Jump to content

Recommended Posts

18 hours ago, Danke bitte said:

I'd agree with all of this, Gilmour is the luxury player we can't afford to accommodate. The EDP journos suggested he might be recalled in Jan if we don't use him but I fear if we do he's too easy to turn over and we lose that ballast in the midfield. A shame but I feel a bit of a poor loan option on our part when we knew we needed more strength / protection of the back 4.  

Im not sure this is true, and I suspect a 5-3-2 may give us more options with regard to Gilmour, I would expect either him or Cantwell to find a role replacing McLean over the next few weeks. PLM, Normann and 3 CBs is enough steel to play someone a bit ahead of them in most games. Perhaps not against Burnley but probably against Brighton.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, Petriix said:

I'd argue that Gilmour (and trying to fit him in) has been the main catalyst for our awful start to the season. I doubt very much that we'd have tried to reshape our midfield so radically if we'd have somehow got Skipp for another season. The early experiments with the 4-3-3 saw us totally lose balance with the midfield three trying to be everywhere all at once and totally failing.

Undoubtedly he's a good player. But he doesn't have the positional awareness (yet) to be a reliable workhorse in the engine room (am I mixing my metaphors?) of a team who will be scrapping at the bottom of the table. We need discipline and dogged determination. Our CMs can't get drawn out of position or we'll get torn apart.

I think we could get more out of him if we get him playing alongside Normann and not wandering too far - the role that McLean was playing in the latter part of last season. Starting from a simple position of receiving the ball from the defence and moving it into the midfield and attack would get the most out of his ability on the ball. We just need to stop him getting too far forward so that he doesn't leave a huge space behind to exploit.

It is a valid point to suggest that the only reason to loan Gilmour would be the belief that we were going to dominate the ball and a deep-lying central playmaker - which is what Gilmour is -  was a good strategic replacement for the Skipp role.

I think Gilmour is a lovely player, though if we needed Skipp in the Championship - and we really did - then surely we needed someone Skipp-like in role even more at the top level where we must defend much more and must inevitably come under more pressure?

Strong, Defensive-minded players are doing well for us currently, as that is what we are - unfortunately, though not surprisingly - doing most of the time. 

Not really unforeseeable I would suggest. Was Gilmour’s loan therefore a triumph of hope over expectation tactically?

Parma 

Edited by Parma Ham's gone mouldy
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, Parma Ham's gone mouldy said:

It is a valid point to suggest that the only reason to loan Gilmour would be the belief that we were going to dominate the ball and a deep-lying central playmaker - which is what Gilmour is -  was a good strategic replacement for the Skipp role.

I think Gilmour is a lovely player, though if we needed Skipp in the Championship - and we really did - then surely we needed someone Skipp-like in role even more at the top level where we must defend much more and must inevitably come under more pressure?

Strong, Defensive-minded players are doing well for us currently, as that is what we are - unfortunately, though not surprisingly - doing most of the time. 

Not really unforeseeable I would suggest. Was Gilmour’s loan therefore a triumph of hope over expectation tactically?

Parma 

I think that Farke didn't, and maybe doesn't, see the shift to 3 in midfield as that significant. The hope appears to be that an extra CM at the expense of a number 10 can buy the opportunity for Gilmour to have a dynamic role in the middle of the park.

In my opinion, the loss of positional discipline in midfield and the loss of the the balance brought by having a number 10 in front of the solid doubt pivot have set us back massively.

But I'm quietly hopeful that Gilmour could work as the creative foil to Normann in a more disciplined role. A little bit of me dies inside every time we line up without a number 10.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Petriix said:

I think that Farke didn't, and maybe doesn't, see the shift to 3 in midfield as that significant. The hope appears to be that an extra CM at the expense of a number 10 can buy the opportunity for Gilmour to have a dynamic role in the middle of the park.

In my opinion, the loss of positional discipline in midfield and the loss of the the balance brought by having a number 10 in front of the solid doubt pivot have set us back massively.

