Jump to content

Danny Ings

sisi1992

By sisi1992,
in The Saints

 Share

Recommended Posts

Turkish

Turkish

Posted
Posted
2 minutes ago, OttawaSaint said:

Jesus! Ings isn’t even top 5. He’s probably the worst Danny we’ve ever had!

inb4 MLG gets his stats and gifs in order...

And we haven’t even mentioned our best two Danny Wallace and Dani Rodrigues, he was our young hungry and guaranteed to improve signing in the 1999 transfer window 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Toussaint

Toussaint

Posted
Posted (edited)
7 minutes ago, Turkish said:

Little fat balding cripple. Just a midget from netley that got lucky. He’ll get found out 

Yeah, chancer! Couple of lucky goals here and there, set for life. Doesn’t seem fair to real talent like Reddy Redders Redmond . He couldn’t even cut it as cheerleader/ mascot , had to get Theo in for that ffs!

Edited by Toussaint
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Turkish

Turkish

Posted
Posted
2 hours ago, Toussaint said:

Yeah, chancer! Couple of lucky goals here and there, set for life. Doesn’t seem fair to real talent like Reddy Redders Redmond . He couldn’t even cut it as cheerleader/ mascot , had to get Theo in for that ffs!

Redders is a proper club man and rarely injured Not like that balding cripple Shithouse. Everytime he laughs he probably cracks a rib, few taps ins like Ings got for us and Adam Armstrong will Show he’s much better. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • 4 weeks later...
jawillwill

jawillwill

Posted
Posted

On Football Focus now. Even though lots of people have said it before, I think today is the first time I've actually ever heard him describe Saints as "his boyhood club" and "his team" etc.

Probably not particularly interesting to most, but think I've seen a few people on here denying that it's the case...

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Red

Red

Posted
Posted
3 minutes ago, jawillwill said:

On Football Focus now. Even though lots of people have said it before, I think today is the first time I've actually ever heard him describe Saints as "his boyhood club" and "his team" etc.

Probably not particularly interesting to most, but think I've seen a few people on here denying that it's the case...

Thanks. Interesting but just goes to show money is what matters to most modern footballers - his team/boyhood club offers him the best deal the club have ever offered to anyone and he still moves to an arguably slightly better club (not top 6) for a few dollars more.

Not sure he's a great loss so far - he hasn't really been on fire for Villa and would we have done better with him - not sure?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Fan The Flames

Fan The Flames

Posted
Posted
18 hours ago, Red said:

Thanks. Interesting but just goes to show money is what matters to most modern footballers - his team/boyhood club offers him the best deal the club have ever offered to anyone and he still moves to an arguably slightly better club (not top 6) for a few dollars more.

Not sure he's a great loss so far - he hasn't really been on fire for Villa and would we have done better with him - not sure?

It's always been this way, players have always played for the best wages.

He had a nice assist yesterday.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
egg

egg

Posted
Posted
On 18/09/2021 at 12:28, Red said:

Thanks. Interesting but just goes to show money is what matters to most modern footballers - his team/boyhood club offers him the best deal the club have ever offered to anyone and he still moves to an arguably slightly better club (not top 6) for a few dollars more.

Not sure he's a great loss so far - he hasn't really been on fire for Villa and would we have done better with him - not sure?

Most people, if they're being honest, would take a job that offers 20% + more pay, especially if it's probably their last job before retiring. In Ings case, that 20% is about £1m a year. 

He's been good for them, and he's a big loss for us. We'd have a couple of wins on the board if we had Ings rather than Armstrong. 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TWar

TWar

Posted
Posted
9 hours ago, Chris cooper said:

Apparently injured but don’t know how bad just been told in a group chat by a Villa fan .. possibly reoccurrence of his knee injury.

That's a damn shame. I don't like how he left but he is so talented, it's sad to see his career so hampered by injury. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Minsk

Minsk

Posted
Posted
6 hours ago, egg said:

Most people, if they're being honest, would take a job that offers 20% + more pay, especially if it's probably their last job before retiring. In Ings case, that 20% is about £1m a year. 

He's been good for them, and he's a big loss for us. We'd have a couple of wins on the board if we had Ings rather than Armstrong. 

Pure conjecture. 

