Gilmour

[GozoCanary]

https://www.pinkun.com/sport/norwich-city/canaries-ncfc-gilmour-chelsea-rangers-loan-advice-8437582

What do people make of this? Do we think he phoned a friend to get this in the press because he wants out? Has he been a failure so far because we haven't found a way to include him in our set-up? Is it Farke's fault that he is a shadow of the player who turns up for Scotland? Or is he already a Billy Big Bollocks who can't be bothered to play for a team at the wrong end of the table, a much younger version of Naismith?

Are we able to cancel the loan and get an established DM instead? Or would that have to wait until the January window?

 

[SuffolkCanary]

It’s only been 3 or 4 games that he has been left out of, one of which was against his parent team and I think he played every minute of those games he started. He has no divine right to walk into the team every week, he wasn’t great when he played, although who is playing well?!
I’d like to see him in a 3 with Normann and PLM against Leeds, so that he has a bit more license to roam, he can take McLeans place.

 

[DHCanary]

Usual crap that comes with a player from a big club. I don't think it's reflective of the situation.

Firstly, Gilmour hasn't played especially well for Norwich, his defensive work has been poor, and being tidy on the ball isn't so important when you aren't seeing much of it. His performances at club level weren't good enough for him to be locked into the starting XI.

His Scotland performances are largely irrelevant. The Faroe Islands and Moldova are not as good as Burnley or Brighton. Against better opposition, Austria, Denmark and Israel, Scotland conceded 4 goals in 3 games. And I'd argue only one of those teams are clearly better than Brighton.

But, Gilmour played a lot of minutes over the international break, and Farke deemed it more beneficial to the team to play the better-rested McLean than Gilmour. That's a perfectly valid tactical decision, and in the next 3 games Norwich kept 2 clean sheets, suggestive of some improvement and continuity was important when integrating so many new players. Then Gilmour was ineligible to play against Chelsea.

The clamour from the press for Gilmour to play is just more noise for the squad to ignore. And it doesn't help Farke or Gilmour.

 

[District Line]

Usual crap that comes with a player from a big club. I don't think it's reflective of the situation.

Firstly, Gilmour hasn't played especially well for Norwich, his defensive work has been poor, and being tidy on the ball isn't so important when you aren't seeing much of it. His performances at club level weren't good enough for him to be locked into the starting XI.

His Scotland performances are largely irrelevant. The Faroe Islands and Moldova are not as good as Burnley or Brighton. Against better opposition, Austria, Denmark and Israel, Scotland conceded 4 goals in 3 games. And I'd argue only one of those teams are clearly better than Brighton.

But, Gilmour played a lot of minutes over the international break, and Farke deemed it more beneficial to the team to play the better-rested McLean than Gilmour. That's a perfectly valid tactical decision, and in the next 3 games Norwich kept 2 clean sheets, suggestive of some improvement and continuity was important when integrating so many new players. Then Gilmour was ineligible to play against Chelsea.

The clamour from the press for Gilmour to play is just more noise for the squad to ignore. And it doesn't help Farke or Gilmour.

This is why they want B teams for the Big 6. They see the rest of the football pyramid as nothing more than mere stepping stones. I think Gilmour should have dropped down a level, he may not yet be good enough to start for Norwich (you'd know better than I would) whereas he is for a Championship team.

 

[SuffolkCanary]

This is why they want B teams for the Big 6. They see the rest of the football pyramid as nothing more than mere stepping stones. I think Gilmour should have dropped down a level, he may not yet be good enough to start for Norwich (you'd know better than I would) whereas he is for a Championship team.

I’m on board with the B teams idea as long as that sees a larger distribution of cash from the Premier Leavue into the rest of the football league.

 

[Bure budgie]

If he don't want to play for us, fair enough

**** off back to Chelski reserves.

 

[DHCanary]

This is why they want B teams for the Big 6. They see the rest of the football pyramid as nothing more than mere stepping stones. I think Gilmour should have dropped down a level, he may not yet be good enough to start for Norwich (you'd know better than I would) whereas he is for a Championship team.