But I'm quietly hopeful that Gilmour could work as the creative foil to Normann in a more disciplined role. A little bit of me dies inside every time we line up without a number 10.

For me, the need for a disciplined holding midfielder to sit in front of the back 4 was the number 1, most obvious thing to address this summer. No hindsight needed. Most of us said it months ago. Whether Normann arriving has addressed that or not time will tell although he doesn;t seem to be precisely the type of player I was expecting us to/hoping we would sign. That said he's a good player and you would hope he's smart enough to be able to adapt and play that role.  

Farke trying to fudge it by switching to a 3 man midfield full of jack of all trades always looked questionable.  

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In fact i'd happily see us set up with 2 deeper holding midfilelders if it mean the rest of the "front 4" were given more licence to attack. I think we'd be just as solid but have more attacking threat as well. 

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, Jim Smith said:

In fact i'd happily see us set up with 2 deeper holding midfilelders if it mean the rest of the "front 4" were given more licence to attack. I think we'd be just as solid but have more attacking threat as well. 

Exactly this. I think our lack of attacking intent has been indirectly responsible for our defensive frailty because it invites teams to commit more men forwards and means we struggle to hurt them when we do win the ball. It's a self-perpetuating viscous circle of negativity. 

Edited by Petriix

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Some good points and why I get so frustrated with fans who think more attacking players always = more attacking team. It's better to get the best out of 3 attack minded players who don't have to track back as much, have more space to counter into and won't get in each others way as opposed to 5 attacking players who have to track back, lose the ball constantly by trying to play short, low passes to each other and then get in each others way in and around the box. 

 

Sadly though I don't see a role for Gilmour this season. He's just too lightweight to play in a team that has to defend for most of the game. Yes he can help with counters by finding that killer pass, but we'll just give away too many goals to make it worthwhile. He should have gone out on loan in Europe to a Europa league level team where he could play for a higher quality side in a less physical league. I kept my mouth shut at the time for fear of being called negative but this loan just never made much sense to me. We needed another Tettey type player instead. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's a bit like we went out to B&Q to buy a lawnmower  and came home with a water feature,  lovely addition  to any garden, but not what we needed to cut the grass.

At the moment  we need substance  over style. That can come down the line , hard to build anything without decent foundations.  

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, wcorkcanary said:

It's a bit like we went out to B&Q to buy a lawnmower  and came home with a water feature,  lovely addition  to any garden, but not what we needed to cut the grass.

At the moment  we need substance  over style. That can come down the line , hard to build anything without decent foundations.  

‘We got so excited that we could, we never stopped to ask if we should’ 

Parma 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, Parma Ham's gone mouldy said:

‘We got so excited that we could, we never stopped to ask if we should’ 

Parma 

Well, despite the negative views earlier in this thread, that is one of the benefits of the loan system. If we decide he doesn’t work for us, we don’t play him and he goes back to Chelsea in December. Doesn’t impact us significant as we probably would have lost those matches he played anyway. The only ones to lose out are Gilmour and Chelsea.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Nuff Said said:

If we decide he doesn’t work for us, we don’t play him and he goes back to Chelsea in December

Bit of a PR nightmare though.  Board and manager would be hung on that decision if we failed to survive.

Not to mention pundits and fans if we let him go mid-season would seriously be questioning why we're unable to use a player of that class.

And further to that 'how' would the club convey the message on why he was pulled back?  If we stopped playing him, Chelsea could come out and request loan cancellation on the basis that being here is damaging for him.  We aren't going to come out and say he's lightweight, or unable to do a job here.

Let's get our **** together before even discussing this though, he's a class player and it's just about finding the mix.  While he lacks a large physical presence, he doesn't lack fight.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Google Bot said:

Bit of a PR nightmare though.  Board and manager would be hung on that decision if we failed to survive.

Not to mention pundits and fans if we let him go mid-season would seriously be questioning why we're unable to use a player of that class.

And further to that 'how' would the club convey the message on why he was pulled back?  If we stopped playing him, Chelsea could come out and request loan cancellation on the basis that being here is damaging for him.  We aren't going to come out and say he's lightweight, or unable to do a job here.

