Danny Ings

[egg]

Just now, Turkish said:

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

Yep, all fair points Del. Armstrong definitely has something. Good touch, pace, aggressive, decent movement. There's a player in there and he looks better than Adams did when he arrived so there's a lot of scope for improvement. In time I'm confident he'll come good, but it's goals this season we need. Our biggest issue for me is the 10's/wide players. If we can get the blend right there I reckon we'll surprise a few this season, but it's been a very promising start. 

[Turkish]

11 minutes ago, egg said:

Yep, all fair points Del. Armstrong definitely has something. Good touch, pace, aggressive, decent movement. There's a player in there and he looks better than Adams did when he arrived so there's a lot of scope for improvement. In time I'm confident he'll come good, but it's goals this season we need. Our biggest issue for me is the 10's/wide players. If we can get the blend right there I reckon we'll surprise a few this season, but it's been a very promising start. 

He looks a confident lad and has a bit about him. Sure he’ll be fine. Adams reminds me of when Rodriguez joined us. A good player but took him a year or so before he believed he belonged in the premier league. I think Adams is a good player,  powerful, holds it up well but if fans thinks he’s going to get 20 a season then they’ll be disappointed. At first I thought he was but unlucky in front of goal but the truth is that you don’t look at the top strikers and think they’re unlucky not to score they just do what’s right, adams seems to just hit it as hard as he can and sometimes it goes in sometimes it doesn’t. Good player, average finisher but to be blunt about what we could hope for on our budget 

[Minsk]

1 hour ago, egg said:

You clearly struggle with the concept of an OPINION mate. 

Not at all Princess. I fully understand your opinion that Ings is (at present) a better finisher than Armstrong. Thus it is likely that he MIGHT have scored one or two more than Arma has so far this season. (Can't really bring to mind any glaring misses of his. Seemingly nor can you.) However, that does not in any way relate to the fact that we WOULD (your word) have won 1 or 2 matches already this season if we still had Ings in our squad. You seem to fail to comprehend that if we hadn't sold him we would have been starting different players, both in attack and defence. No one can tell how that would have impacted on any of the matches. It really isn't that difficult to understand.

I mean, I might as well write - if we had signed Grealish, van Dijk, and Kane instead of Walcott, Lyanco and Armstrong we would have probably (but maybe not) won a couple of matches by now. Equally as pointless as your statement re Ings. But it's an opinion, right? It certainly doesn't make me any inciteful footballing genius, it just acknowledges the fact that are better players out there than we have in our squad. Simple enough for you?

[Dellman]

If comparing Ings and Armstrong, of course Ings is the better at the moment which is why he cost twice as much as Armstrong. But Ings is near the end of his career, Armstrong is  beginning his Premier career. My guess is--in the long run, we are the winners. 

[Minsk]

1 hour ago, Turkish said:

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

Who are these 'mentalists' that have said Ings wouldn't have scored a couple of chances Armstrong missed? (Any particular misses in mind?) Can you quote where they said this? Maybe you are referring to yourself? I mean, you then go on to say the same as I have in that even if he had been playing for us and we had subsequently scored more goals (by him) it doesn't necessarily mean we would have won those games anyway. Or is that just one of your usual bollocks bravado statements that you are so fond of?

[egg]

40 minutes ago, Minsk said:

Not at all Princess. I fully understand your opinion that Ings is (at present) a better finisher than Armstrong. Thus it is likely that he MIGHT have scored one or two more than Arma has so far this season. (Can't really bring to mind any glaring misses of his. Seemingly nor can you.) However, that does not in any way relate to the fact that we WOULD (your word) have won 1 or 2 matches already this season if we still had Ings in our squad. You seem to fail to comprehend that if we hadn't sold him we would have been starting different players, both in attack and defence. No one can tell how that would have impacted on any of the matches. It really isn't that difficult to understand.

I mean, I might as well write - if we had signed Grealish, van Dijk, and Kane instead of Walcott, Lyanco and Armstrong we would have probably (but maybe not) won a couple of matches by now. Equally as pointless as your statement re Ings. But it's an opinion, right? It certainly doesn't make me any inciteful footballing genius, it just acknowledges the fact that are better players out there than we have in our squad. Simple enough for you?

Take a breath mate, it's only a football discussion. 

