Jump to content

Talk:Kenny Miller

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Kenny Miller as a "failed" Rangers player

[edit]

I've removed the reference which says that KM is a 'failed' Rangers player. The source provided says nothing of the sort.

That was not a direct quotation, but it does reflect the feeling of many Celtic fans. Including me. Plus, without the word "failed" that sentence doesn't make sense.--Nicholas 18:52, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nicholas, you have failed address the problem here. The link you have provided has absolutely no relation to the statement which you have made. Indeed, the article you have linked to provides evidence which would point in quite the opposite direction.

"CELTIC fans chiefs insist Kenny Miller won't have to worry about the reception he gets from most of the Parkhead support...Jim Divers, of the Celtic Supporters' Association, reckons they will accept the former Rangers striker...Divers said: "It's ridiculous even to think any Celtic supporters would say there is a problem"

Please explain how this reflects your own viewpoint please? Perhaps you are more representative of the Celtic fans than, errrr, the Celtic Supporters Association?

Additionally, aside from the link showing that you hold very much a minority viewpoint, you have also stated that KM is a 'failed' Rangers player.

From the link you provided :

"Celtic beat off competition from Italy and the Premiership to land the 26-year-old...We know Kenny can score goals as he has in the past...We are looking for someone who can sniff out goals and Kenny Miller can do that"

Is this the same Kenny Miller who equalled the SPL record by scoring five goals in one game and who was also voted Scotlands Young Player of the Year? (Both of those are also taken from the hyperlink you provided)

I have, again, removed your vandalism. If you have a problem with this, kindly use the dispute resolution procedures Nicholas.

User Nicholas, I see that you have inserted the phrase "an unsuccessful ex-Rangers player"

Is the phrase "unsuccessful" your own personal viewpoint, or a statement of fact, which you are able to verify?

--TheMadTim 12:02, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

He was "unsuccessful" at Rangers. This resulted in him being sold to Wolves.--Nicholas 12:05, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Or to put it another way, he was "successful" at Rangers. This resulted in Wolves buying him. --TheMadTim 12:18, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your interpretation requires a considerable leap of faith given that he rarely played for Rangers. He moved to Wolves in search of first team football. Thus, he was "unsuccessful" at Rangers.--Nicholas 12:26, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Nicholas, your statement is flawed. Your statement suggests that KM is an unsuccessful player, who coincidentally happens to be an ex-Rangers player. Your statement should read : "a player who was unsuccsessful at Rangers", if that is your intent.

You may first wish to check your facts though.

FACT : KM played in 35 games for Rangers in season 00/01, including games in the European Cup and Uefa Cup against Kaiserslauten and AS Monaco.

FACT : KM scored 11 goals for Rangers in these games.

Source : [[1]]

You stated that your reasoning is based upon KM's 'rare' appearances for Rangers. In the season in question, KM played in 35 out of 56 of Rangers games, a percentage of 62.5%. How can you reconcile this as 'rare'? --TheMadTim 13:00, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What was this percentage for the remainder of his Rangers career? He was a failure at Rangers - full stop. That's why he moved elsewhere - to look for regular first team football.--Nicholas 13:13, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
OK, Wolves fan chiming in here. I've reworded it to convey the message Nicholas is trying to give. Andymarczak 13:53, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That's better Andymarczak, but please could everyone here remember to tackle the issue and not the editor! See above, TheMadTim accussed me of being a vandal. I have never vandalised Wikipedia. Please do not tarnish my good name.--Nicholas 14:34, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


KM's Rangers Career :

KM joined Glasgow Rangers on 27-06-2000 for a fee of £2,000,000, and left on 13-12-2001, signing for Wolves, for £3,000,000.

Between these dates, Glasgow Rangers played a total of 66 games in all competitions. Kenny Miller played in 38 of them, or 58%.

Your argument, as stated above, is that, "given that he rarely played for Rangers. He moved to Wolves in search of first team football. Thus, he was "unsuccessful" at Rangers."

I've already proven that your statement that KM "rarely played for Rangers" is false, therefore your argument has no basis.

I wish the following sections of the text to be either verified or deleted :

"Despite solid performances, Miller did not play regularly for the Rangers first team. As a result, in 2001 he transferred from Rangers to Wolves in search of regular football." - No basis in fact, no source provided.

", meanwhile Celtic fans appear to be divided over the issue. Some look forward to his arrival, arguing that he should be judged on the basis of his performances for the team, meanwhile others wonder whether a player who was unable to hold down a regular first team place at Rangers will be good enough to play for Celtic." - no basis in fact, no source provided, my source shows that KM did in fact play more than half of the games he was eligible to, therefore he did in fact hold down a regular first team place.

Can we either provide some sources to verify both of those passages statements or remove them please.

