Billy Gilmour

[craigkillie]

53 minutes ago, The Moonster said:

Who's saying start him?

If he's not playing then surely he's better off staying with the U21s and trying to get qualified with them. The recent League Cup game he played against Man Utd showed that he still has a bit to go physically - he bounced off McTominay like he wasn't there. It's much easier to give 18 year-old central midfielders a chance when they're built like Ethan Ampadu than when you're a bit slighter and run the risk of being swallowed up.

In terms of pure talent he's as good a player as I've seen in a long time, but there's more to it than just that. I'm pretty sure he'll get there, and I wouldn't be surprised if he's in the squad by this time next year.

[forameus]

I've never really seen much of a benefit of "getting them around the squad" when he's likely getting better training sessions every day with his club than he would going up to Mar Hall every few months.  When he's ready to come on and actually contribute to the first team, by all means get him in.  In the meantime he'd be far better served starring in an U21 side and continuing his ascent at Chelsea, rather than getting a token call-up so he can sit on the bench for a week.

[Guest]

2 hours ago, DAFC. said:

If it was a position we were short in, I think he'd have been called up. But we have some good options already at CM and I don't think Gilmour has showed enough just yet to prove he should start ahead of Fleck, Christie or McGinn.

Would be extremely harsh to drop those players to shoe-horn a young boy in just because he plays for Chelsea. 

This in a nutshell.

There's no way on earth any sensible person could justify dropping one of our current midfield to make way for an untested youth player, simply on the basis that he's on the books of a "big" club. 

In fact, it's ridiculous that we're even discussing this...........

[The Moonster]

12 minutes ago, craigkillie said:

If he's not playing then surely he's better off staying with the U21s and trying to get qualified with them. The recent League Cup game he played against Man Utd showed that he still has a bit to go physically - he bounced off McTominay like he wasn't there. It's much easier to give 18 year-old central midfielders a chance when they're built like Ethan Ampadu than when you're a bit slighter and run the risk of being swallowed up.

In terms of pure talent he's as good a player as I've seen in a long time, but there's more to it than just that. I'm pretty sure he'll get there, and I wouldn't be surprised if he's in the squad by this time next year.

I'm not saying he's there and ready to go, but getting him involved with the squad, used to the players, used the to training, used to the manager cannot be a bad thing during two dead rubber matches. I really couldn't give a monkeys about the U21s, they're there to serve the first team, so if we need a player then taking him from there makes sense. 

4 minutes ago, forameus said:

I've never really seen much of a benefit of "getting them around the squad" when he's likely getting better training sessions every day with his club than he would going up to Mar Hall every few months.  When he's ready to come on and actually contribute to the first team, by all means get him in.  In the meantime he'd be far better served starring in an U21 side and continuing his ascent at Chelsea, rather than getting a token call-up so he can sit on the bench for a week.

It's not about the quality of training, its about getting him used to how Scotland do things. We can't seriously be saying there's no benefit to that? The games mean f**k all, give him half an hour in one of them and see how he does. 

[forameus]

2 minutes ago, The Moonster said:

It's not about the quality of training, its about getting him used to how Scotland do things. We can't seriously be saying there's no benefit to that? The games mean f**k all, give him half an hour in one of them and see how he does. 

But is that much different to how the U21s do things?  If so, then it shouldn't be.  Every age group should be concentrating on preparing their players for moving up a step, to every last detail.  I might be wrong, but I just can't see players who have been training every day with one of the World's major clubs suddenly acting like a lost wee boy when he turns up to the full national squad, like it's the first day of primary school.

Turning it around, are you really saying there's more benefit to Gilmour turning up and not featuring, to "get him used to the squad", rather than playing 180 minutes with the U21s?

[The Moonster]

23 minutes ago, forameus said:

But is that much different to how the U21s do things?  If so, then it shouldn't be.  Every age group should be concentrating on preparing their players for moving up a step, to every last detail.  I might be wrong, but I just can't see players who have been training every day with one of the World's major clubs suddenly acting like a lost wee boy when he turns up to the full national squad, like it's the first day of primary school.

Turning it around, are you really saying there's more benefit to Gilmour turning up and not featuring, to "get him used to the squad", rather than playing 180 minutes with the U21s?

Not suggesting he'll be a lost wee boy, but I think there's obvious benefit in having him train with players that we hope he'll be part of a successful squad with. 

I think he'll benefit more from 30 minutes against Kazakhstan and being with the full squad for a week than playing 180 minutes for the U21s, for whom he has already played 10 matches for. He's consistently progressed through our national team squads, I just feel this is an opportunity to "bleed" him in a wee bit. I don't think it's imperative we do it, I just think it's a missed opportunity.

[forameus]

1 minute ago, The Moonster said:

Not suggesting he'll be a lost wee boy, but I think there's obvious benefit in having him train with players that we hope he'll be part of a successful squad with. 

I think he'll benefit more from 30 minutes against Kazakhstan and being with the full squad for a week than playing 180 minutes for the U21s, for whom he has already played 10 matches for. He's consistently progressed through our national team squads, I just feel this is an opportunity to "bleed" him in a wee bit. I don't think it's imperative we do it, I just think it's a missed opportunity.

But that's not my point.  I'd say that if he's ready for serious gametime with the senior team - as in, we expect him to feature when it really matters in March - then yes, I'd have him in.  But I'm talking about the mindset that we have to call him up like a fresher with no intention of playing.  That's the bit I've never understood, particularly when he can be playing a lot of football in an U21 system that should (but, let's face it, probably doesn't) match the senior setup prior to a step up.

[The Moonster]

5 minutes ago, forameus said:

But that's not my point.  I'd say that if he's ready for serious gametime with the senior team - as in, we expect him to feature when it really matters in March - then yes, I'd have him in.  But I'm talking about the mindset that we have to call him up like a fresher with no intention of playing.  That's the bit I've never understood, particularly when he can be playing a lot of football in an U21 system that should (but, let's face it, probably doesn't) match the senior setup prior to a step up.

It looks to me like a lot of other nations of similar size don't bother waiting until players are ready for "serious game time" to cap them. I just wonder why we seem so reluctant. Who knows if he'll be ready for March? I agree it's unlikely but if he keeps getting game time for Chelsea and we see the apathy which has become the norm from others, he's probably not the worst option.

[Old Bing]

2 hours ago, forameus said:

I've never really seen much of a benefit of "getting them around the squad" when he's likely getting better training sessions every day with his club than he would going up to Mar Hall every few months.  When he's ready to come on and actually contribute to the first team, by all means get him in.  In the meantime he'd be far better served starring in an U21 side and continuing his ascent at Chelsea, rather than getting a token call-up so he can sit on the bench for a week.

Getting exceptional young players in and around the squad early works for nations alot better than us.

[forameus]

On 15/11/2019 at 17:38, BingMcCrosby said:

Getting exceptional young players in and around the squad early works for nations alot better than us.

It's not as if we don't already do just that.  It's complete fantasy that we don't, and it gets proved wrong every time it's brought up.

When Gilmour's ready to be involved, he will be, just like all the other players who were called up at a young age.

[Old Bing]

59 minutes ago, forameus said:

It's not as if we don't already do just that.  It's complete fantasy that we don't, and it gets proved wrong every time it's brought up.

When Gilmour's ready to be involved, he will be, just like all the other players who were called up at a young age.

Who?

[forameus]

13 minutes ago, BingMcCrosby said:

Who?

Andy Robertson - 19
Darren Fletcher - 19
Kieran Tierney - 18 (9th youngest debut for the main side in our history)
Oliver Burke - 18 (17th youngest debut for the main side in our history)
Grant Hanley - 19

@craigkillie usually speaks well whenever this comes up on why it's complete nonsense that we're some maybe next time nation that waits until all our players are 30 before capping them.  Taking Hanley out of that, it's clear that when a player is highly rated, we bring them in.  Robertson was still with Dundee United, but clearly going on to great things.  Tierney was obviously talented, as was Fletcher, so they were brought in.  Burke was deemed such a prospect that he largely skipped from the U19s straight to the senior squad.  Granted we found out he was shite and he went back, but he still played at a young age.