[Turkish]

31 minutes ago, Minsk said:

Who are these 'mentalists' that have said Ings wouldn't have scored a couple of chances Armstrong missed? (Any particular misses in mind?) Can you quote where they said this? Maybe you are referring to yourself? I mean, you then go on to say the same as I have in that even if he had been playing for us and we had subsequently scored more goals (by him) it doesn't necessarily mean we would have won those games anyway. Or is that just one of your usual bollocks bravado statements that you are so fond of?

Calm down hun don’t get upset if you’ve watch some of the game maybe you’d get it. It’s not always about stats 

[skintsaint]

4 hours ago, egg said:

Armstrong definitely has something.

I think so too. Think he just needs to find his feet. Our fixtures so far have been pretty tough for a player coming into the PL, especially learning a new system/team mates. Could have had potentially 3 goals out of that if not taken out twice when about to shoot. Feel the biggest chance v Utd he just chose the wrong side and tried to give the eyes to De Gea. I doubt there is a striker out there that doesn't miss a number of 1v1s throughout a season. Even the great Ronaldo missed an easier one last weekend.

Still can't see anything about Ings being out though.

[Saint86]

Adams and Armstrong have the making of a good pairing. Che should be starting every game, and as someone else has said, sort out the CAMs behind them.

Edited 24 September, 2021 by Saint86

[LiberalCommunist]

I'll start worrying about Danny's knees around bonfire night. For now, he can do what he wants with little concern from me. 

[Billy the Kidd]

10 minutes ago, skintsaint said:

its bugging me now...what the feck does this mean? 😕😅

Im glad you asked, i just thought I was being a bit thicker than usual and didnt want to appear even more stupid than I do already.

[Dman]

20 hours ago, Minsk said:

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!

Why do people keep rambling on about Ings potentially getting an injury. Injuries happen, Armstrong could have also sustained an injury.
 

Regardless of that, Egg’s and mine point wasn’t if we should have accepted that offer for Ings, he was rightly pointing out the importance of a top level striker. I’m sure it can be proven by ‘XG’ or something that Ings is a better finisher than Armstrong, those 2 against United, Ings 9 times out of 10, would score. He might have missed, we’ll never know but in all likilehood, based on previous with us, he’d score and we’d win that game. 
 

my point regarding being a shambles was the fact, as a premier league club, we needed to sell 1 or 2 of our best players to fund 15m£ to bulk out some very much needed depth in the squad. I think we done alright in the transfer market all things considered. our business wasn’t a shambles, the financial situation is though. 

FWIW, I like Armstrong, he has a lot of qualities and similarities to Ings, he’ll improve and be a decent enough player for us. He’s not as good as Ings, but that’s obvious. No one we brought would be. 

Not too sure which part is wrong (fact!!). Just 2 differing opinions. Who’d have thought it on a football forum. 

[ErwinK1961]

So… is Ings injured or not?

[Dman]

6 minutes ago, Minsk said:

Aww, bless you for wading in to protect Turkish.

Except it wasn't just you stating that Ings would have scored (some mysterious) chances that Armstrong has missed. No one has disagreed with that (even though you can't say which chances). You took it further in by stating we would have won 1 or 2 matches by now had that been the case. You then didn't like it when people pointed out that wouldn't (necessarily) have been the case (for reasons already explained which you have failed to acknowledge) You know, there is something very similar in style between you and Turkish: you both ignore any actual facts presented to you which go against your belief and you both fail to answer reasonable questions when posed. Oh, and you also want to shut people up when they dare challenge you. Really a match made in heaven.

Now go crawl back under your rock and have lovely weekend. (Wouldn't have added that last sentence if not for your 'wind your neck in' comment. Not usually my style. But as you sow, so you shall reap.) xx

He missed 2 absolute sitters against United, for a start. That’s at least 1 win there. 

[egg]

4 minutes ago, Dman said:

Why do people keep rambling on about Ings potentially getting an injury. Injuries happen, Armstrong could have also sustained an injury.
 

Regardless of that, Egg’s and mine point wasn’t if we should have accepted that offer for Ings, he was rightly pointing out the importance of a top level striker. I’m sure it can be proven by ‘XG’ or something that Ings is a better finisher than Armstrong, those 2 against United, Ings 9 times out of 10, would score. He might have missed, we’ll never know but in all likilehood, based on previous with us, he’d score and we’d win that game. 
 

my point regarding being a shambles was the fact, as a premier league club, we needed to sell 1 or 2 of our best players to fund 15m£ to bulk out some very much needed depth in the squad. I think we done alright in the transfer market all things considered. our business wasn’t a shambles, the financial situation is though. 

