Billy Gilmour

[General dissaray]

35 minutes ago, BingMcCrosby said:

Hopefully Lampard gets the job!

Build the team around gilmour like it should always have been.

Good shout about Lampard that would be great but it will probably be another foreign boss for them knowing the Premiership 

[2426255]

11 minutes ago, No_Problemo said:

Bye Daniel. 

I'm not a Daniel Farke fan so it doesn't bother me if he is sacked mate. Lets see if wee Gizmo can match the hype then. 

[eez-eh]

Weird timing but good news for Oor Billy.

[bleedingums]

Lottery numbers is probably preparing a dissertation on how in the 13th minute (and 23 seconds, or something) of Norwich’s game vs Liverpool, Gilmour’s deficiencies single-handedly caused Farke getting the sack today….
 

Hopefully Gilmour is just as good for Scotland in the coming games as he has been in all of his previous caps. It’s worth repeating that of all his caps, Scotland have only lost one (denmark), drawn two (Netherlands and England) and won the rest. I’m in no doubt that Scotland are a much better team with him playing.
 

Hopefully he’ll get some more game time under the new manager. Better yet, would be if he gets sent to a Serie A or La Liga team in January, on loan, instead.

[2426255]

6 minutes ago, bleedingums said:

It’s worth repeating that of all his caps, Scotland have only lost one (denmark), drawn two (Netherlands and England) and won the rest. 

What's Norwich's WDL stats with and without Gilmour? Or doesn't that count?

[bleedingums]

2 minutes ago, 2426255 said:

What's Norwich's WDL stats with and without Gilmour? Or doesn't that count?

Nope

[2426255]

1 minute ago, bleedingums said:

Nope

Because your looking at things from a biased perspective mate.  

[bleedingums]

Just now, 2426255 said:

Because your looking at things from a biased perspective mate.  

You’re*
 

Norwich’s results have nothing to do with whether he’s been a valuable part of the Scotland team when he’s played for Scotland. 

[2426255]

1 hour ago, bleedingums said:

Norwich’s results have nothing to do with whether he’s been a valuable part of the Scotland team when he’s played for Scotland. 

Yep fair point. Do you think we wouldn't have got as many points with Scotland if Gilmour hadn't played?

[bleedingums]

7 minutes ago, 2426255 said:

Yep fair point. Do you think we wouldn't have got as many points with Scotland if Gilmour hadn't played?

Not sure about how many more/less points Scotland would have achieved if he didn’t play in those games, but you could look at it the opposite way and say that the games where he didn’t play, IMO Scotland were poorer.

I thought that against the Czechs and also Croatia, Scotland bypassed the midfield far too often because they didn’t have someone showing for it in the way that Gilmour does. We then saw the difference that he made against England and in his other games. He seems to really bring the best out of Calum McGregor too. 

Possibly the Israel game, though, would be the the one to highlight - he was immense in that second half and I don’t know if Scotland would have equalised, never mind won that game without him. That’s not to discount the efforts of the rest of the players, though, as it was an excellent all round performance in that second half. I just think that Gilmour’s controlling of the midfield was why Scotland pretty much battered Israel (in that second half). It should have been 5-2.

[Tartan Blood]

On 05/11/2021 at 09:55, 2426255 said:

 

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

 

 

 

 

 

Why did you quote me? I didn't say McTominay "should be benched". 

Personally, I'd have McTominay in the midfield alongside Gilmour, but I don't think it'll happen. Barring injuries, it'll be a midfield 3 of Gilmour, McGregor and McGinn. McTominay will be in defence. I don't think Clarke will drop him completely.

If we had friendlies, I'd love to try out Gilmour, McTominay and Turnbull to get a possible glimpse of the future. The one downside to a lack of friendlies is it makes it harder to experiment.

[General dissaray]

26 minutes ago, bleedingums said:

Not sure about how many more/less points Scotland would have achieved if he didn’t play in those games, but you could look at it the opposite way and say that the games where he didn’t play, IMO Scotland were poorer.

