The Celtic v Rangers tactical dichotomy that adds risk to 'thrilling' derby day ride

For Celtic and Rangers, such is their financial dominance over their fellow SPFL competitors, European football is often a more accurate benchmark when comparing approaches for these matches.

Rangers are set up to be an effective Europa League side. Their strengths are defensive - but they need to win.

Celtic, meanwhile, had one of the worst defences in the Europa League and have great attacking stats - but they don’t need to win.

Here, we explore this interesting dichotomy in finer detail...

The Gerrard/Beale legacy

There is no doubt that this Rangers squad has been highly effective Europa League participants over a three-year period. Two last 16s and a quarter-final this season are evidence of that.

Cynics may point out their uncanny ability to avoid clubs from top-five leagues (England, France, Germany, Italy and Spain - four out of 12 opponents since 18-19) but there is no getting away from a consistent record of achievement over multiple seasons.

The squad Steven Gerrard built seems optimised for European football. Giovanni van Bronckhorst inherited a side with a solid defensive shape and resilience. Under Gerrard - and Michael Beale - Rangers played a 4-3-3 that was very narrow and compact out of possession and looked to limit the spaces between the lines for the opposition to attack.

This side proved obdurate and difficult to beat in Europe. Only 11 matches out of 59 have been lost in this era and, when they do lose, it is generally by the odd goal.

Where Gerrard struggled outside the exceptional lockdown season (2020-21) was in breaking down SPFL opponents who sat in low blocks. His team were formidably organised in defence but lacked a surfeit of creative players and, outside of Ryan Kent, real pace to get behind teams who were determined to frustrate.

In 2019-20 as the domestic season was unravelling before lockdown hit, their SPFL xG was 42.05 despite scoring 64 goals. Only 19 were conceded, the same as champions Celtic, but they could not match Lennon’s free-scoring team despite making great strides in the Europa League.

Van Bronckhorst’s challenge

Given the relative lack of time and money available to buy new players to shape change, it would have been easiest for the new management to keep things as they were.

The oft-injured Aaron Ramsey was recruited to aid with the creativity deficit and Amad Diallo to add pace. Neither has featured much.

Nevertheless, Van Bronkhorst has navigated Rangers into the last eight of the Europa League and improved their underlying attacking metrics in the SPFL, despite a six-point advantage becoming a three-point deficit.

This has been achieved with a default shift from 4-3-3 to 4-2-3-1. There has been greater emphasis on wing play and on ensuring Alfredo Morelos doesn’t drift too far from the centre of the goal. Yes, he still drops to get involved in duels where his robustness is an asset, but he is much more 'penalty-box' than before.

The other tweak is great overall tactical flexibility. The side now often moves to a 3-5-2 and, especially in Europe, the front two of Kent and Morelos have been highly effective on the counter-attack.

John Lundstram has added heft and solidity to the midfield. Combinations of Scott Arfield, Joe Aribo and Glen Kamara supplement that. All are diligent workers and good ball carriers and the latter pair good deep progressors - but that creative deficit remains. With left-back Borna Barisic seemingly out of favour, the burden to create falls mainly on the right-back Tavernier.

Here are Celtic and Rangers' defensive and attacking radars versus Europa League opponents:

Celtic are in the top percentiles of all clubs for xG and xG per shot, while Rangers' attack is fairly mediocre by this standard. Mainly, they are above average at threat from set-plays and counter-attacking shots. Celtic’s numbers are indicative of the extent to which Ange Postecoglou’s side has 'had a go'.

However, if we look at the respective side’s defensive performances, we can better see both the Gerrard legacy and the challenge facing Postecoglou:

Rangers are very strong on limiting opposition shots, stopping clear shots and solidly defending set-plays. They are not particularly aggressive in the press and are happy for the opposition to dominate the ball.

Celtic’s Europa League data highlights the difficulty Postecoglou has in making his approach scale from SPFL level to European; the best performing defence in Scotland struggles against higher-class opposition.

Celtic are bottom 10 per cent for xG conceded while sides have been able to counter-attack effectively against them given they commit so many men forward.

At Parkhead, Van Bronckhorst fell between stools. A fairly passive defensive alignment was allied to high wingers. Celtic’s midfielders and full-backs were able to create numerical overloads in wide areas, neutering the wingers and forcing Rangers to defend. They were overrun in that first half before Celtic dropped back 10 yards and comfortably saw out the victory.

Facing a Celtic side effectively four points ahead (considering goal difference to be worth an extra point) Van Bronckhorst has a conundrum.

His side is best suited to European-style counter-attacking football... but they need to win the game.

Postecoglou’s challenge

Similarly, Celtic know avoiding defeat puts them in a very strong position for the run-in, where you’d expect the Light Blues to have the harder fixtures in addition to trying to claw back a gap.

We know, however, that taking a step back and defending is not in Postecoglou’s playbook. The finest sides Celtic will face this season were Bayer Leverkusen and Real Betis. Glorious, narrow failure followed against both sides away (2-3 and 3-4 respectively) but it reinforced that he firmly believes attacking gives his side the best chance of winning the game.

So Postecoglou won’t sit in and, in terms of SPFL data, this would support him. Celtic are ahead of their rivals in all attacking metrics bar cross success and, strangely, shots from a high press.

As regards defensive metrics:

Celtic are slightly more vulnerable to the counter-attack and also rank lower on xG from (surprise surprise) set-pieces. Rangers are noted for more disciplined defensive distancing but this may be a Gerrard legacy and may work out the data over time.

Otherwise, Celtic concede fewer xG and exert greater overall control of the opposition.

How does Postecoglou square this? He doesn’t need to win, his side’s weaknesses (being caught on the counter and conceding chances from set-plays) are where the opponent is particularly strong. Yet he will not approach the game with anything else than an all-out attacking philosophy.

Against the same opponent at Parkhead, this worked very effectively as a more mobile, quicker, high-energy pressing Celtic overwhelmed a passive and stretched Rangers line-up.

It is unlikely Van Bronckhorst will make the same mistake twice. Expect him to set up as if they were playing a Europa League tie even though they need to win. It just makes sense in terms of the strengths of both teams.

Postecoglou's approach will put the risk into this game - and it should be a thrilling ride.