Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
cambridgeshire canary

Gilmour playing like Pirlo for Scotland

Recommended Posts

Yes, let's pull out all the stops and base our team around him. Then, if he's really good and makes such a difference to our team ........... Chelsea can come and take him back and make an even bigger hole in our team than Spurs did when they took back Olly Skipp.

When will people understand he is not here for our benefit, only his own and Chelsea's.

If you hadn't guessed, I don't like the corrupt loan system.

Share this post


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

Yes, let's pull out all the stops and base our team around him. Then, if he's really good and makes such a difference to our team ........... Chelsea can come and take him back and make an even bigger hole in our team than Spurs did when they took back Olly Skipp.

When will people understand he is not here for our benefit, only his own and Chelsea's.

If you hadn't guessed, I don't like the corrupt loan system.

If we didn't get any benefit from Skipp's loan, how did he leave "a hole in our team"?

Answers on a postcard 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Yellow Wal said:

Yes, let's pull out all the stops and base our team around him. Then, if he's really good and makes such a difference to our team ........... Chelsea can come and take him back and make an even bigger hole in our team than Spurs did when they took back Olly Skipp.

When will people understand he is not here for our benefit, only his own and Chelsea's.

If you hadn't guessed, I don't like the corrupt loan system.

I know you're joking, but Farke actually did adapt the team around Gilmour and it was disastrous for both the manager and the team. The whole switch to a 3 man midfield seemed to be in order to accommodate Billy. The consequence was twofold: to neuter our attack by isolating Pukki with just two wingers to support him - mostly by hitting aimless crosses; and to neuter our defence by losing shape and discipline in the defensive midfield area - with wingers playing higher, there was limited support for the fullbacks and, with the midfield 3 now charged with covering the wider areas as well as supporting the attack, there was less of a shield in front of the back four.

I strongly believe that, had Gilmour never come to the club, we would have more than double the number of points and still be managed by Farke.

  • Like 3

Share this post


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

I know you're joking, but Farke actually did adapt the team around Gilmour and it was disastrous for both the manager and the team. The whole switch to a 3 man midfield seemed to be in order to accommodate Billy. The consequence was twofold: to neuter our attack by isolating Pukki with just two wingers to support him - mostly by hitting aimless crosses; and to neuter our defence by losing shape and discipline in the defensive midfield area - with wingers playing higher, there was limited support for the fullbacks and, with the midfield 3 now charged with covering the wider areas as well as supporting the attack, there was less of a shield in front of the back four.

I strongly believe that, had Gilmour never come to the club, we would have more than double the number of points and still be managed by Farke.

The problem was more with the fact that we had too many new players early in the season.  We could have accomodated Gilmour if the rest of the team had been fully versed in the way of things, but we didn't - we had Rashica, Lees Melou and Gilmour all in the team trying to find their way. Three new players not well versed or had much game time in against top some top teams - and we didn't have Normann in to start with either. 

Farke stuck with Gilmour a while and once dropped, we started picking up points, so quite reasonably, it could have been seen as a  reasonable thing he was droppped. Then we had to play Chelsea anyway where he was ineligible - and then we had to make sure we were really tight for against Leeds after such a bad loss, so you could follow Farke's thinking there.  So many ifs and buts, but it had got to the point where we were starting to settle - and I do believe the Brentford match was a key match for our season.

433 will work - and it would have under Farke imo, once we stopped the rot and got that first victory under our belts - after which he would have been able to gradually relax and start the more creative players more often. In that way, Smith has a good advantage - we've got the first win, the new players now have a much better idea about each other and we can look forwards to seeing the team progress from here. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/11/2021 at 20:04, Sideshow Tim said:

Because he's surrounded by dross. Pretty straightforward really. 

But if that's the case then him looking good while playing for Scotland is completely inexplicable. 