I think it's too early to tell whether he's good enough for Norwich, but the early indications have simply been that he isn't a drop-in replacement for Skipp. That's not quite what he was sold as admittedly, the impression was that he would do more with the ball than Skipp but offer a bit less defensively, but I think how far off he was defensively was a surprise to all.

I think a significant portion of our fan base would like to see him tried in the new 5-3-2 we're playing currently, rather than the 4-2-3-1 he played in previously. It should provide additional cover for him defensively, and it's role he's familiar with from Scotland. That might not be quite how Chelsea wanted him used, but it might suit all parties better for now.

I think the aim of Gilmour going out on loan was to improve his defensive abilities, and the best place for that is probably a relegation battle, or at least a bottom end Prem side. In the Championship or SPL he'd be at a side dominating the game and he wouldn't play against quality attackers. It's so rare for a player to move from Celtic/Rangers to a top Prem side these days, that I don't think performing well there would convince Chelsea he was ready for their first team. A loan to Norwich is much more accelerated development program - if he's up to it.

 

[GozoCanary]

Maybe this raises the question as well of the problem of having too many loan players in terms of squad unity. Loans 'stepping down' from bigger clubs seem very hit and miss; for every Skipp, there is a Kane. Another problem with these players is a real pressure on managers and from fans to play them because of their links to a 'big club'. Loans coming from abroad with a view to a permanent signing seem more solid in that there is a real desire on the part of the player to become integrated into the group (even Quintilla, who didn't really work out, seemed to fit very well into the club psychologically).

 

[DHCanary]

Webber's spoken about player mentality a little bit, it's one of the hardest facets of recruitment to get right, but arguably one of the most important.

To make an arbitrary comparison between two loanees, I've no doubt that Mbokani was a better finisher than Kei Kamara. But if we're in the relegation zone, 2-0 down, struggling... but then get a breakaway down the wing, I'd want Kamara on the pitch rather than Mbokani. Because I think Kamara is much more likely to put the effort in to get into the box to receive the ball, and there's no point being the best finisher in the world if you won't put the effort in to get the opportunity. Kamara was an incredibly limited footballer who looked well out of his depth in the Premier League, but his personality and work rate was impressive and lifted the squad.

We've had loanees like Huckerby, Kyle Naughton, Ollie Skipp, who were consumate professionals and as much a part of the squad as anyone, and we've had loanees like Marcus Edwards (remember him?) who had a clear attitude issue. Time will tell where Gilmour, Kabak, Normann, Williams fall on that spectrum.

Webber has spoken before about the need for "cultural leaders" within a squad before. I remember him citing Zimmerman in that context, and there's an interview with Max Aarons where he spoke about Zimmerman's attitude whilst injured. He didn't come in, do the required rehab and go home. He went to the gym and had additional training devised so that he could build upper body strength, etc despite having a leg injury. That attitude sets a standard within the club.

I have no idea what the attitude of the squad is currently, but one thing I'd be worried about is the number of key players who have suffered relegations. Krul, Hanley, Kabak, Zimmerman, Aarons, Cantwell, Rupp, McLean, Sargent, Rashica, Pukki have all been relegated recently. A lot of those players have tried their hardest and discovered they weren't good enough for the top flight. How does that effect how you play, in comparison to the fearlessness we saw from the same players two years ago, or the likes of Pilkington, Bennett, etc?

 

[GozoCanary]

Webber's spoken about player mentality a little bit, it's one of the hardest facets of recruitment to get right, but arguably one of the most important.

To make an arbitrary comparison between two loanees, I've no doubt that Mbokani was a better finisher than Kei Kamara. But if we're in the relegation zone, 2-0 down, struggling... but then get a breakaway down the wing, I'd want Kamara on the pitch rather than Mbokani. Because I think Kamara is much more likely to put the effort in to get into the box to receive the ball, and there's no point being the best finisher in the world if you won't put the effort in to get the opportunity. Kamara was an incredibly limited footballer who looked well out of his depth in the Premier League, but his personality and work rate was impressive and lifted the squad.

We've had loanees like Huckerby, Kyle Naughton, Ollie Skipp, who were consumate professionals and as much a part of the squad as anyone, and we've had loanees like Marcus Edwards (remember him?) who had a clear attitude issue. Time will tell where Gilmour, Kabak, Normann, Williams fall on that spectrum.

