There’s a clear split in how I read Rohl. He often gets things right at half-time — tweaks that look sensible and sometimes work — but the live-game choices leave me exasperated. Being reactive after the break is fine, but we need an in-game voice that alters the shape and intent while the match is alive.

Stubborn in-game thinking

Take the left-back situation the other night: O'Donnell was on for 65 minutes and it never felt like we tried to unsettle him. Why not move Gassama to the right and force that 1v1 on his weaker foot? Or bring Antman on with a clear brief to run at him? Those are simple, logical moves that change the contest. Instead we watched momentum ebb because instructions didn’t translate into purposeful action.

Selection and Ibrox headaches

Not playing Tavernier at Ibrox still rankles. The pitch is massive, we dominate possession there and the outlet from the right is vital. Sterling can be useful away from home, sure, but at Ibrox we should be setting the team up to make the most of our crossing and width. That mismatch between selection and ground realities feels amateurish.

What the club needs now

There’s a bigger issue than one match: identity. Rangers have never been defined by a slow, blinkered passing model for me. Our best sides were aggressive, direct and clinical in transition. I’m not demanding a carbon copy of the old days, but I do want clarity from the dugout — an obvious plan, and convincing in-game tweaks that fans can actually see. At the minute it feels like we’re waiting for Rohl to find out what he is as a coach while the team pays the price.

It’s easy to get gloomy, but football can turn quickly. If the staff show the imagination and bravery to change things mid-game and pick according to venue, some of these problems would evaporate. As supporters we want to see a team that attacks with intent and a manager who can shape games as they happen.

Written by Albertz93: 27 June 2026

Tags: tactics