The Analyst: Time for some balance in the conversation about Billy Gilmour

Most of the arguments I've witnessed have been on either extreme of the spectrum, but there seems to be very little balance after his performance at Selhurst Park and on his loan move more generally.

Those who don't watch Norwich or Gilmour on a regular basis profess that it is the club rather than the player who should be blamed for his struggles.

Those who occupy the terraces insist the player simply isn't living up to the hype that has surrounded him since he emerged through the academy at Chelsea.

Both of those views are clashing in public forums with some rebuffing what Norwich fans have witnessed with their own eyes.

The reality of the debate is a bit more nuanced and complex than either of those commonly held positions, and data backs that up when you assess what Gilmour has done at Carrow Road.

Data has been used as a tool to claim his performances have been exceptionally good, in reality, they are merely numbers with no context being added to explain what those actually quantify.

I've seen plenty of people highlighting the amount of passes he made against Crystal Palace and concluding that this means his performance was significantly better than any of his teammates.

That simply isn't accurate.

Billy Gilmour's pass map against Crystal Palace. (Image: Wyscout)

If you assess his performance data in possession accurately, it paints a more varied picture.

Of his 50 successful passes in the game against Crystal Palace, 21 went forward (42%), 17 were lateral (34%) and 12 were backwards (24%). His most common pass was to Sam Byram, he completed 13 passes to the right back.

In many ways, these numbers encapsulate a lot of what the Norwich fans believe to be true, that he isn't necessarily constructing a lot despite the amount of times he receives the ball.

There is a safety to his work in possession and his passes, whilst often progressive, don't translate into shooting opportunities or get Norwich in handy attacking positions.

That observation is backed up by the data again.

The Scottish international currently averages only 0.32 smart passes per 90. That metric is used to measure creative and penetrative passes that attempts to break the opposition's defensive lines to gain a significant advantage in attack.

To put that number into context, it is lower than seven of his Canaries colleagues, including Kenny McLean, Brandon Williams and Teemu Pukki.

More interestingly, it is a lower rate than Lukas Rupp or Pierre Lees-Melou possess, both of whom have been omitted from the squad for Gilmour on a few occasions this season.

He simply isn't contributing to chance creation.

Gilmour's expected assists rank at only 0.58, although that is inflated by his set-piece taking.

In fairness to former City head coach Daniel Farke, that is the conclusion he reached that saw him drop the Scot from his starting XIs on a regular basis.

There are also weaknesses in his work against the ball, that also contributed to Farke's decision to leave him out at the beginning of the campaign.

No Norwich player lost the ball more than Gilmour against Palace. The midfielder conceded possession 13 times, with six of those arriving in his own half.

To balance that, Gilmour also recorded the most recoveries (14) of any City player.

Clearly, there are also positives to the work he is doing at Norwich this season.

Nobody in a yellow and green shirt progresses the ball more than Gilmour, who has made more passes into the final third on average per game than any City player.

So he is progressing the ball, but not in an area of the pitch that leads to chance creation. Often, that means a pass from midfield into the opponent's half.

Billy Gilmour ranks 11th for progressive passes in the Premier League. (Image: Wyscout)

In fact, he ranks 11th in the Premier League for progressive passes per game (8.82), just below Manchester United's Nemanja Matic and above Arsenal's Granit Xhaka.

Those numbers sound impressive, but again it is about context. What areas of the pitch are these passes taking place? Are they leading to anything in terms of output?

The answer is no. But there is clearly a quality in possession, everyone knows that.

In a team full of creativity and quality, Gilmour would excel would those ahead of him are capable of turning his progressive passes into tangible chances.

But he isn't a player who records a high number of assists or create chances, he is a ball progressor who helps kick-start attacks.

Given the situation Norwich are in, coupled with their ineffectiveness at the top end of the pitch, he isn't shining in the same way as he would in a better side.

Once again that leads you to question the recruitment of Gilmour, in a side that seldom dominates possession and struggles to create, why was the 20-year-old brought in? Does he really match the criteria of what they need right now?

In terms of Chelsea, they will be watching with interest.

This is Gilmour's first loan away from Stamford Bridge, in many ways the fact he is experiencing some adversity will be a positive thing, because his rise has simply been on an upward trajectory.

In the long-term, Gilmour will be better for the experience he is currently having at Norwich. Minutes in the Premier League will enhance his development, but that will be for Chelsea.

Criticism of Norwich midfielders shouldn't stop with Gilmour. Kenny McLean has experienced the same ineffectiveness in recent weeks. As has Pierre Lees-Melou.

But Gilmour's criticism comes through no fault of his own. The hype around him is intoxicating and mad.

He will be an excellent footballer but right now, he isn't anywhere near effective enough to help Norwich remain in the Premier League.

There are good elements to his game, but plenty that still requires work.

Ultimately, that is where the balance needs to come into the debate. He is a 20-year-old player hoping to find his way in the game, he requires support from City fans, which has been forthcoming bar a small majority, but also for the hype from elsewhere to calm down.