Scottish players in action 19/20

[gonzohiggy]

34 minutes ago, ProudScot said:

Armstrong not even in the squad for Southampton - injured? 

Not been a great move for him. 

He's injured 

[gonzohiggy]

45 minutes ago, Tartan Chris said:

Wales midfield options for last international:

Aaron Ramsey

Joe Allen

Harry Wilson

Daniel James

David Brooks would've been in squad aswell but injured currently.

Actually a good example there is Dylan Levitt. Only turned 19 over the latest international break. No games for Man. United yet (can't remember if he played in Astana in the week) and hasn't been loaned out but Wales getting him involved. Very similar case to Gilmour when you look at it.

I think given Billy is on the fringes I'd imagine Chelsea will loan him out in January, either to Holland or a championship team. Hopefully he can start playing week in week out and be a new option for March.

Youve picked 3 wingers, an attacking midfielder and a playmaker there. Ampadu is a centre half or defensive midfielder. Kind of proves my point if that's the best players you can think of in his position. 

Gilmour has to displace mctominay, mcgregor, McLean, Jack or Fleck to play as one of our 2 deeper midfielders and while he's playing ten minutes here and there or football that's not going to happen. I am as big as gilmour fan as anyone but i don't think there is anything wrong with that. He needs to earn his place and also the good players in front of him at the moment shouldn't just lose their place because a young player has a lot of potential. 

Feel like I'm arguing against myself here as I also really want to see us with a vibrant team with a good mix of youth and experience. If there is room in our squad to bring boys along "for the ride" then great but not to the detriment of the strength of our squad. Similarly if we have a high quality 19 year old right back playing regularly in a first team then by all means have him ahead of O'Donnell but I don't think we do at the moment! 

[ProudScot]

35 minutes ago, gonzohiggy said:

Youve picked 3 wingers, an attacking midfielder and a playmaker there. Ampadu is a centre half or defensive midfielder. Kind of proves my point if that's the best players you can think of in his position. 

Gilmour has to displace mctominay, mcgregor, McLean, Jack or Fleck to play as one of our 2 deeper midfielders and while he's playing ten minutes here and there or football that's not going to happen. I am as big as gilmour fan as anyone but i don't think there is anything wrong with that. He needs to earn his place and also the good players in front of him at the moment shouldn't just lose their place because a young player has a lot of potential. 

Feel like I'm arguing against myself here as I also really want to see us with a vibrant team with a good mix of youth and experience. If there is room in our squad to bring boys along "for the ride" then great but not to the detriment of the strength of our squad. Similarly if we have a high quality 19 year old right back playing regularly in a first team then by all means have him ahead of O'Donnell but I don't think we do at the moment! 

He doesn’t have to displace any of those players. 

He has to be picked ahead of someone who offers nothing like Graeme Shinnie. 

 

[ParisInAKilt]

I wouldn’t be starting Gilmour but happy for him to be in the squad. But on merit only, which I think he would deserve initially at least. 

[gonzohiggy]

53 minutes ago, ProudScot said:

He doesn’t have to displace any of those players. 

He has to be picked ahead of someone who offers nothing like Graeme Shinnie. 

 

Well he does actually and if shinnie is also in the squad id be surprised if we have any room left for defenders and attackers. 

If you are suggesting that gilmour should be a back of up if the named mentioned are injured then fine but that's not what you were saying at the start of this chat. 

[gonzohiggy]

3 hours ago, mrniaboc said:

Exactly. What about picking the best players to fit your team, regardless of their age, hair colour, or favourite movie? 

Absolutely. 

Some people on here naively think young players will automatically become better players than the older guys just because they are young. 

There is absolutely no evidence that Porteous or Johnston are any better than Hanley or mulgrew. They might be but they also might not be 

There's a balance to be struck.

[ceudmilefailte]

Why would you want to bring youngsters into the squad when you have promising players like Fleck and Jack about?

[Dave78]

4 hours ago, gonzohiggy said:

 

Gilmour has to displace mctominay, mcgregor, McLean, Jack or Fleck to play as one of our 2 deeper midfielders and while he's playing ten minutes here and there or football that's not going to happen. I am as big as gilmour fan as anyone but i don't think there is anything wrong with that. He needs to earn his place and also the good players in front of him at the moment shouldn't just lose their place because a young player has a lot of potential. 

 

Would Gilmour really play as a deep midfielder? 

I remember from a profile video that Chelsea made on him that he models himself on Cesc Fabregas.

