Billy Gilmour

[2426255]

Quote

Unfortunately for Gilmour hysterical hype means he's singled out for criticism or fiercely defended more than he should be. Reality is he's a young player playing average in a poor team.

Saw this on twitter and in a sentence I thought it was accurate so I thought I'd repost.

[Bing.McCrosby]

4 hours ago, cameron2000 said:

Yeah what they have to say regarding Norwich is invalid given the history - will be looking for bites. Gilmour is one of Norwich’s better players. He is not the best at this moment in time. Normann unfortunately has a lengthy spell out injured but he was making a huge impression playing exactly where Gilmour is before his injury. In fact Gilmour best games for Norwich came when he wasn’t the main pivot (Normann was) and had a more advanced role.

Overall it’s become way more difficult for him under Dean Smith because unfortunately Norwich panicked and sacked Farke who is a much better manager. Dean Smith has already lost the identity Norwich had for their beautiful football. Having said that at least Gilmour is getting minutes under him.

They will be looking for bites? Because they played for Ipswich? Fantasy land stuff here 

[Bairnardo]

"What would ex Ipswich players know" is a fantastic take, coming from an internet forum poster.

As if anyone needed further reason to no longer engage with this idiot [emoji23]

[cameron2000]

They will be looking for bites? Because they played for Ipswich?[emoji23] Fantasy land stuff here [emoji23]

It’s well known that Norwich and Ipswich is a derby and ex-Ipswich players always crop up in the media trying to get reactions out of Norwich fans. Nothing new here and nothing fantasy landish.

I support Norwich because of some family from there and have seen nearly all their games this season so my opinion on Gilmour is pretty valid. I’m certainly not biased against him. I watched Chelsea games last season specifically because I was excited about his development as a young Scottish player.

[Chewing Taffies]

On 29/12/2021 at 12:05, Satoshi said:

Kane wasn't all that special at that age. Gilmour already has a much higher reputation in the game. 

Finally! you have come full circle to my exact point

[2426255]

44 minutes ago, Bairnardo said:

"What would ex Ipswich players know" is a fantastic take, coming from an internet forum poster.

As if anyone needed further reason to no longer engage with this idiot

And yet here you are still engaging. Well done you. 

Edited December 30, 2021 by 2426255

[bleedingums]

Norwich are dire: truly and utterly dire. Whenever Gilmour is on the ball, he has no options at all to pass to and so ends up having to just punt it into space and usually gives away possession. He’s not been brilliant and the defensive side of things is needing work, but he’s not been terrible either and is working with some horrific players. Hopefully he’ll learn from this experience and improve as a player as a result.
 

The irony of all this for me, though, is that lots of Scotland fans worried that this is how he’d look in a Scotland team. It just so happens that he’s joined the team at a time when we have players like McGinn, Robertson, Tierney, Adams etc and he’s fitted right in.
 

The only thing that matters for me, is that he’s been brilliant for Scotland and that Scotland’s results since he started playing for the team have been better than when he wasn’t in it.

 

[Bing.McCrosby]

10 minutes ago, cameron2000 said:

It’s well known that Norwich and Ipswich is a derby and ex-Ipswich players always crop up in the media trying to get reactions out of Norwich fans. Nothing new here and nothing fantasy landish.

I support Norwich because of some family from there and have seen nearly all their games this season so my opinion on Gilmour is pretty valid. I’m certainly not biased against him. I watched Chelsea games last season specifically because I was excited about his development as a young Scottish player.

Im not dismissing your opinion on gilmour, im sure its as valid as anyone else's.

But to say that both bent and ambrose decided to say they really rated gilmour. As some kind of off the cuff wind up is absolutely ridiculous. And I'm dismissing that.

[KingRocketman II]

24 minutes ago, bleedingums said:

Norwich are dire: truly and utterly dire. Whenever Gilmour is on the ball, he has no options at all to pass to and so ends up having to just punt it into space and usually gives away possession. He’s not been brilliant and the defensive side of things is needing work, but he’s not been terrible either and is working with some horrific players. Hopefully he’ll learn from this experience and improve as a player as a result.
 

The irony of all this for me, though, is that lots of Scotland fans worried that this is how he’d look in a Scotland team. It just so happens that he’s joined the team at a time when we have players like McGinn, Robertson, Tierney, Adams etc and he’s fitted right in.
 

The only thing that matters for me, is that he’s been brilliant for Scotland and that Scotland’s results since he started playing for the team have been better than when he wasn’t in it.

 

and of course that confirms his ability, consistency and the level he can play at. But applying that simple logic would bring this thread to a shuddering halt and would mean some branching out and ruining other threads. So let's gloss over that assessment and crack on over the bias of pundits and Norwich tactics etc for another self contained hundred or so pages. 

[cameron2000]

Im not dismissing your opinion on gilmour, im sure its as valid as anyone else's.
But to say that both bent and ambrose decided to say they really rated gilmour. As some kind of off the cuff wind up is absolutely ridiculous. And I'm dismissing that.

No I think it’s probably totally fair that they rate him but saying that he’s BY FAR their best player is bait imo.

