Celtic had ‘zero chance’ — who made Hugh Keevins the man who knows best?

Hugh Keevins’ Celtic predictions are irritating enough. What makes them unbearable, to my ear, is the air of superiority that can accompany them.

On Friday’s Superscoreboard, he repeated his belief that the Ibrox club will win the league “at a canter”. The discussion eventually settled on an eight-point margin.

This is the same pundit who gave Celtic zero chance of winning last season’s title.

Celtic won it.

Yet here we are again, listening to another sweeping verdict delivered with the confidence of someone whose previous judgement had survived contact with reality.

Hugh Keevins’ Celtic predictions do not outrank supporters

What grates is the impression that a supporter questioning him has failed to understand something obvious, rather than spotted a hole in his argument.

Being a journalist gives you a platform. It does not make your football judgement superior to that of someone paying through the turnstiles.

Supporters can assess a squad, read a table and remember what you said last month. They do not become less informed because they phone the programme instead of sitting behind its microphones.

A press credential is not a certificate of infallibility. Neither is a long career.

Experience should improve the quality of an argument. It cannot substitute for one.

When Keevins adopts that knowing tone, I hear an authority his forecasting record has done precious little to justify. The delivery invites deference. The results invite a raised eyebrow.

That is a dreadful look for someone adopting the air of the person who knows best.

Certainty for the prediction, opinion for the defence

When challenged over his zero-chance verdict in April, Keevins invoked personal opinion and said: “You can berate, you can gang up”.

He also insisted: “I said zero, I stand by zero.”

Notice how that frames the disagreement. Supporters challenging an extraordinary claim become people berating him or ganging up.

However, questioning an argument is not an offence against the person making it. Callers do not owe a pundit agreement, especially when he has ruled out something that remains entirely possible.

The SPFL records Celtic’s title-clinching victory over Hearts on 16 May. His zero-chance verdict collapsed. The supporters questioning it had every reason to do so.

The contradiction is glaring: present the forecast in absolute terms, then invoke the freedom of opinion when challenged.

Fine. Defend it as an opinion. Explain the assumptions. Admit the uncertainty.

Spare listeners the impression that disagreement means they need the game explained to them by the only adult in the studio.

Where does the authority come from?

We challenged his earlier canter prediction in September. Repeating it does not strengthen the evidence.

Celtic lead by four points, although the Ibrox club have a game in hand. We have won five successive championships and 14 of the last 15.

Those facts guarantee nothing. They do, however, make a comfortable title win elsewhere a proposition requiring serious explanation.

Our problems deserve scrutiny. So does his reasoning.

Instead, this manner of punditry strikes me as a performance of expertise: the certainty, the dismissiveness, the impression that the caller should be grateful for the lesson.

It connects with a wider concern we have examined about sweeping conclusions after short bursts of Ibrox success. Strong declarations attract attention. That does not make them strong analysis.

Scott Allan disputed Friday’s prediction. The question deserves a proper answer, whoever asks it.

A supporter should not have to overcome a pundit’s condescension before reaching his argument.

Keevins is entitled to his opinion. He is not entitled to have it treated as the educated answer while everyone else’s is merely noise.

The microphone makes him louder.

It does not make him right.

Key takeaways

• A journalist’s platform does not make his judgement superior to supporters’.
• Celtic won the title after Keevins’ zero-chance verdict.
• His latest canter forecast deserves evidence and scrutiny.