I thought that against the Czechs and also Croatia, Scotland bypassed the midfield far too often because they didn’t have someone showing for it in the way that Gilmour does. We then saw the difference that he made against England and in his other games. He seems to really bring the best out of Calum McGregor too. 

Possibly the Israel game, though, would be the the one to highlight - he was immense in that second half and I don’t know if Scotland would have equalised, never mind won that game without him. That’s not to discount the efforts of the rest of the players, though, as it was an excellent all round performance in that second half. I just think that Gilmour’s controlling of the midfield was why Scotland pretty much battered Israel (in that second half). It should have been 5-2.

Gilmour is always finding space dropping his shoulder and playing through the lines,taking responsibility to get us up the pitch taking care off the ball 

It would be crazy to drop him regardless off the number off games he has played great wee partnership developing with McGregor who keeps it simple and gives it to him in the right area to go,and drops into left back if Robbo has bombed forward 

[2426255]

10 hours ago, bleedingums said:

Possibly the Israel game, though, would be the the one to highlight - he was immense in that second half and I don’t know if Scotland would have equalised, never mind won that game without him. That’s not to discount the efforts of the rest of the players, though, as it was an excellent all round performance in that second half. I just think that Gilmour’s controlling of the midfield was why Scotland pretty much battered Israel (in that second half). It should have been 5-2.

I think saying he was immense in the 2nd half is overstating how well he played. I thought he was good in a few periods, particularly within the first 15 minutes where he linked up with players and played pretty passes but wasn't too involved for long stretches in the final 30 minutes to be honest. I don't think he was the worst player or even worst midfielder but I wouldn't say he was our most influential player on the day.

Here is the video of the game starting in the second half and I challenge you to re-watch it, focus just on what Gilmour is doing and tell me if you still hold that opinion. 

https://youtu.be/0G5MUAdOHks?t=3458

The timeline below plots Gilmour's touches of the ball against each minute in the second half until he was subbed after our third goal. Touches includes passes, dribbles etc, it's a stat so I'm sure people won't take it too seriously but just to give a general idea of where I'm coming from.

There is no doubt Scotland had a lull in intensity in the middle of the second half generally and If you'd said to me that Scotland's lack of intensity from the 60 minute mark was due to Gilmour not being involved enough I'd say maybe that's worth looking at but I can't agree his 2nd half against Israel was immense and wouldn't say it's a good showcase for Gilmour as a whole, certain parts maybe but not the whole 2nd half.

Lots of guys on here are raving fanatics of Gilmour and I watch him play and rewatch over again. He's good, I like him as a player and I'm glad he's part of the team but honestly the way people go on about him as if he is Xavi 2.0 is a bit much for me.  

 

10 hours ago, Tartan Blood said:

Why did you quote me? I didn't say McTominay "should be benched". 

 

It was just to provide evidence to Glennie that there has been posters discussing whether McTominay should be benched. You don't say that yourself, but you do mention that there has been discussion around it.

Edited November 7, 2021 by 2426255

[bleedingums]

1 hour ago, 2426255 said:

I think saying he was immense in the 2nd half is overstating how well he played. I thought he was good in a few periods, particularly within the first 15 minutes where he linked up with players and played pretty passes but wasn't too involved for long stretches in the final 30 minutes to be honest. I don't think he was the worst player or even worst midfielder but I wouldn't say he was our most influential player on the day.

Here is the video of the game starting in the second half and I challenge you to re-watch it, focus just on what Gilmour is doing and tell me if you still hold that opinion. 

https://youtu.be/0G5MUAdOHks?t=3458

The timeline below plots Gilmour's touches of the ball against each minute in the second half until he was subbed after our third goal. Touches includes passes, dribbles etc, it's a stat so I'm sure people won't take it too seriously but just to give a general idea of where I'm coming from.

