Danny Ings

[skarroki]

There's a big spectrum between Ings being a good and bad signing. He doesn't have to be a complete write off or an amazing transfer. I think he currently sits somewhere in the middle, probably leaning more towards good because of his qualities and match-winning performances already. 

I like him and would like him playing most games. I think if I was picking on ability I'd want the Rangers narrow 4-3-3 formation with Watkins left, Bailey right and Ings central but I dunno whether benching Buendia is a good idea.  It's frustrating to have so many good options in attack that don't fit together or suit a similar system. 

[KentVillan]

35 minutes ago, skarroki said:

There's a big spectrum between Ings being a good and bad signing. He doesn't have to be a complete write off or an amazing transfer. I think he currently sits somewhere in the middle, probably leaning more towards good because of his qualities and match-winning performances already. 

I like him and would like him playing most games. I think if I was picking on ability I'd want the Rangers narrow 4-3-3 formation with Watkins left, Bailey right and Ings central but I dunno whether benching Buendia is a good idea.  It's frustrating to have so many good options in attack that don't fit together or suit a similar system. 

It's more that, when you're at our level, still trying to build a squad, you don't have the luxury of just randomly adding quality to the squad. You really need to think carefully about how each big signing adds to the first 11.

My feeling is that in Ings we've got at worst a player who completely unsettles Watkins, gives the manager a tactical headache, and can't lead the line for a whole season... and at best, is an impact sub or a useful (but not brilliant) backup at lone striker when Watkins is injured.

I don't see Gerrard sacrificing his tactical principles to keep Ings happy. Smith tried that, and it arguably cost him his job. Most likely Ings is going to end up getting benched, or playing out of position. Is that what a 29-year-old with England ambitions wants?

I'd love to be proved wrong, because Ings is a brilliant player, and I have no issues at all with his attitude. Just really struggling to work out what we do with him. I think the idea that Watkins can play wide striker is a myth. He might have played there in League One and the Championship briefly, but all his best top flight performances have been as a lone striker.

[TomC]

Watkins: 10 appearances in the PL, 3 goals, 0 assists.

Ings: 10 appearances in the PL, 3 goals, 2 assists.

They are our joint top scorers, which is what you would expect from your strikers. Would Watkins have scored more if he had played in the centre the whole time? Probably. But let's not pretend that Ings has been a bad signing when he has more goal contributions than anyone else.

Watkins is a fan favorite given what he did last year, but if you're going with only one, you could go with Ings just as easily.

 

 

[Laughable Chimp]

5 hours ago, TomC said:

Watkins: 10 appearances in the PL, 3 goals, 0 assists.

Ings: 10 appearances in the PL, 3 goals, 2 assists.

They are our joint top scorers, which is what you would expect from your strikers. Would Watkins have scored more if he had played in the centre the whole time? Probably. But let's not pretend that Ings has been a bad signing when he has more goal contributions than anyone else.

Watkins is a fan favorite given what he did last year, but if you're going with only one, you could go with Ings just as easily.

 

 

Okay, been meaning to bring this up for a while now. Firstly, one of Ings goals is a penalty. So Watkins has the edge on him in goals.

Secondly and more importantly, Ings has 2 key passes in 10 games. That is utterly abysmal, yet he also has 2 assists. It should go without question, but he is very heavily outperforming his expected assist stats atm. He's been very fortunate in this regard.

Those assists aren't a good indicator of how well he is actually involved in the teams link up play. He's been very isolated up front especially compared to Watkins. There's also a reason Watkins feels more involved in play and why the lionshare of chances keep falling to him even when he's playing alongside Ings. 

If anything this situation has taught me, it's that there really is more to a striker than simply finishing. That movement up front to get into good positions and the ability to link up with other players and lead the line is crucial as well. Something Watkins does better than Ings.

I know it seems crazy to suggest that such a proven striker such as Ings may not have  elite movement up front but Ings xG stats last season were not good with Southampton either. He made it up with elite finishing ability. To an extent that's been true this season as well, but the well has truly dried up in terms of chances now.

Yes Ings has been a bad signing so far and his actual goals and assists is masking how poorly he's actually played for us. He looks far from a 30m striker atm and Watkins who hasn't been that good either should be starting over him.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited November 22, 2021 by Laughable Chimp

[lexicon]

8 hours ago, TomC said:

Watkins: 10 appearances in the PL, 3 goals, 0 assists.