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Lighthouse

Lighthouse

Posted
Posted
6 minutes ago, egg said:

I'm not sure what Valery/Perraud / Livramento have to do with my point that Ings is a better player Than Armstrong. 

Because we can only afford those other players thanks to selling Ings and Vest to raise funds. We did have Ings last season and we didn’t win any of these fixtures.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Dman

Dman

Posted
Posted
8 minutes ago, Lighthouse said:

Because we can only afford those other players thanks to selling Ings and Vest to raise funds. We did have Ings last season and we didn’t win any of these fixtures.

Well using Valery is a poor comparison as he would never have been a starter for us. 
 

The fact we needed to sell 1 or 2 of our best players to buy 2 full backs which cost a combined fee of c.15m is an absolute shambles, to start. 
 

But it doesn’t really have any relevance to Eggs point that Ings would have almost certainly put the chances Armstrong hasn’t, away. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Lighthouse

Lighthouse

Posted
Posted

The point is that if we hadn’t sold Ings, we wouldn’t have signed the players to create those chances, so it’s a moot point. That and the fact we’d have likely conceded enough goals that a couple of extra from Ings wouldn’t have helped. In these fixtures last season we either conceded 3+ goals or failed to score ourselves.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Minsk

Minsk

Posted
Posted
10 minutes ago, Dman said:

Well using Valery is a poor comparison as he would never have been a starter for us. 
 

The fact we needed to sell 1 or 2 of our best players to buy 2 full backs which cost a combined fee of c.15m is an absolute shambles, to start. 
 

But it doesn’t really have any relevance to Eggs point that Ings would have almost certainly put the chances Armstrong hasn’t, away. 

Wrong (as usual). 

Ings might have scored one or two goals more than Arma has if he were still here, he might not have. He equally may have picked up an injury in the first match and not featured since. We will never know.

As Lighthouse quite rightly stated without the money we got for him (and Vest) we wouldn't have been able to bulk out our squad as we have. And no, it is not an 'absolute shambles' that we bought 2 (1 potentially very good, 1 so far decent) fullbacks for the fee we received for an average (during the most of his spell with us) CB. That is good business. With the money from Ings we brought in his younger replacement (who could likely do better with us over the spell he is here than Ings may have done had he stayed - not as good yet, but offers more years and potentially many more matches), 1 x CB (not ready yet, but Salisu is proving a far better player than Vest has ever been - so Lyanco doesn't need to be there yet), 1 x CB for the future (Simeu) and 1 x (very promising/highly rated - Small) LB for the future.

We are not a big club with a wealthy owner. Get over it!

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Badger

Badger

Posted
Posted
48 minutes ago, egg said:

To an extent, yes, but I've yet to meet anyone who believes Armstrong has done better for us than Ings would have done. 

Trouble is the Ings people use as a yardstick is the fit and firing on all cylinders one from his good spell, mainly 2020 prior to injury. Not sure from his early days with us, or the often injured/coming back from injury Ings, or the 'going through the motions' at the end of last season version would offer significantly better, or enough to turn down £25/30m.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
egg

egg

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, Badger said:

Trouble is the Ings people use as a yardstick is the fit and firing on all cylinders one from his good spell, mainly 2020 prior to injury. Not sure from his early days with us, or the often injured/coming back from injury Ings, or the 'going through the motions' at the end of last season version would offer significantly better, or enough to turn down £25/30m.

I've made a very simple point that I feel we would have won a couple of games if we had Ings (as he's played this season) rather than Armstrong. We've had responses about signing full backs and now querying which version of Ings we'd be comparing to, and speculating that he may have got injured!! 

It's really simple. Ings is better than Armstrong. I think he'd have taken chances that Armstrong hasn't and we'd have won as a result. 

Some people will argue for the sake of arguing. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Minsk

Minsk

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, Badger said:

Trouble is the Ings people use as a yardstick is the fit and firing on all cylinders one from his good spell, mainly 2020 prior to injury. Not sure from his early days with us, or the often injured/coming back from injury Ings, or the 'going through the motions' at the end of last season version would offer significantly better, or enough to turn down £25/30m.

Spot on. Let's wait until the end of the season to see if Arma matches the 11 goals of Ings (not including penalties) last season.....

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Minsk

Minsk

Posted
Posted
2 minutes ago, egg said:

I've made a very simple point that I feel we would have won a couple of games if we had Ings (as he's played this season) rather than Armstrong. We've had responses about signing full backs and now querying which version of Ings we'd be comparing to, and speculating that he may have got injured!! 

