Heroes & Villains, the Aston Villa fanzine
Heroes & Villains => Heroes Discussion => Topic started by: Legion on November 20, 2021, 07:07:35 PM
-
What would you do?
-
Watkins for me with Ings and Archer on the bench.
-
Ings looks like a panic buy all day long. Good player, but not what we needed.
-
Watkins for me with Ings and Archer on the bench.
Yep, same. Can't have 2 guys playing badly together every week. Watkins for now on merit.
-
Panic buy? He was one of the top PL strikers last season.
-
Panic buy? He was one of the top PL strikers last season.
He isn't this season.
-
Maybe not a panic buy, but clearly not right for our system, or fitting the profile of players we normally spend big on.
-
Panic buy? He was one of the top PL strikers last season.
He isn't this season.
Neither is Ollie. We needed back up, we brought in better than we could have dreamed, nobody forced Dean to play them together.
-
Panic buy? He was one of the top PL strikers last season.
He isn't this season.
Neither is Ollie. We needed back up, we brought in better than we could have dreamed, nobody forced Dean to play them together.
He's too good to be a backup for us. As is Ollie.
-
Ings looks like a panic buy all day long. Good player, but not what we needed.
The ings money should have been added onto JWP's bid and we would have a much better squad - certainly in the highsight of how promising Archer looks
-
we need two good strikers - Watkins suits our play better as we don't give Ings enough service
-
Watkins all day long and twice on Tuesdays.
-
Buying Ings was fine, as long as it was on the understanding that he would be competing with Watkins for a place in the starting lineup.
It's the effort to crowbar both into the team that makes it look like a panic buy.
-
For us to be a competitive side we need to have quality in all areas and in numbers. They both want to be the best they can be for a side that's competing so it's select one and go with it and it's up to that one to stay in the side and it's up to the other one to get in. Personally I'd go with ollie but he does need to select one and go with it. The other will have to wait.
-
Watkins.
-
Ings will be on the bench at Palace I reckon.
Last 10 minutes from Ollie gets him a start next week.
-
For us to be a competitive side we need to have quality in all areas and in numbers. They both want to be the best they can be for a side that's competing so it's select one and go with it and it's up to that one to stay in the side and it's up to the other one to get in. Personally I'd go with ollie but he does need to select one and go with it. The other will have to wait.
I agree - but at the same time, Danny Ings is 29 and injury prone with little resell value. I think someone thought they could play together. Sadly they were wrong.
Or, maybe we were thinking we could mix it up with the formations. I still think the 352 for some games, particularly away from home, could be useful.
A top draw midfielder should have been where the money went
-
Ings looks like a panic buy all day long. Good player, but not what we needed.
The ings money should have been added onto JWP's bid and we would have a much better squad - certainly in the highsight of how promising Archer looks
Nobody except Legion knew how good Archer was, the lad has just had a pretty unimpressive loan spell at Solihull Moors.
Ollie hadn't missed a game last season and it would have been extremely brave to bet the farm having Archer or Davis as back up.
-
I’ve always thought they should be competing for a spot.
-
Ings looks like a panic buy all day long. Good player, but not what we needed.
The ings money should have been added onto JWP's bid and we would have a much better squad - certainly in the highsight of how promising Archer looks
Nobody except Legion knew how good Archer was, the lad has just had a pretty unimpressive loan spell at Solihull Moors.
Ollie hadn't missed a game last season and it would have been extremely brave to bet the farm having Archer or Davis as back up.
Yeah that's true @Lange out / @Legion In
-
Ollie. As someone else said, if Ings isn't scoring he isn't doing anything, like today.
-
Watkins with Archer pushing hard.
-
Unfortunately I think Ings was a complete waste of money and a strange signing.
Long term Archer will be fighting Ollie for the starting place.
-
Ings has proven himself to be a top PL striker. He is the most legitimate goal threat. But he cannot do what Ollie can do and the goal was exhibit A of that. But in terms of pure striker it’s Ings. Would be great if Ollie played in that inside left position and made it his own. Two you front just doesn’t work for us.
-
On today’s showing the Greasy money has not been well spent, none of them made an impact in the game.
Ollie was a different player once he was played in his natural position.
-
I think Ings was a signing at a time when a biggish name was required to show Villa could compete in the market. It reminds me a bit of BFR signing Guy Whittingham.
-
We need both. There's no doubt in my mind. Whether they can whether they can work out how to play together however...
-
They should slug it out for the number 9 spot.
-
On today’s showing the Greasy money has not been well spent, none of them made an impact in the game.
Ollie was a different player once he was played in his natural position.
Pretty clear from today that Watkins isn’t going to be good enough on the ball to play out wide in the top flight and create. His position is leading the line and its is going to have to come down to him and Ings battling it out for that spot with the other on the bench.
-
Ings looks like a panic buy all day long. Good player, but not what we needed.
Yeah, it's hard not to arrive at that conclusion.
I like Ings, I just don't see why we bought him when we did.
-
I get buying Ings if you think of it as a squad building exercise - other than a couple of promising youngsters there was zero depth in the striking department. But it doesn’t make sense if you’re trying to shoehorn Ollie and Ings into the same side.
-
Prior to this game,I thought Ings in the centre and Watkins outwide would work and Ings was the best finisher.
Not after today,Ollie wide was ineffective but down the centre he terrorised them.Ings will have to become an impact sub.
-
Prior to this game,I thought Ings in the centre and Watkins outwide would work and Ings was the best finisher.
Not after today,Ollie wide was ineffective but down the centre he terrorised them.Ings will have to become an impact sub.
Which works for everyone as it will protect him. Probably keep him going for a couple of years longer than if he started every week.
-
If you needed any further evidence ungs and watkins havw absolutely zero chemistry then watch todays game.
Ings is agood player but he is not suited to our style of play. A passenger today and he really isnt having any opportunities. I still think tammy would have been a better signing. No idea why we thought ings would be a better long term signing
-
Watkins.
And on recent performances Davies as back up - Ings has been that poor.
-
Davis as back-up? The one who has continually shown he is not good enough at this level? No thanks. Archer is far better.
-
Fair enough.
ABI.
-
Davis as back-up? The one who has continually shown he is not good enough at this level? No thanks. Archer is far better.
Archer is also closer to Watkins in the way he plays. Davis is a completely different type of player. That said I would really like to see if Gerrard could draw out the best in Keinan Davis providing he can stay fit for any length of time.
-
The game has changed a lot. 20-25 years ago you would aim to have four centre forwards in your squad and we certainly did (Yorke, Milosevic, Johnson and Joachim. And, later Dublin, Angel, Vassell, Allback etc).
Now, I suppose three centre forwards is the optimum but two of those three will get very little game time unless they ca play out wide or as inverted wingers.
-
Davis as back-up? The one who has continually shown he is not good enough at this level? No thanks. Archer is far better.
Archer is also closer to Watkins in the way he plays.
Archer has a far better first touch. Both have a wonderful eye for goal.
-
We bought Ings because if Ollie had got injured we had a choice of Wesley who looks a shadow of the player he was pre-injury or Davis who is either always injured or looking horribly out of his depth. As has been pointed out, at the time Ings was signed, Archer wasn't really in the picture. If we hadn't signed a backup to Ollie, Smith would've been getting absolute pelters.
But he's here now and Gerrard showed yesterday that he's willing and able to change things around with his subs. For the first time in 3 years I didn't have a clue who the player coming off was going to be when we made a sub because each one involved a change in how we played - Bailey for Ings moving Ollie to #9, Young for Buendia adding a bit more experience and ball carrying ability, then El Ghazi for Ramsey moving Young back to midfield and letting AEG run at a tired defence. When you've got a manager who's going to shake things up like that there's absolutely a place for a striker with the ability and experience of Ings.
I can see Gerrard starting them both in the short term with Ings as a #9 and Ollie as an inside forward just behind. The key though is to get them both firing as it's not really working with them both in the pitch at the same time
-
I'd go with Watkins but somewhat reluctantly. But since he seemingly goes on strike when being paired with Ings, playing them both is clearly not optimal.
-
Although a very limited player my one main attribute was that I scored goals, I was good inside the box. That is the way I look at Watkins, if he isn't scoring he is pissed off because that's what his reputation is built on, being left out of the England squad would have re-inforced this.
-
If we can have Ollie fit and full of confidence then I’d pick him all day long. I really like Ings and he’s got nothing to prove, he’s a quality player, but Ollie fit us like a glove when we decide to play with a high tempo.
He hasn’t seemed quite himself this season, slow on decisions, loose feet and just generally out of sorts.
-
Watkins for me.
I thought this at the time (honest, I did) but I thought Benteke would have been a better buy. He would have been free, I dont think there would have been as much pressure to start him in games and he's a little different to what we already have. The Ings money then could have gone towards a decent midfielder. I do like Ings though but Watkins is just wasted out wide.
-
When we signed Ings I thought it was finally going to be one on the pitch, one on the bench and there's nothing wrong with that. Yesterday was the ideal time to bring a big hitter on with twenty minutes to go. Luckily we had Bailey fit to do that job.
-
I really like Ings and he’s got nothing to prove, he’s a quality player,
He has for us. While we desperately needed another striker, I think one who has a more similar style to Watkins would have been better. You don't get much in the way of running from Ings.
-
For years we’ve kind of had a pretty much fixed starting 11.
Him and Ollie clearly doesn’t work.
I’m happy for him to be sub, and come on after 60 mins if we need a goal.
That’s what the top teams do with their squads.
-
Was delighted Ollie scored. While I agree he’s better centrally than on the wing, I feel much of his issues this season is down to confidence. At times he’s seemed ponderous/slow/unsure what the next move should be, and then lost the ball. When he’s confident, he drives at defenders and makes the right decision more often than not.
-
Ings had by far the fewest touches of any starter yesterday. Needs to earn his starting place.
-
Ings is prob better coming off the bench or filling in for injury/ suspension in the foreseeable.
At his age he probably won't tolerate that beyond this season.
I wouldn't be stunned if a Brighton or similar came in for him at the back end of the Jan transfer window either. Might give us scope to bring in a more suitable deputy.
-
I’d be happy to go with either and I’m still not convinced that the two can’t work together. That would be dependent on a particular system of course. Last season Watkins was excellent but he had absolutely zero competition for his place. This season he’s got Ings and players coming through the youth system putting pressure on his position which I think has led to his poor start. For the first time in ages we’ve got genuine quality in that position to come in and that should encourage a higher level of performance
-
Ings is the striker for the team Gerrard wants to build, more possession oriented where his link up play and finishing will come to the fore.
Watkins for where we are not where the transition from front to back is more direct.
There is no way Ings would of scored that first goal yesterday.
-
For his goal yesterday, the starting position could just has easily have been the wide left of three. I think it's psychological and he just needs to get over it a bit. If we play them both, they need free licence to go wherever.
-
There is no way Ings would of scored that first goal yesterday.
He would have done if he was playing against us though.
-
For his goal yesterday, the starting position could just has easily have been the wide left of three. I think it's psychological and he just needs to get over it a bit. If we play them both, they need free licence to go wherever.
I wonder if being number one last season just allows him to relax? Now he may feel he has something to prove because his body language is just not the same when he’s out on the left, but apparently he did well there for Brentford.
-
For his goal yesterday, the starting position could just has easily have been the wide left of three. I think it's psychological and he just needs to get over it a bit. If we play them both, they need free licence to go wherever.
I agree with the Ollie bit. I don't think Ings is a free roaming sort of player though. He might do a bit of dropping deep to link play, but mostly he's an 18 yard player, looking for balls to feet to get his shot off.
-
We've got better wingers than Ollie, so let's play them if available and keep him in his best position. Ings will have to fight for his place for now.
-
We've got better wingers than Ollie, so let's play them if available and keep him in his best position. Ings will have to fight for his place for now.
Gerrard does not play wingers, Ollie was not on the wing yesterday.
-
I would leave Ings up front as an out and out striker and allow Watkins a free role coming deep or going wide.
-
We've got better wingers than Ollie, so let's play them if available and keep him in his best position. Ings will have to fight for his place for now.
Gerrard does not play wingers, Ollie was not on the wing yesterday.
Ok. I was sat in on the left hand side of the Trinity and he was certainly the closest attacker to me in the first half, even if he wasn't exactly in a traditional 'hug the touchline' winger role. Avoiding terminology, I'm saying he should have been where Ings was, and I'd play Bailey/El Ghazi where Watkins was.
