Jump to content

Strikers for 18/19

Dusic

By Dusic,
in The Saints

 Share

Recommended Posts

verlaine1979

verlaine1979

Posted
Posted
saints crossing stats since we got back to the PL

 

2017-2018 2nd in the league (800) (spurs where first this season with 825 crosses)

 

2016-2017 1st in the league (947)

 

2015-2016 2nd in the league (956)

 

2014-2015 2nd in the league (952)

 

2013-2014 5th in the league (877)

 

2012-2013 7th in the league (917)

 

Crossing into the box has been a big part of our game since we got back to the PL (and arguably before that) so it looks like what ever innovations have come and gone in football and no matter what we formation or tactical changes we make we end up banging crosses into the box from out wide as our default mode of attacking.

 

Indeed - though in recent seasons the number of crosses seems to be a function of how slowly we move the ball forward, and how limited our attacking options are once the opposition defence is set.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
striker

striker

Posted
Posted
If Charlie stays fit and gets the service he'll get 15+ this season. Too many knockers on here - if it was that easy to score goals how come the rest of our squad aren't banging them in left right and centre?

 

He's an extremely good goalscorer and that makes him very valuable to us.

 

Agree. He's gotten 6 goals playing 1/2 a season two years in a row. Whether you think hes slow, lazy, or whatever else, he's the only guy we've got who has shown he can score 15 goals in the PL.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mr X

Mr X

Posted
Posted
If Charlie stays fit and gets the service he'll get 15+ this season. Too many knockers on here - if it was that easy to score goals how come the rest of our squad aren't banging them in left right and centre?

 

He's an extremely good goalscorer and that makes him very valuable to us.

You are delusional if you think Austin is going to get 15+ goals this season!

 

Sent from my Moto G (4) using Tapatalk

Link to comment
Share on other sites
striker

striker

Posted
Posted

Putting the fact that he has been hurt for half the past 2 seasons aside, which is an issue, he still scores a goal every 1.5 games or so. This is way better than anyone we have, and near the top of the PL strikers. You can say we can't trust him due to injuries, but you can't say he can't score and is no longer a good striker. The facts show that when he is on the pitch he scores goals at a much faster rate than anyone we have.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Dusic

Dusic

Posted
  • Author
Posted
Putting the fact that he has been hurt for half the past 2 seasons aside, which is an issue, he still scores a goal every 1.5 games or so. This is way better than anyone we have, and near the top of the PL strikers. You can say we can't trust him due to injuries, but you can't say he can't score and is no longer a good striker. The facts show that when he is on the pitch he scores goals at a much faster rate than anyone we have.
The key fact:

 

14 PL goals in 2 and a half seasons at Saints

Link to comment
Share on other sites
CB Fry

CB Fry

Posted
Posted
What about that fella at West Broom that Burnley clearly covet? Oh what's his name - Rod something? £18M should secure him. Oh the irony. :?

 

There certainly would be some choice words to describe our club if we decide to buy Jay Rodriguez back for more than we sold him for.

 

Burnley, or any other club, are welcome to him.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Heisenberg

Heisenberg

Posted
Posted
So we got another striking option then. Should make people happy.

 

You're happy with quantity over quality?

 

Ings is a MASSIVE MASSIVE MASSIVE gamble and at £20m wed be absolutely ****ing ourselves if WHU or Everton had signed him.

 

He's played a dozen or so games in 3 years.... Was he genuinely the very best we could get for £20 million???

 

Absolutely ridiculous signing IMHO

 

Had all summer to source a decent striker and panic sign Danny Ings... **** poor

Link to comment
Share on other sites
shurlock

shurlock

Posted
Posted
It’s an option to buy at £16m? It’s not compulsory...

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

 

Yes it is. It’s also £18m guaranteed + £2m in add-ons. Liverpool also have a 20% sell on clause and Ings cannot play against them this season.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
shurlock

shurlock

Posted
Posted
Not what the daily echo says....

 

Ings has joined from Liverpool on loan for the rest of the season with a view to a permanent switch next summer for a fee of £16m.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

 

Danny Ings has joined Southampton in a deal that will see him loaned to the St Mary's club for 2018-19 and then move to them permanently on July 1, 2019.

