'King' Kenny Miller: A Rangers legend?

[jhunter 0]

If we're measuring 'legend' by those guys' standards then we'll never have a legend again!

 

that is the point of a legend , it rarely occurs

 

the point of a hall of fame few get in it - supposed to.

 

if you keep on devaluing the term it becomes meaningless.

[RabiDuck 89]

A legend, by definition, should surely be someone who's made a clear, tangibly individual difference to the squad he's played in. By those standards the likes of Grieg, Laudrup, Cooper are obvious examples. (On his playing career, before we get sidetracked) Ally is worthy of mention in such a category as well as the likes of Goram and Klos I'd argue. Then there are those who haven't necessarily had the massive individual contributions, but have a special place in the fan's hearts, somebody such as Albertz or Mols would be examples I suspect.

 

By either measure, Kenny falls short. Yes he's been a great servent for the club and made a valuable contribution, but "Legend" is probably a bit too much.

[pete 2,499]

Agreed.

 

The definition is pretty tricky to be honest. I'd suggest the very top level of contribution and/or players who've perhaps won trebles and European trophies.

 

I disagree it should go on trophy's won as I think Ryan Giggs is a Welsh legend but has never won a trophy with them. I would place it more on service and how they personally performed on the pitch.

For me Brian Laudrup was a good Player for the club but had nowhere near the years service to make him a legend. Some think Barry Ferguson is a Legend and for me he is nowhere near being one. The definition of a legend differs with every personal choice

[boabie 230]

No. Not for me. He has a talent and has been handsomely rewarded for it. But is nowhere near to being a legend imo.

[MacK1950 2,399]

Legends are what they are in peoples opinion so surprised not to see "Slim Jim"mentioned in this vein

Many other players could spring to light "wee Willie" for instance.

But I would prefer to see the term being gave club good service so should be remembered fondly,probably a bit long winded compared to the one word "legend"but would allow many others to be part of our folklore.

[Tannochsidebear 2,429]

Is this a joke ? He's a player I won't think twice about when he's gone, he's about as far removed from being a 'legend' as one could possibly imagine. Jesus Christ!

 

This sums it up for me very well.

 

I thought I had fallen asleep and woken up on April 1st. I am all for these nice easy articles that stir debate, but this one is an absolute no-brainer. A mediocre (I know, i'm being kind!) player with a mediocre scoring record (one purple patch aside his record is actually woeful). I see since he started working with the Under 20's as a coach they dont seem to win very often either.

 

Legend status should be treasured at football clubs. It does seem to be overused IMO. I loved Albertz, McCall, Ian Ferguson, but they were not legends. Laudrup, even for taking Pete's point about longevity, simply has to be classed as a legend as he is simply the greatest footballer I have ever seen at our club, and we got the best years of his career out of him as well. The player has to have the playing ability to get punters excited to watch, or such exemplary leadership skills (Gough, Greig) that the legend status sits easily on them. Guys I hear being called legends like Barry Ferguson, Jig, Ricksen, and now Miller, are simply watering down the title to an undeserving level.

 

I dont even like what we have done with the HOF. There are far too many average players in there now, and some I would struggle to even call average. Although we dont have an official list of legends, I would hate this to go the same way.

[Rousseau 10,819]

I like RabiDuck's definition: "should surely be someone who's made a clear, tangibly individual difference to the squad he's played in".

 

I don't think trophies come into it, although it does tend to follow, generally speaking, with Rangers; but, like Pete says, one can be a legend without necessarily winning many trophies.

 

Longevity needs to come into it also, as without this they're just good players, or perhaps icons: Negri made a "tangible, individual difference to the squad", but it was only one year; he shouldn't be considered a legend, but could be considered an icon (Mols, Albertz et al come into this category IMO).

 

Laudrup is tricky because he was only here for a few seasons (4?), but I think most would argue his contribution and ability more than makes up for this.

 

Miller has neither, really. Maybe a case for longevity, but it's only 5 years tallied-up, so maybe not.

 

I always thought that 'legendary' status only really applies retrospectively. We'll only really judge his contribution once he's been gone a decade or so.

[andy steel 0]

Not a legend in my eyes, but this does elevate him above the crowd a bit:

 

[video=youtube;r-4qpXEou3c]

 

Bodhisattva Miller.

[Rousseau 10,819]

That was unbelievable, 9-men winning like that (and the Walter fist-pump). Miller's contribution there does elevate him somewhat. Icon?

[andy steel 0]

I think it has to be icon. Total dismissal of Miller as anything more than at best a journeyman pro, as two posts in this thread have done, leave me wondering what they were doing when this game was on!