-
The beauty of Gerrard's preferred approach is that Watkins, Bailey, Buendia, El Ghazi, and Traore can all play the inside forward position. Even Ashley Young was given a crack at it yesterday!
On top of that, Ings, Watkins, Archer and Davis (in case of emergency!) can play the #9 position.
So, just like big clubs should, we have a number of players competing for places, and if we can sort DCM out in January it'll then free up Cash and Targett to get forward and add even more width to the team which'll help Ings massively.
So, I think we need to avoid jumping to any conclusions on Watkins and/or Ings until we see how the team shapes up once they've been able to spend more time with the new management team.
-
I like both of them. We need to play one of them and keep the other for the bench, because that's what big clubs do.
-
I would leave Ings up front as an out and out striker and allow Watkins a free role coming deep or going wide.
Honestly don't think he is good enough on the ball to play that kind of role Damo. He needs to be leading the line as a centre forward.
-
Oh God where do you start. (I haven't voted) . Ings is a centre forward doesn't get anywhere near the service he should.
Watkins talented player, who contrary to his early form last season is I believe better as a link up player with another forward. My assessment though is totally blown out the water by the failure for him to work in tandem with Ings. Watkins gave his best performance of the season yesterday by a million miles at least he gave 110%.
Moving forward if we were to keep Ollie Watkins think it would have to be with a more fluent front partner.
-
Archer and Watkins would be formidable.
-
We've got better wingers than Ollie, so let's play them if available and keep him in his best position. Ings will have to fight for his place for now.
Gerrard does not play wingers, Ollie was not on the wing yesterday.
Ok. I was sat in on the left hand side of the Trinity and he was certainly the closest attacker to me in the first half, even if he wasn't exactly in a traditional 'hug the touchline' winger role. Avoiding terminology, I'm saying he should have been where Ings was, and I'd play Bailey/El Ghazi where Watkins was.
until Bailey gets premiership fit he is an impact player only. El Ghazi is another who can't give a full 90 mins
-
It was hard to pick who the worst of our front three for most of the game yesterday. I thought Watkins could be an option for us out wide on occasion, given his experience there at Brentford. But he was hopeless there yesterday. His first touch has always been an issue but he just kept running into blind alleys. He was transformed once he went up top. With his pace, you always want to keep him on against tired defences so it's rare you would be taking him off. Ings was just the wrong man at the wrong time.
-
We've got better wingers than Ollie, so let's play them if available and keep him in his best position. Ings will have to fight for his place for now.
Gerrard does not play wingers, Ollie was not on the wing yesterday.
Ok. I was sat in on the left hand side of the Trinity and he was certainly the closest attacker to me in the first half, even if he wasn't exactly in a traditional 'hug the touchline' winger role. Avoiding terminology, I'm saying he should have been where Ings was, and I'd play Bailey/El Ghazi where Watkins was.
until Bailey gets premiership fit he is an impact player only. El Ghazi is another who can't give a full 9 mins
FTFY
As I've already said he's a better player without the ball than with it. Sell him in January to Spurs. They specialise with all fart no shit players.
-
We've not done ourselves any favours playing Ollie out of position. I expect we are minus a few goals this season because of it.
-
I've gone for Ollie it was hard to chose but Ollie get's the nod for me.
-
Both for me. I know Ollie looked a bit lost on Saturday, but I still think he can play the Mane / Salah role and score plenty of goals. But If it was one or the other I think Ings would probably be the better link player in a narrow 3 up top.
-
Archer and Watkins would be formidable.
[/quoteArcher and Watkins would be formidable.
Quite possibly mouth watering.
-
Horses for courses. Some games one or the other depending on the game plan/opposition. Some both. There’s got to be a successful way of integrating both and making it work. We’ve got real options now so we’ve got to use them effectively over a long season.
-
Watkins is better if you are playing forward to the striker or across the edge of the box. Ings is better if you are cutting back from the byline or across the 6 yard box. Options.
-
Archer and Watkins would be formidable.
I really hope we get to see this very soon.
-
Think we’re going a bit early on Archer. He’s a young player who has made an impact in a couple of games. Not sure if it’s a good idea to be putting the pressure on. Ings is an established and proven Premier League goal scorer who has scored for his country. We should be working on getting the combo working with Ollie first.
-
Yeah, I wonder if Archer was made available for loan, what sort of clubs would be in for him now - upper Ch'ship or lower ?
-
We need to sort Archer's contract before loaning him out anywhere.
-
I think there would be a lot of clubs in for him if we made him available for loan. After what's happened with Louie Barry, we would have to choose carefully.
Davis was going to Stoke on loan before he got injured (surprise). If he goes out on loan, I doubt there would send both him and Archer out. Archer has the added benefit that he can play as a wide forward.
-
Trouble is Mr. Gerrard seems to prefer Davis atm. I don't know what it is about him and Villa Managers. Maybe they like the theory of a Davis-type player if not the execution.
-
That’s a bit of a presumption after one team selection? Maybe he wanted to watch Archer play a full game for U’23 instead of judging him by his position on the first team bench.
-
yeah, could be.
-
The answer to that will be found out a little more depending on who plays for the U23s this evening.
-
Both for me. I know Ollie looked a bit lost on Saturday, but I still think he can play the Mane / Salah role and score plenty of goals. But If it was one or the other I think Ings would probably be the better link player in a narrow 3 up top.
That’s how I see it too
-
Trouble is Mr. Gerrard seems to prefer Davis atm. I don't know what it is about him and Villa Managers. Maybe they like the theory of a Davis-type player if not the execution.
Stevie would have spent a lot of his 20s nuzzling up to Emule.
-
Davis currently over Archer.
-
Maybe he's trying to shift one of them and make a few quid? Just a thought.
-
Well he's not gonna raise much in Davis' case and Archer is a kid. Not the two players I'd pick to try and sell to raise funds. Looking at the contract situation, you have to say the only ones that would raise a bit with contracts nearing their end would be Trez who's crocked. AEG and Luis. EDIT. oh and Hause possibly if he's after a central defender as rumoured.
-
Ings needs to accept where he's at in his career now. He will still add a lot of value over the next 3 years but it's going to be impact, tactical and covering injuries. He's our jamie vardy and we will at some point need him. It will work well for us and him to see out his days with us.
-
Watkins has regained his form the past two matches and is causing the opposition all kinds of trouble, the way Gerrard
has structured the side I struggle to see Danny beig a replacement should Watking get injured, two totally different playing styles.
-
His work on Sunday with his back to goal was superb, always showing for the pass and either holding the defender off or winning a free kick. He's definitely happier in this role, playing in a two crowds him out and makes him have to think twice about his runs.
-
His work on Sunday with his back to goal was superb, always showing for the pass and either holding the defender off or winning a free kick. He's definitely happier in this role, playing in a two crowds him out and makes him have to think twice about his runs.
Agreed, I think wha we've seen in the last couple of months has made it very clear that he's not a wide player.
-
I wish he'd learn to dink it over the keeper though, rather than hitting it straight at him as he seems a bit too keen on doing.
-
His work on Sunday with his back to goal was superb, always showing for the pass and either holding the defender off or winning a free kick. He's definitely happier in this role, playing in a two crowds him out and makes him have to think twice about his runs.
Agreed, I think wha we've seen in the last couple of months has made it very clear that he's not a wide player.
And what I've seen since he's joined us is that he is absolutely no.1 choice, one of the core 'plays every game if fit' players. He's perfect for the way we're trying play, Gerrard must think it's Christmas having him to work with.
-
His work on Sunday with his back to goal was superb, always showing for the pass and either holding the defender off or winning a free kick. He's definitely happier in this role, playing in a two crowds him out and makes him have to think twice about his runs.
Agreed, I think wha we've seen in the last couple of months has made it very clear that he's not a wide player.
And what I've seen since he's joined us is that he is absolutely no.1 choice, one of the core 'plays every game if fit' players. He's perfect for the way we're trying play, Gerrard must think it's Christmas having him to work with.
absolutely, that's why I always wanted the 'competition' for him to come in the form of someone who could play right across the front 3 rather than another out and out striker because I don't know how we keep Ings happy on the bench whereas someone who was starting plenty of games in the 2 other attacking roles but going up front at times would be easier to keep sweet.
-
Until the last few games, it since he’s been in that central role is forgotten how brilliant he is with his back to goal. He’s not massive but he is superb at getting his body in the way and holding players off. He’s one of the best we’ve had in absolute donkeys years at this.
His body language is so much better as well now he’s more central.
-
Conversely - i would of backed Ings to have finished both chances that Watkins missed. For all his many attributes i dont think Ollie is a natural finisher
-
Conversely - i would of backed Ings to have finished both chances that Watkins missed. For all his many attributes i dont think Ollie is a natural finisher
I probably would have said something similar, but from what I've seen of him in Villa shirt Ings has missed similar chances.
-
My Daughters fiancé knows the family. There is talk that he may not play again. That's all I know.
-
Ings? For us for anyone?
-
If true, it would be pure Villa.
-
Ings? For us for anyone?
For anyone. He also said the injury isn't what is being reported, Muscle, Thigh or Hamstring but rather his knee. This seems to annoy the Ings family for some reason.
He'll probably play at the weekend now!
-
Luckily we are protected by insurance and our medics would have done anything necessary when he joined....right ?
-
Luckily we are protected by insurance and our medics would have done anything necessary when he joined....right ?
Well we've always done our due diligence in the past, so i don't see wh..... oh.
-
Luckily we are protected by insurance and our medics would have done anything necessary when he joined....right ?
Well we've always done our due diligence in the past, so i don't see wh..... oh.
Maybe, but probably only if he is completely written off by the doctors as never being able to play again.
-
The fact we've let Keinan go out on-loan suggests Danny may not be perma-crocked.
-
The fact we've let Keinan go out on-loan suggests Danny may not be perma-crocked.
Has KD actually gone out on loan or is he simply expressing his wish to be so?
-
The fact we've let Keinan go out on-loan suggests Danny may not be perma-crocked.
I don't think anything has been arranged or confirmed yet.
-
The fact we've let Keinan go out on-loan suggests Danny may not be perma-crocked.
I think the story of him being permanently crooked were widely off the mark. Hes pictured on the main site in training suggesting hes fit again.
-
Watkins regular starter mostly. Ings as impact and occasional starter
-
The fact we've let Keinan go out on-loan suggests Danny may not be perma-crocked.
I think the story of him being permanently crooked were widely off the mark. Hes pictured on the main site in training suggesting hes fit again.
Miraculous recovery from career ending injury. Seems his uncles, nephews window cleaner is wide of the mark.
-
The fact we've let Keinan go out on-loan suggests Danny may not be perma-crocked.
I think the story of him being permanently crooked were widely off the mark. Hes pictured on the main site in training suggesting hes fit again.
Miraculous recovery from career ending injury. Seems his uncles, nephews window cleaner is wide of the mark.
Must have gone to the same Hospital as Schmeichel.
-
The fact we've let Keinan go out on-loan suggests Danny may not be perma-crocked.
I think the story of him being permanently crooked were widely off the mark. Hes pictured on the main site in training suggesting hes fit again.
And the official Twitter has the caption "Back soon".
-
The fact we've let Keinan go out on-loan suggests Danny may not be perma-crocked.
I think the story of him being permanently crooked were widely off the mark. Hes pictured on the main site in training suggesting hes fit again.
And the official Twitter has the caption "Back soon".
I wonder if that is Aston Villa "soon" or "soon" as it is usually understood in every other usage.
-
"It’s great to have Danny (Ings) back in full training, he’s training quite well.
We’ve obviously got three games coming up in a week so we’ll have to manage his load.
But it’s great to have him back, it’s a real big boost for us. He certainly brings a lot more firepower to the squad." - Gerrard at the press conference.
Doesn't exactly sound like it was serious.
-
My Daughters fiancé knows the family. There is talk that he may not play again. That's all I know.
That is some recovery from Ings to come back from a possible career ending injury so quickly.
-
It needs to be one or the other. Watkins out wide is a waste of a position when we have specialists who can play that role.
-
They continue to play like two strangers when on pitch together. It's a big problem.
-
Can see both starting v Burnley.
-
Watkins is miles better, even when he doesn't score he contributes so much.
Ings is a good backup.
Watkins for me.
-
Watkins is miles better, even when he doesn't score he contributes so much.
