To be fair, both sides have been patchy this season. The point I'm making is straightforward: it's not quite right to claim the other lot have had 'plenty of good performances' while we haven't. Early season damage and managerial disruption left us with a hole that needed fixing, and points — not prettiness — were what mattered.

Where the season was lost

Look at the basics. When Rodgers left they were on 19 points, whereas at the same stage we had 8. You can debate the reasons until you're blue in the face, but those numbers tell you who handed themselves a cushion and who started with a mountain to climb. Martin's seven league games did us no favours, and the interim match added to that deficit. Saying the early run wasn't damaging misses how hard it is to recover from that kind of points shortfall.

Was Nancy worse or kinder to us?

Nancy's form was poor, sure, but some of those defeats came in cup or friendly settings and only four were league losses — losses that translated into points on the board for us to chase. That gave Rangers a window to close the gap that Martin had opened up. It's not glamorous, but results and timing mattered. A slump in the right fixtures can ruin momentum; likewise a poor spell for rivals can be a lifeline.

Style versus substance

Since Rohl took charge we've picked up points, and yes, many of the performances haven't been the prettiest. But results count. Fans want both entertainment and trophies, but sometimes the manager's job is to steady the ship first. Storm might have offered better-looking displays at times — and that's fine to acknowledge — but football is ultimately about winning matches and closing gaps on the board.

So call it pragmatic if you like. The early part of the season hurt us more than it did them, and while style matters, the standings are built on points. That's the crux of my argument.

Written by Angus1812: 23 April 2026

Tags: match-review transfers tactics