Miller

[SammyKojoe]

Hulse better than Miller?? As a striker to score goals? Are you for real?! Hulse has played umpteen games this season and has a goal that bounced off his shin to show for it. Hulse will not score goals and does not even look like scoring.... eg his 5 clear chances against Bristol City and he missed them all. Miller is not even 100% fit yet and Warnock starts him over Hulse which should give you an idea about who is better and more dangerous.

Miller was as poor as most last night agreed. But thumping long balls up to him is not going to get the best out of him. That is suited to a Hulse/Helguson type to knock down. Look at his disallowed goal against Hull. Through ball to Miller's feet - one touch and bang - goal. Strikers finish. Hulse or Helguson would not have been so clinical. We need to create chances on the floor like that Hull one to get the best out of Miller. Only a wonder save from Westwood prevented Miller from scoring oh his debut. Again the chance came with the ball at his feet.

I am convinced if we create chances in front of goal through Tarbs/Routledge etc he has a finishers instinct to score them. Hulse/Helguson are more physical and more suited to crosses but do not have that strikers instinct or clinical finishing ability.

[stainrod10]

Well said!

[QPR1976]

To be fair Hulse was on bench yesterday despite not being 100% fit either.

But I sympathise with your preference.
Although I don't think it's quite as clearcut as you suggest.

For example, as Miller has only had 3 chances in 3 games so far (1 disallowed, 1 well saved, 1 just wide), and Hulse missed 5 in just 1 game, does that suggest Hulse is better positioned than Miller or that he suits our style of play better ?

It's very early day for Ishmael. So a little harsh for all to judge him bearing in mind his recent fitness record.

More concerning for me is how 3 (including HH) prolofic Championship level goalscorers dry up once they put on a hooped shift. It must be the way they are asked to play, alone up front. Possibly they are better suited to 4-4-2 ?

[BennyBoyRs]

I rate Hulse, and was happy we signed him, but let's be fair, he's been terrible for us. HH is by far the better of the three when it comes to winning the ball in the air, and playing superb headed passes for the rest of the team. He just doesn't seem to cut it in front of goal for us. Strange, as he seem to be able to do it elsewhere.

On recent viewing, I would honestly say Hulse is our third best striker. Miller has the pace and ability, HH the football brain and nouse to play good headed balls and Hulse...Well, it's not quite worked out for him at Rangers, has it?

[Ric-Roc]

But Ben I know it means nothing now but he could of had 4-5 EASY against Brizzle and everyone would be creaming themselves saying he's found his feet.

I think he offers a lot to the team & gets himself in good positions without getting goals, remember Forlan at Utd? He didn't turn out to bad.

Not comparing ability but merely the rub of the green.. HH was great early season but looks jaded now & obviously Miller can't be judged as yet.

[BennyBoyRs]

But Ben I know it means nothing now but he could of had 4-5 EASY against Brizzle and everyone would be creaming themselves saying he's found his feet.

I think he offers a lot to the team & gets himself in good positions without getting goals, remember Forlan at Utd? He didn't turn out to bad.

Not comparing ability but merely the rub of the green.. HH was great early season but looks jaded now & obviously Miller can't be judged as yet.

I know mate, and it's all opinions. I just feel Hulse is the weaker of the three, based on what I have seen.

As I say, I rate him, and pre QPR, I'd have said he was our best. He just hasn't done anything for me since we signed him. I hope he proves my initial thoughts to be correct, but so far, he's made my first opinion of him look silly.

[Dando]

for Me Miller looks a lot better than what we have so far. I really dont understand peoples criticism of him last night. Most balls to him were high and long, he hardly had a chance on the ground. each and every player of ours was charged down immediately last night, and nobody had time on the ball at all. Of all our players, Routledge was probably worst - as he had no chance of ever getting the ball, with it being in the air most of the time, and Pompey being physical. Hes certainly not a bad player though is he? This was a hard game to judge any of our players - whch was their aim, to stop us playing. It worked to be fair in the first half. Miller has hardly had a clear cut chance so far, and the one he did have against Hull, he put away (dissalowed). He shows sharpness, and good at creating the space for a shot, whereas Hulse and Helguson has struggled imo. Hulse and Helguson are both decent players, but Miller for me looks a lot sharper and dangerous in the box.

[G.T.P]

routledge was exactly how i remembered him from last time he was here last night.

[UpperP]

routledge was exactly how i remembered him from last time he was here last night.

I know you aren't keen on Routs and he does have his faults, he'd be in the PL if he didn't, questionable attitude comes to mind. The Pompey defenders seemed to take it in turns to kick him last night. The ref let a bit too much of that go IMHO, although some will say it's a mans game.

[ILTA]

Should we worry about who scores we are in 3rd place scoring 1,66 goals per match. Top is Watford with 1,96 and Leeds with 1,86.

Last night we had almost the same team as the one going great in the beginning.
Only Two changes is Routledge for Mackie and Miller for Helguson.

We are now unbeaten in 5 games - if we could stay unbeaten next 2 games - we are in for a good run of easier games for the next 11 games.

[DelTrotter]

Helguson is twice the player of Hulse IMO

[vblockranger]

Hulse, HH or Miller...... Take your pick cos there all the same

[stainrodisalegend]

I thought Miller was poor last night. When we signed him I predicted there would be lots of "yes, but he hasn't played for two years so give him a chance" comments - if he isn't fit, why sign him? I thought the point of loan players was that they could do the business immediately, not next year. Clearly Warnock thinks he should be able to win balls in the air, hence all the (to my mind terrible) aerial bombardment. But he won virtually nothing and didn't even seem to move for the ball.

Hulse has been a big disappointment but credit where its due, he looked a lot more lively and seemed to improve our entire performance when he came on. Neither, by the way, as good as a fit Helguson imo and none of the three quite good enough to be our main striker.

[SammyKojoe]

Hulse, HH or Miller...... Take your pick cos there all the same

Not true at all. Miller is a clinical finisher IF given the chances. Hulse and Helguson are not.

Granted HH and Hulse are better if we whack it 40 yards in the air to win flicks and bring others into play.

But with Smith, Routledge and Taraabt you would think we would try and play it on the floor and create chances for Miller who can finish?!

[Loftladder]

Seems to me NW requires a very specific job of his target men, I won't call them strikers, and they have a fairly static and thankless task.

Of the three I think Hulse is probably the least effective playing for us. The central defenders they are up against is probably the most important factor in their performance in any single game eg Hulse was quite good against Cardiff's smaller central defenders. Miller had a tough task last night.