Billy Gilmour

[forameus]

21 hours ago, 54_and_counting said:

Or perhaps its because Scotland didn't change even when the same guys were failing over and over again, callum McGregor is a good example, two years before he made his scotland debut he was playing over 30 games for celtic in a season including 11 in europe, 

Steven fletcher is another example, 9 Scotland goals (6 against Gibraltar) but continued to be picked when he was in poor form club level and international level, so any upcoming striker doesn't get the game time needed when younger to prepare themselves for the international stage

What hotshot striker was Steven Fletcher keeping out of the team?  He was the best option when he was playing for us, while not being a very good option.  Just because someone isn't playing well doesn't mean we should jump to change it to someone demonstrably worse in the hope that they'll play above it.

That and Fletcher was on the long, long list of good players made to look worse in a Scotland shirt.  He was great at bringing others into play, but when he's forty yards from anyone in blue, it's quite hard to do that.  

[54_and_counting]

3 hours ago, forameus said:

What hotshot striker was Steven Fletcher keeping out of the team?  He was the best option when he was playing for us, while not being a very good option.  Just because someone isn't playing well doesn't mean we should jump to change it to someone demonstrably worse in the hope that they'll play above it.

That and Fletcher was on the long, long list of good players made to look worse in a Scotland shirt.  He was great at bringing others into play, but when he's forty yards from anyone in blue, it's quite hard to do that.  

Between 2014 and the end of the 2015 campaign fletcher had amassed 12 goals in 65 club games, at that same period leigh griffiths had scored 60 goals in 92 club games, meanwhile jordan Rhodes scored 38 goals in 91club games

But instead of giving someone else a game, scotland stuck to fletcher even though he wasn't playing as much and scoring as much, 

[forameus]

1 hour ago, 54_and_counting said:

Between 2014 and the end of the 2015 campaign fletcher had amassed 12 goals in 65 club games, at that same period leigh griffiths had scored 60 goals in 92 club games, meanwhile jordan Rhodes scored 38 goals in 91club games

But instead of giving someone else a game, scotland stuck to fletcher even though he wasn't playing as much and scoring as much, 

Both Jordan Rhodes and Leigh Griffiths looked hopelessly out of their depth for us.  Rhodes especially.  You can't just look at the number of goals they score.

[Burnie_man]

7 minutes ago, forameus said:

Both Jordan Rhodes and Leigh Griffiths looked hopelessly out of their depth for us.  Rhodes especially.  You can't just look at the number of goals they score.

Rhodes never got a fair crack at the whip to be honest.  Whilst he was banging them in for Huddersfield and Blackburn, he got the odd cap here and there, and an appearance from the bench.  14 caps and 3 goals, only 4 of those caps were in the starting XI, and 3 or 4 saw less than 10 mins from the bench.

[54_and_counting]

2 hours ago, forameus said:

Both Jordan Rhodes and Leigh Griffiths looked hopelessly out of their depth for us.  Rhodes especially.  You can't just look at the number of goals they score.

So did fletcher really, when you score 9 international goals and 66% of them come against Gibraltar then you obviously have a problem

But my point being that when the campaign was over and Gibraltar was the last meaningless game, scotland didn't try anything different, fletcher got 90mins, brown started, Darren fletcher came off the bench, dorrans played, etc etc, 

[craigkillie]

We'd already named the squad for the Poland and Gibraltar double header. We were hardly going to send the entire squad home and call out a bunch of new guys in their place. I'm not sure that would have even been allowed.

We made 7 changes between those two matches - Hutton, Brown, (Steven) Fletcher and Ritchie were the only guys who started both.

[Gordopolis]

I think Rhodes was sent home from that squad IIRC?

We'd already named the squad for the Poland and Gibraltar double header. We were hardly going to send the entire squad home and call out a bunch of new guys in their place. I'm not sure that would have even been allowed.
We made 7 changes between those two matches - Hutton, Brown, (Steven) Fletcher and Ritchie were the only guys who started both.

