No Gilmour, 3 points

[Jambomo 215]

15 minutes ago, mastoola said:

Do you think you could message me too please   😄

 

13 minutes ago, Mengo said:

And me. I'm his grandad and if he's been up to no good I'll give him what for.

It’s just the Cantwell rumour that did the rounds last year and was already debunked by Todd himself.

I’ll say that here because in the absence of knowledge, everyone will start imagining/making up worse things than that. 🤣

[astro 358]

18 minutes ago, Parma Ham's gone mouldy said:

On a a very simple level, we must have believed that we would dominate possession, engage higher, create space between defence and midfield for Gilmour do what he does. 

Literally none of those things have happened. That is a massive triumph of belief over pragmatism. Teams were always going to press us high and oppress on top of us. Without Buendia we simply did not have a weapon that would hold back such a tide, even temporarily. 

Farke worked out quickly that Gilmour exacerbated that problem, he did not overcome or amortise it. 

We needed a Skipp, that might have made Gilmour more useful, though it then also needed a Buendia to receive the pre-passagol from Gilmour. Then we had a chance to create the distraction and space to allow Pukki to not only make the runs he likes, though actually occasionally receive one or two as well. 

Otherwise he is just a weakish, non-defensively-minded midfielder without the parameters - in our reality - to showcase what he can do, which upon late pre-season it should have been clear we didn’t need and were missing other more important roles  which we still don’t have. 

Parma 

Exactly. He just can’t cut it (as yet) when he receives the ball near the half-way line. He slows the movement down and allows teams to press us. If he was in a more dominant side and receiving the ball closer to the opposition’s 18-yard box, then he may thrive. I can’t believe that we thought we were going to sit on PL teams and dominate possession! We have not got the physicality, stamina or skill to do that. 

[vos 155]

4 hours ago, Hank shoots Skyler said:

Could you share with me too, please 🙏?

And me !!!!

[Mengo 822]

36 minutes ago, Jambomo said:

 

It’s just the Cantwell rumour that did the rounds last year and was already debunked by Todd himself.

I’ll say that here because in the absence of knowledge, everyone will start imagining/making up worse things than that. 🤣

Thanks Jambo hearts . As his grandad he was always a good boy and I don't want him been led astray in Norwich. His life has always been football. I am sure he will have learned many lessons at Norwich good and bad. Looking back on all the quotes from Farke and Smith who praised him at the highest level . Yes both of them. 

I'm trying to think who actually has had a good season 🤔 playing wise at norwich . It's a hard call for sure. Burnley are dross by the way😉

Next season when he's playing for another team be it Chelsea or possibly Everton , he will put all this verbal diarrhea on social media behind him. Cmon Scotland you can do it. Possible MOM against England again. Jeezo his room is full of them. Unbelievable he has two or three Norwich  ones as well. Who would have thought it.

Anyway thanks for the update Jambo. I'll tell Billy to keep his D!ck in his pocket while in Norwich.🙈😉

[norfolkbroadslim 223]

18 minutes ago, vos said:

And me !!!!

 

Can someone kindly send me the message too please?

[mastoola 183]

8 minutes ago, norfolkbroadslim said:

 

Can someone kindly send me the message too please?

Dont think we are in the loop 😕

 

 

[Newtopia 517]

4 hours ago, TheDarkKnight said:

Yeah. That's how I see it, too.

As a Scotland fan, I don't mind you lot giving Gilmour dog's abuse. It'll put hairs on his chest.

Away from the football. Serious question:

Remember when Gilmour was having his photographs taken, when he signed, with his parents. And his Mum refused to touch the green of the Norwich scarf (Because, apparently, Celtic own the colour green)?

Do any of you think this may have started things off on a bad note? 

(Being a Scot who doesn't support either half of the Old Firm. I think his Mum is a bit of a weirdo for doing that. I remember when Gordon Strachan had to get rid of his blue car when he got the Celtic job. The Old Firm are weirdos)

I genuinely think no one cared.  I think the fact he can't tackle and loses the ball easily put it on a much worse footing.  At the start of the season we were all excited to see him.  Especially on the beck of the skipp loan and him having a better reputation than olly

[Pyro Pete 1,889]

It's interesting that Lees-Melou has started in four of our five Premier League wins this season (plus the FA Cup away win at Wolves).

The only exception being the Southampton home win, which Gilmour started. Where even Dean Smith admitted we were lucky to win.

[Branston Pickle 3,638]

34 minutes ago, Pyro Pete said:

It's interesting that Lees-Melou has started in four of our five Premier League wins this season (plus the FA Cup away win at Wolves).

The only exception being the Southampton home win, which Gilmour started. Where even Dean Smith admitted we were lucky to win.

I like the guy, but think that Lees Melou thing is coincidence more than anything. 

