The Tavernier debate has turned into one of those Rangers discussions where the volume rises way quicker than the evidence. And honestly, I get the frustration. When we drop points, the same names get it in the neck straight away. But if we’re going to talk about “lost possession” numbers and all the rest, we should be clear where they’re coming from and what they actually mean.

Where are these “lost possession” stats coming from?

This is the bit that gets brushed aside too often. Folk will throw out a figure for how many times a player “lost the ball” as if it’s a standard, easy metric that every site shows. A lot of the common stat pages don’t even display it in a clean way, and when they do, it’s often bundled into different categories depending on how the data is collected.

So if someone’s quoting a number, it’s fair to ask: is that from a specific analytics platform, or is it just somebody watching Tavernier like a hawk and counting every time a move breaks down on his side? Because those are two totally different things. One is data. The other is sentiment dressed up as data.

And even with proper stats, “lost possession” can be messy. A risky forward pass that nearly creates a chance might get logged the same as a daft square ball that puts you under pressure. Context matters. Role matters. Game state matters.

If he’s the weak link, why is he still playing?

Here’s the question that cuts through a lot of the noise. If Tavernier is genuinely the biggest problem in the team, why does Danny Röhl keep picking him? Managers aren’t perfect, but they’re not blind either. If a player is costing you every week, you either protect him with the shape, rotate him, or you go and replace him.

And if there hasn’t been a clear move to bring in a new right-back “this window”, that tells you something too. Either the manager doesn’t see it as the priority, or the club don’t have the budget or the right option available, or there’s a bigger plan for the summer. Whatever it is, it’s rarely as simple as “he’s rubbish, punt him”.

The consistency problem: only raging when we lose

What really drags this whole chat down is the timing. The Tavernier pile-on tends to land hardest after a bad result. When we win, the criticism goes quiet. But if he’s not good enough, that should be the case whether the scoreline is kind to us or not.

It’s fine to think it’s time for a change at the end of the season. Loads of Rangers squads have needed a refresh, and sometimes a good servant reaches that point. But if we want the conversation to be worth anything, it has to be based on more than a bad mood, a dodgy “stat”, and the same recycled post every time the points are dropped.

Written by Angus1812: 31 January 2026

Tags: tactics