Jump to content

Recommended Posts

2 minutes ago, Jersey Canary said:

Jon Newsome has a decent shout out for a Skipp replacement in Billy Gilmour. He sounds perfect to me what do you think? 

Heard of him but don’t know really anything about him, is he a defensive type midfielder then? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He is absolutely amazing. Would have him at ours in a heartbeat. i wouldnt say he's as tough in the tackle as Skipp but his aweness, passing and general reading of the game is looking luike it could be "Xavi'eque". Its a yes from me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Jersey Canary said:

Jon Newsome has a decent shout out for a Skipp replacement in Billy Gilmour. He sounds perfect to me what do you think? 

Only seen him twice, seems a decent player and we could do worse! Would like to go for Mowatt from Barnsley too.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From what little I've seen of him, he appears technically excellent. But I'm not sure he's a  ball-winner in the same mould as Skipp - more a deep-lying playmaker?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, Alex Moss said:

Heard of him but don’t know really anything about him, is he a defensive type midfielder then? 

He played for us in the mid 90's then we sold him to Sheffield Wednesday.

 

  • Haha 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If this thread is referring to Billy Gilmour of Chelsea, then I would be amazed if they loaned him out, that said if they are prepared to then, yes, yes, yes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, A Load of Squit said:

He played for us in the mid 90's then we sold him to Sheffield Wednesday.

 

Ha ha - I certainly know who Jon Newsome is, but not very familiar with Billy Gilmour other than seeing him on Chelsea’s team sheet from time to time. I think I wrongly assumed he’s a more sort of attacking player than Ollie Skipp? An actual proper CDM is what we need next season, in my limited knowledge I’ve not thought of Gilmour to be that kind of player but if he has indeed got quality going forward then it sounds like he’d be a decent acquisition regardless.

Edited by Alex Moss

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just now, keelansgrandad said:

If he was available then definitely yes. Another who is like Ollie and calm, neat and progressive.

Isn’t that Sorensen?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, keelansgrandad said:

Very true but I think Gilmour is more in Kennys style.

That’s the key for me, I’m really happy with what we saw of Sorensen, played in his position if he’s as calm on the ball, then he’ll be more than capable to step up. We still need at least one more player and Gilmour would be a gem.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Gilmour is nothing like Skipp - a weird suggestion by Newsome. Skipp’s strengths are his tireless movement in midfield and ability to sniff out danger. Gilmour is more like Jorginho at Chelsea, he will stay sat behind the midfield and move the ball around to dominate possession. Gilmour plays in a position Norwich don’t really use doing a role that doesn’t really fit a Farke team. Apart from that I’m sure he’d be perfect...

  • Like 2
  • Haha 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, Bethnal Yellow and Green said:

Gilmour is nothing like Skipp - a weird suggestion by Newsome. Skipp’s strengths are his tireless movement in midfield and ability to sniff out danger. Gilmour is more like Jorginho at Chelsea, he will stay sat behind the midfield and move the ball around to dominate possession. Gilmour plays in a position Norwich don’t really use doing a role that doesn’t really fit a Farke team. Apart from that I’m sure he’d be perfect...

Cheers for that Bethnal, out of reactions but appreciated 👍

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

38 minutes ago, Bethnal Yellow and Green said:

Gilmour is nothing like Skipp - a weird suggestion by Newsome. Skipp’s strengths are his tireless movement in midfield and ability to sniff out danger. Gilmour is more like Jorginho at Chelsea, he will stay sat behind the midfield and move the ball around to dominate possession. Gilmour plays in a position Norwich don’t really use doing a role that doesn’t really fit a Farke team. Apart from that I’m sure he’d be perfect...

What about playing Gilmour alongside Sorensen who I still believe is a ready made replacement for Skipp? McClean will probably need three to four months before he’s near the first team, so we need cover. What’s your thoughts on that Beth?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Indy said:

What about playing Gilmour alongside Sorensen who I still believe is a ready made replacement for Skipp? McClean will probably need three to four months before he’s near the first team, so we need cover. What’s your thoughts on that Beth?

I think Gilmour would be even worse trying to replicate the box-to-box role that Farke wants the player in the McLean space to operate.

If Norwich switched to a 4-3-3 with Gilmour behind Sorenson and McLean (Rupp, A. N. Other) then it could work out, but I don't see Farke changing his style that dramatically. 

Gilmour's main weaknesses are his slight frame and lack of mobility, he really isn't particularly well suited to playing in a double-pivot where one of the main expectations is to get all over the pitch to cover defensively or carry the ball into the attacking third.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, curious yellow said:

We seem to be hearing a lot of Newsome's ideas since we got promoted. 

He's an agent. That's possibly why. Is Gilmour his player? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Dr Greenthumb said:

Only seen him twice, seems a decent player and we could do worse! Would like to go for Mowatt from Barnsley too.