Edited April 10, 2022 by Branston Pickle

[Jim Smith 2,314]

6 hours ago, Mengo said:

Thanks Jambo hearts . As his grandad he was always a good boy and I don't want him been led astray in Norwich. His life has always been football. I am sure he will have learned many lessons at Norwich good and bad. Looking back on all the quotes from Farke and Smith who praised him at the highest level . Yes both of them. 

I'm trying to think who actually has had a good season 🤔 playing wise at norwich . It's a hard call for sure. Burnley are dross by the way😉

Next season when he's playing for another team be it Chelsea or possibly Everton , he will put all this verbal diarrhea on social media behind him. Cmon Scotland you can do it. Possible MOM against England again. Jeezo his room is full of them. Unbelievable he has two or three Norwich  ones as well. Who would have thought it.

Anyway thanks for the update Jambo. I'll tell Billy to keep his D!ck in his pocket while in Norwich.🙈😉

I’m not clear if you really are his grandad or not but if so,I hope he (and you) realises that none of the critical stuff on here and other forums has been personal. In fact it’s primarily been a defensive response to the constant cr*p we’ve had to endure from the media and on social media about how we’re not good enough for Billy or don’t realise how lucky we are.

Truth is he’s a talented boy but this was the wrong loan at the wrong time. Not helped by the fact the rest of our midfield recruitment again did not hit the mark. With a couple of solid CDMs in the squad he may have flourished but it wasn’t to be. 

[Jim Smith 2,314]

3 hours ago, Pyro Pete said:

It's interesting that Lees-Melou has started in four of our five Premier League wins this season (plus the FA Cup away win at Wolves).

The only exception being the Southampton home win, which Gilmour started. Where even Dean Smith admitted we were lucky to win.

Lees Melou has improved significantly in the second half of the season. Should do well in the championship. 

[LaUnionCanary 86]

10 hours ago, KeiranShikari said:

It's somethign like 5 points with and 15 points without in a season where he's played 2/3 of the games.

3 points from 17 starts, 18 points in the other 14 games, some he was a used sub, most he did not get on the pitch. Those are damning figures.

[canarydan23 4,060]

4 hours ago, LaUnionCanary said:

3 points from 17 starts, 18 points in the other 14 games, some he was a used sub, most he did not get on the pitch. Those are damning figures.

**** me is that genuine?

18 in 14 across the season is comfortable mid-table form.

Webber signing Gilmour and Smith's persistence in selecting him could well be the two biggest (of many) reasons we're going down.

[Capt. Pants 4,202]

The Gilmour loan has been poor on at least 3 fronts:

1. He hasn't really had a good game in any of his appearances.

2. He has continually been selected despite poor performances.

3. We entered into a loan deal where we cannot afford not to play him.

Our whole midfield has largely been very poor the entire season. That's not Billy's fault, and might explain point 2 above. You have to lay some of the blame on the decision makers that made it happen.

[Creedence Clearwater Couto 1,251]

Gilmour is a tidy player who will look good in a possession based side. At this level, that isn't us. On this occasion, It was a bad move for both parties. But he isn't a bad player. Far from it. 

The thing is, we need to keep a rapport with clubs like Chelsea. The next loan player from them could be a revelation. We need to be an attractive destination for highly rated prospects. That's not to say we should play a player who harms our chances of winning, but we have to be pragmatic about it. 

 

[Petriix 2,834]

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

On a a very simple level, we must have believed that we would dominate possession, engage higher, create space between defence and midfield for Gilmour to do what he does. 

Literally none of those things have happened. That is a massive triumph of belief over pragmatism. Teams were always going to press us high and oppress on top of us. Without Buendia we simply did not have a weapon that would hold back such a tide, even temporarily. 

Farke worked out quickly that Gilmour exacerbated that problem, he did not overcome or amortise it. 

We needed a Skipp, that might have made Gilmour more useful, though it then also needed a Buendia to receive the pre-passagol from Gilmour. Then we had a chance to create the distraction and space to allow Pukki to not only make the runs he likes, though actually occasionally receive one or two as well. 

Otherwise he is just a weakish, non-defensively-minded midfielder without the parameters - in our reality - to showcase what he can do, which upon late pre-season it should have been clear we didn’t need and were missing other more important roles  which we still don’t have. 

Parma 

I'm not convinced, or I'm fairly certain that Gilmour wasn't anywhere near the level the recruitment team imagined. Certainly not ready to build a Premier League team around.

I don't think having a Skipp or two would have solved the issue. We need the whole midfield to work as a unit, closing down space, cutting off passing angles, tracking runs - all things Gilmour doesn't do well or consistently enough. Passing, vision, creativity are only half of the job. 

