Danny Ings

[Mic09]

29 minutes ago, rodders0223 said:

30m for a 30 year old sub?

"Yes Danny you're right in your peak years here. You're flying and banging in goals for fun. Fancy coming to a team that finished 10 and being a sub?"

29

But yeah, play all cup games, compete with Ollie.

Big pay packet, bigger club, I thought we were in a position that we make those moves. 

An Iheanacho to our Vardy sort of thing.

Build a deep, solid squad rather than simply relying on 1 good player for each position.

I guess we are not in that place as a club yet.

[villa89]

31 minutes ago, rodders0223 said:

30m for a 30 year old sub?

The plan should have  been to have ings start with Watkins in the bench as cover for FW/LW. There's enough games in the season for both players to see plenty of pitch time and the competition between them might improve ollie. 

[Delphinho123]

I don't think we needed to sign Ings. I think he is a good striker, don't get me wrong, but we are simply not in a position to spend that much money on a player to compete on one position with the second most expensive player at the club. 

We needed to bring in someone like Alvarez. Someone young who didn't command a big fee and on relatively low wages who was happy to learn his trade and try to take the chance when given. In fact, Archer is perfect for that role, I just don't think the club realised it before the season started. 

The Ings money should have been spent on a central midfielder, without question. 

[The Fun Factory]

2 hours ago, villa89 said:

The plan should have  been to have ings start with Watkins in the bench as cover for FW/LW. There's enough games in the season for both players to see plenty of pitch time and the competition between them might improve ollie. 

Well is there? We are already out of the League cup and have only the FA Cup and  a 38 league schedule to play with. We will probably play no more than about 42-43 games tops.

[AV82]

Ings should be starting every game. He's 5x the player Watkins is.

[Delphinho123]

13 hours ago, AV82 said:

Ings should be starting every game. He's 5x the player Watkins is.

Nonsense statement. 

[Woody1000]

3 minutes ago, Delphinho123 said:

Nonsense statement. 

This is the biggest problem I find these days, if he’d said something sensible that you feel there is something to debate about then it’s fine, but it’s just so over the top every time these days. Like you say it’s a ridiculous statement.

[Delphinho123]

18 minutes ago, Woody1000 said:

This is the biggest problem I find these days, if he’d said something sensible that you feel there is something to debate about then it’s fine, but it’s just so over the top every time these days. Like you say it’s a ridiculous statement.

Exactly. There is a perfectly reasonable discussion to be had on who is the better player. Ings, for example, is better than certain things than Watkins, no question.

Personally, I think in a 4-3-3 formation, Watkins is the more useful player as his energy, workrate and pace is what you need in a 'lone' striker. Ings will definitely stake a claim to his place though, being a very good striker himself. 

[Risso]

I like Ings as a player, I just don’t see how he fits into our team or our style based on how we played last season, and I remain convinced the signing was rushed through to give the fans a ‘name’ following the sale of Grealish.  Trying to shoehorn him and Watkins into the same team is madness.

[VillaChris]

Anyone know if he'll be back for Friday?

Would be one player up for that match at least given he'll probably get some stick from their fans.

[lexicon]

15 hours ago, AV82 said:

Ings should be starting every game. He's 5x the player Watkins is.

He's not. They both have a lot of plusses. Ings is definitely a more natural finisher, though - more predatory. Watkins can learn a lot from him.

[villalad21]

The likes of Archer and Davis would have been absolutely fine backup options for Watkins.

I echo the thread. Didn't need him.

[birdman]

5 minutes ago, villalad21 said:

The likes of Archer and Davis would have been absolutely fine backup options for Watkins.

I echo the thread. Didn't need him.

Can't agree with this. When Watkins gets injured we need a player of Ings calibre as backup. Take Ings away and instantly squad depth is dodgy. As well as Archer is progressing its not the time to rely on him or Davis for that matter. 

Edited November 3, 2021 by birdman

[OutByEaster?]

I think it's a really good thing to have two players of this quality competing for one spot in the team and covering each other in times of injury. It's a sign of our strength.

Trying to shoehorn them both into the team is a daft idea.

There's a massive gap between Ings and Watkins and the rest of our strikers - we're going to need both over the course of the season.

 

[AV82]

4 hours ago, Delphinho123 said:

Exactly. There is a perfectly reasonable discussion to be had on who is the better player. Ings, for example, is better than certain things than Watkins, no question.

Personally, I think in a 4-3-3 formation, Watkins is the more useful player as his energy, workrate and pace is what you need in a 'lone' striker. Ings will definitely stake a claim to his place though, being a very good striker himself. 

Ings works harder and presses more than Watkins. Besides a shade of pace (which we don't really utilise at the moment) I can't see anything that Watkins brings to the table.

[Zatman]

2 hours ago, birdman said:

Can't agree with this. When Watkins gets injured we need a player of Ings calibre as backup. Take Ings away and instantly squad depth is dodgy. As well as Archer is progressing its not the time to rely on him or Davis for that matter. 

Archer was also nowhere near an option during the transfer window, he just returned from a spell in the conference 

[Spoony]

3 hours ago, OutByEaster? said:

I think it's a really good thing to have two players of this quality competing for one spot in the team and covering each other in times of injury. It's a sign of our strength.

Trying to shoehorn them both into the team is a daft idea.

There's a massive gap between Ings and Watkins and the rest of our strikers - we're going to need both over the course of the season.

 

I agree. The problem is that if we want to progress then we need to have two quality players in every position. But, we just aren’t there yet and as such it’s hard to convince a quality player to sign for Villa if they’re not guaranteed to start.

It’s a bit of a chicken/egg situation. If Ings insisted that he must start when fit when he signed (and he’d be in his rights to ask that of Villa given the likes of Chelsea and City would happily snap him up and plonk him on the bench), then we shouldn’t have signed him. I can’t believe he’s here to warm benches so I wonder if this was a poor signing. 

[PaulC]

23 hours ago, Delphinho123 said:

I don't think we needed to sign Ings. I think he is a good striker, don't get me wrong, but we are simply not in a position to spend that much money on a player to compete on one position with the second most expensive player at the club. 

We needed to bring in someone like Alvarez. Someone young who didn't command a big fee and on relatively low wages who was happy to learn his trade and try to take the chance when given. In fact, Archer is perfect for that role, I just don't think the club realised it before the season started. 

The Ings money should have been spent on a central midfielder, without question. 

Yes we needed a proper no.6 as priority not a striker. 

[jim]

8 hours ago, villalad21 said:

The likes of Archer and Davis would have been absolutely fine backup options for Watkins.

I echo the thread. Didn't need him.

Would they bollocks. Davis couldn’t finish his dinner and Archer is vastly inexperienced at this level. Having a player like Ings or Watkins to come on when we need a goal is a great place to be.

[villalad21]

19 minutes ago, jim said:

Would they bollocks. Davis couldn’t finish his dinner and Archer is vastly inexperienced at this level. Having a player like Ings or Watkins to come on when we need a goal is a great place to be.

Getting in a DM instead would be a greater place to be.