Let's get our **** together before even discussing this though, he's a class player and it's just about finding the mix.  While he lacks a large physical presence, he doesn't lack fight.

I think that there is a lot of truth in this and it concerns me. We have done well developing young players, selling them on, giving them a pathway. It is central to the model.

Gilmour - fairly or unfairly - is a quite a media-noisy player. ‘Bit of a PR nightmare though’ is absolutely right. Particularly when bottom of the league. 

Good reputations get scarred quickly (particularly when we obviously need top clubs to loan us quality players upon promotion as we cannot afford-attract-risk ready-made top level quality). 

‘What have you done for me lately?’

Parma 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, Parma Ham's gone mouldy said:

It is a valid point to suggest that the only reason to loan Gilmour would be the belief that we were going to dominate the ball and a deep-lying central playmaker - which is what Gilmour is -  was a good strategic replacement for the Skipp role.

I'm not sure that we have to dominate the ball for Gilmour to do that.

Gilmour came to light for a good performance against England, but they didn't dominate the ball.

Even more recently against Israel, where he was again lauded (perhaps a bit too much, there were better players than him in the Scotland team that night in my opinion) - they had the same amount of possession as we did away to Everton.

The reality is it's a case of finding the right balance in midfield and we've not had many games where Normann, PLM and Gilmour have all been available, so far too early to call.

As for our reputation - I don't think one player who might not even end up being a top player himself anyway, is going to drastically change what's been clearly seen as a fantastic club for young players to develop over the past 3 years or so.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Christoph Stiepermann said:

Some good points and why I get so frustrated with fans who think more attacking players always = more attacking team. It's better to get the best out of 3 attack minded players who don't have to track back as much, have more space to counter into and won't get in each others way as opposed to 5 attacking players who have to track back, lose the ball constantly by trying to play short, low passes to each other and then get in each others way in and around the box. 

 

Sadly though I don't see a role for Gilmour this season. He's just too lightweight to play in a team that has to defend for most of the game. Yes he can help with counters by finding that killer pass, but we'll just give away too many goals to make it worthwhile. He should have gone out on loan in Europe to a Europa league level team where he could play for a higher quality side in a less physical league. I kept my mouth shut at the time for fear of being called negative but this loan just never made much sense to me. We needed another Tettey type player instead. 

I like how we all see things differently and can have a good natured debate about it.

For me it's the opposite of this (bold section). With the two attacking midfielders or, latterly, the second striker, too much responsibility is falling to the central midfielders; in both attack and defence. It's leading to a lack of positional discipline in defence and a lack of intent in attack.

The fact remains that the 4-2-3-1 has proven to be successful (albeit at Championship level) whereas the formations attempted this season have returned just one point and only two goals.

With the double pivot of two CDMs you get very specific and defined roles which makes you less liable to getting drawn out of position. The wide AMs absolutely have to defend more, but that's a good thing as it affords having a creative number 10 on the pitch who can link the midfield and attack.

On the whole, the 4-2-3-1 just seems better balanced with 4 attacking players, 2 solid midfielders and 4 defenders. The attackers actually play a bit deeper, but can be a bit more incisive in offensive transitions as we can get numbers forward much quicker.

In the 4-3-3 we were always using the channels with the wingers who were, ultimately, hitting aimless crosses for Pukki and one of the CMs to attack. A significant deviation from the intricate passing on the edge of the box and through-balls we were used to seeing.

Now we're playing 3-5-2 it's even worse with just two attacking players, totally isolated, with no attacking midfielders behind them. Sure, the wingbacks can attack a bit more. But it's more of the same aimless crosses. We have an extra central defender so, even though we still have the muddled midfield roles, we're far less likely to be caught out.

But that's at the expense of two attacking players. We've gone from a good balance to a highly defensive setup.

There is hope, however. Normann is doing a great job of anchoring the midfield. I think that Gilmour could play alongside him with a bit of coaching to be more disciplined. Then we could get our best players on the pitch and look to hurt teams.