  • Like 2
  • Haha 1

Share this post


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

I know you're joking, but Farke actually did adapt the team around Gilmour and it was disastrous for both the manager and the team. The whole switch to a 3 man midfield seemed to be in order to accommodate Billy. The consequence was twofold: to neuter our attack by isolating Pukki with just two wingers to support him - mostly by hitting aimless crosses; and to neuter our defence by losing shape and discipline in the defensive midfield area - with wingers playing higher, there was limited support for the fullbacks and, with the midfield 3 now charged with covering the wider areas as well as supporting the attack, there was less of a shield in front of the back four.

I strongly believe that, had Gilmour never come to the club, we would have more than double the number of points and still be managed by Farke.

He's played four games in the league I think. 11 games have been played. 5 points on the board.

More than double the points you say. So I will give you 6 then. Please inform me where those 6 extra points are coming from.??

Liv. Man city. Leicester.watford. a draw in each of them gives you 4.

So Billy got DF sacked looks like it. Stay off the bevvy will you.

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

I know you're joking, but Farke actually did adapt the team around Gilmour and it was disastrous for both the manager and the team. The whole switch to a 3 man midfield seemed to be in order to accommodate Billy. The consequence was twofold: to neuter our attack by isolating Pukki with just two wingers to support him - mostly by hitting aimless crosses; and to neuter our defence by losing shape and discipline in the defensive midfield area - with wingers playing higher, there was limited support for the fullbacks and, with the midfield 3 now charged with covering the wider areas as well as supporting the attack, there was less of a shield in front of the back four.

I strongly believe that, had Gilmour never come to the club, we would have more than double the number of points and still be managed by Farke.

I couldn't agree with you more.

By trying to fit Gilmour into the team we went away from our settled system into one that none of the players were comfortable with or in fact had experience of in a Norwich shirt. I think it became obvious to Farke quite early that Gilmour could not play in the tried and tested system so he tried to change it to accommodate a potentially excellent player. He failed at this and it cost him his job. 

  • Like 1
  • Confused 1

Share this post


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

If we didn't get any benefit from Skipp's loan, how did he leave "a hole in our team"?

Answers on a postcard 

Of course we got benefit from Skipp's loan albeit temporary.

And, potentially like Gilmour, who gained most?

Olly Skipp was well coached and became very efficient at his job, gained much experience and played on a regular basis, became a well known player gaining from the exposure and, perhaps most important from Spurs' point of view, had his value rise, what £20M?

He was arguably the most important player for us last season, and he left a hell of a hole to fill which we are still trying to do. 

Why Championship and lower Premiership clubs take players from the richest clubs on loan is beyond me. Chelsea had around 40 players on loan last season. For whose benefit was that?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Petriix said:

I know you're joking, but Farke actually did adapt the team around Gilmour and it was disastrous for both the manager and the team. The whole switch to a 3 man midfield seemed to be in order to accommodate Billy. The consequence was twofold: to neuter our attack by isolating Pukki with just two wingers to support him - mostly by hitting aimless crosses; and to neuter our defence by losing shape and discipline in the defensive midfield area - with wingers playing higher, there was limited support for the fullbacks and, with the midfield 3 now charged with covering the wider areas as well as supporting the attack, there was less of a shield in front of the back four.

I strongly believe that, had Gilmour never come to the club, we would have more than double the number of points and still be managed by Farke.

This seems to be some kind of forum fact but I don’t think it’s at all proven that he adapted the team around Gilmour at all. If he did, then surely he wouldn’t have played him out of position, he’s adapt it to play him in a better position. I think it’s a lot more likely that he changed it because at that point Skipp and Buendia had gone, there was no Normann yet and he didn’t feel the formation would suit the remaining players.

As pointed out Gilmour only played 4 league games, and we’ve 2 draws and a win. It’s not like he dropped him and it all went well again.

Its some stretch to blame the terrible start to the season on a 20 year old loanee who played 4 times. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Jambomo said:

This seems to be some kind of forum fact but I don’t think it’s at all proven that he adapted the team around Gilmour at all. If he did, then surely he wouldn’t have played him out of position, he’s adapt it to play him in a better position. I think it’s a lot more likely that he changed it because at that point Skipp and Buendia had gone, there was no Normann yet and he didn’t feel the formation would suit the remaining players.

As pointed out Gilmour only played 4 league games, and we’ve 2 draws and a win. It’s not like he dropped him and it all went well again.

Its some stretch to blame the terrible start to the season on a 20 year old loanee who played 4 times. 

Commonsense and reality arrives. Thank you. Unfortunately DF was  brilliant and exciting in the Championship but premier league he was out of his depth. We move on now and the hierarchy in Norwich City to me have now proven they want to remain in the top league. We have a chance . I believe the players are here to do that. I also believe we are very lucky to have acquired Dean Smith. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The thing with Gilmour is he's a Scottish and plays for the national team and whose home club is English so he has a higher local profile than our other players. A few good performances for Scotland and Chelsea talk of potential and he's suddenly better than our lesser known players. We're still bedding in a large number of signings so they are getting irregular game time so it will take time to work out the best ones. Gilmours profile simply doesn't fit into this timeframe. He needs to grab his next chance and shine for his club.

Share this post


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

The thing with Gilmour is he's a Scottish and plays for the national team and whose home club is English so he has a higher local profile than our other players. A few good performances for Scotland and Chelsea talk of potential and he's suddenly better than our lesser known players. We're still bedding in a large number of signings so they are getting irregular game time so it will take time to work out the best ones. Gilmours profile simply doesn't fit into this timeframe. He needs to grab his next chance and shine for his club.

I'm sure Deano will soon sort it. McLean first on the team sheet

Positive 🤔 🤥🤠

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Mengo said:

He's played four games in the league I think. 11 games have been played. 5 points on the board.

More than double the points you say. So I will give you 6 then. Please inform me where those 6 extra points are coming from.??

Liv. Man city. Leicester.watford. a draw in each of them gives you 4.

So Billy got DF sacked looks like it. Stay off the bevvy will you.

You've done some spectacular mental gymnastics there. My point is simply that, by scrapping the 4-2-3-1 to accommodate Gilmour, Farke set us on a path towards his sacking; a cascade of events predicated by that choice. A 'sliding doors' moment rather than it being the fault of the player himself.

If we'd kept our successful system, I believe we would have beaten Arsenal and Watford and drawn with Leicester. I also think we would have lost to Burnley. But, yes 6 more points. We'd have probably beaten Leeds as well.

If we hadn't signed Gilmour early in the window we'd likely have signed a different midfielder in his place. Probably one who could play CDM.

Farke got himself sacked by switching to a flawed system, then knee-jerking into another flawed system before finally going back to something close to our winning formation. By then it was too late.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, littleyellowbirdie said:

But if that's the case then him looking good while playing for Scotland is completely inexplicable. 

Why? If he has no decent support around him then he cannot and will not shine. 

Even Ronaldo would have struggled to make an impact in our side during those first 10 games! 

Edited by Sideshow Tim

Share this post


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

You've done some spectacular mental gymnastics there. My point is simply that, by scrapping the 4-2-3-1 to accommodate Gilmour, Farke set us on a path towards his sacking; a cascade of events predicated by that choice. A 'sliding doors' moment rather than it being the fault of the player himself.

If we'd kept our successful system, I believe we would have beaten Arsenal and Watford and drawn with Leicester. I also think we would have lost to Burnley. But, yes 6 more points. We'd have probably beaten Leeds as well.

If we hadn't signed Gilmour early in the window we'd likely have signed a different midfielder in his place. Probably one who could play CDM.

Farke got himself sacked by switching to a flawed system, then knee-jerking into another flawed system before finally going back to something close to our winning formation. By then it was too late.

Thanks for the mental gymnastics compliment. Must remember that one .like it.😉successful championship system !! You are correct DF got himself sacked it's as simple as that. He was not a premier league manager of players. We will see what Deano can do. I think he can get what it takes to move us up the table with this squad. He will definitely be more Street wise. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Sideshow Tim said:

Why? If he has no decent support around him then he cannot and will not shine. 