FWIW, I like Armstrong, he has a lot of qualities and similarities to Ings, he’ll improve and be a decent enough player for us. He’s not as good as Ings, but that’s obvious. No one we brought would be. 

Not too sure which part is wrong (fact!!). Just 2 differing opinions. Who’d have thought it on a football forum. 

Exactly. It's not complicated. Unless you're looking for an argument. 

[skintsaint]

6 minutes ago, Dman said:

13 minutes ago, Minsk said:

Expand  

He missed 2 absolute sitters against United,

Good chances, not absolute sitters.

[TWar]

11 minutes ago, Dman said:

Why do people keep rambling on about Ings potentially getting an injury. Injuries happen, Armstrong could have also sustained an injury.

Because the rate at which someone gets injuries isn't uniform across all players and a guy who as had two ACL injuries and hasn't played over 3000 minutes in the league in a season (and has only topped 2000 minutes twice) in the last seven seasons is a big risk.

Danny is a big injury risk as he gets injured a lot and is pushing 30. Armstrong is not.

[Minsk]

32 minutes ago, Dman said:

Why do people keep rambling on about Ings potentially getting an injury. Injuries happen, Armstrong could have also sustained an injury.
 

Regardless of that, Egg’s and mine point wasn’t if we should have accepted that offer for Ings, he was rightly pointing out the importance of a top level striker. I’m sure it can be proven by ‘XG’ or something that Ings is a better finisher than Armstrong, those 2 against United, Ings 9 times out of 10, would score. He might have missed, we’ll never know but in all likilehood, based on previous with us, he’d score and we’d win that game. 
 

my point regarding being a shambles was the fact, as a premier league club, we needed to sell 1 or 2 of our best players to fund 15m£ to bulk out some very much needed depth in the squad. I think we done alright in the transfer market all things considered. our business wasn’t a shambles, the financial situation is though. 

FWIW, I like Armstrong, he has a lot of qualities and similarities to Ings, he’ll improve and be a decent enough player for us. He’s not as good as Ings, but that’s obvious. No one we brought would be. 

Not too sure which part is wrong (fact!!). Just 2 differing opinions. Who’d have thought it on a football forum. 

Thank you for a reasonable reply which actually reflects points made in a post.

I agree, it would be nice to have a top, top, quality finisher playing up front for us. It would certainly mean we would be likely to score more goals. Just as if we had a top quality goalkeeper, a world class CB and a top holding CM would make us harder to score against. Doesn't really take a genius to work those things out. But we are where we are.

[Verbal]

1 hour ago, TWar said:

Because the rate at which someone gets injuries isn't uniform across all players and a guy who as had two ACL injuries and hasn't played over 3000 minutes in the league in a season (and has only topped 2000 minutes twice) in the last seven seasons is a big risk.

Danny is a big injury risk as he gets injured a lot and is pushing 30. Armstrong is not.

We've also yet to see the best of Armstrong for at least one reason - at Blackburn he had Harvey Elliott providing assist after assist.  We don't have a Harvey Elliott - yet at least.

[Jeremy Corbyn]

2 hours ago, ErwinK1961 said:

So… is Ings injured or not?

[ErwinK1961]

3 hours ago, Jeremy Corbyn said:

I’m not hoping he’s injured! Someone just mentioned he might be before all the cock swinging broke out on the thread

[Matthew Le God]

Clearly not very injured, as he starts today...

 

[Streaky]

Ridiculous bald patch today. We got rid just in time 🤭

[Saints foreva]

Hilarious how bitter you lot are when a player leaves us. 🤣

[Fan The Flames]

8 hours ago, Saints foreva said:

Hilarious how bitter you lot are when a player leaves us. 🤣

Football fans are the same the world over.

[Suhari]

11 hours ago, Streaky said:

Ridiculous bald patch today. We got rid just in time 🤭

He's no Pelle, that's for sure.

[rooney]

19 hours ago, Streaky said:

Ridiculous bald patch today. We got rid just in time 🤭

But Redmond had hair when he signed for us.