Share this post


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

I like how we all see things differently and can have a good natured debate about it.

For me it's the opposite of this (bold section). With the two attacking midfielders or, latterly, the second striker, too much responsibility is falling to the central midfielders; in both attack and defence. It's leading to a lack of positional discipline in defence and a lack of intent in attack.

The fact remains that the 4-2-3-1 has proven to be successful (albeit at Championship level) whereas the formations attempted this season have returned just one point and only two goals.

With the double pivot of two CDMs you get very specific and defined roles which makes you less liable to getting drawn out of position. The wide AMs absolutely have to defend more, but that's a good thing as it affords having a creative number 10 on the pitch who can link the midfield and attack.

On the whole, the 4-2-3-1 just seems better balanced with 4 attacking players, 2 solid midfielders and 4 defenders. The attackers actually play a bit deeper, but can be a bit more incisive in offensive transitions as we can get numbers forward much quicker.

In the 4-3-3 we were always using the channels with the wingers who were, ultimately, hitting aimless crosses for Pukki and one of the CMs to attack. A significant deviation from the intricate passing on the edge of the box and through-balls we were used to seeing.

Now we're playing 3-5-2 it's even worse with just two attacking players, totally isolated, with no attacking midfielders behind them. Sure, the wingbacks can attack a bit more. But it's more of the same aimless crosses. We have an extra central defender so, even though we still have the muddled midfield roles, we're far less likely to be caught out.

But that's at the expense of two attacking players. We've gone from a good balance to a highly defensive setup.

There is hope, however. Normann is doing a great job of anchoring the midfield. I think that Gilmour could play alongside him with a bit of coaching to be more disciplined. Then we could get our best players on the pitch and look to hurt teams.

I agree with almost all of this. Well said Petrix. 

The only part I disagree with is the Gilmour part. I don't think he has the right level of discipline for that role alongside Normann. I hope, in time, he proves me wrong but I don't think he has the physicality we need as we tend to defend more in the PL. I would rather have Rupp or PLM there. 

Maybe he can do a job as a 10? 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Petriix said:

I like how we all see things differently and can have a good natured debate about it.

For me it's the opposite of this (bold section). With the two attacking midfielders or, latterly, the second striker, too much responsibility is falling to the central midfielders; in both attack and defence. It's leading to a lack of positional discipline in defence and a lack of intent in attack.

The fact remains that the 4-2-3-1 has proven to be successful (albeit at Championship level) whereas the formations attempted this season have returned just one point and only two goals.

With the double pivot of two CDMs you get very specific and defined roles which makes you less liable to getting drawn out of position. The wide AMs absolutely have to defend more, but that's a good thing as it affords having a creative number 10 on the pitch who can link the midfield and attack.

On the whole, the 4-2-3-1 just seems better balanced with 4 attacking players, 2 solid midfielders and 4 defenders. The attackers actually play a bit deeper, but can be a bit more incisive in offensive transitions as we can get numbers forward much quicker.

In the 4-3-3 we were always using the channels with the wingers who were, ultimately, hitting aimless crosses for Pukki and one of the CMs to attack. A significant deviation from the intricate passing on the edge of the box and through-balls we were used to seeing.

Now we're playing 3-5-2 it's even worse with just two attacking players, totally isolated, with no attacking midfielders behind them. Sure, the wingbacks can attack a bit more. But it's more of the same aimless crosses. We have an extra central defender so, even though we still have the muddled midfield roles, we're far less likely to be caught out.

But that's at the expense of two attacking players. We've gone from a good balance to a highly defensive setup.

There is hope, however. Normann is doing a great job of anchoring the midfield. I think that Gilmour could play alongside him with a bit of coaching to be more disciplined. Then we could get our best players on the pitch and look to hurt teams.

Good post...

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, NFN FC said:

I agree with almost all of this. Well said Petrix. 

