Heroes & Villains, the Aston Villa fanzine
Heroes & Villains => Heroes Discussion => Topic started by: Rick_avfc on January 02, 2012, 08:56:47 PM
-
Not sure if there is a Darren Bent topic anywhere but thought I would put the question out there. Should he stay or should he go? Some villa fans on twitter singling him out for not performing today. Claiming he is bleeding the club dry with his high '110k' wages and massive 5m pound signing on fee with bonuses. Also someone claiming that he has a clause in his contract stating that if he is fit then he HAS to play. Other tweets include rubbish (IMO) that players do not like him as he is the highest payed player and doesn't put the effort in. One tweeter went as far as saying that he DOESN'T even train ALL the time!?!
Right, I don't believe any of the above which I have read on twitter from these so called ITK's so wanted to see the views of the fans on H&V's. I personally do not think its a good idea to sell Bent this transfer window. Yes he has had a very inconsistent start to the season but we all know what he is capable of. He is lacking consistent service and once that improves, im sure we will see the Bent who managed to bag the important goals for us that kept us up last season.
-
The question for me is
Do we want to keep DB and his goals,or, if we have no money, sell him and buy 3/4 quality players to go straight in the 1st team?
-
Stay, but we need to find the system that brings out the best in him otherwise we do spend too much time playing with 10 men.
I'd also think it's bollocks that we're paying him 110K a week or that he has it in his contract he has to play if fit.
-
And what does the vote option mean? Yes he stays or yes he should go?
-
Yes he is capable, he has been horribly inconsistent, sure he would be the first to say that, problem is when a striker goes that way and it continues it often gets worse until something happens to change it, I agree he's not getting the service he needs as a player, but in order to provide that service we have to have the players and the quality to do that, its a catch 22 because Bent would be the player that we could sell to generate the dosh to get those players, problem is we lose Bent.
What to do, well I for 1 feel we would very comfortably survive with Gabby up front, he did it with ease for seasons under MON, and if selling Bent would mean we could get 1 or 2 quality players elsewhere, take the hit for me.
-
It would be mad to sell Bent. Also for everyone saying he's useless they should look at his record for us, and bear in mind that today was his first start in 5 games so he's not going to be match sharp.
-
You need to change the poll options...does "yes" mean he should stay or does "yes" mean he should go?
The correct answer is: Bent should stay and AM should go...and Randy should have appointed a manager capable of utilising our greatest asset on the pitch.
-
You need to change the poll options...does "yes" mean he should stay or does "yes" mean he should go?
The correct answer is: Bent should stay and AM should go...and Randy should have appointed a manager capable of utilising our greatest asset on the pitch.
And of course this is the most accurate point of all and should be reflected in the poll some way, because if I was asked AM or a manager that knows how to use such assets as Darren Bent I know which choice I would make, and when Lerner can get his act together and look at the club I don't think it will be to long before he thinks the same.
-
For a team which scores as few goals as us to sell a goalscorer ike Bent would be suicide
Who else is going to score the goals?
-
Bent is not a very good footballer but an excellent finisher, he thrives on opportunitys being created for him but does little to help the team in terms of hold up play, running of the ball and moving defenders around, he is pretty much a one trick pony, but a good trick, he scores goals if he is fed enough chances. He should be the cherry on the cake but unfortunately we dont have the base, so given the choice of a solid defence or Darren Bent, i would take the solid defence. The back 4 is our highest priority right now.
-
Sell to highest bidder and invest in promising hungry players.
Hoillet,Clyne, Dyer from Swansea (why not?)
-
For a team which scores as few goals as us to sell a goalscorer ike Bent would be suicide
Who else is going to score the goals?
Bent isnt scoring goals, our problem is that we will allways concede, in a perfect world we would have a defence that allows us the luxury of someone like bent.
-
Bent is not a very good footballer but an excellent finisher, he thrives on opportunitys being created for him but does little to help the team in terms of hold up play, running of the ball and moving defenders around, he is pretty much a one trick pony, but a good trick, he scores goals if he is fed enough chances. He should be the cherry on the cake but unfortunately we dont have the base, so given the choice of a solid defence or Darren Bent, i would take the solid defence. The back 4 is our highest priority right now.
Is Bent a good finisher?
I think it's more he just has that nack of being in the right position. He misses an awful lot of chances that aren't piss easy.
-
Sell to highest bidder and invest in promising hungry players.
Hoillet,Clyne, Dyer from Swansea (why not?)
Cos they won't sell them.
We wouldn't get our money back on Benty at the moment anyway.
-
I tell you what, a Darren Bent in the Swansea team today would have had a field day.
Don't sell, look to play to his strengths.
-
Its a bit like the Family that for years had been relying on Terestial TV and finaly go out and spend all thier money on a Sky Package and a sattelite dish. Then the TV packs up.
-
I'm starting to be in the 'let him go' camp but only because we have a manager who is either incapable or unwilling to find a system that maximises Bents talent. At the moment Bent is immensely average because he is being asked to do a job that is out of his comfort zone - he can't win hoofs in the air and when he is given 40 yd passes from defenders with his back to goal his first touch goes 5 yds.
Unfortunately we are stuck with AM so Bents days are numbered IMHO.
-
If we sell Bent we are fucked. That is all
-
Sell to highest bidder and invest in promising hungry players.
Hoillet,Clyne, Dyer from Swansea (why not?)
Dyer from Swansea, i'll say, tell you what, if we don't, watch and see how fast one of the top sides are in for him, I rate him better than Ash Young.
-
I tell you what, a Darren Bent in the Swansea team today would have had a field day.
Don't sell, look to play to his strengths.
I tell you what, a Darren Bent in the Swansea team today would have had a field day.
Don't sell, look to play to his strengths.
Is the correct answer, really wish people would get of his case, he had terrible service today.
-
The back 4 is our highest priority right now.
To be honest, there is so much wrong on the pitch right now that its genuinely hard to prioritise which positions need strengthening but certainly defense and midfield need the most work.
The same players were one of the strongest defensive units a couple of seasons ago, so the coaching staff need to go back to basics and remind them how to defend properly again. No doubt we need to bring in new players or something needs to change in training, but do you blame the same group of players or the coaching staff and management for the embarrassing incompetent mess that they have become?
Back on topic...I'm struggling to think of anything more stupid than to sell Bent. Yes he is a one trick pony, but when that pony is the one that can score you goals to win football matches then its blatantly the style of football and tactics that need to change otherwise that pony starts to look like a useless donkey.
-
Bent is not a very good footballer but an excellent finisher, he thrives on opportunitys being created for him but does little to help the team in terms of hold up play, running of the ball and moving defenders around, he is pretty much a one trick pony, but a good trick, he scores goals if he is fed enough chances. He should be the cherry on the cake but unfortunately we dont have the base, so given the choice of a solid defence or Darren Bent, i would take the solid defence. The back 4 is our highest priority right now.
Is Bent a good finisher?
I think it's more he just has that nack of being in the right position. He misses an awful lot of chances that aren't piss easy.
Agree he squanders quite a few but with the right service will get himself in position, he does rely on the team creating the pressure that gives him the chances. I dont think we have the set up or the players to play to his strengths
-
Sell to highest bidder and invest in promising hungry players.
Hoillet,Clyne, Dyer from Swansea (why not?)
Dyer from Swansea, i'll say, tell you what, if we don't, watch and see how fast one of the top sides are in for him, I rate him better than Ash Young.
Funny thing is that I saw him play against QPR and thought that he looked lightweight, ineffective and out of his depth.
What a difference a couple of weeks make and different opposition who allow you time and space to make runs at the fullback.
-
Bent to go at full value. The side isn't as good with him in it. 4 or so new players to come in. McL isnt going anywhere til the end of his contract so we'll have to put up with him and hope for the best. Whether Randy will put the money back into the team is a different question.
-
It'd be absolute madness to sell him.
Also there's no guantentee that AM would A) Get the money and B) Not waste it.
I'd much rather we got a new Manager to be honest.
-
Ask yourself if we sell Bent AND mcleish is allowed to spend the money (which I doubt) would you trust him to buy the right players?? I would not
-
I tell you what, a Darren Bent in the Swansea team today would have had a field day.
Don't sell, look to play to his strengths.
I agree, but it took years and 3 managers with the same philosophy to get where they are now.
We started it last year with Houllier but bottles it.
Britton wouldn't even get a game at Villa, we have our own in jean Makoun but loan him out.
While Mcleish is our manager we will always be mediocre.
-
I tell you what, a Darren Bent in the Swansea team today would have had a field day.
Don't sell, look to play to his strengths.
I said exactly the same thing earlier. Bent is NOT the problem.
-
I tell you what, a Darren Bent in the Swansea team today would have had a field day.
Don't sell, look to play to his strengths.
I tell you what, a Darren Bent in the Swansea team today would have had a field day.
Don't sell, look to play to his strengths.
Is the correct answer, really wish people would get of his case, he had terrible service today.
I agree we should keep him but 15 corners isn't exactly terrible service. Bent made nothing out of the corners today, and wasn't exactly moving around making life difficult for Swansea's defense. He has got to work harder.
-
Trouble is... can he be arsed? Does he want to be here?
-
Bent should stay. Your poll questions are illiterate.
-
I tell you what, a Darren Bent in the Swansea team today would have had a field day.
Don't sell, look to play to his strengths.
I tell you what, a Darren Bent in the Swansea team today would have had a field day.
Don't sell, look to play to his strengths.
Is the correct answer, really wish people would get of his case, he had terrible service today.
You can not just blame the service, Swansea sat deep so reducing the space he has to run into, he made only 1 diagonal run today, he never tried to spin into the chanel, his hold up play is awful so he has to make more use of his pace by running into space and pulling his marker with him if he cant do that then you are left with a redundant striker that is easliy marked out of the game.
-
I agree we should keep him but 15 corners isn't exactly terrible service. Bent made nothing out of the corners today, and wasn't exactly moving around making life difficult for Swansea's defense. He has got to work harder.
Worth noting that none of the other 9 players managed to make anything of the corners either, so they were defended properly (like our defense seems incapable of doing) or the quality of the corner wasnt that great. Either way, in 90 minutes of football we should be looking to get more than 1 shot on goal and creating chances for Bent in open play regardless of how many corners we have.
-
How's does selling an outstanding goalscorer solve anything? We should be building a squad capable of servicing him properly whatever system the manager decides to play. We knew what we were getting when we bought him. It's now our task to give him what he needs to do what he does best. The repercussions of selling our star player would go way beyond the sale itself. That's the very last thing we need right now.
-
McLiesh has said that he needs to sell to buy, the money we could get from the likes of Heskey, Warnock etc... Is not going to fund the team building we need.
The only really valuable assets we have are Bent and Gabby, if the board don't come up with some investment money our future looks pretty mediocre.
We could end up like we did under Graham Turner
-
I tell you what, a Darren Bent in the Swansea team today would have had a field day.
Don't sell, look to play to his strengths.
I tell you what, a Darren Bent in the Swansea team today would have had a field day.
Don't sell, look to play to his strengths.
Is the correct answer, really wish people would get of his case, he had terrible service today.
I agree we should keep him but 15 corners isn't exactly terrible service. Bent made nothing out of the corners today, and wasn't exactly moving around making life difficult for Swansea's defense. He has got to work harder.
Our corners are always looking for Dunne, Collins or Cuellar if he is playing and are so predictable. Bent is generally only there for knock-downs.
For players that are supposedly good in the air we have not been getting a good return from corners or free-kicks for over 18 months.
-
Perspectives need to be adjusted. I don't think that in the current climate we are going to be able to keep Bent sweet by buying the type of players he wants to play with. In fact we sold most of 'em, so the idea of building a team around him is kind of redundant.
-
I tell you what, a Darren Bent in the Swansea team today would have had a field day.
Don't sell, look to play to his strengths.
I tell you what, a Darren Bent in the Swansea team today would have had a field day.
Don't sell, look to play to his strengths.
Is the correct answer, really wish people would get of his case, he had terrible service today.
I agree we should keep him but 15 corners isn't exactly terrible service. Bent made nothing out of the corners today, and wasn't exactly moving around making life difficult for Swansea's defense. He has got to work harder.
We had a lot of corners but the delivery was shocking. I do agree he has to work harder but we should not sell or even think about it ever!!
-
If you think that teams like Sunderland and Charlton have got him scoring lots of goals in the Premier League, it is an indictment of us that we make it so hard for him. He's still got a good goal scoring record for us, but he's feeding off scraps. We should be getting a team to supply him with chances, and I'm sure we already have several players who can do that. Ireland and N'Zog interact well and I think if we got the players moving off the ball we could play well.
-
I've said before we signed him at the wrong time...when we're on the decline.
Why oh why didn't MON sign him? With Young's crosses and us playing 4-4-2 and two wide players, he would've been perfect in our team and probably fired us into the champions league for one season.
Given Sunderland signed him for around 10m, he wasn't even that expensive for an MON british buy, instead we sign Downing on one leg who then fcuks off when the going gets tough.
His overall goal record for us is 15 goals in about 33 league games isn't it, so nearly 1 in 2 which is comparable to any villa striker we've had in the last 10 years.
Yes he could be better at certain things but he isn't the problem.
-
I posted this in the Post-Match but figured it might be more valuable here, my take..
Bent doesn't move. He just doesn't. He can only check back for the ball in the middle of the park with his back to goal, in which 99% of the time will result in a backwards pass. He incapable of turning around a defender, or taking a touch into space and going forward. He is useless when is comes to tracking back and closing down markers, and has little vision for the pass when going forward.
That being said, don't sell him off. N'Zogbia, Albrighton, Gabby and Ireland are more than enough to get him goals. He needs to work harder and get himself in to better positions so can see more chances. McLeish has no idea how to work around Bent, or how to create a supply line. Losing a goal threat and a man who a manager must point out before the match to his defense would be a big blow to Villa. Regardless if the man can only score a tap in, it's a quality we need on our team. Moreover, I don't trust McLeish with the funds that would come in return. He's got a poor track record in January and I don't want all the former to become to current. Stephen Ireland can become the CM we've been "shopping" for.
Darren Bent needs to increase his productivity, while I see little hope for McLeish. Home record says it all for me, they/we don't want you here and it'll be hard luck to change that. Great bloke but below average manager. You're in over your head mate.
-
I've said before we signed him at the wrong time...when we're on the decline.
Why oh why didn't MON sign him?
Being the ace manager he is, he'd have probably played him at right back.
-
Keep Bent for this season as I am sure he will score us some vital goals in the big games to come. I am sure he will be off in the summer though.
-
Two goals and a lot of our threats against Chelsea came through the middle of the park, not the wings, which a lot on here seem to be obsessed with. Variety and options are the way forward, not the utterly predictable crap, (massively over-hit crosses to no-one - again!) or just plain random crap, that we seem to be serving up game after game.
A good coach (Rodgers/Jol/Martinez) gets his teams playing to a system that all buy into.
As my son said today: " Do the Villa players train together or on their own?"
Said it all for me!
-
I've said before we signed him at the wrong time...when we're on the decline.
Why oh why didn't MON sign him? With Young's crosses and us playing 4-4-2 and two wide players, he would've been perfect in our team and probably fired us into the champions league for one season.
Given Sunderland signed him for around 10m, he wasn't even that expensive for an MON british buy, instead we sign Downing on one leg who then fcuks off when the going gets tough.
His overall goal record for us is 15 goals in about 33 league games isn't it, so nearly 1 in 2 which is comparable to any villa striker we've had in the last 10 years.
Yes he could be better at certain things but he isn't the problem.
You are spot on, what might have been? Now we are left with a set up that does not look capable of getting the best out of him and a player that is not working that hard to impress.
-
Can't even believe we are questioning this. Stay obviously, and build a team around him. It doesn't seem to have dawned on this clueless, defensive minded manager that if you have the balls to supply well balls to him he scores more often than not. He is a goal poacher, he's what we need, he is what every team is looking for, and for this reason a number of teams want him in their side. Ludicrous debate really in my view.
-
For me, we got the system right for the three games prior to this. We got the ball down and played. We had two good wingers, with good movement linking up with a creative presence in behind the lone striker. We looked like a team. We played as a team. Bent is not a team player. He is a great finisher, but is useless anywhere else on the pitch, bar the penalty area.
I think it comes down to a straight choice. Play Gabby in the lone striker role, or Bent. Gabby had a great game against Chelsea. He led the line brilliantly and brought players into play. However, I would have fancied Bent to put that one on one away over Gabby every day of the week.
I think it was right to play Bent today, but one of the supply lines was cut, and I feel the in-form Albrighton should have played instead of the out of position Gabby.
As for selling him, I said on the transfer thread that if we were to get £30 million for him and invested it in quality around the squad and bought a decent striker, I wouldn't be against it. So long as it was invested well.
-
Sorry!
In the spirit of the thread, I thought DB was awful today, but we seem to be determined to only attempt to score through him if he is playing.
We've played well and scored without him being at the centre of everything we do.
Variety AM, please.
-
Our problem this season as it was last season is the defence, you know that between Collins Warnock and Dunne there is going to be at least one goal conceding fuck up, today it was 2.
-
Our problem this season as it was last season is the defence, you know that between Collins Warnock and Dunne there is going to be at least one goal conceding fuck up, today it was 2.
But when you are on defense all game, every game.. it can only be the defenses fault.
We need to coordinate an efficient offense and score some goals. A task McLeish is not apt for.
-
Our problem this season as it was last season is the defence, you know that between Collins Warnock and Dunne there is going to be at least one goal conceding fuck up, today it was 2.
Correct, add to that the 2 centre halfs have stopped scoring from set pieces aswell.
-
But when you are on defense all game, every game.. it can only be the defenses fault.
We need to coordinate an efficient offense and score some goals. A task McLeish is not apt for.
To be honest if the defence are under pressure constantly their failure rate is going to be higher. The midfield has to stop the ball getting to the defence. This hasn't been happening all season so far.
-
Our problem this season as it was last season is the defence, you know that between Collins Warnock and Dunne there is going to be at least one goal conceding fuck up, today it was 2.
Sorry to disagree hawkeye, but we are consistently shit going forward and have been for some time.
No ideas, creativity, movement.
eg: the situation at one point in the 1st half today when Dunne played the ball to other players at least 5 times and they simply gave it back to him. No one ran into space, created an opening or came to get the ball off him.
Compare that to the way Swansea ran their bollocks off for each other.
Their defence looked a bit shaky but we didn't really test it.
Other teams test ours far too easily!!!!
Every game. Irrespective of the opposition.
-
But when you are on defense all game, every game.. it can only be the defenses fault.
We need to coordinate an efficient offense and score some goals. A task McLeish is not apt for.
To be honest if the defence are under pressure constantly their failure rate is going to be higher. The midfield has to stop the ball getting to the defence. This hasn't been happening all season so far.
Oh, I totally agree with you. The defensive effort has to come from the squad as a whole, not just the players labeled 'defenders'. It doesn't matter how well our defense plays, if we don't score we wont win.. simple as. Our offense must be more potent, and that includes Darren Bent.
-
I can see it both ways TBH. On the whole I think we are better off keeping him but I'm not going to shoot anyone down for thinking we should get shot as I can understand why they feel it that way.
I agree that to sell Bent would be a deeply depressing move from us. The only thing that would prove more distressing than that would be to see him ambling around getting one or two touches a game and contributing little. If he keeps having such quiet games, seeing so little service he'll probably be agitating for a move by the summer just like he ended up doing at Sunderland at which time we will receive less than we paid for him.
We have a choice. Either we try to build our team around Bent and let him get the goals he can, or we sell him and give McLeish the money to get the players he wants and needs to lay out the team his way in a fashion more successfully than he has managed to do so far.
-
We wait years for a top goal scorer to come to VP and consider selling him in 12 months?
That would be madness.
BTW I don't understand the voting...
-
Try looking at him as £20 million pounds, and then look at our current predicament. It suddenly doesnt look so straight forward.
-
Our problem this season as it was last season is the defence, you know that between Collins Warnock and Dunne there is going to be at least one goal conceding fuck up, today it was 2.
Sorry to disagree hawkeye, but we are consistently shit going forward and have been for some time.
No ideas, creativity, movement.
eg: the situation at one point in the 1st half today when Dunne played the ball to other players at least 5 times and they simply gave it back to him. No one ran into space, created an opening or came to get the ball off him.
Compare that to the way Swansea ran their bollocks off for each other.
Their defence looked a bit shaky but we didn't really test it.
Other teams test ours far too easily!!!!
Every game. Irrespective of the opposition.
good point mate, decent teams are based on a good defence, once we had given them a goal they could sit back, because we give goals away so easily we dont have a lot to build on.
-
Try looking at him as £20 million pounds, and then look at our current predicament. It suddenly doesnt look so straight forward.
If we do accept a bid for him, we cannot accept taking him at a loss.
-
Try looking at him as £20 million pounds, and then look at our current predicament. It suddenly doesnt look so straight forward.
People assume we can sell Bent and get four or five players in, without thinking that we're constantly told wages are the issue.
Four or five players might be achievable on 20m fees, but what about the wages?
-
Depends how much Bent is on. ;)
-
I can't believe people are considering selling one of the best goalscorers around. Total madness.
-
It's not his goal scoring thats in dispute. It's all the other bollocks that seems to have come with him that matters.
-
I would never consider selling a stiker of his calibre. The big fear is Liverpool offer the buyout clause in his contract.
-
Well if it's true Bent is on 80-90k a week then we could get 3 decent players on 30k a week.
And think about this, if Rogers was our manager, what midfield do you reckon he'd play?
I think he'd go:
Albrighton-Bannan-Ireland-Makoun-N'Zogbia
With either Bent or Gabby up top.
Thats the problem, the whole mentality of the club is wrong starting from the top.
-
A very well known ex Villa player told a friend of mine the other day that the club is a shambles from top to bottom at the moment. I have no reason to disbelieve him.
-
Well if it's true Bent is on 80-90k a week then we could get 3 decent players on 30k a week.
And think about this, if Rogers was our manager, what midfield do you reckon he'd play?
I think he'd go:
Albrighton-Bannan-Ireland-Makoun-N'Zogbia
With either Bent or Gabby up top.
Thats the problem, the whole mentality of the club is wrong starting from the top.
Decent players will cost more than 30k a week, especially to get them to move mid season.
-
Well if it's true Bent is on 80-90k a week then we could get 3 decent players on 30k a week.
And think about this, if Rogers was our manager, what midfield do you reckon he'd play?
I think he'd go:
Albrighton-Bannan-Ireland-Makoun-N'Zogbia
With either Bent or Gabby up top.
Thats the problem, the whole mentality of the club is wrong starting from the top.
Decent players will cost more than 30k a week, especially to get them to move mid season.
Well if it's true Bent is on 80-90k a week then we could get 3 decent players on 30k a week.
And think about this, if Rogers was our manager, what midfield do you reckon he'd play?
I think he'd go:
Albrighton-Bannan-Ireland-Makoun-N'Zogbia
With either Bent or Gabby up top.
Thats the problem, the whole mentality of the club is wrong starting from the top.
Decent players will cost more than 30k a week, especially to get them to move mid season.
£30 grand a week gets you the level of player Steve Bruce flooded Sunderland with unless you a superbly astute in the market. As a club we haven't been astute in the transfer market for the best part of a decade.
-
The question for me is
Do we want to keep DB and his goals,or, if we have no money, sell him and buy 3/4 quality players to go straight in the 1st team?
I don't think the money would be spend on new players also the wage bill for new players would be more than 110K per week.
Lets just offload Heskey.
-
A very well known ex Villa player told a friend of mine the other day that the club is a shambles from top to bottom at the moment. I have no reason to disbelieve him.
You don't need to be connected to the club to see that to be honest.
-
A very well known ex Villa player told a friend of mine the other day that the club is a shambles from top to bottom at the moment. I have no reason to disbelieve him.
You don't need to be connected to the club to see that to be honest.
After the Chelsea result, I bet you were rubbing your hands at having chosen this fixture to come and see, weren't you?
Aston Villa, right there.
-
A very well known ex Villa player told a friend of mine the other day that the club is a shambles from top to bottom at the moment. I have no reason to disbelieve him.
You don't need to be connected to the club to see that to be honest.
After the Chelsea result, I bet you were rubbing your hands at having chosen this fixture to come and see, weren't you?
Aston Villa, right there.
I was. And to be honest, I had a great day anyway. Lovely crisp, sunny day, pre and post match pint in the Barton's, walking round the ground getting some photos, just the buzz from being at VP again. Shame about the actual 90 minutes masquerading as a football match, but still, can't have everything!
-
A very well known ex Villa player told a friend of mine the other day that the club is a shambles from top to bottom at the moment. I have no reason to disbelieve him.
You don't need to be connected to the club to see that to be honest.
After the Chelsea result, I bet you were rubbing your hands at having chosen this fixture to come and see, weren't you?
Aston Villa, right there.
I was. And to be honest, I had a great day anyway. Lovely crisp, sunny day, pre and post match pint in the Barton's, walking round the ground getting some photos, just the buzz from being at VP again. Shame about the actual 90 minutes masquerading as a football match, but still, can't have everything!
Fuck me Risso, I shouldn't laugh but you really should have known better. Villa Park is a still an ace place. Before the game starts that is.
-
I would never consider selling a stiker of his calibre. The big fear is Liverpool offer the buyout clause in his contract.
Which is what? If there even is one.
-
A very well known ex Villa player told a friend of mine the other day that the club is a shambles from top to bottom at the moment. I have no reason to disbelieve him.
You don't need to be connected to the club to see that to be honest.
Ignorance is bliss... even if it's a state of total denial.
-
It's not his goal scoring thats in dispute. It's all the other bollocks that seems to have come with him that matters.
'Other bollocks'?
Getting on with things without complaining, without falling out of nightclubs, constantly saying how great the club is and how much he enjoys being here (in spite of us selling off his principle sources of goals)?
In fact, apart from his ill-advised shopping trip, I can't think of a single thing he's said or done to give us reason to complain.
-
Point taken. However having Bent is a bit like being in love with a beautiful woman... Dr Hook style. You know one day she's going to leave you for someone else.
-
It's not his goal scoring thats in dispute. It's all the other bollocks that seems to have come with him that matters.
'Other bollocks'?
Getting on with things without complaining, without falling out of nightclubs, constantly saying how great the club is and how much he enjoys being here (in spite of us selling off his principle sources of goals)?
In fact, apart from his ill-advised shopping trip, I can't think of a single thing he's said or done to give us reason to complain.
There seems to be a strange kind of small club, "we're not worthy" thing going on with regards to Bent from some of us - almost as if he cost so much money, he can't possibly want to play here, he must want to leave, he can't be any good etc etc.
Nobody has yet answered the question as to where our goals would come from if we sold Darren Bent. Gabby is not prolific enough. The Fonz? I don't think so.
Bent started a game for the first time in three weeks, and people can't wait to get stuck in. He came off the bench at Chelsea and scored, FFS, but they're not having it.
-
Point taken. However having Bent is a bit like being in love with a beautiful woman... Dr Hook style. You know one day she's going to leave you for someone else.
See my "not worthy" point above.
That's exactly what I mean.
-
A very well known ex Villa player told a friend of mine the other day that the club is a shambles from top to bottom at the moment. I have no reason to disbelieve him.
You don't need to be connected to the club to see that to be honest.
After the Chelsea result, I bet you were rubbing your hands at having chosen this fixture to come and see, weren't you?
Aston Villa, right there.
I was. And to be honest, I had a great day anyway. Lovely crisp, sunny day, pre and post match pint in the Barton's, walking round the ground getting some photos, just the buzz from being at VP again. Shame about the actual 90 minutes masquerading as a football match, but still, can't have everything!
Fuck me Risso, I shouldn't laugh but you really should have known better. Villa Park is a still an ace place. Before the game starts that is.
Chrimbo pressie off the wife. She wasn't sure whether to get me tickets for today or Chelsea away.....
-
Point taken. However having Bent is a bit like being in love with a beautiful woman... Dr Hook style. You know one day she's going to leave you for someone else.
See my "not worthy" point above.
That's exactly what I mean.
I think time will tell Paulie.
-
Point taken. However having Bent is a bit like being in love with a beautiful woman... Dr Hook style. You know one day she's going to leave you for someone else.
See my "not worthy" point above.
That's exactly what I mean.
I think time will tell Paulie.
What, that he'll leave? Of course he'll leave. Didn't we all know Ashley Young will leave? That didn't make him shit, though, and it doesn't make Bent shit either.
-
I think the result today ensures that he will not be sold. We are heading in the same direction as we were when we signed him. So Randy will want him to keep us in the PL.
The suggestion that we can sell him and sign 2/3 quality players is bunk. You will not get 3x real quality for his fee.
-
I think the result today ensures that he will not be sold. We are heading in the same direction as we were when we signed him. So Randy will want him to keep us in the PL.
The suggestion that we can sell him and sign 2/3 quality players is bunk. You will not get 3x real quality for his fee.
If we sold him for twenty odd million, we'd be lucky to be allowed to spend half of it on a replacement.
-
The suggestion that we can sell him and sign 2/3 quality players is bunk. You will not get 3x real quality for his fee.
You can if you buy in the right places.
As Paulie has said though, it's the wages issue that will prevent that from happening.
And of course the fact that we shouldn't sell another of our best players is what will hopefully prevent if from happening.
-
What, that he'll leave? Of course he'll leave. Didn't we all know Ashley Young will leave? That didn't make him shit, though, and it doesn't make Bent shit either.
Good. We agree then
-
Its utter madness wanting rid of Bent. A forward who scores goals is exactly what you need when the rest of your team has no idea.
Messi would look a prick on his own up front at Villa Park
-
Sorry... I seem to have been represented. I never said Bent is shit, far from it. I don't think our team or manager suits him, I think he feels short changed by the club selling our other best players, I don't think he wants to be here, and I think that as a club we're on the slide and he wants to be on the up. I also think that when his head drops he finds it difficult to put a shift in. I also think that he'll do to us what he did to Sunderland. He has no sentimental attachment to this club whatsoever.
-
Its utter madness wanting rid of Bent. A forward who scores goals is exactly what you need when the rest of your team has no idea.
Messi would look a prick on his own up front at Villa Park
Put a little more bluntly than I would've but this is spot on.
If AML is going to persist with playing one up front and launching balls at that one from miles away then playing Bent as the one is a complete waste of time. We'd be better off with Gabby there who actually stretches the defence and creates space for players coming through the middle.
However, if AML could break out of the negative attitude he approaches games with and actually played to Bent's strengths then I don't think there's a better goal poacher in the country and he'd be a massive asset.
-
Today for most of the game we were set up to supply Bent. Both Nzog and Gabby were playing on the wing of their good foot (gabby right/Nzog left) so it would be their inclination to get to the byline and get crosses in. If they were on the wing of their wrong foot then were continually cutting inside to shoot then we could argue that the side was not set up for his strengths. Then you add that Ireland was playing just behind him with little responsibility to track back. Basically, if anything we tried to hard to accommodate Bent.
-
Today for most of the game we were set up to supply Bent. Both Nzog and Gabby were playing on the wing of their good foot (gabby right/Nzog left) so it would be their inclination to get to the byline and get crosses in. If they were on the wing of their wrong foot then were continually cutting inside to shoot then we could argue that the side was not set up for his strengths. Then you add that Ireland was playing just behind him with little responsibility to track back. Basically, if anything we tried to hard to accommodate Bent.
No way.
It had nothing to do with their inclination to get to the byline and everything to do with how AML is asking them to play. Gabby was standing on Cuellar's toes throughout and you can't tell me he has a natural inclination to hang back, he's a striker for heaven's sake!
How many times was the ball passed to Bent's feet, slipped behind the defence for him to run on to, or crossed low for him to tap in. Absolutely none, on all three counts. There is no way that team was set up to play to Bent's strengths.
-
Who in their right mind would offer us what we paid 12 months ago to take him off our hands? Only Man City would throw that sort of money around but as he's not a patch on Aguero, Balotelli or Dzeko they're hardly likely to do so.
So should we sell him at a big loss? No, that would be plain stupid after all the money we've had to write off on players and managers in the last couple of years.
For me Bent cannot play as a lone striker - he's just too idle. He doesn't look to put pressure on a defender in possession and he doesn't make runs that pull defenders around and open up opportunities for through balls or create spaces for others to move into. And he's about as much use as John Carew was if we're looking at hitting it long from the back - in that he's unlikely to actually do anything useful with it if he does manage to get on the end of it.
Watch Bobby Zamora play as a lone striker compared to Bent and you have wonder why Bent gets the nod for England ahead of him.
Gabby is a better option as a lone striker for us because he provides more options to the players on the ball, and he unsettles defences.
Bent's strength is in and around the six-yard box, but in our team that's about as much use as Barcelona having a goalkeeper half the time.
We are simply not strong enough elsewhere to be able to afford to carry Bent. If we could get back what we paid for him and could then spend that money on players I'd say sell him - but we won't.
-
A very well known ex Villa player told a friend of mine the other day that the club is a shambles from top to bottom at the moment. I have no reason to disbelieve him.
You don't need to be connected to the club to see that to be honest.
After the Chelsea result, I bet you were rubbing your hands at having chosen this fixture to come and see, weren't you?
Aston Villa, right there.
I was. And to be honest, I had a great day anyway. Lovely crisp, sunny day, pre and post match pint in the Barton's, walking round the ground getting some photos, just the buzz from being at VP again. Shame about the actual 90 minutes masquerading as a football match, but still, can't have everything!
Fuck me Risso, I shouldn't laugh but you really should have known better. Villa Park is a still an ace place. Before the game starts that is.
Chrimbo pressie off the wife. She wasn't sure whether to get me tickets for today or Chelsea away.....
I'd suggest a change of wife Risso based on that Stephen Warnock size mistake. A change in club unfortunately isn't an option.
-
Should stay. Will go.
-
Today for most of the game we were set up to supply Bent. Both Nzog and Gabby were playing on the wing of their good foot (gabby right/Nzog left) so it would be their inclination to get to the byline and get crosses in. If they were on the wing of their wrong foot then were continually cutting inside to shoot then we could argue that the side was not set up for his strengths. Then you add that Ireland was playing just behind him with little responsibility to track back. Basically, if anything we tried to hard to accommodate Bent.
No way.
It had nothing to do with their inclination to get to the byline and everything to do with how AML is asking them to play. Gabby was standing on Cuellar's toes throughout and you can't tell me he has a natural inclination to hang back, he's a striker for heaven's sake!
How many times was the ball passed to Bent's feet, slipped behind the defence for him to run on to, or crossed low for him to tap in. Absolutely none, on all three counts. There is no way that team was set up to play to Bent's strengths.
I wasn't at the game and only watched it on TV so I could not see the players' positions when they did not have the ball. In that sense, I suppose I should have added "on paper" gabby and Nzog were set up to get crosses in rather than come inside and to shoot. On that basis I though we were set up to supply Bent. I'm not sure whether their failure to do so was the player's fault (incl Bent) or a result of the managers' instructions.
From the TV footage it looked like they tried to get forward but I accept that you get a better perspective at the matches.
-
stay .
Otherwise it will be 20 million in Randys pocket and bobby Zamora in or even worse than him , Heskey up front for the rest of the season .
-
Stay. With a bit of luck,the next manager whoever he may be might have some idea how to play to his strengths.
-
No-one will pay an acceptable fee - or better his wages/contract, he is staying.
With Given and Bent in the side mid table anonymity is guaranteed- without them, things could get hairy...........
-
I'm trying to think of players that we could reasonably expect to buy in order to justify selling him and I'm struggling to say the least.
Hoillet - It would give us a very mobile and skilful front four with Gabby as the central guy and hoillet and Nzog/Albrighton offering width and Ireland or Bannan behind. The touted fee is 8m from what I have read.
I'd then like to see us get a DCM and a CB, preferably young and players that will improve whilst at Villa. Any ideas? You've got 16m to spend.
-
I'm trying to think of players that we could reasonably expect to buy in order to justify selling him and I'm struggling to say the least. And that ignore whether Randy would want to pocket a percentage.
The only guy I can think of is Hoillet - He would give us a very mobile and skilful front four with Gabby as the central guy and Hoillet and Nzog/Albrighton offering width and Ireland or Bannan behind. The touted fee is 8m from what I have read.
I'd then like to see us get a DCM and a CB with the remainder, preferably young and players that will improve whilst at Villa. Any ideas? You've got 16m to spend.
-
Bent is living in the comfort zone and needs the mother of bollockings from the manager not sold for a thumping loss. Bent knows that there will always be a chorus of "he did not get the service" to get him off the hook of idleness. Watch Robin Van Persie. He is the supreme goal hanger but he works all the time and gets his shots off.
Yesterday we had 15 corners. That is an average of once every six minutes the ball was, or should have been in their six yard box, not counting any times it was there from open play. You can tell everything from what was wrong with our display against Swansea by the single statistic of 15 corners 1 shot on goal. Bent played a stinker and all the bleating by him and his enthusiasts cannot hide the fact.
-
Not sure if there is a Darren Bent topic anywhere
Not sure exactly what question am I answering here? For a YES/NO answer you need to ask a one way question.
-
Shit poll options.
-
Firstly, just want to apologise for the major mistake in my poll. It should have read Yes - sell him, No - keep him. Most people got the gist of it and have answered it but for the people who are baffled by it, I apologise. It was rushed last night as I was getting hacked off with some nonsense I was reading on twitter so wanted to get the post up.
Hope that clears it up?
Anyway, what makes people think RL would give AM all of the money to re-invest into the squad? I dont. Plus people saying we could get 3/4 quality players for say £20m? Really? Selling Bent at the moment would be stupid. In the summer then yes as I think we all know he wont be at villa for the full length of his contract anyway. I think if a club was to offer us anything from £20m upwards, RL and the board would consider it and most likely accept it but who in their right mind would make a bid? Liverpool? Most of their fans dont want him or rate him.
-
I voted yes. Not sure whether that means 'yes he should stay' or 'yes he should go' so I voted yes just to be positive. I think
-
The top clubs can get a player that will give them Bent's goal return, but also a lot more in terms of all round game, such as creating his own chances. So if not to one of them, then who outside that elite has the money to do it? Can't see him going bakc to Sunderland, even if it would be funny to see the meltdown on here is MON signed him for someone else, so Newcastle is the only possible realistic candidate, IMO.
-
I'll amend and reset the poll.
-
I'll amend and reset the poll.
Thanks
-
thats better . I wasted 5 mins of my life trying to work the last poll out ;)
-
Its utter madness wanting rid of Bent. A forward who scores goals is exactly what you need when the rest of your team has no idea.
Messi would look a prick on his own up front at Villa Park
It's this blindness that drives me mad.
We are a completely different team when Bent isnt playing.
Petrov gets the ball and gives it to Ireland who then passes to Gabby (playing up front) who either turns the defender and runs, holds the ball up or passes it back or out wide.
Now replace Gabby with Bent, what does Ireland do? Bent is never an option thus constantly creating pressure on ourselves.
