Billy Gilmour

[ParisInAKilt]

1 minute ago, Dave78 said:

Maybe, but i'd been much closer IMO. We lost midfield tonight and Modric ran it.

Easy to say that now.

They have better players all over the pitch, pinning our hopes on someone who’s barely played 20 games is desperate.

[TDYER63]

1 minute ago, ParisInAKilt said:

Easy to say that now.

They have better players all over the pitch, pinning our hopes on someone who’s barely played 20 games is desperate.

But its only desperate if you look at that player in isolation ( no pun intended 😕) 

Its what an individual brings to the entire team. I am not saying we would have won,  but Gilmour definitely brings something that Armstrong could only dream of and I also believe it would have been closer had he been playing. 

[Dave78]

16 minutes ago, ParisInAKilt said:

Easy to say that now.

They have better players all over the pitch, pinning our hopes on someone who’s barely played 20 games is desperate.

I felt this as soon as i saw the news of him being out.

I think we all did, to some extent

[mccaughey85]

Ppl are deluding themselves if they think Gilmour would of won us that game tonight, we were up against a quality side who really pulled a big performance out the bag when they needed it. We need a forward or attacking players who can convert the chances we make. 

[Dave78]

2 minutes ago, mccaughey85 said:

Ppl are deluding themselves if they think Gilmour would of won us that game tonight, we were up against a quality side who really pulled a big performance out the bag when they needed it. We need a forward or attacking players who can convert the chances we make. 

Not saying he'd have won us the game. Just that he'd have made a big difference to our midfield, and made the match a lot closer.

Surely we can agree that Armstrong was not an adequate replacement?

[mccaughey85]

14 minutes ago, Dave78 said:

Not saying he'd have won us the game. Just that he'd have made a big difference to our midfield, and made the match a lot closer.

Surely we can agree that Armstrong was not an adequate replacement?

Might of made a difference but I think our lack of ability to take chances is what really cost us. 

[Dave78]

4 minutes ago, mccaughey85 said:

Might of made a difference but I think our lack of ability to take chances is what really cost us. 

Yep, no doubt

[aaid]

I hope someone from the SFA remembers that he's stuck down in Darlington on his own.

[wee-toon-red]

Being linked with a loan to Norwich. Potentially a good move for him unless Tuchel plans on using him more than he has done since January.

[Instant coffee]

His ability to come for the ball, keep it and get it moving was sadly lacking last night. An outstanding player, who Clarke should be building his team around.

[Third Lanark]

11 hours ago, Dave78 said:

Not saying he'd have won us the game. Just that he'd have made a big difference to our midfield, and made the match a lot closer.

Surely we can agree that Armstrong was not an adequate replacement?

Armstrong was most certainly NOT an adequate replacement. He can only play wide in a 4-4-2, just is incapable of passing accurately in a middle three. We could do with someone like England's Phillips.

[Malcolm]

BBC stating he is talks about a loan move to Norwich or rangers should they progress in the champions league.

[Lion Rampant]

I really don't want to see him anywhere near the Scottish league to be honest, he's good enough to be starting for a team like Chelsea.

I think Norwich would be a bad move also.

Someone like Brighton who attempt to play football would be good. Failing that a move abroad.

[ThistleWhistle]

Just now, Lion Rampant said:

I really don't want to see him anywhere near the Scottish league to be honest, he's good enough to be starting for a team like Chelsea.

I think Norwich would be a bad move also.

Someone like Brighton who attempt to play football would be good. Failing that a move abroad.

Agree with that - at Norwich he could easily be playing in relegation fodder and find himself on the bench if they try to shore things up.  If he goes to Rangers he'll possibly be playing at his level for 6 champions league games and a couple of OF matches that'll probably resort to hammer throwing anyway.  

Much prefer if he went out to Spain, Germany or Italy.  

He'd fit at Liverpool but can't see Chelsea loaning him there.  

[Rolling hIlls]

1 hour ago, ThistleWhistle said:

Agree with that - at Norwich he could easily be playing in relegation fodder and find himself on the bench if they try to shore things up.  If he goes to Rangers he'll possibly be playing at his level for 6 champions league games and a couple of OF matches that'll probably resort to hammer throwing anyway.  

Much prefer if he went out to Spain, Germany or Italy.  

He'd fit at Liverpool but can't see Chelsea loaning him there.  

Hammer throwing in the champions league?

[aaid]

2 hours ago, ThistleWhistle said:

Agree with that - at Norwich he could easily be playing in relegation fodder and find himself on the bench if they try to shore things up.  If he goes to Rangers he'll possibly be playing at his level for 6 champions league games and a couple of OF matches that'll probably resort to hammer throwing anyway.  

Much prefer if he went out to Spain, Germany or Italy.  

He'd fit at Liverpool but can't see Chelsea loaning him there.  

Farke, the Norwich manager was the coach of Dortmund’s second team at the same time that Tuchel was manager of the first team.  Probably explains why they’re in the frame to get Gilmour on loan.

I think Norwich will do reasonably well next season and don’t think they’ll be in trouble.  They kept the manager and bulk of the squad that was relegated two seasons ago and came straight back up.  Clubs that do that tend to do okay as they’re better for the experience.  

[Third Lanark]

On 6/23/2021 at 12:28 AM, TDYER63 said:

But its only desperate if you look at that player in isolation ( no pun intended 😕) 

Its what an individual brings to the entire team. I am not saying we would have won,  but Gilmour definitely brings something that Armstrong could only dream of and I also believe it would have been closer had he been playing. 