Even Ronaldo would have struggled to make an impact in our side during those first 10 games! 

I got that; that's why I don't understand how he could possibly look good for Scotland if that's the case. 

Edited by littleyellowbirdie

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, Yellow Wal said:

Of course we got benefit from Skipp's loan albeit temporary.

And, potentially like Gilmour, who gained most?

Olly Skipp was well coached and became very efficient at his job, gained much experience and played on a regular basis, became a well known player gaining from the exposure and, perhaps most important from Spurs' point of view, had his value rise, what £20M?

He was arguably the most important player for us last season, and he left a hell of a hole to fill which we are still trying to do. 

Why Championship and lower Premiership clubs take players from the richest clubs on loan is beyond me. Chelsea had around 40 players on loan last season. For whose benefit was that?

You've gone from this:

When will people understand he is not here for our benefit

To this:

Of course we got benefit from Skipp's loan

---

Who gained most?

The Skipp loan was the very definition of a successful loan for all parties.

The season culminated in us being promoted as champions, him benefiting hugely from the experience, and Spurs getting back a more experienced and, as you said, a more valuable player (I don't think one season in the Championship adds £20m on to the value of a DM, but anyway..).

That we failed to adequately replace him is primarily down to Webber - but it looks to most observers that the recruitment was done with a 4-3-3 in mind.

---

Why Championship and lower Premiership clubs take players from the richest clubs on loan is beyond me.

Because, obviously, they get a player that would otherwise be out of their reach.

Off the top of my head: Lukaku at West Brom, Abraham at Villa, James at Wigan, Barnes at West Brom, Henderson at Sheff U, Mount and Tomori at Derby. 

Those are international class players, some with world-class potential, who played in the Championship and lower Premiership, and contributed to very successful seasons with their respective clubs.

---

Chelsea had around 40 players on loan last season. For whose benefit was that?

Chelsea have a very interesting system in essentially farming young players and using the loan fees and eventual transfer fees to turn a considerable profit for the club. I'm unaware of another team doing it at the scale that they do but I actually think it's an incredibly smart strategy.

 

Share this post


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

I know you're joking, but Farke actually did adapt the team around Gilmour and it was disastrous for both the manager and the team. The whole switch to a 3 man midfield seemed to be in order to accommodate Billy. The consequence was twofold: to neuter our attack by isolating Pukki with just two wingers to support him - mostly by hitting aimless crosses; and to neuter our defence by losing shape and discipline in the defensive midfield area - with wingers playing higher, there was limited support for the fullbacks and, with the midfield 3 now charged with covering the wider areas as well as supporting the attack, there was less of a shield in front of the back four.

I strongly believe that, had Gilmour never come to the club, we would have more than double the number of points and still be managed by Farke.

Maybe but also had we signed a proper defensive midfielder we could have played Gilmour further forward (where I think he will end up playing) and/or not left him so exposed. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, kirku said:

You've gone from this:

When will people understand he is not here for our benefit

To this:

Of course we got benefit from Skipp's loan

---

Who gained most?

The Skipp loan was the very definition of a successful loan for all parties.

The season culminated in us being promoted as champions, him benefiting hugely from the experience, and Spurs getting back a more experienced and, as you said, a more valuable player (I don't think one season in the Championship adds £20m on to the value of a DM, but anyway..).

That we failed to adequately replace him is primarily down to Webber - but it looks to most observers that the recruitment was done with a 4-3-3 in mind.

---

Why Championship and lower Premiership clubs take players from the richest clubs on loan is beyond me.

Because, obviously, they get a player that would otherwise be out of their reach.

Off the top of my head: Lukaku at West Brom, Abraham at Villa, James at Wigan, Barnes at West Brom, Henderson at Sheff U, Mount and Tomori at Derby. 

Those are international class players, some with world-class potential, who played in the Championship and lower Premiership, and contributed to very successful seasons with their respective clubs.

---

Chelsea had around 40 players on loan last season. For whose benefit was that?

