The easy criticism after that game is to say Rangers just knocked it side to side and let the opposition get set. It sounds familiar and fits a long-standing narrative, but this time it really doesn’t stack up when you look at what actually happened.

More of the Ball, But Also More Threat

Yes, Rangers had a lot more possession. That much everyone seems to agree on. Where I disagree is with the idea that it was sterile, passive stuff that simply allowed the other lot to drop back into shape and coast through the game.

When you’ve got roughly double the ball, you’d expect a bit more territory and a few more efforts. But we weren’t just padding the stats. We ended up with far more shots, more efforts on target, more touches in their box and a much higher number of successful passes in the final third. On top of that, we actually played fewer long balls than they did.

If they were constantly regaining their shape and comfortably seeing us off, you wouldn’t normally see that level of attacking output. Those numbers suggest we were able to play through them and into dangerous areas, not just recycle the ball for the sake of it.

Progressive Passing, Not Aimless Pumping

That’s really the crux of it. For once, it didn’t feel like the default was to launch it long to the wingers and hope for a knockdown. Instead, there was more emphasis on playing through the lines, working the ball into feet and building attacks with a bit of patience but also with purpose.

You could see periods where we stretched them, pulled them around and created genuine openings. It wasn’t perfect, far from it, but it was a lot more progressive than it’s being given credit for. Side-to-side passing on its own is pointless; side-to-side as part of moving the block, then penetrating, is exactly what you want. And for large spells, that’s what we actually did.

Chance Conversion and Defensive Risk

Where the criticism absolutely is fair is in how ruthless each team was. They were more efficient with the chances they got, and you can’t really argue with that. You don’t need a spreadsheet to see it: they took theirs, we didn’t take enough of ours.

But if you’re creating around that volume of shots in a game, you’d reasonably expect the goals to follow over time. The bigger concern is at the other end. Playing with that level of attacking intent inevitably leaves you a bit more open, and that balance between being adventurous and being solid is something Danny Röhl still has to fine-tune.

It all shows how stats can be used in different ways. The same numbers can be spun to say we were dominant but wasteful, or reckless and open, or progressive but lacking a clinical edge. That’s why talking about the context around them matters, not just repeating old lines about sideways football because they sound familiar.

Written by Angus1812 — 5 December 2025