I've been trying to reconcile the disparity between his performances for Scotland and what he's shown for us. All I can conclude is that he simply isn't putting in the same work rate and passion; he just doesn't care enough about Norwich City. That extra effort can help to mitigate the defensive deficiencies and I think that's what may have made the difference.

Ultimately we needed evolution not revolution. Gilmour represented a significant departure from our previous system: at best a massive gamble. Too much of a roll of the dice when we needed continuity and to build on what we already had.

[Somerset exile 4]

I know that there is a lot of speculation over the terms of the Gilmour loan and whether he has to play if fit .

 Is it speculation or does anyone actually know and what the penalties would be if he wasn't played.

It would be nice to know the truth. That being said Gilmour will not be here next season so I think that he should not play again and the manager should concentrate on players for the rest of the season who will still be with us.

[KeiranShikari 1,410]

14 minutes ago, Petriix said:

I've been trying to reconcile the disparity between his performances for Scotland and what he's shown for us. All I can conclude is that he simply isn't putting in the same work rate and passion; he just doesn't care enough about Norwich City. That extra effort can help to mitigate the defensive deficiencies and I think that's what may have made the difference.

 

There's a significant difference between club and international football when it comes to how teams set up and play. In the international game he'll face teams that sit off allowing him time and space to play. In the Premier league he's rushed by pressing and the weakest sides of his game are the physical and defensive.

Also internationally he's simply facing weaker sides.

[Petriix 2,834]

7 minutes ago, KeiranShikari said:

There's a significant difference between club and international football when it comes to how teams set up and play. In the international game he'll face teams that sit off allowing him time and space to play. In the Premier league he's rushed by pressing and the weakest sides of his game are the physical and defensive.

Also internationally he's simply facing weaker sides.

It's more about his work off the ball. I've seen a clip of him racing back to clear the ball off the line for Scotland. He would *never* do something like that for us. 

[interwebme 52]

21 hours ago, TheDarkKnight said:

Message me, too, please.

I mean at this point you may as well post. 

[City Stand Ultra 41]

 

On 10/04/2022 at 15:56, dylanisabaddog said:

Not so long ago someone posted stats about points gained with and without Gilmour. There's another 3 points and it surely isn't a coincidence. Probably the worst signing we have ever made, on the pitch and off it. 

I posted the content below on Feb 26.  Since then it can be updated to be:

started 17 matches - gained 6pts (0.35 pts per game) - on track for near all time Premier League low 

Norwich have gained 15 pts in 14 matches he didnt start (1.1 pts per game) - comfortably avoid relegation

Stats can be misleading but this is pretty damning......

 

"Billy Gilmour has started 15 matches  and in those we have gained 5 pts.

Norwich have gained 12 pts in the 11 matches he didn't start.

It's not all or even mostly his fault as rest of team are really poor but the fact remains he has delivered precisely nothing for Norwich and Sorensen needs to be back in the team.  Lees Melou is also more effective than McLean.  At least he can control the ball and actually find another yellow shirt 

Tonight was pitiful.  It was summed up for me when Che Adams gets the ball just inside our half and our CB's instead of going to challenge him retreat 10 yards away.  We are so passive and there is no effective pressure on the ball"

 

[Jambomo 215]

3 hours ago, Petriix said:

It's more about his work off the ball. I've seen a clip of him racing back to clear the ball off the line for Scotland. He would *never* do something like that for us. 

Krul actually mentions in his post match interview at Brighton about him running 80 yard runs and the blocks he put in. So ok it’s not a goal line clearance but it’s not correct to say the effort isn’t there or that he hasn’t done that for Norwich.

 

 

[Jambomo 215]

11 minutes ago, City Stand Ultra said:

 

I posted the content below on Feb 26.  Since then it can be updated to be:

started 17 matches - gained 6pts (0.35 pts per game) - on track for near all time Premier League low 

Norwich have gained 15 pts in 14 matches he didnt start (1.1 pts per game) - comfortably avoid relegation

Stats can be misleading but this is pretty damning......

 

"Billy Gilmour has started 15 matches  and in those we have gained 5 pts.

Norwich have gained 12 pts in the 11 matches he didn't start.

It's not all or even mostly his fault as rest of team are really poor but the fact remains he has delivered precisely nothing for Norwich and Sorensen needs to be back in the team.  Lees Melou is also more effective than McLean.  At least he can control the ball and actually find another yellow shirt 

Tonight was pitiful.  It was summed up for me when Che Adams gets the ball just inside our half and our CB's instead of going to challenge him retreat 10 yards away.  We are so passive and there is no effective pressure on the ball"

 

What are those stats like for the rest of the team?

[Samwam27 519]

To me it's simple. You stick with a winning team, and Billy doesn't get back in!

[Parma Ham's gone mouldy 2,219]

@Petriix from ‘Billy Gilmour’:

•  
• Quote

Parma Ham's gone mouldy     756

•  
  •  

Posted March 16

International football and Premier League football are now very different.

