The hacks are hurting in Scotland. A rare handful of the journalists in this country are stating the obvious when they say that Rangers are simply not receiving the credit they deserve for an extraordinary season. The rest are masking their pain with the lie that is the current side, defending champions, nay, successfully defending double winners are the worst side to have lifted the trophy since the SPL was formed.<BR><BR>Some of O'Neill's sides were poorer, more defensive than Smith's band and far more reliant on an individual and Paul Le Guen managed to make a distinctly average Strachan side look half decent. Is this the worst side to win a title in the SPL? I don't see it, but one thing I do know is that this side has won one of the easiest in recent memory.<BR><BR>Rangers have a steel about them these days, a willingness to work together and a team ethic that is enough to pull the team through some difficult spots. None of that equates to a 'poor' side, it adds up to a good team. Entertainment is a vital part of the game but it comes second to points and trophies. Pretty passing and sweeping moves from back to front are a joy to watch but all of those fancy moves and special goals do not come close to provoking the reaction that Rangers fans will have on the day we see the league trophy lifted for a fifty third time. The momentary joy at a sublime piece of skill is nothing compared to the ecstasy felt at hampden when yet another cup is lifted and the record books will not describe Davis's magnificent finish against Aberdeen last week, they will simply note another win on the road to a title.<BR><BR>The difficulties faced by Rangers over the past two years could and probably would have sunk a group of players with more 'skill' than our lot without the guiding hand of Smith. The manager draws criticism from sections of the Rangers support due to his often pragmatic approach to the game but nobody doubts his ability to motivate players, to organise them and to instill a winning mentality. Those three attributes make for a good team, players willing to run through walls for each other, players prepared to do the dirty work and share the blame for the rare failures. This side, in terms of skill, are not the greatest we have seen; they are however, far from the worst TEAM that has had success in this country.<BR><BR>The question of how the media in Scotland can so clearly fail to see something that obvious about a sport they are paid to comment on should be no mystery to Rangers supporters. There is not a journalist that actually believes this side are that bad. Scotland, after-all, is a country that takes pride in the plucky underdog status of it's national side, that often supports anyone against the favorite and sees glorious, backs to the wall failure as some kind of twisted success. The ideals of team spirit, bravery and defensive pluck are ones that are lauded by the writers as a positive boon when the national side inevitably lose in some qualifier yet today, when a team under off-field pressure employ a mix that has seen us concede fewer goals than any other while out-scoring all before us, we are the worst team ever.<BR><BR>The reason for this obvious duality of thinking is simple. Far easier to do down Rangers than face some of the problems at the other end of the city. We have seen it all season. Why tell the country that Mowbray needs a new back four when you can blame incompetent referees? Why ask the thinking behind Celtic selling their only goal-scorer when you have the SFA to be accused of institutionalized bias? Why question the £65 thousand a week wasted on a decent striker when you can blame the Falkirk pitch? Far far easier to shift the blame away from what should be the real issues and do down the entirety of the league, far easier to kick the wounded (but clearly not toothless) animal that is Rangers FC than call into question the decisions being made across the city.<BR><BR>To cap a depressing season for our unwilling compatriots, the mighty Ross county beat them in the Hampden sunshine to seal a place in the SFA cup final. The result was a just one and by far the better team won. Amongst the usual wailing and gnashing of teeth was a little snippet from a certain Hugh Keevins, a man renowned for his partizan views of Scottish football. 'Criticizing Celtic has repercussions on your working life'. This is a clear admission of the influence wielded by the Celtic board and the cowardice of the journalistic fraternity, no ambiguity, no scope for back-tracking and no surprise to anyone that has been paying attention these last few years. Peter Lawwell has done a fantastic job of cowing what should be a free press, independent from influence and striving to print the truth. The people who make their living as journalists in Scotland are quite simply cowards, unwilling to question anything significant at Celtic because of a fear they might lose a privilege or two, or might face a court case on occasion. <BR><BR>Keevins will withdraw his statement at some point over the coming days, find a way to twist the clear meaning of his words into something more palatable to the man who holds such sway over him. Any journalist with an ounce of guts will now come out in support of his colleague, break ranks with the cowed bunch and print the truth. Perhaps when that happens we will see an equal amount of time spent vilifying Celtic fans for their disgraceful IRA chants as we see for Rangers fans who sing the famine song, as much time spent on Criticizing the fornicating of one religious leader and head of state as another and as much time painting Celtic fans as hooligans abroad as we see for Rangers fans. Who knows, we might even see a Rangers side sailing away to a second consecutive double given some richly deserved praise. The track record of the journalists in Scotland fills me with no confidence at all that any of this will happen. Lawwell will dig out his whip and force the cowards back into line, to their shame. We don't want a Rangers friendly press, we don't even want a Celtic hating press; we want a press that runs with the real stories, criticises ANYONE when merited and gives plaudits to whoever it is that deserves them. We want, in short, the fundamentals we are entitled to expect yet see nothing of.