Billy Gilmour - Page 2 - TA specific - Tartan Army Message Board Jump to content

Billy Gilmour


gonzohiggy

Recommended Posts

3 hours ago, ceudmilefailte said:

Chelsea have played 22 players this season so I would be disappointed if he didn't get a game tonight.

Chelsea will be no were near full strength and I doubt if Man U will be either .

Good experience for the lad anyway to play against seasoned professionals but "huge" will be when he starts an EPL or Champions League game.

You're right, it's not huge for an 18-year-old Scot to start for Chelsea in a competitive match v Man Utd. Happens all the time. What was I thinking hahaha?! 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

57 minutes ago, ceudmilefailte said:

Man Utd have a very strong line up. Chelsea are using it the way way most top teams do, to blood youngsters  and keep fringe players match fit. No way is that a strong Chelsea team.

Man Utd seem to be experimenting with three at the back.

He played in midfield with kovacic and jorginho who are first choice players often. 

Zouma, Hudson odoi, alonso and pulisic are pretty much first choices.

It was really only guehi, gilmour, James, caballero and batshuayi who are fringe players.

Certainly not just a reserve team. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, ceudmilefailte said:

Man Utd have a very strong line up. Chelsea are using it the way way most top teams do, to blood youngsters  and keep fringe players match fit. No way is that a strong Chelsea team.

Man Utd seem to be experimenting with three at the back.

Not a strong Chelsea team? Let's put things into perspective, the Chelsea team that started tonight has a market value of £274m. Tonight's Celtic starting XI tonight is worth £55m.

They'd win the SPL by Christmas.

United have played with 3 at the back for 3 of the last 4 matches, two of which they've won with one draw against Liverpool. I think they'll alternate from 3 to 4 for the rest of the season.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No one should dismiss Gilmour playing in the Chelsea first team, I don't care who it's against or how "weakened" the Chelsea team is. For an 18 year old to be playing first team football for Chelsea is a massive thing.

These are the same people who watch (highlights, most likely) Scott McTominay (Who is still learning) boss the midfield against Norwich and dismiss it with a "Who cares, it's just Norwich", completely oblivious to the fact that he's given MOTM displays against the likes of Barcelona, PSG, Liverpool, Arsenal, and tonight against Chelsea. But "who cares, it's only Barcelona..."

Probably the same people who rant and gushed about Ryan Christie scoring a hat trick against St Johnstone at the start of the season or the people who went wild over Forrest scoring against St Mirren tonight.

The point is, McTominay's progression is frightening, tonight he bossed a midfield comprising of Kovacic (He also played for Inter Milan and Real Madrid) and Jorginho (Napoli), both cost a combined £110m. And Gilmour is so highly thought of as to rub shoulders with a midfield duo who cost £110m.

There's a lot to moan about as far as Scottish football goes, but McTominay and Gilmour are shining lights.

Edited by The_Dark_Knight
Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, mccaughey85 said:

How did gilmour play, turned it on for a few mins and he looked a bit lost tbh but that could of been just the five mins I watched.

He did very well. Not to build him up or be all hyperbolic, but you can usually tell when a player belongs, and in this case, Billy Gilmour belongs in this company.

A nice and accurate blurb about the Tartan duo: Here

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, mccaughey85 said:

How did gilmour play, turned it on for a few mins and he looked a bit lost tbh but that could of been just the five mins I watched.

Wouldn't say he was lost, had a lot of possession, 88% pass rate, made a couple of tackles,  never got tackled, one dribble and had a shot at goal. All in all a pretty good debut stats wise

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, The_Dark_Knight said:

If a player is touched in the box, it's a penalty.

A defender shouldn't have to make contact with a player in order to defend.

 

utter rubbish. 

Contact does not equal a foul. 

Get the game stopped with that kind of attitude. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, mccaughey85 said:

How did gilmour play, turned it on for a few mins and he looked a bit lost tbh but that could of been just the five mins I watched.

I watched the whole game.  Thought it took 10-15 minutes for him to settle into the game, then did okay for the rest of the first half.  Faded a bit before being substituted.   Will be good experience for him though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Tartan Chris said:

Will be in the next squad for sure.

How's he play then? Box to box, number 10 type midfielder or more deep lying?

Personally I feel his current best position is as a deep lying creative midfielder, I think he has the potential to completely run a game from there. Everything will go through him for Scotland in a couple of years. A couple of ball winners and runners to break the lines beside him as he sprays the passes would be a cracking Midfield. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, AndyDD said:

utter rubbish. 

Contact does not equal a foul. 

Get the game stopped with that kind of attitude. 

Contact does equal a foul. If a defender puts his hands or arms on an attacking player, it be a foul. If a defender stick out a leg, and catches nothing but opponent, it also be a foul.

This is fact.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, The_Dark_Knight said:

Contact does equal a foul. If a defender puts his hands or arms on an attacking player, it be a foul. If a defender stick out a leg, and catches nothing but opponent, it also be a foul.

This is fact.

No, it doesn't. Otherwise there would be 4 penalties and 5 freekicks awarded at any corner or freekick into the box. Players touching each other does not make it a foul. Physical contact is permitted and does not in and of itself constitute a foul. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, AndyDD said:

No, it doesn't. Otherwise there would be 4 penalties and 5 freekicks awarded at any corner or freekick into the box. Players touching each other does not make it a foul. Physical contact is permitted and does not in and of itself constitute a foul. 