Ings is a good backup.
Watkins for me.
I absolutely agree with you. However, I thought today his pressing and movement off the ball were quite poor. We definitely needed to get higher up the pitch after they scored and we needed him to do that by starting the press.
-
My Daughters fiancé knows the family. There is talk that he may not play again. That's all I know.
That is some recovery from Ings to come back from a possible career ending injury so quickly.
They probably meant Monopoly.
-
My Daughters fiancé knows the family. There is talk that he may not play again. That's all I know.
That is some recovery from Ings to come back from a possible career ending injury so quickly.
At least Andy now knows that his daughter’s fiancé is a wrong un.
-
My Daughters fiancé knows the family. There is talk that he may not play again. That's all I know.
That is some recovery from Ings to come back from a possible career ending injury so quickly.
At least Andy now knows that his daughter’s fiancé is a wrong un.
He is. I know that already. He does know the Ings though, as well as a few others. He and his Dad have played for saints at low level. He has a box there too. He's the sort of bloke who knows the price of everything and the value of nothing.
-
Gerrard said in the post-match interview we need both Watkins and Ings firing to get us to where we want to be. No argument with that. Solving that riddle won't be easy though.
-
There’s no riddle to solve. Watkins is first choice, a goal and an assist last night. If Ings wants to be in the team he’ll have to take up one of the wide forward positions, I’m heartily sick of Watkins being pushed wide to accommodate Ings being bought on. If Ings can only be bought on to play in the spearhead role then for me it shows his limitations as a player. He’s a clinical finisher, probably more so than Ollie but he’s looking like a square peg in this squad currently.
-
Gerrard said in the post-match interview we need both Watkins and Ings firing to get us to where we want to be. No argument with that. Solving that riddle won't be easy though.
exactly, although I do not think it is as big a problem.
If all 3 forwards interchange as you saw after Ings came on and Ollie got his goal coming in from the right.
-
Trying to get Ings in the team with Ollie Watkins reminds a bit of Brian Little trying to accommodate Stan Collymore in a team with Dwight Yorke and Savo Milosevic. We lost something from Yorke by moving him to midfield and we lose something from Ollie when he is moved wide.
-
Ings plays on the shoulder, one of the best around, Watkins is by far the better with his back to goal (despite some unstickability in his last couple of performances). For how we play now, it's got to be Watkins at CF.
Although I also think that if we went with Ings there, the player most likely to feed him what he loves is Watkins.
-
I still think they can and will be effective together in a three.
-
Hopefully Watkins scoring will inject some confidence into him, as I thought he was our least effective player last night. He seemed to lose the ball an awful lot and always seemed to make the wrong decision, which more often than not consisted of firing the ball into a defender's legs to see it ping away to safety.
-
Ollie clearly does not relish going out wide.
Ings just looks a yard slow and out of place to me. I'd take our money back on him tomorrow.
-
Trying to get Ings in the team with Ollie Watkins reminds a bit of Brian Little trying to accommodate Stan Collymore in a team with Dwight Yorke and Savo Milosevic. We lost something from Yorke by moving him to midfield and we lose something from Ollie when he is moved wide.
Yes I think Gerard has established moving Watkins out wide is counter productive.
-
Although it did lead to him scoring last night, when he was further forward than the more central Ings.
-
Ollie clearly does not relish going out wide.
Ings just looks a yard slow and out of place to me. I'd take our money back on him tomorrow.
I suppose we need to give him a proper chance under Gerrard, but in all honesty I agree with you. He looks old way beyond his years and plays like it too.
-
Watkins' goal came from starting in a wide position. I would imagine that Gerrard has said that starting wide doesn't seem to have done Mane and Salah any harm.
If Watkins can learn to be just as effective in either role, it's really going to benefit him. Both playing for us and when being considered as part of the England squad.
-
Watkins' goal came from starting in a wide position. I would imagine that Gerrard has said that starting wide doesn't seem to have done Mane and Salah any harm.
If Watkins can learn to be just as effective in either role, it's really going to benefit him. Both playing for us and when being considered as part of the England squad.
I think to do that Ollie is going to have to improve his general play a fair bit.
-
Watkins' goal came from starting in a wide position. I would imagine that Gerrard has said that starting wide doesn't seem to have done Mane and Salah any harm.
If Watkins can learn to be just as effective in either role, it's really going to benefit him. Both playing for us and when being considered as part of the England squad.
That's a very good point, if Ings had not been playing then Ollie would probably been central (where Ings was covering), and wouldn't have scored.
-
£25m on Danny on...what, £100K+ a week(?), does look a bit pants-pulled. And seems as if it was an appeasing the fans with the then imminent Grealish departure the same week but I was really excited at the time as I genuinely thought Dean had a plan for getting Watkins and Ings to thrive in the same team. Might still happen but...
-
£25m on Danny on...what, £100K+ a week(?), does look a bit pants-pulled. And seems as if it was an appeasing the fans with the then imminent Grealish departure the same week but I was really excited at the time as I genuinely thought Dean had a plan for getting Watkins and Ings to thrive in the same team. Might still happen but...
Just read an article that suggests he’s on £120k a week, by far and away our biggest earner as Tyrone is next on £80k with Ollie on £75k. I really hope he doesn’t become a very expensive mistake….
-
No wonder both Gerrard and Smith have been trying to find a spot for him in the team. He may turn it around yet but it's always a mistake when you sign someone and you're having to change what's worked previously in order to fit them in.
-
I wouldn't be at all surprised to see him used in a make weight toe deal in the summer that suits all parties for a different type of forward.
-
We’ve cried out to have more quality options than just one striker since we got back up. Ings is a proven striker of quality that clubs higher up the league would happily take. His combination play is good, probably better than Watkins IMO. If they can’t find a way to play together then I think it’s a will not a skill issue. Gerrard needs to make it work. Having both such goal threats on the pitch would be a massive plus if we’re getting 30 premier league goals between them. With Traore, Bailey out, El Ghazi currently absent, now is the time to make it work.
-
Ollie clearly does not relish going out wide.
Ings just looks a yard slow and out of place to me. I'd take our money back on him tomorrow.
I suppose we need to give him a proper chance under Gerrard, but in all honesty I agree with you. He looks old way beyond his years and plays like it too.
He's starting to remind me of Cascarino. A very one dimensional goal hanger and the wrong signing for us. I hope I'm wrong.
-
Just maybe Ings will go to Newcastle this window
-
Just maybe Ings will go to Newcastle this window
50 million and we might start talking.
-
Looks like neither for the foreseeable.
-
Just maybe Ings will go to Newcastle this window
No point him leaving next month. We're sending Davis finally out on loan, Wes I presume can't be recalled (and given he's barely starting in Belgium not going to make much impact in prem) and our other forwards like Traore and Bailey have been injured for 90% of the season.
He does look the wrong fit for us though so next summer will be interesting if we get some interest. Just the right signing at wrong time, he'd have been brilliant pick up in summer 2019 for example.
-
Watkins linked with moves again...
-
Watkins linked with moves again...
Liverpool next summer
-
Unless we break this cycle of selling we wont progress.
-
Unless we break this cycle of selling we wont progress.
I kind of agree, but all clubs sell players.
One thing with Danny Ings being at the club is that we have now have a realistic option if someone comes in with a silly offer for Ollie. We identify a player who's an upgrade on him, buy that player, play Danny Ings for the next 6-12 months whilst the new lad settles, then go full belt and we end up (hopefully) making a profit on Ollie, improving the quality of the first team, and don't need to worry so much about the new chap settling as we'll already have a settled striker.
-
Would prefer to sell Ings and keep Watkins.
-
Watkins linked with moves again...
Liverpool next summer
Not good enough on the ball to succeed for them, in my arrogant opinion.
-
Arsenal the most likely destination for Watkins, he's supposed to be a fan isn't he? Plus they will be culling Auba and Lacazette from their wage bill asap. Don't think he is good enough yet for the 'big 3'. Konsa and Martinez definitely are though.
-
Watkins linked with moves again...
Liverpool next summer
Not good enough on the ball to succeed for them, in my arrogant opinion.
I agree he needs to improve his first touch and decision making in the penalty area.
-
Watkins linked with moves again...
Liverpool next summer
At some point we've got to start saying 'no' Having pocketed £100m from Grealish I'd be really surprised if we considered letting Watkins go in the summer.
-
It's about time we put a bid in for a starting player from one of the 'so called' top 6.
Say, 50 million for Andy Robertson etc. Let the feckers know what it feels like and that the tables are turning.
Sick to death of being poached. This is not a one-way process. We should no longer be a feeder club.
FWIW, keep both Watkins/Ings and get about 5 more first team quality players for our bench/selection.
-
Ings is a problem isn't he?
Again on the periphery of the game and when he did get ball on edge of the box he was too slow to shot. Last season he was smashing one in top corner from 25 yards for Southampton v us.
Chelsea putting on Lukaku and him making a vast different to their play in their final third really shows lack of impact Ings has had for us I think.
Only difference is the crossing from both our FBs is pretty rubbish, countless times Targett hits the ball flat and it just gets cleared by first man. Again tonight shows vast difference with how Chelsea get crosses in.
-
Arsenal the most likely destination for Watkins, he's supposed to be a fan isn't he? Plus they will be culling Auba and Lacazette from their wage bill asap. Don't think he is good enough yet for the 'big 3'. Konsa and Martinez definitely are though.
Fuck me. Why do we even bother. I remember as far back as two second place finishes.
-
Arsenal the most likely destination for Watkins, he's supposed to be a fan isn't he? Plus they will be culling Auba and Lacazette from their wage bill asap. Don't think he is good enough yet for the 'big 3'. Konsa and Martinez definitely are though.
Do you write for the Birmingham Mail by any chance?
-
Both absolutely useless today. Ings, lost with us. Watkins, oh my...first touch urgently required.
-
Where's the Neither option?
-
Could see Ings going out on loan somewhere to get him contributing. Sadly we are weaker with him playing than when he's not.
-
Where's the Neither option?
Fair point at the moment. Davis is a busted flush so why not try Archer?
-
Watkins linked with moves again...
Liverpool next summer
If he’s playing for a move he’s doing a pretty poor job. No way is he anywhere near good enough for Liverpool on current form.
-
Watkins best games this season have been playing as the centre forward. Is too obvious what needs to be done.
-
Sorry but ings has been a major disappointment for me. Has flopped badly so far.
-
Where's the Neither option?
Fair point at the moment. Davis is a busted flush so why not try Archer?
I was saying to the brother in law we need to bring Archer on as neither Ings or Watkins looked like a striker. Why was Archer not even on the bench?
-
He was with the first team squad but not selected for the match.
-
Yet they found space for Davis and even El Ghazi.
-
It just doesn't work with both of them. Play one or the other. Simple.
-
It just doesn't work with both of them. Play one or the other. Simple.
Watkins then.
-
Yet they found space for Davis and even El Ghazi.
Beggars belief.
-
Yep.
It just doesn't work with both of them. Play one or the other. Simple.
Watkins then.
yep. If Watkins struggles, then Ings. Can't shoehorn both in.
-
Get the feeling they don’t particularly revel in each other’s playing company either.
-
I’d be shopping Ings to Newcastle and see if we can make a profit on him in January.
They’d be tempted I reckon and will be paying over the top in their position.
-
I’d be shopping Ings to Newcastle and see if we can make a profit on him in January.
They’d be tempted I reckon and will be paying over the top in their position.
Think Brighton would be ideal for him but no idea if they'd get close to paying 30m +.
I'd keep him until the summer and look at it then.
Sort of striker we need is the Jarred Bowen. One who's happy playing out wide in front 3 and can chip in with double figures and then play as CF when Ollie isn't playing.
I do think that was club's plan but Grealish leaving scrambled minds a little and perhaps they felt Ings being offered to us was a chance we couldn't pass up which felt logical at the time.
-
It just won't happen for Ings and he doesn't look like he's enjoying his football at the minute - ollie tried to set him up a couple of times but I don't think this has got Withe/Shaw written all over it.
-
Still wish we went for tammy. I said it at the time and i still stand by it.
Complete waste of money so far
-
Still wish we went for tammy. I said it at the time and i still stand by it.
Complete waste of money so far
The problem would still be there though. Tammy wouldn't have come to play second to ollie. In my opinion, the issue isn't that ings can't play down the centre it's when that ollie can't or won't play wide to a sufficient standard.