[Wurzel]

In an Echo article on him today, a strange comment from him in a quote discussing his transfer
 

Quote

It was extremely tough not being able to go in and say goodbye but that was the agreement between the two clubs. So that part was difficult.

 Why would either club make such a stipulation?

[Toadhall Saint]

5 minutes ago, Wurzel said:

In an Echo article on him today, a strange comment from him in a quote discussing his transfer
 

 Why would either club make such a stipulation?

Very strange comment/quote. Can’t see the sense in that.

Edited 2 November, 2021 by Toadhall Saint

[ChrisPY]

42 minutes ago, Toadhall Saint said:

Very strange comment/quote. Can’t see the sense in that.

Strange from the outside but can see why Danny would believe it if he was told that by his agent.

 

[Ex Lion Tamer]

1 hour ago, Wurzel said:

In an Echo article on him today, a strange comment from him in a quote discussing his transfer
 

 Why would either club make such a stipulation?

Covid safety? So villa could have him available sooner?

[Wurzel]

4 minutes ago, Ex Lion Tamer said:

Covid safety? So villa could have him available sooner?

Hadn't thought of Covid. Could have been that I guess

[Holmes_and_Watson]

There are a number of reasons why an employee would not necessarily be allowed back into facilities after their departure is confirmed.

Security: Some handbags may have been rifled through, and Bradley Wright Phillips was definitely playing in the MLS at the time.

Environmental: Ings' return would have reminded Raph of his victory over Liverpool, posing a considerable flooding risk to Southampton facilities.

Reputational: The club were so sure Ings was going to sign a contract extension, they hadn't got round to slating him in the press in a vain attmept to convince us he wasn't needed. Saints feel slighted at not being able to slight Ings.

Staff Retention: The last thing Ralph wants to see is a very happy, better paid player reminding other players at the club about greener pastures.

[suewhistle]

Greener pastures? 🙂  Ok, I'll certainly give you better paid..  That's why we need to win on Friday!

[Holmes_and_Watson]

🙂 I think in Villa's minds they were going to use the Grealish, and their backer's pennies to push on, while we were haggling over Armstrong and some youth players.

Terribly sad it's not worked out for them so far. And will be even sadder, hopefully, after this week.

[Miltonaggro]

I've  been worried about Danny Ings all week, does anybody know if he's going to be OK? 

[LiberalCommunist]

His hamstring is healing nicely, but his ego is bruised beyond repair! 

Prognosis, he's a bit of a nob. 

[Lighthouse]

21 minutes ago, LiberalCommunist said:

His hamstring is healing nicely, but his ego is bruised beyond repair! 

Prognosis, he's a bit of a nob. 

Why? All he did was leave for a last big pay day. I'd have done it.

[Billy the Kidd]

16 minutes ago, Lighthouse said:

Why? All he did was leave for a last big pay day. I'd have done it.

Yep, I’ve done it lots of times and will do again. 

We also didn’t have to sell him, and we chose to, which again is fine as it suited us. Some people seem to forget this  

I don’t get the dislike of some people towards players who leave, others have left under far worse acrimony. 

Danny is certainly no knob, just looking out for himself. 

And I’m rather pleased he isn’t playing, as I expected him to score, but can’t feel bad towards him. 

[Chris cooper]

29 minutes ago, Lighthouse said:

Why? All he did was leave for a last big pay day. I'd have done it.

Just say that then instead of bullshitting!no one would have begrudged him but instead did a lallana.

[Billy the Kidd]

He really didnt do a Lallana!

[Huffton]

It was the best move for both parties. Big last payday for him, big overpriced sale for us of a player one small knock away from a career ending injury. I bear Ings no malice whatsoever, very glad he isn't playing tonight though.

[Chris cooper]

1 hour ago, Billy the Kidd said:

He really didnt do a Lallana!

The only difference is ings can’t grow his hair long and put a rubber band in it like he’s from Spain playing for Real Madrid !!! 🤦‍♂️✊🏻💦💦

[Lighthouse]

2 hours ago, Chris cooper said:

Just say that then instead of bullshitting!no one would have begrudged him but instead did a lallana.

You mean sign for Villa and do a press conference saying he's only there for the money? That'll go down well. Four games without a goal and he'd be getting death threats for, "not trying and not giving a s**t about the club only his wallet FFS!!"

