Neil Critchley tonight defended his decision to send Hearts out to attack Celtic at Parkhead in the wake of the Tynecastle club’s 3-0 William Hill Premiership defeat.
The Gorgie outfit put their hosts under pressure in the first half and Lewis Neilson and James Wilson both passed up excellent chances to score.
However, Brendan Rodgers’ men took their opportunities and had sewed up the victory by half-time thanks to a Daizen Maeda double and a Jota strike.
Critchley, whose team remained in sixth place in the top flight table despite the reverse they suffered in the East End of Glasgow, set up more defensively in the second half and Hearts kept the scoreline down.
“We changed the shape and the players did it very well,” he said. “We limited them to very little, even though we didn't carry enough of an attacking threat ourselves.
“All you can ask for as a coach is for the players try and do what you've asked them to do to the best of their ability. And I felt the players did that for the whole game.
Read more:
- Brendan Rodgers confirms Greg Taylor’s likely departure from Celtic this summer
-
Wanyama’s return to Scottish football ends in red card as Dunfermline thrashed by Ayr
“But I don't really ever want us to be the team what we were in the second half. Giving them half of the pitch? I don't enjoy that. I'd much rather see us go for the game. If sometimes you live by the sword, you die by the sword, so be it.
“I don't think Hearts as a football club has ever been built on surrendering half the pitch and sitting behind the ball and hoping that we can get a breakaway or a set-piece to win the game.”
Critchley continued, “It's a big dilemma coming here. You know you're up against a top-quality team. Do you really go for it and know that what can happen in the first half can happen?
“Or do you just sit off them and give them half the pitch and know that they might beat you anyway? I just looked at loads of games and loads of different teams and how they'd done it.
“We took a midfield player out today and went with one more in the back line, but we still played with three forwards and wanted to have that attacking threat at the top end of the pitch.
“We carried a threat on the counter-attack a couple of times. It just didn't quite go our way, but I don't want the players to lose belief in who I want us to be.”