Ings: 10 appearances in the PL, 3 goals, 2 assists.

They are our joint top scorers, which is what you would expect from your strikers. Would Watkins have scored more if he had played in the centre the whole time? Probably. But let's not pretend that Ings has been a bad signing when he has more goal contributions than anyone else.

Watkins is a fan favorite given what he did last year, but if you're going with only one, you could go with Ings just as easily.

Ings is not a bad signing because of what he has contributed, nor is it about him being a bad player, the issue from the signing stems from the fact that he doesn't fit into our first XI with Watkins there and he's too good to be a backup. 

If we were in the Europa league, for example, and had more games to worry about, it would have been fine because we could rotate them around quite happily and not lose the level of quality in the ST role. Fact is, Watkins is an elite athlete and doesn't need a lot of time out to recover.

I was surprised by the signing of Ings as I felt we needed backup at ST for Watkins and DI is first XI class. There are some fans who seemingly want 22 players of equal quality to 'provide competition' but the reality is that it doesn't work like that, certainly at our level, and players just end up frustrated, which can have a bad knock-on effect to morale in the dressing room if they kick off. 

Watkins can learn a lot from Ings, but Watkins is first choice for me because while they're different types of striker, they're both on the same level and Watkins at 25 hasn't hit his prime yet - so we should prioritise the younger player. 

[villa89]

When he was on the pitch we didn't create a single chance for him. What do people expect him to do? He's not going to take on 4 players and rattle one into the top corner. 

[Steero113]

1 minute ago, villa89 said:

When he was on the pitch we didn't create a single chance for him. What do people expect him to do? He's not going to take on 4 players and rattle one into the top corner. 

You mean like the other striker in our team did?

 

[Kiwivillan]

4 minutes ago, Steero113 said:

You mean like the other striker in our team did?

 

That was great and I'm glad it happened for him for his confidence and everything else but was Bailey tap in and would've been pilloried if he didn't score

[Steero113]

Just now, Kiwivillan said:

That was great and I'm glad it happened for him for his confidence and everything else but was Bailey tap in and would've been pilloried if he didn't score

Also very true!

[Dave-R]

Ings works best in crowded boxes and the ball is being shuffled around in mad defensive rushes.  we are not pushing the ball into those situations where ings snipes balls, he's a stealer, a complete thief and you have to make those types of mad scrambles happen where Ings just comes in and makes things happen.

I think we're using him wrong or at most not pinging frantic balls into overcrowded boxes.

[QldVilla]

1 minute ago, Dave-R said:

Ings works best in crowded boxes and the ball is being shuffled around in mad defensive rushes.  we are not pushing the ball into those situations where ings snipes balls, he's a stealer, a complete thief and you have to make those types of mad scrambles happen where Ings just comes in and makes things happen.

I think we're using him wrong or at most not pinging frantic balls into overcrowded boxes.

Agree. Been of the opinion for awhile that we need to mix up the delivery into the box more, always seem to be wanting to cross the ball in, rather than those low driving ball’s into crowded spaces.

[TomC]

2 hours ago, lexicon said:

Ings is not a bad signing because of what he has contributed, nor is it about him being a bad player, the issue from the signing stems from the fact that he doesn't fit into our first XI with Watkins there and he's too good to be a backup. 

If we were in the Europa league, for example, and had more games to worry about, it would have been fine because we could rotate them around quite happily and not lose the level of quality in the ST role. Fact is, Watkins is an elite athlete and doesn't need a lot of time out to recover.

I was surprised by the signing of Ings as I felt we needed backup at ST for Watkins and DI is first XI class. There are some fans who seemingly want 22 players of equal quality to 'provide competition' but the reality is that it doesn't work like that, certainly at our level, and players just end up frustrated, which can have a bad knock-on effect to morale in the dressing room if they kick off. 

Watkins can learn a lot from Ings, but Watkins is first choice for me because while they're different types of striker, they're both on the same level and Watkins at 25 hasn't hit his prime yet - so we should prioritise the younger player. 