--TheMadTim 16:46, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

58% is pretty poor! Not exactly "regular" is it? The matter of fact is that Kenny wanted a regular game and he wasn't getting that at Ibrox, but if you feel that strongly about this ... delete it. I am simply trying to document the fact that not all Celtic fans are looking forward to his arrival.--Nicholas 17:08, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I am pretty sure that, of that 58%, many of those appearances involved coming on as a subsitute.--Nicholas 17:11, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


-"58% is pretty poor! Not exactly "regular" is it?"

Well, it depends how you look at it. If I were a supporter who attended 58% of Celtic games, I would describe myself as a 'regular'. I might not be a 'die-hard', but I would definately count myself as a regular.

I'd rather not delete or amend the article without discussing it first, to be honest. I did stick in the stats for his time at Rangers, which user:Kingjeff very kindly fixed (Sorry dude, I thought it worked out the totals automatically), but I'd rather propose changes here, discuss them, then implement them, if agreed upon by the majority view. Then again, this might not be the method of working favoured by the majority, but I'll just see how it goes.

I count KMs time at Rangers as being a middle-of-the-road sort of performance overall, neither good, nor bad, simply a solid, professional performance, as I think is bourne out by the stats.

I think that to have played in 58% of games is a fair number of games to have played in, not the highest, not the lowest, just somewhere around the middle, just a regular performance. --TheMadTim 17:57, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How many appeances included being a substitute?--Nicholas 18:10, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The link at soccerbase (above) will provide you with all the neccessary stats. You'll have to do the copying and pasting into Excel yourself dude. --TheMadTim 18:19, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That patronising attitude doesn't suit you. You get my point.--Nicholas 18:24, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What patronising attitude Nicholas? You've requested information, I don't know the answer, but I've very kindly located a link for you to find out if you wish to. Can you please explain how this gives rise to a belief that I am patronising you? Need I remind you Nicholas, "That's better Andymarczak, but please could everyone here remember to tackle the issue and not the editor!". Perhaps you could heed your own advice please?
That question regarding K.M. being a regular substitute was a rhetorical question, i.e. I'm not interested in the answer. It was a question that was intended to prove a point, as if you werent aware of that.--Nicholas 18:47, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
OK, this is getting us nowhere. It is true that Kenny played in 58% of games in that season. It is also true that he only started 48% of those. In the 35 games he played for Rangers that season, he only started 17 of them (that's 27% for the season as a whole). A return of 11 goals in that time is neither remarkable, nor a failure. The perception that the player is not good enough to play for a club is not the same as not being picked. The truth is that many Celtic fans may believe that, because he didn't score goals on a McCoist scale, that he won't be good enough to play for them. I would argue that some Celtic fans don't want him simply because he played for Rangers. I suggest something more benign, like "Some look forward to his arrival, arguing that he should be judged on the basis of his performances for the team, others are more sceptical because of the player's history with their arch-rivals Rangers". Let's not fight, eh? Life's too short. Andymarczak 20:54, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I can agree with this wording. --Nicholas 20:58, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nicholas, why are you not assuming good faith? What response do you expect to a rhetorical question?

Aside from that, I agree that the propsed changes are more representative of the facts of the matter than the current version, therefore I agree that we should amend it.

I would like to get some thoughts on removing the last paragraph altogether though.

1 : There is no 'hot debate'. If there is, can we have sources verifying this please? All we appear to have are the lone viewpoints of Nicholas

2 : Some Celtic fans look forward to the signing of KM, not because "he should be judged on the basis of his performances for the team", but because he is a current Scotland Internationalist who has consistently proven himself to be a goalscorer, wherever he has played, and who is assured of helping Celtic achieve success in the future.

In summary, I propose the following :

1 - The deletion of "Despite solid performances, Miller did not play regularly for the Rangers first team. As a result, in 2001 he transferred from Rangers to Wolves in search of regular football." - No basis in fact, no source provided. This is the second time I have asked for this statement to be verified or deleted. Can we each say our preference please?

2 - "meanwhile Celtic fans appear to be divided over the issue. Some look forward to his arrival, arguing that he should be judged on the basis of his performances for the team, meanwhile others wonder whether a player who was unable to hold down a regular first team place at Rangers will be good enough to play for Celtic" should be amended to "meanwhile Celtic fans appear to be divided over the issue. Some look forward to his arrival, arguing that he should be judged on the basis of his performances for the team, others are more sceptical because of the player's history with their arch-rivals Rangers".