It's no exaggeration to say, it's like we've been playing with 10 men while Bent is playing. It's also no coincidence that we have looked a completely different team without Bent.
There has to be a reason why Bent has never got a move to a top club with his record.
-
Maybe the answer is to play two up front then? When we did that at Bolton it pushed the wingers wide and was probably the best we've looked going forward all season.
-
Maybe the answer is to play two up front then? When we did that at Bolton it pushed the wingers wide and was probably the best we've looked going forward all season.
I said that just before kick off yesterday when I saw the line up. When he changed it to 4-4-2 and introduced MA, we suddenly looked a little more livelier. Gabby and Bent need to be playing up top with each other not Gabby out on the wing.
-
We must keep him what we need to do is give him better service then the goals will come.
-
Thing that gets me is Bent made his name playing upfront on his own at Charlton and scored (I think!) 20 a season in the process. Anyone remember how they played/set up to get that out of him?
-
I think for Bent to woek it needs Ireland in the team as he's the only midfielder capable of carrying the ball forward and playing nice passes. However, this means one of N'Zogbia, Gabby or Albrighton cannot play and I don't see Ireland in a 4-4-2. Tricky one this!
-
You're right, this is a tricky one. Has Ireland been tried in a 4-4-2 system?
-
I think for Bent to woek it needs Ireland in the team as he's the only midfielder capable of carrying the ball forward and playing nice passes. However, this means one of N'Zogbia, Gabby or Albrighton cannot play and I don't see Ireland in a 4-4-2. Tricky one this!
Although they play deeper than Ireland, both Petrov and Clark can do that. Anyway, I think the key to getting the best out of Bent is the wingers. For the first time this season we had two playing well and delivering away at Bolton and although he didn't score, Bent had numerous chances.
The issue comes when we need the extra midfielder against the better sides.
-
Stay. With a bit of luck,the next manager whoever he may be might have some idea how to play to his strengths.
Steve Bruce got the best out of him, maybe he's the answer ?
;D
-
Bent needs a strike partner and 2 wingers that actually cross the ball. Simple as that.
-
Thing that gets me is Bent made his name playing upfront on his own at Charlton and scored (I think!) 20 a season in the process. Anyone remember how they played/set up to get that out of him?
Didn't he play with Di Canio, Marcus Bent or Jimmy Floyd Hasslebaink? My memory is toss.
-
So to get the best out of Bent we play play the same team/system that we played yday.
Personally, in our current position, with no money, no depth, no variety i would sell and as Shrek said earlier buy some young up and coming players.Long, Cissokho and Capoue could all be bought for the money we would get for Bent.That would be too tempting for me.
-
Bent needs a strike partner and 2 wingers that actually cross the ball. Simple as that.
Don't necessarily disagree but where does that leave Ireland and Bannan, as to play either as part of a central midfield two with 2 wingers and two strikers would leave us very lightweight indeed. It's also a tough ask to introduce Gardner into a central midfield 2 rather than 3. I think on balance I would play Clark and Petrov (with Herd/Delph/Gardner as back up) Bannan/Ireland tucked in behind Bent/Gabby, but there is then no cover for Albrighton/N'Zogbia.
-
The only reason to sell Bent would be is if he is shit. He may lack technical ability, he may not be able to create his own chances, and he may not track back or hold up play vey well...but he's not shit.
What he does do is provide a constant threat for the opposition to worry about, he plays off the shoulder of the defence better than most other strikers in the PL, he has great positional awareness in the box and has a natural eye for goal. Most teams below in the PL are crying out for a player like Bent.
When you have someone like Bent in the team who can score goals then you MUST play to his strengths otherwise he becomes a very expensive waste of space and you may as well be playing with 10 men. Lets not forget that winning football matches is all about putting the ball in the back of the net, and if you consistently provide the correct service then Bent will do that time and time again.
It makes no sense whatsoever to get rid of Bent in order to bring in a few more average £5-6m players. Getting rid of Bent would be the biggest mistake that Randy and AM could do, and the only thing that it will bring is relegation.
-
The only reason to sell Bent would be is if he is shit. He may lack technical ability, he may not be able to create his own chances, and he may not track back or hold up play vey well...but he's not shit.
What he does do is provide a constant threat for the opposition to worry about, he plays off the shoulder of the defence better than most other strikers in the PL, he has great positional awareness in the box and has a natural eye for goal. Most teams below in the PL are crying out for a player like Bent.
When you have someone like Bent in the team who can score goals then you MUST play to his strengths otherwise he becomes a very expensive waste of space and you may as well be playing with 10 men. Lets not forget that winning football matches is all about putting the ball in the back of the net, and if you consistently provide the correct service then Bent will do that time and time again.
It makes no sense whatsoever to get rid of Bent in order to bring in a few more average £5-6m players. Getting rid of Bent would be the biggest mistake that Randy and AM could do, and the only thing that it will bring is relegation.
Agree with this.
Re: Bent it depends upon viewpoint - he was brought into a team last year that had a lot more creativity and he did very well, we should not be surprised that he's not as effective this - his service has more or less dried up. He is not going to pick up the ball on halfway and go on mazy runs a la Messi - so you have to provide, if you do he'll post a very good return - he's proven to do so. So saying he's lazy and doesn't offer much is to miss the point in my opinion - he was bought to score goals, he's done this when supplied - not track back and break up play when we are being overrun in midfield, which we frequently are. This is why i ascribe to the views of KRS above
From another viewpoint - we have no money and we are deficient in a number of areas - Bent is one of only a few players we have who can generate any money, so selling him makes sense if we want to marginally improve in other areas of the team/squad. His stock is still high enough that we would get a good price for him. With this said Hutton was $4m wasn't he, so 20m(ish) or so will not go far in terms of strengthening and numbers - factor into this McLeish's ability to attract folk to the football club - what would we really get for the money realistically - especially if Lerner decides not to use all the money generated for reinvestment - 3 or 4 players of Hutton standard, No Thanks!
Finally there is the Bent himself angle - does he really want to stay with a club like ours just now at his age with his England position less than cemented. Think we all agree that we will not be bringing in players just now (or likely in Summer) who are of the quality of Barry/Milner/Downing(twat)/Young etc - so Bent's stock may well continue to fall, he and his agent are not blind to this - so even medium term is Villa Park really where he wants to be?
Hope he stays and that we can build something around him - he is the only natural goal scorer we've had in years - would be a sad indictment on our club if after 12 months we'd shown him enough lack of ambition / investment to make him think that the grass is greener elsewhere - however looking dispassionately, it probably is for a player of his calibre just now with the way we are setting up and the players we have at our disposal.
Sad state of affairs really
UTV
-
For years we was all crying out for a player who taps the ball in the net, who doesn't do much else, as long as he scores. Now we've got one, we're all getting on his back.
-
For years we was all crying out for a player who taps the ball in the net, who doesn't do much else, as long as he scores. Now we've got one, we're all getting on his back.
This is what I have been saying on twitter to the DB haters on there. We just need to know how to supply the man so he can get back to scoring goals. Yes he will miss some but what striker doesnt? People saying we should sell him and buy 3/4 other players. Im sorry with the market the way it is, you will get Hutton (very average or just plain shite) type players for like £4/5m. is that what we want? isn't that what MON did with some of his signings? BEYE?? HESKEY??
-
Everyone keeps saying we should play to his strengths which I guess appears logical enough, but what that invariably also means is that we have to nullify other player's attributes. We can't play wingers, two up front AND have creativity in the middle of the park. Teams would walk through the middle of us.
We also have to consider the team dynamic, if every player is instructed to service Bent then I can understand when they get pissed off if he misses chances. I'm not sure it's wise for the team to be so one-player-centric and I think we should demand more of Bent, just like we're asking gabby to work the channels, Clark to play midfield etc etc.
It also unfair pressure on Bent to expect him to be our sole talisman.
-
The problem with DB (and this is evident with the teams he has played for previously) is that in the modern game you defend from the front. If DB is not there to do the 6 yard tap ins (of which there is probably no one better at being in the right place since Ian Rush) you are effectively playing with 10 men.
To explain better look at how Gabby led the line against Chelsea, he harried and ran at the back 4 all day when he did not have the ball - he would come deep to get it and his strength held it up for the midfield to join in.
Now look at DB against Swansea - they played six / seven passes from keeper to full backs under no pressure at all - in fact Ireland did most of the running at them to cloase them down.
DB is a master goal poacher - he is not a great footballer, hence my comment about 10 men.
We either have to change our shape to accomodate him (but i dont think we have the right personal to play a flat 4 across midfield or if we continue with a 5 then we have to have total mobility and footballing ability for it to work - in that formation then Gabby should get the nod every time
So for me - as poor a bit of PR as it would be i would sell him and use the funds elsewhere - full backs would be my choice
-
The problem with DB (and this is evident with the teams he has played for previously) is that in the modern game you defend from the front. If DB is not there to do the 6 yard tap ins (of which there is probably no one better at being in the right place since Ian Rush) you are effectively playing with 10 men.
To explain better look at how Gabby led the line against Chelsea, he harried and ran at the back 4 all day when he did not have the ball - he would come deep to get it and his strength held it up for the midfield to join in.
Now look at DB against Swansea - they played six / seven passes from keeper to full backs under no pressure at all - in fact Ireland did most of the running at them to cloase them down.
DB is a master goal poacher - he is not a great footballer, hence my comment about 10 men.
We either have to change our shape to accomodate him (but i dont think we have the right personal to play a flat 4 across midfield or if we continue with a 5 then we have to have total mobility and footballing ability for it to work - in that formation then Gabby should get the nod every time
So for me - as poor a bit of PR as it would be i would sell him and use the funds elsewhere - full backs would be my choice
I agree. I wish we had the personnel to utilise him, but we don't.
-
For years we was all crying out for a player who taps the ball in the net, who doesn't do much else, as long as he scores. Now we've got one, we're all getting on his back.
The problem is we now no longer have the players to service him.
We have no money to buy the type of players we need in order to offer him the service that he will benefit from.
I also think that we have a manager who will not be able to get the best from him.
I have said before that the club need to decide if they want to play the type of football that Bent can play along with [in which case they need to spend some money] or they don't.
If they don't / can't spend the money to build the team around him, then it may be the best option all round to sell him and start to rebuild a new team.
-
The problem with DB (and this is evident with the teams he has played for previously) is that in the modern game you defend from the front. If DB is not there to do the 6 yard tap ins (of which there is probably no one better at being in the right place since Ian Rush) you are effectively playing with 10 men.
To explain better look at how Gabby led the line against Chelsea, he harried and ran at the back 4 all day when he did not have the ball - he would come deep to get it and his strength held it up for the midfield to join in.
Now look at DB against Swansea - they played six / seven passes from keeper to full backs under no pressure at all - in fact Ireland did most of the running at them to cloase them down.
DB is a master goal poacher - he is not a great footballer, hence my comment about 10 men.
We either have to change our shape to accomodate him (but i dont think we have the right personal to play a flat 4 across midfield or if we continue with a 5 then we have to have total mobility and footballing ability for it to work - in that formation then Gabby should get the nod every time
So for me - as poor a bit of PR as it would be i would sell him and use the funds elsewhere - full backs would be my choice
I agree up to the point about selling him. I'm just not sure there are the players out there who are available and that would come to us. Personally I do not think we'll get relegated so I hope we use this season to blood a few more youngsters. Then in the summer we'll have a better idea of exactly what we need.
-
Why would anyone want to sell their best player?
With a player like Bent you give him the service and he scores.
Can't believe there are people who would sell him.
If we sell him in January, I am cutting up my season ticket.
-
The only way I could justify the sale of Bent would be if all the funds generated were spent on a more technically gifted and hard working forward than himself plus a very good midfielder. It's unlikely we'll get either or both for the £20m we'd get for him, so the sensible, cheaper and most viable option is to accommodate him properly in the team.
-
Why would anyone want to sell their best player?
You are aware that you support Aston Villa :-)
-
The "he doesn't do anything but score" comment makes me laugh.
For anyone not aware of the game of football, the idea is to score more goals than the other team.
Gary Lineker and Andy Cole, for example, didn't do anything except score goals.
-
Bent isn't our best player. He is our best finisher, our biggest asset, our most valuable player, our highest paid player (allegedly, granted), but not the best player.
-
Why would anyone want to sell their best player?
You are aware that you support Aston Villa :-)
But the fans wanting to sell their best players? That's not Aston Villa, surely?
-
If we sell him in January, I am cutting up my season ticket.
Can I have it instead?
Does anyone know a good free website that records distance covered and average positions, number of touches etc of players?
-
I don't think we need to shape the whole team around him, just play players and a formation to create chances, which he'll then put away. I don't think his all round game is as poor as some make out, but we do get more out of Gabby, goals aside, when he plays upfront. That's why I think 4-4-2 is he best system for us. Between Petrov, Clark and Herd I think we have a midfielders who can for a central 2, with Petrov being the one to get forward more. One reason I'm for this is that I can't see Ireland's form lasting, so ultimately I think this is what we'll need to shape up like.
-
Why would anyone want to sell their best player?
You are aware that you support Aston Villa :-)
But the fans wanting to sell their best players? That's not Aston Villa, surely?
[/quote
agreed
-
Bent isn't our best player. He is our best finisher, our biggest asset, our most valuable player, our highest paid player (allegedly, granted), but not the best player.
Definitely. I'd say Gabby is better than Bent which is why I can understand if (not saying he is) he's getting pissed off with the Bent adulation.
-
If we sell him in January, I am cutting up my season ticket.
Can I have it instead?
Does anyone know a good free website that records distance covered and average positions, number of touches etc of players?
Not sure, but does anyone know a good free website that records the amount of goals players have scored over the last few years?
Oh, and no you can't have it.
-
That's why I think 4-4-2 is he best system for us. Between Petrov, Clark and Herd I think we have a midfielders who can for a central 2, with Petrov being the one to get forward more. One reason I'm for this is that I can't see Ireland's form lasting, so ultimately I think this is what we'll need to shape up like.
I do not like the 442 formation but as you say the enigma that is Ireland could make it an easy option for us to adopt. I'd say Ireland deserves as few more games though yet as Bent and Ireland could work brilliantly if they can form an understanding.
-
When was Bent's best form and what formation did they play?
Ipswich - no idea but I think most of it was in the championship.
Charlton - Didn't he play alone up front, with the team playing a counter attacking 351. More wingbacks than wingers (rommerdhaal on the right?)
Spurs - A largely unsuccessful period being first reserve within a 442, either partnering crouch or defoe
Sunderland - Did he form a decent partnership with Jones? If he did, I do not remember them having stand out wingers. Henderson or a converted rightback playing on the right and Malbranque on the left?
Maybe we should be concentrating on sliding more passes between the CBs rather than wingers. Does any one have a better memory than me? When was his best form?
-
That's why I think 4-4-2 is he best system for us. Between Petrov, Clark and Herd I think we have a midfielders who can for a central 2, with Petrov being the one to get forward more. One reason I'm for this is that I can't see Ireland's form lasting, so ultimately I think this is what we'll need to shape up like.
I do not like the 442 formation but as you say the enigma that is Ireland could make it an easy option for us to adopt. I'd say Ireland deserves as few more games though yet as Bent and Ireland could work brilliantly if they can form an understanding.
I totally agree they could, but I'm not convinced that he's turned over a new leaf and if this form brings a half decent offer during the January window, then I'd take it.
-
He looked totally uninterested against Swansea, and on that evidence I would sell him to free up money to buy the players who are going to give 100%
-
It seems to be a trait of some Villa fans over the years to favour players who put a lot of graft and effort in over those who are more languid but maybe offer more in terms of technical ability. I don't care if Bent doesn't do all the other stuff and run around that much as long as we get the ball to him regularly in the box and he provides us with those precise finishes that have given him an excellent goals to games ratio throughout his career *. But then I was one of the few who enjoyed watching Ginola in a Villa shirt.
* figures from Wikipedia show appearances, goals, games per goal
Bent
2001–2005 Ipswich Town 122 48 2.541666667
2005–2007 Charlton Athletic 68 31 2.193548387
2007–2009 Tottenham Hotspur 60 18 3.333333333
2009–2011 Sunderland 58 32 1.8125
2011– Aston Villa 32 15 2.133333333
Total 340 144 2.361111111
Gabby for comparative purposes
2005– Aston Villa 194 53 3.660377358
2005 → Watford (loan) 2 0
2005 → Sheffield Wed (loan) 8 0
Total 204 53 3.849056604
-
He clearly is not a happy bunny at the moment. He is not getting the service. Now we have Clark to strength the midflield I would bench the Zog and play with one winger i.e. Marco and then bring Bannan into the side - for a long spell.
Don't be suprised if he goes this month though. AM still has Emile as back up.
-
He looked totally uninterested against Swansea, and on that evidence I would sell him to free up money to buy the players who are going to give 100%
So because he looked uninterested in his 1st game back from injury we should sell him? Am a bit miffed by that comment.
-
I honestly cannot believe what I am reading on here. Given the myriad of problems that we currently have right now (not least the tense relationship between the fans and board), do you honestly think that the board would sanction the sale of our key goalscorer one year after laying out for him? In addition, if they were stupid enough to hit the club self-destruct button, do you honestly think we’d get anyone in remotely of his calibre?
He needs service that’s all and if anyone thinks that getting rid and replacing him with some sort of sticky plaster solution involving Championship players and or Zamora is a solution, then frankly they need their head examining.
-
I honestly cannot believe what I am reading on here. Given the myriad of problems that we currently have right now (not least the tense relationship between the fans and board), do you honestly think that the board would sanction the sale of our key goalscorer one year after laying out for him? In addition, if they were stupid enough to hit the club self-destruct button, do you honestly think we’d get anyone in remotely of his calibre?
He needs service that’s all and if anyone thinks that getting rid and replacing him with some sort of sticky plaster solution involving Championship players and or Zamora is a solution, then frankly they need their head examining.
Did you ever think that RL and PF would appoint Eck as manager despite a massive protest at villa park? Anything is possible at avfc at the moment.
-
I honestly cannot believe what I am reading on here. Given the myriad of problems that we currently have right now (not least the tense relationship between the fans and board), do you honestly think that the board would sanction the sale of our key goalscorer one year after laying out for him? In addition, if they were stupid enough to hit the club self-destruct button, do you honestly think we’d get anyone in remotely of his calibre?
He needs service that’s all and if anyone thinks that getting rid and replacing him with some sort of sticky plaster solution involving Championship players and or Zamora is a solution, then frankly they need their head examining.
If somebody told you a year ago that the board would appoint AM as our next manager you would have laughed until you pissed yourself - but it happened.
-
The problem with DB (and this is evident with the teams he has played for previously) is that in the modern game you defend from the front. If DB is not there to do the 6 yard tap ins (of which there is probably no one better at being in the right place since Ian Rush) you are effectively playing with 10 men.
To explain better look at how Gabby led the line against Chelsea, he harried and ran at the back 4 all day when he did not have the ball - he would come deep to get it and his strength held it up for the midfield to join in.
Now look at DB against Swansea - they played six / seven passes from keeper to full backs under no pressure at all - in fact Ireland did most of the running at them to cloase them down.
DB is a master goal poacher - he is not a great footballer, hence my comment about 10 men.
