Tav isn't useless, far from it, but I don't think he's the automatic best option for us anymore. The numbers back up parts of his game, and to be fair he helps out defensively and keeps possession moving. That said, the weaknesses are obvious and they cost us when we need genuine attacking width or a real outlet from deep.

The numbers that help his case

When you look at the raw stats there's a reason he's still in the side. 0.17 assists per 90 and 0.12 expected assists per 90 show he can produce the odd end product. An 83% pass succession rate suggests he's reliable on the ball. Defensively he wins a lot of ground duels — 6.97 per 90 with about a 57% success — and averages over three tackles a game, so he puts his body on the line and competes. Four assists last year isn’t terrible, especially when three of those came in one game; moments of quality do pop up.

Where he actually lets us down

But the negatives are plain to see. He's poor at intercepting passes and doesn't make that many overall defensive contributions beyond the basics, so the reading of the game isn't elite. Crossing is a real weakness; we need better deliveries from our wide players to stretch defences. He struggles to create chances — averaging about one chance created per 90 — is a poor dribbler and offers little in the air. The long ball quality is inconsistent, which matters when we want quick transitions or relief under pressure.

Do we need to move on?

Short answer: maybe. I get why he's been relied on; he's dependable in certain areas. But modern full-backs are expected to do more than tidy passing and tackle stats. We should be looking for someone who keeps the defensive grit but adds better crossing, more creativity in the final third, a reliable long pass and a stronger aerial presence. If that player is out there, then yes, it's worth upgrading. If not, Tav still does a job — just not the full package I'd want going forward.

Written by Rangers 06: 9 June 2026

Tags: transfers tactics rumours