collapse collapse

Please donate to help towards the costs of keeping this site going. Thank You.

Recent Topics

Follow us on...

Author Topic: Watkins, Ings, both or neither?  (Read 44109 times)

Online PaulWinch again

  • Member
  • *
  • Posts: 49021
  • Location: winchester
  • GM : 25.05.2024
Re: Watkins, Ings or both?
« Reply #30 on: November 20, 2021, 09:03:51 PM »
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.

Online robleflaneur

  • Member
  • Posts: 801
Re: Watkins, Ings or both?
« Reply #31 on: November 20, 2021, 09:12:10 PM »
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.

richtheholtender

  • Guest
Re: Watkins, Ings or both?
« Reply #32 on: November 20, 2021, 09:18:04 PM »
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.

Offline Demitri_C

  • Member
  • Posts: 3697
Re: Watkins, Ings or both?
« Reply #33 on: November 20, 2021, 09:28:10 PM »
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

Offline oldhill_avfc

  • Member
  • Posts: 962
Re: Watkins, Ings or both?
« Reply #34 on: November 20, 2021, 10:43:54 PM »
Watkins. 

And on recent performances Davies as back up - Ings has been that poor.


Offline Legion

  • Moderator
  • Member
  • *
  • Posts: 58254
  • Age: 53
  • Location: With my son
  • Oh, it must be! And it is! Villa in the lead!
    • Personal Education Services
  • GM : 05.04.2019
Re: Watkins, Ings or both?
« Reply #35 on: November 20, 2021, 10:49:07 PM »
Davis as back-up? The one who has continually shown he is not good enough at this level? No thanks. Archer is far better.

Offline oldhill_avfc

  • Member
  • Posts: 962
Re: Watkins, Ings or both?
« Reply #36 on: November 20, 2021, 10:54:08 PM »
Fair enough.

ABI.

Offline Exeter 77

  • Member
  • Posts: 7596
  • Location: Back outside the realms of possibility
Re: Watkins, Ings or both?
« Reply #37 on: November 20, 2021, 11:00:53 PM »
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.

Offline Villan82

  • Member
  • Posts: 3221
Re: Watkins, Ings or both?
« Reply #38 on: November 21, 2021, 12:15:57 AM »
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.

Offline Rudy Can't Fail

  • Member
  • Posts: 38937
  • Location: In the Shade
    • http://www.heroespredictions.co.uk/pl/
Re: Watkins, Ings or both?
« Reply #39 on: November 21, 2021, 01:12:58 AM »
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.

Offline Ad@m

  • Member
  • Posts: 12563
  • GM : 23.03.2023
Re: Watkins, Ings or both?
« Reply #40 on: November 21, 2021, 07:52:58 AM »
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

Offline Scott Nielsen

  • Member
  • Posts: 2908
  • Location: Singapore
Re: Watkins, Ings or both?
« Reply #41 on: November 21, 2021, 09:04:32 AM »
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.

Offline ROBBO

  • Member
  • *
  • Posts: 7408
  • Location: MELBOURNE
  • GM : 15.01.2025
Re: Watkins, Ings or both?
« Reply #42 on: November 21, 2021, 09:27:25 AM »
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.

Online Ian.

  • Member
  • *
  • Posts: 13798
  • Location: Back home in the Shire
  • GM : 07.10.2024
Re: Watkins, Ings or both?
« Reply #43 on: November 21, 2021, 09:29:03 AM »
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.

Online Clampy

  • Member
  • *
  • Posts: 28341
  • Location: warley
  • GM : PCM
Re: Watkins, Ings or both?
« Reply #44 on: November 21, 2021, 09:48:50 AM »
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.

 


SimplePortal 2.3.6 © 2008-2014, SimplePortal