'King' Kenny Miller: A Rangers legend?

[craig 5,199]

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.

 

To pick up on the part in bold. That is virtually irrelevant at Rangers Academy these days. Mulholland just last week was, once again, adamant that results don't matter, even at U20 level. The job is to develop the players to be ready for 1st team action, not to win league trophies.

 

His involvement with the U20's will not be significant at this point because they train at the same time as the 1st team - so Miller will be training with the 1st team and have little input at U20's at this point, only when his schedule will allow.

[Ser Barristan Selmy 222]

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!

My criteria for legend status is a lot higher than scoring a goal against St Mirren.

 

The idea that Miller could be considered a legend is the most ridiculous thing I've heard in a long time.

Edited February 12, 2016 by Ser Barristan Selmy

[craig 5,199]

My criteria for legend status is a lot higher than scoring a goal against St Mirren.

 

The idea that Miller could be considered a legend is the most ridiculous thing I've heard in a long time.

 

The OP wasn't suggesting that, as you know. Merely opening the debate as it is obviously being considered elsewhere online.

 

My personal take on it is very simplistic.

 

We throw around the "legend" status far, far too easily. Legends aren't made by simply having a contribution to the Club. Legends are those who have significant contributions and who cement themselves into the fabric and lore of the Club. For example, Gazza was a tremendous player and I have even found myself calling him a "legend". But do I actually consider him a Rangers legend ? No, I don't. I don't think being here for less than 3 yrs really qualifies you as a Club legend. Mercurial talent that produced the goods for us on many an occasion. But legend ? Legendary status is something that very, very few should have. Otherwise, as mentioned previously, it diminishes what legend actually means.

 

Is Kenny Miller a Rangers legend ? Absolutely not IMHO. He has been a contributor and whether we consider him someone who pays for the wage or not I think that you can see that he has a great desire to win and that comes through in his moaning . But scoring some goals (88 isn't too bad to be fair) and winning some trophies doesn't make you a legend.

 

Legends to me are players such as the Barca Bears, Baxter, Gough, Goram, McCoist, Cooper, Laudrup (we only had Laudrup for 4 yrs but I think he earned legendary status) etc etc. The very notion of including Kenny Miller's name in that exalted company should have us all embarrassed.

 

In the same manner that I am embarrassed that Miller is, in some quarters, being considered a legend, I am also embarrassed to hear that McCulloch is too.

 

As for the Hall of Fame - I think we run the risk of diminishing the luster of that too. You don't add people to your hall of fame every year just because you have an awards ceremony. If people aren't considered hall of famers then they shouldn't get voted into it. It should be something that everyone involved in the Club should be considering our best ever players. Ray Wilkins, for example, was a great player - but should he be in the Rangers Hall of Fame given he only played 96 games for us ? Souness only played 73 games for us but I suspect his inclusion was for more than just his playing performances.

 

It is all subjective admittedly - but I like my Legends and Hall of Famers to be people that I consider "greats". Miller doesn't come into that category for me, but I still appreciate his contribution over his 3 stints with us.

[Tannochsidebear 2,429]

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

 

[video=youtube;r-4qpXEou3c]

 

Bodhisattva Miller.

 

FFS the pigeon done more!! It is remembered as the cup final where Craig Thomson cheated and lost the plot, and the pigeon! Nobody I speak too ever refers to that game and think of Miller first and foremost. Take the Laudrup Cup Final of '96, where even though Durie scored a hat-trick he was a distant second in the MOTM stakes. If you want to bring out a video clip of a cup final for a club legend, that would be an appropriate starting (and ending) point.

[Tannochsidebear 2,429]

To pick up on the part in bold. That is virtually irrelevant at Rangers Academy these days. Mulholland just last week was, once again, adamant that results don't matter, even at U20 level. The job is to develop the players to be ready for 1st team action, not to win league trophies.

 

His involvement with the U20's will not be significant at this point because they train at the same time as the 1st team - so Miller will be training with the 1st team and have little input at U20's at this point, only when his schedule will allow.

 

It was a throw-away line not to be taken seriously Craig! I 100% agree that the role here is not to win, but to develop. I really dont care about the match results, I want to see development from here to the first team bench, and then game time. That would be a result. Thanks for the comment though, that is interesting about the training times and makes you wonder what input a current first team player can bring as a coach to the development team then (not talking Miller here, more a generalisation) as it seems to be a popular career move for a lot of players, not just at our club.

 

It has always smacked of jobs for the boys to me. No recruitment scrutiny for youth coaches, just pick a current club player getting towards the end of his career. Surely we should want to, and be able to, attract proper qualified coaches for this oh so very important role that our whole ethos and future of the club is geared around.

[andy steel 0]

If you've reached the point where you can find something to bitch about over what was a memorable day for normal Rangers fans I will bid you a good afternoon.

 

I mean no insult, I just find your posting style tiresome and don't want to engage with it. I'm sure you'll manage to cope!

[Tannochsidebear 2,429]

Here we go with the "normal" Rangers fans line again. Something you quite clearly struggle with.

 

I am so awfully sorry to tire you out. Thanks for pointing that out, and while managing to drum up the effort to not want to engage with it, you do anyway.

 

We cant all be eloquent writers you know Andy, some of us are just normal Rangers fans.

[Rousseau 10,819]

The OP wasn't suggesting that, as you know. Merely opening the debate as it is obviously being considered elsewhere online.

 

My personal take on it is very simplistic.

