If you told Wilfried Nancy that his handheld tactics board and choice of footwear would dominate the fallout from a debut defeat as Celtic manager, you’d probably have some explaining to do.
Tell any Scottish football fan, however, and they wouldn’t bat an eyelid.
After all, it was only a matter of months ago that Russell Martin’s decision not to wear a suit – or brown shoes – was making it more difficult for him to win over some Rangers fans.
The fact it was then viewed as some kind of small win for replacement head coach Danny Rohl to not make that same mistake was pretty bizarre.
2 days ago
Why are we talking about this?
SNS
In the aftermath of Celtic’s defeat by Hearts on Sunday, BBC Scotland pundits Jackie McNamara and Neil McCann referenced the memes that would be on the way after Nancy was seen using a small tactics board in the home dugout.
They were right. Social media was almost instantly flooded with images edited with AI assistance.
Nobody is trying to police light-hearted patter – something Scottish football fans do best – but the media fallout since has felt even more excessive than usual.
Yes, we can hear you crying irony as you read another piece of content relating to this issue.
Former Celtic striker Chris Sutton reacted to a newspaper column by ex-Hearts forward Ryan Stevenson, labelling it “one of the dumbest and most backward takes” he had ever heard.
Stevenson had lambasted Nancy for pulling out a “little tactics board” and wearing eye-catching green and white trainers.
Former Celtic player Scott Allan, meanwhile, described it all as a “massive overreaction”.
“The tactics board thing is immaterial to anything,” Allan said on the BBC’s Scottish Football Podcast.
“The guy’s in the door two days. He doesn’t speak perfect English. He doesn’t know everybody yet, so he’s trying to show somebody something via a tool.
‘Nancy reaction way over the top’
To play this video you need to enable JavaScript in your browser.
But why does this even need to be a topic of discussion?
Putting jibes between supporters to one side, does the savagery from pundits and media come from a place of snobbery?
There have been suggestions the optics of the tactics board weren’t great, but if Celtic had won then those very suggestions would be non-existent.
They didn’t win, of course, but why shouldn’t a manager use the tools they feel benefit them?
Then you can factor in that Nancy had just a handful of hours on the training pitch with his team before Sunday.
Former Rangers coach McCann said himself that players often prefer to see tactical information visualised.
Ever wondered what coaches are looking at on the iPad propped up in the dugout? Shock to the system here, but they’re not ordering a takeaway or catching up with their new favourite series.
Sure, fans want positive first impressions from their manager, and perhaps some of the Celtic support had toes curling when they saw Nancy’s mini tactics board while their side were 2-0 down at home.
That can be true while also recognising that the fallout has been extreme.
“I think the reaction really has been over the top,” says Celtic fan podcaster Paul John Dykes. “You’ve got the visual element – let’s get the message across quickly.
If you told Wilfried Nancy that his handheld tactics board and choice of footwear would dominate the fallout from a debut defeat as Celtic manager, you’d probably have some explaining to do.
Tell any Scottish football fan, however, and they wouldn’t bat an eyelid.
After all, it was only a matter of months ago that Russell Martin’s decision not to wear a suit – or brown shoes – was making it more difficult for him to win over some Rangers fans.
The fact it was then viewed as some kind of small win for replacement head coach Danny Rohl to not make that same mistake was pretty bizarre.
2 days ago
Why are we talking about this?
SNS
In the aftermath of Celtic’s defeat by Hearts on Sunday, BBC Scotland pundits Jackie McNamara and Neil McCann referenced the memes that would be on the way after Nancy was seen using a small tactics board in the home dugout.
They were right. Social media was almost instantly flooded with images edited with AI assistance.
Nobody is trying to police light-hearted patter – something Scottish football fans do best – but the media fallout since has felt even more excessive than usual.
Yes, we can hear you crying irony as you read another piece of content relating to this issue.
Former Celtic striker Chris Sutton reacted to a newspaper column by ex-Hearts forward Ryan Stevenson, labelling it “one of the dumbest and most backward takes” he had ever heard.
Stevenson had lambasted Nancy for pulling out a “little tactics board” and wearing eye-catching green and white trainers.
Former Celtic player Scott Allan, meanwhile, described it all as a “massive overreaction”.
“The tactics board thing is immaterial to anything,” Allan said on the BBC’s Scottish Football Podcast.
“The guy’s in the door two days. He doesn’t speak perfect English. He doesn’t know everybody yet, so he’s trying to show somebody something via a tool.
‘Nancy reaction way over the top’
To play this video you need to enable JavaScript in your browser.
But why does this even need to be a topic of discussion?
Putting jibes between supporters to one side, does the savagery from pundits and media come from a place of snobbery?
There have been suggestions the optics of the tactics board weren’t great, but if Celtic had won then those very suggestions would be non-existent.
They didn’t win, of course, but why shouldn’t a manager use the tools they feel benefit them?
Then you can factor in that Nancy had just a handful of hours on the training pitch with his team before Sunday.
Former Rangers coach McCann said himself that players often prefer to see tactical information visualised.
Ever wondered what coaches are looking at on the iPad propped up in the dugout? Shock to the system here, but they’re not ordering a takeaway or catching up with their new favourite series.
Sure, fans want positive first impressions from their manager, and perhaps some of the Celtic support had toes curling when they saw Nancy’s mini tactics board while their side were 2-0 down at home.
That can be true while also recognising that the fallout has been extreme.
“I think the reaction really has been over the top,” says Celtic fan podcaster Paul John Dykes. “You’ve got the visual element – let’s get the message across quickly.
South Africa lock Eben Etzebeth says the incident in which he made contact with the left eye of Wales back row Alex Mann was “a mistake”.
The 34-year-old double World Cup-winner was handed a 12-week ban last week after an independent disciplinary panel decided he was guilty of an eye gouge.
It was Etzebeth’s first red card in 141 internationals for the Springboks, which occurred in the 73-0 win over Wales in Cardiff on 29 November.
“Now that my hearing is done I think I owe everyone an explanation,” Etzebeth said on social media.
“First of all, this is not a post to show that I was not guilty, I accept guilt. I made a mistake and I’m willing to serve a suspension which I deserve.
This Instagram post cannot be displayed in your browser. Please enable Javascript or try a different browser.View original content on Instagram
The BBC is not responsible for the content of external sites.
Skip instagram post
Allow Instagram content?
The BBC is not responsible for the content of external sites.
Etzebeth had come on as a second-half replacement in Cardiff but was shown a straight red card in the 79th minute by French referee Luc Ramos after a fracas between the two sets of players.
Along with his explanation, the Springbok great also posted a video of the incident, claiming his part in the altercation came as a response to being struck by Mann and his own actions were not intentional.
“I’d like to answer the question – why did you do such a thing?” Etzebeth added.
“It was a mistake caused by my reaction and other factors that played a role.
“[Referring to the video] Slide 1: The scuffle was basically over when Wales number 7 struck me with an open hand to my chin/neck area, you can see me looking at the assistant referee and waiting for a reaction from him (it happened fast and it’s understandable that he didn’t see it) without reacting yet, I got another pull on my jersey, before I go in with the similar type of action.
“Slide 2: You can clearly see my first point of contact is against his shoulder with an open hand, just like he did, except he got me on the chin. Another thing worth mentioning, when he struck me, I was standing still with not a lot of movement or players trying to get involved.
“When I went for the same open hand towards his shoulder, you’ll see two Welsh players changing the dynamic of the entire picture as well as one of my team-mates pulling Wales number 7 around his neck away from my hand and where my force is going.”
There was another slide and different camera angle provided as Etzebeth outlined why he had posted his explanation.
“To try and show people how everything happened and that it was never intentional,” said Etzebeth.
“I would never do something like this on purpose, I know what the consequences will be after playing rugby for a few years.”
Getty Images
World Rugby’s sanctions for eye-gouging – described as “intentional contact with the eyes” – run from a ban ranging from 12 weeks at the low end, to a maximum of four years.
The panel found that contact with the eye was intentional and a “mid-range” entry point of 18 weeks was appropriate. Mitigating factors, including Etzebeth’s previous disciplinary record, meant that was reduced to 12 weeks.
Etzebeth said: “Thanks to everyone that stood by me and thought the best of me. I’m sorry for letting you and the game down. That was my first red card since I started playing. I want it to be my last.