Webber has spoken before about the need for "cultural leaders" within a squad before. I remember him citing Zimmerman in that context, and there's an interview with Max Aarons where he spoke about Zimmerman's attitude whilst injured. He didn't come in, do the required rehab and go home. He went to the gym and had additional training devised so that he could build upper body strength, etc despite having a leg injury. That attitude sets a standard within the club.

I have no idea what the attitude of the squad is currently, but one thing I'd be worried about is the number of key players who have suffered relegations. Krul, Hanley, Kabak, Zimmerman, Aarons, Cantwell, Rupp, McLean, Sargent, Rashica, Pukki have all been relegated recently. A lot of those players have tried their hardest and discovered they weren't good enough for the top flight. How does that effect how you play, in comparison to the fearlessness we saw from the same players two years ago, or the likes of Pilkington, Bennett, etc?

Great post.

 

[Robbie BB]

That's not quite what he [Gilmour] was sold as admittedly, the impression was that he would do more with the ball than Skipp but offer a bit less defensively, but I think how far off he was defensively was a surprise to all.

What we were originally told was that he was being loaned to us because Tuchel wanted him to get experience playing with a defensive midfield partner in "a double 6", i.e. instead of the traditional central midfield pairing of a No.6 and No.8, you have two players equally comfortable in either role, in which scenario Normann can be seen as the perfect partner (as opposed to Skipp, whose strength was more as an orthodox DM). The natural corollary would have us setting up 3:4:2:1/3:4:3, with wing backs either side of the double 6s, dropping into a back 5 when out of possession and one advancing, in company with one of double 6s, when possession is regained.
On the evidence of what we've seen so far, Gilmour is not yet ready to operate effectively as a 6 but can provide some much needed creativity further forward. Given the need to remain defensively circumspect, and given that Normann is often deployed as a DM for Norway, a midfield pairing of Normann and Gilmour could still work -- as long as Normann remains disciplined at DM and the wing backs are reined in accordingly (i.e. at most one bombing forward in possession).

 

[RiverEndRick]

What we were originally told was that he was being loaned to us because Tuchel wanted him to get experience playing with a defensive midfield partner in "a double 6", i.e. instead of the traditional central midfield pairing of a No.6 and No.8, you have two players equally comfortable in either role, in which scenario Normann can be seen as the perfect partner (as opposed to Skipp, whose strength was more as an orthodox DM). The natural corollary would have us setting up 3:4:2:1/3:4:3, with wing backs either side of the double 6s, dropping into a back 5 when out of possession and one advancing, in company with one of double 6s, when possession is regained.
On the evidence of what we've seen so far, Gilmour is not yet ready to operate effectively as a 6 but can provide some much needed creativity further forward. Given the need to remain defensively circumspect, and given that Normann is often deployed as a DM for Norway, a midfield pairing of Normann and Gilmour could still work -- as long as Normann remains disciplined at DM and the wing backs are reined in accordingly (i.e. at most one bombing forward in possession).

I agree with the aim of the Gilmour loan being to establish a double six midfield but if Gilmour isn't up to playing both roles yet the double six isn't an option. The article you cite claims: "Billy Gilmour is a clear successor to Kanté’s throne, having already shown what he can do under Lampard last season with his excellent ability on the ball and skill in shutting down opposition attacks." We've seen little evidence to support that.

Normann is suited to playing both 6/8 roles, but he lacks a partner who can do the same. To force him into a conventional DM role to suit Gilmour's limitations would deprive us of his attacking abilities. I'd rather see Sørensen come in as the other half of a double six if we go that way, as he has DM experience and a reasonable range of passing as well.

It could be the coaches are working with Gilmour on his DM skills but he's not there yet, which is why we've carried on with a midfield 3. Gilmour could come in to replace either Lees-Melou or McLean, but I fear that playing Gilmour in a 2 man midfield could leave us exposed defensively, especially with Omobamidele coming in for Gibson. It's important that DF gets this right on Sunday.

 

[DUNCAN DONUTS]

Just seen this thread after mentioning on the MDT.

I would be amazed if Gilmore gets anywhere near the Chelsea starting 11 and spends the next few years on loan.