Chelsea have a very interesting system in essentially farming young players and using the loan fees and eventual transfer fees to turn a considerable profit for the club. I'm unaware of another team doing it at the scale that they do but I actually think it's an incredibly smart strategy.

 

You seem to misunderstand that even though Skipp was not primarily here for our benefit he did a very good job, with the help of our coaching staff, and we benefitted. I don't somehow think Spurs thought to themselves, "How can we help Norwich out, shall we load them Olly Skipp". They loaned him to us for their benefit, and it seems it was a very good move.

You've answered your own point of why Championship and lower Premiership clubs loan players from the richest clubs: Off the top of my head: Lukaku at West Brom, Abraham at Villa, James at Wigan, Barnes at West Brom, Henderson at Sheff U, Mount and Tomori at Derby. 

Just think for a moment of the massive holes that were left in those teams when those loan players, who were so important to them, had to be returned. As I remember it the following season West Brom were relegated, Villa had a season long struggle, Wigan have not recovered yet, Sheffield United were relegated and look what has happened to Derby. So who benefitted from those loans?

As for Chelsea, yes I agree, it is a very smart strategy, which we try to copy on a lesser scale, but it is to the detriment of so many other clubs, of which we are one. I would love clubs to develop their own players, as they used to with meaningful reserve football. The ridiculous number of substitutes nowadays is nothing more than a way of keeping players interested enough by giving them a place on the bench and a way of justifying massive squads.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Yellow Wal said:

You seem to misunderstand that even though Skipp was not primarily here for our benefit he did a very good job, with the help of our coaching staff, and we benefitted. I don't somehow think Spurs thought to themselves, "How can we help Norwich out, shall we load them Olly Skipp". They loaned him to us for their benefit, and it seems it was a very good move.

You've answered your own point of why Championship and lower Premiership clubs loan players from the richest clubs: Off the top of my head: Lukaku at West Brom, Abraham at Villa, James at Wigan, Barnes at West Brom, Henderson at Sheff U, Mount and Tomori at Derby. 

Just think for a moment of the massive holes that were left in those teams when those loan players, who were so important to them, had to be returned. As I remember it the following season West Brom were relegated, Villa had a season long struggle, Wigan have not recovered yet, Sheffield United were relegated and look what has happened to Derby. So who benefitted from those loans?

As for Chelsea, yes I agree, it is a very smart strategy, which we try to copy on a lesser scale, but it is to the detriment of so many other clubs, of which we are one. I would love clubs to develop their own players, as they used to with meaningful reserve football. The ridiculous number of substitutes nowadays is nothing more than a way of keeping players interested enough by giving them a place on the bench and a way of justifying massive squads.

Is this some kind of alternate reality where you attribute your posts to me, and then argue against it?! 🤣

----

1) Why Championship and lower Premiership clubs take players from the richest clubs on loan is beyond me

2) You've answered your own point of why Championship and lower Premiership clubs loan players from the richest clubs

----

1) When will people understand he is not here for our benefit

2) Of course we got benefit from Skipp's loan

3) You seem to misunderstand that even though Skipp was not primarily here for our benefit he did a very good job.. and we benefitted

----

It's fairly obvious where the potential benefits of the loan system sit, which is that the parent club gets longer term benefits and the loaning club shorter term (1 or 2 seasons). This isn't some kind of zero sum game...

As for your examples above, these are the short-term impacts of those loans:

  • WBA with Lukaku - finished 8th in the Prem (you remember incorrectly, they stayed up for another 4 years)
  • Villa with Abraham - promoted to the Prem
  • Wigan with James - stayed up, well clear of relegation
  • Sheff U - Promoted to the Prem, stayed up
  • Derby - got to the play-off final

Attributing "look at what's happened to Derby"  and Wigan "not recovered yet" to some loans from 3 years ago is patently nonsense.

Correlation is not causation. 

 

Edited by kirku

Share this post


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

I got that; that's why I don't understand how he could possibly look good for Scotland if that's the case. 

Who knows lyb?

Hopefully he'll look just as good from Saturday in a yellow shirt? 

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
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...