It's just a pity that the whole of our midfield decided to self-isolate!🤣

[ThistleWhistle]

6 minutes ago, aaid said:

Farke, the Norwich manager was the coach of Dortmund’s second team at the same time that Tuchel was manager of the first team.  Probably explains why they’re in the frame to get Gilmour on loan.

I think Norwich will do reasonably well next season and don’t think they’ll be in trouble.  They kept the manager and bulk of the squad that was relegated two seasons ago and came straight back up.  Clubs that do that tend to do okay as they’re better for the experience.  

Don't get me wrong Farke plays brilliant football to watch and when they played Stoke it was like a completely different sport being honest.  

My concern would be due to the naivety last time around would he stick so steadfastly to his principles this time around if it starts going pear shaped and would Norwich stick with him if he did?  I'd suspect Norwich would stick with him regardless and as another factor they seem to previously be a side happy enough to yoyo and cream the profits rather than risking their balance sheet which is admirable.  

 

[Haggis_trap]

Re : Gilmour
He was brilliant against England. 

However ( ... please bear with me here) : the interesting thing for me is that he odes nothing out of the ordinary.
In simple terms he gets the ball and then makes a pass....
When we have possession Gilmour provides himself as easy option.
When we don't have possession he closes down quickly.
Almost like a link between defense and midfield which was missing in the other 2 games.

This totally changed the way our team played:
1) The defence could play out.  Tierney and McTominay are both good players in possession and had options.
2) MacGregor had a much better game with Gilmour next to him.
3) John McGinn was free to roam forward where he is much more dangerous.
4) For periods of game the entire team was suddenly able to retain possession. 

Clearly we missed Gilmour against Croatia.
But - there is much more to it than that.
The starting 11 players need to learn how to keep possession and play out.
A series of simple short passes might longer term be more effective than a big punt up to Lyndon.
If we can keep possession then team gets lets tired and costly mistakes are less like to happen.

Its not like Gilmour was skinning players with outrageous skill or pace <etc>.  He is not Maradona.
Rather he was doing the simple things well.  There is no reason the entire team cant play more like that?

Edited June 24, 2021 by Haggis_trap

[Bino's]

9 minutes ago, Haggis_trap said:

Re : Gilmour
He was brilliant against England. 

However ( ... please bear with me here) : the interesting thing for me is that he odes nothing out of the ordinary.
In simple terms he gets the ball and then makes a pass....
When we have possession Gilmour provides himself as easy option.
When we don't have possession he closes down quickly.
Almost like a link between defense and midfield which was missing in the other 2 games.

This totally changed the way our team played:
1) The defence could play out.  Tierney and McTominay are both good players in possession and had options.
2) MacGregor had a much better game with Gilmour next to him.
3) John McGinn was free to roam forward where he is much more dangerous.
4) For periods of game the entire team was suddenly able to retain possession. 

Clearly we missed Gilmour against Croatia.
But - there is much more to it than that.
The starting 11 players need to learn how to keep possession and play out.
A series of simple short passes might longer term be more effective than a big punt up to Lyndon.
If we can keep possession then team gets lets tired and costly mistakes are less like to happen.

Its not like Gilmour was skinning players with outrageous skill or pace <etc>.  He is not Maradona.
Rather he was doing the simple things well.  There is no reason the entire team cant play more like that?

In other words

Our players need to learn how every other nation on earth,  including your kosovos , already plays football 

[aaid]

29 minutes ago, ThistleWhistle said:

Don't get me wrong Farke plays brilliant football to watch and when they played Stoke it was like a completely different sport being honest.  

My concern would be due to the naivety last time around would he stick so steadfastly to his principles this time around if it starts going pear shaped and would Norwich stick with him if he did?  I'd suspect Norwich would stick with him regardless and as another factor they seem to previously be a side happy enough to yoyo and cream the profits rather than risking their balance sheet which is admirable.  

 

Different style of play but I’m thinking of Burnley who went up under Dyche, got relegated the following season, took them up again the following year and they’ve stuck.

[aaid]

13 minutes ago, Haggis_trap said:
Rather he was doing the simple things well.  There is no reason the entire team cant play more like that?

I think you do him a disservice there.  What he does, and which no other player in the squad does is to take the ball when he’s under pressure and in a crowded midfield, to control it and to play a successful pass to a teammate.  When he turns over possession it’s a shock.

I get that sounds simple but it’s probably one of the most difficult things to do in midfield, a lot more difficult for example than playing some 40 yard “Hollywood” ball when you’re under pressure.

His ability means that he makes the difficult stuff look simple and easy, in truth there’s very few players anywhere that can do that to the same degree.

[Orraloon]

13 minutes ago, Bino's said:

In other words

Our players need to learn how every other nation on earth,  including your kosovos , already plays football 

Exactly.

 

24 minutes ago, Haggis_trap said:

 There is no reason the entire team cant play more like that?

There one very good reason. That is that at least half (maybe more) of our squad don't have the basic skills and technique to be able to do that. 

[Haggis_trap]

9 minutes ago, Orraloon said:

Exactly.

 

There one very good reason. That is that at least half (maybe more) of our squad don't have the basic skills and technique to be able to do that. 

Exactly - just hold onto the ball!

[Haggis_trap]

10 minutes ago, Orraloon said:

Exactly.

 

There one very good reason. That is that at least half (maybe more) of our squad don't have the basic skills and technique to be able to do that. 

We managed it against England....

Much of what Gilmour does isn't flash or complicated.
Make yourself available for a pass... then play it onwards 20-30 yards.
Do that 50 times a game and suddenly the opposition get tired faster than you / gaps open up / team starts to function.