Billy Gilmour

[No_Problemo]

15 minutes ago, 2426255 said:

It's similar to with Ryan Gauld. People ignore the evidence in favor of their own already formed viewpoint. This post is a good example of that. If we start with the assumption that Billy Gilmour is un-droppable then the only possible answer would be that manager is incompetent for dropping him. If we for a second consider him not to be un-droppable we can actually look for the reasons why Kenny McLean plays in the Norwich team and Gilmour doesn't.

Norwich will finish bottom with McLean in midfield, over Gilmour. This will be shown in the coming months if the situation remains the same - McLean is several levels below Gilmour. It is completely damning of Farke’s recruitment and set up that he feels he needs to play a player who is miles inferior to scrape 0-0 draws. 
 

The rest of the points you found from the Norwich podcast are nonsense - Norwich fans not rating Austria, Denmark, England and Israel is laughable, given they are all likely better than Norwich to some degree. The current Scotland side and midfield in particular is far beyond the current Norwich side and yet Gilmour is one of our better performers.
 

Of course, Farke is correct though. 

[MrWorldwideJr]

11 minutes ago, 2426255 said:

It's similar to with Ryan Gauld. People ignore the evidence in favor of their own already formed viewpoint. This post is a good example of that. If we start with the assumption that Billy Gilmour is un-droppable then the only possible answer would be that manager is incompetent for dropping him. If we for a second consider him not to be un-droppable we can actually look for the reasons why Kenny McLean plays in the Norwich team and Gilmour doesn't.

You'd get a lot further with your posts if you dropped this patronising 'I'm so much cleverer than anyone else on this forum, I see things the rest of you don't, none of you use logic to come to your opinions' nonsense. Maybe actually try to have a discussion in good faith rather than motivated by trying to make yourself look like you have a deeper understanding of football than everyone else. It's not exactly surprising that people get defensive about your posts when the subtext behind every one of them is 'I'm much smarter than you'.

[accies1874]

Thinking he might not be the kind of player you want in a relegation battle is fair enough but I would question why Chelsea and Norwich agreed on the deal then. I'm hoping Norwich being shit will improve him defensively but that's unlikely to happen if he's not playing.

The quality of opposition argument is nonsense.

[Stellaboz]

This numbered c**t seems a wee bit lonely.

[J_Stewart]

2 hours ago, 2426255 said:

• The Norwich fans don't rate the quality of opposition Scotland are playing.

Such as England. Lol

[2426255]

37 minutes ago, MrWorldwideJr said:

You'd get a lot further with your posts if you dropped this patronising 'I'm so much cleverer than anyone else on this forum, I see things the rest of you don't, none of you use logic to come to your opinions' nonsense. Maybe actually try to have a discussion in good faith rather than motivated by trying to make yourself look like you have a deeper understanding of football than everyone else. It's not exactly surprising that people get defensive about your posts when the subtext behind every one of them is 'I'm much smarter than you'.

I was fairly polite and reasonable with my posts when I first joined up here as well, but this forum doesn't work based around reason and respect.  It's just wasted effort to be honest, I prefer this style now - direct. Anyway, it's a learned behaviour based on my experience using the forum, that's what I'll tell myself....lol 

Edited October 18, 2021 by 2426255

[HuttonDressedAsLahm]

12 minutes ago, accies1874 said:

Thinking he might not be the kind of player you want in a relegation battle is fair enough but I would question why Chelsea and Norwich agreed on the deal then. I'm hoping Norwich being shit will improve him defensively but that's unlikely to happen if he's not playing.

The quality of opposition argument is nonsense.

It's mind numbing nonsense, isn't it?  He's shown himself to be one of, if not the best player on the pitch in every one of those games.  It's not like he's just shown himself to be competent, he's superior by some distance.  In exactly the same way as in many Chelsea appearances.

Of course, if Norwich want to put 10 men behind the ball and play football by attrition with Kenny McLean (on record acknowledging how much more talented Gilmour is), then that is Farke's prerogative.   

Obviously, it makes a mockery of the statements made in pre-season, and the whole purpose of his loan move.

[DrewDon]

Farke will know that Gilmour is a better footballer than McLean. I think it is understandable after so many successive defeats and conceding far too many goals, though, to pick a  more pragmatic, physical midfield who will help to grind out a couple of clean sheets and keep the manager in a job for a bit longer. It’s the sort of thing Farke was criticised for not doing the last time they were in the Premier League. 

