filbertway Posted 24 December 2014 Posted 24 December 2014 Ulloa scored a goal every 0.42 games. Ings scored every 0.57 games. So it's marginal, and considering Ings didn't miss 4 months through injury there really isn't much in it. Ings has had 42 shots and has scored 4 goals yet you'd take him over Ulloa who has had 24 shots and has scored 6 goals? Am I missing something? If he's taking shots, we're putting pressure on the opposition. For a team that struggles to get shots away and creating shooting chances, I'd take a fella that is going to create chances. Nothing against Leo, he's proved he's a decent finisher. I just see Ings as a more complete forward who can offer use outside the area as well as inside. Also he's only 22 so has plenty of developing to do.
ScouseFox Posted 24 December 2014 Posted 24 December 2014 Who scored more last season kid? Ulloa or Ings? Ings? I'm not disagreeing, in terms of the type of players they are ings is your more natural "goalscorer" or poacher or finisher etc, but that furthers the point I was trying to make. We're gonna spend 7.5 million on a "goalscorer" who's scored less goals all season than ulloa did in his first five games? Considering he's not a "goalscorer"? No thanks.
filbertway Posted 24 December 2014 Posted 24 December 2014 I think you missed what I said. He IS a Premier League player, and any of your warped logic can't alter that fact. Ok, you don't think he's good enough fine, but if you honestly think you could do better, you're deluded. Wait you didn't just challenge someone on this forum to do better than Danny Ings did you? Why would you ruin a credible argument with that?!
ScouseFox Posted 24 December 2014 Posted 24 December 2014 Ings has had 42 shots this season compared to Ulloa's 24 shots and has played 3 games less. Either Burnley are creating a load of chances for him, or Ings is brilliant at creating chances for himself. For the record, I'd take Ings over any of our forwards. 42 shots 4 goals = goalscorer. 24 shots 6 goals = not a goalscorer. 4 goals in half a season is pretty crap whichever way you look at it. 6 is only marginally better, which is why we'll both go down and neither of our strikers are worth anything like 8 million pounds.
BlackburnClaret Posted 24 December 2014 Posted 24 December 2014 Wait you didn't just challenge someone on this forum to do better than Danny Ings did you? Why would you ruin a credible argument with that?! So, you're rock bottom of the league and you think Leicester are in a position to sign a better striker then Danny Ings? Really? Who are you thinking of?
ScouseFox Posted 24 December 2014 Posted 24 December 2014 Wait you didn't just challenge someone on this forum to do better than Danny Ings did you? Why would you ruin a credible argument with that?! hahaha I read it like that too but I think he meant we (as a club) couldn't sign anyone better, rather than we (as posters) couldn't play any better.
filbertway Posted 24 December 2014 Posted 24 December 2014 42 shots 4 goals = goalscorer. 24 shots 6 goals = not a goalscorer. 4 goals in half a season is pretty crap whichever way you look at it. 6 is only marginally better, which is why we'll both go down and neither of our strikers are worth anything like 8 million pounds. Not my logic! I love the symmetry between those shot stats. If I was doing a draft pre season and those 2 were my choice. I'd go for Ings any day of the week. I think Ings' age means he could justify his price tag. This has about as much chance of happening as Torres joining anyway, so it's all irrellevent really.
foxes_rule1978 Posted 24 December 2014 Posted 24 December 2014 42 shots 4 goals = goalscorer. 24 shots 6 goals = not a goalscorer. 4 goals in half a season is pretty crap whichever way you look at it. 6 is only marginally better, which is why we'll both go down and neither of our strikers are worth anything like 8 million pounds. Harsh on Ulloa, he has a god cover soon rate and had we created more for him Im sure he would have more goals to his name... Don't know about you but 8 mill for someone who is on target to can score 10-12 goals in the prem is good business. 20 goal strikers cost way more
filbertway Posted 24 December 2014 Posted 24 December 2014 So, you're rock bottom of the league and you think Leicester are in a position to sign a better striker then Danny Ings? Really? Who are you thinking of? Haha you meant the club then? Sorry, I read it as you challenging the poster to be better than Danny Ings for some reason. My mind has powered down for christmas I think. I don't think we'd get him from you as much as I'd love us to. In terms of can we do better, you'd like to think so wouldn't you, but we'd have to be unearthing some unheard of gems again from the lesser leagues in Europe.