 

https://www.liverpoolfc.com/news/first-team/311249-danny-ings-liverpool-southampton-transfer

Link to comment
Share on other sites
austsaint

austsaint

Posted
Posted
Putting the fact that he has been hurt for half the past 2 seasons aside, which is an issue, he still scores a goal every 1.5 games or so. This is way better than anyone we have, and near the top of the PL strikers. You can say we can't trust him due to injuries, but you can't say he can't score and is no longer a good striker. The facts show that when he is on the pitch he scores goals at a much faster rate than anyone we have.

 

Yes, if he has overcome the injuries we have a classy, proven striker who is an upgrade on Long, Gallagher and probably Austin. Would have preferred Welbeck but still a good signing even if the price paid seems high considering Pool payed 6.5 million for him.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
S-Clarke

S-Clarke

Posted
Posted
Not what the daily echo says....

 

Ings has joined from Liverpool on loan for the rest of the season with a view to a permanent switch next summer for a fee of £16m.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

 

He's effectivly signed a 4 year contract today, fee will be close to £20m in total. It looks as if the loan initially is more for our 'cash flow' purposes/management as opposed to anything else, as Shurlock alluded to earlier.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Cabrone

Cabrone

Posted
Posted
In how many minutes? Lots of those games he only played 10 minutes 2.5 years ago, and he's been injured.

 

Plus if I remember (and I'm trying to block it from my memory) it took the fool almost half a season to realise that Charlie was a goal threat and when he finally selected him he got an instant goal impact.

 

We have a lot of fans on here who rate running around more than scoring goals. Shane Long - who has a litttle fan club on here - could run around till his legs dropped off but still won't score but that doesn't matter because he runs a lot. BTW I don't dislike Shane Long, he can be a useful player still for us but he is no spearhead and that is what he was continually being selected to be. The guy is a mid\winger IMO.

 

I don't care if Charlie is immobile (he is nowhere near as bad as is made out on here) - he scores goals when no one else was (Gabi was the closest - another player who was treated appallingly by whatshisname) . Why is that so hard to understand??

 

Give me a lump that scores (and Charlie is a lot smarter than a lump) over a runner that doesn't, at least you have a chance of 3 points with Charlie, you have no chance of a win with a guy like Long.

 

According to this site last season he played 1029 minutes and scored 7 goals, more than 1 every 2 games he was selected\available and the mongs on here are still knocking the guy.

 

Unbelievable.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Suhari

Suhari

Posted
Posted
You're happy with quantity over quality?

 

Ings is a MASSIVE MASSIVE MASSIVE gamble and at £20m wed be absolutely ****ing ourselves if WHU or Everton had signed him.

 

He's played a dozen or so games in 3 years.... Was he genuinely the very best we could get for £20 million???

 

Absolutely ridiculous signing IMHO

 

Had all summer to source a decent striker and panic sign Danny Ings... **** poor

 

This, sadly.

 

Earlier in the summer we had no interest in him, particularly for the money Liverpool wanted.....that message was from various club mouthpieces.

 

Panic buy, using next year's budget.

 

I really hope it works.....I think the odds are against it

Link to comment
Share on other sites
ALWAYS_SFC

ALWAYS_SFC

Posted
Posted
You're happy with quantity over quality?

 

Ings is a MASSIVE MASSIVE MASSIVE gamble and at £20m wed be absolutely ****ing ourselves if WHU or Everton had signed him.

 

He's played a dozen or so games in 3 years.... Was he genuinely the very best we could get for £20 million???

 

Absolutely ridiculous signing IMHO

 

Had all summer to source a decent striker and panic sign Danny Ings... **** poor

 

I am willing to give the guy a chance unlike you and as a bonus if the signing annoys you then its a great signing

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Danbert

Danbert

Posted
Posted
This, sadly.

 

Earlier in the summer we had no interest in him, particularly for the money Liverpool wanted.....that message was from various club mouthpieces.

 

Panic buy, using next year's budget.

 

I really hope it works.....I think the odds are against it

 

This, unfortunately. Given that he's hardly played for many years, I don't see what basis the club have to even make an assessment of his ability.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
mrfahaji

mrfahaji

Posted
Posted
He's effectivly signed a 4 year contract today, fee will be close to £20m in total. It looks as if the loan initially is more for our 'cash flow' purposes/management as opposed to anything else, as Shurlock alluded to earlier.