-
Still wish we went for tammy. I said it at the time and i still stand by it.
Complete waste of money so far
The problem would still be there though. Tammy wouldn't have come to play second to ollie. In my opinion, the issue isn't that ings can't play down the centre it's when that ollie can't or won't play wide to a sufficient standard.
I agree with this. If we want to push on to be a better team we’ve got to have a bigger squad with more quality options and tactical flexibility in those that play. Nobody can say that Ings isn’t an upgrade on Wesley, Davis or Kodjia. Ollie is likely to play more for England if he can play wide and up top. He needs to work on his game more in general because at the highest level you can’t waste the ball as often with the limited time you have. He’ll score more goals and get more assists if he does so.
-
Neither by today’s performance.
-
Has to be one or the other, they get in each others way and have zero chemistry or understanding of each others game. Today Ings was the better of the two, Ollie is not good playing wider.
Would not be unhappy if we sold both and got two new players that fit the way Gerrard wants to play better.
-
As others have said there appears to be no chemistry or understanding between them. In Watkins case it’s because he’s being pissed about shuffling from the main central striker to one of the wider positions so he can’t get in any kind of rythmn and in Ings case he keeps getting injured and having periods out of the team but has to play as the main striker as he’s utterly ineffective as a wide forward and Watkins has to be compromised.
In my view Watkins is the main striker, Ings is his back up and the biggest mistake we made was not signing wide forwards in the summer or at a minimum players who can play across the front three. This continual need to shoehorn them both in is pissing me off.
To add insult to injury, we have two main central strikers backed up by a third player who can only play as the spearhead as well in Davis who in this scenario is a waste of a substitute space as Archer could I feel play either side in a wide forward position.
I realise we’ve changed Manager so we’ve gone from a 1 striker 2 wingers to a 1 striker 2 wide forwards scenarios but it means we lack any fluidity and connectivity between our forward players. How many times since Gerrard has arrived has our at times superbly fluid and incisive build up play floundered with poor passing, poor option taking and linking in the front three?
It’s the biggest flaw in the team at the moment for me.
-
Getting both in the side is equating to us playing with 10 men at the moment.
It's just not working and I know Ollie played wide for Brentford but we're at a totally different level.
His dreadful cross to Ings inside the first few minutes summed it up for me.
He has to play upfront or not at all and Ings is backup as there seems to be no sign of any type of partnership between the two.
-
I would have thought the last few weeks have proved the point that we have a very good striker with a good record but not when you play him as a left winger. We have to be ruthless and if ings gets upset too bad. The same problem with Archer a natural striker who clashes with Watkins, I would think that's why he's not on the bench. We could be looking for a centre forward in the Tammy mould, tall and beefy.
-
I would have thought the last few weeks have proved the point that we have a very good striker with a good record but not when you play him as a left winger. We have to be ruthless and if ings gets upset too bad. The same problem with Archer a natural striker who clashes with Watkins, I would think that's why he's not on the bench. We could be looking for a centre forward in the Tammy mould, tall and beefy.
I’m going to disagree on Archer, I think from what little we’ve seen he has the ability to play across that front three.
-
Don't know if it's been mentioned elsewhere but linked with arsenal and rumours that he was taken out of the squad last minute. Thoughts? I'm not sure how I feel which to me means we could do better.
-
I would have thought the last few weeks have proved the point that we have a very good striker with a good record but not when you play him as a left winger. We have to be ruthless and if ings gets upset too bad. The same problem with Archer a natural striker who clashes with Watkins, I would think that's why he's not on the bench. We could be looking for a centre forward in the Tammy mould, tall and beefy.
I’m going to disagree on Archer, I think from what little we’ve seen he has the ability to play across that front three.
I've seen plenty and he can do the lot.
-
Don't know if it's been mentioned elsewhere but linked with arsenal and rumours that he was taken out of the squad last minute. Thoughts? I'm not sure how I feel which to me means we could do better.
Rumours? No. Bullshit? Yes.
-
Been waiting for some horseshit about a Watkins bid
-
Thought Ings looked much better today and took his goal very well. It's a healthy position to be in to have two good options fighting for the same place.
-
Probably Ings best performance for us. Combined very well with Buendia who played more as a 10. Fine goal and probably should have scored late on. Always looked a threat anyway.
But we had no pace in our front three today which was an issue and Cash/Targett despite lots of possession delivered very little quality out wide. Targett in particular made a mess of two decent chances late on to get the ball across the box to better placed players.
-
Don't know if it's been mentioned elsewhere but linked with arsenal and rumours that he was taken out of the squad last minute. Thoughts? I'm not sure how I feel which to me means we could do better.
I saw what i presumed was just clickbait nonsense about Arsenal and Watkins. However, i was a little disconcerted with Gerards pre match interview, where he seemed to fudge the rxact readon Watkins was out. Probably nothing.
-
Don't know if it's been mentioned elsewhere but linked with arsenal and rumours that he was taken out of the squad last minute. Thoughts? I'm not sure how I feel which to me means we could do better.
I saw what i presumed was just clickbait nonsense about Arsenal and Watkins. However, i was a little disconcerted with Gerards pre match interview, where he seemed to fudge the rxact readon Watkins was out. Probably nothing.
He's just been very careful not to exactly divulge who's out with Covid, even if it's obvious. Not an approach I happen to agree with, but that's all it was.
-
Don't know if it's been mentioned elsewhere but linked with arsenal and rumours that he was taken out of the squad last minute. Thoughts? I'm not sure how I feel which to me means we could do better.
I saw what i presumed was just clickbait nonsense about Arsenal and Watkins. However, i was a little disconcerted with Gerards pre match interview, where he seemed to fudge the rxact readon Watkins was out. Probably nothing.
He's just been very careful not to exactly divulge who's out with Covid, even if it's obvious. Not an approach I happen to agree with, but that's all it was.
Agreed. It seems pretty daft too when Gerrard says "we have a number of players out injured, with covid, and suspended" - we know who's suspended and the club tell us who's injured. So it doesn't exactly need Hercule Poirot to work out who's got covid (or are self-isolating because they're not jabbed)!!
-
I don't understand the secrecy around players about who has tested positive for Covid. It's a pandemic - everyone has either had it, knows someone who has had it or will catch it as some point. It's not like it's chlamydia or something.
-
Trying not to show up the idiots who still refuse the jab.
-
I don't understand the secrecy around players about who has tested positive for Covid. It's a pandemic - everyone has either had it, knows someone who has had it or will catch it as some point. It's not like it's chlamydia or something.
Yes it is. And I would like to put on record that I have never had Covid.
-
I don't understand the secrecy around players about who has tested positive for Covid. It's a pandemic - everyone has either had it, knows someone who has had it or will catch it as some point. It's not like it's chlamydia or something.
Maybe something to do with medical records being private?
-
I don't understand the secrecy around players about who has tested positive for Covid. It's a pandemic - everyone has either had it, knows someone who has had it or will catch it as some point. It's not like it's chlamydia or something.
Yes, but the Covid protocols mean it's the only one of those three reasons where you can be SURE if someone is going to miss a certain game. The isolation period for a positive Covid test is fixed. So I totally understand why the club's position is to not confirm ANY covid cases, because it gives opposition information we'd rather they didn't have.
Admittedly, if the game is a week away it doesn't tell them much, but I'm perfectly happy with the approach that we don't tend to identify covid cases.
-
Trying not to show up the idiots who still refuse the jab.
You can have the jab and still get a positive result though.
It's not difficult to work out though and since we don't know when they first tested positive, you can't know when the isolation period ends.
Watching an NFL game last night and the commentators seemed to know who was vaccinated and who wasn't. I'm not suggesting that's necessary but does highlight a difference between cultures. Just seems odd when you can pretty much work out who's tested positive when you see team sheets.
-
I don't understand the secrecy around players about who has tested positive for Covid. It's a pandemic - everyone has either had it, knows someone who has had it or will catch it as some point. It's not like it's chlamydia or something.
Yes, but the Covid protocols mean it's the only one of those three reasons where you can be SURE if someone is going to miss a certain game. The isolation period for a positive Covid test is fixed. So I totally understand why the club's position is to not confirm ANY covid cases, because it gives opposition information we'd rather they didn't have.
Admittedly, if the game is a week away it doesn't tell them much, but I'm perfectly happy with the approach that we don't tend to identify covid cases.
Totally agree Smithy
-
Don't know if it's been mentioned elsewhere but linked with arsenal and rumours that he was taken out of the squad last minute. Thoughts? I'm not sure how I feel which to me means we could do better.
I saw what i presumed was just clickbait nonsense about Arsenal and Watkins. However, i was a little disconcerted with Gerards pre match interview, where he seemed to fudge the rxact readon Watkins was out. Probably nothing.
He's just been very careful not to exactly divulge who's out with Covid, even if it's obvious. Not an approach I happen to agree with, but that's all it was.
People's tone about this seems somewhat different to the feelings expressed on Smith doing similar...
-
Playing both at the same time does not work, Steven.
-
Amen to that.
-
Never both again. Ings was pulling a train last 20 mins when we needed to be pressing them hard from the front. Poor decision to start them both and even worse not to change it.
-
How many times do we have to prove this point.
-
I only watched the last 20 minutes but it was as clear as day we needed more midfield control and that it wasn’t working up front.
-
It does not work and is not going to work. SG needs to decide how we are going to attack.
I am expecting that when Coutinho arrives he will pick one not both.
-
I only watched the last 20 minutes but it was as clear as day we needed more midfield control and that it wasn’t working up front.
You kind of missed the whole essence of the match
-
On current form my answer to this question would be neither, if we had a reliable replacement.
-
Give Archer a chance. 15-20 mins as a sub if Ings and/or Watkins are not producing the goods. That is what he should be on the bench for.
-
On current form my answer to this question would be neither, if we had a reliable replacement.
That's where I am, sell them both in the summer and buy a real proper striker. Love Ollie for his effort but once again he could hit a cows arse. His lack of control is another factor. Ings I'm still struggling to see exactly what type of striker he is. Maybe we're not playing to either of their strengths but for all the moaning about VAR tonight Ollie missed a hatful that you'd expect most decent strikers to bury. Even Patrick Bamford.
-
With better service incoming, it’s got to be Ings for me - Much better finisher than Ollie.
Bring Ollie on as sub for Ings, to terrorise tiring defenders in the latter stages of the game, and hopefully pick up a little goal scoring form
-
Ings did well at Brentford but was atrocious tonight. Just a complete passenger. At least Watkins was creating chances and making chances for himself. If the Saudis at Newcastle or anyone really were to offer us most of our money back for Ings, we should be getting rid. Just the wrong man at the wrong time.
-
Ings made plenty of good runs and also scored. He ran out of gas and I'm not convinced they should play together.
-
Ings did well at Brentford but was atrocious tonight. Just a complete passenger. At least Watkins was creating chances and making chances for himself. If the Saudis at Newcastle or anyone really were to offer us most of our money back for Ings, we should be getting rid. Just the wrong man at the wrong time.
Ings did play well against Brentford. Any coincidence he was playing lone striker and running onto those Buendia through balls?
Now imagine that but three-fold with a supply line of Coutinho, Bailey and Buendia 👌🏼
-
Ings did well at Brentford but was atrocious tonight. Just a complete passenger. At least Watkins was creating chances and making chances for himself. If the Saudis at Newcastle or anyone really were to offer us most of our money back for Ings, we should be getting rid. Just the wrong man at the wrong time.
Atrocious? You are having a laugh..aren’t you??
-
I only watched the last 20 minutes but it was as clear as day we needed more midfield control and that it wasn’t working up front.
Watch 45-70 minutes for control. You're not likely to see a more one sided game between those 25 minutes.
-
I only watched the last 20 minutes but it was as clear as day we needed more midfield control and that it wasn’t working up front.
Watch 45-70 minutes for control. You're not likely to see a more one sided game between those 25 minutes.
We created a lot of chances tonight with both Ings and Watkins in the team, regardless of the opposition. So I for one wouldn't completely give up on it. With Coutinho arriving I don't think we'll see it much again anyway.
-
Ings is a more clinical goalscorer than Watkins, Ollie offers more running down the channels but he misses to many chances for me. He should have buired that chance last night that hit the bar, can't remember the last time we had a striker that hit the woodwork so much.