Obviously if he lives up to his potential he will be way too good for Norwich and right now I think he’s already in their top 5/6 best players but certainly not a runaway number 1 - that will just give Chelsea and Scotland fans the wrong idea of his current level.

If he is committed to developing physically he *could* be the best Scottish player in a long time. There’s no guarantees about this tho and he’ll have to work very hard on this. What I am more certain about is that he will get more used to the lack of time on the ball in the prem as he gains more experience.

[HeartsOfficialMoaner]

What I have seen of him for Norwich is him mostly just running back and forward. He doesn't compete for the ball, he has to take part in the game. It's like he just wants to play football but not win the ball to play. It makes me think Chelsea have said to him to make sure he doesn't pick up an injury and to play safe.

[Jambomo]

6 hours ago, cameron2000 said:

Yeah what they have to say regarding Norwich is invalid given the history - will be looking for bites. Gilmour is one of Norwich’s better players. He is not the best at this moment in time. Normann unfortunately has a lengthy spell out injured but he was making a huge impression playing exactly where Gilmour is before his injury. In fact Gilmour best games for Norwich came when he wasn’t the main pivot (Normann was) and had a more advanced role.

Overall it’s become way more difficult for him under Dean Smith because unfortunately Norwich panicked and sacked Farke who is a much better manager. Dean Smith has already lost the identity Norwich had for their beautiful football. Having said that at least Gilmour is getting minutes under him.

C’mon, Farke was not a better manager. He was great in the championship, but has never adapted to playing in the PL. Farke abandoned Farkeball nearly as soon as they came up., it’s not Smith that changed that.

The problem for Smith is having 8-9 first team players missing, no PL team could cope with that. The closest has been West Ham and they’ve been losing games they should win as well. Farke was getting these performances and results with a full squad to choose from.

Smith’s first few games in charge looked very promising, defensively much more solid, creating more chances and getting some points. I think once the injured players get back to fitness, then performances will be much, much better. Buying a strong defensive midfielder to replace Skipp would help too.

Edited December 30, 2021 by Jambomo

[Satoshi]

1 hour ago, Chewing Taffies said:

Finally! you have come full circle to my exact point

That performance in early loans don't really matter or define a players future career? Great.

7 minutes ago, HeartsOfficialMoaner said:

What I have seen of him for Norwich is him mostly just running back and forward. He doesn't compete for the ball, he has to take part in the game. It's like he just wants to play football but not win the ball to play. It makes me think Chelsea have said to him to make sure he doesn't pick up an injury and to play safe.

The statistics don't bear this perspective out at all unfortuantely.

[2426255]

1 hour ago, bleedingums said:

The only thing that matters for me, is that he’s been brilliant for Scotland and that Scotland’s results since he started playing for the team have been better than when he wasn’t in it.

This is part of the issue. You aren't interested in whether he is performing for Norwich unless he isn't getting game time at which point after not having seen him play for Norwich you'll  say he is the best player in the Norwich team and needs to start or have the team built around him etc etc. Put yourself in their shoes for a second instead of just looking at it from a Scottish point of view.

How is it that the people who are actually watching him play for Norwich are saying he is performing averagely or inconsistently and it's mostly people who haven't seen him play who are saying he's their best player. 

Edited December 30, 2021 by 2426255

[2426255]

Anyway, so forget about whether he has been good or bad for the moment.

Should he stay and continue with Norwich? If he gets sent back then what are his options going forward in the rest of this season and/or next season. I think he has to stay and try and turn it around otherwise he might be typecast as someone not suited for a relegation battle and might limit him in terms of future options for loan.

Does anyone think he is presently good enough to get into the Chelsea 1st team?

Edited December 30, 2021 by 2426255

[Satoshi]

Of course he will stay at Norwich.

He was good enough to get into the Chelsea first team last season, and there's no evidence he has regressed.

Chelsea are struggling massively at the moment and have given games to players like RLC and Barkley who were undoubtedly below Gilmour in the pecking order at the start of the season (and probably still are). Tuchel said publicly that he didn't want to loan Gilmour and that it was Gilmours choice.

So yes he is good enough for the Chelsea team, yes he will stay at Norwich.

[2426255]

46 minutes ago, Satoshi said:

He was good enough to get into the Chelsea first team last season, and there's no evidence he has regressed.

Indeed, I was meaning more in terms of being a regular starter.

[John Lambies Doos]

Indeed, I was meaning more in terms of being a regular starter.

Oof you really hate Gilmour

[Bing.McCrosby]

Can people stop quoting clownshoes and just stick him on ignore 

[Bing.McCrosby]

2 hours ago, cameron2000 said:

No I think it’s probably totally fair that they rate him but saying that he’s BY FAR their best player is bait imo.

Obviously if he lives up to his potential he will be way too good for Norwich and right now I think he’s already in their top 5/6 best players but certainly not a runaway number 1 - that will just give Chelsea and Scotland fans the wrong idea of his current level.

If he is committed to developing physically he *could* be the best Scottish player in a long time. There’s no guarantees about this tho and he’ll have to work very hard on this. What I am more certain about is that he will get more used to the lack of time on the ball in the prem as he gains more experience.

It could just be they have a different opinion to yourself.