O’Neill takes consolation from LASK’s wins — how does that help Celtic?

Martin O’Neill’s latest comments about LASK offer Celtic supporters a troubling kind of consolation. Speaking before the Beşiktaş match, the manager pointed to the Austrian side’s subsequent European results while discussing our Champions League exit.

I understand the instinct. A defeat can feel less humiliating when the team responsible proves its quality elsewhere. However, that offers very little comfort when you remember the position Celtic surrendered.

We were four goals ahead on aggregate. Whatever LASK have achieved since, that remains the starting point for judging our failure.

LASK’s quality cannot explain Celtic’s collapse

In his pre-match press conference, transcribed by Celtic Shorts, O’Neill said: “I draw some sort of consolation” before referring to LASK’s wins and six points.

For fairness, he also acknowledged the disappointment. This was part of a longer answer about European opposition, rather than a claim that Celtic had done nothing wrong.

Nevertheless, I find the reasoning difficult to accept.

The SPFL’s account of the tie records Celtic taking a 3-0 first-leg advantage to Austria. Callum McGregor then scored to extend that aggregate lead before LASK fought back and won the tie 5-4 after extra time.

That distinction matters. Celtic did not simply lose a close contest against a strong opponent. We built an enormous advantage and failed to protect it.

Recognising LASK’s ability is reasonable. Using their later results to soften our assessment risks overlooking the very thing supporters need explained: how Celtic allowed that position to disappear.

The standard should come from Celtic

I do not expect a manager to spend every press conference reliving his worst result. Players need encouragement, and preparing for the next match requires more than repeating what went wrong.

But encouragement needs something solid beneath it. Show us that the team can control difficult spells, defend with discipline and respond when an opponent changes the game.

Those are the signs that would make the LASK defeat feel like a lesson rather than an open wound.

Our earlier examination of Chris Sutton’s criticism after Falkirk raised the same practical concern: what does Celtic’s organisation actually give the players when a match turns against them?

Another club’s results cannot answer that question. Only our own performances can. That is why the response on the pitch matters more than the explanation afterwards.

Nor should respect for Martin make that discussion uncomfortable. His standing at Celtic gives his words weight. It also makes it fair to examine the explanation he offers.

Supporters need evidence of progress

O’Neill also said: “But that doesn’t mean that we haven’t had a disappointment.”

That acknowledgement matters. Yet disappointment describes the feeling; it does not explain the failure or demonstrate the repair.

As we argued after the Greenock meeting with supporters, communication needs to lead somewhere. On the football side, that means an improvement people can recognise.

I want to hear why Celtic will cope better the next time pressure arrives. More importantly, I want to see it.

LASK can win their next European match as well. It still will not restore the lead we threw away.

The consolation Celtic need is evidence that we have learned how to stop it happening again.

Key takeaways

• O’Neill cited LASK’s later results while acknowledging Celtic’s disappointment.
• Celtic surrendered a four-goal aggregate advantage in the qualifying tie.
• Visible improvement would offer supporters more comfort than another club’s success.