Kenny Miller v Hamilton - Saint or Sinner?

[Frankie 8,308]

Today on the main site, Mike Driggs from Rangers Resport (@RSCPDX on Twitter) offers a fascinating guest analysis of Kenny Miller's performance on Saturday:

 

http://www.gersnet.co.uk/index.php/news-category/match-analysis/660-kenny-miller-v-hamilton-saint-or-sinner

 

Must admit I was one Miller's critics after the game so it's interesting to see a counter argument to challenge that. Well worth a read!

[Rousseau 9,900]

That was a really interesting read. I was always an advocate of Miller last year: I always felt his movement was first-class. However, I then always wanted to see someone else brought in -- I don't want to see us rely on a 36 year-old. I went with the consensus that Miller was poor against Hamilton; simply because he was anonymous. The evidence suggests that although he was anonymous, it wasn't through any fault of his own: he was just never given the ball, while his movement remained pretty good.

 

(I can't wait for TB to get online!)

 

Interestingly, there were a few critics suggesting the team is "over-coached". The evidence perhaps suggests we're not coached enough: too many players were in good positions but doing whatever they wanted!

Edited August 8, 2016 by Rousseau

[limeburner 0]

Really good analysis.My summary of it would be-----to many players wanting to be" Da man".Kinda dissapointing as well because Kenny is one of the most unselfish players you will find.

Pity it wasnt reciprocated.

[MacK1950 2,278]

Very good article and having seen it realise I probably did Kenny an injustice when player rating.

[Tannochsidebear 2,352]

Is this Saddam's spin doctor writing this tripe?

 

What a lot of absolute tosh that was, my soup nearly ended up all over me/the screen a few times.

 

Miller was rightly slated for a dreadful performance because the 50,000 Bears that were in attendance could see that he played poorly, never causing the Hamilton defence an inch of trouble all day and was hooked much much later than he should have. The difference to our attacking intent was as clear as day when we scored within a couple of minutes of him going off, from a pass into an area that Miller never inhabits despite supposedly being a central striker.

 

So because Halliday doesnt pass to him in a wide area where Miller usually passes it back to whoever gave him the ball a dozen times before, Miller is under-rated? Give me strength! A couple of the snap-shots show a ball wide with Miller at the edge of the box, with a defender easily within reach, and this is acceptable. With Miller's first touch as it is, no defender needs to be touch tight on him, and his failure to get into scoring positions INSIDE the box is really letting the side down.

 

It is yet more proof that you can do whatever the hell you like with statistics to prove a point, and yet be so far away from what actually happened as to be embarrassing. I was reminded when reading that guff of the wee Youtube clips you see of a player we are linked with and for 2 minutes they look like world-beaters because it only focuses on the rare moments of good play.

 

For anyone to try to turn that hour of utter crap from Miller on Saturday into everyone else's fault instead of him would be hilarious if it was intended as such. Sadly I think the author believes it.

[Bluedell 5,422]

Using stats don't show Miller's lack of pace and movement and the fact that things generally slowed down when got the ball.

 

TB can never be objective when it comes to Miller but I'd say that his assessment is far closer to reality than the OP's.

 

O'Halloran's pace and movement caused many more problems than Miller had. He was easy to defend against and shouldn't have started the game.

[limeburner 0]

There was one time he had an open goal and didnt get the simple pass----it was unforgivable,(no matter what you think of KM)

[Rousseau 9,900]

I must say, TB's response was every bit as good as I thought It'd be!

 

I thought Miller was poor, but the OP does show that if he was played-in on occasion then we could've scored a couple of goals, or at least manufactured a better chance or two -- Of course, that doesn't take into account whether Miller could've hit the target or not!

Edited August 8, 2016 by Rousseau

[Ser Barristan Selmy 222]

Kenny Miller is almost 37. I sincerely hope his involvement this season will be very limited.

[Ser Barristan Selmy 222]

Is this Saddam's spin doctor writing this tripe?

 

What a lot of absolute tosh that was, my soup nearly ended up all over me/the screen a few times.

 

Miller was rightly slated for a dreadful performance because the 50,000 Bears that were in attendance could see that he played poorly, never causing the Hamilton defence an inch of trouble all day and was hooked much much later than he should have. The difference to our attacking intent was as clear as day when we scored within a couple of minutes of him going off, from a pass into an area that Miller never inhabits despite supposedly being a central striker.

 

So because Halliday doesnt pass to him in a wide area where Miller usually passes it back to whoever gave him the ball a dozen times before, Miller is under-rated? Give me strength! A couple of the snap-shots show a ball wide with Miller at the edge of the box, with a defender easily within reach, and this is acceptable. With Miller's first touch as it is, no defender needs to be touch tight on him, and his failure to get into scoring positions INSIDE the box is really letting the side down.

 

It is yet more proof that you can do whatever the hell you like with statistics to prove a point, and yet be so far away from what actually happened as to be embarrassing. I was reminded when reading that guff of the wee Youtube clips you see of a player we are linked with and for 2 minutes they look like world-beaters because it only focuses on the rare moments of good play.

 

For anyone to try to turn that hour of utter crap from Miller on Saturday into everyone else's fault instead of him would be hilarious if it was intended as such. Sadly I think the author believes it.

I do find the analysis rather odd. The general gist of it seems to be Miller was often standing in space, which doesn't really mean anything.