We either have to change our shape to accomodate him (but i dont think we have the right personal to play a flat 4 across midfield or if we continue with a 5 then we have to have total mobility and footballing ability for it to work - in that formation then Gabby should get the nod every time
So for me - as poor a bit of PR as it would be i would sell him and use the funds elsewhere - full backs would be my choice
That's what I have been trying to say. Thanks Hooky
-
I would Keep him or would swap him for Carroll,
and yes I know I'm the only one on here who thinks this would be a good idea
-
The board appointed McLeish because they genuinely thought that he would steady the ship whilst we reeled back the frankly ridiculous excesses of O’Neill. I’d say that given the difficult remit, he’s doing a reasonably decent job of it.
However, having just bought Bent one year earlier, at great expense and with much fanfare there is no way that the board are going to cash in to the first possible buyer that rocks on up to Villa Park. He is central to the health of the club and the board would be committing hari-kari if they got rid of him.
The key goal is to further reduce wage bill to a sustainable level and then progress from there. We have already sacrificed our two best players to achieve this as quick as possible. We won’t do it again and I find it bonkers that any of our fans would consider his sale a good thing.
-
I would Keep him or would swap him for Carroll,
and yes I know I'm the only one on here who thinks this would be a good idea
Even leaving aside the folly of swapping one of the most proven English goalscorers in recent years for a kid with a drink problem who has managed 0.5 of a decent premier league season, can you imagine how we'd play if we had Carroll up front?
The temptation to endlessly hoof it at his head would be irresistible.
-
The key goal is to further reduce wage bill to a sustainable level and then progress from there.
This begs the question, what do they do once they get the wages down [if they can] they can't then just go on a spending spree and undo all the work just done.
So we will be left with a vastly reduced squad size, with the best and brightest gone and with no real opportunity to improve.
Its like I have gone to sleep and woke up back when Graham Turner was in charge
-
The key goal is to further reduce wage bill to a sustainable level and then progress from there.
This begs the question, what do they do once they get the wages down [if they can] they can't then just go on a spending spree and undo all the work just done.
So we will be left with a vastly reduced squad size, with the best and brightest gone and with no real opportunity to improve.
Its like I have gone to sleep and woke up back when Graham Turner was in charge
Herein lies the problem. We had to bring the wage bill down. The level of wages at the club based on the achievements and average gate was unsustainable. There’s lots of talk of ‘the Ajax way’, yet I’ve seen scant evidence of us genuinely taking this seriously other than using it as a political buzzword.
As has already been stated on another thread, the issue lies in the fact that we seem happy to drift along achieving our historical level of yearly mediocrity because there’s no-one at the club with a clear vision of where to take us.
There seem to be only two certainties for me right now.
1. Once the wage bill is down we will not be spending MON style again
2. The board know that selling Bent would destroy what goodwill they have left with the average fan, so they won’t do it.
-
The key goal is to further reduce wage bill to a sustainable level and then progress from there.
This begs the question, what do they do once they get the wages down [if they can] they can't then just go on a spending spree and undo all the work just done.
So we will be left with a vastly reduced squad size, with the best and brightest gone and with no real opportunity to improve.
Its like I have gone to sleep and woke up back when Graham Turner was in charge
This is a really good point - and one that requires a thread of it's own really.
Once the wage bill is trimmed what then - is Randy:
- stockpiling cash for another punt at European domination
- is he making the business more viable with a view to a sale
- taking us to a sustainable position that will see us cement a place in mid table perennially with the hope of a run in the Carling Cup
Hope is the second to be honest - my 2ps worth
-
I honestly cannot believe what I am reading on here. Given the myriad of problems that we currently have right now (not least the tense relationship between the fans and board), do you honestly think that the board would sanction the sale of our key goalscorer one year after laying out for him? In addition, if they were stupid enough to hit the club self-destruct button, do you honestly think we’d get anyone in remotely of his calibre?
He needs service that’s all and if anyone thinks that getting rid and replacing him with some sort of sticky plaster solution involving Championship players and or Zamora is a solution, then frankly they need their head examining.
The board are capable of anything, like selling Cahill, Barry, Milner, Young and Downing without equal quality coming in to replace them. If Lerner gets the chance he'll sell Bent to recoup more of his investment back.
-
The key goal is to further reduce wage bill to a sustainable level and then progress from there.
This begs the question, what do they do once they get the wages down [if they can] they can't then just go on a spending spree and undo all the work just done.
So we will be left with a vastly reduced squad size, with the best and brightest gone and with no real opportunity to improve.
Its like I have gone to sleep and woke up back when Graham Turner was in charge
Herein lies the problem. We had to bring the wage bill down. The level of wages at the club based on the achievements and average gate was unsustainable. There’s lots of talk of ‘the Ajax way’, yet I’ve seen scant evidence of us genuinely taking this seriously other than using it as a political buzzword.
As has already been stated on another thread, the issue lies in the fact that we seem happy to drift along achieving our historical level of yearly mediocrity because there’s no-one at the club with a clear vision of where to take us.
There seem to be only two certainties for me right now.
1. Once the wage bill is down we will not be spending MON style again
2. The board know that selling Bent would destroy what goodwill they have left with the average fan, so they won’t do it.
I'm not sure we need to cut the wagebill any further, just hold it where it is. And that gives us at least some hope as there are a few to go shortly that either don't contribute at all or don't contribute enough given their salaries. So, get them out and then wisely look for the replacements on the same total money and we could see decent improvement.
For example, with none of the rest of the present squad going:-
Heskey out - £60k a week - use it on a top class defender
Cuellar out - £50k a week - use it on a midfielder to replace Petrov (who stays as cover)
Beye out - £40K a week - go overseas and get a good forward to add to the mix with Gabby and Bent
-
This begs the question, what do they do once they get the wages down [if they can] they can't then just go on a spending spree and undo all the work just done.
So we will be left with a vastly reduced squad size, with the best and brightest gone and with no real opportunity to improve.
Its like I have gone to sleep and woke up back when Graham Turner was in charge
This is a really good point - and one that requires a thread of it's own really.
Once the wage bill is trimmed what then - is Randy:
- stockpiling cash for another punt at European domination
- is he making the business more viable with a view to a sale
- taking us to a sustainable position that will see us cement a place in mid table perennially with the hope of a run in the Carling Cup
Hope is the second to be honest - my 2ps worth
I never actually thought of it like that and really does make you think. I cant see RL splashing the cash again like he did when MON was incharge so it looks like either options or 2 or 3 - hopefully 2.
-
The board are capable of anything, like selling Cahill, Barry, Milner, Young and Downing without equal quality coming in to replace them. If Lerner gets the chance he'll sell Bent to recoup more of his investment back.
In that time frame of when those players were sold we've signed Downing, Bent, Cuellar, Ireland and NZogbia. Say it's not as good as what's gone if you like, but lets not pretend it's been a total one way stream.
-
To my mind Bent is a bit of a luxury player akin to Berbatov. Nice to have as long as you have other players that can do the business when he isn't doing it.
We don't have the calibre of player in the squad that (Gabby apart) can step up and score the goals when Bents in the team.
When Bent was injured the likes of Albrighton, Petrov and N'Zogbia seemed to have the freedom to go forward more and in the same period Ireland suddenly looked like the player he should be.
When Bent is playing, the midfielders appear to be inhibited from going forward as much as they have done in the games when he was out. I can't see why this should be.
On balance I think I'd keep him and hope AM can find a way to accommodate Bent in a side that plays the way we did over those three games when he was out.
-
you build around your best players. You don't discard them. We need to find a way to get the ball to him, because as it showed last season, he does the business. Without him we'd be playing the likes of Brighton or Coventry on a weekly basis this season.
-
honestly....are we any better than the footballers themselves? People throw all manner of abuse at the likes of Barry, Milner, Downing and those other players who look for pastures new, yet look at our own fans. Where's the moral high ground in casting aside players like Bent? So, he doesn't perform for a certain timespan (although his goals to game ratio is still up there), and we start debating whether he should be sold or not.
Can you blame the players for having no loyalty when the fans don't either?
-
I would Keep him or would swap him for Carroll,
and yes I know I'm the only one on here who thinks this would be a good idea
Even leaving aside the folly of swapping one of the most proven English goalscorers in recent years for a kid with a drink problem who has managed 0.5 of a decent premier league season, can you imagine how we'd play if we had Carroll up front?
The temptation to endlessly hoof it at his head would be irresistible.
like i say, i know i'm on me own here, i'm not trying to be controversial, i just like Carrol and think he will make a good centre forward someday.
i also think he's a better all round footballer than Bent and could fit into different systems unlike Bent who is limited, having said that i also said i would keep Bent so i'm not against him, i just think Carrol would be a better prospect
-
I think it all comes down to how Eck sees us playing in 12- 18 months time. If that is with the current formation, then as unpopular as it would be he will take a big bid for Bent, as it works better with Gabby up top, means we don't have to accommodate Gabby out of position for Bent to play, and probably create more opportunity to get the midfield forward. The down side is that there will be plenty of days where you will be saying, if only we had got Bent in there, he would have knocked that home.
The key for me though is how it is re-invested. If we sell him and have a very clear policy, with a clear plan of who we want, youngish players that have been scouted, and have good prospects but are already ready to play, maybe like the kid being mentioned from Barnsley, or the lad at Huddersfield, then fair enough, try a different direction as at least there would be a visible plan.
-
I'm speaking out of both sides of my mouth here but let's face it, if a stupid bid of say 30m came in for Bent we'd be nuts not to consider it. My concern is how much of that gets spent, and on who? If we suddenly sell Bent then every following purchase inquiry is significantly inflated. We'd need to buy first then sell him.
If selling Bent makes sense for the club they should do it, just as Spurs did with players to improve themselves overall. I just don't have the faith to know it will be invested wisely.
-
I see there are rumours of a loan move for Robbie Keane.
That would give us a front two of Bent and Keane....................................................
-
cannot believe we are discussing selling the crown jewels??
all that we should be discussing is trying to find the right formation to bring out the best of a goal machine! these goal machines are not ten a penny and whilst it is obvious that he aint no good at chasing centre halves around for 90 minutes he is damn good at sticking it in the onion bag when in the box. we havent had one of them for 30 years.
get the guy doing what he is good at. he will come good again!
-
I think it all comes down to how Eck sees us playing in 12- 18 months time. If that is with the current formation, then as unpopular as it would be he will take a big bid for Bent, as it works better with Gabby up top, means we don't have to accommodate Gabby out of position for Bent to play, and probably create more opportunity to get the midfield forward. The down side is that there will be plenty of days where you will be saying, if only we had got Bent in there, he would have knocked that home.
The key for me though is how it is re-invested. If we sell him and have a very clear policy, with a clear plan of who we want, youngish players that have been scouted, and have good prospects but are already ready to play, maybe like the kid being mentioned from Barnsley, or the lad at Huddersfield, then fair enough, try a different direction as at least there would be a visible plan.
Why do we have to "accommodate Gabby"? Because he's a fans favourite and works hard for the team? Much as I have a lot of time for Gabby, an on form Albrighton is a better option out wide, and Bent is better at sticking Albrighton type deliveries in the onion bag. Thus for me there is an argument for saying Gabby should be back up to both, and not an automatic choice.
I'd argue that we recently had one of those days you refer to - against Arsenal where Albrighton and N'zogbia put quite a few balls into the box that were tailor made for Bent, but Gabby didn't get on the end of any of them.
-
To my mind Bent and Gabby are our two best, most influential and valuable players. Any formation needs to be aligned to getting them both playing and playing well, hence 4-4-2 for me.
-
The simple fact is Bent is a luxury Villa can`t afford, he`s not getting any service and when he doesnt we`re effectively playing with 10 men, we knew what sort of player he was when we bought him, so we can`t have any complaints, our 3 best performances have been, tellingly with Darren Bent out of the side, it`s not his fault we sold his main supply lines to Man u and Liverpool, If he`s got any sense, he`ll go because, honestly, can anybody see it getting any better??.
-
Keep him, play him up front with Gabby and play Albrighton and N'Zogbia to supply them.
-
To my mind Bent and Gabby are our two best, most influential and valuable players. Any formation needs to be aligned to getting them both playing and playing well, hence 4-4-2 for me.
I'd agree with that. The problem is what kind of midfield we need to play to get the best out of those two without running the risk of being overrun. We need to shield our back four (it's no coincidence that we've largely looked better for Clark shielding the back four and providing an out-ball for them) but we also need to get the ball to Bent, Gabbs and the wideboys to get the best out of them (but would a Bannan or an Ireland playing alongside Clark be too weak a midfield?).
-
All we need is a Luka Modric and a Scott Parker, then We can play them both.
Sorted.
-
Keep him, play him up front with Gabby and play Albrighton and N'Zogbia to supply them.
And drop Stephen Ireland?
-
Come on folks, as far as I am aware the following line up, which to me looks pretty good, has had ONE GAME to work. In that particular game we gave the lead away after 4 minutes to a team that has one of the best defences in the league (they're not "name" players but I think they have more clean sheets than anyone, well most teams).
I think this front 5 could work really well given a bit of time (and luck).
........................BENT..........................
...GABBY........IRELAND........NZOGBIA...
............CLARK..........PETROV..............
It's got craft, graft and pace, with able deputies for most positions in Albrighton, Bannan, Gardner and Delph.
-
Come on folks, as far as I am aware the following line up, which to me looks pretty good, has had ONE GAME to work. In that particular game we gave the lead away after 4 minutes to a team that has one of the best defences in the league (they're not "name" players but I think they have more clean sheets than anyone, well most teams).
I think this front 5 could work really well given a bit of time (and luck).
........................BENT..........................
...GABBY........IRELAND........NZOGBIA...
............CLARK..........PETROV..............
It's got craft, graft and pace, with able deputies for most positions in Albrighton, Bannan, Gardner and Delph.
N'Zogbia has proven all season he is ineffective playing on the right. He is much better on the left. Gabby on the right isn't as effective as he is on the left. Them's yer problems.
-
If we play 4-4-2 we can't play Ireland.
We need to find the right shape & I think it means leaving out Bent or Gabby.
NZog left.
Albrighton Right.
Ireland behind Bent.
Petrov & Clark/Herd in the middle.
-
If we play 4-4-2 we can't play Ireland.
We need to find the right shape & I think it means leaving out Bent or Gabby.
NZog left.
Albrighton Right.
Ireland behind Bent.
Petrov & Clark/Herd in the middle.
Ireland has played 2 or 3 good games for Villa - why worry about fitting him in?
-
If we play 4-4-2 we can't play Ireland.
We need to find the right shape & I think it means leaving out Bent or Gabby.
NZog left.
Albrighton Right.
Ireland behind Bent.
Petrov & Clark/Herd in the middle.
Ireland has played 2 or 3 good games for Villa - why worry about fitting him in?
Because hopefully these are the few games that kick start his career here.
It's good we've got options. I really don't want us to sell Bent, we need to utilise him properly.
-
It's ironic that all those years under MON we were crying out for Bent and now we have him you want him sold.
-
If we could use the fee to replace him with a striker who can do all the things Bent can't (hold the ball up and bring others into play, run the channels, take players on etc.) And is nearly as good at scoring goals, I'd sell him, because when all's said and done it would improve the team. Who wouldn't want that?
-
If we could use the fee to replace him with a striker who can do all the things Bent can't (hold the ball up and bring others into play, run the channels, take players on etc.) And is nearly as good at scoring goals, I'd sell him, because when all's said and done it would improve the team. Who wouldn't want that?
How much does that kind of striker cost and would that calibre come to VP?
Selling Bent is madness in my opinion. Utilise his strengths. And with the players we have it can work.
-
If we could use the fee to replace him with a striker who can do all the things Bent can't (hold the ball up and bring others into play, run the channels, take players on etc.) And is nearly as good at scoring goals, I'd sell him, because when all's said and done it would improve the team. Who wouldn't want that?
Well of course. If you sell a player and buy somebody better, than great. But this striker you allude to with Bent's scoring ability but a much better all round level of play....who is he, how many tens of millions is he going to cost, and why on earth would he come to Villa?!
edit: beaten to the question by midnite
-
If we could use the fee to replace him with a striker who can do all the things Bent can't (hold the ball up and bring others into play, run the channels, take players on etc.) And is nearly as good at scoring goals, I'd sell him, because when all's said and done it would improve the team. Who wouldn't want that?
Well of course. If you sell a player and buy somebody better, than great. But this striker you allude to with Bent's scoring ability but a much better all round level of play....who is he, how many tens of millions is he going to cost, and why on earth would he come to Villa?!
edit: beaten to the question by midnite
This
-
Well, I said 'nearly as good at scoring goals'. But I dunno, we've got scouts haven't we? I'm just pointing out that it could make sense and doesn't necessarily have to be filed under 'utter madness'.
-
Selling Bent is madness in my opinion. Utilise his strengths. And with the players we have it can work.
End of story.
-
Well, I said 'nearly as good at scoring goals'. But I dunno, we've got scouts haven't we?.
Fine, if our scouts can get us a Demba Ba or a Javier Hernandez, fine.
But while all they seem to be able to come up with is Robbie Keane, I think all talk of selling one of the best goalscorers in the league is pretty mental.
-
It's not often I'm that sharp Risso!!
The type of player you're disrobing is drogba of old, Rooney, villa, Torres (at Liverpool), Aguero. If we manage to unearth a player like that then we are laughing. Or if one comes up through the ranks. But the reality is those players are few and far between and will always be destined for the top four.
We have a fantastic player/ goal scorer in Darren Bent. I don't think he's been THAT lazy either. Part of the problem yesterday with not chasing it down from the back four and keeper was more the formation, playing one up front than darren Bent being lazy. I've watched games where he's put a shift in clearing headers at the back. Dropping deep to get the ball. But when he does that he's then out of position to get the ball to blast it into the back of the net.
We don't need him all over the rest of the park when we have 4 or 5 other players in midfield that should be doing that.
-
I'm not disrobing any players - I'm not that way inclined.
-
Straight swap for Carroll is what is being punted around our bit of the Holte Lower.
-
Straight swap for Carroll is what is being punted around our bit of the Holte Lower.
I hope there's no truth in that.
Imagine the defenders hopefully punting it long in the general direction of Carroll.
-
I heard the same on TS the other evening, so it's a load of old bollocks.
-
I'm not disrobing any players - I'm not that way inclined.
Lol. Damn iPhone!!
-
Straight swap for Carroll is what is being punted around our bit of the Holte Lower.
Not a huge fan of Carroll, however I think this is something we should seriously consider if true, no question Bent is a good-un, but its not happening for him or really for us, I could easily imagine Bent could go to the end of the season with only another couple in the bag, the first person to stand up and say that is utterly unacceptable by his standards would be Darren Bent himself, at which point he will force the move.
-
Just so you know the sort of people I sit with, they also want Michael Owen.
-
Straight swap? no thanks.
-
Just so you know the sort of people I sit with, they also want Michael Owen.
How do they feel about Robbie Keane?
-
They are all very Brummie but they all have red hair (except the bald ones) and the younger ones all have Celt names so I imagine Keane is well up on their wish list
-
Swapping Carroll for Bent would transfer Liverpool's disaster onto us. Definitely NO!
-
Carroll was valued at 35m largely based on his potential (and the timing of the transfer). He has since shown that he is not (yet) of that standard. He is however a very good player. Either way his value cannot be more than 20m. In the real world about 15m.
Bent was 18 to 24m and has at the very least maintained his reputation.
I think I'd want at least 10m cash to consider the swap. Then Carroll's attitude towards joining villa would have to be factored in. And maybe Kelly off their hands too.
I just can't see it happening.
-
I think it all comes down to how Eck sees us playing in 12- 18 months time. If that is with the current formation, then as unpopular as it would be he will take a big bid for Bent, as it works better with Gabby up top, means we don't have to accommodate Gabby out of position for Bent to play, and probably create more opportunity to get the midfield forward. The down side is that there will be plenty of days where you will be saying, if only we had got Bent in there, he would have knocked that home.
