Danny Ings

[duke313]

2 minutes ago, The Fun Factory said:

He has never been first choice, is on big money, is over 30 and has history of bad injuries, and doesn't fit into our head coach plan who the board wish to be here for a long time.

So in theory this makes sense but I just hope we get a quality replacement in as I have fear's of Watkins then getting injured in a usual Villa way.

Thanks for making that up.  Here's a quote from Emery himself contradicting what you've said.

Emery said: “Danny is a very good player in the first XI. Against Brighton he scored two goals and, usually, he gives impact. I’m really so happy with him."

[duke313]

Just now, HanoiVillan said:

An example of what? 

An example of having a shit backup striker as opposed to a decent one on the bench.

It's even more crucial having good players on the bench under Emery as he likes to change things up unlike our last couple of managers.

[mole86]

1 minute ago, duke313 said:

Thanks for making that up.  Here's a quote from Emery himself contradicting what you've said.

Emery said: “Danny is a very good player in the first XI. Against Brighton he scored two goals and, usually, he gives impact. I’m really so happy with him."

Do you honestly not see the difference between praising a player for an individual performance (after Emery’s second match in charge where Ings was drafted in to start last minute) and Emery thinking he’s part of his long term plans? 

[VillaChris]

Was a very strange signing for us at the time wasn't he?

That summer the profile of forward we needed was someone who was quick and could play LW and upfront if needed. Were strongly linked to Alvarez who went to Man. City eventually.

Bailey and Buendia made sense, Ings certainly didn't and now we're selling him at knockdown price at crucial point of the season due to the wages he's on.

A few months will pass and then I'm looking forward to the Athletic article that will detail how we came to sign him especially as it was pretty much done overnight.

[Reivax_Villa]

I am not happy that we let him go but I understand why, it is a good business deal.

He is aging as a player, big salary and good fee in return..

Too good to turn down.

We better have replacement because those are two forwards we have let go..

[HanoiVillan]

1 minute ago, duke313 said:

An example of having a shit backup striker as opposed to a decent one on the bench.

It's even more crucial having good players on the bench under Emery as he likes to change things up unlike our last couple of managers.

It's not the end of the window, so you don't know that we're going to have 'a shit backup striker as opposed to a decent one on the bench'. If we get to the end of the window and that is the case then it's a better point, but for now it isn't. And Davis hasn't even been recalled (yet?) anyway!

4 minutes ago, duke313 said:

Thanks for making that up.  Here's a quote from Emery himself contradicting what you've said.

Emery said: “Danny is a very good player in the first XI. Against Brighton he scored two goals and, usually, he gives impact. I’m really so happy with him."

An alternative interpretation here is that he was being polite about a senior employee, and/or that he thinks Ings is a good player *but still* doesn't think he fit into the system he wanted to play. Clearly, Emery wasn't starting Ings in matches; you have to assume there was a reason for that. 

[duke313]

4 minutes ago, mole86 said:

Do you honestly not see the difference between praising a player for an individual performance (after Emery’s second match in charge where Ings was drafted in to start last minute) and Emery thinking he’s part of his long term plans? 

He certainly suggested he was in his plans, for this season anyway: “Today I think the first player who leaves is Cameron Archer (to Middlesbrough on loan) but I didn’t speak to Danny about it. The idea is to keep him in the squad."

[mjmooney]

12 hours ago, gwi1890 said:

Maybe he wants regular minutes 

He would have got regular minutes. 

What he wants is regular hours. 

[DCJonah]

I don't get the anger. 

He's a back up player. We have the opportunity to get some decent money back. 

We'd be crazy not to take it. 

I also think Ings has probably said he'd be up for a move. He'll want to play regular football.

[TRO]

I feel sure, we have our eyes set on a replacement, as Jhon Duran will surely be a WIP player.

 

[Kingman]

Why is this in other football when he's Not even signed? 

Infact he's Not even had a medical

[duke313]

3 minutes ago, HanoiVillan said:

It's not the end of the window, so you don't know that we're going to have 'a shit backup striker as opposed to a decent one on the bench'. If we get to the end of the window and that is the case then it's a better point, but for now it isn't. And Davis hasn't even been recalled (yet?) anyway!

An alternative interpretation here is that he was being polite about a senior employee, and/or that he thinks Ings is a good player *but still* doesn't think he fit into the system he wanted to play. Clearly, Emery wasn't starting Ings in matches; you have to assume there was a reason for that. 

I'm not suggesting we recall Davis (he's shit); I mentioned him as that's who we've relied on in the past.

[Stevo985]

15 minutes ago, duke313 said:

I was using him as an example, as he's been our backup striker in previous seasons. And he's terrible.

An example of what? A bad backup player?

Great, nobody is saying we should have Davies as our backup or sign a player at the same standard as Davies.

What was I saying about strawmen?

[Stevo985]

14 minutes ago, duke313 said:

Thanks for making that up.  Here's a quote from Emery himself contradicting what you've said.

Emery said: “Danny is a very good player in the first XI. Against Brighton he scored two goals and, usually, he gives impact. I’m really so happy with him."

He's just sold him mate

[duke313]

Just now, Stevo985 said:

An example of what? A bad backup player?

Great, nobody is saying we should have Davies as our backup or sign a player at the same standard as Davies.

What was I saying about strawmen?

But a good backup player will be on good wages, if they're not they are usually shit, like Davis.

[Zatman]

38 minutes ago, Condimentalist said:

The desperation to move players who are clearly connected with Aston Villa to 'other football' at the first possible moment is an odd moderating choice in my humble opinion. 

Thre Gerrard thread was moved after about 50 minutes vs Fulham

[Tom13]

29 minutes ago, Robtaylor200 said:

I liked Ings, I don't think we ever played his type of football. In my eyes he is an old fashioned centre forward in the ilk of Andy Gray and would have been as good if the ball was played into him from the wings rather than from behind him. 

Obviously not the type of player that Unai wants and that's good enough for me. But  watch him start scoring now. All the best Danny 

Disagree. He thrives the most off through balls on the ground IMO. He makes clever runs in behind.

[Tom13]

1 minute ago, Zatman said:

Thre Gerrard thread was moved after about 50 minutes vs Fulham

Everyone needed that

[Stevo985]

1 minute ago, duke313 said:

But a good backup player will be on good wages, if they're not they are usually shit, like Davis.

Fine. Spending good wages on a good backup who is better than and younger than Ings so his resale value isn't depreciating constantly would be money far better spent.

[The_Steve]

17 minutes ago, duke313 said:

Thanks for making that up.  Here's a quote from Emery himself contradicting what you've said.

Emery said: “Danny is a very good player in the first XI. Against Brighton he scored two goals and, usually, he gives impact. I’m really so happy with him."

People want to push certain narratives, but it’s clear that many players will suffer under a manager as regressive as Gerrard and actual coaches who have different philosophies. Form and fitness go together. People are very quick to ignore just many assists he got, his intelligent play and helping create space for others. Unai isn’t selling unless we’ve got a replacement.