Martin's high-press Rangers struggle as results falter amid tactical experimentation

Rangers’ season has unfolded with more questions than answers. The club have not won any of their first five Scottish Premiership games, leaving them hovering near the bottom of the table, and they were thoroughly ousted 6-0 by Club Brugge in Champions League qualifying. A Europa League test against Genk at Ibrox looms, intensifying scrutiny of manager Russell Martin as he tries to implement a front-foot, mid-focused style that has defined much of his career. Supporters have staged protests and voiced concern about the direction of the team, even as the club continues to chase a positive run of results.

Martin’s plan centers on a progressive build-up and a willingness to play through the middle before isolating and exploiting space on the flanks. In the early phase of the campaign, Rangers lined up in a 4-3-3 shape, with right-back James Tavernier often stepping into a third central defender role while Max Aarons held wide on the opposite flank. As possession progressed, the full-backs would invert into midfield, the midfield trio stacked defensively, and the two attacking midfielders pushed higher up the pitch. The objective was to move the ball quickly with short, one-touch passes to bypass opponents’ presses and then feed runners in wide areas who could deliver from dangerous positions. The approach riding on short, quick circulation—typical of Martin’s teams—was designed to generate overloads through the middle and create space for the wingers to attack in one-on-one scenarios.

In the Motherwell opener, some promising signs emerged. Rangers pressed from the frontline when out of possession, forcing early turnovers, and the buildup play suggested a plan that could sustain pressure against opponents who sit deep. A central feature of the setup was a willingness to have the defenders and attacking players converge through the center before releasing wide outlets. Although the game finished level, the balance between bold pressing and controlled build-up was evident.

[]

Three reasons have been advanced for why the system has not delivered the expected rewards. First, when Rangers lose the ball, the danger is heightened if the turnover occurs centrally. A thread of central passing into congested zones can invite swift counter-attacks, and the structure can become destabilized if the passing channel collapses under pressure. Second, the team’s “rest defence”—the number of players behind the ball when in possession—has at times appeared insufficient. There have been occasions when only three players have been back to defend against rapid transitions, leaving the two central defenders and the holding midfielder exposed when the ball is lost. Third, there has been ongoing churn in personnel in key roles. Players such as John Souttar, Max Aarons, Djeidi Gassama, Mikey Moore and Joe Rothwell have started in multiple positions, testing the coherence of the system as everyone seeks to find familiar footing in new responsibilities.

The impact has been visible in several recent fixtures. Against Hearts, for instance, a mislaid pass from Tavernier centrally preceded a swift Hearts counters, highlighting the fragility that can accompany a system built on compact central play. Against stronger teams, the same pattern has left Rangers exposed in moments when the ball is turned over in the middle of the pitch. In response, Martin has experimented with personnel positioning—moving players like Gassama and Moore to wider, inside-facing roles and asking Nicolas Raskin to assume some of the more demanding central passing duties.

Has Martin abandoned his philosophy? The 6-0 defeat by Brugge represented a watershed moment that forced a tangible tactical re-evaluation. In the wake of that collapse, Rangers’ subsequent fixtures against Celtic and Hearts—two of the league’s top teams—saw Martin pivot to a more pragmatic approach. In his first head coaching roles at MK Dons, Martin had insisted he would not chase outcomes at the expense of his principles. He told the Coaches’ Voice in 2023 that he would rather be sacked for sticking to his ideas than win by compromising them. Those comments, made during a period of significant scrutiny, have become a touchstone in debates over his current decisions at Ibrox.

The shift has been clearest in formation and balance. In the most recent league games, Rangers lined up in a 4-2-3-1 with a more rigid midfield two, and the full-backs were told to stay wider rather than compress through the center. The keeper and back line were more willing to push long, direct passes up the pitch when necessary, and the central midfield duo adopted a tighter, more structured role to shield the defense. While this approach appears more conservative, it has brought a measure of defensive stability that the team had previously lacked.

The data underlines the tactical turn. Before the Brugge loss, Rangers enjoyed a high share of possession—near 70 percent in some domestic fixtures. In the aftermath, possession fell to around 50 percent as the team prioritized solidity over proactivity. There has been a noticeable uptick in long balls and a reduction in attempts on goal, with shooting frequency dropping sharply. The aim of the shift is to reduce the concession of big chances by tightening the lines and shortening the metric for opportunities, even if it reduces the volume of attacking moments.

The question now is whether a more pragmatic, less expansive approach can deliver the wins required to arrest the slide. Mourinho recently offered a stark reminder that coaches who cling to a plan in the face of poor results may end up paying a high price for stubbornness, noting that there are managers who die with their ideas. The implication, in football’s fast-moving environment, is that the best leaders adapt within their broader philosophy rather than abandon it entirely. Martin’s decision to adjust could be read as a necessary recalibration rather than a wholesale repudiation of his footballing beliefs—but it also carries the risk that the team’s identity becomes unclear when the results do not follow the plan.

Analysts have noted that the best coaches strike a balance between consistency and adaptation, refining how a system is implemented to suit the players available and the level of opposition. At Rangers this season, the challenge has been to maintain the structural ideas that gave rise to a recognizable identity while adopting the flexibility required to win tight games. The changes have brought some positive signs, including a willingness to deploy full-backs in more expansive positions and to adjust the central passing options to reduce risk in possession. Still, the early returns suggest that more time may be needed for the new approach to bed in and for players to execute the plan with greater precision.

Rangers are set to face Genk again in the Europa League after Brugge’s stormy night. The test against Genk will be the first real gauge of whether the adjustments have yielded meaningful gains or if further refinement is required. A successful run in Europe could provide the confidence needed to sustain the approach domestically, while continued struggles could intensify the calls for further changes in personnel or in tactical thinking. The balance between sticking to a core philosophy and adapting to new circumstances will likely define Martin’s tenure at Ibrox in the weeks ahead, just as it has defined his career in earlier jobs.

[]

[]

[]