Celtic start the 2017 Scottish Cup campaign against Albion Rovers at the Excelsior Stadium before a sell-out crowd. The last game against Albion Rovers was in the 1976 League Cup when Celtic won 5-0 aided by 2 assists from King Kenny Dalglish. Soccerbase provides a head-to-head search facility to retrieve historical matches between clubs. Contemporary match reports can be found in the excellent Celtic Wiki.
Sunday’s game will be on Airdire’s artificial pitch and this will be the 14th time in 2.5 seasons we have played on the plastic. Rodgers was quoted earlier in the season “I’ve yet to see a good game on a plastic pitch,” he said. “Any coach or manager will tell you it’s always a different game on a plastic pitch.”. My opinion is top level football should ALWAYS be played on grass (or at least a hybrid). Artificial is fantastic for children’s football as it provides a more reliable surface than most council and school grounds and encourages a passing game. Also, for small community clubs looking to utilise their facilities to maximise their income, an artificial pitch allows for year-round use. But for top flight clubs, no.
- Subjectively, the quality of the games is, in my opinion, poor – the only one of the 14 I recall being a good game of football was the 2-2 v Kilmarnock on 12th August 2015; and
- the increased risk of injury although this position is disputed.
Does it have an impact on Celtic’s performance?
Teams with artificial pitches tend to be smaller sized clubs and on that basis alone, Celtic would be expected to prevail often as a list of opponents faced on plastic may suggest (last 3 seasons):
| P | W | D | L | F | A | |
| East Kilbride | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 0 |
| FC Astana | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 |
| FC Stjarnan | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 4 | 1 |
| Hamilton Academicals | 4 | 3 | 1 | 0 | 8 | 2 |
| Kilmarnock | 4 | 3 | 1 | 0 | 6 | 2 |
| KR Reykjavik | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 |
| Lincoln Red Imps | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 |
| Molde FK | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 3 |
| TOTAL | 14 | 9 | 3 | 2 | 23 | 10 |
We did lose to possibly the lowest ranked team we’ve ever played in Lincoln Red Imps on a particularly poor pitch. So, I will compare team performance in all AWAY games over the last 3 seasons with performance on artificial.
Overall Celtic Performance – Away Games
| Surface
KPI |
Artificial | Grass |
| Overall Result Success | 71% | 66% |
| Goals Per Game | 1.64 | 1.86 |
Celtic have a higher success rate but we are comparing playing Stjarnan and Kilmarnock to away games against Barcelona and (err..) Hearts. There are significantly less goals on artificial (2.35) vs grass (2.94).
Celtic Passing – Away Games
| Surface
KPI |
Artificial | Grass |
| Completed Passes | 494 | 443 |
| Incomplete Passes | 91 | 89 |
| Pass% | 84% | 83% |
| Possession | 64% | 59% |
Despite Rodgers’ concerns we pass the ball well on artificial attempting 53 more passes per game and having a slightly higher success rate. Possession is significantly better and this, again, may be a function of the quality of the opposition.
Celtic Attacking – Away Games
| Surface
KPI |
Artificial | Grass |
| Shots On Target | 6.7 | 6.1 |
| Shots Off Target | 12.4 | 10.2 |
| Shot Accuracy % | 35% | 37% |
| On Target Conversion % | 24% | 31% |
| All Shot Conversion % | 9% | 11% |
| Chances Created | 4.1 | 4.6 |
| Chances Failed | 6.4 | 6 |
| Dribble Per Game | 8.9 | 7.1 |
| Dribble Success % | 52% | 48% |
| Corners | 6.9 | 5.4 |
Here is where Celtic do less well on artificial in terms of chance creation, shot accuracy and conversion. Again, given the quality of opposition faced on artificial Celtic, do get more shots in (19.1 to 16.3). But the conversion rate drops off on artificial and the chance creation rates are slightly lower for artificial.
Celtic Defending – Away Games
| Surface
KPI |
Artificial | Grass |
| Goals Against Per Game | 0.71 | 1.08 |
| Fouls Conceded | 9.5 | 13.2 |
| Clearances | 28.6 | 31.3 |
| Interceptions Won | 20.1 | 18.6 |
| Intercepts Won % | 54% | 53% |
| Tackles Won | 44 | 43 |
| Tackles Lost | 41 | 42 |
| Tackles Kept Possession | 43 | 42 |
| Defensive Saves | 3 | 2.9 |
| Defensive Errors | 4.6 | 4.5 |
| Defensive Critical Errors | 0.5 | 0.4 |
| PEI % | 75% | 73% |
Celtic concede a much lower rate of goals against on artificial, mirroring the trend with goals for. We have slightly less clearances per game suggestive of being under less pressure. Other defensive measures are very similar.
Summary
We have not had away games on artificial against the likes of Barcelona nor Manchester City, and the sample size of away games on artificial is small (14 matches). Yet the overall records are very similar the main differences being that goal for and goals against are both lower, and indeed creating chances is slightly lower, despite dominating the ball on artificial to a greater extent.
During the Women’s World Cup US legend Abby Wambach thought scoring harder on artificial although if anyone has empirical research on this please refer in the comments. This may be coincidental or may be due to the different bounce/pace making the hardest part of football, scoring, that little bit more difficult. It may be that the uncertainty of bounce, pass pace and increased difficulty of physical turning manoeuvres makes players more conservative and therefore less risks are taken in attack.
My confirmation bias was that we’d see a reduced level of performance on artificial even considering playing weaker opposition. In fact our overall performance data suggests slightly better outcomes with the exception of scoring for and against. Overall I would agree with Rodgers that games on artificial are less entertaining to the eye, subjectively.
So, what should we expect tomorrow? I’d expect Celtic to do the job and win. We will dominate possession but it will not to be a high scoring win. For neutrals watching, it may not be sparkling!