 

Maybe not when the game is static, like at a corner or free kick, but when players at running at defenders, and there's a touch on the attacker, he's within his right to go down. It's only a dive if he doesn't get touched.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, The_Dark_Knight said:

Maybe not when the game is static, like at a corner or free kick, but when players at running at defenders, and there's a touch on the attacker, he's within his right to go down. It's only a dive if he doesn't get touched.

Doesn't really make sense to have different rules for what is and isnt a foul at set-plays. Nor do I think that any contact is a foul at any time (not finding any rule which states it is, either, as it happens), but the highlighted part there is one of the worst attitudes to have increasingly crept into football in the last 20 years. 

Makes my skin crawl. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, AndyDD said:

Doesn't really make sense to have different rules for what is and isnt a foul at set-plays. Nor do I think that any contact is a foul at any time (not finding any rule which states it is, either, as it happens), but the highlighted part there is one of the worst attitudes to have increasingly crept into football in the last 20 years. 

Makes my skin crawl. 

 

Pushing and shoving is pretty much allowed at corners and freekicks, until the play gets under way. If a player is pushed in the box, after the ref continues play, it's a penalty.

If I'm a striker and I'm running towards goal and a defender lunges at the ball, is nowhere near it, but even grazes my leg (irrespective of the power of contact), I'm within my rights to go down. There's no obligation to do the defender a favour by staying on your feet.

Edited by The_Dark_Knight
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, The_Dark_Knight said:

Pushing and shoving is pretty much allowed at corners and freekicks, until the play gets under way. If a player is pushed in the box, after the ref continues play, it's a penalty.

If I'm a striker and I'm running towards goal and a defender lunges at the ball, is nowhere near it, but even grazes my leg (irrespective of the power of contact), I'm within my rights to go down. There's no obligation to do the defender a favour by staying on your feet.

See, there is a difference between a push and touching, though. 

Earlier you were saying touching someone, contact itself, is a foul. 

A push is a foul, I would say. Contact itself, it ain't necessarily so. 

If you're a striker running towards goal and you are touched by a defender, then throw yourself to the ground, well, you've thrown yourself to the ground,. You have not been fouled, you have dived, you deserve a yellow card. 

There's no obligation to stay on your feet, but if you have not been put their by a defender, or in any other way fouled, the ref is under no obligation to give you anything. 

It is a contact sport. 

A freekick or penalty should only be awarded if a player is fouled. Not touched; fouled. 

And here I thought you pined for the good old days. Imagine Craigy Broon's Scotland boys couldn't touch anyone? Even the three at the back wouldn't have saved them... ;) 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Law 12.   Impedes an opponent with contact.  Not all contact results in an opponent being impeded.   The fact that players are coached from an early age to go down if they feel a touch in the box doesn't make it any less of a dive.   The interpretation probably needs to be adjusted to not give the benefit of the doubt to the fouled player.

FWIW, I thought it was a penalty last night although James is developing a reputation for going down easily which will probably work against him in the future.

Quote

 

A direct free kick is awarded if a player commits any of the following offences:

  • a handball offence (except for the goalkeeper within their penalty area)
  • holds an opponent
  • impedes an opponent with contact
  • bites or spits at someone
  • throws an object at the ball, opponent or match official, or makes contact with the ball with a held object

See also offences in Law 3

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, aaid said:

Law 12.   Impedes an opponent with contact.  Not all contact results in an opponent being impeded.   The fact that players are coached from an early age to go down if they feel a touch in the box doesn't make it any less of a dive.   The interpretation probably needs to be adjusted to not give the benefit of the doubt to the fouled player.

FWIW, I thought it was a penalty last night although James is developing a reputation for going down easily which will probably work against him in the future.

 

Spot on. 

Anyway; Gilmour included in the Under-21 squad today. Clarke persisting with leaving the under 21s together? If Gilmour gets more game time over the next 10 days or so it might well force his hand. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, AndyDD said:

See, there is a difference between a push and touching, though. 

Earlier you were saying touching someone, contact itself, is a foul. 

A push is a foul, I would say. Contact itself, it ain't necessarily so. 

If you're a striker running towards goal and you are touched by a defender, then throw yourself to the ground, well, you've thrown yourself to the ground,. You have not been fouled, you have dived, you deserve a yellow card. 

There's no obligation to stay on your feet, but if you have not been put their by a defender, or in any other way fouled, the ref is under no obligation to give you anything. 

It is a contact sport. 

A freekick or penalty should only be awarded if a player is fouled. Not touched; fouled. 

And here I thought you pined for the good old days. Imagine Craigy Broon's Scotland boys couldn't touch anyone? Even the three at the back wouldn't have saved them... ;) 

I'd say that if you were running with the ball towards goal and a player nudges you in the back or a slight touch, it's a pen

So, what you're saying is that a striker has the moral obligation to stay on his feet, unless he's touched with enough force to take him off my feet? Yeah, well, maybe those are the rules to Disney's Football...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, The_Dark_Knight said:

I'd say that if you were running with the ball towards goal and a player nudges you in the back or a slight touch, it's a pen

So, what you're saying is that a striker has the moral obligation to stay on his feet, unless he's touched with enough force to take him off my feet? Yeah, well, maybe those are the rules to Disney's Football...

... No, I literally said -

'There's no obligation to stay on your feet'

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...