[forameus]

2 hours ago, Burnie_man said:

Rhodes never got a fair crack at the whip to be honest.  Whilst he was banging them in for Huddersfield and Blackburn, he got the odd cap here and there, and an appearance from the bench.  14 caps and 3 goals, only 4 of those caps were in the starting XI, and 3 or 4 saw less than 10 mins from the bench.

So if he'd been given a few more games he'd be prolific, aye?

I'm not saying he's shite, or even that he's necessarily much worse than Fletcher was at that time.  But we're often so guilty of looking at whoever is not being picked, and saying that they were an answer.  It's a safe bet, not as if anyone can be proved wrong objectively, can they?  All we can look at is when they featured.  Griffiths looked a bit lost in the early days of his Scotland career, and although he's gotten some very important goals (and was responsible for the greatest few minutes we've had since we last went to a tournament) I don't think he's been that good.  Rhodes never even really reached that level.  A specialist in a style of play that we didn't play, and probably wouldn't play.  and not someone we could have as a luxury player.  Fletcher, on the other hand, I presume was involved because his strength lay in bringing others into the game.  He can score goals, but he was going to be far better as a loan striker, getting our stronger attacking midfielders involved.  Of course, it very rarely turned out that way, but hey ho.

We badly need a markedly improved option in a number of positions, striker is most certainly one.

[Burnie_man]

50 minutes ago, forameus said:

So if he'd been given a few more games he'd be prolific, aye?

I'm not saying he's shite, or even that he's necessarily much worse than Fletcher was at that time.  But we're often so guilty of looking at whoever is not being picked, and saying that they were an answer.  It's a safe bet, not as if anyone can be proved wrong objectively, can they?  All we can look at is when they featured.  Griffiths looked a bit lost in the early days of his Scotland career, and although he's gotten some very important goals (and was responsible for the greatest few minutes we've had since we last went to a tournament) I don't think he's been that good.  Rhodes never even really reached that level.  A specialist in a style of play that we didn't play, and probably wouldn't play.  and not someone we could have as a luxury player.  Fletcher, on the other hand, I presume was involved because his strength lay in bringing others into the game.  He can score goals, but he was going to be far better as a loan striker, getting our stronger attacking midfielders involved.  Of course, it very rarely turned out that way, but hey ho.

We badly need a markedly improved option in a number of positions, striker is most certainly one.

Mibees aye, mibees naw, but his club form at the time should have afforded him more of a chance to prove himself, and more than 4 starts.  We seem to have the nack of not playing prolific strikers like Boyd (only18 caps, 7 goals) and Rhodes and instead label them luxury players, don't work hard enough, cant play the lone role, don't fit the system and other such bollocks before dumping them.   Griffiths was struggling for game time under Strachan initially despite banging them in in the club game.

Edited September 30, 2019 by Burnie_man

[Bing.McCrosby]

1 hour ago, Burnie_man said:

Mibees aye, mibees naw, but his club form at the time should have afforded him more of a chance to prove himself, and more than 4 starts.  We seem to have the nack of not playing prolific strikers like Boyd (only18 caps, 7 goals) and Rhodes and instead label them luxury players, don't work hard enough, cant play the lone role, don't fit the system and other such bollocks before dumping them.   Griffiths was struggling for game time under Strachan initially despite banging them in in the club game.

Rhodes should have been given the chance, and Griffiths should have been in much earlier than he was. I think if the current management had been in charge at the time both would have happened. Unfortunately it looks like both of them are never going to get back to their best unfortunately. 

So unfortunately due to lack of alternatives mcburnie is the main man at the moment. 

On the original topic I'd have Gilmour in the squad, coming off the bench against Russia and starting against San Marino. 

Our much talked about brilliant midfield really isn't that brilliant. Or hasn't been that brilliant. Armstrong can't get a game. Mcgregor should have left for a bigger league to push on. Mcginn does well in England but hasn't really played well for Scotland.

[54_and_counting]

3 hours ago, forameus said:

So if he'd been given a few more games he'd be prolific, aye?

I'm not saying he's shite, or even that he's necessarily much worse than Fletcher was at that time.  But we're often so guilty of looking at whoever is not being picked, and saying that they were an answer.  It's a safe bet, not as if anyone can be proved wrong objectively, can they?  All we can look at is when they featured.  Griffiths looked a bit lost in the early days of his Scotland career, and although he's gotten some very important goals (and was responsible for the greatest few minutes we've had since we last went to a tournament) I don't think he's been that good.  Rhodes never even really reached that level.  A specialist in a style of play that we didn't play, and probably wouldn't play.  and not someone we could have as a luxury player.  Fletcher, on the other hand, I presume was involved because his strength lay in bringing others into the game.  He can score goals, but he was going to be far better as a loan striker, getting our stronger attacking midfielders involved.  Of course, it very rarely turned out that way, but hey ho.

We badly need a markedly improved option in a number of positions, striker is most certainly one.

The problem with using fletcher for that style of play is that as the main striker he might get one chance in a tight game and he needed to be prolific to take it, and he was never prolific enough unlike the other two that were mentioned, and the fact scotland never once tried to change it, they just continued with the same setup even though it never worked anf continued to not work

[Gordopolis]

Rhodes should have been given the chance, and Griffiths should have been in much earlier than he was. I think if the current management had been in charge at the time both would have happened. Unfortunately it looks like both of them are never going to get back to their best unfortunately. 
So unfortunately due to lack of alternatives mcburnie is the main man at the moment. 
On the original topic I'd have Gilmour in the squad, coming off the bench against Russia and starting against San Marino. 
Our much talked about brilliant midfield really isn't that brilliant. Or hasn't been that brilliant. Armstrong can't get a game. Mcgregor should have left for a bigger league to push on. Mcginn does well in England but hasn't really played well for Scotland.

I think we got it just about right with Boyd - started as part of a 2 against low/middling teams and miller started as a lone striker Vs bigger teams or in tricky away games. But then Boyd had a tantrum when he fell down the pecking order behind Fletcher and iwelumo for that shocking Norway game. I actually had a lot of sympathy for Boyd at the time as it seemed like Burley was just fannying about with a system that had been working well before he took over.

Rhodes I feel was hugely underused when he was in his 5/6 year run of scoring freely. Minutes here and there plus a couple of starts at a time when we were struggling to score was frustrating. I can understand Strachan's thinking to an extent, but when he ended up not even being in squads it was just crazy. Every squad can use a poacher or two.

[Kuro]

4 hours ago, Burnie_man said:

Mibees aye, mibees naw, but his club form at the time should have afforded him more of a chance to prove himself, and more than 4 starts.  We seem to have the nack of not playing prolific strikers like Boyd (only18 caps, 7 goals) and Rhodes and instead label them luxury players, don't work hard enough, cant play the lone role, don't fit the system and other such bollocks before dumping them.   Griffiths was struggling for game time under Strachan initially despite banging them in in the club game.

Aye luxury players eh, all they did was score goals.  Its not like that's important.  Guys like that deserve to be carried by the team and accomodated wherever possible, as they will win games for you, turn draws into wins and defeats into draws. 

Our two most natural goalscorers in the last quarter of a century and neither was given a fair crack of the whip, as they're 'luxury' players, meanwhile we persist for years with utter haddies like Kenny Miller, can't score in a bucket of fannies for campaign after campaign, and qualify for nothing.  Smart.

[Kuro]

2 hours ago, BingMcCrosby said:

Rhodes should have been given the chance, and Griffiths should have been in much earlier than he was. I think if the current management had been in charge at the time both would have happened. Unfortunately it looks like both of them are never going to get back to their best unfortunately. 

So unfortunately due to lack of alternatives mcburnie is the main man at the moment. 

On the original topic I'd have Gilmour in the squad, coming off the bench against Russia and starting against San Marino. 

Our much talked about brilliant midfield really isn't that brilliant. Or hasn't been that brilliant. Armstrong can't get a game. Mcgregor should have left for a bigger league to push on. Mcginn does well in England but hasn't really played well for Scotland.

