Man United v Celta Vigo: Out-of-sorts visitors to be swept aside
Published:
Manchester United’s 1-0 victory in Galicia gave Jose Mourinho’s men one foot in the Europa League final. And all the evidence points to the Premier League giants breezing past Celta Vigo with a comfortable second-leg victory at Old Trafford.
First off, there’s little doubt United will qualify. Only a home defeat on the night would see the Red Devils eliminated, and having not lost at home in the past 28 games, the 1/10 for the hosts to progress. But with understandably modest profits available on that bet, the best value lies elsewhere.
United have triumphed in 13 of their last 20 games – an impressive record on its own. But there’s more persuasive evidence of a home win in the fact that Celta have been dismal of late, losing each of their last five matches.
In fact, Celticos have only registered a single goal in that five-game streak, with Eduardo Berizzo’s men having now failed to find the net in over 300 minutes of football. All that points, then, towards a United win to nil at 11/8.
For those looking for a slightly more ambitious spin on that stat, we’re tipping a 3-0 United win to be the scoreline here.
Two of Celta’s last three games have ended with defeats by that scoreline, while United have won 3-0 on a trio of occasions since the start of February.
And there are odds of 10/1 on offer for Jose’s men to do just that once again.
As for who could do the damage, it’s hard to look past Marcus Rashford. The England international has netted four times since the beginning of April, and is 19/20
Meanwhile, having closed out the scoring in three of his last nine outings, the 7/2 for him to be last goalscorer in this game – against a Celta side unlikely to register – looks like excellent value.
In the match betting, Man United are 4/7 favourites to win in 90 minutes, with 16/5 for the draw and 5/1 for a Celta victory.
Having a bet on the big game? Then check out our brilliant Headline Boosts, available from 08:00 on Thursday 11 May.
All Odds and Markets are correct as of the date of publishing
