To the point: I want our strikers scoring more, but there's clearly more to this than raw tallies. Rohl has said they offer "something else" and, fair enough, that suggests he's asking for more than just finishes. That’s been the sticking point in plenty of threads — how do you square wanting goals with a manager who prizes other attributes?

Beyond the finish

Look, a striker's role isn't mono-dimensional. Hold-up play, linking with the midfield, defensive work when out of possession and creating space for others all matter. You can see why a manager would keep a forward who gives those things even if the scoring isn't prolific every week. It doesn't make sense to chuck a player for not hitting 20 unless the plan demands a different profile.

Why goals still matter

That said, goals win games. Fans are right to point that out. There's an emotional part of supporting Rangers where you want the number nine banging them in. Even when someone like Dessers finds the net, some still find fault — it's not just about the goal but the quality and consistency that follow. You can admire a striker's off-ball work and still expect them to stick a few more away.

Where the debate should go

We need a bit of nuance. Instead of shouting that scoring is a striker's "main job" as if that's the whole story, ask what Rohl is trying to build. Is he prioritising press triggers from the front? Mobility to stretch defences? A forward who links the attack? Those are the questions to probe. And yes, if we win the league I’ll be delighted whatever the goal charts look like — results are the final measure — but reasonable critique around output and role isn't unreasonable.

Keep it constructive. Argue about shape, tempo and what we want from the centre-forward. Don't make it personal. If we stick to that, we'll get a better conversation and maybe even understand Rohl's thinking a bit more.

Written by Angus1812: 18 May 2026

Tags: transfers tactics rumours