Billy Gilmour and a tweet that aged well. Not.

[TheDarkKnight 445]

Just now, kirku said:

Bellingham, Henderson, Ward-Prowse, Loftus-Cheek, Dier, Jones, Skipp, Ramsey, Reed, James. 

Willock is quite a decent young player.

Does "a few" mean over 13?

Bellingham has been described by Southgate as a "Pressing number 10". Henderson is a number 6. Same with Ward-Prowse. Dier is a number 6. Ramsey is a number 10. James is a fullback. And Reed is at Fulham.

Obviously, rather than read my posts, you've just dived in to make quips.

I'm talking about a Carrick, Robson, Gascoigne, Scholes type.

I'm not dissing England. Most countries would kill for Harry Kane.

[Newtopia 480]

1 hour ago, TheDarkKnight said:

It's a strange one. For all the midfields that English academies produce, they only seem to produce no 10's.

Didn't Southgate call Bellingham "a pressing number 10"? I remember Gascoigne, Robson, Scholes and Carrick at the same age as Bellingham. I'm not sure Bellingham will emulate any of those.

Gallagher and Ramsey are two more number 10s. Skipp is an anchorman (number 6)?

Yeah. He is getting off the bench a few times, but from a Scotland perspective I'm just frustrated. I just want him playing football He's at an age where he needs matches.

I mean, have you ever heard of a player moving to a club and then the manager trading places with him? Objectively, it's insane.

I have seen them play, I would say they are capable central midfielders, high work rates and technically excellent and can play in most midfield positions, with the exception of Skipp.   I think there is a big difference between BG and those guys.  
 

Totally agree he needs to play games to progress, but he is not going to get that time at Brighton - hence the loan.  I wonder if the move to Chelsea has messed up his progression, had he stayed at Rangers he would have probably played 2 whole seasons by now and been much further along with his development.  It was probably set certain expectations in his mind.

Edited November 27, 2022 by Newtopia

[kirku 1,316]

1 minute ago, Indy said:

To be honest you can add young Harvey Elliot he’s having an outstanding season and will be pushing for a call up soon.

He's a very good player but you wouldn't have him in the DM/CM role, I wouldn't have thought

[TheDarkKnight 445]

3 minutes ago, kirku said:

"No one knows (his best position). He hasn't really played enough. I wouldn't trust him as an anchorman, as I don't think he's defensively good enough."

England are currently the fifth highest ranked side in the world and yet...

"He'd walk into England's midfield"

You couldn't make up this level of mental gymnastics.

Do you really put credence in the FIFA rankings?

Do you think England are better than Spain?

[kirku 1,316]

1 minute ago, TheDarkKnight said:

Bellingham has been described by Southgate as a "Pressing number 10". Henderson is a number 6. Same with Ward-Prowse. Dier is a number 6. Ramsey is a number 10. James is a fullback. And Reed is at Fulham.

Obviously, rather than read my posts, you've just dived in to make quips.

I'm talking about a Carrick, Robson, Gascoigne, Scholes type.

I'm not dissing England. Most countries would kill for Harry Kane.

Which role do you think Phillips and Rice play for England?

They're the two sitting in a 4-2-3-1 or, as you put it, a 6. It's also the position Bellingham played against the USA.

Gascoigne and Scholes were not 6s in the the system that England currently play, at all. They'd be most suited to the 10.

You seem to have pretty strident views on something you've got a rather tenuous grasp of.

[TheDarkKnight 445]

2 minutes ago, Newtopia said:

I have seen them play, I would say they are capable central midfielders, high work rates and technically excellent and can play in most midfield positions, with the exception of Skipp.   I think there is a big difference between BG and those guys.  
 

Totally agree he needs to play games to progress, but he is not going to get that time at Brighton - hence the loan.  I wonder if the move to Chelsea has messed up his progression, had he stayed at Rangers he would have probably played 2 whole seasons by now and been much further along with his development.  It was probably set certain expectations in his mind.