He's a number 10, surely? So it would be McGinn he'd be displacing, no? An equally difficult task for him, don't get me wrong.

 

 

[ErsatzThistle]

2 hours ago, ceudmilefailte said:

Why would you want to bring youngsters into the squad when you have promising players like Fleck and Jack about?

You call emerging 19 or 20 year old player "promising".

Not experienced players in their late 20s FFS 

Also how do we know that Fleck or Jack won't get injuries or suspensions ?

4 hours ago, gonzohiggy said:

Absolutely. 

Some people on here naively think young players will automatically become better players than the older guys just because they are young. 

There is absolutely no evidence that Porteous or Johnston are any better than Hanley or mulgrew. They might be but they also might not be 

There's a balance to be struck.

You seriously want a totally worn out, finished player like Mulgrew and a chronic fuck up like Hanley in the team ?

I want Porteous in well ahead of those two.

[gonzohiggy]

6 hours ago, Dave78 said:

Would Gilmour really play as a deep midfielder? 

I remember from a profile video that Chelsea made on him that he models himself on Cesc Fabregas.

He's a number 10, surely? So it would be McGinn he'd be displacing, no? An equally difficult task for him, don't get me wrong.

 

 

He could potentially become a 10 but he's being moulded as a deep lying playmaker just now by Chelsea. Jorginho type player. 

[ProudScot]

9 hours ago, gonzohiggy said:

Absolutely. 

Some people on here naively think young players will automatically become better players than the older guys just because they are young. 

There is absolutely no evidence that Porteous or Johnston are any better than Hanley or mulgrew. They might be but they also might not be 

There's a balance to be struck.

You’re definitely still missing the point.

The young players might improve, more likely so if they get exposure to the senior set up etc.

Guys 27-35 won’t get any better & therefore as they are squad players anyway, younger players should take their place. 

[gonzohiggy]

5 hours ago, ErsatzThistle said:

You call emerging 19 or 20 year old player "promising".

Not experienced players in their late 20s FFS 

Also how do we know that Fleck or Jack won't get injuries or suspensions ?

You seriously want a totally worn out, finished player like Mulgrew and a chronic fuck up like Hanley in the team ?

I want Porteous in well ahead of those two.

The point is there is no evidence Porteous is better. He might become so but might not. 

He plays at a poorer level, has less experience, is clearky extremely rash but he is younger so some people on here think, right, he's younger therefore he will eventually become better. Not necessarily the case. Porteous might continue to be unbelievably rash, as he is just now, get a move to eg Southend and go on to have a far inferior career to the other two. 

I'm all for giving certain young players who maybe haven't quite proved themselves the chance at international level but only at the right time.

As I said earlier if an 18/19/20 year old is playing at a good level with his club and clearly better than others then he is selected. If we are talking about an 18/19/20 year old who is playing in spl and showing potential at times but not an absolute standout ie Porteous or plays occasionally in an epl league cup side, a manager who values his job would need to be careful about when he selects those sorts of players. He might call them up in friendlies for a run out or have them in to train but he's not going to pitch them into qualifiers or replaced experienced players (even if they are universally unpopular with the TA) until they prove themselves at the requisite level. 

[gonzohiggy]

24 minutes ago, ProudScot said:

You’re definitely still missing the point.

The young players might improve, more likely so if they get exposure to the senior set up etc.

Guys 27-35 won’t get any better & therefore as they are squad players anyway, younger players should take their place. 

Mate I get the point. You want young players to replace experienced players who won't get any better. Fine. 

My point in response to this is, which maybe I'm not making clearly enough, is a manager cannot just blindly go replacing all our experienced players in the squad players with unproven youngsters who may /may not be better. You know why? Because these "squad players" might actually be needed for a competitive game for which these unproven young players might be ready for or alternatively they could crash and burn.

As an example Ryan Porteous and George Johnston are brought into the squad ahead of our third and forth choice Centre halves,so say Mulgrew and Hanley for the Israel game. Cooper and McKenna get injured and then so does Hanley and Porteous is straight into the team. He might do wonderfully but then again he might get sent off after 20 minutes and we lose the game. He is unproven at the top level and might never be good enough. 

I've said elsewhere, if the time is right to give unproven young players a chance instead of experienced players ie a friendly or an easy qualifier then great. 

Generally though, I want young players in the squad when they deserve to be not because we are playing a game of trial and error. 