The key for me though is how it is re-invested. If we sell him and have a very clear policy, with a clear plan of who we want, youngish players that have been scouted, and have good prospects but are already ready to play, maybe like the kid being mentioned from Barnsley, or the lad at Huddersfield, then fair enough, try a different direction as at least there would be a visible plan.
Why do we have to "accommodate Gabby"? Because he's a fans favourite and works hard for the team? Much as I have a lot of time for Gabby, an on form Albrighton is a better option out wide, and Bent is better at sticking Albrighton type deliveries in the onion bag. Thus for me there is an argument for saying Gabby should be back up to both, and not an automatic choice.
I'd argue that we recently had one of those days you refer to - against Arsenal where Albrighton and N'zogbia put quite a few balls into the box that were tailor made for Bent, but Gabby didn't get on the end of any of them.
[/quote]
For me the question is Bent or Gabby as the central striker. Personally I do not think Gabby has the nous to play the wide striker efficiently. Yes, he has scored some goals there but when he was moved wide late on at Chelsea and again yesterday, tactically he is all at sea. He spent most of yesterday keeping Cuellar company rather than pressing up on the full back and when our midfield have the ball he does not give them an option he waits till they put it into space and chases it. Bent, as everyone says, is a six yard poacher so he cannot play wide so that leaves AM with a problem. IMO it has to be one or the other, maybe play Gabby more away from home when the midfield is perhaps more defensive and he will chase down the channels and play Bent more at home when we should have more of the play and get the ball into the box on a regular basis.
Yesterday we should have started with the same team as at Chelsea and then brought Bent on for Gabby around the hour mark, with Bannan replacing Ireland and maybe Gardner coming on for the last 10 minutes again.
-
Paulie, I don't for a second think it is the way we should be playing by the way, but surely hoofing the ball like we have at times this season up to Carroll rather than Bent would perhaps give better results?
-
Gabby holds the ball up better, has greater pace and brings players into play more often than Bent. Whereas Bent has better movement off the shoulder of the last defenders and in the six yard box.
If we want to be a counter attacking team the Bent is the man, if we want to try and control possession then I think Gabby is better (although I still like him as a winger).
-
It's another game without a goal for Carol so I reckon the rumors will gather pace tonight.
-
Great, we swap a player that according to some on here contributes nothing except finishing ability with a player that appears to offer nothing at all.
-
Carol Dunne Mcliesh Hutton Ireland Warnock Boozers Losers and Jacuzi users
-
I maintain that if he fancies it and if used properly, Carroll could be utterly lethal and score bagloads of goals in this league.
Not that I want to lose Bent of course.
-
I maintain that if he fancies it and if used properly, Carroll could be utterly lethal and score bagloads of goals in this league.
Not that I want to lose Bent of course.
But Carroll never has so there is a major IF in your statement. Bent on the other hand has a proven track record of scoring bagloads of goals in this league.
The suggestion of a straight swap of them is one of the craziest things I've read on the internet in a long time.
-
I'll throw something into the debate here. Has Bent ever felt like a Villa player? Has he ever seemed the sort who would become a legend?
-
I think it all comes down to how Eck sees us playing in 12- 18 months time. If that is with the current formation, then as unpopular as it would be he will take a big bid for Bent, as it works better with Gabby up top, means we don't have to accommodate Gabby out of position for Bent to play, and probably create more opportunity to get the midfield forward. The down side is that there will be plenty of days where you will be saying, if only we had got Bent in there, he would have knocked that home.
The key for me though is how it is re-invested. If we sell him and have a very clear policy, with a clear plan of who we want, youngish players that have been scouted, and have good prospects but are already ready to play, maybe like the kid being mentioned from Barnsley, or the lad at Huddersfield, then fair enough, try a different direction as at least there would be a visible plan.
Why do we have to "accommodate Gabby"? Because he's a fans favourite and works hard for the team? Much as I have a lot of time for Gabby, an on form Albrighton is a better option out wide, and Bent is better at sticking Albrighton type deliveries in the onion bag. Thus for me there is an argument for saying Gabby should be back up to both, and not an automatic choice.
I'd argue that we recently had one of those days you refer to - against Arsenal where Albrighton and N'zogbia put quite a few balls into the box that were tailor made for Bent, but Gabby didn't get on the end of any of them.
For me the question is Bent or Gabby as the central striker. Personally I do not think Gabby has the nous to play the wide striker efficiently. Yes, he has scored some goals there but when he was moved wide late on at Chelsea and again yesterday, tactically he is all at sea. He spent most of yesterday keeping Cuellar company rather than pressing up on the full back and when our midfield have the ball he does not give them an option he waits till they put it into space and chases it. Bent, as everyone says, is a six yard poacher so he cannot play wide so that leaves AM with a problem. IMO it has to be one or the other, maybe play Gabby more away from home when the midfield is perhaps more defensive and he will chase down the channels and play Bent more at home when we should have more of the play and get the ball into the box on a regular basis.
Yesterday we should have started with the same team as at Chelsea and then brought Bent on for Gabby around the hour mark, with Bannan replacing Ireland and maybe Gardner coming on for the last 10 minutes again.
[/quote]
Agree completely about the system.
I do however think we should have rotated the team though. Alot of then looked fucked after the Chelsea game.
I'd have switched Bannan for N'zogbia. Kept Albrighton in.Gardner for Petrov and played Bent. Purely to keep things fresh.
If we played with the same tempo, I don't think we'd have lost yesterday.
-
I'll throw something into the debate here. Has Bent ever felt like a Villa player? Has he ever seemed the sort who would become a legend?
Why not? Not since Yorke have we had a player capable of being at the top of the Premier League's top scorer list.
It's actually been quite difficult for him since he joined, being parachuted in to a club battling relegation, half on the recommendation of the England manager to play with other England players, only for those England players to be sold and the manager who signed you to leave the club too. The club has been through a lot in 12 months since he joined.
The major challenge to him becoming a legend is his reputation as a bit of a mercenary though. People expect him to move on if a better offer comes along. But if he stayed and we played to his strengths then I can see him scoring a lot of goals and just through sheer uniqueness he'd stand a good chance of becoming a legend.
-
I'll throw something into the debate here. Has Bent ever felt like a Villa player? Has he ever seemed the sort who would become a legend?
Has any of our recent signings? And will any of them again? Big money at other clubs or our current owners policy means any quality will be soon gone.
-
I'll throw something into the debate here. Has Bent ever felt like a Villa player? Has he ever seemed the sort who would become a legend?
For 15 games last season yes. Has looked out of place all this.
Rumours of 18 and Carrol on loan for 6 months. 25 and they might strike a deal, although I would want the loan to be 18 months!
-
I'll throw something into the debate here. Has Bent ever felt like a Villa player? Has he ever seemed the sort who would become a legend?
For 15 games last season yes. Has looked out of place all this.
Rumours of 18 and Carrol on loan for 6 months. 25 and they might strike a deal, although I would want the loan to be 18 months!
Source?
-
I'll throw something into the debate here. Has Bent ever felt like a Villa player? Has he ever seemed the sort who would become a legend?
For 15 games last season yes. Has looked out of place all this.
Rumours of 18 and Carrol on loan for 6 months. 25 and they might strike a deal, although I would want the loan to be 18 months!
Source?
Red
-
I'll throw something into the debate here. Has Bent ever felt like a Villa player? Has he ever seemed the sort who would become a legend?
For 15 games last season yes. Has looked out of place all this.
Rumours of 18 and Carrol on loan for 6 months. 25 and they might strike a deal, although I would want the loan to be 18 months!
Source?
Red
Fuck me. Woody Allen must be shitting himself.
-
I'll throw something into the debate here. Has Bent ever felt like a Villa player? Has he ever seemed the sort who would become a legend?
For 15 games last season yes. Has looked out of place all this.
Rumours of 18 and Carrol on loan for 6 months. 25 and they might strike a deal, although I would want the loan to be 18 months!
Source?
I'm going to stick my neck out and say "idiots on Twitter".
Christ that medium has a lot to answer for.
-
I'll throw something into the debate here. Has Bent ever felt like a Villa player? Has he ever seemed the sort who would become a legend?
For 15 games last season yes. Has looked out of place all this.
Rumours of 18 and Carrol on loan for 6 months. 25 and they might strike a deal, although I would want the loan to be 18 months!
Source?
Red
Various forums on line, being discussed heavily on twitter and 5 live earlier with Lawro saying there are big rumours it is done.
-
I'll throw something into the debate here. Has Bent ever felt like a Villa player? Has he ever seemed the sort who would become a legend?
For 15 games last season yes. Has looked out of place all this.
Rumours of 18 and Carrol on loan for 6 months. 25 and they might strike a deal, although I would want the loan to be 18 months!
Source?
Red
Various forums on line, being discussed heavily on twitter and 5 live earlier with Lawro saying there are big rumours it is done.
Twitter and the internet then.
-
I'll throw something into the debate here. Has Bent ever felt like a Villa player? Has he ever seemed the sort who would become a legend?
For 15 games last season yes. Has looked out of place all this.
Rumours of 18 and Carrol on loan for 6 months. 25 and they might strike a deal, although I would want the loan to be 18 months!
Source?
Red
Various forums on line, being discussed heavily on twitter and 5 live earlier with Lawro saying there are big rumours it is done.
Ta
-
I'll throw something into the debate here. Has Bent ever felt like a Villa player? Has he ever seemed the sort who would become a legend?
Yeah, when he scored the winner against Manchester City on his debut.
-
Hasn't Bent got the same agent as Downing? I also heard he has a buy out clause in his contract similar to the one we took advantage of when we bought him.
-
He doesnt seem to be enjoying it this season. Cant blame him nobody really is. Going shopping was a big no no in my books. You would expect him to be at the ground as a bare min. I think he will go. Hope not but there you have it.
-
Hasn't Bent got the same agent as Downing? I also heard he has a buy out clause in his contract similar to the one we took advantage of when we bought him.
When we bought Bent?
What buy out clause was that? It can't have been a very beneficial one for us considering what we paid for him.
-
Rumours of 18 and Carrol on loan for 6 months. 25 and they might strike a deal, although I would want the loan to be 18 months!
Why on earth would we take what we paid for him (since when he has established himself in the England side) plus them letting us borrow their misfiring striker?
-
Rumours of 18 and Carrol on loan for 6 months. 25 and they might strike a deal, although I would want the loan to be 18 months!
Why on earth would we take what we paid for him (since when he has established himself in the England side) plus them letting us borrow their misfiring striker?
Because Randy wants his money back?
-
Rumours of 18 and Carrol on loan for 6 months. 25 and they might strike a deal, although I would want the loan to be 18 months!
Why on earth would we take what we paid for him (since when he has established himself in the England side) plus them letting us borrow their misfiring striker?
Because Randy wants his money back?
And if he wants some money that much, why would he settle for what we paid for him when he's obviously added value since then?
-
Watching Carrol against City i kept thinking of Tony Hately. He really is lost in that Liverpool side, doesn't seem to know where to run to and he is slow, but after saying all that if he got a hair cut he could be a very good player if the team played to his strengths. Just like bent i suppose who has great positioning, reads the game brilliantly but is playing in a team that lacks the skill to play to his strengths. Bent wouldn't have joined us if he knew that we were selling the two players that could set him up anf if he wanted to go i wouldn't blame him.
-
Watching Carrol against City i kept thinking of Tony Hately. He really is lost in that Liverpool side, doesn't seem to know where to run to and he is slow, but after saying all that if he got a hair cut he could be a very good player if the team played to his strengths. Just like bent i suppose who has great positioning, reads the game brilliantly but is playing in a team that lacks the skill to play to his strengths. Bent wouldn't have joined us if he knew that we were selling the two players that could set him up anf if he wanted to go i wouldn't blame him.
The reason Carroll is lost at Liverpool is because he needs players knocking in crosses for him from out wide, like he had at Newcastle (barton would often do that). At Liverpool he isn't getting that.
Why anyone thinks we'd do well to replace a striker who is being criticised because he's not getting the service he did last season (balls knocked in from out wide) with another one who can't do a fucking thing without the same kind of service is beyond me.
And that's before you factor in the propensity for him to get shitfaced and into fights all the time.
-
I think Bent may still have come to escape the North East and double his wages but it became a short term move once we sold Downing and Young. First decent offer and i'll expect he'll be gone, RL will take to money and DB will only be too happy to move.
Decent offer for RL will be 22 mill+.
-
For me, the weakest link is the chairman.
He's looking like his only remaining interest in the club is clawing back money, and I don't doubt that he'll take the opportunity if it presents itself.
-
I agree Paulie, since the Summer i've come to the realisation that we'll only move on when he sells up.
We moved into the 'recoup our costs' mode about the same time as the General disappeared.
-
I agree Paulie, since the Summer i've come to the realisation that we'll only move on when he sells up.
We moved into the 'recoup our costs' mode about the same time as the General disappeared.
The timing was no coincidence.
-
Rumours of 18 and Carrol on loan for 6 months. 25 and they might strike a deal, although I would want the loan to be 18 months!
Why on earth would we take what we paid for him (since when he has established himself in the England side) plus them letting us borrow their misfiring striker?
Because Randy wants his money back?
And if he wants some money that much, why would he settle for what we paid for him when he's obviously added value since then?
He hasn't added any value though, not really. Any small benefits like a better training ground is more than offset by the loans which have mostly been pissed away. The net asset value of the club is less now than when Ellis left I'm afraid. The piss poor state of things financially cannot be overstated.
-
Value added to Darren Bent.
-
Just reread Paulie's post and seen that he was talking about Bent and not the club as a whole.
-
Value added to Darren Bent.
Yes sorry, was reading the thread in reverse!
-
I must say that there have been some strange and blinkered comments both for and against selling Bent. As for the logic, I think there is very little in some of the comments.
Much as I like Gabby and the rare excitement when he is playing well, I have thought about the comments that we played far better at Chelsea with him up front on his own. Yes, he did give Terry and Luiz the runaround for a fair part of the game but when it comes down to the important things that win games like creating chances and scoring goals was he involved.
Ireland's goal was essentially Ireland playing through N'Zogbia who made a terrific run to the byeline before setting up Ireland. Gabby started to drift out of the game in the 2nd half when we dropped deeper and looked frustrated both with his own performance and lack of service/support (familiar?). Gabby then had a one on one with the goalkeeper and failed to score (could have cost us the match). For Petrov's goal Gabby was not involved at all and likewise for Bent's goal. With Bent's goal it showed the difference between him and Gabby. Bent does not always score these one-on-ones but you would back him more than you would Gabby.
So, other than providing an out for the defenders by running the channels and chasing lost causes, did Gabby influence the game other than perhaps giving the others confidence by following his example in effort. Also, the question has to be asked, is Gabby intelligent enough and skillfull enough to play up front other than on his own.
As others have quite rightly said, to win games you have to score goals and we do not have midfield players and defenders that can score enough goals. We rely on our forwards to score goals, it has been like this for a number of years.
To yesterdays match and some things I noticed that I do not think have been mentioned (apologies if I have missed them):
1. When the Swansea defenders had the ball all of our players except Bent dropped back which left Bent on his own having to cover all across the line and as he does not have Gabby's pace he looks as though he is not trying to close them down.
2. When we attack down the wings, both N'Zogbia and Albrighton were starting from too deep. Young and Downing were fast players and could afford to start from deeper positions but N'Zogbia and Albrighton do not have the same pace so have to start from more advanced positions.
3. I cannot remember one time that N'Zogbia or Gabby or Albrighton when he came on reaching the byeline and pulling the ball back or square across the goals.
4. A lot of the balls into the channels for Gabby were long balls into space rather than passes.
5. Even with a front 4 of Bent, Gabby, N'Zogbia and Ireland, who on paper look a very attacking line up, we didn't look like an attacking team.
6. What stood out the most though was the complete lack of a player in the middle that could dictate the tempo of the game.
None of the above points were a direct reflection on Bent's performance and I believe there is so much more wrong with our team before even getting down to discuss the positives or negatives of Darren Bent. There are far more serious issues elsewhere, whether it be individual players performance levels, effort, tactics or formation.
Why do most supporters have a fixation with having to play 2 wide players which results in either 4-4-2, 4-5-1 or 4-2-3-1. A some have said, 4-4-2 with N'Zogbia and Albrighton leaves us exposed in the centre of midfield and we therefore have to give up creativity in this area. Also, it is a very flat and rigid system. I have been thinking for some time that the cause of our problems may be down to the combined low level of performance of the 2 wide players. N'Zogbia is only now starting to show some flashes of his ability and Albrighton likewise has had a poor end to last season and start to this. Neither of these players will be a patch on Young or even Downing, who themselves struggled at time to overcome the loss of Milner's workrate in the middle of the park.
I would like us to try something new and radical and play without the wide players, having a sitting midfield player (Clark), 2 in the middle (Petrov and Bannan/N'Zogbia) and an advanced player (Ireland). This does not mean we do not use the wide areas but move into them rather than have players already in them. I think this would get the best out of Gabby and Bent playing together as twin strikers and allowing them to move all across the front line and interchange.
-
How about Villa, Liverpool and Chelsea play musical chairs with 'Nando, Carroll and Bent? We rotate them all so we have each for ten days a month and the lads aren't as miserable as they are now.
-
I maintain that if he fancies it and if used properly, Carroll could be utterly lethal and score bagloads of goals in this league.
Not that I want to lose Bent of course.
But Carroll never has so there is a major IF in your statement. Bent on the other hand has a proven track record of scoring bagloads of goals in this league.
The suggestion of a straight swap of them is one of the craziest things I've read on the internet in a long time.
Carroll was in prodigious form before he went to Liverpool. I wanted us to sign him when they were in the Championship.
He's probably the best aerial threat in the league and can be lethal but I know all about his problems too so of course it would be a big gamble.
But in any case, I'm not suggesting swapping Bent for him, just that I dont agree he's anything like as useless as some are making out.
If somebody gets him back to the form he was showing before he moved to Liverpool (which makes a lot of good players curiously shit for some reason) you're basically talking about one of the top scorers in the league. In my opinion.
-
Buying Bent, then selling the two wingers who supplied all his goals was a shit idea, so selling him and getting Carroll who would also suffer from lack of service would be similarly inane.
-
Albrighton and NZogbia would enjoy him up front, but then you would still be having to accommodate Gabby, who becomes difficult out of a 4-4-2 and hence was left out a lot by Houllier or played wide.
-
we don't play the way that suits him and i'm not sure playing the way that suits him would get us the results with our current squad. I'd probably sell him unless the manager was gettting the boot or he was given decent funding.. And that's not meant as a dig at AM, just how it goes. Would have been as useless as a chocolate teapot under MON as well.
-
we don't play the way that suits him and i'm not sure playing the way that suits him would get us the results with our current squad. I'd probably sell him unless the manager was gettting the boot or he was given decent funding.. And that's not meant as a dig at AM, just how it goes. Would have been as useless as a chocolate teapot under MON as well.
Sadly you are probably right, away he might be better to finish on the counter. At home we need to find a midfield pair that can allow us to play 4-4-2
-
we don't play the way that suits him and i'm not sure playing the way that suits him would get us the results with our current squad. I'd probably sell him unless the manager was gettting the boot or he was given decent funding.. And that's not meant as a dig at AM, just how it goes. Would have been as useless as a chocolate teapot under MON as well.
I don't think they'd have him back but I actually think Spurs are set up best to supply Benty - two excellent wingers who are happy to get to the byline and whip crosses in plus a creative centre midfielder who's got the ability to slot balls between the centre halves for him to run on to.
