Presumably the idea would be to sign both in this situation.
Baffling how you can be so wide of the mark on one post.
Danny Ings / signs for Villa
- Thread starter Samid
- Start date
- Status
Presumably the idea would be to sign both in this situation.
Baffling how you can be so wide of the mark on one post.
Bamford would be cheaper has been surprisingly consistent in the prem and in his career overall 1 in 3 games aint that bad and he isn't injury prone. If your would have a player that couldn't even cut it as our Arch Rivals you need to look at yourself as a United fan. Being a ST Holder for many years I laugh at the suggestions that my fellow supporters would take Ings and I did suggest some other players in Europe too that have done well and be available at half the cost that Ings would bring as A. He is English so Add A Few Extra Million on that and B. Were United so MAJORITY of English Clubs take the piss even further. Leeds would try the same for Bamford but would rather have him that Ings.
Been blowing his trumpet as our cheap striker option on here for a while now. It makes total sense if we want to strengthen other areas too. The people who want us to sign Kane aren’t being realistic.
Sign another player who is very good, even when he's only fit for half a season. Because he would come in at a transfer fee reflecting position as a squad player and he's shown to be no worse than any of what we have to offer up top - which is a compliment given we have Edinson Cavani leading our line.
You are ridiculously lazy with your Lambert suggestion. Ricky Lambert has never once scored more than 20 goals for Southampton in a PL Season and here you are comparing him to Ings
This is before we get to the actual bits rather than blindly looking at goals, such as Ings having much better technical ability and link up play.
Yes, allow me to explain. Goals alone don't explain the sole value a striker can add to our team. They need to give something new to our front line that Rashford/Martial/perhaps Sancho fail to offer. To that end Ings/Cavani add a very good dimension in their ruthless finishing, their nuance in gambling around the 12 yard box and smart positioning to make space for peers - which they do a lot better than anyone we have.
But alas, you have just looked at goals to 1) wrongly compare to Lambert (?) and 2) actually prove yourself wrong on goals output, since as you put it yourself, Ings scored more than Rashford + Martial last season and is just as productive as Cavani is this season. All that for a much lesser side, too.
I'm convinced you can't read, if this is what you think my argument is.
You can just disagree, that's fine. But your logic is pretty hilarious - you haven't considered the fee we'd bring him in for to infer any value, you have wrongly evaluated his goal contribution and it sounds like you don't watch him often to know how good he is outside of contributing goals.
As good as Bamford is, I don't think he offers a physicality and areal presence together with his smart link-up play. That said I do like his movement in the box, very neat player in that regard. I wouldn't mind him at all but I think he's signed a new extension contract with Leeds and will cost more.
Ings isn't an upgrade on what we have. There's no need for a player like him when we have Cavani, Martial and Greenwood.
And on the Martial/Ings comparison, they have the same number of Premier League goals. Martial is younger and hasn't got the persistent injury problems Ings does - it would be a lateral step at best.
If we do sell Martial and move for another striker that should be reserved for someone who can genuinely take us to the next level.
it's so trueIngs is nothing like Martial and Greenwood. He's much more polished as a natural 9 and in turn, only has Cavani as a direct competition.
Lets not get into the Martial debates, the player is never a 9. Ings & Cavani both bring so much more to that position centrally than Martial does.
So, what you’re saying is that Ings has the same goals in less games. So doesn’t it stand to reason in a better team, he will score more?
Martial is an unnatural number 9
Martial and Greenwood will continue to get games up front whether you think they are natural strikers or not. Cavani will be the main striker. There's no space for someone like Ings.
The simple question you have to ask is whether you think signing Danny Ings can help fire us to a title or the latter stages of the Champions League. That answer is a resounding no.
We don't sign more than 3 or 4 players in a transfer window. Using one of those signings on a player who doesn't take us forward is a waste of time and money.
He already had his spell at a bigger club in Liverpool and never looked comfortable there.
Sign another player who is very good, even when he's only fit for half a season. Because he would come in at a transfer fee reflecting position as a squad player and he's shown to be no worse than any of what we have to offer up top - which is a compliment given we have Edinson Cavani leading our line.
