Gilmour looked good at Chelsea, but has been awful at Norwich and their fans can’t stand him. My problem with him is; he’ll look good when you have 60% possession and there’s space for him, but here where we have >40%. A huge change in our style for him to be any good here I feel.
Gilmour will be a championship level player ultimately imo. I feel sorry for him a bit but it is harder than ever to make it if you are both slow and weak. I would compare him to a Joe Allan or Barry Bannan. Might have a decent international career but not what we need
I appreciate Kane also had a troubled loan spell at Norwich but Gilmour has been arguably their worst player.
Not so long ago someone posted stats about points gained with and without Gilmour. Theres another 3 points and it surely isnt a coincidence. Probably the worst signing we have ever made, on the pitch and off it.
forum.pinkun.com
For what it’s worth I’m not getting hot under the collar about Gilmour either, but I’d counter your possession point by saying the way you get from <40% to 60% is with better passers of the ball, which he undoubtedly is.
Our issue with Gallacher is hes coming off a great season, so there is going to be a hefty premium on him. I'd love him on loan, and think theres an option there, but we probably need to be getting lads like him a year earlier.
Gilmour on the other hand is probably just as talented, and coming off a poor season, so could be moving nicely into our hitting range.
When I initially mentioned Gilmour it was due to Lampard (potentially) moving to a more posession based style of play.
When he plays for Chelsea or for Scotland with more time on the ball and less pressing he looks phenomenal. A possible future world class player.
If you were to put Gilmour into Xavi's Barcelona team then Im confident he'd look like a superstar.
You look at Eriksen for Spurs (posession based) or Brentford (posession based) and he's been brilliant (also for Denmark). Would he look as good in a Norwich team who simply arent a posession heavy side?
Take Dele's signing and then think back to how good he was when he had Eriksen feeding the ball to him. Their wide players also had a field day with some of the balls be played -- Spurs were at their best with Eriksen and Dele.
Now look at this summer, we could be moving on quite a number of players but have a core of players that could do quite well in a posession based setup.
If the summer strategy were to move players on and replace them with younger players with high technical ability then it would make sense to bring Gilmour in.
If the idea is to stick with our current setup and tactics then, as with Dele it would make no sense to sign Gilmour...
...but then the Dele signing also wouldnt make any sense so he should be moved on in the summer.
I think if you took Iniesta or Xavi and put them into our current team playing 541 then it would be like having 10 men.
We saw flashes in the Leicester game where we passed the ball around and were 'relatively' comfortable doing so...yet there was no one in defence or midfield who could play that killer ball.
Thats what Gilmour would bring along with setting the tempo. But we would have to be focused on a posession based approach AND bring in a top notch player alongside him who is either box to box or a pure DM -- Spurs had Dembele.
The other player i mentioned in Colwill would suit either 3 or 4 at the back and is very comfortable as a left sided centre back who can play out from the back. He's the highest rated player below Chelsea's first team.
Thelwell likes the 352 formation (he wrote the book on it) and Lampard does seem to enjoy the 3 at the back or the 433. Both of these could suit both Gilmour and Colwill.
If as the rumours suggest we sell Moise Kean in the next month then I would happily move him on + one of our centre backs and sign both of these players.
If Chelsea were to let them go.