Jump to content
spencer 1970

Norwich tend to win more games when Billy Gilmour doesn’t pl

Recommended Posts

...is the title of the lastest "The Athletic" article, telling most of us what we know already. 

Good to see the actual stats although I can't help but think he's been given a hard time by us lot and it's affected him. He's obviously got quality but it's just not worked to its fullest this season with us. 

image.png.cdb67d49e37d8c2bb2238691c8230bb2.png

 

Edited by spencer 1970

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
56 minutes ago, spencer 1970 said:

...is the title of the lastest "The Athletic" article, telling most of us what we know already. 

Good to see the actual stats although I can't help but think he's been given a hard time by us lot and it's affected him. He's obviously got quality but it's just not worked to its fullest this season with us. 

image.png.cdb67d49e37d8c2bb2238691c8230bb2.png

 

Extrapolating the stats without him over the whole season would give us a 12-7-19 or 13-6-19 record. 43 or 45 points which would see us safe.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, Mr Angry said:

Extrapolating the stats without him over the whole season would give us a 12-7-19 or 13-6-19 record. 43 or 45 points which would see us safe.

So what you saying, Gilmour has relegated us?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Don’t be Krul said:

So what you saying, Gilmour has relegated us?

No, he didn’t pick the team.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Grant Holts Moustache said:

Michael Bailey must have been reading here.

Certainly looks like it.

 

 

Share this post


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

Extrapolating the stats without him over the whole season would give us a 12-7-19 or 13-6-19 record. 43 or 45 points which would see us safe.

Ok so not quite that simple but I think having Gilmour has been a negative for us this season, we'd have been better off without him even if we didn't sign anyone else.


My take is that it was hoped Normann would take over the Skipp role (but with more physicality) and Gilmour, alongside him, would have the support needed to let him play a more creative role, even if not a Buendia replacement.  

 

As it turns out, Normann got injured and has missed the crucial part of the season, when he came back he didn't look the same and it's only really now that he's looking more like the player he was at the start.

 

While Gilmour has basically been a passenger whenever I've watched him play.  Even games like Newcastle away when they spent most of the game with 10 men and we had ample possession, plenty of times he had the ball in midfield with time/space to pick a pass, and his contribution was negligible.

 

We'd have been better without him and the rest of the midfield would have had more of a chance to knit together.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why is it obvious that he's got quality; because everyone says he's got quality? Now I'm not saying that he doesn't have quality or won't show it in the future but I haven't seen anything at any point where it has been obvious. That is including the game against England where Lee Dixon was slating him the entire first half, saying he should be taken off at half-time, to 180ing by full time and deciding he was amazing. Admittedly, no other Scotland or Chelsea games.

Edited by All the Germans
  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the problem with Gilmour is that he didn't really want to come here. He wanted to go to Glasgow Rangers which probably means that he's not the brightest light bulb in the pack. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, dylanisabaddog said:

I think the problem with Gilmour is that he didn't really want to come here. He wanted to go to Glasgow Rangers which probably means that he's not the brightest light bulb in the pack. 

Or the exact opposite - he knew he would look good in a team at the top of the league, but would likely struggle in a struggling team. Premiership football is all well and good, but tonnes of players look better than they actually are playing for either Rangers or Celtic. He'd have enhanced his reputation more with Rangers

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, spencer 1970 said:

...is the title of the lastest "The Athletic" article, telling most of us what we know already. 

Good to see the actual stats although I can't help but think he's been given a hard time by us lot and it's affected him. He's obviously got quality but it's just not worked to its fullest this season with us. 

image.png.cdb67d49e37d8c2bb2238691c8230bb2.png

 

Can you do the same for Kenny?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All these thoughts and opinions based on absolutely no evidence whatsoever.   How on earth does an 18/19 yr old not want to play regularly in the Premier League. Of course he does!    It just hasn’t worked, not his fault, he’s playing in a dysfunctional team where there never seems good options when on the ball, he’s inexperienced which is not what we needed and he’s not suited to playing in a team generally on the defensive.   Give him a break.   The fault lies with our poor recruitment overall, not individuals.   