You are ridiculously lazy with your Lambert suggestion. Ricky Lambert has never once scored more than 20 goals for Southampton in a PL Season and here you are comparing him to Ings
This is before we get to the actual bits rather than blindly looking at goals, such as Ings having much better technical ability and link up play.
Yes, allow me to explain. Goals alone don't explain the sole value a striker can add to our team. They need to give something new to our front line that Rashford/Martial/perhaps Sancho fail to offer. To that end Ings/Cavani add a very good dimension in their ruthless finishing, their nuance in gambling around the 12 yard box and smart positioning to make space for peers - which they do a lot better than anyone we have.
But alas, you have just looked at goals to 1) wrongly compare to Lambert (?) and 2) actually prove yourself wrong on goals output, since as you put it yourself, Ings scored more than Rashford + Martial last season and is just as productive as Cavani is this season. All that for a much lesser side, too.
I'm convinced you can't read, if this is what you think my argument is.
You can just disagree, that's fine. But your logic is pretty hilarious - you haven't considered the fee we'd bring him in for to infer any value, you have wrongly evaluated his goal contribution and it sounds like you don't watch him often to know how good he is outside of contributing goals.
Any fee for a player who is very very good "when fit" is too much. I'd rather have the two players in Rashford and Martial that can score 10+ goals each than a guy who "when fit" might be able to come off the bench as backup and score the odd goal.
I also don't see how it is lazy. Lambert scored 28 goals in 75 matches for them in two seasons. Ings has scored 41 in 88 matches across 3 seasons. Amazingly both have similar records at Liverpool (shite).
Should Gareth Bale be signed because when fit he's one of the best in the world.
What about Jack Wilshire? When fit he's a very good midfielder.
Should Phil Jones be kept for life because when fit he's a very good defender?
I think what is going to happen is Martial is going to be used as a potential swap option, maybe with Rice or for Sancho?
kane looks like City to me. I think we will hold off on a big striker signing until next summer.
we have many gaps to fill so as a cheap option, Ings is pretty good
I’d take him. I have lost all faith in Martial, I don’t think Haaland will choose us, I don’t want us to spend £150 million on Kane (although I like him and really don’t want him at city). I’d opt for a premier league proven player over the risk of someone like Andre Silva (similar fee, decent season in a weaker league). Also, there’s a good chance that Greenwood ends up a number 9 so a short term fix like Ings could be ideal. Plus a cheaper striker options allows us to spend money on other more important areas. So yeah, I’d take him.
By your reasoning we never should have signed Cavani or even further back taken a gamble on Ruud.
it’s a case by case basis let’s not get silly
Perhaps also worth noting that injury-prone Ings has played more PL games than Martial in each of the last two seasons, including a full 38 game season just last year.
Very bizzare reasoning, as someone else has already pointed out.
It's stupidly lazy. Ings' goals per game is almost 0.5, whereas Lamberts was lower and even then you're including a rocky loan spell to incorporate the Ings' statistic. If we were to blindly just looking at goals (this is why it's such a lazy comparison) I can use your logic against you sand point to Martial only hitting 0.3 goals per game in his entire Man Utd career, and insinuate he's no better than Lambert.
Obviously I'm not going to do that, because its a lazy thing to insinuiate.
He's not though, even when fit. He's shown in his matches for Spurs this year that he can often be anonymous.
No, he's not.
No, he's not.
On the basis of your comparisons, it's evident to me you barely watch Ings play. That or you have some odd cognitive bias against any evaluation for him.
Ole's hints to wanting another striker is quite clear evidence that he does not plan to have Martial as an option up front. So I think you're wrong here.
This is hugely presumptuous. Squads win titles and a player like Ings can play a vital role in that. Moreover you are using his Liverpool form against him, which is quite clearly unfair given the terrible injury he had during his time there.
Wow, that’s interesting. To be fair, I think it’s fair to say Martial is quite injury prone too. Constantly picks up niggling injuries in near enough every season he’s been here.
I'd take Ings on a free in a heartbeat, great squad option and something a bit different, seems like a good guy as well, but would not want to pay for him.
End of convo for me that.
End of convo for me that.
The only way I'm happy about buying Ings is if the plan is to sell Martial, and only buy a first choice striker next year, once Cavani is gone. I can buy that he's a better backup option than Martial for next season. But he's not a first choice solution. Too old, too frail and not enough quality.