-
We have two good wingers and central midfielders who can thread balls in. We just have to play better/smarter.
-
The problem with the Villa today, is the question is imaterial. Benty will go if it is the Bindippers who want him, not because of better service , because they will pay him more than what he was happy to sign up to last season, and Randy will take the offer as long as it covers what his outlay has been and a little bit more. He knows AM wont walk over it and he cant realy piss the fans off anymore than he has done already in the last 18months. We really are getting down to our hard core now in terms of attendance.
I just have a funny feeling, that it wont be Bent going, it will be Gabby, not in the know or anything, just a gut feeling.
-
If we sign Carroll, Collins will have a field day......HOOF!
If we were to sell Gabby, who seriously would go for him?
-
I dont think there's any chance of that happening. Not now, not ever.
Simply because he's worth more to us as the local homegrown posterboy than he is to anybody else and thus nobody will pay what we would conceivably accept for him. He gets away with more here, he is genuinely loved, well paid and has a long contract.
And to be blunt, I dont think he's ambitious enough to force a move, which in a way is one of his failings. If he had more ruthless determination he would be incredible.
I dont think there's much chance of Bent leaving this window but it's an order of magnitude more likely than Gabby leaving.
-
I maintain that if he fancies it and if used properly, Carroll could be utterly lethal and score bagloads of goals in this league.
Not that I want to lose Bent of course.
But Carroll never has so there is a major IF in your statement. Bent on the other hand has a proven track record of scoring bagloads of goals in this league.
The suggestion of a straight swap of them is one of the craziest things I've read on the internet in a long time.
Carroll was in prodigious form before he went to Liverpool. I wanted us to sign him when they were in the Championship.
He's probably the best aerial threat in the league and can be lethal but I know all about his problems too so of course it would be a big gamble.
But in any case, I'm not suggesting swapping Bent for him, just that I dont agree he's anything like as useless as some are making out.
If somebody gets him back to the form he was showing before he moved to Liverpool (which makes a lot of good players curiously shit for some reason) you're basically talking about one of the top scorers in the league. In my opinion.
I basically agree with you but am struggling to think of any players who have got back to their best after suffering failed-big-money-move-to-big-club syndrome.
-
I've never thought Bent will leave but just seen Sky reporting we're interested in Cole from West Ham and Liverpool are interested in Bent. I dont think the media rumours will go away until the transfer window closes.
-
I maintain that if he fancies it and if used properly, Carroll could be utterly lethal and score bagloads of goals in this league.
Not that I want to lose Bent of course.
But Carroll never has so there is a major IF in your statement. Bent on the other hand has a proven track record of scoring bagloads of goals in this league.
The suggestion of a straight swap of them is one of the craziest things I've read on the internet in a long time.
Carroll was in prodigious form before he went to Liverpool. I wanted us to sign him when they were in the Championship.
He's probably the best aerial threat in the league and can be lethal but I know all about his problems too so of course it would be a big gamble.
But in any case, I'm not suggesting swapping Bent for him, just that I dont agree he's anything like as useless as some are making out.
If somebody gets him back to the form he was showing before he moved to Liverpool (which makes a lot of good players curiously shit for some reason) you're basically talking about one of the top scorers in the league. In my opinion.
I basically agree with you but am struggling to think of any players who have got back to their best after suffering failed-big-money-move-to-big-club syndrome.
Van Der Vaart and Scott Parker had big moves to Real Madrid and Chelsea respectively, and both improved after leaving. I'd throw Glen Johnson into that as well.
-
Carlton Cole? good grief.
-
If we sign Carroll, Collins will have a field day......HOOF!
If we were to sell Gabby, who seriously would go for him?
Its being rumoured that Redknapp is right after him and looking at about 16M/20ML for him and the latest being Chelsea, that would also put some reasoning behind why we are looking to get strikers in fast.
The Spurs thing also suggested a swap plus cash deal for Pav coming our way.
And Redknapp would be right to go for this, imagine a forward line with Bale and Lennon wide and Gabby + in the centre, massive unstoppable pace.
-
I would like us to try something new and radical and play without the wide players, having a sitting midfield player (Clark), 2 in the middle (Petrov and Bannan/N'Zogbia) and an advanced player (Ireland). This does not mean we do not use the wide areas but move into them rather than have players already in them. I think this would get the best out of Gabby and Bent playing together as twin strikers and allowing them to move all across the front line and interchange.
That pretty much amounts to a diamond in midfield, which we played against Wigan and worked quite well. As I'd see it, the bottom of the diamond would be Petrov, Clark or Herd, the middle two would be from Bannan, Albrighton or Delph and the top of the diamond would be Ireland or N'Zogbia. The way it seemed to work was Gabby had a bit of freedom to use the width, with Bent staying central. Bannan played that day and did very well, IMO.
I've said before that CNZ may be better more central for us, so if super Marc can adjust to it then it may be a winning formation for us. And it also allows Clark to move back to CB.
Presuming everyone is fit:-
Given
Hutton - Clark - Dunne - Warnock
Petrov
Albrighton - Bannan
N'Zogbia
Bent - Gabby
Not needing Clark in midfield also allows us to switch the back around a bit, as he could play LB with Carlos in the centre if he doesn't take Hutton's RB slot. Could keep them on their toes back there at least!
-
I must say that there have been some strange and blinkered comments both for and against selling Bent. As for the logic, I think there is very little in some of the comments.
Much as I like Gabby and the rare excitement when he is playing well, I have thought about the comments that we played far better at Chelsea with him up front on his own. Yes, he did give Terry and Luiz the runaround for a fair part of the game but when it comes down to the important things that win games like creating chances and scoring goals was he involved.
Ireland's goal was essentially Ireland playing through N'Zogbia who made a terrific run to the byeline before setting up Ireland. Gabby started to drift out of the game in the 2nd half when we dropped deeper and looked frustrated both with his own performance and lack of service/support (familiar?). Gabby then had a one on one with the goalkeeper and failed to score (could have cost us the match). For Petrov's goal Gabby was not involved at all and likewise for Bent's goal. With Bent's goal it showed the difference between him and Gabby. Bent does not always score these one-on-ones but you would back him more than you would Gabby.
So, other than providing an out for the defenders by running the channels and chasing lost causes, did Gabby influence the game other than perhaps giving the others confidence by following his example in effort. Also, the question has to be asked, is Gabby intelligent enough and skillfull enough to play up front other than on his own.
As others have quite rightly said, to win games you have to score goals and we do not have midfield players and defenders that can score enough goals. We rely on our forwards to score goals, it has been like this for a number of years.
To yesterdays match and some things I noticed that I do not think have been mentioned (apologies if I have missed them):
1. When the Swansea defenders had the ball all of our players except Bent dropped back which left Bent on his own having to cover all across the line and as he does not have Gabby's pace he looks as though he is not trying to close them down.
2. When we attack down the wings, both N'Zogbia and Albrighton were starting from too deep. Young and Downing were fast players and could afford to start from deeper positions but N'Zogbia and Albrighton do not have the same pace so have to start from more advanced positions.
3. I cannot remember one time that N'Zogbia or Gabby or Albrighton when he came on reaching the byeline and pulling the ball back or square across the goals.
4. A lot of the balls into the channels for Gabby were long balls into space rather than passes.
5. Even with a front 4 of Bent, Gabby, N'Zogbia and Ireland, who on paper look a very attacking line up, we didn't look like an attacking team.
6. What stood out the most though was the complete lack of a player in the middle that could dictate the tempo of the game.
None of the above points were a direct reflection on Bent's performance and I believe there is so much more wrong with our team before even getting down to discuss the positives or negatives of Darren Bent. There are far more serious issues elsewhere, whether it be individual players performance levels, effort, tactics or formation.
Why do most supporters have a fixation with having to play 2 wide players which results in either 4-4-2, 4-5-1 or 4-2-3-1. A some have said, 4-4-2 with N'Zogbia and Albrighton leaves us exposed in the centre of midfield and we therefore have to give up creativity in this area. Also, it is a very flat and rigid system. I have been thinking for some time that the cause of our problems may be down to the combined low level of performance of the 2 wide players. N'Zogbia is only now starting to show some flashes of his ability and Albrighton likewise has had a poor end to last season and start to this. Neither of these players will be a patch on Young or even Downing, who themselves struggled at time to overcome the loss of Milner's workrate in the middle of the park.
I would like us to try something new and radical and play without the wide players, having a sitting midfield player (Clark), 2 in the middle (Petrov and Bannan/N'Zogbia) and an advanced player (Ireland). This does not mean we do not use the wide areas but move into them rather than have players already in them. I think this would get the best out of Gabby and Bent playing together as twin strikers and allowing them to move all across the front line and interchange.
Reasonable post OMVF, the only point I would disagree about and would make the point have you ever played footy at a decent level is with reference to the Gabby miss, that situation or type of 1 on 1 is one of the hardest a player can convert from, he was straight in front of goal on his approach, Cech was out very fast and narrowed the space extremely well, problem for Gabby was he's so fast that nobody else attacking for Villa had the chance to catch him, very very difficult position to convert from, and just to expand on that, look at the Bent goal, Stephen Ireland breaks from virtually the same position as Gabby did, Ireland had the same chance Gabby did but he had the option to lay the ball of to Bent who was available to his right, he took that option not because he bottled out of that choice ( as many footy fans would suggest) but because instinctively he knew how difficult it was to convert from that position, otherwise IMO the chances are you would have seen a repeat of the Gabby miss, and even though Bent had the ball laid of for him he still needed a deflection.
So with all due respect I think you a bit over critical of Gabby's miss, his chance of missing there and the pace the game was being played at was immense.
-
I would like us to try something new and radical and play without the wide players, having a sitting midfield player (Clark), 2 in the middle (Petrov and Bannan/N'Zogbia) and an advanced player (Ireland). This does not mean we do not use the wide areas but move into them rather than have players already in them. I think this would get the best out of Gabby and Bent playing together as twin strikers and allowing them to move all across the front line and interchange.
That pretty much amounts to a diamond in midfield, which we played against Wigan and worked quite well. As I'd see it, the bottom of the diamond would be Petrov, Clark or Herd, the middle two would be from Bannan, Albrighton or Delph and the top of the diamond would be Ireland or N'Zogbia. The way it seemed to work was Gabby had a bit of freedom to use the width, with Bent staying central. Bannan played that day and did very well, IMO.
I've said before that CNZ may be better more central for us, so if super Marc can adjust to it then it may be a winning formation for us. And it also allows Clark to move back to CB.
Presuming everyone is fit:-
Given
Hutton - Clark - Dunne - Warnock
Petrov
Albrighton - Bannan
N'Zogbia
Bent - Gabby
Not needing Clark in midfield also allows us to switch the back around a bit, as he could play LB with Carlos in the centre if he doesn't take Hutton's RB slot. Could keep them on their toes back there at least!
Sorry but that midlfield would get walked over by any decent team and the defence would have to HOOF to get any kind of release from the pressure. Ooh...
-
Carlton Cole? good grief.
it gets better and better with each day lol
-
The only way I'd contemplate selling Bent is if we were guaranteed £30 million + and we spent ALL of the money on quality replacements.
-
Carlton Cole? good grief.
it gets better and better with each day lol
that's because hysteria sets in and rational thoughts get kicked squarely in the nuts and thrown to the curb. I might have been concerned we'd be after Carlton Cole had MON been around, but even then he had 4 years to sign him and didn't. McLeish's limited transfer activity in now way indicates he'd go after someone like Carlton Cole, and I say that despite Alan Hutton to date being a below par signing. Cole would be numerous leagues worse than that.
-
I would like us to try something new and radical and play without the wide players, having a sitting midfield player (Clark), 2 in the middle (Petrov and Bannan/N'Zogbia) and an advanced player (Ireland). This does not mean we do not use the wide areas but move into them rather than have players already in them. I think this would get the best out of Gabby and Bent playing together as twin strikers and allowing them to move all across the front line and interchange.
That pretty much amounts to a diamond in midfield, which we played against Wigan and worked quite well. As I'd see it, the bottom of the diamond would be Petrov, Clark or Herd, the middle two would be from Bannan, Albrighton or Delph and the top of the diamond would be Ireland or N'Zogbia. The way it seemed to work was Gabby had a bit of freedom to use the width, with Bent staying central. Bannan played that day and did very well, IMO.
I've said before that CNZ may be better more central for us, so if super Marc can adjust to it then it may be a winning formation for us. And it also allows Clark to move back to CB.
Presuming everyone is fit:-
Given
Hutton - Clark - Dunne - Warnock
Petrov
Albrighton - Bannan
N'Zogbia
Bent - Gabby
Not needing Clark in midfield also allows us to switch the back around a bit, as he could play LB with Carlos in the centre if he doesn't take Hutton's RB slot. Could keep them on their toes back there at least!
Sorry but that midlfield would get walked over by any decent team and the defence would have to HOOF to get any kind of release from the pressure. Ooh...
Possibly, but the formation allows for the player deep, be if the CBs or the deep lying midfielder to have options in fornt of them. It also allowed us to get some neat passing traingles going. I think the key is the two in the middle of the diamond (it was Bannan and Delph against Wigan) as they need to be positionally disciplined to stop us getting over run, but also get up and support attacks.
Not saying it's the answer, but it does offer some solutions to some of the problems we have.
-
I like how the sky transfer expert man said there was truth in the Bent to Liverpool rumours, then backed it up by saying that Liverpool's director of football was at Spurs when they signed him. I'm not sure why that means he's going there.
-
@ taxdodger - like I said, I think the media circus will run and run with the Bent story and 'The Mighty Reds YNWA' wont be the only clubbed he's linked with this window. They are clutching at straws with whatever links they can. All sounds very familiar when it comes to our top rated players once they get in the England team.
@ John - I dont think any formation or team line-up played against a piss poor Wigan side provides a sound basis for any tactical decisions to be honest. The only thing I can see with that is being camped in our own half with the occasional counter attack. Until we get some strength and quality in midfield we need to play 4 or 5 across the middle of the park giving us some bite in midfield and an outlet to break down the wings to supply Bent or Gabby.
-
I basically agree with you but am struggling to think of any players who have got back to their best after suffering failed-big-money-move-to-big-club syndrome.
Bergkamp, Van der Sar, Thierry Henry and Scott Parker? Even Maradona fluffed his lines at Barca.
-
I basically agree with you but am struggling to think of any players who have got back to their best after suffering failed-big-money-move-to-big-club syndrome.
Bergkamp, Van der Sar, Thierry Henry and Scott Parker? Even Maradona fluffed his lines at Barca.
Is that a reference to his football or his liking of a bit of Colombian Marching Powder?
-
I dont know why but I just have this feeling Bent will be sold this window. If he goes then thats fine but I would like to see that money re-invested into the squad. Knowing ecks luck, we will sell bent for like £20m and he will only get £8m to buy a player + maybe 1 loan signing
-
I think they'll cash in if it means they can get someone they really want in.
-
I think they'll cash in if it means they can get someone they really want in.
Worrying for us that could be either Zamora or Carlton Cole
-
I think they'll cash in if it means they can get someone they really want in.
Worrying for us that could be either Zamora or Carlton Cole
NOOOOOOOO!
Jesus wept, no, forget I said it.
-
I think they'll cash in if it means they can get someone they really want in.
Worrying for us that could be either Zamora or Carlton Cole
Cashing in and opting for one of those two would be the biggest sign yet that Lerner has lost interest and just wants his money back.
-
I think they'll cash in if it means they can get someone they really want in.
Worrying for us that could be either Zamora or Carlton Cole
Cashing in and opting for one of those two would be the biggest sign yet that Lerner has lost interest and just wants his money back.
It sure does. Maybe he does want money back due to his divorce and with his ex probably demanding half of everything (finances that is).
Its interesting what Eck has said about selling Bent in the Sunderland Echo:-
"I'm not willing to sell anybody at the moment but you don't know what will happen,"
Clear indication that if a big enough bid comes in, he wil cash in on him
-
Keep him.
Play better football.
Bent isn't the problem.
-
From what I've heard Bent is going to Liverpool without fail.
-
I basically agree with you but am struggling to think of any players who have got back to their best after suffering failed-big-money-move-to-big-club syndrome.
Bergkamp, Van der Sar, Thierry Henry and Scott Parker? Even Maradona fluffed his lines at Barca.
I remember watching Bergkamp at Inter on C4 all these years ago,it never happened for him there. Though its a bone of contention now,Bent rebuilt his career after his tough time at Spurs.
-
From what I've heard Bent is going to Liverpool without fail.
Reliable?
-
From what I've heard Bent is going to Liverpool without fail.
Reliable?
Twitter, presumably.
That's where everything comes from nowadays.
-
If Bent goes I will be massively pissed off. It will be the final nail in the coffin in terms of showing how alarmingly this club is declining.
-
I've never thought Bent will leave but just seen Sky reporting we're interested in Cole from West Ham and Liverpool are interested in Bent. I dont think the media rumours will go away until the transfer window closes.
I nearly possted this a few weeks ago as a horrible joke . ffs . Cole in Bent out . 25,000 crowds to come
-
From what I've heard Bent is going to Liverpool without fail.
Reliable?
Twitter, presumably.
That's where everything comes from nowadays.
It's that time of year where Twitter goes into overdrive with bs,hopefully this is the case.
-
If it is(and I stress if) Bent out and Cole in, then Randy may as well put the club up for sale. It will show just how clueless the leadership of the club really are.
-
If Bent goes I'm not spending any more money on the club and AMC might has well hand in his notice now because he is the one going to take the flack every week for it even if it has nothing to do with him.
-
Just for the sake of an argument. It has just crossed my mind that this whole story could have started because Bent has asked for a move and not because the club are intent on selling him come what may.
It wouldn't be the first time such a thing has happened.
-
Davis, Gardner, Ridgewell and now Carlton Cole?
Are we looking to rebuild the 2005 dream team, or summat?
Thankfully, I'm sure most of it is bollocks.
This time last year we were linked with Piquionne and eventually signed Bent.
-
I would say make him stay in that case like Spurs did with Modric but unlike them what can we realstically offer now??
-
Just the thought of flogging Darren Bent in terms of what it means for the direction this club is going in, let alone the on-pitch impact, makes me feel sick to the stomach.
-
Just for the sake of an argument. It has just crossed my mind that this whole story could have started because Bent has asked for a move and not because the club are intent on selling him come what may.
It wouldn't be the first time such a thing has happened.
Even if that were the case, looking at the likes of Carlton Cole as replacements would be unacceptable.
-
Karl has a couple of ITK's I believe.
He is also not a poster who posts for effect.
-
Karl has a couple of ITK's I believe.
He is also not a poster who posts for effect.
What I thought too.
-
Just the thought of flogging Darren Bent in terms of what it means for the direction this club is going in, let alone the on-pitch impact, makes me feel sick to the stomach.
Exactly that would make us look and rightly so, like a dreadfully run and ambitionless club. We sign Bent last winter as we panic about relegation, then flog him the next January. It would show what how completely clueless and without a plan we are.
-
Karl has a couple of ITK's I believe.
He is also not a poster who posts for effect.
Im not calling Karl a liar or anything but was wondering if he has said anything like this in the past which has come true?
-
I think they'll cash in if it means they can get someone they really want in.
Worrying for us that could be either Zamora or Carlton Cole
Cashing in and opting for one of those two would be the biggest sign yet that Lerner has lost interest and just wants his money back.