The only part I disagree with is the Gilmour part. I don't think he has the right level of discipline for that role alongside Normann. I hope, in time, he proves me wrong but I don't think he has the physicality we need as we tend to defend more in the PL. I would rather have Rupp or PLM there. 

Maybe he can do a job as a 10? 

I don't think we'll know until we try. I don't believe Skipp excelled in his first few appearances while he was learning his role in the context of our system. 

Gilmour's biggest weakness has been his positioning and awareness when we don't have the ball. But I'd argue that McLean has been equally culpable in his redefined role. Perhaps it's the system rather than the individual at fault?

I think with a stricter brief and a more defined set of responsibilities, Gilmour could become less prone to getting caught out of position. We would definitely benefit from his creativity so it's worth considering.

I might be totally wrong. I'd also be happy with someone else in there. Number 10 is also a possibility. But I think we've got plenty of other options in that area.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Google Bot said:

Bit of a PR nightmare though.  Board and manager would be hung on that decision if we failed to survive.

Not to mention pundits and fans if we let him go mid-season would seriously be questioning why we're unable to use a player of that class.

And further to that 'how' would the club convey the message on why he was pulled back?  If we stopped playing him, Chelsea could come out and request loan cancellation on the basis that being here is damaging for him.  We aren't going to come out and say he's lightweight, or unable to do a job here.

Let's get our **** together before even discussing this though, he's a class player and it's just about finding the mix.  While he lacks a large physical presence, he doesn't lack fight.

It’s a fair point, but equally if the end result is that we only get loaned players who will suit our needs, it’s not the end of the world. 
 

As to how the message is conveyed, if he doesn’t get much game time and Chelsea end the loan early, then it’s their decision, not ours. I think given the fact that the general view in the media is that we’re too “naive” (I find the word triggering me already this season) and need to stop trying to play like Barcelona with players more suited to the Championship, the consensus might well be that the match between him and us didn’t make much sense.

 

But of course the ideal scenario is that Farke manages to coach him and shape the team to meet in the middle. Fingers crossed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, Nuff Said said:

It’s a fair point, but equally if the end result is that we only get loaned players who will suit our needs, it’s not the end of the world.

As to how the message is conveyed, if he doesn’t get much game time and Chelsea end the loan early, then it’s their decision, not ours. I think given the fact that the general view in the media is that we’re too “naive” (I find the word triggering me already this season) and need to stop trying to play like Barcelona with players more suited to the Championship, the consensus might well be that the match between him and us didn’t make much sense.

But of course the ideal scenario is that Farke manages to coach him and shape the team to meet in the middle. Fingers crossed.

Farkeball at it's best relies on every single player being in tune with it - if even one player isn't quite all there in terms of how the system of movement and covering for others works, then that is when problems arise.   Gilmour is still learning in certain aspects of the game and it is fine for him marauding around for Scotland against international teams that are nowhere near PL standard, but the discipline of playing in the PL is something he will have to acquire, or he will not last here - and not at Chelsea either, because they are a similar kind of team under Tuchel.

It is really up to Gilmour himself to learn quickly, as this is a great opportunity for him to learn and develop - he certainly has the talent, Farke will help him, of course, but it is up to him at the end of the day. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 13/10/2021 at 08:15, Parma Ham's gone mouldy said:

‘We got so excited that we could, we never stopped to ask if we should’ 

Parma 

Valid point. We got so excited about getting him, largely on the back of that performance against England, that we didn't consider how we will use him.

His lack of physicality should surprise no one and he was never going to be a direct replacement for Skipp, as neither is Normann.

7 games in and we're still not sure what our best midfield formation or best personnel is. Needs sorting, bloody quickly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The fact is that the club didn't learn a thing from our last abject humiliation in the PL and simply repeated their errors. Too many Poundshop lightweights and too much self belief that they can turn pigs ears that other clubs have 'strangely missed' into silk purses.

 

A shiny new training complex may well lure them in but I'm not seeing too many PL quality products hitting the first team of late or funds coming in from the sale of the ones that aren't making the grade.

