The Riddle of Scot Gemmill & the U21s - TA specific - Tartan Army Message Board Jump to content

The Riddle of Scot Gemmill & the U21s


ErsatzThistle
 Share

Recommended Posts

Can anyone explain why on earth this born loser has lasted so long (appointed in 2016) in charge of our U21 team ?

His job is an important one, and yet he's been allowed by the SFA to get away with inflicting too much damage for too long. He plays miserable, negative long ball football and has an aversion to using flair players.

Oh and before anyone starts, "he's Erchie's boy" and "he turned up for Craig Brown many times" are not reasons to let him stay on in his job.

Does anyone have his stats (win, draws, losses, goals scored, goals conceded) for his tenure as U21 boss ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, ErsatzThistle said:

Does anyone have his stats (win, draws, losses, goals scored, goals conceded) for his tenure as U21 boss ?

Under 21's shouldn't be result orientated but they appear to be by Gemmill, why else would you pick players after they have actually passed 21 when 99 times out of a hundred they won't make it to the full squad.

Iv'e no idea what other countries average age is in their squads but the vast majority must be lower than ours.

Woops,  sorry misread the question you wanted to know why he is the boss not why he shouldn't be.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, ErsatzThistle said:

He's also called up no fewer than nine goalkeepers in the last twelve months 😳

Mibee Clarke has tasked him to find one good enough to get in big team

Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, stocky said:

Mibee Clarke has tasked him to find one good enough to get in big team

😄 I was just about to say, I didn't think we even had nine young goalkeepers. That's actually cheered me up a bit!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, ErsatzThistle said:

Can anyone explain why on earth this born loser has lasted so long (appointed in 2016) in charge of our U21 team ?

His job is an important one, and yet he's been allowed by the SFA to get away with inflicting too much damage for too long. He plays miserable, negative long ball football and has an aversion to using flair players.

Oh and before anyone starts, "he's Erchie's boy" and "he turned up for Craig Brown many times" are not reasons to let him stay on in his job.

Does anyone have his stats (win, draws, losses, goals scored, goals conceded) for his tenure as U21 boss ?

Completely agree.

Not sure what is more bizarre and laughable - Gemmill still being in his job or Billy Stark being in charge of the 19s still!!

Also remember when Gemmill had covid or whatever and it was Peter Houston who took the under 21s 😂😂

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, ceudmilefailte said:

Under 21's shouldn't be result orientated but they appear to be by Gemmill, why else would you pick players after they have actually passed 21 when 99 times out of a hundred they won't make it to the full squad.

Iv'e no idea what other countries average age is in their squads but the vast majority must be lower than ours.

Woops,  sorry misread the question you wanted to know why he is the boss not why he shouldn't be.

Very good point.

There has been starting lineups when 7 out of 11 were over 21 etc. 

23 year olds from Ayr United still being capped because they are still eligible etc etc.

You look at the last squad and Alex Lowry should 100% have played - didn’t even get on the park. Scott High and some future SPL/championship journeymen played ahead of him. Sums it up. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, ProudScot said:

Very good point.

There has been starting lineups when 7 out of 11 were over 21 etc. 

23 year olds from Ayr United still being capped because they are still eligible etc etc.

You look at the last squad and Alex Lowry should 100% have played - didn’t even get on the park. Scott High and some future SPL/championship journeymen played ahead of him. Sums it up. 

That final game, were we are out and have been out for about 4 games. He starts just 1 eligible player for the next campaign. Plays so negative it is unreal and plays to show no actual footballing capacity. 

 

On the Ayr LB, there were 2 of them. He called up both at 22/23, before Doig and Hickey. That tells you all you need to know about the man.

Did you know Nathan Patterson never once played RB for the u21s? Or that McCrorie played more as a RB than a CM? That Turnbull barely featured and was behind Barry Maguire?

 

How is this developing players? That is the remit of an u21 manager. Whereas Gemmell has the mindset of a dinosaur. My favourite was his article about needing to give younger players a chance earlier, yet he doesn't follow through with it himself, even at u21 level.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, ErsatzThistle said:

Oh and before anyone starts, "he's Erchie's boy" and "he turned up for Craig Brown many times" are not reasons to let him stay on in his job.

