Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 01:03, 30 March 2006

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)

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.

Kenny Miller as a "failed" Rangers player

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)

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

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

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)

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 : ]

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)

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)

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)

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 Misplaced Pages. Please do not tarnish my good name.--Nicholas 14:34, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

-"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)

How many appeances included being a substitute?--Nicholas 18:10, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

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)

That patronising attitude doesn't suit you. You get my point.--Nicholas 18:24, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

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)

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)

I can agree with this wording. --Nicholas 20:58, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

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)