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, All the Germans said:

Why is it obvious that he's got quality; because everyone says he's got quality? Now I'm not saying that he doesn't have quality or won't show it in the future but I haven't seen anything at any point where it has been obvious. That is including the game against England where Lee Dixon was slating him the entire first half, saying he should be taken off at half-time, to 180ing by full time and deciding he was amazing. Admittedly, no other Scotland or Chelsea games.

Yeah my exact thoughts lol. Everyone always going on about "he is obviously very talented and will have a great career, but he was just not right for Norwich". Like what indicates he is extremely talented? His barnstorming preformance for Scotland against Moldova lol?

He has played more minutes for Norwich than he has for Scotland and Chelsea combined (I think). We have let ourselves be gaslit by Scotts and Chelsea people for too long. Call a spade a spade, call a mediocre midfielder who has no business in the premier league what he is.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, ged in the onion bag said:

All these thoughts and opinions based on absolutely no evidence whatsoever.   How on earth does an 18/19 yr old not want to play regularly in the Premier League. Of course he does!    It just hasn’t worked, not his fault, he’s playing in a dysfunctional team where there never seems good options when on the ball, he’s inexperienced which is not what we needed and he’s not suited to playing in a team generally on the defensive.   Give him a break.   The fault lies with our poor recruitment overall, not individuals.   

Whut? He's played most of the season. That's ample evidence to confirm he's rubbish. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, TheDarkKnight said:

Interested stats, but you also have to consider which matches Gilmour played: three were against Liverpool, two against Manchester City, once against Tottenham, once against Arsenal, once against Leicester and once against Manchester United. 

That's nine matches against top of the table teams.

The games he missed: Brentford, Leeds, Brighton, Arsenal, Burnley and Everton. Apart from Arsenal, all winnable games, regardless whose playing.

Now, let's just say that Gilmour didn't play in those nine matches, and Norwich still lost  (which is likely), and he did play in those six relatively easier matches, the stats would've flipped. It would say that Norwich lose more with him out of the side.

But your case has flaws, such as:

(1) clubs play each other home & away - how do you get us playing Liverpool three times ??!!

(2) we've seen him play - no creativity, no superior set piece, usually runs down cul-de-sacs - isn't better then Dowell (whose not very physical).

I would suggest if someone else (Sorenson, Rupp) played in those 8/9 games we may have gained a few draws.

We have many weaknesses (on the playing side) but when the air clears at the end of the season - playing this guy will be the underlaying reason we are relegated - but it does come down to Webber & the manager choosing him.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I’d really like to see those stats for all the players.

Those producing these stats are doing it because they want to try and blame the poor season on him (I don’t think any one player is to blame tbh) but I don’t see that you can analyse it all that well without seeing how it sits compared to the others. 

Stats on their own are meaningless as well. The Dark Knight put a bit of context around it regarding the ability of the teams he has played/missed and i’d add that he was one of a few players that was fit and played most of the games during the bad spell before Christmas where we had most of the first team players out. 

Context matters.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, All the Germans said:

Why is it obvious that he's got quality; because everyone says he's got quality? Now I'm not saying that he doesn't have quality or won't show it in the future but I haven't seen anything at any point where it has been obvious. That is including the game against England where Lee Dixon was slating him the entire first half, saying he should be taken off at half-time, to 180ing by full time and deciding he was amazing. Admittedly, no other Scotland or Chelsea games.

Yeah, I keep hearing about his ability to pick a pass but 99% of the time he just goes for the easy 5 yard back or sideways and often when he tries something different it's never anything special, if he finds a man with a longer cross field pass it's never so accurate that the receiving player doesn't have to adjust their run or take a touch to start running again and the through balls are often to feet and not something to run onto like Pukki and Rashica would like.