It's really simple. Ings is better than Armstrong. I think he'd have taken chances that Armstrong hasn't and we'd have won as a result. 

Some people will argue for the sake of arguing. 

Which chances in particular?

Not arguing for the sake of it. Just stating that yours is simply an opinion which cannot be backed up or proved in any manner whatsoever. 

Yes, an on form Ings is better than a current day Armstrong. No one will disagree with that. However, surely you can see the point that if we hadn't sold Ings (i.e. he were still here) we wouldn't have bought other players. Therefore, it would be an entirely different team out on the pitch. Therefore, the chances may not have existed in the first place.

As I said, pure conjecture.

You have a habit, although not as bad as SKDman, of always trying to put the club down. Don't get upset when others point out the errors in your thought process.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
egg

egg

Posted
Posted
Just now, Minsk said:

Which chances in particular?

Not arguing for the sake of it. Just stating that yours is simply an opinion which cannot be backed up or proved in any manner whatsoever. 

Yes, an on form Ings is better than a current day Armstrong. No one will disagree with that. However, surely you can see the point that if we hadn't sold Ings (i.e. he were still here) we wouldn't have bought other players. Therefore, it would be an entirely different team out on the pitch. Therefore, the chances may not have existed in the first place.

As I said, pure conjecture.

You have a habit, although not as bad as SKDman, of always trying to put the club down. Don't get upset when others point out the errors in your thought process.

Of course it's an opinion, 90% of the nonsense posted on here is opinion. 

I'm not putting the club down. I've said that Ings is better than Armstrong, which he is. If you disagree, you're in a tiny minority. 

You're being contrary for the sake of it. 

  • Confused 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
CB Fry

CB Fry

Posted
Posted

Who is saying that Armstrong is better than Ings? I think no one.

Equally, why the fuck people are offering up the idea that Ings is currently a better player than Adam Armstrong as some kind of killer insight is equally baffling.

Obviously he is, I'm lost as to what the debate is.

What's the next topic, if only we had Van Dijk instead of Stephens?

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
egg

egg

Posted
Posted
3 minutes ago, CB Fry said:

Who is saying that Armstrong is better than Ings? I think no one.

Equally, why the fuck people are offering up the idea that Ings is currently a better player than Adam Armstrong as some kind of killer insight is equally baffling.

Obviously he is, I'm lost as to what the debate is.

What's the next topic, if only we had Van Dijk instead of Stephens?

Simple point - I think Ings is a loss for us, and that he would have put away chances that Armstrong hasn't, and that we'd have won a couple of games as a consequence. Various points in response. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Lighthouse

Lighthouse

Posted
Posted
3 minutes ago, egg said:

Simple point - I think Ings is a loss for us, and that he would have put away chances that Armstrong hasn't, and that we'd have won a couple of games as a consequence. Various points in response. 

If we’re going that simplistic then yes, I agree. However, that’s as generic as saying if we’d collected all our best players from recent history into one squad we’d be a better team, which is obvious.

You are right in a literal sense but it’s still a moot point. Rather like saying we’d have won the league in 2016 if we had Pelle, Mané, Tadic, Pahars, Niemi and Lallana.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
egg

egg

Posted
Posted
Just now, Lighthouse said:

If we’re going that simplistic then yes, I agree. However, that’s as generic as saying if we’d collected all our best players from recent history into one squad we’d be a better team, which is obvious.

You are right in a literal sense but it’s still a moot point. Rather like saying we’d have won the league in 2016 if we had Pelle, Mané, Tadic, Pahars, Niemi and Lallana.

You had a bad day mate?! Yes, I am being that simplistic - it's a very simple point that Ings would have (imo) taken chances that Armstrong hasn't. Responses have gone off at all sorts of tangents, and you've now gone back 5 years. 

It's no crime to agree with someone, which we've established you do after numerous responses. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
TWar

TWar

Posted
Posted

Ings being viewed as a little more perfect than he was. Everyone misses chances. I reckon ings won't score more than 5 more goals in the league than Armstrong given his injury risk (putting myself out there a bit!). Next season when ings is 30 and Armstrong is still 25 I back Armstrong to surpass him. Season after that Armstrong will be in his prime and Ings will be close to retirement based on his injury record.

