The early months of Russell Martin’s Rangers tenure have been defined not by clarity, but by contradiction. A manager who spoke so often about philosophy, principles, and identity has been forced front and centre into the Scottish football reality: results first, performances and empty words later. What we’ve seen so far is a battle between having ideals and having the ability to execute them come rain, hail or shine.
This article isn’t really about Rangers’ poor start. I mean, everything is really, but it’s also about the broader football discussion between idealism and pragmatism. Martin’s time at Rangers so far provides the perfect example.
Jonathan Wilson’s article last year said that the era of the pure ideologue is fading, replaced by Spanish managers who embrace adaptability as a standard. Coaches like Arteta, Iraola and Emery are not ripping up Guardiola’s blueprint but bending it by adding pragmatism.
Luis de la Fuente’s Euro 2024 winning Spain were the clearest example: still focused on possession, but revitalised by using direct wingers to give vertical threat. The point is clear - philosophy still matters, but the new demand is for managers to adapt instead of clinging desperately to one idea.
Philosophy, Principles and Style of Play
Every manager has a philosophy, whether they articulate it in detail or not, it’s their way way of looking at the game, a set of non-negotiables. Guardiola wants control using possession, Diego Simeone wants control without the ball and Jürgen Klopp demanded intensity and verticality at Liverpool.
José Mourinho’s philosophy is often caricatured as “parking the bus,” but in reality it’s just tactical periodisation, the training methodology he brought from Vítor Frade’s work in Portugal. The core idea that every training drill should replicate the physical, technical, tactical, and psychological demands of the match model - no isolated fitness, no pointless rondos, everything tied back to the match. For Mourinho, the match model is built on defensive compactness, controlling space without the ball, and then attacking expertly in transition. That philosophy has rarely changed across the last two decades but what shifted was the quality of execution, the quality of opposition and the balance between defensive control and attacking freedom.
From philosophy comes another “recent” buzzword (buzzphrase? Did I just invent a word when talking about inventing words? Brilliant), which is principles of play.
These are not tactical instructions so much as repeated patterns that help to form a team’s identity. For Guardiola, it’s positional play, rest defence, numerical superiority in key zones. For Klopp, it’s pressing triggers and counter-pressing. For Simeone, it’s compactness and transitions.
Then there’s style of play - how those principles are expressed on the football pitch, these can adapt and vary. Klopp’s Liverpool evolved from “heavy metal football” in the first season or so into a more measured control game. Not ever slow possession, but more precise and less susceptible to counter attacks. Guardiola’s City became more direct with Erling Haaland spearheading their physical recruitment policy.
Lastly, there are the things we as fans can see on the pitch: tactics and formations: the nuts and bolts. Who inverts, who overlaps, how you press from game to game.
These are the most flexible parts that can be tweaked little and often without impacting or changing the underlying philosophy.
The Promise of Martin’s Rangers
His teams play dominant football, they control the ball, dictate the tempo and impose themselves physically. They press aggressively and work relentlessly off the ball. These are all characteristics that we believe are required to be successful at home, away, and abroad.
Rangers Sporting Director, Kevin Thelwell
Yes, that quote again.
Martin arrived at Rangers speaking about courage and intensity being defining tenets of his philosophy. Those who watched his Swansea and Southampton sides from season 22/23 and season 23/24 knew the script: positional play, inverted full-backs, building through a number six, eights stretching play, wide players staying high to pin opponents.
Goals and lots of them. For and against.
And, in truth, the first few games of this Rangers season weren’t completely devoid of that structure. Panathinaikos and Plzen at home, even parts of Motherwell away. You could see an outline of his principles even if it wasn’t anywhere near enough:
Max Aarons and Jefte stepping into midfield from full back.
Joe Rothwell playing as a six to build-up, trying (and failing) to create a platform.
Number eights moving wider to stretch play and overload.
High and wide wingers to create space inside.
The problem wasn’t identity. It was execution, but it was still very early.
Rangers didn’t create enough clear chances in their first few games but still managed to nick some goals. The real issue was at the other end of the pitch as individual errors piled up, space was left exposed, and opponents cashed in.
The nadir came with the 6-0 humiliation to Club Brugge in the Champions League Play Off second leg, which could and arguably should have been 10. Beyond the scoreline, the performance appears to have completely rattled Martin’s confidence. Until that point he seemed scarily positive in front of the media - full belief in what he was doing and that it would click, like it did (in his opinion) at all of his previous clubs,
Since then, the Celtic and Hearts matches have looked pretty unrecognisable style wise. Fewer defensive errors, maybe - but also absolutely zero attacking threat. It’s hard to recall Rangers creating a meaningful chance in either game. The (deserved) benching of the first two summer signings appear to have coincided with the principles also taking a backseat.
When Rangers brought in Joe Rothwell and Max Aarons, the logic seemed clear: players who already knew his playbook, who could hit the ground running while others adjusted. Rothwell had worked under Martin at Southampton and whilst known more as an attacking number eight, had played previously as a press-resistant midfielder who could recycle possession and break lines. Aarons had worked with Matt Gill (Rangers assistant manager) and was a key piece of Norwich’s build-up a few years past, an overlapping full-back with the athleticism to adapt to inverted roles.
On paper, they were candidates to help turbo-charge the embedding of a style of play. In reality, both have been desperately poor. Ideas do not always equal execution.