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, Petriix said:

I like how we all see things differently and can have a good natured debate about it.

For me it's the opposite of this (bold section). With the two attacking midfielders or, latterly, the second striker, too much responsibility is falling to the central midfielders; in both attack and defence. It's leading to a lack of positional discipline in defence and a lack of intent in attack.

The fact remains that the 4-2-3-1 has proven to be successful (albeit at Championship level) whereas the formations attempted this season have returned just one point and only two goals.

With the double pivot of two CDMs you get very specific and defined roles which makes you less liable to getting drawn out of position. The wide AMs absolutely have to defend more, but that's a good thing as it affords having a creative number 10 on the pitch who can link the midfield and attack.

On the whole, the 4-2-3-1 just seems better balanced with 4 attacking players, 2 solid midfielders and 4 defenders. The attackers actually play a bit deeper, but can be a bit more incisive in offensive transitions as we can get numbers forward much quicker.

In the 4-3-3 we were always using the channels with the wingers who were, ultimately, hitting aimless crosses for Pukki and one of the CMs to attack. A significant deviation from the intricate passing on the edge of the box and through-balls we were used to seeing.

Now we're playing 3-5-2 it's even worse with just two attacking players, totally isolated, with no attacking midfielders behind them. Sure, the wingbacks can attack a bit more. But it's more of the same aimless crosses. We have an extra central defender so, even though we still have the muddled midfield roles, we're far less likely to be caught out.

But that's at the expense of two attacking players. We've gone from a good balance to a highly defensive setup.

There is hope, however. Normann is doing a great job of anchoring the midfield. I think that Gilmour could play alongside him with a bit of coaching to be more disciplined. Then we could get our best players on the pitch and look to hurt teams.

I agree with this. Our biggest issue (aside from defending crosses) is midfielders getting caught out of position when we give the ball away leaving us exposed to fast counters or often a simple ball up the middle of the pitch which opens us up far too easily.

Two sitting midfielders would give security okay allow the 4 in front of them to cause problems in attack unlike the last game where Burnley were effectively having to deal with 2 players a lot of the time. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, Parma Ham's gone mouldy said:

Sometimes you get what you want and sometimes you get what you need.

Chelsea gave us one and Spurs kept the other. 

Parma 

I think the double irony of this statement is that Spurs have higher aspirations, dominate more games, more often and so may want ‘more’ than Skipp offers. 

Their fans might well - not unreasonably in their context - lament his lack of silk, assists, scoring and completeness. 

Conversely we desperately needed - and had no cover at all for - exactly the other prosaic things he does have and absolutely do not currently require the pretty embellishments. 

If a reasonably expensive back-up goalkeeper was a good strategic decision, no Skipp-like player, nor any back up to a Skipp-like player looks disastrous for a team inevitably destined to defend a great deal.

Parma 

Post script: Chelsea of course have Jorginho particularly and even Kanté who are well ahead of Gilmour. Jorginho does what he does better and also has a wider range of skills. A Gilmour will be brilliant for us when we are better. Did we really think we were already ‘better’ than we are?

I’m also afraid that this raises the spectre of Buendia (and the Pukki-with-Buendia effect). Assists and Goals are wisps of priceless gold thread in the wind. No amount of Gilmours can replace that. It is a different beast. A couple of Skipps could have hidden some of the worst of the over-reliance on Buendia at this level though…..

Edited by Parma Ham's gone mouldy
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/10/2021 at 13:50, Wacky Waving Inflatable Arm Flailing Tube Man said:

Agreed, and we still don't know if he's even available yet anyway. But once he is available for selection, I'd rather see Cantwell in there as the creative option.

Is Cantwell that creative? My impression is he scores more goals than he creates

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/10/2021 at 15:07, Petriix said:

Starting from a simple position of receiving the ball from the defence and moving it into the midfield and attack would get the most out of his ability on the ball. We just need to stop him getting too far forward so that he doesn't leave a huge space behind to exploit.

David Fox and Wes Hoolahan come to mind. 