[JustinSFC]

54 minutes ago, Badger said:

Apart from the money spent non Ings and his three (or four ?)year that was a wise investment of course.

That's probably been a big factor in it.

They backed him up to the hilt over Ings.

They really paid over the odds for a crock with one year left.

Apart from 1 good goal, he's hardly been the second coming of the Messiah for them.

Hope he enjoys his time there, the fucking prick.

[Billy the Kidd]

2 minutes ago, JustinSFC said:

That's probably been a big factor in it.

They backed him up to the hilt over Ings.

They really paid over the odds for a crock with one year left.

Apart from 1 good goal, he's hardly been the second coming of the Messiah for them.

Hope he enjoys his time there, the fucking prick.

He is probs enjoying life more than you as it seems.

Why is he a fucking prick, bit aggressive there fella 😅

I mean, Danny didnt set the fee or wages etc, we got an offer, and we accepted it. Danny then spoke to them and accepted their terms.

Do you think we got a good deal out of it, int he £30m? or would you have kept him for that? As you say, 1 year left and a crock - not sure why the anger…

 

[JustinSFC]

1 minute ago, Billy the Kidd said:

He is probs enjoying life more than you as it seems.

Why is he a fucking prick, bit aggressive there fella 😅

I mean, Danny didnt set the fee or wages etc, we got an offer, and we accepted it. Danny then spoke to them and accepted their terms.

Do you think we got a good deal out of it, int he £30m? or would you have kept him for that? As you say, 1 year left and a crock - not sure why the anger…

 

What are you talking about?
 

I'm not saying we shouldn't have taken it and I'm saying Smith spent a fortune on him and played a part in him getting sacked.
 

And considering Ings is on record as saying he only came here for one contract, when at the time he was so radioactive in terms of injury that no other club would touch him, then to say that, yes he is a prick.

[Billy the Kidd]

16 minutes ago, JustinSFC said:

What are you talking about?
 

I'm not saying we shouldn't have taken it and I'm saying Smith spent a fortune on him and played a part in him getting sacked.
 

And considering Ings is on record as saying he only came here for one contract, when at the time he was so radioactive in terms of injury that no other club would touch him, then to say that, yes he is a prick.

You post in an aggressive manner, that is what I am talking about. That is what I dont particularly like, calling Ings a prick when we wanted to sell him instead of him going on a free. That was always his choice, he had a contract for a set number of years, and is entitled to do what makes most sense to him. It really doesn’t make him a prick, just makes you sound like someone with an anger issue 👍

You post above doesn’t make sense to me, i thought you may realise and accept that people move on. Do you say similar things if they leave the company you work for 😅

So, you are saying Ings was honest, he only came here for the contract, and we decided to sell him - I fail to understand the issue.

Is Saints FC pricks for accepting an offer?

 

[JustinSFC]

9 minutes ago, Billy the Kidd said:

You post in an aggressive manner, that is what I am talking about. That is what I dont particularly like, calling Ings a prick when we wanted to sell him instead of him going on a free. That was always his choice, he had a contract for a set number of years, and is entitled to do what makes most sense to him. It really doesn’t make him a prick, just makes you sound like someone with an anger issue 👍

You post above doesn’t make sense to me, i thought you may realise and accept that people move on. Do you say similar things if they leave the company you work for 😅

So, you are saying Ings was honest, he only came here for the contract, and we decided to sell him - I fail to understand the issue.

Is Saints FC pricks for accepting an offer?

 

What seriously are you on about mate?

What has whether we did or did not accept an offer got to do with me saying Dean Smith's sacking may have something to do with spaffing the Grealish money?

I'm not saying he's a prick for leaving or that we're pricks for accepting it, I'm saying he's a prick for what he's said in the press recently.

Can you read?

[Billy the Kidd]

23 minutes ago, JustinSFC said:

What seriously are you on about mate?

What has whether we did or did not accept an offer got to do with me saying Dean Smith's sacking may have something to do with spaffing the Grealish money?

I'm not saying he's a prick for leaving or that we're pricks for accepting it, I'm saying he's a prick for what he's said in the press recently.

Can you read?

I never said you didnt, I said I dont think there is much need to call Ings a prick - but you know that is what ive said, and now try to deflect attention from your anger issues.

Can you read?