No coincidence

[Dean Coneys boots 1,406]

I don’t think it a coincidence that our best spell this season came when Gilmour had left the building. He’s totally ill suited to a relegation scrap but we seem contractually bound to start him- he’s offering nothing but picked every game. There is, of course, real talent there but not what we need at all. Might his loan be an integral part of what has doomed us? Or is that unfair? 

[Norfolk Dan 308]

you don't change a winning team.... Injuries led us to the changes. Not his fault .... 

Would I have sent him back in Jan window, yes. 

Would I have a clue who to bring in? Nope! 

For me, this loan is a point of realisation of what is wrong. False Idols all around....

[Robert N. LiM 4,489]

I think it's only unfair in that it's not his fault. He was the wrong player at the wrong time for us. I haven't seen every game, but in the games I have seen he just seems totally anonymous, and doesn't show anywhere near the quality he obviously has, to make up for his complete uselessness off the ball. I just don't see that he offers a team in our position anything, expect possibly a decent set-piece delivery. Certainly wouldn't be in my first-choice midfield.

 

[cambridgeshire canary 6,799]

Gilmour works in a top six team full of stars and big strong players.

 

As it happens we have neither of those so he does not fit in. He will have a big future no doubt but it won't be with us.

 

And it won't be with McLean by his side..

[hogesar 9,745]

1 minute ago, cambridgeshire canary said:

Gilmour works in a top six team full of stars and big strong players.

 

As it happens we have neither of those so he does not fit in. He will have a big future no doubt but it won't be with us.

 

And it won't be with McLean by his side..

Its not McLeans fault Gilmour has been poor for us. The only thing McLean can take responsibility for is being better for us than Gilmour has been 

[dylanisabaddog 4,987]

26 minutes ago, Dean Coneys boots said:

I don’t think it a coincidence that our best spell this season came when Gilmour had left the building. He’s totally ill suited to a relegation scrap but we seem contractually bound to start him- he’s offering nothing but picked every game. There is, of course, real talent there but not what we need at all. Might his loan be an integral part of what has doomed us? Or is that unfair? 

Someone posted on here recently 

Gilmour 16 starts 5 points

Without Gilmour 11 games 12 points 

I've not checked those figures but damning statistics I'm afraid. 

I assume there are other factors at play or surely Smith wouldn't be playing him at all?

Edited March 2, 2022 by dylanisabaddog

[Midlands Yellow 4,080]

7 minutes ago, cambridgeshire canary said:

Gilmour works in a top six team full of stars and big strong players.

 

As it happens we have neither of those so he does not fit in. He will have a big future no doubt but it won't be with us.

 

And it won't be with McLean by his side..

What if Chelsea didn’t want Gilmour back but wanted Kenny instead, straight swap and a bit of cash for us? 

[Hairy Canary 707]

22 minutes ago, cambridgeshire canary said:

Gilmour works in a top six team full of stars and big strong players.

 

As it happens we have neither of those so he does not fit in. He will have a big future no doubt but it won't be with us.

 

And it won't be with McLean by his side..

I’ve heard this said before and I just don’t buy it. Why on earth would a top six team full of stars accommodate someone with Gilmore’s obvious failings without the ball?
 

Only way I can see that making sense is if he was absolutely brilliant with the ball and I’m afraid that isn’t the case.  He’s competent with his deep laying passing and no more and that is nowhere near enough.

[AJ 1,228]

I've not been convinced by him any time I've seen him play. He may be a wonderful footballer who can thrive in a team that can protect him but he's absolutely no good in our midfield where we need players to be able to scrap and add some muscle in the middle. If only we had signed a DM...

[sgncfc 1,258]

All the pundits keep saying what a great talent he is, but we haven't seen a lot of it. Almost completely anonymous in every game. Bypassed as if he wasn't there and does nothing going forward. 

I've got nothing against him at all and if professional coaches and managers think he's a good player, I guess he must be - I just can't see what he does.

[BroadstairsR 2,206]

So much game time, so little has come from it.

If he were to be on offer as a free transfer in the Summer, I wouldn't want him near our club.

Detrimental is the word I am looking for.

[Greavsy 2,426]

9 minutes ago, BroadstairsR said:

If he were to be on offer as a free transfer in the Summer, I wouldn't want him near our club.