Right now, Michael Johnston I'd pick as there is space for him and he has shown enough at a good level. I'd probably find a place for Mccrorie as well (if he was fit) as he is comfortable in a variety of positions that we are weak in and plays at a comparable level to O'Donnell. 

Edited December 1, 2019 by gonzohiggy

[ParisInAKilt]

The managers job is to pick the best team to win games.
If that includes young players, brilliant but it’s their club’s responsibility to make them better players long term. 

[gonzohiggy]

3 minutes ago, ParisInAKilt said:

The managers job is to pick the best team to win games.
If that includes young players, brilliant but it’s their club’s responsibility to make them better players long term. 

Totally agree. 

[ProudScot]

52 minutes ago, ParisInAKilt said:

The managers job is to pick the best team to win games.
If that includes young players, brilliant but it’s their club’s responsibility to make them better players long term. 

The best team yes. 

Squads can include promising young players though, common with most other countries. 

[ParisInAKilt]

5 minutes ago, ProudScot said:

The best team yes. 

Squads can include promising young players though, common with most other countries. 

Aye it wouldn’t bother me, every squad has guys who won’t make the team but the age of players doesn’t really bother me, all about winning games. 

[daviebee]

15 hours ago, Tartan blood said:

Gomez was only an example off the top of my head. But I'm sure Southgate took players to the World Cup that weren't regular starters. Maybe someone else can remember.

Anyway, that wasn't my point. I didn't say Gilmour or Johnstone should be in the first 11. No way. But they could easily fit into a 23+ man squad. Train with their future colleagues and familiarise themselves with styles and tactics. There is no downside to it, other than reducing the strength of the U21s.

 

That wouldn't be a downside. Getting them away from Gemmill and Houston would be highly desirable.

[gonzohiggy]

15 hours ago, Tartan blood said:

Gomez was only an example off the top of my head. But I'm sure Southgate took players to the World Cup that weren't regular starters. Maybe someone else can remember.

Anyway, that wasn't my point. I didn't say Gilmour or Johnstone should be in the first 11. No way. But they could easily fit into a 23+ man squad. Train with their future colleagues and familiarise themselves with styles and tactics. There is no downside to it, other than reducing the strength of the U21s.

 

I generally agree with you. 

RE Johnston, we could call him up now instead of Johnny Russell and I'd be completely on board with that. 

Gilmour is a bit different as he has far more competition in front of him so assuming no call offs from our first choice centre midfields (lol) he hasn't done enough yet to justify getting picked ahead of them. 

If we lose one of mctominay, McLean, Jack, McGregor or Fleck then I'd far sooner have gilmour in than Shinnie. 

As good as gilmour is you can't just ignore the competition in his position. 

[Tartan blood]

21 minutes ago, gonzohiggy said:

I generally agree with you. 

RE Johnston, we could call him up now instead of Johnny Russell and I'd be completely on board with that. 

Gilmour is a bit different as he has far more competition in front of him so assuming no call offs from our first choice centre midfields (lol) he hasn't done enough yet to justify getting picked ahead of them. 

If we lose one of mctominay, McLean, Jack, McGregor or Fleck then I'd far sooner have gilmour in than Shinnie. 

As good as gilmour is you can't just ignore the competition in his position. 

If we are limited to exactly 23 players, at a tournament, then yes, you make a good point. I'd not pick him (at the moment)

But in pretty much any other match, you can take as many players as you want. We could literally drop no one, and still bring him along for the experience. 

It could also push our midfield starters to up their game, knowing their place is in jeopardy to this up and coming lad. Competition is very healthy.

[gonzohiggy]

10 minutes ago, Tartan blood said:

If we are limited to exactly 23 players, at a tournament, then yes, you make a good point. I'd not pick him (at the moment)

But in pretty much any other match, you can take as many players as you want. We could literally drop no one, and still bring him along for the experience. 

It could also push our midfield starters to up their game, knowing their place is in jeopardy to this up and coming lad. Competition is very healthy.

But we are limited in all our qualifying and nations league matches. 

So unless we have injuries, at the moment you're talking about bringing gilmour in for training which still may not be a bad thing

[bigfingers]

Christie double!! 

[gonzohiggy]

6 minutes ago, bigfingers said:

Christie double!! 

You'd think other teams might be starting to take notice of him. Class act

[mrniaboc]

Another two goals for Christie and there still another half to go. This lad has really moved up a few gears. I wonder if we'll see EPL interest in him soon? 

[mrniaboc]

1 minute ago, gonzohiggy said:

You'd think other teams might be starting to take notice of him. Class act

Jinx