once in each ground in Europe.
Finally the English FA are against them.
Perhaps you could offer a reason as to why you think that is instead of a stack of data that doesn’t take into account any of the issues that those who play on them highlight REGULARLY?
I’ve put forward my arguments as to why I think this particular opinion piece is nonsense.
Perhaps you could respond.
celticbynumbers@btinternet.com says
Hi Duncan
Firstly, this isn’t an opinion piece. My normal approach is to have a hypothesis in my head and then assess the data to see whether it holds up or not. My aim was to analyse results post Europe and on plastic to see whether either appeared to suffer. I concluded, based on 5 years data that playing after a European match or playing on plastic (or both) has no discernible impact on RESULTS.
What I did not cover, not could I, is how the players feel about this. Instinctively, but led by what I read in the press, I would agree with you that players would prefer not to play on artificial. However, whether they love it or loathe it, Celtic’s results don’t seem to be impacted by it which was the reason for the piece. Personally I can understand smaller Community based clubs installing them for reasons of additional income and reduced maintenance costs. I also would agree they should not be used for top flight football. But in Scotland that is difficult to reconcile with the first point due to the small number of larger clubs who can afford to keep grass. So it is tricky.
I believe there is an artificial surface at Lennoxtown for preparation purposes notwithstanding each pitch is different.
However the thrust of the non opinion piece remains – there is no data to back up an assertion that Celtic results suffer on the back of playing in Europe OR on playing on plastic.
Duncan says
The Football suffers on an artificial surface.
That’s the bottom line.
A result good,bad or indifferent will happen after any game.
Whether or not we get a result is immaterial Alan because the fact remains those who have an Artificial Surface have an unfair advantage before a ball is even kicked.
They train on these surfaces,play on them all their home games and as a result are used to the bounce,speed and characteristics of the surface.
If it’s the case small provincial Clubs can not afford to lay and upkeep a grass pitch (do they not receive money from the top Clubs exploits in Europe Yearly?) then perhaps they should be nowhere near top flight Football.
These pitches are designed for Countries with inclement weather where Grass Pitches are a real problem.
If you want the game to flourish then you really need to be putting down pitches of a higher standard not if a totally different quality.
Our game like the teams who play on Grass Parks at home suffers markedly on these Pitches.
The players hate them.
This in itself should be a reason in itself for not having them.
The Artificial Surface at Lennoxtown will allow our players to train in adverse conditions same as the indoor pitch.
We were reduced to a kick and rush style of game on Sunday a game totally alien to our approach and the only reason that is the case is because of the pitch.
There is no data?
The evidence is plain to see when you watch our performances drop every time we take to play on them.
Use yer eyes bud not yer calculator to gauge the result.
celticbynumbers@btinternet.com says
I see you are passionate about this. I completely (and obviously violently) agree with you re the impact on the quality of the game. I wasn’t trying to measure that. The results don’t differ much but again I agree the spectacle suffers.
Duncan says
Yes sorry Alan I am vehemently against artificial surfaces at the top level of the game where it can be avoided.
The response by Kel brings up an interesting angle about sub standard levels of pitches only a few years ago and in particular Motherwells which would not have been out of place as a beach on the West Coast somewhere.
The point is Motherwell addressed the issue,invested some money and rectified the situation.
Now going to Motherwell all you have to factor in is how to beat them on the Park by playing our natural game.
Celtic don’t play a kick and rush ,long ball game and this is the real issue here.
These pitches should be binned in the top flight and perhaps the SFA should be helping sides out who can’t afford the change to a proper surface?
The game suffers otherwise and as you rightfully highlight so does the spectacle for paying supporters.
I read recently that Naismith rejected a permanent move to Killie on the basis of the pitch.
That speaks volumes I think.
It’s not an excuse to say our performance suffers on these surfaces it’s just a fact that it dies regardless of the results.
HH
celticbynumbers@btinternet.com says
I agree with you on the quality of the spectacle and the overall desire to not have these pitches!
Duncan says
does not dies’