Hopefully now that they have a base to build from Farke will slowly go back to being bolder and Gilmour will get more minutes as they take the handbrake off a bit and seek to get the wins they need to try and stay up. 

[oneteaminglasgow]

I listened to that bit of the podcast, and they spent a fair chunk talking about the fact that Gilmour was being asked to do a job which obviously isn’t his game by Farke, and that Farke doesn’t seem to know how to get the best out of him. They stress the need for Farke to work out how to play him, as he’s obviously better than what they have if they want to win games of football, rather than just defend 0-0’s. 

The chat about the level of opposition faced by Scotland was arrogant nonsense, but we’ll move on from that.

They rate McLean’s ability to run around a lot, which probably shows you where Norwich as a team are rather than anything else.

My main takeaway from it is that they all know that Billy Gilmour is better than what they have otherwise, but that Farke is, so far, unable to work out how to use him properly.

[KingRocketman II]

39 minutes ago, HuttonDressedAsLahm said:

It's mind numbing nonsense, isn't it?  He's shown himself to be one of, if not the best player on the pitch in every one of those games.  It's not like he's just shown himself to be competent, he's superior by some distance.  In exactly the same way as in many Chelsea appearances.

Of course, if Norwich want to put 10 men behind the ball and play football by attrition with Kenny McLean (on record acknowledging how much more talented Gilmour is), then that is Farke's prerogative.   

Obviously, it makes a mockery of the statements made in pre-season, and the whole purpose of his loan move.

he is one of them "luxury" players. The way a Southern European was considered 30 odd years ago - great to have when you're winning; first to drop when you need to roll your sleeves up . 

Doesn't say much for the quality and attributes of the Norwich squad.....

[No_Problemo]

2 minutes ago, oneteaminglasgow said:

I listened to that bit of the podcast, and they spent a fair chunk talking about the fact that Gilmour was being asked to do a job which obviously isn’t his game by Farke, and that Farke doesn’t seem to know how to get the best out of him. They stress the need for Farke to work out how to play him, as he’s obviously better than what they have if they want to win games of football, rather than just defend 0-0’s. 

The chat about the level of opposition faced by Scotland was arrogant nonsense, but we’ll move on from that.

They rate McLean’s ability to run around a lot, which probably shows you where Norwich as a team are rather than anything else.

My main takeaway from it is that they all know that Billy Gilmour is better than what they have otherwise, but that Farke is, so far, unable to work out how to use him properly.

Are you telling me that the numbers guy hand picked parts of the podcast to fit his biased, one sided narrative?

[eez-eh]

There’s no point in Chelsea recalling him before January is there? So he’s got over two months to get back into the team. Don’t think he’s the type to give up either, by all accounts when Tuchel came in and bombed him out of the Chelsea squad last season he didn’t let his head drop before eventually proving himself worthy of a few starts towards the end of the season.

It’s disappointing and frankly a bit bizarre looking from the outside but I think the headlines of Chelsea wanting to recall him already are just click-bait.

[2426255]

4 hours ago, 2426255 said:

Pink un, a Norwich City podcast suggest that since the Watford defeat that Norwich have changed their focus to become harder to beat and that has coincided with a change in formation, a change in personnel and Billy Gilmour losing his place in the team.

Summary

• The Norwich fans don't rate the quality of opposition Scotland are playing.
• Norwich fan expectations were through the roof because of the hype surrounding Billy Gilmour.
• While acknowledging Gilmours qualities, a consensus has formed that Kenny McLean has preferable qualities for a relegation battle (also note it's really Mathias Normann who has taken his place who was signed late in the transfer window).
• Gilmour won't be eligible to play against Chelsea meaning he won't have played for Norwich in over 1 month. 

 

38 minutes ago, oneteaminglasgow said:

I listened to that bit of the podcast, and they spent a fair chunk talking about the fact that Gilmour was being asked to do a job which obviously isn’t his game by Farke, and that Farke doesn’t seem to know how to get the best out of him. They stress the need for Farke to work out how to play him, as he’s obviously better than what they have if they want to win games of football, rather than just defend 0-0’s. 