-
Ings is a more clinical goalscorer than Watkins, Ollie offers more running down the channels but he misses to many chances for me. He should have buired that chance last night that hit the bar, can't remember the last time we had a striker that hit the woodwork so much.
He's got some way to go until he matches Saunders in that regard.
-
can't remember the last time we had a striker that hit the woodwork so much.
I find that the noise of a well-pumped football smacking off a post or the bar creates an extremely pleasing and satisfying sound.
That said, I do find the roars of YEEEEEEEEAAAAAAARRGGGGGGGGGHFUUUUCCCCKKKKARRBEAUTYYYYYYY! a little more pleasing when he does find the net.
-
Ings is a more clinical goalscorer than Watkins, Ollie offers more running down the channels but he misses to many chances for me. He should have buired that chance last night that hit the bar, can't remember the last time we had a striker that hit the woodwork so much.
He's got some way to go until he matches Saunders in that regard.
Oh whoah oh Deanoooo
-
As Coutinho isn't ready to start matches I think Watkins and Ings will be playing though I wonder what role they will all have as a front 3 if that is to be the first choice .
-
Discuss....
-
As Coutinho isn't ready to start matches I think Watkins and Ings will be playing though I wonder what role they will all have as a front 3 if that is to be the first choice .
Watkins and Ings to continue together? Can't happen. Just can't happen.
-
Coutinho - Watkins - Buendia
Front three.
Sorry Danny.
-
Neither if I’m being honest. But we can only play one so personally I’m going Ings because he’s the better forward. But Watkins offers more overall. I’d like a better striker long term. Just imagine a younger Suarez or similar in front of Buendia/Bailey/Coutinho etc
-
Don't want to see both in same line up unless we're playing Norwich or Burnley at home.
One will have to get used to being a supersub.
Hard call based on tonight but I think for all his lack of conviction infront of goal our final third play flows better with Ollie upfront.
-
Watkins is a willing runner and excellent presence. But his actual football skills are so limited. Some of his efforts late on to head the ball were woeful.
-
I think it's actually much more difficult than people are making out, for all of Ollie's hard work and bluster, if a chance is going to drop to someone I would much, much rather it was Ings
-
Neither. Both awful. Watkins is a lower league trier, Ings looks about 50.
-
Neither. Both awful. Watkins is a lower league trier, Ings looks about 50.
Can't argue with this.
-
Neither. Both awful. Watkins is a lower league trier, Ings looks about 50.
Awful, really?
-
I'm currently in the neither camp.
-
For us to take full advantage of what will be happening in midfield and out wide we need a much better forward.
-
I'm shocked by Ings lack of contribution. He should be doing what Ramsey or Coutinho did tonight.
-
Beginning to wonder if either of these are good enough.
-
Neither. Both awful. Watkins is a lower league trier, Ings looks about 50.
Awful, really?
Yes, rubbish.
-
He’s not rubbish. He scored a lot of superb goals last season. But he’s not good enough to be our first choice. He’s having some second season challenges so we need someone who is legitimately top level to push on,
-
So Louie Barry needs to be our starting CF then.
-
Not even close to being that.
-
Neither...go get Suarez.
-
Archer is worth a try given current form.
-
Is there an option for neither? Watkins finishing isn’t elite level and Ings can’t lead the line. Could well be that what see a new centre forward in the summer.
-
Archer is worth a try given current form.
Correct.
-
He’s not rubbish. He scored a lot of superb goals last season. But he’s not good enough to be our first choice. He’s having some second season challenges so we need someone who is legitimately top level to push on,
He hasn’t got Grealish setting him up any more.
-
This does not work. It has to be one of them up top with Coutinho, Buendia, Chucky and Bailey as the 2 behind.
-
He’s going through a dip in form. If Coutinho and Buendia link up like they did tonight he’ll get plenty.
-
I'd be OK with Archer having a go 🏹
-
Watkins keeps running into dead ends - needs to get his head up a bit, don't want him turning into Agbonlahor
-
He’s not rubbish. He scored a lot of superb goals last season. But he’s not good enough to be our first choice. He’s having some second season challenges so we need someone who is legitimately top level to push on,
He hasn’t got Grealish setting him up any more.
That doesn't make him rubbish though. Our service without Grealish has been mostly abysmal all season. I'm not excusing the play of Watkins or Ings but we've not exactly done ourselves any favours with how we have supplied them.
-
the supply to them is poor - Coutinho and Digne will improve that.
-
When Watkins is playing the traditional centre forward role he plays well, Ings is the problem, not a bad player but just not suited to how we want to play.
-
i feel watkins is restricted on the left at this level . he needs to be able to run both channels. Ings is lost in our team at the moment
-
Watkins.
-
Watkins all day long
-
Watkins. Both were poor today, zings just was in the game and Watkins looked leggy - he was very slow on the ball, ManUre just kept pinching it off him.
-
Hopefully today was the last we see of WatkIngs as a starting option. There seems to be a pattern of us doing better after Ings goes off in these games, not picking on him as I think it’s down to the system and we might just as well have seen similar turnarounds if it had been Watkins to go off. Off the top of my head I think this is the story when they’ve started.
Chelsea away we were 0-2 down with them on the pitch
Everton 3-0 win
United 0-0 then we scored after Ings went off
Spurs 1-2
Wolves 2-3
Arsenal 0-3 then scored after Ings went off
Brighton 0-0 scored two after Ings went off
Chelsea 1-2
United 0-1
United 0-2 scored two after Ings went off
From now on we rotate Coutinho, Buendia, Chuck, Bailey and Traore off either Watkins or Ings. That is some serious firepower.
-
Archer as well.
-
Ings looks more and more like a panic buy with every passing game. And unlike most he hasn't got the excuse of youth on his side.
-
Neither. Both awful. Watkins is a lower league trier, Ings looks about 50.
Watkins a lower league trier? Blimey, that's miserable even by your standards.
-
Think we are trying to replicate some of the higher placed sides in the league who have a fluid front three (ie. Jota, Mane and Salah) who can interchange during the game. I was in the North Stand today and Ings spent periods of the first half out on the left and looked completely lost. I also don't think Watkins is good enough on the ball to play out wide at the top level and gives it away too many times when playing there.
If we continue with the same system and when all are available, we now have Coutinho, Buendia, Bailey, Traore, Trezeguet and P-Bidace for those two positions, so there is no need to employ Watkins or Ings in that role.
I would imagine that the first two on that list are the likely starters, so I guess the question then shifts to who is best suited to playing centrally with them? Watkins holds the ball up better than Ings which will allow them to come on to the ball, but I would say Ings makes better runs in behind for balls to be played through.
Let's face it, it's a pretty decent headache to have.
-
How often as Ings played on his own? I can't think off the top of my head. I think I'd rather a finisher but they both lack what the other has which is why we need the machine from The Fly invented.
-
Sell both this summer and buy someone that's faster, better in the ball and can finish.
-
Sell both this summer and buy someone that's faster, better in the ball and can finish.
SPG from The Young Ones? He should be decent in a ball. Well pre-radiator.
-
How often as Ings played on his own? I can't think off the top of my head. I think I'd rather a finisher but they both lack what the other has which is why we need the machine from The Fly invented.
Played there against Brentford and did OK, with a nicely taken goal. Just hasn't really got going this season though.
-
How often as Ings played on his own? I can't think off the top of my head. I think I'd rather a finisher but they both lack what the other has which is why we need the machine from The Fly invented.
Played there against Brentford and did OK, with a nicely taken goal. Just hasn't really got going this season though.
Is that the only time, Tom? I don't feel like he's had that many opportunities on his own. I mean some may argue he doesn't deserve to but historically he's a very good striker so I would have no issue with him having a run. I don't think either of them could argue though eitherway.
-
Ings slows the world down too much. Runs like he's 90. There seems no urgency or imagination to him beyond being a very decent finished. Watkins has no confidence, and he becomes a very poor footballer in general when he has no confidence.
-
His lack of movement is a problem. He's far too slow getting where he should be and never loses his marker. Ramsey did more in 20 minutes than he's done in the last 3 games. Sell him on before his price tumbles.
-
Imagine how good we will be once the boss realises he shouldn’t play em both?!
-
In answer to the thread’s title, I’m beginning to think neither.
Certainly this year we need to try one or the other as both is continually proving a waste of a spot.
But Ings looks a bad buy to me - some nice touches and 2 (I think) really good finishes don’t make up for no pace and sluggish movement. Watkins send a shadow of his former self but at least is still moving and pressing so offering something. But his touch, confidence and finishing have gone, and he looks clumsy on the ball.
-
I think as soon as we try Watkins on his own you will see different player. He’s so good at holding up and linking play. He works hard as well when we don’t have the ball. It’s a no brainer for me.
I wanted it to work as I do Ings, he’s a good player. He just doesn’t fit this side.
-
He’s not rubbish. He scored a lot of superb goals last season. But he’s not good enough to be our first choice. He’s having some second season challenges so we need someone who is legitimately top level to push on,
He hasn’t got Grealish setting him up any more.
That doesn't make him rubbish though. Our service without Grealish has been mostly abysmal all season. I'm not excusing the play of Watkins or Ings but we've not exactly done ourselves any favours with how we have supplied them.
That is the point I was making on the match thread. Last season we were excellent when Grealish and Barkley were producing the chances for Watkins. This season it isn’t happening although they are making the runs. Which ever one plays or both, let’s give them a chance to produce now we have players who are likely to supply the right final ball
-
Barkley produced chances last season? I must have missed those. 1 assist is all he provided.
Watkins as lone striker with Coutinho and Buendia playing off him will reap goals. Ings as an able back-up.
-
In answer to the thread’s title, I’m beginning to think neither.
Certainly this year we need to try one or the other as both is continually proving a waste of a spot.
But Ings looks a bad buy to me - some nice touches and 2 (I think) really good finishes don’t make up for no pace and sluggish movement. Watkins send a shadow of his former self but at least is still moving and pressing so offering something. But his touch, confidence and finishing have gone, and he looks clumsy on the ball.
I can see why you say neither.
Watkins hasn’t progressed, that’s not saying he’s not capable or good enough, theres been a lot of change but he must be able to adapt to that - he couldn’t have expected his whole Villa career to be Dean Smith manager and Grealish playing with him. He was always going to need to be adaptable. And he certainly needs to be better at it if he wants to be better all round and maybe go on to a Champions League club.
My main gripe with Ollie at times is that it’s all a bit predictable. In some situations he appears to keep his head down too long, and in Agbonlahor style his finish isn’t clinical or he runs it straight into the defender. Numerous times against Chelsea at home this happened.
I expected Watkins to kick on when he finally had some competition for places, he can’t spend his whole Villa career expecting to play every week with just Kienan Davis for trouble.
He will get goals but there needs to be a bit of an improvement all round if he is going to grow with the club.
-
There was a moment last night when Ings and Watkins were literally getting in each others way at the far post. It was lucky that the cross was shite and never reached them or it could've been a comedy moment. I was watching them a bit more closely than I have before and there is just no interaction whatsoever. It isn't going to work and we shouldn't start them both again. It's like playing with one less player, maybe 2, which is why we get overrun in midfield so often, that and the fact we haven't got fit / natural defensive midfielder at the club
-
Very disappointed in both of thm yesterday. Ings should only be a last 20 mins player.
-
For the good of the team it has to be Watkins with no Ings
-
Very disappointed in both of thm yesterday. Ings should only be a last 20 mins player.
See, I'm not even sure that would work. You want some energy and spark coming off the bench in the closing stages and Ings won't give you that. If Watkins has started and has been pulling defenders around, you want more of that coming on off the bench.
I suppose the logical order would be Ings starting, with Watkins coming on to give us that energy in the final stages.
-
Very disappointed in both of thm yesterday. Ings should only be a last 20 mins player.
See, I'm not even sure that would work. You want some energy and spark coming off the bench in the closing stages and Ings won't give you that. If Watkins has started and has been pulling defenders around, you want more of that coming on off the bench.
I suppose the logical order would be Ings starting, with Watkins coming on to give us that energy in the final stages.
As much as I think Watkins has loads of qualities, and as much as Ings looks a passenger for a lot of the time, I think Ollie is most at risk of falling out of the first team. A starting front three of Coutinho, Ings and Bailey, supported by Buendia, JJ and /or SJM looks top 4 contender standard on paper (esp with a top drawer DCM sitting behind that lot). Ings is in there to score the chances that this team would certainly create. Watkins just isn't clinical enough. Mad really cause he's one of my favourite players over the last couple fo years.
