Cliffy Biro Posted April 8, 2015 Share Posted April 8, 2015 Despite what people think managers do just take a disliking to a player and then he doesn't get a look in, thats whats happening here. He's come in and immediately decided for whatever reason Gil wont be in the team but obviously the likes of Wiemann, Richardson and N'Zogbia are all good enough.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DCJonah Posted April 8, 2015 Share Posted April 8, 2015 He's come in and immediately decided for whatever reason Gil wont be in the team But picked him the first chance he had. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arj Guy Posted April 8, 2015 Share Posted April 8, 2015 We scored 3 goals yesterday so why are people complaining so much about the decision not to play Gil. May as well never sign any attackers ever again then. Talking about the decision not to play him in this specific match. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Isa Posted April 8, 2015 Share Posted April 8, 2015 Absolutely spot on. I can't believe this knicker-wetting about a player who scored a goal against a lower-division side. This keeps being repeated but it's more to do with him bossing it against the best team in the country, offering instant increased impetus when he was subbed on against Liverpool and being one of the few players to come out of Arsenal with any credit I'd have thought. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DCJonah Posted April 8, 2015 Share Posted April 8, 2015 Absolutely spot on. I can't believe this knicker-wetting about a player who scored a goal against a lower-division side. This keeps being repeated but it's more to do with him bossing it against the best team in the country, offering instant increased impetus when he was subbed on against Liverpool and being one of the few players to come out of Arsenal with any credit I'd have thought. All games we lost, along with his start against Stoke. Gil looks an excellent player but the reactions over him not playing are completely OTT. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stevo985 Posted April 8, 2015 VT Supporter Share Posted April 8, 2015 We scored 3 goals yesterday so why are people complaining so much about the decision not to play Gil. May as well never sign any attackers ever again then. Talking about the decision not to play him in this specific match. Yeah I get that. So if we scored 3 goals in this match we may as well not buy any more attackers, right? That's how your logic is working. Point is, scoring three doesn't mean you shouldn't be looking for improvements. Just because we scored three goals doesn't mean we shouldn't be looking for better attacking options, regardless of who provides them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bobzy Posted April 8, 2015 Share Posted April 8, 2015 Absolutely spot on. I can't believe this knicker-wetting about a player who scored a goal against a lower-division side. This keeps being repeated but it's more to do with him bossing it against the best team in the country, offering instant increased impetus when he was subbed on against Liverpool and being one of the few players to come out of Arsenal with any credit I'd have thought. All games we lost, along with his start against Stoke. Gil looks an excellent player but the reactions over him not playing are completely OTT. Bewilderment and confusion now = OTT. VT. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DCJonah Posted April 8, 2015 Share Posted April 8, 2015 No turning on the manager for not playing a guy who's started 4 games is OTT. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bobzy Posted April 8, 2015 Share Posted April 8, 2015 No turning on the manager for not playing a guy who's started 4 games is OTT. Started 4 games is a misleading stat there - the guy has been with us since January and looked head and shoulders above the rest of the team when he's played. I think it's fair enough to question that decision. No-one is turning on the manager either. That's a ludicrous comment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DCJonah Posted April 8, 2015 Share Posted April 8, 2015 No turning on the manager for not playing a guy who's started 4 games is OTT. Started 4 games is a misleading stat there - the guy has been with us since January and looked head and shoulders above the rest of the team when he's played. I think it's fair enough to question that decision. No-one is turning on the manager either. That's a ludicrous comment. On the last page someone wrote "I'd prefer Carles Gil stays in the summer than Tim Sherwood if I'm honest." It has about 10 likes. Another classic was "I'm guessing Sherwood's ego means he wants to make a show of somebody, and who better than one who can't speak much (if any) Engliah?" In the match thread against Man U I read "He really doesn't rate gil. For that reason alone I don't rate Sherwood. If he can't spot his talent he's insane" 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bobzy Posted April 8, 2015 Share Posted April 8, 2015 And those comments now equate to "Sherwood Out" or "I'm not supporting Sherwood" or "I'm turning on the manager"? Talk about OTT... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DCJonah Posted April 8, 2015 Share Posted April 8, 2015 And those comments now equate to "Sherwood Out" or "I'm not supporting Sherwood" or "I'm turning on the manager"? Talk about OTT... Haha ok. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VillanousOne Posted April 8, 2015 Share Posted April 8, 2015 (edited) After the entire reign of Lambert chasing the mythical 'creative midfielder' and failing, we finally sign one who everyone can see has ability and he doesn't get a sniff of football. I don't think he's done enough to start every week or be named the 'answer' to any problem... yet, but he deserves a chance. He's not even getting off the bench or making squads and that is what is annoying most people including me. He is the sort of player who can retain possession in the final third, yesterday the issue was we lost possession easily and then were continuously scrambling backwards to try and defend their breakaways, which our patchwork defence couldn't manage. Weimann and Cole starting ahead of him or coming on ahead of him isn't working. Edited April 8, 2015 by VillanousOne 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arj Guy Posted April 8, 2015 Share Posted April 8, 2015 After the entire reign of Lambert chasing the mythical 'creative midfielder' and failing, we finally sign one who everyone can see has ability and he doesn't get a sniff of football. I don't think he's done enough to start every week or be named the 'answer' to any problem... yet, but he deserves a chance. He's not even getting off the bench or making squads and that is what is annoying most people including me. He is the sort of player who can retain possession in the final third, yesterday the issue was we lost possession easily and then were continuously scrambling backwards to try and defend their breakaways, which our patchwork defence couldn't manage. Weimann and Cole starting ahead of him or coming on ahead of him isn't working. Cole has been good when he has came on. Agree about Weimann though Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jon Posted April 8, 2015 Share Posted April 8, 2015 Another classic was "I'm guessing Sherwood's ego means he wants to make a show of somebody, and who better than one who can't speak much (if any) Engliah?" It wasn't Dem, was it? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
useless Posted April 8, 2015 Share Posted April 8, 2015 I asked whether Sherwood leaving Gil out might be an ego thing, in a 'look at me I can save the club without one of their star players', kind of thing, But I didn't mention anything of Gil's ability to speak English. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zatman Posted April 8, 2015 Share Posted April 8, 2015 Despite what people think managers do just take a disliking to a player and then he doesn't get a look in, thats whats happening here. He's come in and immediately decided for whatever reason Gil wont be in the team but obviously the likes of Wiemann, Richardson and N'Zogbia are all good enough.. we dont know what goes on in training. We got him for 3 million, maybe was a reason Valencia sold so cheap especially since they dont have to sell players anymoreand as I said unless Gil has become a full back in last few weeks we are not desperate for goals anymore Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
smetrov Posted April 8, 2015 Share Posted April 8, 2015 Despite what people think managers do just take a disliking to a player and then he doesn't get a look in, thats whats happening here. He's come in and immediately decided for whatever reason Gil wont be in the team but obviously the likes of Wiemann, Richardson and N'Zogbia are all good enough.. we dont know what goes on in training. We got him for 3 million, maybe was a reason Valencia sold so cheap especially since they dont have to sell players anymore and as I said unless Gil has become a full back in last few weeks we are not desperate for goals anymore Pretty much this. He was brought to be the creative spark - but TS has worked round that by other (and IMO better) means. I will critiscise sherwood for not getting points on the board - but he has to manage as he see's fit. if that means no CG so be it. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
useless Posted April 8, 2015 Share Posted April 8, 2015 Another classic was "I'm guessing Sherwood's ego means he wants to make a show of somebody, and who better than one who can't speak much (if any) Engliah?" It wasn't Dem, was it? I take the silence to this question as confirmation that no one actually said it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Condimentalist Posted April 8, 2015 Share Posted April 8, 2015 My two pence, for what its worth: We know that Sherwood likes to bring through young, home grown talent. He comes into the club where the best prospect is a dribbler who can come in off the wing or play in the hole. And he also sees that the club have just signed another similar player from abroad who will stand in the way of said home grown player. He's annoyed that the club have done this because he thinks it stands in the way of the best young players getting an opportunity, something he has spent the last few years championing. As such Gil becomes a totem 'Carles Kickaballs' that Sherwood is immediately poorly disposed to, and when the opportunity comes to bring on a player he goes for the previously sidelined Grealish rather than Gil, which also reaffirms his media perception as a champion of young home grown talent. Gil on the other hand, has come in and made a massive impression with the fans in a few short games, looked like one of the best players at the club, and suddenly finds himself out of the team when a new 'old school' manager takes the reigns and he has an anonymous first game out of position against Stoke. He feels victimised and wonders what is going on. This makes the relationship between him and Sherwood a bit difficult, which exacerbates the problem of game time. Seems like things came to a head last night with Gil driving out of Villa Park before kick off. That's a rough sketch of what I think has gone down here. IMO it's poor management from Sherwood because it's quite possible to bring Grealish in to the side whilst also giving Gil an opportunity. Perhaps Sherwood things he can't carry the pair of them in a relegation battle but Gil should at least be coming off the bench and in some instances starting (eg at United). Unfortunately I think it's difficult to see Gil staying in the summer because the bridges have already been burned.He'll do well elsewhere. I saw enough from him to suggest he's a real talent. Reflects poorly on Sherwood IMO. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts