- This topic has 47 replies, 10 voices, and was last updated 18 years, 2 months ago by
.
- Posts
OK , I’ll bite, me being a Rangers fan.
(though I thought this was common knowledge)Rangers have won more trophies than any other club world wide so that must go a long way to deciding who is the best in Scotland at least.
It’s also arguable that our cup winners cup victory in 1972 wasn’t any weaker (strength of team-wise) than Celtics great achievement in 1967.
Honours
51 Scottish League Titles
31 Scottish Cups
24 Scottish League Cups
1 European cup winners cupplus to a lesser extent even though we don’t count these :-
41 Glasgow Cups
2 Drybrough Cups
32 Glasgow Charity CupsHonours in detail…
European Cup Winners Cup
Winners 1972; Runners-up 1961, 1967Scottish League Champions (51)
*1891, 1899, 1900, 1901, 1902, 1911, 1912, 1913, 1918, 1920, 1921, 1923, 1924, 1925, 1927, 1928, 1929, 1930, 1931, 1933, 1934, 1935, 1937, 1939, 1947, 1949, 1950, 1953, 1956, 1957, 1959, 1961, 1963, 1964, 1975, 1976, 1978, 1987, 1989, 1990, 1991, 1992, 1993, 1994, 1995, 1996, 1997, 1999, 2000, 2003, 2005
*In 1891 the championship was shared with DumbartonScottish Cup Winners (31)
1894, 1897, 1898, 1903, 1928, 1930, 1932, 1934, 1935, 1936, 1948, 1949, 1950, 1953, 1960, 1962, 1963, 1964, 1966, 1973, 1976, 1978, 1979, 1981, 1992, 1993, 1996, 1999, 2000, 2002, 2003Scottish League Cup Winners (24)
1946, 1948, 1960, 1961, 1963, 1964, 1970, 1975, 1977, 1978, 1981, 1983, 1984, 1986, 1987, 1988, 1990, 1992, 1993, 1996, 1998, 2001, 2002, 2004you can’t argue with that lot regardless of who you support.
I don’t go for this term "buying success", we put millions into getting the best for Rangers in our 9-in-a-row era because we had the money, Celtic would’ve did the same had they money to spend.
Also not taking anything away from Celtics 1967 triumph but Inter were missing a few key players – part and parcel of football though, they won it and that’s that.
Moscow Dynamo were a great side when we beat them 3-2 in 1972, I’m not really one for comparing this side to that side as nothing can be proved but the fact is there for all to see that Rangers are in the record books as the winning most club in world football and that must beat a lot of arguments.
I’ve heard these terms of "buying money" & "buying success" and to be honest both terms are nonsense.
ps. I also didn’t say the Inter side was stronger than the Moscow side, what I did say was I didn’t think they were any weaker.
Celtic
, bigger and better in every sense. The ‘ 67 team who won the European Cup travelled to Madrid and defeated the previous year’s champs 1- 0, Real Madrid in Alfredo Di Stefano’s testimonial soon after the Lisbon victory. Di Stefano reckoned that Celtic team were a fantastic team, as did England’s Jimmy Greaves, who has listed "The Lisbon Lions" in his list of six greatest club sides he has seen. One fascinating fact is that the eleven players who took the field in Lisbon together that May day, only played a handful of competitive games together (4 in all).
Inter Milan of the 60s are generally regarded as one of the toughest European outfits, having won the trophy twice bfore facing Celtic. Moscow Dynamo (circa 72) were not in the same class as them or Celtic.
As for that Rangers team (yes, it was a decent enough side) but generally regarded as inferior to their early 60s side (featuring Baxter, Miller Caldow, Henderson, et al), and I agree.
Celtic have always been renowned for their attack minded approach to the game; Rangers, on the other hand, are traditionally regarded as the more physical and more regimented of the two. Many ex Celtic players are still carrying the bruises from many an old firm encounters to this day.
I have supported Celtic from the early 60s (once saw them defeat Man Utd’s Best, Charlton, Law et al) 4-1 in 1966 pre season friendly and have never regretted donning those famous green and white hooped colours even once in all that time.
Gambling Only Pays When You're Winning
We’re ten months away from Bonfire Night, but I sense some early fireworks will be seen on this thread
Keep it clean guys – you both argue your case superbly and it’s great reading.
Mike
I expected such tosh but records and stats are there for all to see.to a neutral there can only be one result.
to a neutral there can only be one result.
Yes, I agree.
Celtic… by a landslide.
Gambling Only Pays When You're Winning
Not much in it admittedly but I think a dispassionate bystander would always go for the Celtic. Rangers have a fine record but that night in Lisbon when Celtic became the first British club to win the European Cup clinches it for me. A wonderful achievement with every player in the side having come from within 20 miles of Glasgow (maybe less). In these days when the top European sides are lucky to have 50% of their starting eleven from this continent that is a startling statistic. In Jock Stein Celtic have also had one of the great managers of all time which gives them a few extra brownie points also.
However, both pale in comparison with the real pride of Scotland.
Glory, Glory to the Hibees. First British side to reach a European Cup semi final.
The FACTS and figures are there for all to see this is a no brainer lads regardless of what anyone has to say, you can try to rewrite history if you like but it won’t change a thing.
this players born within a 20 mile radius thing is neither here nor there as probably all the teams at that time were withing 20 miles of each other.