The chat about the level of opposition faced by Scotland was arrogant nonsense, but we’ll move on from that.

They rate McLean’s ability to run around a lot, which probably shows you where Norwich as a team are rather than anything else.

My main takeaway from it is that they all know that Billy Gilmour is better than what they have otherwise, but that Farke is, so far, unable to work out how to use him properly.

Do you think it was a biased summary to fit a one sided narrative? 

I put the podcast link up there so anyone can listen to it, get a fresh different perspective and help inform your opinion. So to all you that think I have an agenda maybe listen to it and think for yourself before jumping to conclusions about whether I am using it purely to promote a biased viewpoint. 

Edited October 18, 2021 by 2426255

[Big Fifer]

Norwich have got far bigger and more hilarious problems to sort out having seen that miss from Sargent at the weekend. Magnificent stuff. 

[Clown Job]

1 hour ago, eez-eh said:

There’s no point in Chelsea recalling him before January is there? So he’s got over two months to get back into the team. Don’t think he’s the type to give up either, by all accounts when Tuchel came in and bombed him out of the Chelsea squad last season he didn’t let his head drop before eventually proving himself worthy of a few starts towards the end of the season.

It’s disappointing and frankly a bit bizarre looking from the outside but I think the headlines of Chelsea wanting to recall him already are just click-bait.

Don’t think you can play for 3 teams in a single season 

They won’t be able to recall him, play him and loan him back out again in January 

[19QOS19]

The Norwich fans don't rate the quality of opposition Scotland are playing.

That one's a belter. Their highest ranked opponent is 14 places lower than ours and they have the worst international footballing side in their group as well. If I could trade places with England for their group I would do it in a heartbeat. They seem to scraping by in their one and I'd expect Denmark to still top it.

You have to love their lack of self-awareness and their continued disbelief when they get papped out of tournaments when they face a half way decent side.


Poland - 24th
Hungary - 40th
Albania - 66th
Andorra - 156th
San Marino - 210th/last


Denmark - 10th
Austria - 29th
Israel - 80th
Faroes - 114th
Moldova - 180th

[2426255]

56 minutes ago, 19QOS19 said:

Their highest ranked opponent is 14 places lower than ours and they have the worst international footballing side in their group as well. 

Isn't that because England are top seeds, they get an easier draw? You can't compare our 1st seed to their 2nd seed. Replace Denmark with England and see how they'd do in that group (England, Austria, Scotland, Israel, Faroes, Moldova)  and maybe also throw Denmark in Englands group for comparison (Denmark, Poland, Hungary, Albania, Andorra, San Marino).

As a first seed they probably wouldn't respect Austria or Israel to be honest and I could see them saying they should be beating Denmark. We say we should beat Israel so if you believe that you can't really argue with the English. 

 

 

Edited October 18, 2021 by 2426255

[19QOS19]

Isn't that because England are top seeds, they get an easier draw? You can't compare our 1st seed to their 2nd seed. Replace Denmark with England and see how they'd do in that group (England, Austria, Scotland, Israel, Faroes, Moldova)  and maybe also throw Denmark in Englands group for comparison (Denmark, Poland, Hungary, Albania, Andorra, San Marino).
 

 

My point is they wouldn't be spouting such shite if one of their players was playing regularly for England. Scotland face tougher opposition and yet they have the audacity to say they don't think much of ours.

[Bairnardo]

My point is they wouldn't be spouting such shite if one of their players was playing regularly for England. Scotland face tougher opposition and yet they have the audacity to see they don't think much of ours.

See furious masturbation over Kalvin Phillips after 1 good match against a fairly mediocre Croatia team that absolutely failed to show up against England for a recent example of a player talked up in England for performances in England shirt.

[oneteaminglasgow]

3 hours ago, 2426255 said:

 

Do you think it was a biased summary to fit a one sided narrative? 

I don’t really care to be honest, mate.

Also, forgot to say that the host said something about Gilmour only being able to play in the top sides which will dominate games regularly, and I thought that was absolute nonsense given that he plays, and plays very well regularly, for Scotland.

As I say, my main takeaway is that if Norwich aren’t able to find a way to use Billy Gilmour effectively then that is a huge failing on the part of Daniel Farke. He’s quite clearly the most talented midfielder at the club.