The physicality and level of intense co-ordinated press in the current Premier League deliberately prevents all except the finest deep pivots circulating the ball pleasingly.

Inferior sides are oppressed and forced into defensive shapes, deeper and come under harder pressure, sharper presses with more frequent ‘blood-in-the-nostrils’ pack hunting.

Increasingly Premier League scouts look far beyond International football - in a way that Serie A scouts don’t in contrast - because the styles of football and skills required are sometimes contrasting.

Thus Billy Gilmour looks good in international football, because there is low pressure in the areas he likes to play in. 

This means that at Premier League level he really must play in a top side that looks to dominate the ball, force teams back, can comfortably beat even a well-coordinated press. Or - against sides that aren’t really bothering to do that - preferring a more strategic ‘who can do something magic in the final third’ game that is common at a international level. 

Makelele and others in this role had far more defensive awareness, fast space-shutting skills and a body physicality that Gilmour does not currently posses to a significant degree. I would not be at all surprised if Chelsea were well aware of this and that - conversely to what many believe - his loan here was an excellent, revelatory loan move for Chelsea. 

It has shown clearly what he can and can’t do. Scotland games and Norwich games are thus concurrently both completely true and completely false. 

Parma 

 

Edited March 16 by Parma Ham's gone mouldy

•  6

[Jim Smith 2,314]

9 hours ago, Somerset exile said:

I know that there is a lot of speculation over the terms of the Gilmour loan and whether he has to play if fit .

 Is it speculation or does anyone actually know and what the penalties would be if he wasn't played.

It would be nice to know the truth. That being said Gilmour will not be here next season so I think that he should not play again and the manager should concentrate on players for the rest of the season who will still be with us.

My understanding is that he doesn’t have to play but the more he plays the lower the loan fee ends up being. So there is an incentive for us to play him but not an obligation. Not sure if it’s the same with Williams but would not surprise me. 

[HopelessUnbeliever 2]

Makelele also never had to play for Norwich.

Since we're throwing baseless stats around to crucify one player - Norwich have been the better team in 6 games this season:

Leicester (H), Burnley (A), Wolves (H), Newcastle (A), Everton (H), Burnley (H) based on xG.

Gilmour started 3 of the first 4 of those matches, no doubt would have started the last 2 as well if he'd been fit.

I don't have much issue with the argument that Norwich built their season around being a team they quite clearly could never be, and that Gilmour and Chelsea have benefitted from the loan move far more than Norwich, but the rush to question the commitment and lay the blame for a season of being utterly dross at the feet of one player is embarrassing. Almost as embarrassing as the cringeworthy gossip-fest this thread turned into.

Still, look forward to seeing Gilmour turn out for St Johnstone in a few years 😂😂😂😂

Edited April 12, 2022 by HopelessUnbeliever
stats

[Mengo 822]

15 minutes ago, HopelessUnbeliever said:

Makelele also never had to play for Norwich.

Since we're throwing baseless stats around to crucify one player - Norwich have been the better team in 6 games this season:

Leicester (H), Burnley (A), Wolves (H), Newcastle (A), Everton (H), Burnley (H) based on xG.

Gilmour started 3 of the first 4 of those matches, no doubt would have started the last 2 as well if he'd been fit.

I don't have much issue with the argument that Norwich built their season around being a team they quite clearly could never be, and that Gilmour and Chelsea have benefitted from the loan move far more than Norwich, but the rush to question the commitment and lay the blame for a season of being utterly dross at the feet of one player is embarrassing. Almost as embarrassing as the cringeworthy gossip-fest this thread turned into.

Still, look forward to seeing Gilmour turn out for St Johnstone in a few years 😂😂😂😂

Almost as embarrassing as the cringeworthy gossip-fest this thread turned into.

Yes HU it's been very embarrassing reading the verbal diarrhea thrown around about BG. Good post 📫 👌 my man. What you have to understand is there are vastly experienced experts on here with undoubted knowledge as spin masters. I think they get that from the genius of a so called Sporting director. 

Never mind life goes on and Billy will go on and go from strength to strength. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[canarybubbles 1,915]

Don't crucify the kid - it just hasn't worked out. I don't get any feeling that he isn't putting the effort in or turning up for training in a smoking jacket. He's been asked to do something that will either always be beyond him or that he cannot do at this point in his development.

The problem was the recruiting, but to be fair to the recruiters we were nearly all very happy when his arrival was announced.

For me, it shows just how important the unit is in football rather than the individuals who make up the unit.

 

Edited April 12, 2022 by canarybubbles

[Newtopia 517]

It is not Billy's fault, it is recruitment team for identifying him as a player, and not recruiting other options to play around him, and finally the coaches for playing him whilst he is struggling.