-
Sell both this summer and buy someone that's faster, better in the ball and can finish.
If only it was that easy.
-
Very disappointed in both of thm yesterday. Ings should only be a last 20 mins player.
See, I'm not even sure that would work. You want some energy and spark coming off the bench in the closing stages and Ings won't give you that. If Watkins has started and has been pulling defenders around, you want more of that coming on off the bench.
I suppose the logical order would be Ings starting, with Watkins coming on to give us that energy in the final stages.
As much as I think Watkins has loads of qualities, and as much as Ings looks a passenger for a lot of the time, I think Ollie is most at risk of falling out of the first team. A starting front three of Coutinho, Ings and Bailey, supported by Buendia, JJ and /or SJM looks top 4 contender standard on paper (esp with a top drawer DCM sitting behind that lot). Ings is in there to score the chances that this team would certainly create. Watkins just isn't clinical enough. Mad really cause he's one of my favourite players over the last couple fo years.
I like Watkins too and for where we are, he's absolutely fine. I did wonder watching the game yesterday though, if Buendia iand Coutinho are going to play, we are going to need a striker who is on the same wavelength as them.
With those two in the team, we will be looking to play through them, so a striker who plays off the shoulder of defenders and makes clever runs might be more suited to playing with them. Out of the two, that choice would probably be Ings to begin with.
-
It's detrimental playing both. If Watkins is out left, he's a little hamstrung and he's taking space a more creative 10/wideman could be taking. Also, Ings loves that inside left channel, and if Watkins is wide, he's inevitably coming inside, so Ings gets pushed away. Danny barely touched the ball yesterday. He was lost, but compare that to Brentford, where he had his best game in weeks because Ollie wasn't playing.
Both need that 9 role without the other. At the moment for pace and work-rate, Ollie gets it for me. But I do feel with Phil and Emi behind, our ball retention will improve and Ings could have a field day, as long as he's got the freedom to work the channels he wants. His a lethal finisher. Whereas Ollie needs 3-4 chances to tuck one away.
I'd play Watkins against the top half sides, Danny against the bottom half.
I think one or the other and you'll see a marked improvement from whoever is getting the nod.
-
Watkins is a 1 in 3 striker who works his nads off. He cannot play with a partner, but he's a pest and a menace. There is no chance we're getting rid for the foreseeable. Love him, even when he's not on form and has slippers on his feet.
-
It's detrimental playing both. If Watkins is out left, he's a little hamstrung and he's taking space a more creative 10/wideman could be taking. Also, Ings loves that inside left channel, and if Watkins is wide, he's inevitably coming inside, so Ings gets pushed away. Danny barely touched the ball yesterday. He was lost, but compare that to Brentford, where he had his best game in weeks because Ollie wasn't playing.
Both need that 9 role without the other. At the moment for pace and work-rate, Ollie gets it for me. But I do feel with Phil and Emi behind, our ball retention will improve and Ings could have a field day, as long as he's got the freedom to work the channels he wants. His a lethal finisher. Whereas Ollie needs 3-4 chances to tuck one away.
I'd play Watkins against the top half sides, Danny against the bottom half.
I think one or the other and you'll see a marked improvement from whoever is getting the nod.
Agree with a lot of this, but for me it is just a straight choice between the two and the one in form gets the starting place.
It is the kind of competition for places we need if we are going to move on.
-
Sell both this summer and buy someone that's faster, better in the ball and can finish.
Oh you mean someone like Erling Haaland? ;)
-
Both are decent strikers. They are playing together because we've not had enough options due to injury etc.
When Coutinho and Bailey are fit, and Traore is back, with Buendia getting better all the time there won't be a need to play them both.
Either will work, and they offer different things that can be similar at times; that's not a bad thing, it's an opportunity for us to mix it up. As are the other midfield options with Chukwuemeka and Ramsey as well as JPB to be reckoned with.
-
Didn't need Ings it was a panic buy from the club after the sale of Jack Grealish. He is a good player but does not work with Watkins and given his Contribution I'd take Watkins over ings. There is absolutely no sell on value in Ings either. Great player to have on the bench and bring on though,if he's happy to do that. Expect him to go out on loan or end up at Burnley and do well
-
Playing them together seems to detract from both of their performances.
It isn’t working.
-
Both are decent strikers. They are playing together because we've not had enough options due to injury etc.
When Coutinho and Bailey are fit, and Traore is back, with Buendia getting better all the time there won't be a need to play them both.
Either will work, and they offer different things that can be similar at times; that's not a bad thing, it's an opportunity for us to mix it up. As are the other midfield options with Chukwuemeka and Ramsey as well as JPB to be reckoned with.
I think this is right. Given how Gerard had done so far, i doubt that he hasn’t figured out it doesn’t work, in fact he sacked it iff initially part way through the Brighton game. I think he’s playing the two out of necessity. If Coutinho gets up to speed by Saturday id expect to see him and Beundia either side of Ollie. We’re not playing to Ings strengths at the moment and i feel a bit sorry for him, but Ollie works defenders harder, With Coutinho and Beundia pulling the strings, Ings could be a very good impact sub, to bring on against tired defenders.
-
Sell both this summer and buy someone that's faster, better in the ball and can finish.
Oh you mean someone like Erling Haaland? ;)
He’ll do
-
Watkins is a 1 in 3 striker who works his nads off. He cannot play with a partner, but he's a pest and a menace. There is no chance we're getting rid for the foreseeable. Love him, even when he's not on form and has slippers on his feet.
Yep, completely agree.
-
Didn't need Ings it was a panic buy from the club after the sale of Jack Grealish. He is a good player but does not work with Watkins and given his Contribution I'd take Watkins over ings. There is absolutely no sell on value in Ings either. Great player to have on the bench and bring on though,if he's happy to do that. Expect him to go out on loan or end up at Burnley and do well
I wouldn’t say he was a panic but as we spent a long time with only Watkins as our available striker. He’s also a proven striker. It just hasn’t worked out as a good pairing.
-
Didn't need Ings it was a panic buy from the club after the sale of Jack Grealish. He is a good player but does not work with Watkins and given his Contribution I'd take Watkins over ings. There is absolutely no sell on value in Ings either. Great player to have on the bench and bring on though,if he's happy to do that. Expect him to go out on loan or end up at Burnley and do well
Do you still think we should get rid of Buendia this month?
-
Ings getting alot of stick, but Watkins isn't doing it for me either, said before but he's not doing closing down players like last season,and tenders to keep the ball too long instead of a simple pass
-
Didn't need Ings it was a panic buy from the club after the sale of Jack Grealish. He is a good player but does not work with Watkins and given his Contribution I'd take Watkins over ings. There is absolutely no sell on value in Ings either. Great player to have on the bench and bring on though,if he's happy to do that. Expect him to go out on loan or end up at Burnley and do well
Do you still think we should get rid of Buendia this month?
And also whats wrong with having some squad depth?
Something we've lacked for years on end.
Also Ings is a better finisher and with Emi and Phil in the team there will be some opportunities for the front guy.
-
ings not really cutting it Has looked decent in patches but not enough movement
Watkins vastly overrated - maybe needs to be a wide player and is playing far to central. Big. Bid for him I would take
-
Did the two link-up even once last night? Disappointing but it's hard to argue for both to start and as has been said, Watkins brings more with his all-round game. But if a combo of Coutinho/Buendia/Traore/Bailey are laying on chances at regular levels, you'd want Ings on the end of them.
-
Watkins is a better player, has more upside potential, and the team is better when he's the 1 up front. However, now that Phil is here and Emi is finding his straps, if they both play in a 10 role, I wonder if Ings is a better option. I suspect with those two, we will play through the middle more and we will get more clever little through balls from them. Ings will be more on their wavelength, makes more intelligent runs (and sees them quicker) than Ollie, and is a more clinical finisher.
-
Neither, unless Ollie is going to play on his own through the middle.
If this ridiculous persistence in playing both continues, we won't win many games, that's for sure.
I've never liked Ings. No pace, doesn't get involved enough. Now doesn't even score.
-
I would try to shift Ollie on to Spurs or Arsenal while his stock is still high. You've got to know when to hold 'em, Know when to fold 'em, to paraphrase Neil Buchannan.
-
I would try to shift Ollie on to Spurs or Arsenal while his stock is still high. You've got to know when to hold 'em, Know when to fold 'em, to paraphrase Neil Buchannan.
Art Attack Neil Buchanan?? Wow, that's a blast from the past!
-
honestly, if someone came in for ings, we should bite their hands off.
it's not working for him or us.
-
We're only playing both because Bailey and Traore are injured / not available. Watkins is playing in a stop gap position - one that I hoped he would take to better than he has given his background.
Now we have Coutinho, I expect either Watkins or Ings to be benched. Much as I like Wakins I am getting more and more frustrated by his finishing. Personally I'd like to see a run of games with Coutinho - Ings - Buendia as the front three. I just think Ings is a better finisher than Watkins and expect him to get more goals once the front three is settled. I also think Ings has better feet and link up play and will be more effective with the clever players around him. I expect Watkins will get the nod in the first instance though.
-
That front three would very small and offer no physicality at all.
Watkins has only struggled with Ings on the pitch, he gets in his way and makes him think twice about his runs.
It's Watkins every time for me, even if, another poster said, he's playing shite. He has so much more to his game, and more importantly, we're a better team with him in that role.
Ings to play Watkins is injured or suspended.
-
We're only playing both because Bailey and Traore are injured / not available. Watkins is playing in a stop gap position - one that I hoped he would take to better than he has given his background.
Now we have Coutinho, I expect either Watkins or Ings to be benched. Much as I like Wakins I am getting more and more frustrated by his finishing. Personally I'd like to see a run of games with Coutinho - Ings - Buendia as the front three. I just think Ings is a better finisher than Watkins and expect him to get more goals once the front three is settled. I also think Ings has better feet and link up play and will be more effective with the clever players around him. I expect Watkins will get the nod in the first instance though.
Totally agree with this, think Ings is the better finisher and will link up better although Watkins has the better all round game, a real dilemma!
-
People keep saying Ings is the better finisher, I know he was offside afterwards but that finish on Monday when clean through was wank, and it's not the first time he's done that this season.
-
People keep saying Ings is the better finisher, I know he was offside afterwards but that finish on Monday when clean through was wank, and it's not the first time he's done that this season.
You're right. But notwithstanding some errors I just think he is generally a better finisher. The amount of missed chances from Watkins is getting ridiculous and it's costing us. I also think Ings will be better with the intricate interplay with the two 10's. We haven't seen the best of Ings yet, but when we do I just think it's better than the best of Watkins.
If we want to play on the counter at times, then I think Watkins will be better suited to that with his speed.
-
Thing is you've got to get there to miss them.
Take the chance where Ollie hits the bar (which should have been a penalty, but hey).
Ings isn't getting to that ball before Lindeloff, and he's not going to then turn him and get then a shot away.
Ings looks like a throwback to an 80's goal-getter, he'd probably score more than Watkins over a season but your team would be 10 points worse off.
-
I think you seriously underestimate Ings ability on the ball and work rate. He is nothing like the 'fox in the box' that you allude to.
-
I don't underestimate it, I haven't seen it. I see some attempts a nice touches and flicks but most of the time I see possession given up and my team struggling to get a hold of the game and looking like we're playing with 10 men.
-
ok, I guess we'll see. I expect Watkins will get the nod anyway, but I'd be excited to see Ings in that front three. Either way hopefully there will be more goals.
-
People keep saying Ings is the better finisher, I know he was offside afterwards but that finish on Monday when clean through was wank, and it's not the first time he's done that this season.
You're right. But notwithstanding some errors I just think he is generally a better finisher. The amount of missed chances from Watkins is getting ridiculous and it's costing us. I also think Ings will be better with the intricate interplay with the two 10's. We haven't seen the best of Ings yet, but when we do I just think it's better than the best of Watkins.
If we want to play on the counter at times, then I think Watkins will be better suited to that with his speed.
I hope we haven't because at the moment his contribution isn't great for how we play. It's got to be one or the other and for now Watkins is in front. I don't know whether it's just me but it always looks like Ings is running through mud. He's not quick but is he actually quite slow?
-
When everyone is fit and available it's got to be horses for courses, and I wouldn't be looking to get rid of either Watkins or Ings. Against the top teams we are going to need Ollie's work-rate, but we'll go into other games where we feel confident of dominating and Ings finishing will be more useful.
