There’s a habit at Rangers where every blip ends up pinned on the striker. If the team isn’t firing, the number 9 takes it in the neck first. But I’m not convinced it’s that simple, and I think a lot of the chat ignores the context a player is working in, especially when the overall side isn’t functioning.
That’s why I’ve got a bit of sympathy for judging anyone purely on what was happening under Martin. If the team shape is messy, service is stop-start, and we’re not sustaining pressure, then even a decent forward is living off scraps. Strikers can rescue you now and again, sure, but they can’t build the platform themselves.
Compare the noise with the numbers
It’s interesting to look across the city and see how Hearts are being spoken about. Folk are raving about them, and maybe that’s fair enough, but the gap in goals over the same period isn’t exactly massive. The point isn’t to have a go at Hearts, it’s more that perception can run away with itself when a team has a clear headline name.
Hearts have Shankland as the main reference point. Rangers, on the other hand, have rotated the starting 9 more, which always makes the conversation noisier because nobody gets a clean run and everyone is judged in bursts rather than over time. Rotation can be useful, but it also makes it harder for a forward line to build chemistry and patterns.
Where are the goals coming from elsewhere?
If the combined output from our recognised number 9s is only a few goals shy of what people hold up as the model, then maybe the real shortfall is elsewhere. That’s the bit that should worry us. In a proper Rangers side, you’re expecting goals from wide areas, from midfield runners, from set-plays, from second balls in the box. The full team has to contribute.
That’s why the call for a “Brava-type” goals contribution from other areas rings true. Not because one player solves everything, but because it highlights the balance. If your striker isn’t banging in one-a-game, you can still be a high-scoring team if the rest of the side chips in regularly.
Development signings or Rangers-ready?
On recruitment, I’m with the view that Rangers shouldn’t be in the business of developing players for other clubs. If we’re short in a position, we need to fill it with someone who raises the level immediately, even if it means stretching the budget a bit or being smarter with wages and contracts.
I like Moore, but I’d still lean towards an experienced option in that role, or one of our own lads who can grow value for the club. Because that’s Rangers: win now, and build assets while you’re at it. Anything else feels like we’re helping somebody else’s project instead of our own.
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.