Best of luck finding anyone that will disagree with you, let alone anyone that would say this 😄

I find it genuinely bizarre that he remains in post. Some of the stuff he comes out with, like when questioned on his selection of inferior older players, was that he has an obligation to continue picking them once he has picked them once. What? That is absolute nonsense, the players have an obligation to continue to improve and perform if they want to continue to receive the honour of selection for their country. There is zero obligation to select any player except the one who is best. There is no benefit whatsoever in helping journeymen players be the best they can be when they will never trouble international selection, especially when those players left out are missing out on crucial development opportunities.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Scots_Wha_Hae said:

Best of luck finding anyone that will disagree with you, let alone anyone that would say this 😄

I find it genuinely bizarre that he remains in post. Some of the stuff he comes out with, like when questioned on his selection of inferior older players, was that he has an obligation to continue picking them once he has picked them once. What? That is absolute nonsense, the players have an obligation to continue to improve and perform if they want to continue to receive the honour of selection for their country. There is zero obligation to select any player except the one who is best. There is no benefit whatsoever in helping journeymen players be the best they can be when they will never trouble international selection, especially when those players left out are missing out on crucial development opportunities.

I don't even think the one who's best should be picked if he isn't that good. Far better to pick a younger player with the scope to become better. 

If he said he was just playing players because he had picked them before there really is no hope. Surely that's not true? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, ErsatzThistle said:

Can anyone explain why on earth this born loser has lasted so long (appointed in 2016) in charge of our U21 team ?

His job is an important one, and yet he's been allowed by the SFA to get away with inflicting too much damage for too long. He plays miserable, negative long ball football and has an aversion to using flair players.

Oh and before anyone starts, "he's Erchie's boy" and "he turned up for Craig Brown many times" are not reasons to let him stay on in his job.

Does anyone have his stats (win, draws, losses, goals scored, goals conceded) for his tenure as U21 boss ?


he’s a good lad.  Always turned up even when he didn’t get a game 😊

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, ProudScot said:

Very good point.

There has been starting lineups when 7 out of 11 were over 21 etc. 

23 year olds from Ayr United still being capped because they are still eligible etc etc.

You look at the last squad and Alex Lowry should 100% have played - didn’t even get on the park. Scott High and some future SPL/championship journeymen played ahead of him. Sums it up. 

Sticking with his 'tried and trusted' might have been forgivable if we were still in with a chance of qualification but that went ages ago, finishing second bottom of the group (albeit a difficult group).  

Even Craig Brown, with his reputed reluctance to field new players, brought fresh blood into the squad - the senior squad too - once we were out of the running for qualification for USA '94, because he knew another campaign was just around the corner.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Scots_Wha_Hae said:

Best of luck finding anyone that will disagree with you, let alone anyone that would say this 😄

Pre-covid there was a discussion (pre-covid) about the U21s on Sportsound. One of them said Scot Gemmill "fully deserved" his job with the U21s because "he turned up so many times for Scotland when he was a player" and the spineless panel agreed !

Scottish fitba really is a circle wank between auld pals.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, ProudScot said:

Very good point.

There has been starting lineups when 7 out of 11 were over 21 etc. 

23 year olds from Ayr United still being capped because they are still eligible etc etc.

You look at the last squad and Alex Lowry should 100% have played - didn’t even get on the park. Scott High and some future SPL/championship journeymen played ahead of him. Sums it up. 

Also watched the last game and thought the same thing! 
Why has he left Lowry on the bench, okay he didn’t start but at least give the lad some minutes and his style of play may have got Scotland out of their own box in the second half !! 
 

On paper it looked an okay result but it wasn’t until you saw that game, especially that 2nd half it was horrific…….

Link to comment
Share on other sites

maybe we should look at the young players coming throught and why its not working. player over the age up too 23 can still play because if you start the qualifiers under the age of 21 you can hardly say you cant play in the finals and there is the point in a nutshell with 9 keepers players getting older. we should being starting players at a very early age. people like hickey for a start didnt want to play well clarke should have told him to eff off if you dont want to play. once it meant something to play for the badge it means sod all these days

Edited by calum83
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, calum83 said:

maybe we should look at the young players coming throught and why its not working. player over the age up too 23 can still play because if you start the qualifiers under the age of 21 you can hardly say you cant play in the finals and there is the point in a nutshell with 9 keepers players getting older. we should being starting players at a very early age. people like hickey for a start didnt want to play well clarke should have told him to eff off if you dont want to play. once it meant something to play for the badge it means sod all these days

Hi Mr Gemmill, nice of you to join us 👍

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A little example of the institutional bias within the Scottish game.

