Jump to content

Danny Ings


HalfTimePost

Recommended Posts

On 14/11/2022 at 07:34, nick76 said:

Given how poor the team has been this season and until recently haven’t scored many goals or even created many goals then 6 goals so far is a pretty decent return how ever they are scored.  

Yes we can argue pen vs non-pen goals but it’s hard to discount deflected goals, loads of strikers get a fair share of deflected goals.

The point is the striker gets into the position to score, strikes, it’s on target and it’s enough for the defender to deflect but it still goes in.  

For all Ollie’s work rate he doesn’t score very often whereas Ings is showing that while he doesn’t get around quite as much as Ollie he does more than his fair share AND is scoring….and for me we need scoring and work rate, that’s why I still assert that buying Ings was a good buy, it’s just finally he’s getting used properly and long may that continue.

And the deflected goal VS Brighton, he did excellently to quickly react to us winning the ball back, turning Dunk inside out in a tight space. It was very sharp, but Ings is a very sharp player.

Edited by Tom13
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bumping this because the transfer thread is fast replacing this one.

I think I'm the only person who still doesn't think this wasn't bad business. He's a great tool to have - he doesn't fit every game and I'm not saying he's a starter for the next three years, but his game doesn't rely on pace. In a dream world where we're in Europe in two years time, he's the kind of player you could bring off the bench who you know is a threat when you're getting balls into the box.

I get the "we could have bought better for the money" argument. I also don't think he's a bad player to have in the squad, and frankly as a starter for where we're at right now.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Vancvillan said:

Bumping this because the transfer thread is fast replacing this one.

I think I'm the only person who still doesn't think this wasn't bad business. He's a great tool to have - he doesn't fit every game and I'm not saying he's a starter for the next three years, but his game doesn't rely on pace. In a dream world where we're in Europe in two years time, he's the kind of player you could bring off the bench who you know is a threat when you're getting balls into the box.

I get the "we could have bought better for the money" argument. I also don't think he's a bad player to have in the squad, and frankly as a starter for where we're at right now.

I’m with you,  I don’t get the disrespect Ings gets and seeing it again in the transfer thread.

He wasn’t brought to be the all action striker like Watkins, he has a role which includes goals if he gets service and now Gerrard ball is out the way we are seeing it.  

He doesn’t have Watkins work rate but he’s a far better scorer than Watkins and still has a very good work rate.  

I thought it was a great buy considering we brought creativity at the same time with Buendia and Bailey.  I still feel it was decent business and he’s a valuable member of the squad.  

Just like many in the squad including Buendia and Bailey, Gerrard didn’t get the best of of Ings.

I don’t get the disrespect!

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Wurzel said:

Ings has a proven record of scoring in the Premier League. Give him games and supply him with chances he will score 20 goals in a season. It's that simple.

He's only scored 20 goals in a season once in the last 10 year, so I'm not sure it is as simple as that. He's only scored 20 goals in the league once ever

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Stevo985 said:

He's only scored 20 goals in a season once in the last 10 year, so I'm not sure it is as simple as that. He's only scored 20 goals in the league once ever

To be fair very few players have scored 20 league goals in a season in the last few decades.  Your point is valid though but I think Ings can score substantial number of goals if he continues getting service more so than Watkins.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

38 minutes ago, Stevo985 said:

He's only scored 20 goals in a season once in the last 10 year, so I'm not sure it is as simple as that. He's only scored 20 goals in the league once ever

It's a rare feat outside the top clubs though

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Stevo985 said:

I know, that's the point. It's not "simple" that Ings would get 20 goals a season

Agreed, few players score 20 goals a season anymore. It's more a team game and movement creates space for other players. Goals are more spread which is why goal contributions is more a stat for forwards these days than simply goals

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Vancvillan said:

Bumping this because the transfer thread is fast replacing this one.

I think I'm the only person who still doesn't think this wasn't bad business. He's a great tool to have - he doesn't fit every game and I'm not saying he's a starter for the next three years, but his game doesn't rely on pace. In a dream world where we're in Europe in two years time, he's the kind of player you could bring off the bench who you know is a threat when you're getting balls into the box.

I get the "we could have bought better for the money" argument. I also don't think he's a bad player to have in the squad, and frankly as a starter for where we're at right now.

Indeed I always thought Buendia, Bailey and Ings was a decent use of the Jack money.  As a collective we were poor and got worse over time under Gerrard, for example we seemed to want to play exactly the same way whether it was Ollie or Ings leading the line when they are two very different players.  Already Emery seems to have got more out of both of them because he knows how to use them.  Ings was only a 3 year contract too so we won't have to keep him in his declining years like we do with Coutinho.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 hours ago, sharkyvilla said:

Indeed I always thought Buendia, Bailey and Ings was a decent use of the Jack money.  As a collective we were poor and got worse over time under Gerrard, for example we seemed to want to play exactly the same way whether it was Ollie or Ings leading the line when they are two very different players.  Already Emery seems to have got more out of both of them because he knows how to use them.  Ings was only a 3 year contract too so we won't have to keep him in his declining years like we do with Coutinho.

I agree. Smith never got the best out of them because of injury problems and a disrupted pre season.

As for Gerrard, no player could thrive under him. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...
Â