Billy Gilmour

[Petriix 2,834]

41 minutes ago, Newtopia said:

He was poor today, and I have not watched a player whose reputation at such odds with the talent I see.  He can do fancy passes, but he can’t tackle, he does not make runs, and loses the ball too often (Admittedly this is based on feelings opposed to numbers).

I saw a few people saying he could play in a higher standard midfield, but I am not sure that is true.  One of our issues last time we were up was that we had McLean who works hard but was not technically good enough and Vranic who was technically good enough but did not work hard enough.  If I had the opportunity to switch Vranic (Who I felt was not good enough for the EPL) with Gilmour right now, I would, and I suspect we would have more goal threat and a harder working midfield.

Absolutely this. Vrancic would be a massive improvement. I don't think Gilmour has even attempted a throughball. And don't get me started on committing a proper foul to prevent a dangerous attack.

[Mason 47 1,373]

Still think he will end up a decent player but I'm not sure I'll cope watching another half tackle in the build up to a goal. The lad just bounces off.

The rest of the performance was disjointed tonight, and you can't get a lot out of a passer without many good passing options. But I feel like if he had been signed from Nottingham Forest and not Chelsea, he would barely be in anyone's thoughts for a bench place let alone starting.

 

[Yobocop 1,095]

1 hour ago, Grando said:

He’s McLeitner.

Leitner is twice the player Gilmour will ever be 

[Mr Tea 105]

That was the first game ive been to with my son. I asked him at the end what all the fuss was about with him .

I think all his corners went straight to their keeper ( who admittedly is a class act ) and he was summed up with his cross into the box around the 80th minute that said clear over and off for a goal kick. 

 

Genuinely on the games played he can go back.

 

 

[NeymarSmith 130]

I was very happy upon hearing we had signed him, however, surely he was never seem as a Skipp style replacement, which is obviously what we needed and cried out for. 

Whenever I have watched him at CR, I just think he looks like a kid in the means team (which I guess is what he is) 

[Newtopia 517]

2 minutes ago, NeymarSmith said:

I was very happy upon hearing we had signed him, however, surely he was never seem as a Skipp style replacement, which is obviously what we needed and cried out for. 

Whenever I have watched him at CR, I just think he looks like a kid in the means team (which I guess is what he is) 

He is 20, should be at the races by now.   Max, and Josh Sargent are 21, we can moan about the end results but both compete - Billy is operating in the engine room of the side, no top midfielder can miss tackles and be unable to affect the opposition when trying to win the ball back or snuff out dangerous situations.

[Hairy Canary 668]

I’m afraid we’ve fallen for the media hype. He’s was worse than poor yesterday and yet people are still saying the problem is the players around him are not good enough! 
 

I can put up with the lack of physicality and the poor defensive awareness if the guy put in a few key passes a match but I genuinely can’t remember one. The best he does is keep the ball moving with simple wide passes or down the line. That’s nowhere near enough to balance for his shortcomings. He certainly is nowhere near Kenny or Rupp.

[hogesar 9,618]

9 hours ago, Jim Smith said:

Let’s not make him the scapegoat. I know it’s annoying that the media and other fans hype him up but he’s trying and is generally doing ok. Tonight he was exposed because we didn’t have the “unit” that Smith had working so effectively on Saturday around him. Kenny was quiet tonight and we missed Rupps endeavour. 

The entire midfield was poor, certainly not just Gilmour. 

All I can really give credit to him for is actually showing for the ball and working hard to get into space to receive it. Didnt do anything with it and never tries the more difficult passes but was still more than Sorensen and McLean offered.

[Hairy Canary 668]

17 minutes ago, hogesar said:

The entire midfield was poor, certainly not just Gilmour. 

All I can really give credit to him for is actually showing for the ball and working hard to get into space to receive it. Didnt do anything with it and never tries the more difficult passes but was still more than Sorensen and McLean offered.

