Danny Ings

[MentalM]

I think Ings and Watkins will work better together under Gerrard.

This due to Gerrard want the 2 behind Watkins more central, while Smith wanted them further wide. Thats the position Ings often played in for Southampton.

Let Watkins stay on top due to his work ethic and pressure, Ings and Buendia behind him and we got a scary front 3.

[nick76]

21 minutes ago, KangarooVillan said:

I think you answered your own question here:

I didn’t say anything about making the team weaker. The problem is all those players you mentioned above can play together. If Watkins and Ings can’t play in the same team then we should sell Ings and find a player who can without weakening the squad. 

We don’t really know if they can play together.  Ollie was injured early in the season and then well out of form, meanwhile the team were playing poorly, losing 5 games on the trot.  

They have probably only played a combined less than 6 games together, in a poor performing team, one player post injury and out of form and the other just joined another team.  

Too early to make a determination.

[hippo]

1 hour ago, MentalM said:

I think Ings and Watkins will work better together under Gerrard.

This due to Gerrard want the 2 behind Watkins more central, while Smith wanted them further wide. Thats the position Ings often played in for Southampton.

Let Watkins stay on top due to his work ethic and pressure, Ings and Buendia behind him and we got a scary front 3.

I don't think SG will ever start Ings and Watkins again.

(Unless Ollie returns to his wife role)

[Craigy1874]

1 minute ago, hippo said:

I don't think SG will ever start Ings and Watkins again.

(Unless Ollie returns to his wife role)

Does that make Ings the husband?

[allani]

1 minute ago, hippo said:

I don't think SG will ever start Ings and Watkins again.

(Unless Ollie returns to his wife role)

Oh er missus Ollie.

[nick76]

2 minutes ago, hippo said:

I don't think SG will ever start Ings and Watkins again.

(Unless Ollie returns to his wife role)

When they said this was the honeymoon period I thought they meant Gerrard’s initial few games and had no idea it meant that Ollie and Danny had just got married.

[The Fun Factory]

Buying Ings was the equivalent of spending a lot of money on a old  sports car with engine trouble and 65,000 on the clock. 

It might perform well yet on the other hand it is depreciating as soon as it left the forecourt and could break down at any moment.

Edited December 8, 2021 by The Fun Factory

[allani]

I'm still not convinced that Ollie is an out-and-out striker.  Against Leicester he dallied too long on the ball once or twice and lost the opportunity for a good shot at goal.  We also shot at least twice when he had men unmarked in a better position.  So four or five good changes went begging that could ultimately have cost us a point.  I think Ings is just a bit more aware in the box and would probably have made more of those chances.  Maybe Ollie is just trying a bit too hard and had he scored more this season he might have been less desperate to score himself.  Probably plenty for the coaches to work on.  I still think there is a way that both can play in the same team and that (if it is possible) then the new coaching team will find a way.  For me we need to wait until (hopefully!) January and getting that extra midfielder in place that will help us control the midfield of the park better, which will allow us to attack the opposition smarter.  Then we will find out if the two can work together.

[Zhan_Zhuang]

Personally I see Ings as a super-sub, there's no way he's getting in ahead of Watkins at the moment on current form.

[allani]

2 minutes ago, The Fun Factory said:

Buying Ings was the equivalent of spending a lot of money on a old  sports car with engine trouble and 65,000 on the clock. 

It might perform well yet on the other hand it is depreciating as soon as it left the forecourt and could break down at any moment.

Rubbish.  He was the second top scorer in the PL (excluding penalties) over the previous 2 seasons.  It was definitely not a typical transfer for us (in terms of potentially increased value) but he's an experienced player at the top of his game.  I would still have preferred us to buy Tammy but we definitely needed a second striker (or even a first striker and finding a slightly different role for Ollie).

[allani]

8 minutes ago, Zhan_Zhuang said:

Personally I see Ings as a super-sub, there's no way he's getting in ahead of Watkins at the moment on current form.

Let's wait and see Ings play under SG before making calls like that.  For many of the matches that Ings has played this season we were playing poor football as a team.  Strikers need service - when they don't get it they struggle.  Ings and Ollie have different strengths - Ings is a more natural finisher, Ollie is more of a presser.  So it depends what SG favours.  Personally I feel that they can both play in the same team - once we have a team that plays in the right way.

[Don_Simon]

Will join Newcastle. This January. "I dont know how to do it but insert the it's happening gif here". 

I just don't see him fitting into our system, he is in the latter stages of his career and will want to play games, Newcastle will buy their way out of trouble. 

 

[The Fun Factory]

10 minutes ago, allani said:

Rubbish.  He was the second top scorer in the PL (excluding penalties) over the previous 2 seasons.  It was definitely not a typical transfer for us (in terms of potentially increased value) but he's an experienced player at the top of his game.  I would still have preferred us to buy Tammy but we definitely needed a second striker (or even a first striker and finding a slightly different role for Ollie).

He is 29 with a history of bad injuries and we don't know how to play him. And he is on 120 grand a week.

I don't think it was money well spent. We had cash in the pocket with the Grealish sale and did a supermarket sweep.

He has only scored 10 or more goals in a premier league season 3 times in his entire career.

Edited December 8, 2021 by The Fun Factory

[allani]

1 minute ago, Don_Simon said:

Will join Newcastle. This January. "I dont know how to do it but insert the it's happening gif here". 

I just don't see him fitting into our system, he is in the latter stages of his career and will want to play games, Newcastle will buy their way out of trouble. 

 

SG's system of two behind the striker in a slightly narrower role is more likely to accommodate Ings and Watkins than our old system.  We need to wait and see what happens under SG before making snap decisions.

