Rangers’ red card impact in numbers: the difference laid bare | OneFootball

So now is the time for reflection, and the key question of Rangers’ red card impact:

How much did Celtic not losing either Austin Trusty or Anthony Ralston actually affect the outcome at Hampden?

10 men

Rangers went down to 10 men after Thelo Aasgaard’s reckless high boot and left themselves with a mountain to club.

But fans are angered that Celtic didn’t lose their players, and have ranted at the SFA and Walsh. Rangers are to demand an explanation.

But what difference did it make?

Stats

Here’s the first half in stats before Aasgard got his marching orders:

Celtic had 50% of the ball, and 5 shots to Rangers’ 4. Rangers had 2 on target, Celtic had 3. The designated home side had 5 corners, Rangers had 1.

After the red?

58% to Rangers’ 42%. 13 shots to 6. 5 on target to 1. 6 corners to 3.

Celtic did indeed secure a significant improvement in stats as a result of being up a man.

There is, however, a catch.

Most Rangers fans were heavily critical of their side BEFORE the red. In short, the performance was poor. Defence was shaky and frail, midfield didn’t get a foothold and attack was non-existent. It was a poor, poor first half, despite the stats.

After the red all that happened is Rangers rose to a fallen comrade, and the 10 men battled harder. The stats reflected a team with a man advantage.

Difference.

So we turn to the red cards that should have been. What difference?

Well Rangers were poorly-organised with 11 men, looking vulnerable. It was not a good display.

Would Celtic have been there for the taking losing a man or two themselves?

Hard to say.

It is of course conjecture to talk about what ifs.

All we can say is we agree completely with Danny Rohl to not use the red card as an excuse. And that the team did fight harder in the second half. Rangers’ red card impact.

Pity it took a red card to do that hm?