I like mowatt too

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Gilmour would be a good loan signing, but he doesn't play the same role as Skipp, would be more of a competition for McLean.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, Bethnal Yellow and Green said:

I think Gilmour would be even worse trying to replicate the box-to-box role that Farke wants the player in the McLean space to operate.

If Norwich switched to a 4-3-3 with Gilmour behind Sorenson and McLean (Rupp, A. N. Other) then it could work out, but I don't see Farke changing his style that dramatically. 

Gilmour's main weaknesses are his slight frame and lack of mobility, he really isn't particularly well suited to playing in a double-pivot where one of the main expectations is to get all over the pitch to cover defensively or carry the ball into the attacking third.

Not suggesting it'd be worth changing our system to accommodate Gilmour, but I had previously thought about that system as a possibility as it gives us a lot more defensive bite in the centre of the park. There were times in our last PL season where the 10 (especially when it was Kenny) was dropping to play more as an 8 to stop us getting overrun in midfield. If we did go down that route, obviously that means playing without a conventional 10; so, assuming Buendia/Cantwell took the wide forward roles, do you think Dowell could play as an 8? He certainly seems to have enough physicality about him to mix it in there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Feedthewolf said:

Not suggesting it'd be worth changing our system to accommodate Gilmour, but I had previously thought about that system as a possibility as it gives us a lot more defensive bite in the centre of the park. There were times in our last PL season where the 10 (especially when it was Kenny) was dropping to play more as an 8 to stop us getting overrun in midfield. If we did go down that route, obviously that means playing without a conventional 10; so, assuming Buendia/Cantwell took the wide forward roles, do you think Dowell could play as an 8? He certainly seems to have enough physicality about him to mix it in there.

I don't think Dowell's got quite enough mongrel about him for that role, but I can certainly get behind turning the formation into a 4-3-2-1 instead of a 4-2-3-1 which is our default. 4-3-2-1 does put more creative emphasis on our full-backs though as often they'll be the ones expected to provide the width all the time. At the same time, I'm confident Giannoullis can make the step up and we know Aarons did.

That said, none of our attacking midfielders are really wingers, more playmakers who like to drift. If we want defensive rigidity then sacrifice one and put one of our speed merchants (hello Hernandez or Placheta) on a wing and make them the out-ball for counter attacks. This is the scenario where I thought Vrancic may still have been some use in the PL as he likes a raking diagonal into the channels. Zimmermann likes a diagonal ball to the wings as well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Feedthewolf said:

Not suggesting it'd be worth changing our system to accommodate Gilmour, but I had previously thought about that system as a possibility as it gives us a lot more defensive bite in the centre of the park. There were times in our last PL season where the 10 (especially when it was Kenny) was dropping to play more as an 8 to stop us getting overrun in midfield. If we did go down that route, obviously that means playing without a conventional 10; so, assuming Buendia/Cantwell took the wide forward roles, do you think Dowell could play as an 8? He certainly seems to have enough physicality about him to mix it in there.

It's something I thought about also, as it would be a way of being more solid without dramatically changing things. I am more of a 4-3-3 fan than a 4-2-3-1 personally. I think Norwich might struggle with it due to the fact that Cantwell and Buendia aren't really wingers and if they continue with their free roles it could leave Pukki very isolated up front. Dowell would still be a '10' just starting from a deeper position and McLean would play as the 8 alongside him. Dowell's biggest issue seems to be that he doesn't quite have the work rate of a McLean or Skipp so playing him as an 8 might not be particularly effective. (Although I think part of his lack of work rate is more to do with the way Farke wants his '10' to remain high up the pitch and close to Pukki).

Whether a Gilmour type 6 or more of a Skipp style 6 was needed would depend on how the team want to work - either possession dominate or more of a counter attacking team. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Bethnal Yellow and Green said:

It's something I thought about also, as it would be a way of being more solid without dramatically changing things. I am more of a 4-3-3 fan than a 4-2-3-1 personally. I think Norwich might struggle with it due to the fact that Cantwell and Buendia aren't really wingers and if they continue with their free roles it could leave Pukki very isolated up front. Dowell would still be a '10' just starting from a deeper position and McLean would play as the 8 alongside him. Dowell's biggest issue seems to be that he doesn't quite have the work rate of a McLean or Skipp so playing him as an 8 might not be particularly effective. (Although I think part of his lack of work rate is more to do with the way Farke wants his '10' to remain high up the pitch and close to Pukki).

Whether a Gilmour type 6 or more of a Skipp style 6 was needed would depend on how the team want to work - either possession dominate or more of a counter attacking team. 

Re. the bit in bold, a fairly common view of fans of the clubs Dowell was at on loan was his propensity to go missing. I think he's naturally a fairly leisurely player who needs a team more built around him - unless Farke can imbue an extra touch of urgency / work-rate into his play. He's got a lot to like, but I can't see a genuine box-to-box player (such as a McLean) in there.

Edited by TheGunnShow

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...