It shows our level when some here are happy to justify a move for Ings while Kane will be off to city and Chelsea may move ahead of us for Sancho. Ings is underwhelming and Southampton is his level.
Not comparable, are they. If we sign Ings, it's presumably not as our first-choice striker. You need backups too.
I think that's exactly the plan. Cavani won't play every game, we know that. We have Greenwood who we may start to see more of centrally as well, especially if Sancho comes in on right. We'd then have an experienced striker like Ings to challenge and play games as required. As much as we need a top class striker in his prime to come in, this season might not be the one to get one. we need a right winger, we need a centre half, and a midfielder at least. Cavani with backup from Greenwood and a stopgap like Ings, and then go big on a striker next season.
A good player but Fergie wouldn't target Beattie if Shearers on the market
Presumably the idea is to get an attacker and considering Southampton use Ings as a forward and not a single lead striker. The idea... ‘just guessing’ is that he is an option for that role not to lead the line when we already have Cavani, Martial and possible Greenwood. Why the hell do we need a fourth?
For the life of me I don’t know why so many of you guys actually think we would operate in that way.
We still have holes in our starting 11. RW, CB and CDM should be addressed first.
I have and from what I've seen he's not good enough, Martial isn't either but I wouldn't replace him with Ings.
But I can do stats if you want. Because looking at the goal outputs for two strikers who played for the same team is so lazy.
In the PL Martial and Ings have pretty much a .5 goal contribution per game for goals and assists because looking only at goals is lazy, isn't it? Rashford's is .47 and Lamberts was .41, so really not much difference at all.
There is a reasonable chance that our interest in Ings is due to the fact that we've already been priced out on our higher level targets. If that's the case then so be it but lets not try and kid ourselves that he should be our genuine first choice.
And that's why it's daft to only focus on goals.
What’s with the frankly backwards and totally fictional situation people are talking about Sancho or Ings? It’s obviously both if the Ings link is genuine.
Please, I’ve watched him limp off multiple times this season with my own eyes.
These things only get worse with age.
United are finally in a position where we can push for a title challenge next year. Ole needs to be backed big time this summer, otherwise we should accept that United will never really have a chance of going for the title.
Ole has taken this group to the maximum of what they can do - City and Chelsea will spend big on their sqauds this summer, adding top quality talent. United have to match this or we know the inevitable consequences.
Danny Ings is not going to help United close the gap on the best teams. We should expect top quality talent on the bench, when did United suddenly allow standards to slip so low.
Look at City, every position they can rotate top quality players. They would not have Danny fecking Ings as their backup striker.
Ole has taken this group to the maximum of what they can do - City and Chelsea will spend big on their sqauds this summer, adding top quality talent. United have to match this or we know the inevitable consequences.
Danny Ings is not going to help United close the gap on the best teams. We should expect top quality talent on the bench, when did United suddenly allow standards to slip so low.
Look at City, every position they can rotate top quality players. They would not have Danny fecking Ings as their backup striker.
Yeap, I just proved to you what I already knew without looking at the stats. He's not much better than Lambert, not any better than what's already there and is not needed.
Glad we cleared that up. Have a nice day, I am done here.
But if this enables us to sell Martial, it might actually increase our ability to do other transfers.
I just showed you that pointing to goals shows nothing because you'll see the same output with Lambert as you do with Martial. And here you are, suggesting you've proved your point. Jesus wept.
I'd definitely take him here personally. It would allow us to have funds to spend on other areas (like midfield, where we desperately need reinforcing), and let's not forget that he is an excellent player. I don't really see this as Ings vs Kane, because I seriously don't think we're in for Kane. And considering Kane would cost an absolute fortune and take money away from our midfield problem, I'm happy with that.
Perhaps you could name someone better for the price we’d pay for Ings. Someone proven in the PL
Cavani+Ings would be great for next season.
Then Greenwood+Ings can pick up things the season after that.
It's having a first choice striker who's world class on his day, then backing him with a top quality reliable rotation option. That's pretty much exactly what you'd want from a competitive squad.
Then Greenwood+Ings can pick up things the season after that.
It's having a first choice striker who's world class on his day, then backing him with a top quality reliable rotation option. That's pretty much exactly what you'd want from a competitive squad.
- Status