Good job he wont be then! 

11 minutes ago, BroadstairsR said:

Detrimental is the word I am looking for.

Bit harsh as hes not solely to blame

[Jambomo 215]

4 hours ago, dylanisabaddog said:

Someone posted on here recently 

Gilmour 16 starts 5 points

Without Gilmour 11 games 12 points 

I've not checked those figures but damning statistics I'm afraid. 

I assume there are other factors at play or surely Smith wouldn't be playing him at all?

How do those stats look for the other players that have played an equal number of games? He’s not a one man team after all, our results aren’t down to whether he plays or not and aren’t just his fault.

I’m also slightly amused at the idea we’ve had a “best spell” which consists of 3 wins and a draw, one of which games he played the whole game and another he was a sub. Two of which games we won because we are playing fellow relegation candidates in Watford and Everton.

I don’t think he’s best suited to Norwich and hasn’t shown the form he does for Scotland and Chelsea, but its honestly pathetic in how far some fans want to reach to to find reasons to blame him, or other individual players, for what is overall a collectively poor season. 

 

Edited March 2, 2022 by Jambomo

[BroadstairsR 2,206]

He's so often taken up a place in the starting line-up that others might have benefitted both themselves and the team from.

 

[Petriix 2,853]

I've written at length about it before. I'm convinced that trying to accommodate him in the team and essentially building a new formation around him was the catalyst for our awful start to the season and, ultimately, Farke's departure. There are of course counter arguments to this which we've been through ad infinitum but I stand by my (unprovable) claim. I wish we'd never signed him. 

[Coneys Knee 989]

But Chelsea fans and the BBC think he’s a world beater. They should hang their heads in shame for piling the pressure on such a young lad in such away it could have (might have) ruined his career.
 

Norwich fans have (shamefully) taken the frustration of the season out on him because the pundits and Chelsea fans created such a storm about him. 
 

It’s a shame on such a young lad but with the same token,  I also don’t buy into this theory that he’ll be his best self in a world class team. Wouldn’t we all? For me, exceptional players are the ones that stand out in a poor side, not those that are being carried in a good side. 

Hopefully he’ll carve a good career out for himself but I can’t see him being right at the top. 

[Greavsy 2,426]

17 minutes ago, BroadstairsR said:

He's so often taken up a place in the starting line-up that others might have benefitted both themselves and the team from.

 

That's down to the manager though, not the player. and DS would base that on what he sees in training, and matches. 

Do you expect him to decline playing - you know like Cantwell did! 

[Danke bitte 967]

15 minutes ago, Petriix said:

I've written at length about it before. I'm convinced that trying to accommodate him in the team and essentially building a new formation around him was the catalyst for our awful start to the season and, ultimately, Farke's departure. There are of course counter arguments to this which we've been through ad infinitum but I stand by my (unprovable) claim. I wish we'd never signed him. 

Frustrating, he’ll be still playing in the Premier League next season and I doubt we will be. 

I’ll die on this hill - we should have had succession planning for Skipp, either by bringing in another player of an ilk or developing our own (we NEED to next season if we’re not already). We didn’t or couldn’t but questions remain why we opted for Gilmour, a luxury player, in a likely relegation battle. 

[BroadstairsR 2,206]

27 minutes ago, Greavsy said:

That's down to the manager though, not the player. and DS would base that on what he sees in training, and matches. 

Do you expect him to decline playing - you know like Cantwell did! 

Well, Daniel Farke eventually worked out that it wasn't working and a bit of controversy resulted.

Who can be certain of Dean Smith's decision about the validity of the youngster in playing a significant part in our current battle as injuries and illness have devastated our midfield so much so that the  manager's choice has been limited?

I recall Gilmour having one decent game recently, along with an assist, albeit from a dead ball situation. Otherwise, the player has yet to score, yet to assist and is a million miles away from controlling a game in the way we were led to expect from his exploits in a game for Scotland and the hype that followed it.

He has failed to convince in a city shirt on all levels. It happens. I wish him well at Chelsea.

Your last sentence was incomprehensible. Why should he "decline" playing?

What relevance has the Cantwell situation to Billy Gilmour and his travails at Norwich City?