[Don_Simon]

2 minutes ago, allani said:

SG's system of two behind the striker in a slightly narrower role is more likely to accommodate Ings and Watkins than our old system.  We need to wait and see what happens under SG before making snap decisions.

Completely agree with the snap decision part of this. I have gone full in!

Watkins - Buendia - Bailey, I think, will be our front three. We shall see I guess. Thirty million pounds was a lot on a player who won't be first XI, and one of those four, (including Ings) will be out. We don't play enough game to rotate the squad to keep everyone happy and I just have a feeling Newcastle might give us our money back. 

[allani]

2 minutes ago, The Fun Factory said:

He is 29 with a history of bad injuries and we don't know how to play him. And he is on 120 grand a week.

I don't think it was money well spent. We had cash in the pocket with the Grealish sale and did a supermarket sweep.

Pretty sure it is at least 3 seasons since he had a bad injury.  I agree that he was outside our usual model in terms of resale value and so wouldn't have been someone I expected us to be in for.  However, I don't think we can say "we don't know how to play him".  It might have been the case that Dean didn't know how to play him - but SG plays a different way.  It might not be a million miles away from our old system but it is different.  I'd want to see him playing a few games for SG before deciding that he is surplus to requirements.  And even then if we do sell him we still need to sign another striker as we can't be limited to only having Ollie.

[jimmygreaves]

1 minute ago, allani said:

Pretty sure it is at least 3 seasons since he had a bad injury.  I agree that he was outside our usual model in terms of resale value and so wouldn't have been someone I expected us to be in for.  However, I don't think we can say "we don't know how to play him".  It might have been the case that Dean didn't know how to play him - but SG plays a different way.  It might not be a million miles away from our old system but it is different.  I'd want to see him playing a few games for SG before deciding that he is surplus to requirements.  And even then if we do sell him we still need to sign another striker as we can't be limited to only having Ollie.

Don't think Ings is "surplus to requirements" as you've put it. He's simply a bad fit for Aston Villa right now. Good player but not right for us. I think he'll go to Newcastle asap and we'll get someone better suited to our style/ethos in due course.

[useless]

Not sure why so many seem to think that Ings can play as a winger or a No.10, he's about as close as you'll get to an old fashioned predator in the box type striker that you will get in the premier league these days, the only reason Southampton played him wide is because they lack options, have to remember they have one of the worst squads in the league, Hasenhüttl doing an underrated job with them, any half decent team shouldn't be playing Ings anywhere other than as a striker through the middle, least of all us, we've got more wing options than most.

He should be backup to Watkins, if he's someone who can come on in games when we need a goal, or replace Watkins when he's injured or suspened then he's a good player to have, it just depends on whether he will be happy to have that role. But certainly we shouldn't be trying to shoehorn both him and Watkins in the same starting eleven, doing that probably in part contributed to Smith losing his job.

[Laughable Chimp]

32 minutes ago, allani said:

Rubbish.  He was the second top scorer in the PL (excluding penalties) over the previous 2 seasons.  It was definitely not a typical transfer for us (in terms of potentially increased value) but he's an experienced player at the top of his game.  I would still have preferred us to buy Tammy but we definitely needed a second striker (or even a first striker and finding a slightly different role for Ollie).

Keep in mind that the main reason he is second on that list is because of his stellar season 2 seasons ago. Last season, his non penalty goal tally didn't even reach half of that. And at the rate he's going this season, he might not even reach half of last season's non penalty goal tally.

[Delphinho123]

5 minutes ago, useless said:

Not sure why so many seem to think that Ings can play as a winger or a No.10, he's about as close as you'll get to an old fashioned predator in the box type striker that you will get in the premier league these days, the only reason Southampton played him wide is because they lack options, have to remember they have one of the worst squads in the league, Hasenhüttl doing an underrated job with them, any half decent team shouldn't be playing Ings anywhere other than as a striker through the middle, least of all us, we've got more wing options than most.

He should be backup to Watkins, if he's someone who can come on in games when we need a goal, or replace Watkins when he's injured or suspened then he's a good player to have, it just depends on whether he will be happy to have that role. But certainly we shouldn't be trying to shoehorn both him and Watkins in the same starting eleven, doing that probably in part contributed to Smith losing his job.

One of the things that annoys me most when discussing Ings. This idea that he can play behind the striker is absolute nonsense. He's an out and out no.9. Someone who plays on the shoulder and tends to be in the right place at the right time. He's not a link up player and even if he was, very few teams play with a deeper striker now anyway so he wouldn't fit our system.

He's competition for Watkins. In my eyes, it really is that simple. We play a formation with two narrow '10's' behind a striker - Bailey/Buendia/Traore or even one of Ramsey/McGinn if we play a midfield further forward. I don't see many scenarios moving forward where Watkins is pushed out wide or plays as one of these '10's' and Ings plays through the middle. 

Ings needs to battle it out with Watkins for that no.9 position. I think he's a good enough player to make the position his own, I'm just not sure if our overall play benefits having Ings in over Watkins due to the latters work rate and willingness to run all day!

It is worth mentioning that Ings is on a monster contract here and will have very little resale value in a couple of years time, if not in 12 months time. I think it's great we have competition for that striker position but the club needs to be pragmatic on this one and if they feel the cost on Ings outweighs the benefit he brings to the squad, then moving him on early and admitting it hasn't worked out, wouldn't be the worst thing in the world. We have other areas of the pitch that need addressing and whether you like Ings or not, 120k a week over the next 4 years will massively reduce our ability to spend big on another player due to our wage bill.