Attention: Please take a moment to consider our terms and conditions before posting.
Paul Miller -Programme
Comments
-
Bang on - he was immense vs Chelsea that day - it was such an important match, in a cauldron of viscousness - the atmosphere in Stamford Bridge that afternoon was unbelievable - he stepped up, and chipped in with the equaliser - leaving the ground that day was as scary as leaving St Andrews the season before when we beat Leeds 2-1 in added timeIsawlearyplay said:Have heard Lennie say that he and Paul Miller settled their differences a long time ago . In typical Lennie style when asked about the battle of the bridge he said " For most of the 2nd half it was as if Miller was playing Chelsea by himself "
From personal memory of that epic Miller gave one of the most committed performances I had ever seen . Miller had his detractors but his ball winning skills were exceptional - with tackles which could be likened to those of Jorge Costa
.6 -
"In today's programme" in the opening post, posted on a home match day, is a bit of a giveaway I thought.Lordflashheart said:@HRBryan we still need to be told where to find this interview please ??5 -
Paul Miller could tackle but his heading was actually quite weak (although by today's standards it would be seen as perfectly ok). He complimented Peter Shirtliff better than Steve Thompson because he was a bit more mobile and far more experienced at the top level.
Perhaps oddly, Colin Pates was seen as an upgrade on Paul Miller, although he had achieved far less in terms of trophies and playing in cup finals.
I liked all of those Charlton defenders because they, like most of their generation, all defended as a first priority. I'm not sure that's the case with the majority of today's defenders but that's as much down to modern coaching/modern attitudes, as anything.3 -
Agreed - my fault - I read ‘programme’ as something I could watch - hey hoOff_it said:
"In today's programme" in the opening post, posted on a home match day, is a bit of a giveaway I thought.Lordflashheart said:@HRBryan we still need to be told where to find this interview please ??1 -
0 -
3 -
Good stuff - thank you @Henry Irving2
-
I’m an East End Boy and I’m terrified of basically everything!7 -
He was a hard case (relative to the time) - on the pitch - I wouldn’t (having been a short arse centre forward) have looked forward to playing against him - my game was based on being very quick over the first 10 / 20 yards - if you did that once against Miller, you are getting scythed down next time - but he deffo had a ‘meltdown’ head on him with us (maybe his divorce caused that ?) - am I correct he had an incident with a ball boy at Norwich away, pushed or kicked him or something like that, for not giving the ball back fast enough ??AFKABartram said:I’m an East End Boy and I’m terrified of basically everything!0 -
*We won 1-0 first leg at ‘home’ before losing 1-0 at Leeds3
- Sponsored links:
-
Lordflashheart said:
Bang on - he was immense vs Chelsea that day - it was such an important match, in a cauldron of viscousness - the atmosphere in Stamford Bridge that afternoon was unbelievable - he stepped up, and chipped in with the equaliser - leaving the ground that day was as scary as leaving St Andrews the season before when we beat Leeds 2-1 inIsawlearyplay said:Have heard Lennie say that he and Paul Miller settled their differences a long time ago . In typical Lennie style when asked about the battle of the bridge he said " For most of the 2nd half it was as if Miller was playing Chelsea by himself "
From personal memory of that epic Miller gave one of the most committed performances I had ever seen . Miller had his detractors but his ball winning skills were exceptional - with tackles which could be likened to those of Jorge Costa
.0 -
Maybe just me, but I always felt he was a relatively limited footballer, and was always amazed that he got as many games and gongs as he did at Spurs - perhaps by the time he got to us he was past his prime.
A "robust" job at the rough end of the table for a while but I wouldn't, as he does, put himself alongside McGuire, Van Dijk and Stones...1 -
It is particularly poignant because two years earlier we had the likes of Les Berry and Steve Dowman at centre back. In my opinion the best option we had in that era was when Ronnie Moore converted to centre back.Simonsen said:Paul Miller could tackle but his heading was actually quite weak (although by today's standards it would be seen as perfectly ok). He complimented Peter Shirtliff better than Steve Thompson because he was a bit more mobile and far more experienced at the top level.
Perhaps oddly, Colin Pates was seen as an upgrade on Paul Miller, although he had achieved far less in terms of trophies and playing in cup finals.
I liked all of those Charlton defenders because they, like most of their generation, all defended as a first priority. I'm not sure that's the case with the majority of today's defenders but that's as much down to modern coaching/modern attitudes, as anything.
The fees paid are quite interesting. Iirc Paul was signed for around £120,000 and sold to Watford for around £85,000. Pates cost us £430,000 and went to Arsenal for half a million. So in terms of fees Pates would have been seen as an upgrade , our squad depth also improved when we signed Tommy Caton a month or so later.
It is interesting that Paul never played at the Valley for Charlton although he certainly appeared in the FA Cup and a testimonial match for Spurs at our home.
I would love to see Paul as a guest on Charlton live1 -
SporadicAddick said:Maybe just me, but I always felt he was a relatively limited footballer, and was always amazed that he got as many games and gongs as he did at Spurs - perhaps by the time he got to us he was past his prime.
A "robust" job at the rough end of the table for a while but I wouldn't, as he does, put himself alongside McGuire, Van Dijk and Stones...
That wasn't his job though. Limited footballer he may have been - but he was of his time and as a defender he knew how to defend.
He would have been selected for just that. You can bet his team mates loved him in the side for his temperament, having that attitude of 'thou shalt not pass' and putting fear of God into his opponents. He was the bloke you wanted on your side.
Players like that in your team gives the platform to free up your creative players and let them do what they do best. It also creates that determination and winning mentality in your team.
We could well do with a 'defensive rock' CB in our side today, with that grit and winners mentality.2 -
I have met Paul a number of times and he is good company, he is obviously more attached to spurs than us.He is very good company.He was a bit of a lad immediately post retirement but seemed to have matured when I last met him. Agree that he'd be a great match day guest2
-
But he was limited.Oggy Red said:SporadicAddick said:Maybe just me, but I always felt he was a relatively limited footballer, and was always amazed that he got as many games and gongs as he did at Spurs - perhaps by the time he got to us he was past his prime.
A "robust" job at the rough end of the table for a while but I wouldn't, as he does, put himself alongside McGuire, Van Dijk and Stones...
That wasn't his job though. Limited footballer he may have been - but he was of his time and as a defender he knew how to defend.
He would have been selected for just that. You can bet his team mates loved him in the side for his temperament, having that attitude of 'thou shalt not pass' and putting fear of God into his opponents. He was the bloke you wanted on your side.
Players like that in your team gives the platform to free up your creative players and let them do what they do best. It also creates that determination and winning mentality in your team.
We could well do with a 'defensive rock' CB in our side today, with that grit and winners mentality.1 -
Yeah, I said that and we all know it.SporadicAddick said:
But he was limited.Oggy Red said:SporadicAddick said:Maybe just me, but I always felt he was a relatively limited footballer, and was always amazed that he got as many games and gongs as he did at Spurs - perhaps by the time he got to us he was past his prime.
A "robust" job at the rough end of the table for a while but I wouldn't, as he does, put himself alongside McGuire, Van Dijk and Stones...
That wasn't his job though. Limited footballer he may have been - but he was of his time and as a defender he knew how to defend.
He would have been selected for just that. You can bet his team mates loved him in the side for his temperament, having that attitude of 'thou shalt not pass' and putting fear of God into his opponents. He was the bloke you wanted on your side.
Players like that in your team gives the platform to free up your creative players and let them do what they do best. It also creates that determination and winning mentality in your team.
We could well do with a 'defensive rock' CB in our side today, with that grit and winners mentality.
But he brought some qualities to the team that others didn't have.2 -
Tbf to Paul he must have been able to play a bit because he had regularly over a long period been part of a team with the likes of Ardiles and Hoddle.Oggy Red said:
Yeah, I said that and we all know it.SporadicAddick said:
But he was limited.Oggy Red said:SporadicAddick said:Maybe just me, but I always felt he was a relatively limited footballer, and was always amazed that he got as many games and gongs as he did at Spurs - perhaps by the time he got to us he was past his prime.
A "robust" job at the rough end of the table for a while but I wouldn't, as he does, put himself alongside McGuire, Van Dijk and Stones...
That wasn't his job though. Limited footballer he may have been - but he was of his time and as a defender he knew how to defend.
He would have been selected for just that. You can bet his team mates loved him in the side for his temperament, having that attitude of 'thou shalt not pass' and putting fear of God into his opponents. He was the bloke you wanted on your side.
Players like that in your team gives the platform to free up your creative players and let them do what they do best. It also creates that determination and winning mentality in your team.
We could well do with a 'defensive rock' CB in our side today, with that grit and winners mentality.
But he brought some qualities to the team that others didn't have.
Compared to Les Berry, Steve Dowman or even Steve Thompson he could play. They were even more limited. Iirc Caton and Pates were probably better in those aspects although they didn't have Paul's warrior qualities.0 -
He played in a tottenham team that was probably one of the best in their history upto then. He was no mug.Richard J said:
Tbf to Paul he must have been able to play a bit because he had regularly over a long period been part of a team with the likes of Ardiles and Hoddle.Oggy Red said:
Yeah, I said that and we all know it.SporadicAddick said:
But he was limited.Oggy Red said:SporadicAddick said:Maybe just me, but I always felt he was a relatively limited footballer, and was always amazed that he got as many games and gongs as he did at Spurs - perhaps by the time he got to us he was past his prime.
A "robust" job at the rough end of the table for a while but I wouldn't, as he does, put himself alongside McGuire, Van Dijk and Stones...
That wasn't his job though. Limited footballer he may have been - but he was of his time and as a defender he knew how to defend.
He would have been selected for just that. You can bet his team mates loved him in the side for his temperament, having that attitude of 'thou shalt not pass' and putting fear of God into his opponents. He was the bloke you wanted on your side.
Players like that in your team gives the platform to free up your creative players and let them do what they do best. It also creates that determination and winning mentality in your team.
We could well do with a 'defensive rock' CB in our side today, with that grit and winners mentality.
But he brought some qualities to the team that others didn't have.
Compared to Les Berry, Steve Dowman or even Steve Thompson he could play. They were even more limited. Iirc Caton and Pates were probably better in those aspects although they didn't have Paul's warrior qualities.1 -
Would any player in today's era, put in the same commitment, fight and desire, or have the strength of character displayed by Paul Miller and the team on that notorious day at Stamford Bridge?
Maybe Miles would if he's seen the video of what his Dad went through that afternoon.
I really liked Miller. He'd played at the very top level and it showed.3 - Sponsored links:
-
Football was honest and enjoyable during this period, the years before as well.2
-
The football was generally probably technically more limited, but individual skill certainly stood out.ElfsborgAddick said:Football was honest and enjoyable during this period, the years before as well.
It feels today that all teams want to pack the midfield and be defensively solid1