3 - The entirety of the last paragraph (including those portions to which I have agreed the amendment to) should be deleted. No sources are provided for the purported viewpoints of the Celtic fans. If we must keep it, I would rather see : "His controversial return to Scottish football is being hotly debated by football fans from either side of the Old Firm divide.", with links being provided to these 'hot debates'. --TheMadTim 01:03, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really care. I'm removing this article from my watchlist. Kenny Miller has scored a few goals in the lower leagues of English football, big deal. And he has scored a few for a crumby Scottish national team; big deal. He started 28% of his games for Rangers. Fact! In my humble opinion he isn't good enough to play for Celtic, Harston, Zurawski, Beattie, and Maloney are all leagues ahead of him. Anyway, it is a matter of fact that his return to Scottish football is being hotly debated! Why don't you check out Google or Yahoo Celtic chatrooms, for instance. Either way, as I've already said, I don't care. Do what you want with this article.--Nicholas 09:56, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


OK, thanks for your input Nicholas.

Unless anyone has other thoughts, I will go ahead and amend the article as I have proposed. --TheMadTim 13:08, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


OK chaps, I've amended it. The table at the bottom looks all messed up tho, I don't know if its my browser or not, I use a rather obscure one. If anyone knows of a page which explains table formatting, I'd be muchly obliged. Apologies to user:Kingjeff if I've messed it up again. --TheMadTim 16:27, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think it looks good. What do you think is wrong with the table? Kingjeff 04:02, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

When I view it, the lines at the top of the table aren't there. (The column grid things next to the Wolves bit). Hope that's made sense, I think it's just my browser. Sorry man. --TheMadTim 17:20, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kenny Miller was a fantastic Rangers player

[edit]

Rangers fans must regret the club selling him. Celtic fans are delighted to have him. Palx 13:57, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

omg, he was not fantastic. i was glad to see him go. his poor season at celtic only confirms how bad he is. and now he's supposed to be going back to rangers, what is walter smith thinking? kris boyd has scored more goals than kenny miller, and he can't even get a regular start, what hope does miller have?! (as per wikipedia's league appearances goals - miller 316 apps, 91 goals. boyd - 230 apps, goals 114) 194.221.133.226 (talk) 08:41, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

dispute on games played

[edit]

i'm constantly seeing the number of games played/goals scored, not matching up at all. here on the talk page kenny miller from the mad tim:

  • FACT : KM played in 35 games for Rangers in season 00/01, including games in the European Cup and Uefa Cup against Kaiserslauten and AS Monaco.
  • FACT : KM scored 11 goals for Rangers in these games.
  • Source : (given)

also from the same talk page section, from the same user:

  • KM joined Glasgow Rangers on 27-06-2000 for a fee of £2,000,000, and left on 13-12-2001, signing for Wolves, for £3,000,000. Between these dates, Glasgow Rangers played a total of 66 games in all competitions. Kenny Miller played in 38 of them, or 58%.

which is it, 35 or 38?

on the actual page it says: Miller had made a total of 28 appearances and scored 11 goals for Rangers.

so again, which is it, 28, 35 or 38??

there's no consistency here. you're all too busy arguing with each other about whether he was crap or not, instead of getting things right. 194.221.133.226 (talk) 08:56, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Miller played 38 games, I made the mistake! Johnelwaq (talk) 15:27, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rejoined rangers

[edit]

Kenny has completed, as said on sky sports news as breaking news - why has this been removed? pointless to post with people removing your work! stupid really! Ragingbull911 (talk) 15:35, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, as of now it would seem the move hadn't beem completed - SSN so far seem to be the only people reporting it, but I don't think all users have that on the TV all the time... Mattythewhite (talk) 15:36, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Now Derby have announced it - seems official enough to me now. Mattythewhite (talk) 15:38, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Whatever the Daily Record might say, I am dubious about the claim that William Kivlichan returned to Rangers after moving to Celtic - and the Record seems to have dropped this claim in later stories. BBO (talk) 17:55, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Tom Dunbar (Celtic 1888-1891, Rangers 1891-1892, Celtic 1892-1898) was until Miller the only person to re-join an Old Firm club after having played for both. --Johnelwaq (talk) 06:35, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected?

[edit]

Any chance we could have this article semi-protected? There's been lots of vandalism over the last couple of days from unregistered users regarding his move band to Rangers, so just temporarily could it be protected for a few days? Pullshapes (talk) 15:33, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Willie Kivlichan

[edit]

I have again removed the additional commentary. Quite why my first edit was reverted is a mystery, given that it was reverted by the same editor who added the original text with a source. If there are reliable sources for any counter-claim please cite them, but do not add your own opinions to the article. O Fenian (talk) 18:04, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Goals

[edit]

Can someone please update the goals for this season

he now has 19 goals for the season —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.137.235.204 (talk) 11:58, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

done(Monkeymanman (talk) 13:41, 8 April 2010 (UTC))[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Kenny Miller. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:59, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Kenny Miller. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:29, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Kenny Miller. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:21, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Kenny_Miller&oldid=1204008513"