South Africa lock Eben Etzebeth says the incident in which he made contact with the left eye of Wales back row Alex Mann was “a mistake”.
The 34-year-old double World Cup-winner was handed a 12-week ban last week after an independent disciplinary panel decided he was guilty of an eye gouge.
It was Etzebeth’s first red card in 141 internationals for the Springboks, which occurred in the 73-0 win over Wales in Cardiff on 29 November.
“Now that my hearing is done I think I owe everyone an explanation,” Etzebeth said on social media.
“First of all, this is not a post to show that I was not guilty, I accept guilt. I made a mistake and I’m willing to serve a suspension which I deserve.
This Instagram post cannot be displayed in your browser. Please enable Javascript or try a different browser.View original content on Instagram
The BBC is not responsible for the content of external sites.
Skip instagram post
Allow Instagram content?
The BBC is not responsible for the content of external sites.
Etzebeth had come on as a second-half replacement in Cardiff but was shown a straight red card in the 79th minute by French referee Luc Ramos after a fracas between the two sets of players.
Along with his explanation, the Springbok great also posted a video of the incident, claiming his part in the altercation came as a response to being struck by Mann and his own actions were not intentional.
“I’d like to answer the question – why did you do such a thing?” Etzebeth added.
“It was a mistake caused by my reaction and other factors that played a role.
“[Referring to the video] Slide 1: The scuffle was basically over when Wales number 7 struck me with an open hand to my chin/neck area, you can see me looking at the assistant referee and waiting for a reaction from him (it happened fast and it’s understandable that he didn’t see it) without reacting yet, I got another pull on my jersey, before I go in with the similar type of action.
“Slide 2: You can clearly see my first point of contact is against his shoulder with an open hand, just like he did, except he got me on the chin. Another thing worth mentioning, when he struck me, I was standing still with not a lot of movement or players trying to get involved.
“When I went for the same open hand towards his shoulder, you’ll see two Welsh players changing the dynamic of the entire picture as well as one of my team-mates pulling Wales number 7 around his neck away from my hand and where my force is going.”
There was another slide and different camera angle provided as Etzebeth outlined why he had posted his explanation.
“To try and show people how everything happened and that it was never intentional,” said Etzebeth.
“I would never do something like this on purpose, I know what the consequences will be after playing rugby for a few years.”
Getty Images
World Rugby’s sanctions for eye-gouging – described as “intentional contact with the eyes” – run from a ban ranging from 12 weeks at the low end, to a maximum of four years.
The panel found that contact with the eye was intentional and a “mid-range” entry point of 18 weeks was appropriate. Mitigating factors, including Etzebeth’s previous disciplinary record, meant that was reduced to 12 weeks.
Etzebeth said: “Thanks to everyone that stood by me and thought the best of me. I’m sorry for letting you and the game down. That was my first red card since I started playing. I want it to be my last.
Meghan has released a blistering statement after spending days desperately trying to get in touch with her estranged father – Thomas Markle, who is reportedly gravely ill
View 4 Images
Meghan and her father have a turbulent relationship(Image: Netflix)
It’s no secret that Meghan’s relationship with her father has been sour for years, but now experts have revealed just how painful and deeply complicated the broken bond is for the Duchess.
Their estrangement stems all the way back to 2018, when Meghan was thrust into a global spotlight in the build-up to her wedding to Prince Harry, but now there’s been a new development in the sad fall-out.
After suffering a spate of health issues over recent years, including two heart attacks and a stroke that saw him needing speech therapy, Thomas was rushed to hospital earlier this month in the Philippines as his health took a worrying turn. The pensioner had to endure gruelling surgery to have his leg amputated, which resulted in his son Thomas Junior – Meghan’s half-brother – to plead with her to “reach out” and show “compassion”.
Despite initial claims that Meghan had failed to contact her father, it has now emerged that she desperately called round local hospitals to try and find out more details about her estranged father’s health. Her spokesperson then confirmed she had “reached out” by delivering a letter to her dad. But the mystery deepened when Thomas claimed he was “confused” by reports that his youngest child had tried to get in touch with him.