 

We throw around the "legend" status far, far too easily. Legends aren't made by simply having a contribution to the Club. Legends are those who have significant contributions and who cement themselves into the fabric and lore of the Club. For example, Gazza was a tremendous player and I have even found myself calling him a "legend". But do I actually consider him a Rangers legend ? No, I don't. I don't think being here for less than 3 yrs really qualifies you as a Club legend. Mercurial talent that produced the goods for us on many an occasion. But legend ? Legendary status is something that very, very few should have. Otherwise, as mentioned previously, it diminishes what legend actually means.

 

Is Kenny Miller a Rangers legend ? Absolutely not IMHO. He has been a contributor and whether we consider him someone who pays for the wage or not I think that you can see that he has a great desire to win and that comes through in his moaning . But scoring some goals (88 isn't too bad to be fair) and winning some trophies doesn't make you a legend.

 

Legends to me are players such as the Barca Bears, Baxter, Gough, Goram, McCoist, Cooper, Laudrup (we only had Laudrup for 4 yrs but I think he earned legendary status) etc etc. The very notion of including Kenny Miller's name in that exalted company should have us all embarrassed.

 

In the same manner that I am embarrassed that Miller is, in some quarters, being considered a legend, I am also embarrassed to hear that McCulloch is too.

 

As for the Hall of Fame - I think we run the risk of diminishing the luster of that too. You don't add people to your hall of fame every year just because you have an awards ceremony. If people aren't considered hall of famers then they shouldn't get voted into it. It should be something that everyone involved in the Club should be considering our best ever players. Ray Wilkins, for example, was a great player - but should he be in the Rangers Hall of Fame given he only played 96 games for us ? Souness only played 73 games for us but I suspect his inclusion was for more than just his playing performances.

 

It is all subjective admittedly - but I like my Legends and Hall of Famers to be people that I consider "greats". Miller doesn't come into that category for me, but I still appreciate his contribution over his 3 stints with us.

 

I totally agree about Miller (and your narrower definition of legend), but I'm struggling to see the difference between Laudrup and Gascoigne. I suggested individual contribution to the team (as per Rabi-Duck's definition of Legend), as well as longevity, as a basic definition (Trophies are not necessary for legendary status IMO). So, with the above players, both provided a decent individual contribution, single-handedly winning games etc., but neither were here for very long. I'm just wondering why Laudrup can be considered a legend, but not Gascoigne?

 

Ooh, do off-pitch issues come into it? (I know Gascoigne has had some issues, but he is a bit of a tit.)

Edited February 12, 2016 by Rousseau

[craig 5,199]

It was a throw-away line not to be taken seriously Craig! I 100% agree that the role here is not to win, but to develop. I really dont care about the match results, I want to see development from here to the first team bench, and then game time. That would be a result. Thanks for the comment though, that is interesting about the training times and makes you wonder what input a current first team player can bring as a coach to the development team then (not talking Miller here, more a generalisation) as it seems to be a popular career move for a lot of players, not just at our club.

 

It has always smacked of jobs for the boys to me. No recruitment scrutiny for youth coaches, just pick a current club player getting towards the end of his career. Surely we should want to, and be able to, attract proper qualified coaches for this oh so very important role that our whole ethos and future of the club is geared around.

 

I suspect, though cannot confirm, that in Miller's case he will be "shadowing" Durrant so as to get a good start on his coaching badges. When I watched the U20's in October at Murray Park training I know they were training at the same time as the 1st team - Miller was training on the other side as my brother and I sneaked a glimpse at the training from an opening between the Academy training pitches and the 1st team pitches. So I doubt he will be having much, if any, input into the U20's other than perhaps running some drills for them.

 

What was more interesting to me was that there was a video analysis guy recording the whole U20 session - my RFC contact at the Academy was telling me that Warburton has these recorded so he can view them after the 1st team finish training - which is good, and gives the U20's motivation knowing the manager is watching recorded sessions. Warburton is completely immersed in the football at Rangers. My contact was telling me that he was running a particular drill with his U10's or 11's - and Warburton had been watching.... he watched the drill and realized it was something which he wanted the 1st team to work on so took it and implemented that same drill with the 1st team. Obviously my contact was made up that Warburton liked his drill - but a bigger fact to me was that Warburton seems to be someone who is constantly learning and completely immersed in the football.

[craig 5,199]

I totally agree about Miller (and your narrower definition of legend), but I'm struggling to see the difference between Laudrup and Gascoigne. I suggested individual contribution to the team (as per Rabi-Duck's definition of Legend), as well as longevity, as a basic definition (Trophies are not necessary for legendary status IMO). So, with the above players, both provided a decent individual contribution, single-handedly winning games etc., but neither were here for very long. I'm just wondering why Laudrup can be considered a legend, but not Gascoigne?

 

Ooh, do off-pitch issues come into it? (I know Gascoigne has had some issues, but he is a bit of a tit.)

 

I fully expected someone to draw a comparison between Laudrup & Gascoigne in terms of legendary status. My recollection of their times here were very memorable. But my recollection was also that Laudrup contributed more than Gazza over an extended period of time. Taking absolutely nothing away from Gazza and his performance in THAT game against Aberdeen to win us the league was a terrific performance. But I felt that Laudrup was here longer and contributed more.

 

Truth be known, I deliberated on using Gazza as one example and then Laudrup as a "legend". It really does just show how subjective it all is.

 

Gazza was here 2.5 yrs and Laudrup last 4 full seasons. That is a full season and a half more. Doesn't sound like much - but I struggle badly to consider someone a legend when they haven't given us 3 full seasons. That isn't legendary status to me.

 

For me, off pitch issues are nothing to do with legendary status - I am looking at simply on-field achievements. Should off-field issues come into play ? Good debating topic. One I wont attempt to answer here as it could grow arms and legs