Maybe yesterday was an unfair match to pick as certainly the performance across the whole midfield was poor. Sorensen only played there for quarter of the game so bit odd to put him up as a comparison?

Taking the whole season Gilmore has been a massive disappointment for me. I was genuinely excited when I heard he’d signed but he has yet to put in a half match to compare with Rupp against Wolves or Kenny against United. Quite frankly if he can’t do better than those two then there’s no point him being here.

[Yellow Wal 314]

Gilmour just shows what the corrupt loan system has become.

Chelsea do not consider him to be good enough for them and they are unsure, as they have been several times before with other players, as to whether he will be good enough.

So they find gullible clubs, in this case us, to give their players experience, playing time and the opportunity to develop their talent. If they are successful, good for Chelsea they will recall the player. If they are bad then Chelsea have not suffered at all. And the relative cost to Chelsea is minimal.

They have been doing this for many seasons and reaping the rewards.

Recently - in 2016 they loaned out 38 players, in 2017 it was 37, in 2018 49, in 2019 31, in 2020 it was 22.

Thankfully this practice is being changed. From the start of next season, clubs will not be able to send more than eight players aged 22 or over out on loan. That limit will be reduced to six players for the 2022-23 campaign. Chelsea may have to slightly reduce the number of older players on their books in the coming years. 

If only clubs could see the long term effect of allowing themselves to be used by the larger clubs and not take players on loan then the situation might change and the richest clubs would not continually make themselves richer and other clubs could benefit from talented youngsters.

[Lee Marshall 4]

I think Dowell should start in his place for the next match.

[Creative Midfielder 1,985]

11 hours ago, Grando said:

He’s McLeitner.

Leitner was a much better player, until whatever went wrong went wrong.

[AJ 1,218]

26 minutes ago, Yellow Wal said:

Gilmour just shows what the corrupt loan system has become.

Chelsea do not consider him to be good enough for them and they are unsure, as they have been several times before with other players, as to whether he will be good enough.

So they find gullible clubs, in this case us, to give their players experience, playing time and the opportunity to develop their talent. If they are successful, good for Chelsea they will recall the player. If they are bad then Chelsea have not suffered at all. And the relative cost to Chelsea is minimal.

They have been doing this for many seasons and reaping the rewards.

Recently - in 2016 they loaned out 38 players, in 2017 it was 37, in 2018 49, in 2019 31, in 2020 it was 22.

Thankfully this practice is being changed. From the start of next season, clubs will not be able to send more than eight players aged 22 or over out on loan. That limit will be reduced to six players for the 2022-23 campaign. Chelsea may have to slightly reduce the number of older players on their books in the coming years. 

If only clubs could see the long term effect of allowing themselves to be used by the larger clubs and not take players on loan then the situation might change and the richest clubs would not continually make themselves richer and other clubs could benefit from talented youngsters.

I wouldn't say this is true, we didn't HAVE to sign him, we made that decision. We would have scouted him like any other signing and decided he was worth getting on the books.

I think the problem is, you can take any player and shove them into a team full of internationals and they won't look half bad. Problem is he's playing in a team where he needs to graft and make things happen for himself, and he just isn't able to do that. 

[Creative Midfielder 1,985]

15 minutes ago, Lee Marshall said:

I think Dowell should start in his place for the next match.

Seems to me that when Normann is fit again (and assuming we are playing 4-3-3) then Normann and Sorensen have to start and everybody else, Kenny, Gilmour, Rupp, PLM, Dowell, Rashica et al are competing for the third spot.

Rupp, I think, is better than a lot of people give him credit for but at the moment I would go for Dowell or Rashica as the third.

Edited December 15, 2021 by Creative Midfielder

[AJ 1,218]

I would certainly be playing Rupp ahead of Billy right now, caught twice in possession last night which just isn't good enough in PL and both instances led to goals.

Normann Sorensen
Rupp

That would be my midfield trio if all are available next time out