The fixture list has just came out, can anyone give me an honest, plausible explanation as to why the “Old Firm” have and never will play each other on the 1st game of the season?

If anyone wants to have a laugh, look at the amount of times Livingston fc have played the “Old Firm” on the 1st game of the season. I think we’ve only been in the top flight around 8 seasons over 2 periods and I’m pretty sure we’ve met the “Old Firm” on the majority opening day fixtures, I wonder what the chances of that are statistically? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Scot1 said:

A little example of the institutional bias within the Scottish game.

The fixture list has just came out, can anyone give me an honest, plausible explanation as to why the “Old Firm” have and never will play each other on the 1st game of the season?

If anyone wants to have a laugh, look at the amount of times Livingston fc have played the “Old Firm” on the 1st game of the season. I think we’ve only been in the top flight around 8 seasons over 2 periods and I’m pretty sure we’ve met the “Old Firm” on the majority opening day fixtures, I wonder what the chances of that are statistically? 

The only reason I can think of is because one of them generally wins the title and the beaks wont want the other mob there for the flag day in case it causes bother?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Scot1 said:

A little example of the institutional bias within the Scottish game.

The fixture list has just came out, can anyone give me an honest, plausible explanation as to why the “Old Firm” have and never will play each other on the 1st game of the season?

If anyone wants to have a laugh, look at the amount of times Livingston fc have played the “Old Firm” on the 1st game of the season. I think we’ve only been in the top flight around 8 seasons over 2 periods and I’m pretty sure we’ve met the “Old Firm” on the majority opening day fixtures, I wonder what the chances of that are statistically? 

The fixture list can never be random due to policing; The Old Firm matches typically end up on the same weekend each year, presumably for that reason. I'm guessing they'd want to plan as far in advance of the game in order to have the right amount of staff, and correct individuals, available for those matches.

It's not just football matches than can affect the policing requirements, but other events: I can't imagine the police would be too happy having an Edinburgh derby on the same weekend as a Scotland rugby match at Murrayfield, while Leeds and Reading (as an English example) can't play at home on the weekend of their music festivals.

I'm guessing the Old Firm never play each other on the first game of the season due to the summer holidays being the most likely time of the year where staff will want to take holiday, the prior knowledge of policing around the established dates and, possibly, other police intensive events taking place in Glasgow around the same time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/16/2022 at 8:41 PM, ceudmilefailte said:

Under 21's shouldn't be result orientated but they appear to be by Gemmill, why else would you pick players after they have actually passed 21 when 99 times out of a hundred they won't make it to the full squad.

Iv'e no idea what other countries average age is in their squads but the vast majority must be lower than ours.

Woops,  sorry misread the question you wanted to know why he is the boss not why he shouldn't be.

If I remember rightly, Edouard was playing for the French U21s at 23. Where as Mbappe was playing for the senior team at like 18/19. Edouard has no chance of ever getting a full French cap.

I wouldn't say if you haven't broken into the senior side by 23, you aren't going to. What I would say is playing u21 football at 23 isn't going to do you any favours in getting there. 

I think Clarke, or maybe one of his coaches e.g Naismith, should have more influence on squad selection. So, if there are players like Lowry that we all think will likely make the grade at senior level, they should be forced into the u21s as early as possible.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think we can see from this and many posts in the past we get it so wrong with youth football. The way a lot of people have jumped on the We want Clarke out is totally the opposite to how we react to Gemmill. He has had years to sort out how he runs the whole setup at u21 and he has never got it right consistently. I think the main question should be about the people at the top of our game who make these decisions and they are the ones who get it wrong and they are the ones who should be out of a job. I don't know much of how these people get their jobs and what us as fans can do about it but there lies our problem and has been this way for years.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
On 6/16/2022 at 8:01 PM, ErsatzThistle said:

Can anyone explain why on earth this born loser has lasted so long (appointed in 2016) in charge of our U21 team ?

His job is an important one, and yet he's been allowed by the SFA to get away with inflicting too much damage for too long. He plays miserable, negative long ball football and has an aversion to using flair players.

Oh and before anyone starts, "he's Erchie's boy" and "he turned up for Craig Brown many times" are not reasons to let him stay on in his job.

Does anyone have his stats (win, draws, losses, goals scored, goals conceded) for his tenure as U21 boss ?

Couldn't agree more, I was terrified he might have been handed a shot at the big job. Still can't fathom how he's still there. 

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...
 Share



×
×
  • Create New...