SCOTTISH clubs reach European finals only rarely, and when they do, it is only right that we celebrate, not denigrate, their achievements. Over the coming 11 days, however, there is sure to be a sustained debate about the comparative merits of this year's Rangers team and of the last Scots club to go as far in the UEFA Cup, Celtic in 2003.
Of course, a Rangers victory in the City of Manchester Stadium on 14 May would render such debate redundant. No matter the differences in the two teams' styles or in the number of goals they scored or conceded, the fact would remain that Rangers won
the competition, whereas Celtic were only runners-up. By definition, the former feat would be superior.
But at least until then – and for far longer if it transpires that Rangers lose to Zenit St Petersburg – the argument will rumble on, with decisions on the matter inevitably being subjective. Because, while the Glasgow clubs' runs to the final are similar in the odd respect, such as the fact that in quite a few matches they played better away from home, in others they are starkly different.
The sharpest contrast, surely, is the style in which the teams played. With Henrik Larsson ably supported in attack by John Hartson and Chris Sutton, Celtic could afford to go for goals, and usually succeeded in getting them – and in normal play rather than in the penalty shoot-out afterwards.
Three on aggregate against Blackburn Rovers in the second round, two against Celta in the third, followed by five against Stuttgart. Then three again in the quarter-final with Liverpool, two in the semi with Boavista, and two again when they lost to Porto in the final itself. Celtic had firepower to burn, and the attacking style in which they played was designed to make it ignite.
Granted, getting two goals over two legs need not be regarded as a superhuman feat, and many clubs manage more. Compared to Rangers, however, Celtic were distinctly free-scoring.
They were also far more appealing to most neutral spectators. When you tune in to a match contested by two teams you do not know very well, you often look for something dynamic, some big, bold stamp of character. Appreciation of less obvious virtues sometimes only comes when you are well acquainted with the personnel on show, with how they usually play, and are therefore aware of when they are excelling themselves.
And Celtic had big characters aplenty – literally, in the shape of centre-backs Bobo Balde and Johann Mjallby, and metaphorically in the case of Neil Lennon in midfield, not to mention the triumvirate up front. They played with swagger and style, and even in the final arguably played better football than their Portuguese opponents, who utilised gamesmanship more often than a team of their talent needed to do.
In those respects, the Rangers side of 2008 does not match up to their 2003 rivals. For instance, although he has played with commendable commitment and selflessness, Jean-Claude Darcheville, Rangers' sole striker, is in no way as big a threat as the Celtic trio. If he were, he would be superhuman, and employed by a richer club.
In terms, too, of the style of play they adopt, Rangers can seem pinched and niggardly. When given the choice of an enterprising ball forward into space or a five-yard pass backwards to a team-mate's feet, they invariably take the second option.
Having said all that, there is something admirably cussed about Rangers' run to the final. Time after time they have overcome supposedly superior opponents, thanks in part, it is true, to excellent organisation and discipline, but also because of remarkable depths of defiance.
When you call someone a sporting purist, you may be referring to their Corinthian regard for fair play or their idealistic preference for an attacking game. But there is another meaning to the word, one most frequently heard in American football.
There, the true purists are those who prefer the bludgeoning, blue-collar virtues of the defence to the aristocratic pretensions of the quarter-back. And it is in precisely that sense that those who have felt inspired by Rangers' run to the final can rightly regard themselves as purists.
Walter Smith's side have hardly played swashbuckling football, but they have squeezed every last ounce of sweat out of themselves at times. If you have any appreciation of how hard it is to do what Rangers have done and maintain total concentration over the course of a game, you will surely have at the very least a sneaking admiration for their achievement in seeing off technically superior opponents.
The Celtic team of five years ago was also technically superior to Rangers' class of 2008, and certainly played in a more immediately captivating manner. But in building that team, Martin O'Neill had financial resources at his disposal that Smith could only dream of.
So far, then, the teams' achievement is equal – a place in the final of European football's secondary competition. In so far as Rangers have got there on something not much stronger than a shoestring, however, their journey has to be regarded as just as remarkable.
The full article contains 882 words and appears in The Scotsman newspaper.
