duke313 Posted January 8, 2023 Share Posted January 8, 2023 1 hour ago, Sulberto21 said: Woefully starved of the ball today. Bailey and Coutinho were too busy blazing the ball into row z 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OutByEaster? Posted January 8, 2023 Moderator Share Posted January 8, 2023 Service might have been more forthcoming if he'd managed to make a single run during the whole of the game. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
one_ian_taylor Posted January 8, 2023 VT Supporter Share Posted January 8, 2023 8 minutes ago, duke313 said: Bailey and Coutinho were too busy blazing the ball into row z And there was an odd reluctance from both full backs to get wide/put in crosses, despite there being plenty of opportunities to at least try and get to the byeline. Augustinsson especially 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
May-Z Posted January 8, 2023 Share Posted January 8, 2023 Ings movement was ok tonight. They sat so deep on the edge of the box that he couldnt make long runs in behind, but he managed to find gaps in between the CBs and FBs. The problem was that Dougie was rimming Coutinho all game so wouldn't pass to anyone else, and then Coutinho more often than not punted it into the stands from 25 yds. Same with Bailey. He had chances to slot Ings in, but chose to chop and turn repeatedly, often stumbling on the ball. We made Ings look a mug today, rather than it being his fault. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DCJonah Posted January 8, 2023 Share Posted January 8, 2023 7 minutes ago, OutByEaster? said: Service might have been more forthcoming if he'd managed to make a single run during the whole of the game. I think that's a little unfair. I thought his movement was ok. The issue was the ball just kept going back or sideways. We actually looked dangerous when we played it into him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wainy316 Posted January 8, 2023 Share Posted January 8, 2023 Probably the player most strongly linked with a move away and he’s one of the very few that I wouldn’t want to move on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark Albrighton Posted January 8, 2023 VT Supporter Share Posted January 8, 2023 Thought he looked the most creative out of the front three today (not that it was much of a competition). Or at the very least when he had the ball, I felt we looked more dangerous. Funny how we see things differently. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OutByEaster? Posted January 8, 2023 Moderator Share Posted January 8, 2023 I thought of the two strikers, Bailey brought so much more to the game, he didn't look like he had a clue what he was going to do with it, but he brought it - he made runs, tried to make things happen and tried to get involved. Ings may as well have been inflatable today. I wouldn't be the slightest bit concerned about letting him go. We need two or three forwards. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HanoiVillan Posted January 8, 2023 Share Posted January 8, 2023 1 minute ago, OutByEaster? said: I thought of the two strikers, Bailey brought so much more to the game, he didn't look like he had a clue what he was going to do with it, but he brought it - he made runs, tried to make things happen and tried to get involved. Ings may as well have been inflatable today. I wouldn't be the slightest bit concerned about letting him go. We need two or three forwards. Agree with the first paragraph, not the others. But I do think Ings does not suit a lone striker role (which is what it really was, Bailey was deeper and wider), and I think that's fairly well known, so for me that's one criticism I do have of Emery from this game. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WallisFrizz Posted January 8, 2023 Share Posted January 8, 2023 2 minutes ago, HanoiVillan said: Agree with the first paragraph, not the others. But I do think Ings does not suit a lone striker role (which is what it really was, Bailey was deeper and wider), and I think that's fairly well known, so for me that's one criticism I do have of Emery from this game. Yes, Ollie looked much more of a handful when he came on, Ings was barely in the game. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
useless Posted January 8, 2023 Share Posted January 8, 2023 If a suitable offer comes in we should accept whilst we can get some money for him. The aim should be to bring in a striker better than he and Watkins, and then if it's a choice between Watkins and Ings as backup I'd keep Watkins. There's a reason why strikers of Ings type are out of vogue and have been for a long time now, if they're not scoring then they're detrimental to the team. A player more suited to a bygone era that was with us in the nineties. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OutByEaster? Posted January 8, 2023 Moderator Share Posted January 8, 2023 3 minutes ago, HanoiVillan said: Agree with the first paragraph, not the others. But I do think Ings does not suit a lone striker role (which is what it really was, Bailey was deeper and wider), and I think that's fairly well known, so for me that's one criticism I do have of Emery from this game. Possibly, I think Emery likes one striker to play with more freedom than the other, but I think ideally he wants both strikers to each be able to get wide while the other remains central. I think by nature Bailey does more of that because he's naturally a wide player, in theory it should then suit Ings to remain central and work as a poacher. He just looks done to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
villaglint Posted January 8, 2023 Share Posted January 8, 2023 3 minutes ago, useless said: If a suitable offer comes in we should accept whilst we can get some money for him. The aim should be to bring in a striker better than he and Watkins, and then if it's a choice between Watkins and Ings as backup I'd keep Watkins. There's a reason why strikers of Ings type are out of vogue and have been for a long time now, if they're not scoring then they're detrimental to the team. A player more suited to a bygone era that was with us in the nineties. A detrimental assist you mean? Ings is a tricky one I grant you. But he wasn’t the reason we lost that game. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OutByEaster? Posted January 8, 2023 Moderator Share Posted January 8, 2023 1 minute ago, villaglint said: Ings is a tricky one I grant you. But he wasn’t the reason we lost that game. The reason we lost the game was our lack of penetration, our inability to turn possession around the opposition box into goals. That may or may not be down to Ings (who I thought was our worst player on the night) but it is something that we should be getting out of our centre forwards. I thought the reason we lost the game was because we didn't look a threat up front. Whether that's personally on Ings, I'm happy to let you decide, but I think we need better forwards as an absolute priority. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
useless Posted January 8, 2023 Share Posted January 8, 2023 The goal itself was very good, including the Ings' part in it. Just a shame about the rest of the game. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
villaglint Posted January 8, 2023 Share Posted January 8, 2023 3 minutes ago, OutByEaster? said: The reason we lost the game was our lack of penetration, our inability to turn possession around the opposition box into goals. That may or may not be down to Ings (who I thought was our worst player on the night) but it is something that we should be getting out of our centre forwards. I thought the reason we lost the game was because we didn't look a threat up front. Whether that's personally on Ings, I'm happy to let you decide, but I think we need better forwards as an absolute priority. Yeah agree with pretty much all of that except for Ings being our worst player. As you say, opinions…. He was in middle against 3 CBs while the others all ran away to find space and make things happen. That’s fine but they didn’t make enough happen to finish the game off. We needed him to be there but didn’t manage to unlock the chances for him. We did make one chance to be fair but he took too long so that one is on him. There was a chance when Watkins came on that got flashed across the box and he was several yards back. It was criminal forward play. He got a lot of <5 yard finishes in his first season. Seems to have totally lost that instinct. But agreed I hope 2 out of these 3 new ins are forward players. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DJBOB Posted January 13, 2023 Share Posted January 13, 2023 Should've had a goal. Probably still got an eye for goal. But **** hell he's running in quicksand. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ferguson1 Posted January 13, 2023 Share Posted January 13, 2023 Not sure if he was playing with a knock second half? Appeared to blowing out of his backside though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AVTuco Posted January 13, 2023 VT Supporter Share Posted January 13, 2023 I like Danny a lot, but he's probably not very well suited for Emery's style. Just too slow. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spoony Posted January 14, 2023 Share Posted January 14, 2023 What is it with our players and not taking their chances to impress??? Buendia starts being picked all the time and is anonymous, Coutinho gets his start and does bugger all, Ings gets the majority of a game and is anonymous, Cash starts over Young and does bugger all, it kind of just goes on. I don’t really get it? Why aren’t these players grasping their chances? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts