It’s hard to get too angry at young players when they’re being asked to do a job they’re nowhere near ready for. That’s the crux of it. Rangers have had spells where lads have been thrown in, not as part of a sensible pathway, but because there’s been no real alternative. And when that happens, the criticism should land higher up than the boy wearing the shirt.
Take the left-back situation. If a player is clearly not Rangers starting level, then making him the only natural option in the position is setting him up to fail. You can see it a mile off. He’s up against wingers with pace, he’s isolated in transitions, and suddenly every mistake is magnified because the margins at Ibrox are brutal.
Young lads need protection, not a free-for-all
Calling them “wee boys” isn’t meant as a dig. It’s just reality. They look like kids because they are kids, and there’s a world of difference between giving someone minutes and asking them to carry a flank for Rangers. They’ve been given a platform, but the argument is whether they’d actually earned that platform in the first place.
That’s not on them. If you’re a young player and the manager says you’re starting, you’re not turning that down. The responsibility is on recruitment and squad-building. If the plan is to develop, fine. But you still need experienced bodies around them so the team isn’t constantly firefighting.
The basics have to be non-negotiable
With Meghoma in particular, the issues being highlighted are the simple, horrible-to-watch ones: weak one v one defending, losing the back post, and not giving enough going forward to justify the risk. Those are the moments that kill you in Scotland. Teams target full-backs. They swing it to the far side. They make you defend crosses again and again. If you’re switched off once, you’re in trouble.
Yes, there’s been an upturn recently, but “competent” can’t be the ceiling at Rangers. Competent is the starting point. The shirt demands more than just getting through a game without a wobble.
What’s the upside if they’re away soon?
The other part of the frustration is the bigger picture. If these boys are only here short-term and leaving in a few months, where’s the benefit for Rangers? You’re taking the rough performances now, you’re dropping standards in key areas, and you might not even be building anything for next season.
That’s why fans start asking whether a different option, like Curtis in MM’s case, would be better both short term and long term. At least then you’re investing minutes in something that could belong to Rangers, not something that disappears the minute the deal ends.
And when you add in talk of serious money being spent, it only sharpens the question: how did we end up in a place where we’re relying on “learning on the job” at full-back in the first place?
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.