GIlmour himself isn't 19 until next Summer.  I expect even if we qualify for Euro 2020, unless he has an absolute revelation of a season, he'd miss out, but if he continues his improvement then I'd expect him to be a potential for the start of World Cup Qualifying at 19.  As in, the same age most of our highest rated players started at.

Edited November 18, 2019 by forameus

[Old Bing]

2 hours ago, forameus said:

Andy Robertson - 19
Darren Fletcher - 19
Kieran Tierney - 18 (9th youngest debut for the main side in our history)
Oliver Burke - 18 (17th youngest debut for the main side in our history)
Grant Hanley - 19

@craigkillie

GIlmour himself isn't 19 until next Summer.

Good list, to clarify I didn't actually say we don't ever include young players.

Not sure what all the rest of you post was about tho. Kind of boring tbh.

Of the 5 players on your list 3 of them are now clearly some of our best players. So I'm not sure how it proves bringing players in early is a bad idea.

If your opinion is you think Gilmour shouldnt be called up, that's cool. 

I think he should, I'm not sure why you think 19 seems to be some kind of cut off point. It doesn't matter if he's 18 if he's good enough.

[forameus]

1 minute ago, BingMcCrosby said:

Good list, to clarify I didn't actually say we don't ever include young players.

Not sure what all the rest of you post was about tho. Kind of boring tbh.

Of the 5 players on your list 3 of them are now clearly some of our best players. So I'm not sure how it proves bringing players in early is a bad idea.

If your opinion is you think Gilmour shouldnt be called up, that's cool. 

I think he should, I'm not sure why you think 19 seems to be some kind of cut off point. It doesn't matter if he's 18 if he's good enough.

You could've just written "I was wrong", would've been much quicker.

[Old Bing]

2 minutes ago, forameus said:

You could've just written "I was wrong", would've been much quicker.

What a strange chap you are.

Please quote me saying something along the lines of "we never cap young players" and I will gladly do so.

[forameus]

9 minutes ago, BingMcCrosby said:

What a strange chap you are.

Please quote me saying something along the lines of "we never cap young players" and I will gladly do so.

I say "It's fantasy we don't cap young players".  Your own word reply suggested you disagreed.  I pointed out examples.

Then you spew out five lines of...something, that could've been replaced by what I said.  Does that help?  I could explain it further, but, to be honest, if the original post went over your head I doubt you'd have the attention span. 

[Old Bing]

9 minutes ago, forameus said:

I say "It's fantasy we don't cap young players".  Your own word reply suggested you disagreed.  I pointed out examples.

Then you spew out five lines of...something, that could've been replaced by what I said.  Does that help?  I could explain it further, but, to be honest, if the original post went over your head I doubt you'd have the attention span. 

If by me asking "who" suggested I disagreed with you. I wasn't, I was mearly asking who and you provided a list which I in fact complimented you on.

Where as you said "I've never really seen much of a benefit of "getting them around the squad"

But the list of 5 players you provided has 3 players who are now some of our best players. 

 

Edited November 18, 2019 by BingMcCrosby

[Gordopolis]

3 hours ago, forameus said:

GIlmour himself isn't 19 until next Summer.  I expect even if we qualify for Euro 2020, unless he has an absolute revelation of a season, he'd miss out

If we qualify, I'd like to see SC do what Craig Brown did at France 98. Was it Burchill, Davidson and someone else who were taken along as 'hamper boys'?

Perhaps it needs less of a patronising title, but taking 2 or 3 of the very best of our U21s along to a tourney, to train with the squad, could be valuable and highly motivational. 

No idea if their clubs would allow it, or if the players would rather spend the summer playing on skateboards and stuff, but worth thinking about.

[Old Bing]

4 hours ago, Gordopolis said:

If we qualify, I'd like to see SC do what Craig Brown did at France 98. Was it Burchill, Davidson and someone else who were taken along as 'hamper boys'?

Perhaps it needs less of a patronising title, but taking 2 or 3 of the very best of our U21s along to a tourney, to train with the squad, could be valuable and highly motivational. 

No idea if their clubs would allow it, or if the players would rather spend the summer playing on skateboards and stuff, but worth thinking about.

There's no if, we're going 

[Gordopolis]

There's no if, we're going 

True, I don't know what made me doubt it...

...apart from the last two decades of failure