Most people are asking why USA dominated England. The lack of a really traditional deep-laying playmaker Is thr reason.

Couldn't agree more. Hate to admit it, but maybe he should have stayed at Rangers, at least long enough to get a hundred or so games under his belt.

If he doesn't get a regular game soon, I'm dreading it for him. Could end up like Gael Kakuta who was at Chelsea for 6 years and made 6 appearances.

[Indy 2,832]

7 minutes ago, kirku said:

He's a very good player but you wouldn't have him in the DM/CM role, I wouldn't have thought

No probably not, but he’s younger and in my opinion far better, would be way ahead of Gilmour.

[TheDarkKnight 445]

3 minutes ago, kirku said:

Which role do you think Phillips and Rice play for England?

They're the two sitting in a 4-2-3-1 or, as you put it, a 6. It's also the position Bellingham played against the USA.

Gascoigne and Scholes were not 6s in the the system that England currently play, at all. They'd be most suited to the 10.

You seem to have pretty strident views on something you've got a rather tenuous grasp of.

Both are number 6s (anchormen).

Actually, didn't England play 4-3-3 against USA? No. Gascoigne and Scholes were number 8s.

Oh. I know what I'm talking about.

[kirku 1,316]

7 minutes ago, TheDarkKnight said:

Do you really put credence in the FIFA rankings?

Do you think England are better than Spain?

I'd walk into Scotland's midfield.

Afterall, nobody has really seen me play enough to know what my best position is, but you probably wouldn't trust me as an anchorman as I don't think I'm defensively sound enough.

As for Spain, they're very well coached and have been performing better than the sum of their parts. Somewhat opposite to England in that respect.

[kirku 1,316]

7 minutes ago, TheDarkKnight said:

Both are number 6s (anchormen).

Actually, didn't England play 4-3-3 against USA? No. Gascoigne and Scholes were number 8s.

Oh. I know what I'm talking about.

"In a 4-2-3-1, Jordan Pickford took his position in goal.."

"England XI (4-2-3-1)"

"With England in a 4-2-3-1, the 4-4-2 allowed the U.S. to set up defensively"

"Manager: Gareth Southgate. 4-2-3-1"

"Lineups. England. 4-2-3-1"

Edited November 27, 2022 by kirku

[TheDarkKnight 445]

1 minute ago, kirku said:

I'd walk into Scotland's midfield.

Afterall, nobody has really seen me play enough to know what my best position is, but you probably wouldn't trust me as an anchorman as I don't think I'm defensively sound enough.

As for Spain, they're very well coached and have been performing better than the sum of their parts. Somewhat opposite to England in that respect.

Yeah. That's funny.

Remind me, what was the score was when Scotland met England at the Euro's. 

You could walk into the Scotland team whose midfield competed with England's? Does that mean you're really good or England's midfield is really bad?

The rankings are purely for seedings. This World Cup, with all the upsets, are making a mockery of the ranking system.

[TheDarkKnight 445]

4 minutes ago, kirku said:

"In a 4-2-3-1, Jordan Pickford took his position in goal.."

"England XI (4-2-3-1)"

"With England in a 4-2-3-1, the 4-4-2 allowed the U.S. to set up defensively"

"Manager: Gareth Southgate. 4-2-3-1"

"Lineups. England. 4-2-3-1"

Watch it again.

Mount was a part of a midfield 3.

It was a 4-3-3.

It may have began as a 4-2-3-1, but it certainly didn't end like it. That may have been because the US midfield were outnumbering the England midfield that it forced Mount back.

And thanks for posting the ratings of the midfields.

Edited November 27, 2022 by TheDarkKnight

[kirku 1,316]

1 minute ago, TheDarkKnight said:

Yeah. That's funny.

Remind me, what was the score was when Scotland met England at the Euro's. 

You could walk into the Scotland team whose midfield competed with England's? Does that mean you're really good or England's midfield is really bad?

The rankings are purely for seedings. This World Cup, with all the upsets, are making a mockery of the ranking system.

"Remind me, what was the score..." for a 0-0 where Scotland got eliminated in the group stages, England progressed to the final, and the "boy wonder" Gilmour subsequently  ended up being benched by the likes of PLM and McLean?

It's frankly hilarious.

Nearly as hilarious as the utter absurdity of you claiming to not know where Gilmour's best position is, because "nobody has seen him play enough" while also asserting that he'd walk into what is currently considered the 5th best nation in the world.

Nearly, but not quite.

[kirku 1,316]

4 minutes ago, TheDarkKnight said:

Watch it again.

Mount was a part of a midfield 3.

It was a 4-3-3.

It may have began as a 4-2-3-1, but it certainly didn't end like it. That may have been because the US midfield were outnumbering the England midfield that it forced Mount back.

And thanks for posting the ratings of the midfields.

How many injuries would England require for Longstaff and Willock to be the starting pair of 6s?

[Newtopia 480]

9 minutes ago, TheDarkKnight said:

Most people are asking why USA dominated England. The lack of a really traditional deep-laying playmaker Is thr reason.

Couldn't agree more. Hate to admit it, but maybe he should have stayed at Rangers, at least long enough to get a hundred or so games under his belt.

If he doesn't get a regular game soon, I'm dreading it for him. Could end up like Gael Kakuta who was at Chelsea for 6 years and made 6 appearances.

England do not have a deep laying player maker, although Rice and Phillips fill that area of the pitch.  I thought USA were really good, they pressed brilliantly, to cut out space.  Personally I think some times you do not play well, and I still thought we created more chances than the US, although I put our performance down to the USA side playing really well.

BG definitely needs games.  I hope he gets them.

[TheDarkKnight 445]

Just now, kirku said:

"Remind me, what was the score..." for a 0-0 where Scotland got eliminated in the group stages, England progressed to the final, and the "boy wonder" Gilmour subsequently  ended up being benched by the likes of PLM and McLean?

It's frankly hilarious.

Nearly as hilarious as the utter absurdity of you claiming to not know where Gilmour's best position is, because "nobody has seen him play enough" while also asserting that he'd walk into what is currently considered the 5th best nation in the world.

Nearly, but not quite.

Mate, you said that you could play international football for a team ranked 40 in the world.

THAT'S hilarious.

[TheDarkKnight 445]

1 minute ago, kirku said:

How many injuries would England require for Longstaff and Willock to be the starting pair of 6s?

Probably 3. Rice, Phillips and Henderson. 

[kirku 1,316]

Just now, TheDarkKnight said:

Mate, you said that you could play international football for a team ranked 40 in the world.

THAT'S hilarious.

 

[TheDarkKnight 445]

1 minute ago, Newtopia said:

England do not have a deep laying player maker, although Rice and Phillips fill that area of the pitch.  I thought USA were really good, they pressed brilliantly, to cut out space.  Personally I think some times you do not play well, and I still thought we created more chances than the US, although I put our performance down to the USA side playing really well.

BG definitely needs games.  I hope he gets them.

Agree entirely with all that.

[TheDarkKnight 445]

Just now, kirku said:

 

Yeah...

That doesn't cut any ice with me, either.

You said that you could walk into the Scotland team. Is that a lie? Are you even eligible?

[kirku 1,316]

1 minute ago, TheDarkKnight said:

Probably 3. Rice, Phillips and Henderson. 

TheDarkKnight's guide on how to lose all credibility on a football forum in three easy posts:

1) Brian Laudrup would be worth £200m today

2) Billy Gilmour would walk into the England team (but I haven't seen him play that much)

3) England are 3 injuries away from starting Joe Willock and Shaun Longstaff

 

[kirku 1,316]

1 minute ago, TheDarkKnight said:

Yeah...

That doesn't cut any ice with me, either.

You said that you could walk into the Scotland team. Is that a lie? Are you even eligible?