It’s funny how Celtic minded people go for Celtic and Rangers minded people go for Rangers but the stats will tell ANYONE who comes out on top – it’s in the history books.
Anyway it probably matters not who is better it’s what’s happening in the present time that counts most to any old firm fan – I would suspect thus far both are happy until the trophies are handed out at the end of the season – rangers are ahead at the moment but that could all change, we’ll have to wait and see.
I think we can now close this topic unless we want to say that Best Mate was better than Arkle – get my drift?
I think we can now close this topic unless we want to say that Best Mate was better than Arkle – get my drift?
Eh – take your racing rubbish to the Horse Racing Section please!
Sure the only reason Rangers even got into the Cup Winners Cup in 1971-72 was because they finished runners-up to Celtic in the Cup Final the previous season.
Here’s another link that supports my case :-
[b:3rd71avi]Read it and weep![/color:3rd71avi][/b:3rd71avi][/url:3rd71avi]Corm you say Celtic were the first “British” team to win the European Cup and with that I can only agree BUT try calling Celtic a British team around Parkhead way and the natives will not like that one little bit. Hence the singing of a tatty famine song called Fields of Athenry
“Where in Glasgow is Ireland?” is what we say to Celtic fans
Also, Kwai, you mention you have never been to “Parkhead” this is also wrong as Celtic’s ground is called Celtic Park, don’t worry though as a lot of people get this wrong.
Quote – "Sure the only reason Rangers even got into the Cup Winners Cup in 1971-72 was because they finished runners-up to Celtic in the Cup Final the previous season."
And Celtic have reached 3 European finals to Rangers 1.
It matters not how you get to a final if we are being honest, I could say the only way Celtic were entered into the European Cup in 67 was because Rangers didn’t play to their standards and let Celtic in the back door because we failed to win the league but surely that would be guff just as the following quote is…
quote : "Sure the only reason Rangers even got into the Cup Winners Cup in 1971-72 was because they finished runners-up to Celtic in the Cup Final the previous season."
Corm,
Rangers have reached 3 Euro finals, see above on the honours, you are trying to fight Celtics case here and you being a Hibs fan too.
European Cup Winners Cup :-
Winners – 1972;
Runners-up – 1961 & 1967
ps. I’m not expecting anyone to admit Rangers are the better overall team regarding history but the facts I posted on here as I already know we are, as for the present sides there appears not to be much in it at the moment but the question was "who is the best? the Rangers facts can’t be beaten so I guess I’d win if it went to court decision…
"Where in Glasgow is Ireland?" is what we say to Celtic fans
Yet the Huns are renowned for their strong allegiance to Scotland, hence the ‘ironic’ wearing of England tops by their (clearly very dry) supporters!
True Friggo, some crazy fans wear England tops and Chelsea tops but at least we are a British and Scottish side and are proud of this fact.
we are what we are and Celtic are a British and Scottish club too whether they like it or not, even though they try not to be.
Jim – you know your history so I’ll give it to you on a points decision.
Us green teams stick together – you know that. Bit like yourselves and the Jambos.
Jim,
In which case Celtic obviously hold the call over Rangers?
You have no case, stats records or otherwise for your quote to be true, I have put up records and stats that say otherwise, also look around europe and tell me their leagues are openly competitive, it’s almost the same teams winning the league year in year out, the only real difference being the leagues have more teams and more money from TV so the are looked upon as superior to the SPL, take the money out of those so called superior leagues and they will become mediocre.
Also – although I’m not doubting you here but to my knowledge, the gates at Ibrox are rarely seen opened and I’m not sure if people are easily allowed onto the pitch but if you say you’ve did it then fair enough the benefit of the doubt has been given to you.
Corm, now you’re talking, you should have said that in the first place and I would have understood….
ps. I’m not too keen on the jambos either
Kwai, I think I’m wasting my time arguing my case in this thread because it’s clear you favour Celtic in this no matter what stats and records I produce. You simply won’t accept the facts.
Forget that I’m a Rangers fan and try to examine the facts and figures that I’ve posted and ask yourself who’s set of records and stats you’d prefer your team to have in their history, that of Rangers or Celtic – surely that sole European Cup win way back in 1967 can’t put them in front?
Rangers have also qualified for Europe more times than Celtic, and Celtic (off the top of my head here) have only ever played in about four or five Champions League campaigns, I know it’s not that many.
Murray did put millions into Rangers in the 9-in-a-row era but this buying success crap doesn’t wash with me, games have still to be won, teams all over the world invest millions and they are not all guaranteed success even in what you call 2 horse races. Money can only buy players not success, we paid £12m for Flo, was that a success? answer = NO, so you see you can spend money and still fail. Ask most teams in the EPL.
The bottom line is, on all known evidence Rangers are the better overall team than Celtic when you examine the record books – this cannot be argued, opinions don’t come into it, the facts are there for all to see.
Also if you really think Celtic are the better team then why ask the question in the first place?
I know who the best is and that’s not only my opinion, it’s based on all known evidence.
Nice thread though I’ve enjoyed it (a bit)
(though I thought this was common knowledge)
, bigger and better in every sense. 
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.