We might end up with Ings playing less games and scoring more goals, and no doubt Watkins will feel hard done by in not playing the matches where he could more easily add to his own tally. The thing is if we are going to have a serious crack at getting into the top 6 and beyond then we have to start thinking like a top 6 team. Far better to have a range of options that can be deployed when needed than one way of playing that works for a while until it's figured out and we then go weeks or months without a win.
-
ok, I guess we'll see. I expect Watkins will get the nod anyway, but I'd be excited to see Ings in that front three. Either way hopefully there will be more goals.
I can certainly agree with that
-
When everyone is fit and available it's got to be horses for courses, and I wouldn't be looking to get rid of either Watkins or Ings. Against the top teams we are going to need Ollie's work-rate, but we'll go into other games where we feel confident of dominating and Ings finishing will be more useful.
We might end up with Ings playing less games and scoring more goals, and no doubt Watkins will feel hard done by in not playing the matches where he could more easily add to his own tally. The thing is if we are going to have a serious crack at getting into the top 6 and beyond then we have to start thinking like a top 6 team. Far better to have a range of options that can be deployed when needed than one way of playing that works for a while until it's figured out and we then go weeks or months without a win.
Sums it up for me.
-
People keep saying Ings is the better finisher, I know he was offside afterwards but that finish on Monday when clean through was wank, and it's not the first time he's done that this season.
To be honest would you have any confidence in Watkins scoring Ings goals v Newcastle and Brentford? I know I wouldn't.
Ings natural game is not running the channels. He is a very clever player in and around the box. Kind of a Robbie Keane type forward. But especially at Old Trafford, he was gassed after about 70 mins from all the hard graft that we got nothing from. It's just a poor fit for us.
Watkins has a lot more going for him but he simply has to start working on improving his basic footballing skills. First touch, heading, striking a ball....reminds me a bit of Gabby at the moment, same flaws.
-
A fan telling a professional footballer with over 100 career goals to work on his basic football skills. Wow.
-
A fan telling a professional footballer with over 100 career goals to work on his basic football skills. Wow.
he needs to work on his heading of crosses that is plainly true from Saturday.
-
I would have played both V Leeds
Watkins by himself wasn't working and Ings really would have been someone who could score a hat full against that leeds defence.
Very strange not to have them on the pitch at some point today
-
I'm bored so just thinking about this.
I think I'd be tempted to try something different but retain Coutinho as a number 10 behind Ings and Buendia. In reality, Ings, Buendia, Bailey, Watkins and Traore are all fighting for those two places, with Buendia able to cover for Coutinho too.
-
Brighton being linked with a move for Ings in the summer. I don't think there would be a shortage of takers if we decided to do something different next season.
-
On today’s performance alone I wouldn’t feed Watkins
-
Watkins just isn’t good enough.
He’s a decent championship striker and no more. Ings is much the more likely to take chances.
-
We can't keep hoofing it to Watkins and expect it to stick, it never has, it never will do. Surely that's coaching? I think it's exacerbated by our lack of midfield. We want to play it and keep possession but our midfield give so few options that we have to hit it long to Watkins. We create so few good opportunities for our strikers currently.
I'm not sure if this specifically would work with the players we have, but I'd consider radically changing the way we play, something like 451/433/etc; get Sanson on, more midfield presence and just solidify us a bit hopefully giving us some more options.
-
Watkins just isn’t good enough.
He’s a decent championship striker and no more. Ings is much the more likely to take chances.
Watkins was very good last season though. Maybe he has missed Grealish more than anyone else but surely a top player adapts their game. Second season syndrome perhaps but his basic technical skills need huge work. I thought today with Arsenal dropping so deep, Ings would have been a much better choice around 55/60 mins.
-
His touch would have embarrassed Gavin McCann today.
-
Matty Cash put a brilliant cross in the first half, which a 'proper' centre forward would have gobbled up but Watkins showed no anticipation and was caught flat footed and didn't even attempt to attack the cross.
He just seems to be getting worse and I don't know how he managed to stay on the pitch for so long before getting subbed.
-
It’s not his lack of goals which is the biggest problem for me
It’s his lack of ball control, touch and composure in his all-round game
It’s piss poor to be fair And yet he gets more minutes than most of the other players on the pitch fuck knows why
-
It’s not his lack of goals which is the biggest problem for me
It’s his lack of ball control, touch and composure in his all-round game
It’s piss poor to be fair And yet he gets more minutes than most of the other players on the pitch fuck knows why
Yep. He got the ball in a bit of space today and just ran into a defender. His all round game is dismal.
-
Grealish movement made Ollie look like an England squad striker (even last season he missed too many presentable chances but still good overall).
So poor today.
Would still keep him as squad striker though.
-
Grealish movement made Ollie look like an England squad striker (even last season he missed too many presentable chances but still good overall).
So poor today.
Would still keep him as squad striker though.
I'm starting to think this as well. With the exception of a few games, his form has dropped off.
Or maybe he is one of those players who thrives with no fans.
-
I think he needs to be cut a bit of slack personally. He's an easy target sometimes. He had Coutinho and Buendia alongside him today and they didnt feed him a great deal. We had one shot on goal today I think. That's not all down to Ollie and it says a lot.
-
The worst ball control I can ever remember.
Needs dropping
-
I think he needs to be cut a bit of slack personally. He's an easy target sometimes. He had Coutinho and Buendia alongside him today and they didnt feed him a great deal. We had one shot on goal today I think. That's not all down to Ollie and it says a lot.
That's true but we also need a CF in these games who's first touch isn't the ball bobbling 5 yards off him.
Was also a bit of play in first half when things were opening up and he took a ridiculously heavy touch and they cleared.
Benteke played in miles worse teams than this but he was a threat in these games due to his presence, Ollie dosen't seem to be anymore.
-
The worst ball control I can ever remember.
Needs dropping
some days he reminds me of Agbonlahor. The fat one who couldn't be arsed.
-
Honestly we are nowhere with these 2
-
Against the ‘top teams’ you either need pace in behind or someone the ball sticks to so you can get up the pitch. Neither Watkins nor Ings can do this and it is a massive problem. You can say the service to them is crap but if we can’t even get out of our own half there isn’t much chance of creating a chance for them. They are decent finishers so they will get you goals in games where we have more of the ball but we need something different next season if we don’t want to lose another 10 games to the top 6.
-
We should sell Watkins to Newcastle for £50m. Ideally I wouldn't want us to do any business with them but we've already set a precedent there. Obviously nobody else would pay that, but I suspect that they would.
-
Grealish movement made Ollie look like an England squad striker (even last season he missed too many presentable chances but still good overall).
So poor today.
Would still keep him as squad striker though.
No. Cash in
-
We should sell Watkins to Newcastle for £50m. Ideally I wouldn't want us to do any business with them but we've already set a precedent there. Obviously nobody else would pay that, but I suspect that they would.
I'm coming round to 'yes'.
-
We definitely should. He'll be 27 this year, and so it's not like he's a youth team product still learning the game. He's got too many deficiencies in his game to be truly top notch.
-
Surely there are better strikers they could buy for 50 mill. Wouldn’t have a clue who that might be, mind.
-
I mentioned on another thread in response to the criticism of Watkins that I'm also disappointed with Ings.
Ings I was lead to believe was the poacher, the kind of striker that even if you were playing poorly he would get one chance and you might win the game.
In nearly every game he does get that one chance but doesn't seem to hit the ball correctly, is off balance or cant sort his feet out.
He could have done better with the header in the arsenal game which might be a bit harsh, But again he had chance for the shot not really far out and made a mess of just hitting the ball cleanly.
In the West ham game he made the keeper make a good save but he hit the ball into the ground, If he had hit cleaner the keeper wouldn't have been able to make the save.
It's almost like hes over thinking every shot instead of hitting it naturally. Perhaps its lack of confidence not playing enough games, not playing a formation that suits him, I'm just as frustrated as he is.
-
Can see both playing today Vs Burnley .
-
Not sure how far off Marv is, but I would be tempted to have him and Tim in the middle with three in front.
Emi
Cash
Chambers
Mings
Digne
Marv
Tim
McGinn
Phil
Olly
Ings
-
Not sure how far off Marv is, but I would be tempted to have him and Tim in the middle with three in front.
Emi
Cash
Chambers
Mings
Digne
Marv
Tim
McGinn
Phil
Olly
Ings
That's an excellent suggestin and line up
-
But not the one Gerrard has picked
-
Both to be kept on and it's a opportunity for both to be firing this season. Watkins has the incentive of the World Cup and with 26 places in squad he can make that if he performs for us
Ings is a goalscorer by nature and think we'll see best of him this season.
-
Both to be kept on and it's a opportunity for both to be firing this season. Watkins has the incentive of the World Cup and with 26 places in squad he can make that if he performs for us
Ings is a goalscorer by nature and think we'll see best of him this season.
I agree. I've a feeling they will both do well this season. But I'd rather we only start with one of them as I want Buendia starting more regularly.
-
Reports in some papers this morning that Ings will be going, with Brighton and Leeds amongst the favourites to sign him.
-
Reports in some papers this morning that Ings will be going, with Brighton and Leeds amongst the favourites to sign him.
I'd be really dissapointed if we sell him. We're not going to get any experienced PL player who's beter than him and bringing someone from outside the PL is always a gamble. I just don't see the point in selling unless he is demanding a starting place or we have someone lined up.
-
Reports in some papers this morning that Ings will be going, with Brighton and Leeds amongst the favourites to sign him.
I'd be really dissapointed if we sell him. We're not going to get any experienced PL player who's beter than him and bringing someone from outside the PL is always a gamble. I just don't see the point in selling unless he is demanding a starting place or we have someone lined up.
I like Ings and was really happy when he joined but now I've watched him for a season I don't see him as competition/back-up for Watkins, his game is just too different and he doesn't work leading the line on his own in front of two 10s (or even 2 wingers who drift). He drifts into the same space that Coutinho and Buendia need so I think he's actually competing with them (and Bailey) for a spot in the team and Watkins is pretty much nailed on to start every game he's available for.
With Archer and Davis the only obvious competition for Watkins and neither really experienced enough to be relied on regularly I can see the sense in letting Ings and Davis go and bringing in someone who either replicates Watkins all action pressing game and/or a target man to hold his position and bring the midfield and 10s into play around him.
-
Reports in some papers this morning that Ings will be going, with Brighton and Leeds amongst the favourites to sign him.
I'd be really dissapointed if we sell him. We're not going to get any experienced PL player who's beter than him and bringing someone from outside the PL is always a gamble. I just don't see the point in selling unless he is demanding a starting place or we have someone lined up.
I like Ings and was really happy when he joined but now I've watched him for a season I don't see him as competition/back-up for Watkins, his game is just too different and he doesn't work leading the line on his own in front of two 10s (or even 2 wingers who drift). He drifts into the same space that Coutinho and Buendia need so I think he's actually competing with them (and Bailey) for a spot in the team and Watkins is pretty much nailed on to start every game he's available for.
With Archer and Davis the only obvious competition for Watkins and neither really experienced enough to be relied on regularly I can see the sense in letting Ings and Davis go and bringing in someone who either replicates Watkins all action pressing game and/or a target man to hold his position and bring the midfield and 10s into play around him.
I've nothing to add to this, really sums up how I feel too.
-
I know what you both mean, but I like him and think he's good to keep around. We need a Plan B and he'd be a great part of it. Especially with the 5 sub thing. It means you can change the full forward unit in one go. Watkins, Coutinho and Buendia off, Ings, Bailey and Traore on (as an example).
-
I know what you both mean, but I like him and think he's good to keep around. We need a Plan B and he'd be a great part of it. Especially with the 5 sub thing. It means you can change the full forward unit in one go. Watkins, Coutinho and Buendia off, Ings, Bailey and Traore on (as an example).
I do like him and won't be upset if he does stay (and I think he had a better season than he's given credit for) but if Gerrard wants to repalce him with someone that fits our playstyle better then I can see his point and I think we might be a more balanced squad for it, if the replacement is decent.
-
I know what you both mean, but I like him and think he's good to keep around. We need a Plan B and he'd be a great part of it. Especially with the 5 sub thing. It means you can change the full forward unit in one go. Watkins, Coutinho and Buendia off, Ings, Bailey and Traore on (as an example).