Totally agree, people go on about how strong we are in midfield, well McLean can barely get a game for Norwich and Armstrong can't get a game for Southampton and McGregor is bang average.  I'd totally have Gilmour in too.

[Smokerson]

14 hours ago, Kuro said:

Aye luxury players eh, all they did was score goals.  Its not like that's important.  Guys like that deserve to be carried by the team and accomodated wherever possible, as they will win games for you, turn draws into wins and defeats into draws. 

Our two most natural goalscorers in the last quarter of a century and neither was given a fair crack of the whip, as they're 'luxury' players, meanwhile we persist for years with utter haddies like Kenny Miller, can't score in a bucket of fannies for campaign after campaign, and qualify for nothing.  Smart.

Miller's record stands up against anyone, there are only 5 men who have scored more goals for Scotland than him. His performances for Scotland rarely disappointed and was a huge factor in the decent period we had under Smith and McLeish. To Label him haddie is utter nonsense, what we would give for a Kenny miller in his prime right now.

[Bing.McCrosby]

2 hours ago, Smokerson said:

Miller's record stands up against anyone, there are only 5 men who have scored more goals for Scotland than him. His performances for Scotland rarely disappointed and was a huge factor in the decent period we had under Smith and McLeish. To Label him haddie is utter nonsense, what we would give for a Kenny miller in his prime right now.

Does it stand up against Gerd Mullers? or Peles?

Kenny Miller was crap absolute crap, ran around alot and then missed the 1 or 2 chances he had. Saying his record is good in comparison to other scotland strikers is a low bar really. 

Nothing against the guy personally always turned up and tried his best. But come on he was crap 

[Smokerson]

Never fails to amaze me how much people's opinions differ on so many subjects in football, just trying to think how someone can describe Kenny Miller as crap, was his goal at Wembley crap? He played most of his career at the highest level possible and scored a lot of goals, someone we would absolutely love to have at this minute. We haven't really produced a top number 9 since Duncan Ferguson who ended up not even playing for us, says it all.

[Bing.McCrosby]

25 minutes ago, Smokerson said:

Never fails to amaze me how much people's opinions differ on so many subjects in football, just trying to think how someone can describe Kenny Miller as crap, was his goal at Wembley crap? He played most of his career at the highest level possible and scored a lot of goals, someone we would absolutely love to have at this minute. We haven't really produced a top number 9 since Duncan Ferguson who ended up not even playing for us, says it all.

The highest level he played at was the english premier league, where he scored 6 goals in 55 games. 

[GordonS]

Steven Fletcher doesn't score a lot of goals, but that wasn't his job for Scotland. His role was to bring the three behind him into play, and he did that pretty well. IMO we wouldn't have had a home play-off SF to look forward to without his Nations League performances.

Kenny Miller made the absolute most of his limited skills. He was not a prolific striker, though he played like one. He was a step down on the forwards we had before him, but a 2016 Kenny Miller would be an automatic pick now.

Not sure what any of this has to do with Billy Gilmour... but all I'd say on that is that experience is under-rated, and there's a reason why top division under 21 teams get taken apart by much lower division teams in the diddy cups both sides of the border. Considering him before guys like John McGinn or Callum McGregor would be premature.

[gannonball]

19 hours ago, Kuro said:

Aye luxury players eh, all they did was score goals.  Its not like that's important.  Guys like that deserve to be carried by the team and accomodated wherever possible, as they will win games for you, turn draws into wins and defeats into draws. 

Our two most natural goalscorers in the last quarter of a century and neither was given a fair crack of the whip, as they're 'luxury' players, meanwhile we persist for years with utter haddies like Kenny Miller, can't score in a bucket of fannies for campaign after campaign, and qualify for nothing.  Smart.

There was a reason why he wasn't trusted against tougher opposition by just about every manager he played under, as he is a passenger for the majority of the 90 minutes he plays. Might work when you have possession against lower end teams but when you need to work much harder to get possession and the keep it, you cant afford to have likes of him in a team as you will struggle to even create a chance that he might put away.