Edited March 2, 2022 by BroadstairsR

[Greavsy 2,426]

You said originally 

52 minutes ago, BroadstairsR said:

He's so often taken up a place in the starting line-up that others might have benefitted both themselves and the team from.

but now say, 

7 minutes ago, BroadstairsR said:

Who can be certain of Dean Smith's decision about the validity of the youngster in playing a significant part in our current battle as injuries and illness have devastated our midfield so much so that the  manager's choice has been limited?

So who are the players who you imply would have benefited from starting ahead of Gilmore, by your own statement? 

 

7 minutes ago, BroadstairsR said:

Your last sentence was incomprehensible. Why should he "decline" playing? What relevance has the Cantwell situation to Billy Gilmour and his travails at Norwich City in any case?

That's my point - why would he - but your statement says he is taking up a space, what do you expect him to do if picked? stand aside?  As ive said, refuse to play, for what ever reason, like Cantwell. I really cant think of any other way to explain it. Can you try harder? 

 

Edited March 2, 2022 by Greavsy

[BroadstairsR 2,206]

5 minutes ago, Greavsy said:

You said originally 

but now say, 

So who are the players who you imply would have benefited from starting ahead of Gilmore, by your own statement? 

 

That's my point - why would he - but your statement says he is taking up a space, what do you expect him to do if picked? stand aside?  As ive said, refuse to play, for what ever reason, like Cantwell. I really cant think of any other way to explain it. Can you try harder? 

 

Oh dear. It really isn't that difficult.

Billy Gilmour has played sixteen times for the team to little effect in the opinion of myself and quite a few others it seems.

The fact that the very recent of these have resulted from a limitation of choice and the fact that it also needs to be a question of formation balance does not detract from the fact that other more useful candidates have frequently had to sit on the bench while we all wait for his genius to fructify whilst performing in the yellow.

Give up on your second point, something about "standing aside., as you make no sense, no matter how hard you are trying.

 

[Greavsy 2,426]

2 minutes ago, BroadstairsR said:

Give up on your second point, something about "standing aside., as you make no sense, no matter how hard you are trying.

As you said..........

3 minutes ago, BroadstairsR said:

Oh dear. It really isn't that difficult.

Do try harder. 

Anyways not going to start your pompous nonsense again. Good effort though. 

 

[BroadstairsR 2,206]

1 minute ago, Greavsy said:

As you said..........

Do try harder. 

Anyways not going to start your pompous nonsense again. Good effort though. 

 

Thanks Dumbo.

Much appreciated.

[Greavsy 2,426]

4 minutes ago, BroadstairsR said:

Thanks Dumbo.

Much appreciated.

Ferk off you 🛎 🔚 

Noted. 

Edited March 2, 2022 by Greavsy
Profanity

[BroadstairsR 2,206]

Just now, Greavsy said:

**** off you 🛎 🔚 

Noted. 

Resorting to type again? 

Street corner boy.

[Greavsy 2,426]

Just now, BroadstairsR said:

Resorting to type again? 

Street corner boy.

Grow up. 

[BroadstairsR 2,206]

Rich,

1 minute ago, Greavsy said:

Grow up. 

How very rich coming from the contributor who has in the recent past exhibited forum behaviour akin to that of an eight years old.

It was bloody funny though.

[Greavsy 2,426]

1 minute ago, BroadstairsR said:

Rich,

How very rich coming from the contributor who has in the recent past exhibited forum behaviour akin to that of an eight years old.

It was bloody funny though.

What ever you say.. 

You're the one quoting Disney characters. 

Will you be at the match Saturday? 

[BroadstairsR 2,206]

7 minutes ago, Greavsy said:

What ever you say.. 

You're the one quoting Disney characters. 

Will you be at the match Saturday? 

I haven't watched Disney since I grew out of short trousers. Is it a favourite of yours?

Another one who wears attendance at Carrow Road as a badge of honour it seems.

Being six thousand miles away and sitting in the sun, I am inclined to think that IFollow is my best bet for Saturday.

I was at Watford on 21/01 though, were you? I especially remember the date because it was my 95th. Birthday, as it happens.

 

[Hank shoots Skyler 2,094]