This is tragic

[TheDarkKnight 445]

Just now, kirku said:

TheDarkKnight's guide on how to lose all credibility on a football forum in three easy posts:

1) Brian Laudrup would be worth £200m today

2) Billy Gilmour would walk into the England team (but I haven't seen him play that much)

3) England are 3 injuries away from starting Joe Willock and Shaun Longstaff

 

1. In the context that a player like Zidane or R9 would fetch £500m+. Then yes.

2. He would. (I've seen him from Scotland u15 upwards. In fairness, even Gareth Southgate said the same anout Bellingham. Southgate called him a "pressing 10 but he could end up being a roaming 8".)

3. What do you plan? Foden and Maddison as a double pivot?

Good luck with that...

[TheDarkKnight 445]

4 minutes ago, kirku said:

This is tragic

Yeah. The condescending tone doesn't work, either.

Edited November 27, 2022 by TheDarkKnight

[TheDarkKnight 445]

10 minutes ago, kirku said:

This is tragic

Oops.

I don't want to spam the thread any more than you have.

Want to chat more on the subject? Shoot me a PM.

Namaste.

Edited November 27, 2022 by TheDarkKnight

[SwearyCanary 1,171]

Sorry DK. I have to agree with the BG is not good enough camp, albeit less vehemently. England looked a bit short of ideas vs USA not because we are missing a Billy Gilmour, but because Southgate is pants. While we played very uninspiring football vs USA they hardly dominated us to the point of creating much in the way of golden chances. They were energetic and set up well against a boring Southgate tactical borefest. It’s no different to a non league side taking on a Chris Hughton Norwich side in a cup game. 

[TheDarkKnight 445]

1 hour ago, SwearyCanary said:

Sorry DK. I have to agree with the BG is not good enough camp, albeit less vehemently. England looked a bit short of ideas vs USA not because we are missing a Billy Gilmour, but because Southgate is pants. While we played very uninspiring football vs USA they hardly dominated us to the point of creating much in the way of golden chances. They were energetic and set up well against a boring Southgate tactical borefest. It’s no different to a non league side taking on a Chris Hughton Norwich side in a cup game. 

No. That's fair enough.

I do think against a France or a Brazil the lack of a deep-laying playmaker might prove to be a problem, though. USA were huff and puff, and I suspect Wales will be the same.

I'm not saying that Billy Gilmour is already a world class player, but I do respect his skillset. He takes the ball and shows for the ball, no matter where he is. I feel that that's what England are lacking. 

Another issue (maybe the biggest one) is that the EPL has 30% English players. That's the downside of having the biggest league in the world, everyone wants to play there.

 

[king canary 6,410]

10 hours ago, TheDarkKnight said:

2. He would. (I've seen him from Scotland u15 upwards. In fairness, even Gareth Southgate said the same anout Bellingham. Southgate called him a "pressing 10 but he could end up being a roaming 8".)

I've not read the whole thread so I assumed the 'he'd walk into the England team' was a twisting or a misrepresentation of what you said but no, you're apparently serious. 

 

[TheGunnShow 4,816]

Gilmour needs a free role to work. But for every Pirlo, you need a Gattuso ball-winner and a Seedorf box-to-box man alongside him to make it work.

I think he's in the wrong country, personally. He'd probably do really well as a deep-lying playmaker in Serie A.

[TheDarkKnight 445]

2 hours ago, king canary said:

I've not read the whole thread so I assumed the 'he'd walk into the England team' was a twisting or a misrepresentation of what you said but no, you're apparently serious. 

 

Even the most ardent critic of Billy Gilmour would say that his main attributes are showing for the ball, taking it on the half turn and doing the simple things.

England do not have that.

Graeme Souness said it after the England vs Scotland game that England don't have a player like Gilmour. And he is right.

It's not about Gilmour. It's about the type of player he is.

THE MIDFIELD TEMPLATE HOLDING BACK ENGLISH FOOTBALL FOR DECADES AND SOLUTIONS IN SPAIN