 

Wow. I thought it was a decent move if the permanent signing was based on certain conditions, but if it is inevitable regardless then that it is quite an incredible gamble, and one I'm pretty sure the club wouldn't have made a few years ago.

 

If he picks up another injury and spends most of the season sidelined, we still have to buy?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
doddisalegend

doddisalegend

Posted
Posted
Wow. I thought it was a decent move if the permanent signing was based on certain conditions, but if it is inevitable regardless then that it is quite an incredible gamble, and one I'm pretty sure the club wouldn't have made a few years ago.

 

If he picks up another injury and spends most of the season sidelined, we still have to buy?

 

 

If that happens we probably won't be able to buy as we will already have £38-40 million tied up in two strikers not fit for purpose. Lets hope he stays fit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
mrfahaji

mrfahaji

Posted
Posted
If that happens we probably won't be able to buy as we will already have £38-40 million tied up in two strikers not fit for purpose. Lets hope he stays fit.

 

I meant, "do we still have to buy Ings?" (I think you read my comment as 'we still need to buy another striker', apologies if not)

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Lighthouse

Lighthouse

Posted
Posted
I meant, "do we still have to buy Ings?" (I think you read my comment as 'we still need to buy another striker', apologies if not)

 

Yes. We have agreed to sign him. Even if he does his ACL again a week before the loan ends and we get relegated, we have to give give Liverpool £18m and keep him.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
VectisSaint

VectisSaint

Posted
Posted
You have to wonder why anyone at our end would agree to that deal..

The loan business is a complete red herring. We have purchased him in all but name. It had to be a loan to get it across the line before the window slammed shut. To all intents and purposes Ings has been transferred permanently for an agreed fee. We agreed to the deal because we considered that it was reasonable to do so, there is no more risk than if it had been (as it is in all but name) a permanent transfer. Not sure if the rules allow it, but if they do would not be surprised if the deal is officially made permanent in January.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Lighthouse

Lighthouse

Posted
Posted
Because Liverpool wouldn’t agree to it?

 

It was deadline day, if they'd had better offers before he'd have gone already. It's not an unreasonable request, given his injury record and if they had said no I'd have walked away.

 

Sadly this is the board that gave Forster an extended contract, sold Fonte and Van Dijk mid-season without replacements and signed Carrillo to keep a manager happy who should have been sacked months ago. As such this deal doesn't surprise me, especially given that they caved in and paid the full £20m asking price that nobody else was interested in, for a player who didn't even make the squad for their last game.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
mrfahaji

mrfahaji

Posted
Posted
It was deadline day, if they'd had better offers before he'd have gone already. It's not an unreasonable request, given his injury record and if they had said no I'd have walked away.

 

Sadly this is the board that gave Forster an extended contract, sold Fonte and Van Dijk mid-season without replacements and signed Carrillo to keep a manager happy who should have been sacked months ago. As such this deal doesn't surprise me, especially given that they caved in and paid the full £20m asking price that nobody else was interested in, for a player who didn't even make the squad for their last game.

 

This is it for me. Ings could turn out well, but there is a sense that we just caved in to what Liverpool wanted - and what most people thought was a ridiculous asking price. I find it hard to believe he was the only player we wanted.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Red

Red

Posted
Posted
Yes. We have agreed to sign him. Even if he does his ACL again a week before the loan ends and we get relegated, we have to give give Liverpool £18m and keep him.

 

Do you know that for a fact? If not please don't state it as a fact.

I don't know, and neither does anyone apart from the two respective clubs negotiators as to the exact contract terms.

 

Would have expected better from a moderator than to scare monger, but given the sad state of this site these days, maybe not!

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Dark Munster

Dark Munster

Posted
Posted
Do you know that for a fact? If not please don't state it as a fact.

I don't know, and neither does anyone apart from the two respective clubs negotiators as to the exact contract terms.

 

Would have expected better from a moderator than to scare monger, but given the sad state of this site these days, maybe not!

What we have been told is that this is a loan preceding an obligation to buy. In other words we've to all extents and purposes bought him, with the loan being a technicality whose reasons have been discussed. And no sale of players ever have come with a money-back warranty. The only strings ever attached with player sales are add-ons (number of appearances, etc.), which would only save us a small percentage of the fee if he blows out a knee in the next year or later.