Even Normann who isn't known to have a great passing range or anything has played more quality through balls this year in less game time, playing deeper and with an injury. Personally I think the pressures got to him, he did try some risky passes earlier in the season but almost all of them were intercepted or went out of play, now I think he's playing well within himself to escape criticism or the crowd moaning at him, which begs the question of why even bother playing him if he's either incapable or unwilling to utilize his best asset? 

Edited by Christoph Stiepermann

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, non-scoring strikers said:

Whut? He's played most of the season. That's ample evidence to confirm he's rubbish. 

On here people wrote ‘he wanted to go to Rangers’ or ‘he knew he would excel in a top of the league team…. Stuff like that is not evidence based but sets up a false argument against the kid!

Thierry Henry and Robert Pires were absolute dross in their first season for Arsenal.    It’s a ruthless league.   Once used to it, they were sensational players.  

This is his first season, he’s no experience and playing in (let’s face it) a terrible team!        He’s not been good, but that doesn’t make him rubbish.    It suggests however you may have a limited understanding of football since there are always other factors at play, confidence, options around him, playing out of position, away from home, struggled to settle?  Look at Cantwell, we know he can play so why has he been so bad this season!   

We needed experience, we needed proper CDM’s who could hold a position, anticipate danger, cover ground, allow our full-backs comfort to get forward and screen the defence.    Had we sorted that vital role out properly then Billy and our other progressive players may have actually done much better.

The fault rests with recruitment.   It’s not as simple as spouting he’s just rubbish.
 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, TheDarkKnight said:

1) The study didn't just say PL matches. Norwich played and lost against Liverpool on the 2nd, March, in thr FA Cup. 

Wait. What? You would've drawn against Liverpool, Manchester City, Tottenham, Arsenal, Leicester or Manchester United if Sorenson or Rupp played? Are you sure? OK. Well, I'll take your superior knowledge of Norwich City on board. 🙂

 

Top effort at spin to be sure. But if you like context, Man Utd were in dreadful form when a Gilmour-saddled Norwich played them; my superior knowledge says that we may well have beaten them or at least drawn without him in the team.

And we'd have certainly stood a greater chance at victory in defeats or draws to Crystal Palace (twice), Aston Villa, Watford and Wolves (all at home), Southampton, 10-man Newcastle and Brentford (all away). We got 3 points in those games. Oh, and Arsenal away without Billy? A decent performance in which we were robbed of a point by VAR-assisted woeful officiating. Arsenal at home with him? One of the most miserable Carrow Road experiences I've ever had (admittedly in part because of the weather).

As ever for a team near the bottom the games against the big clubs are largely irrelevant so let's ignore them if you like.

We got 3 out of 24 eminently obtainable points with Billy Gilmour playing.

Edited by canarydan23

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He’s been disappointing but it’s not his fault. He wasn’t the type of player we needed (at least not unless we brought in a different style of player to play alongside him) and he’s not been used correctly when we have used him. The disruption trying to fit him in has caused has also been harmful. All in all a terrible loan for all concerned although no doubt in years to come he will say that the experience/adversity was a big learning curve for him. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Costessey Posse said:

obviously the free kick wasn't his fault, but on at least two occasions he wasted an attacking opportunity

How was the free kick not his fault when he put it 20 feet over the head of the furthest attacking player?? 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Even the media are noticing now, a United supporting mate just text to say 5Live said Gilmour coming on changed the game against us. 

Edited by Ken Hairy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Ken Hairy said:

How was the free kick not his fault when he put it 20 feet over the head of the furthest attacking player?? 

 

I meant the Ronaldo free kick...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Costessey Posse said:

I meant the Ronaldo free kick...

🙈🙈🙈My apologies 😂I thought you meant the one he took that was dreadful. 

Must learn to read posts properly 🙄

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Capt. Pants said:

I will lose all respect for Deano if he is selected again in any way shape or form.

Game changer today.

Agreed, I don't get this 'we pay less if he plays' argument, I meant how much can we be saving per game?? At its most expensive the loan can't be more than a couple of million surely?? Just pay it and send him packing. 

Edited by Ken Hairy

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...