Lerner lost interest last summer by selling Young and Downing and pocketing 90% of the proceeds and not re-investing in the team to the extent needed. I can't see the point of Lerner's tenure anymore - he won't back the Manager with money unless AM sells first. So if Bent goes we will have an even weaker team which will only go one way. Lerner barely attends games anymore - his interest is only in what he can now salvage from his initial input. I know it's easier said than done, but I wish a proper investor would take over and put some enthusiasm back into the club - I get pissed off with his silence all the time. Bright future???....
-
Just the thought of flogging Darren Bent in terms of what it means for the direction this club is going in, let alone the on-pitch impact, makes me feel sick to the stomach.
Exactly that would make us look and rightly so, like a dreadfully run and ambitionless club. We sign Bent last winter as we panic about relegation, then flog him the next January. It would show what how completely clueless and without a plan we are.
Exactly ..i could easily see us going down at this rate.
-
From what I've heard Bent is going to Liverpool without fail.
Only if the club want to sell him. Which would be madness if it was anything less than £30 million.
I find it strange that Liverpool want to replace an expensive flop of a striker who wont go looking for the ball with.....
-
Lerner lost interest last summer by selling Young and Downing and pocketing 90% of the proceeds and not re-investing in the team to the extent needed. I can't see the point of Lerner's tenure anymore - he won't back the Manager with money unless AM sells first. So if Bent goes we will have an even weaker team which will only go one way. Lerner barely attends games anymore - his interest is only in what he can now salvage from his initial input. I know it's easier said than done, but I wish a proper investor would take over and put some enthusiasm back into the club - I get pissed off with his silence all the time. Bright future???....
I just had a thought about Lerner. Could he be preparing to sell? I know this has been mentioned somewhere else before but with everything thats going on - selling players and not re-investing, reducing wage bill, talk of getting the books in order for FFP (yeh right), could these be the tell tale signs that he is looking to sell up to a potential buyer? He wants the books in order right? could mean that potential buyers might see very little debt as a good investment. just a thought. The likelihood is that he wont sell and let us hover above relegation for the foreseeable future
-
Lerner lost interest last summer by selling Young and Downing and pocketing 90% of the proceeds and not re-investing in the team to the extent needed. I can't see the point of Lerner's tenure anymore - he won't back the Manager with money unless AM sells first. So if Bent goes we will have an even weaker team which will only go one way. Lerner barely attends games anymore - his interest is only in what he can now salvage from his initial input. I know it's easier said than done, but I wish a proper investor would take over and put some enthusiasm back into the club - I get pissed off with his silence all the time. Bright future???....
I just had a thought about Lerner. Could he be preparing to sell? I know this has been mentioned somewhere else before but with everything thats going on - selling players and not re-investing, reducing wage bill, talk of getting the books in order for FFP (yeh right), could these be the tell tale signs that he is looking to sell up to a potential buyer? He wants the books in order right? could mean that potential buyers might see very little debt as a good investment. just a thought. The likelihood is that he wont sell and let us hover above relegation for the foreseeable future
Surely having some decent players already at the club would help in a sale ?
-
From what I've heard Bent is going to Liverpool without fail.
Only if the club want to sell him. Which would be madness if it was anything less than £30 million.
I find it strange that Liverpool want to replace an expensive flop of a striker who wont go looking for the ball with.....
Anything less than £35 million after what they spent on Carroll would be madness. In any case probably about 10% would be reinvested, so it's academic.
-
Lerner lost interest last summer by selling Young and Downing and pocketing 90% of the proceeds and not re-investing in the team to the extent needed. I can't see the point of Lerner's tenure anymore - he won't back the Manager with money unless AM sells first. So if Bent goes we will have an even weaker team which will only go one way. Lerner barely attends games anymore - his interest is only in what he can now salvage from his initial input. I know it's easier said than done, but I wish a proper investor would take over and put some enthusiasm back into the club - I get pissed off with his silence all the time. Bright future???....
I just had a thought about Lerner. Could he be preparing to sell? I know this has been mentioned somewhere else before but with everything thats going on - selling players and not re-investing, reducing wage bill, talk of getting the books in order for FFP (yeh right), could these be the tell tale signs that he is looking to sell up to a potential buyer? He wants the books in order right? could mean that potential buyers might see very little debt as a good investment. just a thought. The likelihood is that he wont sell and let us hover above relegation for the foreseeable future
Surely having some decent players already at the club would help in a sale ?
I think Bent will go before the end of the month - Lerner probably thinks the team can avoid relegation without Bent so he'll recoup another £25M of his outlay.....there's a term for this - asset stripping!
-
I think Bent will go before the end of the month - Lerner probably thinks the team can avoid relegation without Bent so he'll recoup another £25M of his outlay.....there's a term for this - asset stripping!
Is Lerner becoming the new Mike Ashley?
-
I can vouch for Karl. He knew McLeish was coming in well before it happened.
And now I fear Paulie and I are going to be violently ill.
Villa, you really are making loving you difficult lately.
-
Re Carroll and failed big money moves. Maybe should have said many not any. Either way once you've been spat out of the system at a "big" club it takes an unusual amount of resilience and talent to get the momentum going again. Evidenced by the fact that the players mentioned above are unusually good ones.
-
I think Bent will go before the end of the month - Lerner probably thinks the team can avoid relegation without Bent so he'll recoup another £25M of his outlay.....there's a term for this - asset stripping!
Is Lerner becoming the new Mike Ashley?
Looks like it.
-
Just to add this hasn't come from the same source as the Mcleish thing but it's come from a couple of sources and I've no reason to disbelieve it.
-
Is the suggestion that Bent may have requested this Karl?
Never trust a managers quotes during transfer window time, but McLeish seemed pretty bullish when asked about the prospect of Bent leaving the other day.
-
From what I've heard Bent is going to Liverpool without fail.
I think you're totally right - because Faulkner recently said we wouldn't be selling Bent in January. The people in charge of the club are a joke!
-
PF said exactly the same thing about SD, so that was the first sign that Bent was half way out the door. AM said he's not for sale, but if that latest quote is true and not taken out of content then it can only mean he's for sale at the right price. Just make matters worse, we dont need to strengthen our forward options right now so the only reason we're being linked with Cole and Keane must suggest that one of our current forwards is about to be sold.
Bent isnt the best player in the world by a long stretch of the imagination and I certainly wont lose any sleep if he does go as he is very much over rated, but what it does do is speak volumes about the current state of the club on and off the pitch. If he is sold and replaced with the likes of Cole or Zamora, then I'll have lost all faith and be so disgusted with whats happening at the club that I wont be visiting VP until both Randy and AM have departed.
-
Not for sale (http://www.talksport.co.uk/sports-news/football/premier-league/transfer-rumours/1434/26/aston-villa-insist-liverpool-target-bent-not-sale)
-
Not for sale (http://www.talksport.co.uk/sports-news/football/premier-league/transfer-rumours/1434/26/aston-villa-insist-liverpool-target-bent-not-sale)
Good.
-
I would like us to try something new and radical and play without the wide players, having a sitting midfield player (Clark), 2 in the middle (Petrov and Bannan/N'Zogbia) and an advanced player (Ireland). This does not mean we do not use the wide areas but move into them rather than have players already in them. I think this would get the best out of Gabby and Bent playing together as twin strikers and allowing them to move all across the front line and interchange.
That pretty much amounts to a diamond in midfield, which we played against Wigan and worked quite well. As I'd see it, the bottom of the diamond would be Petrov, Clark or Herd, the middle two would be from Bannan, Albrighton or Delph and the top of the diamond would be Ireland or N'Zogbia. The way it seemed to work was Gabby had a bit of freedom to use the width, with Bent staying central. Bannan played that day and did very well, IMO.
I've said before that CNZ may be better more central for us, so if super Marc can adjust to it then it may be a winning formation for us. And it also allows Clark to move back to CB.
Presuming everyone is fit:-
Given
Hutton - Clark - Dunne - Warnock
Petrov
Albrighton - Bannan
N'Zogbia
Bent - Gabby
Not needing Clark in midfield also allows us to switch the back around a bit, as he could play LB with Carlos in the centre if he doesn't take Hutton's RB slot. Could keep them on their toes back there at least!
Sorry but that midlfield would get walked over by any decent team and the defence would have to HOOF to get any kind of release from the pressure. Ooh...
You clearly do not understand the formation and why you set up this way.
The deep lying midfield player is there to take the ball from the defence or goalkeeper to build play from the back or to drop into the central defence if one of the central defenders brings the ball out.
The exact reason for playing this system is so that you do not 'Hoof' it in your terms.
-
Not for sale (http://www.talksport.co.uk/sports-news/football/premier-league/transfer-rumours/1434/26/aston-villa-insist-liverpool-target-bent-not-sale)
I hate to be cynical but they came out with much the same when askedt if the weasel was for sale
-
Unfortunately I no longer trust a word that comes out of the club these days so I'll take that with a pinch of salt. I imagine this is what it must feel like if your Mrs is cheating on you! lol :D
-
If Liverpool offer £25m he'll be off, I think.
-
Unfortunately I no longer trust a word that comes out of the club these days so I'll take that with a pinch of salt. I imagine this is what it must feel like if your Mrs is cheating on you! lol :D
didnt you know KRS???
-
@ John - I dont think any formation or team line-up played against a piss poor Wigan side provides a sound basis for any tactical decisions to be honest. The only thing I can see with that is being camped in our own half with the occasional counter attack. Until we get some strength and quality in midfield we need to play 4 or 5 across the middle of the park giving us some bite in midfield and an outlet to break down the wings to supply Bent or Gabby.
Well, I haven't exactly seen other formations against equally piss poor opposition having been an outstanding success, far from it. In fact we have been out played in the midfield in most of our games this season and that includes the average and poor sides.
-
I'm curious as to whether the dippers would have another 25-30million to chuck at an attacking player anyway. £75million on Carroll, Henderson and Judas must have given their coffers a bit of a battering.
-
I don't think the club will sell him this month, what would be the point? It would'nt make sense financially because we would'nt be getting any more for him now than we would if we decided to sell him in the summer. It'kll be his last season with us though, i think we can all agree on that.
-
25m and adam and kuyt and shelvy at the least
-
I would like us to try something new and radical and play without the wide players, having a sitting midfield player (Clark), 2 in the middle (Petrov and Bannan/N'Zogbia) and an advanced player (Ireland). This does not mean we do not use the wide areas but move into them rather than have players already in them. I think this would get the best out of Gabby and Bent playing together as twin strikers and allowing them to move all across the front line and interchange.
That pretty much amounts to a diamond in midfield, which we played against Wigan and worked quite well. As I'd see it, the bottom of the diamond would be Petrov, Clark or Herd, the middle two would be from Bannan, Albrighton or Delph and the top of the diamond would be Ireland or N'Zogbia. The way it seemed to work was Gabby had a bit of freedom to use the width, with Bent staying central. Bannan played that day and did very well, IMO.
I've said before that CNZ may be better more central for us, so if super Marc can adjust to it then it may be a winning formation for us. And it also allows Clark to move back to CB.
Presuming everyone is fit:-
Given
Hutton - Clark - Dunne - Warnock
Petrov
Albrighton - Bannan
N'Zogbia
Bent - Gabby
Not needing Clark in midfield also allows us to switch the back around a bit, as he could play LB with Carlos in the centre if he doesn't take Hutton's RB slot. Could keep them on their toes back there at least!
Sorry but that midlfield would get walked over by any decent team and the defence would have to HOOF to get any kind of release from the pressure. Ooh...
You clearly do not understand the formation and why you set up this way.
The deep lying midfield player is there to take the ball from the defence or goalkeeper to build play from the back or to drop into the central defence if one of the central defenders brings the ball out.
The exact reason for playing this system is so that you do not 'Hoof' it in your terms.
I understand the theory behind the formation very well thanks OMVF. The problem is the players dont seem capable of consistently bringing the ball out and building from the back...we're talking about the same bunch of players who have struggled to string more than a few passes together without losing it so far this season. Dont get me wrong as I would love us to be playing more attractive passing football, but the proof is in the pudding when the ball falls at the feet of Collins or Cuellar.
-
Unfortunately I no longer trust a word that comes out of the club these days so I'll take that with a pinch of salt. I imagine this is what it must feel like if your Mrs is cheating on you! lol :D
didnt you know KRS???
:o ...the bitch! lol :D
-
I can vouch for Karl. He knew McLeish was coming in well before it happened.
And now I fear Paulie and I are going to be violently ill.
Villa, you really are making loving you difficult lately.
It's not Villa I'm falling out of love with, it's the people running the club. This reminds me of the bit in the Lion,The Witch and The Wardrobe where the Witch gets mighty Aslan and sacrifices him on the stone altar. It seems to me that Randy sees it has his duty to get his money back above all else...and if that means gambling on Villa's top flight survival then so be it. No wonder he's staying away.
-
I must say that there have been some strange and blinkered comments both for and against selling Bent. As for the logic, I think there is very little in some of the comments.
Much as I like Gabby and the rare excitement when he is playing well, I have thought about the comments that we played far better at Chelsea with him up front on his own. Yes, he did give Terry and Luiz the runaround for a fair part of the game but when it comes down to the important things that win games like creating chances and scoring goals was he involved.
Ireland's goal was essentially Ireland playing through N'Zogbia who made a terrific run to the byeline before setting up Ireland. Gabby started to drift out of the game in the 2nd half when we dropped deeper and looked frustrated both with his own performance and lack of service/support (familiar?). Gabby then had a one on one with the goalkeeper and failed to score (could have cost us the match). For Petrov's goal Gabby was not involved at all and likewise for Bent's goal. With Bent's goal it showed the difference between him and Gabby. Bent does not always score these one-on-ones but you would back him more than you would Gabby.
So, other than providing an out for the defenders by running the channels and chasing lost causes, did Gabby influence the game other than perhaps giving the others confidence by following his example in effort. Also, the question has to be asked, is Gabby intelligent enough and skillfull enough to play up front other than on his own.
As others have quite rightly said, to win games you have to score goals and we do not have midfield players and defenders that can score enough goals. We rely on our forwards to score goals, it has been like this for a number of years.
To yesterdays match and some things I noticed that I do not think have been mentioned (apologies if I have missed them):
1. When the Swansea defenders had the ball all of our players except Bent dropped back which left Bent on his own having to cover all across the line and as he does not have Gabby's pace he looks as though he is not trying to close them down.
2. When we attack down the wings, both N'Zogbia and Albrighton were starting from too deep. Young and Downing were fast players and could afford to start from deeper positions but N'Zogbia and Albrighton do not have the same pace so have to start from more advanced positions.
3. I cannot remember one time that N'Zogbia or Gabby or Albrighton when he came on reaching the byeline and pulling the ball back or square across the goals.
4. A lot of the balls into the channels for Gabby were long balls into space rather than passes.
5. Even with a front 4 of Bent, Gabby, N'Zogbia and Ireland, who on paper look a very attacking line up, we didn't look like an attacking team.
6. What stood out the most though was the complete lack of a player in the middle that could dictate the tempo of the game.
None of the above points were a direct reflection on Bent's performance and I believe there is so much more wrong with our team before even getting down to discuss the positives or negatives of Darren Bent. There are far more serious issues elsewhere, whether it be individual players performance levels, effort, tactics or formation.
Why do most supporters have a fixation with having to play 2 wide players which results in either 4-4-2, 4-5-1 or 4-2-3-1. A some have said, 4-4-2 with N'Zogbia and Albrighton leaves us exposed in the centre of midfield and we therefore have to give up creativity in this area. Also, it is a very flat and rigid system. I have been thinking for some time that the cause of our problems may be down to the combined low level of performance of the 2 wide players. N'Zogbia is only now starting to show some flashes of his ability and Albrighton likewise has had a poor end to last season and start to this. Neither of these players will be a patch on Young or even Downing, who themselves struggled at time to overcome the loss of Milner's workrate in the middle of the park.
I would like us to try something new and radical and play without the wide players, having a sitting midfield player (Clark), 2 in the middle (Petrov and Bannan/N'Zogbia) and an advanced player (Ireland). This does not mean we do not use the wide areas but move into them rather than have players already in them. I think this would get the best out of Gabby and Bent playing together as twin strikers and allowing them to move all across the front line and interchange.
Reasonable post OMVF, the only point I would disagree about and would make the point have you ever played footy at a decent level is with reference to the Gabby miss, that situation or type of 1 on 1 is one of the hardest a player can convert from, he was straight in front of goal on his approach, Cech was out very fast and narrowed the space extremely well, problem for Gabby was he's so fast that nobody else attacking for Villa had the chance to catch him, very very difficult position to convert from, and just to expand on that, look at the Bent goal, Stephen Ireland breaks from virtually the same position as Gabby did, Ireland had the same chance Gabby did but he had the option to lay the ball of to Bent who was available to his right, he took that option not because he bottled out of that choice ( as many footy fans would suggest) but because instinctively he knew how difficult it was to convert from that position, otherwise IMO the chances are you would have seen a repeat of the Gabby miss, and even though Bent had the ball laid of for him he still needed a deflection.
So with all due respect I think you a bit over critical of Gabby's miss, his chance of missing there and the pace the game was being played at was immense.
No, I have not played football at a reasonable level but have watched it for over 40 years and I recognise whether a player has composure or not, particulary in one-on-one situations. Gabby broke from almost the halfway line and had time to move Cech into the position he wanted before shooting past him or going around him.
The point I was trying to make was that I would rather have Bent than Gabby in a one-on-one situation.
-
I would like us to try something new and radical and play without the wide players, having a sitting midfield player (Clark), 2 in the middle (Petrov and Bannan/N'Zogbia) and an advanced player (Ireland). This does not mean we do not use the wide areas but move into them rather than have players already in them. I think this would get the best out of Gabby and Bent playing together as twin strikers and allowing them to move all across the front line and interchange.
That pretty much amounts to a diamond in midfield, which we played against Wigan and worked quite well. As I'd see it, the bottom of the diamond would be Petrov, Clark or Herd, the middle two would be from Bannan, Albrighton or Delph and the top of the diamond would be Ireland or N'Zogbia. The way it seemed to work was Gabby had a bit of freedom to use the width, with Bent staying central. Bannan played that day and did very well, IMO.
I've said before that CNZ may be better more central for us, so if super Marc can adjust to it then it may be a winning formation for us. And it also allows Clark to move back to CB.
Presuming everyone is fit:-
Given
Hutton - Clark - Dunne - Warnock
Petrov
Albrighton - Bannan
N'Zogbia
Bent - Gabby
Not needing Clark in midfield also allows us to switch the back around a bit, as he could play LB with Carlos in the centre if he doesn't take Hutton's RB slot. Could keep them on their toes back there at least!
Sorry but that midlfield would get walked over by any decent team and the defence would have to HOOF to get any kind of release from the pressure. Ooh...
You clearly do not understand the formation and why you set up this way.
The deep lying midfield player is there to take the ball from the defence or goalkeeper to build play from the back or to drop into the central defence if one of the central defenders brings the ball out.
The exact reason for playing this system is so that you do not 'Hoof' it in your terms.
I understand the theory behind the formation very well thanks OMVF. The problem is the players dont seem capable of consistently bringing the ball out and building from the back...we're talking about the same bunch of players who have struggled to string more than a few passes together without losing it so far this season. Dont get me wrong as I would love us to be playing more attractive passing football, but the proof is in the pudding when the ball falls at the feet of Collins or Cuellar.
I give up, you win, as you obviously know it all.
-
How does the next part go.. ' Aston Villa refuse Daren Bent transfer request'
To be followed by Faulkner ''We did all we could to keep him, but the player wanted out''
I dont think Randy has the stubbornness or arrogance to care anymore in telling Liverpool to do one
-
@ John - I dont think any formation or team line-up played against a piss poor Wigan side provides a sound basis for any tactical decisions to be honest. The only thing I can see with that is being camped in our own half with the occasional counter attack. Until we get some strength and quality in midfield we need to play 4 or 5 across the middle of the park giving us some bite in midfield and an outlet to break down the wings to supply Bent or Gabby.