We are having a transitional year with a bunch of young lads developing so buying longer term is smart. Swapping ings for Armstrong plus £15m in a years time will be excellent business imo. 

  • Like 2
  • Confused 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Minsk

Minsk

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, egg said:

Of course it's an opinion, 90% of the nonsense posted on here is opinion. 

I'm not putting the club down. I've said that Ings is better than Armstrong, which he is. If you disagree, you're in a tiny minority. 

You're being contrary for the sake of it. 

Please point out where I have said that Armstrong is better than Ings. I said the exact opposite in the post you quoted. Let help you by quoting exactly what I wrote: With the money from Ings we brought in his younger replacement (who could likely do better with us over the spell he is here than Ings may have done had he stayed - not as good yet, but offers more years and potentially many more matches). I have even put the important bit in bold for you. Simple enough?

Once again, I am not being contrary (or argumentative) for the sake of it. I have merely pointed out a very simplistic concept: us still having Ings would have meant we don't have other players in our squad. That should be simple enough even for you to understand. Therefore, your statement of 'We'd have a couple of wins on the board if we had Ings rather than Armstrong' IS pure conjecture - as we have no idea who else would be in our squad. As others have said, maybe keeping Ings we would have played a weaker defence and conceded more. So Ings scoring 1 might have meant we lost matches that we have drawn because we conceded 2 more. All conjecture. Sorry if my saying it upsets you.

That said, I still believe it is very conceivable for Arma to match the 11 goals scored from open play that Ings achieved last season.

Oh, and I'm still waiting for you to state exactly which chances Armstrong missed that Ings DEFINITELY would have scored. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
revolution saint

revolution saint

Posted
Posted
13 minutes ago, Minsk said:

Please point out where I have said that Armstrong is better than Ings. I said the exact opposite in the post you quoted. Let help you by quoting exactly what I wrote: With the money from Ings we brought in his younger replacement (who could likely do better with us over the spell he is here than Ings may have done had he stayed - not as good yet, but offers more years and potentially many more matches). I have even put the important bit in bold for you. Simple enough?

Once again, I am not being contrary (or argumentative) for the sake of it. I have merely pointed out a very simplistic concept: us still having Ings would have meant we don't have other players in our squad. That should be simple enough even for you to understand. Therefore, your statement of 'We'd have a couple of wins on the board if we had Ings rather than Armstrong' IS pure conjecture - as we have no idea who else would be in our squad. As others have said, maybe keeping Ings we would have played a weaker defence and conceded more. So Ings scoring 1 might have meant we lost matches that we have drawn because we conceded 2 more. All conjecture. Sorry if my saying it upsets you.

That said, I still believe it is very conceivable for Arma to match the 11 goals scored from open play that Ings achieved last season.

Oh, and I'm still waiting for you to state exactly which chances Armstrong missed that Ings DEFINITELY would have scored. 

I'm not sure why you keep insisting that Armstrong is better than Ings.  Practically no one agrees with that.

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Saint Billy

Saint Billy

Posted
Posted
3 hours ago, egg said:

Of course it's an opinion, 90% of the nonsense posted on here is opinion. 

I'm not putting the club down. I've said that Ings is better than Armstrong, which he is. If you disagree, you're in a tiny minority. 

You're being contrary for the sake of it. 

Armstrong needs to get a few more games under his belt yet before he is judged imo. Plus it seems that more attention has been given to firming up our back line and not shipping goals like last season rightly so, but that means a trade off with our attack. Once we get a balance I think he will start knocking some in. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Turkish

Turkish

Posted
Posted
3 hours ago, egg said:

Simple point - I think Ings is a loss for us, and that he would have put away chances that Armstrong hasn't, and that we'd have won a couple of games as a consequence. Various points in response. 

It’s pretty obvious to all but a few mentalists that Ings would have scored a couple of the changes Armstrong has had and possibly won games for us. Although given our abject ability to hold onto leads I’m not sure we’d have won those games. However I like the look of Armstrong and I like what Ralph is building. Adams and Armstrong won’t be the most prolific pair but they’ll cause teams problems, confident they’ll get c10 goals each this season provide Ralph doesn’t do made things like drop adams for redmond which is pointless

Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • Lighthouse changed the title to Danny Ings

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