What struck me about our Prem season under Lambert was how often the more one dimensional players like Barnett would win the ball and then lay it off to Fox deep or other players to Wes a bit higher up. I've thought for a while now that Gilmour's physique at present means he cannot compete as a CM, but playing him as a Regista in front of the defence but behind the CMs may well work and get him in the condctor role

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Parma Ham's gone mouldy said:

I think the double irony of this statement is that Spurs have higher aspirations, dominate more games, more often and so may want ‘more’ than Skipp offers. 

Their fans might well - not unreasonably in their context - lament his lack of silk, assists, scoring and completeness. 

Conversely we desperately needed - and had no cover at all for - exactly the other prosaic things he does have and absolutely do not currently require the pretty embellishments. 

If a reasonably expensive back-up goalkeeper was a good strategic decision, no Skipp-like player, nor any back up to a Skipp-like player looks disastrous for a team inevitably destined to defend a great deal.

Parma 

Post script: Chelsea of course have Jorginho particularly and even Kanté who are well ahead of Gilmour. Jorginho does what he does better and also has a wider range of skills. A Gilmour will be brilliant for us when we are better. Did we really think we were already ‘better’ than we are?

I’m also afraid that this raises the spectre of Buendia (and the Pukki-with-Buendia effect). Assists and Goals are wisps of priceless gold thread in the wind. No amount of Gilmours can replace that. It is a different beast. A couple of Skipps could have hidden some of the worst of the over-reliance on Buendia at this level though…..

Ultimately you have to adapt to survive. Who knows how many targets we identified and missed out on. We would have loved to get Skipp back, but it wasn't possible. Gilmour represented a fairly low-cost gamble in isolation and he could still do a job for us.

I'd argue that we've tried too hard to adapt the system to the players and it really hasn't worked at all. So maybe now is the time to adapt the players to the system. Gilmour is young and should be capable of adapting his game. We've got a lot of versatility in the midfield so there's plenty of scope for utilising them in different ways.

We need more positional discipline and more clearly defined defensive roles. Rather than packing the defence and castrating the attack we need to get the attacking players onto the pitch to have any chance of scoring the goals we need. So we need to get those players to do the defending as well. Buendia learned it, Tzolis seems to have it in his game, Cantwell knew his job too.

I think we need to simplify the midfield roles and get the whole team playing as tighter unit. More attacking players, but a more defensively structured mindset. I'd like to see Gilmour alongside Normann in a 4-2-3-1. I'd be happy with PLM as number 10 if Dowell is considered not physical enough but want to see two from Cantwell, Tzolis and Rashica starting most matches. Keep the central midfielders deep and make sure the wide AMs are well drilled to track back.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Parma Ham's gone mouldy said:

I think the double irony of this statement is that Spurs have higher aspirations, dominate more games, more often and so may want ‘more’ than Skipp offers. 

Their fans might well - not unreasonably in their context - lament his lack of silk, assists, scoring and completeness. 

Conversely we desperately needed - and had no cover at all for - exactly the other prosaic things he does have and absolutely do not currently require the pretty embellishments. 

If a reasonably expensive back-up goalkeeper was a good strategic decision, no Skipp-like player, nor any back up to a Skipp-like player looks disastrous for a team inevitably destined to defend a great deal.

Parma 

Post script: Chelsea of course have Jorginho particularly and even Kanté who are well ahead of Gilmour. Jorginho does what he does better and also has a wider range of skills. A Gilmour will be brilliant for us when we are better. Did we really think we were already ‘better’ than we are?

I’m also afraid that this raises the spectre of Buendia (and the Pukki-with-Buendia effect). Assists and Goals are wisps of priceless gold thread in the wind. No amount of Gilmours can replace that. It is a different beast. A couple of Skipps could have hidden some of the worst of the over-reliance on Buendia at this level though…..

Would it be possible that if the above is true, and Skipp does fall out of favour, and the loan for Gilmour or Williams is deemed to not be working out that we could cancel one of them and ultimately loan Skipp in January should Spurs be willing?

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...