BlackburnClaret Posted 24 December 2014 Posted 24 December 2014 Haha you meant the club then? Sorry, I read it as you challenging the poster to be better than Danny Ings for some reason. My mind has powered down for christmas I think. I don't think we'd get him from you as much as I'd love us to. In terms of can we do better, you'd like to think so wouldn't you, but we'd have to be unearthing some unheard of gems again from the lesser leagues in Europe. It didn't surprise me that Scouse read it that way, to be fair.
filbertway Posted 24 December 2014 Posted 24 December 2014 It didn't surprise me that Scouse read it that way, to be fair. #AccidentalFinnegan Who do you think would be snapped up by prem teams in the summer if you were to go down this season?
AKCJ Posted 24 December 2014 Posted 24 December 2014 So, you're rock bottom of the league and you think Leicester are in a position to sign a better striker then Danny Ings? Really? Who are you thinking of? Are you that naive? Money talks and we've got truckloads of the stuff. To say that Danny Ings is the best we can get is nothing short of insulting.
filbertway Posted 24 December 2014 Posted 24 December 2014 Are you that naive? Money talks and we've got truckloads of the stuff. To say that Danny Ings is the best we can get is nothing short of insulting. That's the "posting on a messageboard" equivalent of swinging your monster 12 incher with one hand and giving him the bird with the other.
ScouseFox Posted 24 December 2014 Posted 24 December 2014 for the record i honestly think both we as a club could do better and me as a centre forward could do better. merry christmas.
BlackburnClaret Posted 24 December 2014 Posted 24 December 2014 Are you that naive? Money talks and we've got truckloads of the stuff. To say that Danny Ings is the best we can get is nothing short of insulting. So you just choose not to spend it? It's not meant as an insult. You sound like a QPR fan with your truckloads comment.
Maybes Posted 24 December 2014 Posted 24 December 2014 Surely Pearson and co are just trolling Burnley with this bid? 'Many, many pound notes'
ithuriel Posted 24 December 2014 Posted 24 December 2014 Cant see this happening, seems like paper talk or agent talk if you like, stirring things up to see if anything happens.
nettle Posted 24 December 2014 Posted 24 December 2014 It's a smoke screen we are after that other top striker from Burnley Lukas Jutkiewicz! He's the new Steve Howard.
BlackburnClaret Posted 24 December 2014 Posted 24 December 2014 It's a smoke screen we are after that other top striker from Burnley Lukas Jutkiewicz! He's the new Steve Howard. The rumour around here is that there's a swap deal between him and Gestede.
nettle Posted 24 December 2014 Posted 24 December 2014 The rumour around here is that there's a swap deal between him and Gestede. That's a shame he's crap!
BlackburnClaret Posted 24 December 2014 Posted 24 December 2014 Who? Juke? I think you're being generous there.
nettle Posted 24 December 2014 Posted 24 December 2014 Who? Juke? I think you're being generous there. Both!
AKCJ Posted 24 December 2014 Posted 24 December 2014 The rumour around here is that there's a swap deal between him and Gestede. Bad luck. I'd prefer Jutkiewicz, and that says a hell of a lot.
BlackburnClaret Posted 24 December 2014 Posted 24 December 2014 That's not even possible, Scouse is better than Juke.
Stadt Posted 24 December 2014 Posted 24 December 2014 To be fair, you said pretty much all our side was dogshit, you're were always going to be right sooner or later. Juke really is dogshit though
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.