Ings worked miracles for Saints, and that's why nostalgia about his return is misplaced

The Ings-carry-model kept us in the league but it wasn't exactly a golden era

In my second ever post, I argued that it was ‘good’ that Saints didn’t sign Cody Gakpo in the summer, or indeed any premium-rate centre-forward. It wasn't a popular take then and the last four months haven’t done it any favours. I now accept as a face-value statement, I was wrong.

I’m revisiting this awkward episode because, although we do need a centre-forward, I think much of my underlying reasoning still holds and is particularly relevant as we navigate our most important January transfer window in the (post-) Liebherr era.

My main schtick was that although our strike force was underwhelming (full disclosure: I said ‘about par’), our weakest position was actually attacking midfield, what Ralph designated his ‘wide 10s’, and that it would be cheaper, safer and more productive to reinforce here than to do so at centre-forward. I still think this part is true, but at the same time, yeah, we also really need to buy a centre-forward.

For many Saints fans, that forward was/is Danny Ings. In not finishing this piece before Christmas, I’ve let myself be outmanoeuvred by the Dildo Brothers and Ings is now at West Ham. I think we can all agree that Danny Ings’ return would have immediately improved Southampton Football Club and likely been a solid bulwark against relegation. Whether it was ever desirable or possible is up for debate, which is now academic. I don’t want to get into all that. But truthfully, I think there’s something wrong with the ambition to bring back Danny Ings, which conflates a very good player for the club with a very good time for the club.

Without question, there are some good reasons to desire an Ingsnaissance. First, Ings was so complete a forward that he didn’t so much solve a problem in our attacking system as he did paper over the complete absence of one. In October, when arguing we needed to reinforce at no. 10 more than no. 9, perhaps I overstated the distinction between players that create chances and players that finish them. Saints aren’t great at finishing but they are really bad at chance creation. The reason Ings was so brilliant and important for Saints was that not only was he an excellent finisher, but was possessed of that little bit of magic in the box that allowed him to make the space for himself that Moi, Redmond, Stu, Djenepo, Tom, Dick and Harry could not. Ings is an especially valuable player if you are missing multiple pieces of the creative jigsaw.

Much of fans’ anxiety for a new striker seems to reflect a desire to recapture the spark that Ings delivered. After our defeat to City in December, Luke Osman lamented that nobody in our current group is “capable of creating something from nothing”, as Ings was for years, and Broja was last season. The absence of such a player is a “massive worry”. His analysis is absolutely correct, in the sense that such a player is why we used to be good, and their absence why we are currently not. But there are different ways to skin a cat, and football teams need not be based on having one guy who does everything. In October, I said we’d be better off trying to improve the supporting cast around our strikers rather than find a new talisman. In part, this is because a balanced team is surely a better one.

Second, part of the reason it was deemed so essential to buy a no. 9 in the summer was that we needed somebody to partner Che Adams. Adams is now a well-regarded senior player and our most fertile source of goals, but living off Che's benefits has been a bleak existence. Even when he’s good he doesn’t convince as a lone striker leading the line. He lacks guile in the box and at 5’9 his physical presence is often overstated. Che works as a troublesome, physical second striker, but an opportunist needs opportunities, and his link-up and hold-up play isn’t good enough to work them alone. Imagine Micah Richards doing a flagship punditry role without Roy Keane as a foil, all cackling laughter with no bearded frowns — or even vice versa. It’s a sad sad show.

There's nothing wrong with trying to get more out of Che Adams and I can accept he needs the right partner. But the Ings-Adams partnership was not in reality the mesmerising double act that people seem to remember. In the one season they played together, Ings scored 22 goals and assisted 2. Adams scored 4 and assisted 2, from 12 starts and 30 appearances. Adams started the first 6 league games that season, scored 0 goals, and was dropped after a 3-1 defeat to Bournemouth, breaking his duck at the end of the season with a 40-yard wonderlob against Man City. Ironically, Adams only really came good after Ings left, which may or may not be related. But if Ings really is Bonnie to his Clyde, we’ve yet to see it.

Moreover, all of this made a lot more sense under Hassenhuttl, when the team lived and died by its ability to run the 4-2-2-2. Having only half a good striker is especially painful when you are wedded to a system that involves two high-pressing, high-energy centre-forwards. Ralph’s dalliances in lone striker formations soothed some of the team's issues, at times, but also increased our reliance on Che and forced Armstrong out of position, exposing their limitations even further. Understandably, this made Ings’ absence even more obvious. But Ralph is gone, and Jones is starting to show evidence that Saints can play in a different way with the same squad. Alternating Adams and Mara, none of Nathan Jones three wins have Saints started with a front two.

All of this is a long way of saying, I guess, that Danny Ings was awesome for us and probably would be again, but there are other ways to play football and Saints must find one. The fact that Ings was such an incredible carry player explains both why he was so good for us and why we need to move on. Being carried by your best player isn't a healthy or enjoyable model of football, and the nostalgia is misplaced because Ings-era Southampton was not the whole not a good time. In our best season with Ings we finished 11th, and even that was a mixed season, one of coherence and dysfunction. I wrote in October, that I hadn't forgotten how great Ings was for us. But also that I hadn’t forgotten those games he floated alone, isolated in a defensive block that his teammates couldn’t break down. That part at least, I stand by.

---