Rangers have already said, in their own words, that parts of the recruitment plan have been wrong. The issue is the bit they didn’t do: spell it out clearly. When it’s vague, supporters and the media inevitably fill in the gaps with their own list of culprits and their own reading of what “mistakes” actually means.
Admitting errors is good. Being specific would be better.
The point being made here is fairly simple: there’s a difference between accepting that the approach has been off, and laying out exactly which calls were the big ones. A lot of fans have landed on the same areas anyway, like Martin, Thelwell and Stewart, but it’s still opinion unless the club nails it down.
That’s why the line from Cavenagh stands out. He’s said they didn’t underestimate the challenge, but that you only grasp how big Rangers is when you’re actually inside the building. You can take that at face value or not, but it does at least explain the tone: they’re framing it as learning the scale of the job, not walking in starry-eyed and clueless.
The squad problem: adding bodies isn’t replacing quality
Where it starts to feel more real than PR is when you look at the squad shape. If certain players aren’t at the level, you expect a ruthless cycle: move them on, upgrade, repeat. What it feels like right now is we’re adding to the group more than we’re actually replacing the weaker parts of it.
Now, that can be part of a phased rebuild, and sometimes you can’t shift players quickly. But the risk is obvious. If you keep stacking “projects” on top of existing problems, you end up with a dressing room that’s still carrying the same issues, just with more moving parts.
That’s why the call for experience makes sense. Not as some nostalgic cry for big names, but as a practical balance. You can develop talent at Rangers, but you also need players who know how to manage a bad ten minutes, slow a game down, and take responsibility when it’s getting noisy.
Djiga and the difference between eyes and evidence
Djiga is a decent example of how quickly a narrative forms. Yes, he makes mistakes. Most defenders do, especially in a side that’s expected to dominate and defend transitions with space behind. But he’s been painted by some as if he’s a total liability, and that doesn’t quite match the broader picture being pointed to.
The argument here isn’t “he’s flawless”, it’s that outcomes matter too. If the defence has looked steadier with him in it, and the team has conceded more without him, then it’s worth questioning the knee-jerk verdict. The same thing has happened to other players early on: judged harshly before they’ve even settled.
Truth is, with Rangers you can always find something to moan about, and often it’s deserved. But not everything is doom, and not everything is brilliant either. The sensible middle is sticking to what we can actually see in the wider evidence, not just the worst moment we remember from a shaky 30 seconds.
Related Articles
About Rangers News Views
Rangers News Views offers daily Glasgow Rangers coverage including match reaction, transfer analysis, SPFL context, tactical breakdowns and opinion-led articles written by supporters for supporters.