READ MORE: King Charles and William to endure ‘very awkward’ reunion with Andrew Mountbatten-WindsorREAD MORE: Princess Anne praised for no nonsense sign-off in annual Christmas card
With speculation ramping up about whether Meghan had managed to get her olive branch message to her father in his hospital in Cebu, her spokesperson has today released a blistering statement in an attempt to clarify the conflicting reports. “It has been exceedingly difficult for the Duchess to contact her father privately, despite her efforts over the past several days,” it read.
“With the support of reliable and trusted contacts, her correspondence is now safely in his hands.” Meghan has previously been candid about the breakdown of her relationship with her father, and the huge amount of emotional distress it has caused her over the years, admitting she “lost her dad” and was “grieving”. She also told her dad in a letter back in 2019 that her heart was “broken into a million pieces”.
And now as the delicate situation unravels behind the scenes, family counselling expert Dr Jane Halsall has told the Mirror just how tough these types of strained relationships can be, especially when they are playing out on the public stage.
The chartered counselling psychologist explained that for adults like Meghan who are estranged from their parents, it can be challenging to navigate the delicate balance between self-protection, and their fundamental care and concern for their parent, particularly if they become unwell as Thomas has.
“Estrangement between adult children and parents is emotionally painful, often arising from boundary violations or disappointment,” the expert explained. “Depending on the dynamics, adult children may worry for their parent, while needing to protect themselves, which leads to them experiencing both grief and ambivalence.”
Thomas’s repeated public criticisms of Meghan might only make things harder for the Duchess to manage, especially when she has been clear over the years that his comments to the media are definitely not welcome.
“Public statements against their wishes, as in this case, can intensify this tension,” Dr Halsall warns. “Healing relies on respecting boundaries, careful communication, and therapeutic support. If there is estrangement within a family, then it takes time to heal and resilience—the effort to balance love, concern, and self-protection while maintaining psychological well-being for yourself.”
Ahead of Harry and Meghan’s wedding, Thomas staged papparazzi photographs of himself getting a suit fitted in order to make some money, something he later called “stupid and hammy”. He suffered a heart attack shortly before the nuptials, when he was living in Mexico, and it claimed by the Palace that this was why he would not attend.
For her part, Meghan later claimed she found out from the press that Thomas was not coming to her wedding, with King Charles stepping in and walking her down the aisle. She also said in the Sussex’ Netflix documentary that she asked her father if he had been speaking to the media, and he denied it initially.
She also alleged that when her father text messaged her around this time, she started to believe his phone had been “compromised” because the messages did not match his usual writing style, and he called her “Meghan”, not the usual nickname of “Meg”.
Meghan also opened up about her estranged father during the Sussexes’ explosive sit-down with Oprah Winfrey in 2021. “I grieve a lot,” she confessed, before adding: “I mean, I’ve lost my father.”
Despite Thomas and Meghan’s mum Doria breaking up when the duchess was just three-years-old, Meghan always had a close relationship with her father while growing up in California. She lived with Thomas between the ages of 11 and 18 while her mum travelled, and even called him “thoughtful, inspiring, hardworking” in a 2014 social media post.
But her mother, Doria, blasted her ex for his actions of staging the photos and talking to the press, saying in the Sussex’s documentary that she was “absolutely stunned” by his behaviour, adding that “as a parent, that’s not what you do. That’s not parenting.”
Thomas did not stay quiet over the years that followed about his daughter, repeatedly taking part in further interviews about her. He dubbed their exit from royal life the “dumbest thing they could have done”, and due to the estrangement, has never met his grandchildren, Prince Archie, six, and Princess Lilibet, four.
Harry has opened up about his own feelings on the strained relationship, indicating to some degree he blames himself. “She had a father before this, and now she doesn’t have a father,” he said in the documentary.
But despite the ongoing turmoil, Thomas has said he will love his daughter forever. Appearing on Good Morning Britain back in September, he claimed: “I’ve always been here for her, I love her, I’ll love her forever. I want her to reach out to me and let me see my grandkids and let me have a little peace. It’s been five years.”
More recently, Thomas make a painful reflection when he experienced a “terrifying” earthquake in the Phillipines, leaving his 19th-floor apartment swaying. He said: “If we die tonight, do you think Meghan will come to my funeral?” Then, apparently with a chuckle, he added: “Will I get a better funeral because my son-in-law is fifth in line to the throne?”
