Rangers collapse explained away
There was one particular section of Danny Rohl’s press conference today that really stood out to Ibrox Noise, and not necessarily in a good way.
When discussing the collapse against Hearts, the Rangers manager explained that Hearts became more aggressive in the second half and that Rangers “stopped moving” against the man marking system. He insisted that shape changes and tactical switches mean nothing if players stop moving and stop finding spaces.
On paper, that sounds reasonable enough.
In reality, however, it felt very much like a manager publicly shifting blame onto his players while protecting his own tactical approach.
“We can go into a lot of detail there. In the first half we played with three active midfielders and Hearts struggled to press us. In the second half they became more aggressive, but we stopped moving.
You can change shape as much as you want, but if players stop moving against man marking you will not find solutions. That is the key point.
In the last 20 minutes we changed shape again to create more width and add attacking players, but if the movement is not there it does not matter what system you use.”
The manager versus the players
That is where this starts to become dangerous.
Because when a manager repeatedly explains poor performances as players simply “not doing” what they were instructed to do, eventually the question becomes why they are not doing it. Are the players ignoring him? Are they confused? Are they physically incapable? Or is the tactical approach itself flawed once opponents adapt?
Rohl’s comments came across as a subtle form of gaslighting towards the squad.
He is effectively saying the system was fine, the adjustments were fine and the tactical ideas were fine. The only issue, according to the manager, was that the players stopped moving properly.
But football simply is not that black and white.
If a team completely loses control of a match for 45 minutes, if the opposition dominates territory and momentum and if Rangers look incapable of escaping pressure, that cannot entirely be reduced to players forgetting to move.
Tactical responsibility matters
Managers have to take responsibility for adapting when the game turns.
That is especially true at Rangers where pressure is relentless and opponents constantly change their approach during matches.
Hearts adjusted. Neil Critchley changed things. Rangers collapsed.
That happened.
And while Rohl did admit Hearts became more aggressive, his overall explanation still centred on the players failing him rather than him failing to solve the tactical problem quickly enough.
That is the concern.
Because players hear this stuff.
Fans hear it too.
When a manager continually frames failures around mentality, movement, standards or players not executing instructions, it gradually creates an atmosphere where the dressing room starts carrying the burden for everything that goes wrong.
Meanwhile the manager remains the architect whose ideas were apparently correct all along.
That is not always healthy.
Rangers fans will question this
The best managers protect players publicly and take responsibility themselves. Walter Smith did it. Alex Ferguson did it. Even Steven Gerrard often did it.
Rohl instead seems increasingly keen to explain defeats through player shortcomings.
Maybe he is right. Maybe some of these players are not good enough mentally or tactically.
But if that is the case, then Rangers fans are entitled to ask another uncomfortable question.
Why does this keep happening under every manager?
At some stage the coach has to own the collapse as well.
Because if the players truly stopped moving, stopped listening and stopped responding, then the manager also lost control of the game.