Rangers 'know where they're going' – or just drunk on two derbies? A contrarian view

That night at Celtic Park, Derek McInnes did not scream into the camera like Steven Gerrard once did. He simply shook hands with Martin O'Neill, lowered his head, and left in silence. A week earlier at Ibrox, Rangers had delivered one of their most convincing derby displays. This time they won by a single goal away from home, giving Rangers back-to-back Old Firm victories for the first time since Graeme Souness in 2026. Glasgow immediately split into two camps: one shouting about a new era, the other calling Celtic lost. I re-watched the last six matches from both teams, and I will dare say what 96% of experts will not: the two wins are real, but the story that Rangers know where they are going has been stretched far beyond the evidence. The context matters. Rangers just survived the most brutal sequence in Scottish football: two derbies in one week, the second at Celtic Park, a place that offers no hospitality. The results cut Celtic's lead to three points. That is a genuine achievement, whatever the quality of the performances. But the striking part is how the source analysis reaches its conclusion. The entire text contains no tactical data: no xG, no PPDA, no possession share, no player names. Every evaluation is emotional: played well, deserved it, can be better. A one-goal margin is described as a win as comfortable as possible. Celtic are labelled lost without a single structural reason. I am not arguing Rangers are bad. I am arguing against turning a two-match sample into a conclusion about institutional direction. Knowing where you want to go is a long-term proposition. It must be proven through recruitment, pressing philosophy, chance conversion data, and a pathway for young players. Here, all we have is two wins, a calm manager, and an appeal to the Souness 2026 comparison to create resonance. My old line still applies: the double-decker bus lost its brakes, but the steering was already off long before. We should not wait for Rangers to collapse before being surprised, because the signal is already visible: their ability to finish games is weaker than their control of them. What does a one-goal margin say? Rangers won but scored once more than Celtic. In a match they supposedly dominated, that means one set piece or one defensive lapse can turn three points into one. They could have scored a second, but they did not. This lack of sharpness, repeated in two straight matches, is a worrying signal rather than praise. If conversion does not improve, low-block teams will happily surrender possession and wait for one moment. Then winning comfortably by one goal becomes dropping points from a position of control. The stadium lights go off, and the story of a young player begins to shine. But here the spotlight is fixed on the scoreboard and ignores what is beneath it. The only part of the article I truly believe is McInnes's management of expectations. He says do not get carried away, it is just three points, three points closer to Celtic. A normal coach after two derby wins might let ego rise. McInnes does the opposite. That is elite dressing-room management. In a two-horse league like Scotland, Rangers' biggest enemy right now is not Celtic but their own complacency after an emotional shock. Those statements lower the risk of arrogance. But they also show McInnes understands that two wins mean nothing yet. He does not know where he is going – he is simply taking one step at a time. As for Celtic, the word lost is really a judgment about confusion, yet there is no evidence of a declining squad. No data shows their players performing worse. No names are mentioned. The only fact is that Martin O'Neill is described as beleaguered. If he is merely a temporary manager, then the lost label is a consequence of the board failing to choose a permanent leader, not a verdict on his coaching ability. These two things must be separated. A club drifting because the manager's chair is unstable is different from a club genuinely declining. The original analysis does not make that distinction. Another blind spot: the article never names a single player from either team. You cannot judge a club's direction without discussing squad age, the dressing-room leadership group, or the players in form. This is a piece about public emotion, not football structure. It may make Rangers look brighter, but it does not tell you why. In my profession, a million views come not from being right but from daring to go against the wind. That article is very successful in that sense. But to answer who is on the right path, I need more than a two-match performance. There is also a financial layer the piece ignores. In Scottish football, the Old Firm derby is not about three ordinary points. It decides Champions League access, where the money can be multiples of the Europa League. When Rangers cut the gap to three points, they were not just winning emotionally; they were betting on next season's budget. Yet a genuine two-horse race can also drain both clubs and cost them points in Europe, which means losing coefficient, losing opportunities, losing money. The story that Rangers know where they are going therefore cannot separate itself from finance and multi-club ownership rules. If two clubs from the same ownership ecosystem ever meet in Europe, the cost of that clarity will be paid through administrative sanctions. Beyond that, the original piece lacks one crucial element: a voice from inside Celtic. Is there any signal from the Celtic dressing room? None. No player spoke. No internal source is quoted. Lost is an external label imposed from the stands. A real journalist defending this thesis would find at least one unnamed source at the club or one statistic about missed chances. Here there is nothing. This reminds me of the coffee with an anti-fan I once described: the most expensive tactical lesson I ever received came not from someone who agreed with me but from someone who opposed me. To understand Celtic, you should listen to those who hate Celtic talk about their real weaknesses – and nobody has actually done that. Now, the part where I could be wrong. Suppose these two wins are the beginning of a genuine cultural shift, like Souness in 2026. Souness needed only two matches to build the foundation of a dynasty. McInnes also has a supportive structure, a united dressing room, and rare composure. If that is true, then calling this a two-match sample is excessive caution. But there is a major difference: Souness arrived with the authority of a legend and massive financial backing. McInnes does not have comparable resources. He also faces a congested schedule and opponents willing to sit deep to nullify his team's energy. If I am wrong, that is great for Scottish football, because a true title race has enormous commercial value. But I do not see enough data to believe it. So where do I place my faith after rewatching six matches and dissecting the analysis? Here: Rangers will drop points in at least two of their next six games against non-top teams if they do not improve their ability to score a second goal. Celtic, if they quickly resolve the manager's position, still have better resources and depth. As for those writing a new-era narrative after two wins, remember: two derbies can shake Glasgow, but to conquer Glasgow you must conquer cold Tuesday afternoons where there are no cameras, no derby, only patience. Are you celebrating an era, or just drunk on the echo of two wins? Answer that question in six more rounds.