I do like him and won't be upset if he does stay (and I think he had a better season than he's given credit for) but if Gerrard wants to repalce him with someone that fits our playstyle better then I can see his point and I think we might be a more balanced squad for it, if the replacement is decent.
He's also one of the top earners, which is difficult to justify for a bit part impact sub.
-
I know what you both mean, but I like him and think he's good to keep around. We need a Plan B and he'd be a great part of it. Especially with the 5 sub thing. It means you can change the full forward unit in one go. Watkins, Coutinho and Buendia off, Ings, Bailey and Traore on (as an example).
I do like him and won't be upset if he does stay (and I think he had a better season than he's given credit for) but if Gerrard wants to repalce him with someone that fits our playstyle better then I can see his point and I think we might be a more balanced squad for it, if the replacement is decent.
He's also one of the top earners, which is difficult to justify for a bit part impact sub.
Unless he keeps scoring and making an impact as a bit-part impact sub.
-
I know what you both mean, but I like him and think he's good to keep around. We need a Plan B and he'd be a great part of it. Especially with the 5 sub thing. It means you can change the full forward unit in one go. Watkins, Coutinho and Buendia off, Ings, Bailey and Traore on (as an example).
I do like him and won't be upset if he does stay (and I think he had a better season than he's given credit for) but if Gerrard wants to repalce him with someone that fits our playstyle better then I can see his point and I think we might be a more balanced squad for it, if the replacement is decent.
He's also one of the top earners, which is difficult to justify for a bit part impact sub.
Unless he keeps scoring and making an impact as a bit-part impact sub.
But if we sold him and bought a better player, we'd have less need for a bit part impact sub
-
We don't necessarily need an identikit replacement for Ollie, Ings offers a lot in his own right. I think he is a lot more versatile than people give him credit for. Yes he's excellent at dropping deep and linking up play, but in my opinion he can lead the line in a three if that's how Gerrard wants to play him. He's not quite as energetic or quick as Watkins, but he still works very hard.
I think he is a very clever player and his quickness of thought and skill level on the ball could make him ideal for forming a great relationship with Coutihno, whereas Ollie feels a bit more of a blunt instrument to me and not so much on his wavelength. The strength of his link up play with 10's pushing past him could be a real asset.
Either way, I feel it's unlikely we'll find better this window and I don't want us to go into the season under staffed up front again, so I hope he stays. I still think Watkins will kick on a bit this year as well and I'd back them both to have a better season.
-
I know what you both mean, but I like him and think he's good to keep around. We need a Plan B and he'd be a great part of it. Especially with the 5 sub thing. It means you can change the full forward unit in one go. Watkins, Coutinho and Buendia off, Ings, Bailey and Traore on (as an example).
I do like him and won't be upset if he does stay (and I think he had a better season than he's given credit for) but if Gerrard wants to repalce him with someone that fits our playstyle better then I can see his point and I think we might be a more balanced squad for it, if the replacement is decent.
He's also one of the top earners, which is difficult to justify for a bit part impact sub.
Unless he keeps scoring and making an impact as a bit-part impact sub.
But if we sold him and bought a better player, we'd have less need for a bit part impact sub
And have to spend a lot more money. In fees and wages.
-
We don't necessarily need an identikit replacement for Ollie, Ings offers a lot in his own right. I think he is a lot more versatile than people give him credit for. Yes he's excellent at dropping deep and linking up play, but in my opinion he can lead the line in a three if that's how Gerrard wants to play him. He's not quite as energetic or quick as Watkins, but he still works very hard.
I think he is a very clever player and his quickness of thought and skill level on the ball could make him ideal for forming a great relationship with Coutihno, whereas Ollie feels a bit more of a blunt instrument to me and not so much on his wavelength. The strength of his link up play with 10's pushing past him could be a real asset.
Either way, I feel it's unlikely we'll find better this window and I don't want us to go into the season under staffed up front again, so I hope he stays. I still think Watkins will kick on a bit this year as well and I'd back them both to have a better season.
He's Adrian Heath with tatoos. We need Teddy Sheringham. Some things never change.
-
I think for Ings to be a success we really need Bailey to come good. We need his pace to stretch teams, as otherwise Coutinho/Buendia/Ings is all a bit on the slow side. Lots of skill, but a good team will just sit back and try to soak up their through balls.
-
I think for Ings to be a success we really need Bailey to come good. We need his pace to stretch teams, as otherwise Coutinho/Buendia/Ings is all a bit on the slow side. Lots of skill, but a good team will just sit back and try to soak up their through balls.
Agreed, that's a big part of why I see him as competing with Buendia for a spot rather than Watkins.
We don't necessarily need an identikit replacement for Ollie, Ings offers a lot in his own right. I think he is a lot more versatile than people give him credit for. Yes he's excellent at dropping deep and linking up play, but in my opinion he can lead the line in a three if that's how Gerrard wants to play him. He's not quite as energetic or quick as Watkins, but he still works very hard.
I think he is a very clever player and his quickness of thought and skill level on the ball could make him ideal for forming a great relationship with Coutihno, whereas Ollie feels a bit more of a blunt instrument to me and not so much on his wavelength. The strength of his link up play with 10's pushing past him could be a real asset.
Either way, I feel it's unlikely we'll find better this window and I don't want us to go into the season under staffed up front again, so I hope he stays. I still think Watkins will kick on a bit this year as well and I'd back them both to have a better season.
I absolutely agree on the bold bit, but that's the problem, you need someone to do that job (unless you go full Pep).
Ignoring the kids and players who we're obviously trying to sell, we have 6 players for our front 3, Watkins, Ings, Bailey, Coutinho, Buendia and Traore and of those only Watkins is the sort to run in behind and create space, Bailey might be able to do it but it's not his natural game. I'd like 1 more out and out centre forward who can do the physical stuff, either through raw pace or by being a unit and dominating defenders and if we need to create space to allow for that then Ings and Traore are the options to go out. I like both of them though so I'd personally just add one on top, but that squeezes someone like Archer out and is why I'd let him out on loan again.
There's no perfect answer to this though, which is why I'm happy to trust Gerrards judgement on this one.
-
Agreed. I'm slightly biased as I just think Ings is an excellent player and would love to see him be a success with us.
-
Still not working, Steven.
-
Could the vote include the option for neither?
-
Could the vote include the option for neither?
ha ha
-
I did consider that option when I set the poll up but I think at the time they were the only 2 strikers we had as Davis was injured and Archer was only on the fringes.
-
Could the vote include the option for neither?
That would get my vote.
-
Could the vote include the option for neither?
That would get my vote.
Neither gets my vote too.
-
Poll reset and updated.
-
No votes for either at the moment!
Both were poor first half, with Ings especially anonymous.
-
I like both players. If I had to choose one to keep it'd owe Watkins for his work rate. But neither are good enough for where we are supposed to be headed.
-
If we do keep one / both of them, we must stop trying to play them at the same time.
-
I’d be so tempted to try Archer from the start, he just looks in form and ready to go. It might make these two step up as well.
-
I can’t fault Watkins’ work rate. He is a trier. Ball control and shots on target are not as good as they should be though. Ings, i think he’s a better footballer but he’s never as involved. It’s like trying to chose which is the best looking identical twin.
-
Watkins shouldn’t be written off. He didn’t have a great season, but I still think he’s a good player.
Also wasn’t Ings first season at Southampton not all that? And then he had a great second season.
-
Ings and Watkins can't both have a great season, it'll be one or the other if we're lucky. 90% of the time they play together we look shite as a team, so I'm hoping Gerrard doesn't keep forgetting this fact.
-
I can’t fault Watkins’ work rate. He is a trier. Ball control and shots on target are not as good as they should be though. Ings, i think he’s a better footballer but he’s never as involved. It’s like trying to chose which is the best looking identical twin.
That’s easy - it’s the one with the lowest standards
-
With the use of five substitutions this season, I think both are, at best, impact subs.
-
We looked far more dangerous when both were off the pitch.
-
Voted Neither. No pace vs no control equals no thanks.
Ings looks nowhere near fit enough to me and Watkins final third control is consistently disastrous. As seen here: https://streamable.com/zct73w
I mean what is he even trying to do there? Nope!
-
I like Ollie, but if he's going to play, it has to be as a lone striker.
Ings just doesn't fit in a two with Ollie. He may well fit in a two with another striker, however.
-
They performed admirably as a duo and individually against Everton.
Perhaps when we play a back three, Gerrard will use a diamond formation with both of them starting up top.
Or maybe it's the home matches where he favours them both.
Will monitor this to see what SG likes doing.
After the game, he mentioned how Ings had been isolated at times the previous week. So versus Everton Watkins had been a huge help not only by setting up the goal but also by all the running off the ball and helping press the opposition high up the field.
Great tactics by Gerrard and in the attacking sense worked well. With Ings getting goal by assist from Watko
-
This season
2 starts each
1 goal each in the league (Ings also 1 in the cup)
Assists. Watkins 2 vs Ings 0
XG Ings 0.52 Vs Watkins 0.87
Shots per 90:
Ings 3.8 vs Watkins 1.8
Shots in the penalty zone per 90:
Ings 3.23 vs Watkins 1.76
-
As West Ham play 3 at the back is SG more likely to play Ings and Watkins together to occupy their defence.
Bailey then in for the Arsenal and Man City matches as a support.
With Ings and Watkins rotated for them.
Is that what others thinking Gerrard will do?
-
As West Ham play 3 at the back is SG more likely to play Ings and Watkins together to occupy their defence.
Bailey then in for the Arsenal and Man City matches as a support.
With Ings and Watkins rotated for them.
Is that what others thinking Gerrard will do?
They've only played 3 at the back once, the rest of the time it's been a flat back four. Last time out against Brighton they played their usual 4-2-3-1, with Rice and Soucek as the pivots and Bowen, Benrahma and Fornals as the attacking three behind Antonio.
The big worry as usual is just how shitty our midfield is. If we go 4-3-3 with the midfield 3 including Ramsey and McGinn, we'll lose.
We need to match them up, 4-2-3-1, and decide between either Watkins OR Ings.
-
Is there a double pivot in there, anywhere?
-
McGinn is bound to start.
-
Is there a double pivot in there, anywhere?
What's with the piss taking?
-
Is there a double pivot in there, anywhere?
What's with the piss taking?
How is that piss taking?
Have I missed something?
-
Is there a double pivot in there, anywhere?
What's with the piss taking?
Dear me. Sense of humour failure, Mr. Touchy? Chill a bit.
-
Is there a double pivot in there, anywhere?
What's with the piss taking?
How is that piss taking?
Have I missed something?
It's not piss-taking at all. It's just something I don't really understand so I'm trying to be a little light-hearted about it.
-
Is there a double pivot in there, anywhere?
What's with the piss taking?
Dear me. Sense of humour failure, Mr. Touchy? Chill a bit.
I'm perfectly chilled, I'm just asking a direct question. You made a point of referencing the double box I referenced last night too. I'm wondering if I'm missing something?
-
I don't understand that, either.
-
It's not piss-taking at all. It's just something I don't really understand so I'm trying to be a little light-hearted about it.
That's the double pivot.
*nods knowingly*
(https://c.tenor.com/p3f32FMl-VoAAAAd/ice-skating-jayne-torvill.gif)
-
4222 creates consistent boxes of players to press the opposition all over the pitch. It's a high energy formation as a result. I think West Ham are at their weakest when you narrow them up and overrun them with numbers in these central spaces (based on their 2 home defeats). The base of the midfield (the double pivot) in Kamara and Luiz would combine with the pair of 10s in Pip and Emi to press or alternatively the later with the forwards, or one of the pivot and a full back etc etc. You have to be able to switch play and be high energy etc.
Was just a musing, it won't happen.
-
Does it mean your full backs have to be pretty damn good?
-
We have good full backs and they'd be free to get on the gallop as they both do now.
-
I see we started with Watkins and Ings Vs West Ham.
Any good first half ?
-
No.
-
Oh
-
Ollie if it's one up front.
If we go with two up top, Ings and Archer.
-
Watkins has been preferred and SG seems to be saving Ings for Man City
However a positive result could see the same front 3
Gerrard plays this horses for courses but at some point archer to should be given more minutes.
-
Archer is carrying a hip injury so on this occasion I hope not. Quite surprised to see him included to be honest. Watch him get 20 minutes now!
-
I think Archer should have been given some game time yesterday.