Considerations on Lewis Miller
Analogies from Edinburgh to Milan extend further than the San Siro
Lewis Miller is an interesting player who I think aptly encapsulates an archetype of fullback best described as battering rams. They are characterized by their thunderous momentum, willingness to engage in attacking duels, appetite for attacking (and destruction), perhaps a lack of defensive awareness and having the potential to pose as a goal threat (although Miller himself has 0 in his first 12 games – the potential is what is important). These players frequently act as an outlet for their team, and as a highly idiosyncratic type of player, they are either profiled for a specific type of attacking set-up, or force adjustments onto their host team because of their devesting capacity and simultaneously flawed nature.
Miller for example lacks technical refinement and is not somebody who would be involved heavily in deep build-up, beat a man using trickery nor play a cross-field ball. His best attributes are physical and how he uses said physicality. And because the disparity between him and others physically is often so large, this can be conceptualised as a type of qualitative superiority. However, the question then arises, do you want your full back to be your unstoppable guy? This is more nuanced than yes or no; but I imagine in most instances, for a team looking for a degree of scalability of playstyle, building around an idiosyncratic full back may raise the floor but limit the ceiling. There are counterexamples, such as Theo Hernandez at Milan, somebody who can synergise well with superstar attackers because of his marauding nature, leading to the formation of deadly socio-affective links with players like Rafael Leão and Kylian Mbappé. The issue with the analogy is that Theo lacks limiting factors which actively work to the detriment of his team, outside of a free-roaming spirit and requirement for creative licence which requires accommodating through profiling elsewhere.[1]
A more apt comparison in Milan comes from the opposition side in Denzel Dumfries. Anecdotally, his frustrating fluctuations seem to annoy Inter fans, because there is clearly a lot of harnessable quality present, but equally, issues such as touch and defensive awareness remain persistent and can create a polarising image.
Much like Dumfries, Miller is often used as an outlet from goal kicks or more direct balls to challenge in the air, attempting to exploit the mismatch typically created on the flanks where smaller players generally operate, both at full back and winger which theoretically creates a consistent exploitable (qualitative) superiority. Moreover, he is almost always looking to exploit space left on the flank via under or overlaps, rampaging forward to create an option.
Because Hibs play a back 4, this creates a steering wheel dynamic and a degree of asymmetry as Lewis Stevenson tucks in and plays more defensively to balance Millers blustering ambition.
To analyse the role deeper consider Miller’s recent game against FC Luzren:
During the opening exchanges, Luzren’s high fullbacks would often lead to Miller being overloaded and stuggling postionally with the narrow runs of the winger who could often get behind him due to overly wide positioning.
Most of their dangerous attacking play occurred down the right flank because Miller would position himself too wide – showing the issues of defensive awareness.
I think Lee Johnson recognised the problem – and from there, huge positional issues were largely alleviated.
However; despite tactical adjustments Miller seems to struggle 1v1 and can often overzealously commit, something characteristic of his style, with this impetuousness, or more positively spun bravery and commitment, capturing the vicissitudes of Miller and what fundamentally makes him, him. Flawed, but effective when used correctly.
Another thing to consider vis-à-vis 1v1’s about the human embodiment of a trade-off which is Miller is that his physical frame contributes to him being poor in 1v1 situations both offensively and defensively, as it inhibits his fluidity of movement. His rigid power can be useful to catch up with, or surge past somebody, but leaves him liable when space is not attacked or recovered. This makes possession loses, or him being dribbled past from more static/isolated situations more common, and a bit of a liability defensively at the back.
His fearless courage and space attacking oriented style also makes me think he may be more susceptible to impact/major injuries in the long-run because he is consistently exposing himself to situations where they may occur, in addition to much of direct play being oriented around him engaging in physical duels, often approaching with momentum. This is largely conjectural though.
Another notable asset of his is the long throw. Initially, abilities like this make me sceptical when viewing players through an efficient market hypothesis lens, because if he has this valuable specialist ability, but has recently signed for Hibs, that suggests, all else equal, on-pitch abilities are under Hibs level. And since I, compared to football’s cognoscenti seem to undervalue long throws as a trait (although Miller got me questioning this stance - which is mainly aesthetic - read Are You Playing to Play, or Playing to Win?), I made the judgement that he must be a poorer player. But overall, after watching more, the long throw fits with his idiosyncratic style, even if more legible, and therefore valuable from a market perspective, than something illusive like bravery or harnessing of momentum. This is perhaps where efficient market hypothesis takes as a heuristic fail, because there are correlates to his overall playstyle – Miller being extremely athletic - in addition to players of his profile only being useful in edge cases to build around, limiting the potential market of buyers because you need an optimal set of conditions – such as having an aging but still good left back who is more defensively minded and struggles to cover significant distances so is better suited to tucking in. Also, the market is not efficient, at least in the short-run (which football is always in at the present moment): whatever that means in a game as a complex and idiosyncratic as football.
Overall, he is a very fun player to watch, much like others of his archetype because of their devastating capacity combined with a degree of inelegance typically not associated with footballers of their level. While for wholescale scalability of playstyle I generally prefer more well-rounded technical players, you are not always at the peak of the summit, and short-term tactical plans are very frequently bolstered by the qualitative superiority they provide and can provide a launching point for longer-term strategies because there is a consistent, exploitable advantage. I think, despite his defensive and technical issues from what I have seen thus far, he will be a good player for Hibs, and has already proved himself massively influential in play. I like him more with each passing second, and look forward to seeing more from him this season.
[1] Although it could be reasonably questioned whether you could play meta Juego de Posición with Theo Hernandez, which also makes him a ceiling limiter as his unstoppable guy energy and lack of general constrainment which makes him so good does not align well with controlled possession and rigid positional instructions. Essentially, much like the other examples, there does reach a limit where his ability is not sufficiently high to justify his freedom and idiosyncrasies from full back, that limit is just much higher. At what level of ambition would tactical considerations overwrite Theo’s fun? Roberto Carlos for example possibly exemplified this unstoppable guy full back at the highest level, and was somebody who could be justified building around at any level - but was before the Guardiolan age.