Rothwell looked unfit and error-prone in midfield, unable to set tempo or provide security in transition. Aarons has struggled both defensively and in possession, looking nowhere near capable of handling being a Rangers player. Rather than accelerating Martin’s implementation, their form has underlined the fragility - if even the “system players” can’t execute to a reasonable level, belief in the philosophy becomes much harder to sustain for the fanbase.
Abandonment or Adaptation?
When Jose Mourinho sticks to his principles, he’s praised for belief and character. When Simeone refuses to change, it’s identity. Nobody asks Sean Dyche to play another way when results are terrible. It seems to be a criticism levied at ‘attack minded’ possession coaches, only.
The truth is, criticism often mirrors results, not performances. Martin’s principles were obvious in mid-August, but Rangers weren’t winning. The longer that goes, the criticism rightly intensifies.
The key question for me is whether Martin is adapting or abandoning - which is a fine line. Adapting would be tweaking tactics while staying true to your philosophy. Abandoning might be ditching the principles that underpinned your supposed identity in the first place. I know what the weekend’s capitulation against Hearts looked like.
The manages choices suggest a change towards the latter choice - abandoning key things he’s spoken a lot about. Players like Rothwell and Aarons have been cast aside after poor performances, but their replacements don’t feel like similar fits.
Recruitment has also been at odds with the blueprint: signings who don’t always seem tailored for a positional, possession football. Key things that would or could help to cement the philosophy are posted missing and this is before we even come to several instances of players being blamed, bombed out, reinstated and dropped again all in the first few weeks of the season.
Tactics are useless without players who believe in them and can execute them on the pitch.
The result? Neither coherent philosophy nor effective pragmatism. A halfway house of nothing.
You don’t have to look far for parallels, either.
Rúben Amorim at Manchester United has doubled down on his philosophy despite horrific results and intense scrutiny throughout his almost full year in charge so far. His 3-4-3 positional system somehow remains intact, even as the team falters continually. The performances have been dire, but Amorim’s clarity is undeniable. He’s not abandoning ship - he may sink with it, but he won’t change the course.
Martin, by contrast, very quickly looks caught between two impulses: the desire to stay true to his ideas, and the fear of being battered again. In trying and failing to hedge, he risks losing both the identity that convinced Rangers to hire him and the results that will keep him in the job. Even if we try to ignore results, if you’re not implementing the footballing plan you were hired to do - what are you doing?
Can Managers Truly Change?
Is it realistic to expect a manager with a clear way of playing to completely change with success? History suggests no.
Louis van Gaal at Manchester United tried to blend his positional play ideals with reactive pragmatism. The result was a team caught between two systems, neither effective.
Brendan Rodgers at Leicester shifted from proactive possession to survival football when pressure mounted. His squad wasn’t built for it; relegation swiftly followed.
Even José Mourinho, pragmatist numero uno, had clear non-negotiables. His philosophy never really changed, you could argue that football changed around him.
The successful managers are usually ones who can bend style without breaking their own rules. Guardiola altered lots of things frequently but rarely the core principles. Klopp slowed the tempo but not the intensity, Simeone tolerated more possession but never lost his compactness. Wenger, for all the criticism, never compromised his attacking identity.
The ones who flip completely usually fail.
So where does that leave Martin? It’s too far gone now for anything other than the inevitable conclusion, but the recent two games suggests he’s abandoning what he believes in, seemingly in a panic.
Constant team changes, tactical flip flopping, and seemingly manager-led recruitment (a big red flag for a supposed new long term football structure) all point to a project drifting from its original idea after a few short months.
Football is littered with managers who had good ideas but either couldn’t execute them, or didn’t have the players capable of doing so. It’s one thing to preach positional play, aggressive pressing, or intricate build-up - it’s another to deliver it under the pressure and weight of this club.
Ideas are only as strong as the manager implementing them and players tasked with enacting. Without the right profiles, the philosophy either gets diluted into incoherence or crumbles under pressure The worst outcome is what we’ve seen: an identity-free side neither defending competently nor creating with any conviction.
Martin’s vision of Rangers dominating possession through positional play, with inverted full-backs, a controlling six, and high, disciplined wingers, requires technical security and tactical intelligence across the pitch.
Right now, the squad doesn’t have enough of either.
Centre halves who should be progressing play look nervous under pressure, midfielders lack the press-resistance and bravery to turn and link phases, and wide players often fail to hold width or threaten their man one vs one.
The result is a blueprint sketched on paper and seemingly being carried out in training, but barely visible on the days that actually matter.
I agree with all of of this but there's another point that baffles me with Martin which is his penchant for playing players out of position….. Aarons and Souttar on the left Gassama on the right, Rothwell as a 6. Ironically even with his confused tactics we looked okay for 20 mins in the second half vs Hearts with people in their preferred positions before he decided to revert to a back 3 to accommodate Chermiti.
This square pegs in round holes approach just convinces me that philosophies or not he’s just not a very competent manager.
A very good read. I still believe we have recruited fairly well over the summer. Certainly reducing the average age of the squad. We just don't have the correct person in place to deliver on those tactics or implement a system to get the best out of those players. He maybe passed the interviews (7 of them) with flying colours dealing in power point presentations and waffle but the truth in the matter is the 90 mins of football and its not been good enough.