You're being entirely fair putting them at the same level. I just think that it's good to have DI around. It's still not out of the question that we could be in the Europa League next year, or go on a long FA Cup run this year, or that Watkins could get injured. Cover is good. As you also say, they are different sorts of strikers. Depending on what Gerrard does, there may be tactical situations where one or the other is more appropriate for the tactics on any given day.

As for other people's argument that a DM should have been a higher priority...the club said that they were going to buy Buendia even if Grealish stayed. They didn't spend £90m of the Grealish money. They spent £55m of the Grealish money and £35m of other money. I wouldn't rate the Ings signing based on our needs elsewhere. They could have spent more if Deano or Purslow had pushed for it.

 

Edited November 22, 2021 by TomC

[lexicon]

14 minutes ago, TomC said:

You're being entirely fair putting them at the same level. I just think that it's good to have DI around. It's still not out of the question that we could be in the Europa League next year, or go on a long FA Cup run this year, or that Watkins could get injured. Cover is good. As you also say, they are different sorts of strikers. Depending on what Gerrard does, there may be tactical situations where one or the other is more appropriate for the tactics on any given day.

As for other people's argument that a DM should have been a higher priority...the club said that they were going to buy Buendia even if Grealish stayed. They didn't spend £90m of the Grealish money. They spent £55m of the Grealish money and £35m of other money. I wouldn't rate the Ings signing based on our needs elsewhere. They could have spent more if Deano or Purslow had pushed for it.

 

I certainly don't think that he'll have a negative effect and I agree that it's definitely a case of horse for courses with those two. Ings was the sort of signing we wanted to make and probably wouldn't have been able to the year before, such is his profile, and while he wasn't exactly what we needed at the time, I suppose you have to those when you can get them. 

[brummybloke]

While I was happy we signed ings, and I still think it would work with both ollie and ings in the same team and ungs is a goal scorer, I would be tempted to offer him to Newcastle for 50 million.

They have the money, will be desperate for a proven forward and we double our money in 6 months on a player who hasn't yet settled and is one of the older team players.

 

[Laughable Chimp]

2 minutes ago, brummybloke said:

While I was happy we signed ings, and I still think it would work with both ollie and ings in the same team and ungs is a goal scorer, I would be tempted to offer him to Newcastle for 50 million.

They have the money, will be desperate for a proven forward and we double our money in 6 months on a player who hasn't yet settled and is one of the older team players.

 

They have Wilson, ASM and hell I've heard even Joelinton has started picking up form recently. A 50m striker is going to be the last thing on their transfer agenda.

[KentVillan]

3 minutes ago, brummybloke said:

While I was happy we signed ings, and I still think it would work with both ollie and ings in the same team and ungs is a goal scorer, I would be tempted to offer him to Newcastle for 50 million.

They have the money, will be desperate for a proven forward and we double our money in 6 months on a player who hasn't yet settled and is one of the older team players.

 

I agree. If we can offload Ings to a desperate badly run club that would probably be a result for us. I just don’t think he has a future here, except as an impact sub or as injury cover for Watkins, and he’s too expensive (and too good) to fill that role.

[Mantis]

Still think it was a signing we needed to make. We simply couldn't go into another season whereby we're one bad Watkins injury away from being in complete shit.

Edited December 2, 2021 by Mantis

[Zhan_Zhuang]

29 minutes ago, Mantis said:

Still think it was a signing we needed to make. We simply couldn't go into another season whereby we're one bad Watkins injury away from being in complete shit.

Agreed, but I think Ings has to be content starting on the bench. 

There's no way we can start a game without Watkins on current form.

 

Edited December 2, 2021 by Zhan_Zhuang

[picicata]

3 minutes ago, Mantis said:

Still think it was a signing we needed to make. We simply couldn't go into another season whereby we're one bad Watkins injury away from being in complete shit.

Exactly. The problem isn't Ings, the problem is trying to play them at the same time. 

As it is, we now have two good strikers to put pressure on each other and compete for the strikers slot.

[foreveryoung]

28 minutes ago, brummybloke said:

While I was happy we signed ings, and I still think it would work with both ollie and ings in the same team and ungs is a goal scorer, I would be tempted to offer him to Newcastle for 50 million.

They have the money, will be desperate for a proven forward and we double our money in 6 months on a player who hasn't yet settled and is one of the older team players.

 

An what if Watkins gets injured, the prolific Davis??

Keep him, we don't need to sell or need the £50 million.