Why Faster is Better

A year after toiling to a 0-0 draw, Celtic threatened to sweep Rosenborg away, settling finally for a 3-1 advantage. A year on, what changed?

Firstly, there was a lot that was similar about the two performances. Celtic dominated possession in both matches (71% and 70% this season). The Hoops completed less passes but more accurately. Passes that take out opponents was the same in both matches at 8%. The total number of shots attempted went up slightly from 18 to 21 but the Expected Goals was similar over the two games (1.73 to 1.785).

But why the improvement?

We could all see that Celtic looked fitter and faster than last season. The conditioning of the players appears to have been optimised for these qualifiers.

This manifest itself in greater speed and accuracy. The 4% improvement in pass completion above is one indicator. Celtic created better quality chances than a year ago and managed 10 more possessions in the opposition box. Despite there being a similar number of passes completed, both the passing and receiving Impect were higher. This means that Celtic took out more opposition players with their passing.

And of course, shooting accuracy was greatly improved with 5 more shots on target and 4 less shots blocked. Remarkably Celtic took 18 shots all INSIDE the box last season and 0 outside the box. Sometimes you need the game changing effect of a long-range striker as we saw with Ntcham’s 46^th minute effort.

Those stat comparisons are all indicators of greater effectiveness and accuracy. Why was this? What helps is getting the right players on the ball more. Last season Celtic played without a recognised striker, with Rogic as a false 9. Despite an array of creative talent on the pitch (Ntcham, Armstrong, Rogic, Sinclair, Forrest) chances were hard to come by as an emboldened Rosenborg defence camped in even deeper and narrower to secure the draw.

The lack of space last season resulted in the Horseshoe of Futility as Celtic recycled the ball across the middle, down the flank and back again probing for space. We can see this from the amount of possession the two centre backs and the defensive midfielder had. Usage is an indicator of total possession – for example below Ajer had 12% of all Celtic possession.

Those three, probably the least creative players on the park, had 41% of all Celtic possession. Having Brown complete 147 passes is not a good thing when you are trying to unlock a deep and narrow defence. The three defensive players completed over 100 passes more than Rosenborg as a team.

The recent tie was different.

The two central defenders and defensive midfielders now accounted for 27% of all possession, a 14% reduction. And this time they combined for a total of 199 completed passes, around 70 less than Rosenborg managed. And many of those were in the last 15 minutes as Celtic seemed happy to see out a 3-1 win.

Consequently, Celtic were able to get more of the ball to the front five more creative players.

The creative talent had 14% more possession than a year ago and completed 88 more passes.

Although Celtic overall had similar possession, passes and chances to a year ago, the fact that the possession was more balanced in favour of the attacking talents improves the quality and speed of that possession.

I don’t have a “speed of passing” metric but the above analysis is an indicator. The slower the ball is moved, the longer it sticks with the defenders and the ball is recycled. Better off-the-ball movement and quicker passing reactions get the ball forward more effectively. This means the attacking players have more possession. We can all see Celtic players reactions and movements are sharper than previously at this time of the season. It was the Rosenborg team that are half way through their domestic season that looked the more tired.