 

It's possible that the obligation to buy at the end of the loan has some injury get out clause for Saints, but why would they keep this secret?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Fan The Flames

Fan The Flames

Posted
Posted
This is it for me. Ings could turn out well, but there is a sense that we just caved in to what Liverpool wanted - and what most people thought was a ridiculous asking price. I find it hard to believe he was the only player we wanted.

 

I would guess that Liverpool were prepared to keep him until Jan so we had a choice pay what they wanted or no transfer. It would have been madness to have not brought a striker in and everyone would have gone mental on here. There are not many alternatives especially if you want prem experience.

 

What we have been told is that this is a loan preceding an obligation to buy. In other words we've to all extents and purposes bought him, with the loan being a technicality whose reasons have been discussed. And no sale of players ever have come with a money-back warranty. The only strings ever attached with player sales are add-ons (number of appearances, etc.), which would only save us a small percentage of the fee if he blows out a knee in the next year or later.

 

It's possible that the obligation to buy at the end of the loan has some injury get out clause for Saints, but why would they keep this secret?

 

Its not a sale it's a loan with an obligation to buy and I would bet my house that there is an injury clause, why would they tell anyone the details, we don't get told the details of other contracts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
shurlock

shurlock

Posted
Posted

Its not a sale it's a loan with an obligation to buy and I would bet my house that there is an injury clause, why would they tell anyone the details, we don't get told the details of other contracts.

 

Dark Munster didn’t say it was a sale - he said it was a loan preceding an obligation to buy. Got a dictionary at hand pal? You might check up what the phrase “to all extent and purposes” means.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Dusic

Dusic

Posted
  • Author
Posted

Austin was woeful today. Most interested in winning fouls rather than competing for anything.

 

Obviously the fanboys won't agree but for me he just isn't good enough outside the area and shoukd be 3rd choice.

 

He cannot press, pass, hold the ball up, win headers, make runs to be an outlet when under pressure, link play, assist.

 

Ings showed what a quality front player does.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
shurlock

shurlock

Posted
Posted
Austin was woeful today. Most interested in winning fouls rather than competing for anything.

 

Obviously the fanboys won't agree but for me he just isn't good enough outside the area and shoukd be 3rd choice.

 

He cannot press, pass, hold the ball up, win headers, make runs to be an outlet when under pressure, link play, assist.

 

Ings showed what a quality front player does.

 

Formation didn’t help him, so hard to infer too much. But agree he’s a limited player despite the theological attachment to him by some.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
qwertyell

qwertyell

Posted
Posted
Austin was woeful today. Most interested in winning fouls rather than competing for anything.

 

Obviously the fanboys won't agree but for me he just isn't good enough outside the area and shoukd be 3rd choice.

 

He cannot press, pass, hold the ball up, win headers, make runs to be an outlet when under pressure, link play, assist.

 

Ings showed what a quality front player does.

Charlie "guaranteed goals" Austin has featured in 10 of Hughes's 11 games in charge (7 X starts).

 

Charlie "15-20 goals per season if he can stay fit" Austin has scored one in his last ten games - as a sub.

 

Extremely limited tap in merchants aren't much use in a struggling side that doesn't create many tap ins. He literally contributes nothing else.

 

Sent from my F3311 using Tapatalk

Link to comment
Share on other sites
doddisalegend

doddisalegend

Posted
Posted
Austin was woeful today. Most interested in winning fouls rather than competing for anything.

 

Obviously the fanboys won't agree but for me he just isn't good enough outside the area and shoukd be 3rd choice.

 

He cannot press, pass, hold the ball up, win headers, make runs to be an outlet when under pressure, link play, assist.

 

Ings showed what a quality front player does.

 

**** me its like a one man crusade I think everybody knows how you feel about him from the day he walked through the door..

Link to comment
Share on other sites
saintadam

saintadam

Posted
Posted

Unfair to criticize Austin based on today’s game. He played most of the time when the whole team couldn’t keep the ball for 10 seconds in a row and almost never made it to the final third. He was totally isolated, even Messi would have been crap the first 60 minutes of this game.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

View Terms of service (Terms of Use) and Privacy Policy (Privacy Policy) and Forum Guidelines ({Guidelines})

  I accept