There is no doubt Scotland had a lull in intensity in the middle of the second half generally and If you'd said to me that Scotland's lack of intensity from the 60 minute mark was due to Gilmour not being involved enough I'd say maybe that's worth looking at but I can't agree his 2nd half against Israel was immense and wouldn't say it's a good showcase for Gilmour as a whole, certain parts maybe but not the whole 2nd half.

Lots of guys on here are raving fanatics of Gilmour and I watch him play and rewatch over again. He's good, I like him as a player and I'm glad he's part of the team but honestly the way people go on about him as if he is Xavi 2.0 is a bit much for me.  

 

It was just to provide evidence to Glennie that there has been posters discussing whether McTominay should be benched. You don't say that yourself, but you do mention that there has been discussion around it.

Haha. I think we’ll have to agree to disagree then. I’ve seen that second half again and don’t have time to try again just for the sake of this conversation. In my opinion, he was immense for that second half.

Unfortunately, I think it might be you that is biased against Gilmour for whatever reason and so dead set on everyone else being wrong. To be honest, it comes across as contrarian for the sake of it and that’s why you’re getting a lot of people’s backs up. At the end of the day, though, these things are all subjective. Trying to go minute by minute through the second half just to prove me wrong kind of sums it up, though! (I made a joke about that already in the thread and you’ve gone and shown it to be true..!)
 

I don’t think he’s Xavi 2.0, Iniesta 2.0 etc. He’s Billy Gilmour 1.0 (bit wanky, I know, but..)has put in some brilliant performances for Scotland (and also Chelsea) at a very young age and I’m excited to see how he progresses. That’s about it.

[Binos]

Thread just an endless trolling exercise 

[2426255]

29 minutes ago, bleedingums said:

Haha. I think we’ll have to agree to disagree then. I’ve seen that second half again and don’t have time to try again just for the sake of this conversation. In my opinion, he was immense for that second half.

Unfortunately, I think it might be you that is biased against Gilmour for whatever reason and so dead set on everyone else being wrong. To be honest, it comes across as contrarian for the sake of it and that’s why you’re getting a lot of people’s backs up. At the end of the day, though, these things are all subjective. Trying to go minute by minute through the second half just to prove me wrong kind of sums it up, though! (I made a joke about that already in the thread and you’ve gone and shown it to be true..!)

Yeah fine, let's just agree to disagree then. 

It's not about proving you wrong or about being contrarian it's just about trying to see if it's true what you're saying or if people are getting carried away and in my view people are getting carried away with Gilmour. If you want to make fun of me for going through it minute by minute that's your business and I don't take offence but I stand by my assessment and if anyone else has the time to re-watch it I'm sure you'll agree that he wasn't immense for most of the 2nd half.

Edited November 7, 2021 by 2426255

[Stellaboz]

The boy is utterly finished now. Be as well taking him along this week as a baggage boy and nothing more.

[Mr Tourette]

I’m not sure why some people think Gilmour not starting for Norwich has any bearing on wether he should start for Scotland.

I’m fairly certain that players like Martin Odegaard would have been the first name on Norway’s teamsheet when he wasn’t getting a game at Madrid.

It’s the manager’s duty to put the best team out to win the game. And from what I’ve seen of Gilmour so far, he should definitely be starting a game where we need to create chances and score goals

[2426255]

4 hours ago, Mr Tourette said:

I’m not sure why some people think Gilmour not starting for Norwich has any bearing on wether he should start for Scotland.

I’m fairly certain that players like Martin Odegaard would have been the first name on Norway’s teamsheet when he wasn’t getting a game at Madrid.

It’s the manager’s duty to put the best team out to win the game. And from what I’ve seen of Gilmour so far, he should definitely be starting a game where we need to create chances and score goals

Yes, Billy Gilmour could be the next Martin Odegaard then. Not meet expectations at club level but play regularly internationally.

[PB1994]

58 minutes ago, 2426255 said:

Yes, Billy Gilmour could be the next Martin Odegaard then. Not meet expectations at club level but play regularly internationally.

Who cares if he “doesn’t make expectations at club level” if he performs for Scotland?