Well, I haven't exactly seen other formations against equally piss poor opposition having been an outstanding success, far from it. In fact we have been out played in the midfield in most of our games this season and that includes the average and poor sides.
...and thats exactly why we need to keep Bent and sign a couple of defenders and midfielders who are capable of passing, tackling and creating. At the end of the day, if they players arent upto the job then you're screwed whatever formation and tactics you play.
-
Reasonable post OMVF, the only point I would disagree about and would make the point have you ever played footy at a decent level is with reference to the Gabby miss, that situation or type of 1 on 1 is one of the hardest a player can convert from, he was straight in front of goal on his approach, Cech was out very fast and narrowed the space extremely well, problem for Gabby was he's so fast that nobody else attacking for Villa had the chance to catch him, very very difficult position to convert from, and just to expand on that, look at the Bent goal, Stephen Ireland breaks from virtually the same position as Gabby did, Ireland had the same chance Gabby did but he had the option to lay the ball of to Bent who was available to his right, he took that option not because he bottled out of that choice ( as many footy fans would suggest) but because instinctively he knew how difficult it was to convert from that position, otherwise IMO the chances are you would have seen a repeat of the Gabby miss, and even though Bent had the ball laid of for him he still needed a deflection.
So with all due respect I think you a bit over critical of Gabby's miss, his chance of missing there and the pace the game was being played at was immense.
No, I have not played football at a reasonable level but have watched it for over 40 years and I recognise whether a player has composure or not, particulary in one-on-one situations. Gabby broke from almost the halfway line and had time to move Cech into the position he wanted before shooting past him or going around him.
The point I was trying to make was that I would rather have Bent than Gabby in a one-on-one situation.
I agree with OMVF. Gabby has always struggled with 1on1 situations.
-
No, I have not played football at a reasonable level but have watched it for over 40 years and I recognise whether a player has composure or not, particulary in one-on-one situations. Gabby broke from almost the halfway line and had time to move Cech into the position he wanted before shooting past him or going around him.
The point I was trying to make was that I would rather have Bent than Gabby in a one-on-one situation.
Gabby might have broke from the halfway line but I'm sure he received the ball from the pass at about 5-10yds outside the box travelling at pace. Gabby then tried to move it to his stronger right foot knowing Cole was a pace behind him, unfortunately he managed to get it trapped under him a bit so could not get enough pace on the shot. Bent on the other hand could hit it first time with Cech scrambling to get it into position and no defender anywhere near ( and he almost missed it).
I do agree that you would expect Bent to score one on ones but I'm sure he has missed some for us as well.
-
Just because Gabby wasn't involved in the specific game altering goals at the Bridge, doesn't lessen his contribution to the win.
It's not a like for like comparison, but in cricket batsmen sometimes see off the the top gun bowler, who is all pumped up and getting the ball to whizz past the edge and then it's the 'lesser' bowlers who cash in on all the hardwork.
In short, if Gabby hadn't spent the bulk of the game getting Sideshow Bob and his racist friend to chase shadows, they might have dealt with any late surge from us far more comfortably.
-
Just because Gabby wasn't involved in the specific game altering goals at the Bridge, doesn't lessen his contribution to the win.
In short, if Gabby hadn't spent the bulk of the game getting Sideshow Bob and his racist friend to chase shadows, they might have dealt with any late surge from us far more comfortably.
I did make these points in my original post.
-
@ John - I dont think any formation or team line-up played against a piss poor Wigan side provides a sound basis for any tactical decisions to be honest. The only thing I can see with that is being camped in our own half with the occasional counter attack. Until we get some strength and quality in midfield we need to play 4 or 5 across the middle of the park giving us some bite in midfield and an outlet to break down the wings to supply Bent or Gabby.
Well, I haven't exactly seen other formations against equally piss poor opposition having been an outstanding success, far from it. In fact we have been out played in the midfield in most of our games this season and that includes the average and poor sides.
...and thats exactly why we need to keep Bent and sign a couple of defenders and midfielders who are capable of passing, tackling and creating. At the end of the day, if they players arent upto the job then you're screwed whatever formation and tactics you play.
well I think we have players capable of passing, tackling and creating we just dont have a manager capable of making the most of these players
-
I'd say its more of a combination of both.
Collins, Warnock and Hutton are liabilies at the back...and you could easily make a case for Cuellar and Dunne too for that matter.
We have players in the middle of the park that can pass, but with the exception of Petrov they lack work rate and tackling ability.
With players like Albrighton, Ireland, Bannan and N'Zogbia in the team we still fail to create chances for Bent and Gabby. No doubt they have the ability so you can only lay the blame there with either the management or coaching staff.
-
I wouldn't be upset if Bent left for cash + Carroll. Which is weird, and honestly.. it's because I think we're stuck with Eck and I think we're stuck with being a shit attacking team who need a focal point. Bent is fantastic at scoring goals, but we're not making enough chances for him to have his 3 warm up shots before he scores. If we had someone else at the helm, who was coaching the team better, than selling Bent would be crazy.. but we're not using playing in a way that suits him.
And before people say "We should change our style, not sell our best goalscorer". I agree! I just don't think it's likely. I think Lerner made such a crazy, unpopular decision in picking McLeish that he feels like he HAS to stick with him.
It'd have to be a crazy good offer either way. In a perfect world McLeish can be replaced and we can keep Bent and start playing like a team who enjoy playing football, knocking it around and start making chances for our 20-goal-a-season striker.
-
If you don't think Bent is not a focal point suited to our style how on earth do you come to the conclusion that Caroll would be, he has far better players around him at Liverpool and still looks lost, how many goals has he scored for them? I think Caroll will be a good prem player in the future but it was dilusional to think he was worth any where near 35 mil. Bent is a great player playing in a piss poor side.
-
How does the next part go.. ' Aston Villa refuse Daren Bent transfer request'
To be followed by Faulkner ''We did all we could to keep him, but the player wanted out''
I dont think Randy has the stubbornness or arrogance to care anymore in telling Liverpool to do one
what would you rather have them say so as not raise your level of anger or scepticism?
-
Bents reaction when he scored against Chelsea said it all, he paid tribute to the shirt and was the most excited i've seen from a Villa player in quite a while, he's not going anywhere, i actually believe he likes being at Villa.
-
Bents reaction when he scored against Chelsea said it all, he paid tribute to the shirt and was the most excited i've seen from a Villa player in quite a while, he's not going anywhere, i actually believe he likes being at Villa.
Beware the badge-kisser.
-
How often did Alpay kiss the badge?
Look how that ended.
-
Exacto
-
If you don't think Bent is not a focal point suited to our style how on earth do you come to the conclusion that Caroll would be, he has far better players around him at Liverpool and still looks lost, how many goals has he scored for them? I think Caroll will be a good prem player in the future but it was dilusional to think he was worth any where near 35 mil. Bent is a great player playing in a piss poor side.
Because different players are focal in different ways. If we had a big target man, it'd suit us well the amount we lump the ball around when we get lost/scared. Bent is a poacher, and he will score goals when he's given the chances to, but under McLeish we're not playing football in that manner.
-
The main advantage Carroll has over Bent is that Carroll has a lot more physical presence in the box, one of his main assets, is other being that he brings other players in, but that's it.
A major problem that Bent has IMO, is that he losses focus, losses concentration and easily drifts out of games, Darren Bent is a player that needs to be being constantly fed with chances and probably around every 3 chances he gets he will take one, but he needs that constant feed and Villa don't have that, said when Bent came to the club and people where saying we have our 20+ goal a season man at last, my comment was "where from".
Anyway it probably doesn't matter because if you like at the Scouse reaction to Bent going to Liverpool, they don't seem best pleased, that's for sure.
Problem is to get the best from Bent we need an Ashley Young type of player around him and Bent needs Gabby closer to him to take the pressure of him and give him space in the box.
-
Carroll = Duncan Ferguson. A nutter who will never quite deliver. Avoid.
-
The other point is, I haven't actually voted on this, reason being is because yes I could vote to sell him but that would be on the basis that the club used the 15ML (imaginary figure) and then put to that another 10ML or so and get in a good addition or 2 really top notch players into the team.
Problem with this is AM seems more inclined to get in also rans rather than invest into quality in which case, stay with Darren Bent.
-
twitter going mad that bent is definitely off to Liverpool. aparantly lawrensen said on 5 live that it was a done deal??? did anyone hear him say it?
-
twitter going mad that bent is definitely off to Liverpool. aparantly lawrensen said on 5 live that it was a done deal??? did anyone hear him say it?
Twitter rumours are a load of shit.
-
Carroll = Duncan Ferguson. A nutter who will never quite deliver. Avoid.
Not a Carroll fan by any means, but you can bet your last dollar on it that he has got a brilliant couple of seasons in him and someone will get that out of him, he's young enough and he's got that to come and it will happen, I would agree he will never be prolific and never be up there for the long term, the kids got way to much on his mind for that, but I would bet that's what Dalgliesh was edging his bets on when he splashed 34ML on him.....
-
twitter going mad that bent is definitely off to Liverpool. aparantly lawrensen said on 5 live that it was a done deal??? did anyone hear him say it?
Mate just texted me, owns a footy bar on the Costa Blanca, massive Liverpool fan, going back generations.
" Benty belongs to Anfield"
Twat.... ;D
-
How does the next part go.. ' Aston Villa refuse Daren Bent transfer request'
To be followed by Faulkner ''We did all we could to keep him, but the player wanted out''
I dont think Randy has the stubbornness or arrogance to care anymore in telling Liverpool to do one
what would you rather have them say so as not raise your level of anger or scepticism?
I would like for a start Lerner to come out and say the way it is.
-
How does the next part go.. ' Aston Villa refuse Daren Bent transfer request'
To be followed by Faulkner ''We did all we could to keep him, but the player wanted out''
I dont think Randy has the stubbornness or arrogance to care anymore in telling Liverpool to do one
what would you rather have them say so as not raise your level of anger or scepticism?
I would like for a start Lerner to come out and say the way it is.
Which you'd still dismiss as spin, or "we've heard that before". Even if he was telling the truth, would you believe it, and more importantly would you want to hear it?
-
Totally agree with the last comment there was no work rate closing the back for down making runs to give us a out ball when we were deep under pressure i would of liked to have seen some runs across the back four down the flanks just something to move there defenders around and give them something to worry about at the moment he looks like he doesnt wont to no and doesnt move from the centre of the pitch
-
The issue with losing Bent is that, although losing him would not be as damaging as others (Downing and Young are much better players, and Barry and Milner were much more important to how we played), he is the last truly saleable asset we acquired from someone else for a significant fee. It's a prestige issue, almost entirely (because, in my opinion, we play better with Gabby as the main striker than with Bent, though we hardly have the squad to be choosy).
For what it's worth, I actually think he'll be a bit of a failure at Liverpool should he go there: that club are caught in the conundrum that, although they create many chances and don't finish them, to sacrifice one player for a pure finisher who doesn't contribute to the build-up, like Bent, would result in fewer chances created - negating the point of playing Bent in the first place. It's a similar story with us - see Gabby's miss the other day - but if you create lots of chances you always have more chance of converting lots of them than if you hadn't created them at all. Regardless, Bent does actually miss half-chances more than he scores them, a constant source of frustration.
My fundamental problem may be that I don't trust McLeish to reinvest the money. One swallow does not make a summer, and though the Chelsea result (and performance) was great, you get the feeling that, had Heskey been fit, he'd have played and we'd have lost. The way we went to pieces and lost faith in our football when a bit down against Swansea may prove to be sadly indicative.
-
I don't get why so many say they wouldn't trust AM with transfer money? He's only signed 4 players, not really enough to judge him on.
-
I don't get why so many say they wouldn't trust AM with transfer money? He's only signed 4 players, not really enough to judge him on.
Jenas, Hutton, Zog and Given. The latter was a good signing (if a little obvious), Zog's a good player but he's struggled to get the best out of him and doesn't seem to know quite how to use him, and the other two have been total catastrophes.
-
So if we take that as a 50/50 strike rate in transfers it's probably the same as most managers.
-
So if we take that as a 50/50 strike rate in transfers it's probably the same as most managers.
I don't take it as a 50/50 though, as, in my opinion, the two relative successes are mitigated, whereas the failures are not.
-
I don't get why so many say they wouldn't trust AM with transfer money? He's only signed 4 players, not really enough to judge him on.
Jenas, Hutton, Zog and Given. The latter was a good signing (if a little obvious), Zog's a good player but he's struggled to get the best out of him and doesn't seem to know quite how to use him, and the other two have been total catastrophes.
With Zog, most on here were planning him in for replacement of Young when we still thought we would be under Houllier. I wonder if the negotiations were under way before Alex even came in.
-
So it's 2 good signings (regardless of whether he has got the best out of Zog yet) and 2 bad ones. Any way it's painted it's not enough to condemn him on his VP transfer record. And I say that as someone who isn't exactly enamored with AM.
-
bent just didnt work hard enough against swansea to move defenders around he didnt make any runs across the back line into the flanks and basically looked like he didnt wna know stood inbetween there centre halfes offering nothing he also never bothered closing there defenders down if he plays like that were better of selling him and playing someone who when the game isnt going to plan knuckles down and works hard
-
I don't get why so many say they wouldn't trust AM with transfer money? He's only signed 4 players, not really enough to judge him on.
Jenas, Hutton, Zog and Given. The latter was a good signing (if a little obvious), Zog's a good player but he's struggled to get the best out of him and doesn't seem to know quite how to use him, and the other two have been total catastrophes.
With Zog, most on here were planning him in for replacement of Young when we still thought we would be under Houllier. I wonder if the negotiations were under way before Alex even came in.
Maybe, but without knowing the ins and outs of how our club worked, he certainly seemed to want to bring in Zog for Blues and, albeit within a different team (despite his best efforts to turn us into them), which seems to me for an awful lot of planning time for a player he doesn't seem to know how to use.
-
Jeans wasn't a bad signing... just an unlucky one. He was certainly worth taking a punt on, given the circumstances.
-
Jeans wasn't a bad signing... just an unlucky one. He was certainly worth taking a punt on, given the circumstances.
I disagree, seeing as he had an injury history which read like a casualty list from the battle of Agincourt.
-
Jeans wasn't a bad signing... just an unlucky one. He was certainly worth taking a punt on, given the circumstances.
I disagree, seeing as he had an injury history which read like a casualty list from the battle of Agincourt.
A bit like Paul McGrath & Ronny Johnsen. They worked out.
-
We didn't pay for him... just covered his wages for a couple of months. Worth a punt... As I said.
-
Jeans wasn't a bad signing... just an unlucky one. He was certainly worth taking a punt on, given the circumstances.
I disagree, seeing as he had an injury history which read like a casualty list from the battle of Agincourt.
A bit like Paul McGrath & Ronny Johnsen. They worked out.
We don't have Jim Walker working miracles anymore.
-
Jeans wasn't a bad signing... just an unlucky one. He was certainly worth taking a punt on, given the circumstances.
I disagree, seeing as he had an injury history which read like a casualty list from the battle of Agincourt.
A bit like Paul McGrath & Ronny Johnsen. They worked out.
We don't have Jim Walker working miracles anymore.
And sports medicine has moved on 20 years since then.
-
How does the next part go.. ' Aston Villa refuse Daren Bent transfer request'
To be followed by Faulkner ''We did all we could to keep him, but the player wanted out''
I dont think Randy has the stubbornness or arrogance to care anymore in telling Liverpool to do one
what would you rather have them say so as not raise your level of anger or scepticism?
I would like for a start Lerner to come out and say the way it is.
Which you'd still dismiss as spin, or "we've heard that before". Even if he was telling the truth, would you believe it, and more importantly would you want to hear it?
Since when have you become a mind reader and know how I would react?
I'm stating that it would be good to hear from our chaiman once in awhile on club matters.
..and just for you TV, yes I would believe him.
-
We didn't pay for him... just covered his wages for a couple of months. Worth a punt... As I said.
We have paid him since August, I don't think we have had 500 mins from him.
-
Jeans wasn't a bad signing... just an unlucky one. He was certainly worth taking a punt on, given the circumstances.
I disagree, seeing as he had an injury history which read like a casualty list from the battle of Agincourt.
A bit like Paul McGrath & Ronny Johnsen. They worked out.
We don't have Jim Walker working miracles anymore.
And sports medicine has moved on 20 years since then.
And Jenas has been out for how long over the last 5 years?
-
We didn't pay for him... just covered his wages for a couple of months. Worth a punt... As I said.
We have paid him since August, I don't think we have had 500 mins from him.
If we'd paid £5M for him I'd have been annoyed... but as we didn't I'm not too bothered. We've paid out a great deal more for bigger crocks over the years.
-
poor display interms of effort no runs off the ball across the back line offered nothing as a outlet and closing down from the front plays someone who plays like he wonts to be there
-
poor display interms of effort no runs off the ball across the back line offered nothing as a outlet and closing down from the front plays someone who plays like he wonts to be there
In the one or two games he had post lay off. He never really got his chance.
-
We didn't pay for him... just covered his wages for a couple of months. Worth a punt... As I said.
We have paid him since August, I don't think we have had 500 mins from him.
If we'd paid £5M for him I'd have been annoyed... but as we didn't I'm not too bothered. We've paid out a great deal more for bigger crocks over the years.
I understand, but we had to loan out another midfielder to be able to get Jenas in. So we could have done without gambling on a crock for that.
-
Jeans wasn't a bad signing... just an unlucky one. He was certainly worth taking a punt on, given the circumstances.
I disagree, seeing as he had an injury history which read like a casualty list from the battle of Agincourt.
A bit like Paul McGrath & Ronny Johnsen. They worked out.
One world class and one excellent defender, well worth taking a punt on. Jenas is an average midfielder at best. So not exactly 'a bit like' and more 'nothing like'.
-
We didn't pay for him... just covered his wages for a couple of months. Worth a punt... As I said.
We have paid him since August, I don't think we have had 500 mins from him.
If we'd paid £5M for him I'd have been annoyed... but as we didn't I'm not too bothered. We've paid out a great deal more for bigger crocks over the years.
I understand, but we had to loan out another midfielder to be able to get Jenas in. So we could have done without gambling on a crock for that.
The one we still haven't given a first team game to, you mean?
-
Makoun.
-
Jeans wasn't a bad signing... just an unlucky one. He was certainly worth taking a punt on, given the circumstances.
I disagree, seeing as he had an injury history which read like a casualty list from the battle of Agincourt.
A bit like Paul McGrath & Ronny Johnsen. They worked out.
One world class and one excellent defender, well worth taking a punt on. Jenas is an average midfielder at best. So not exactly 'a bit like' and more 'nothing like'.
We're talking about injury records, not ability. Jenas was the sort of player our manager believed we needed, and was therefore worth the lesser gamble than the two players mentioned.
-
We didn't pay for him... just covered his wages for a couple of months. Worth a punt... As I said.
We have paid him since August, I don't think we have had 500 mins from him.
If we'd paid £5M for him I'd have been annoyed... but as we didn't I'm not too bothered. We've paid out a great deal more for bigger crocks over the years.
I understand, but we had to loan out another midfielder to be able to get Jenas in. So we could have done without gambling on a crock for that.
The one we still haven't given a first team game to, you mean?
Makoun?
-
Jeans wasn't a bad signing... just an unlucky one. He was certainly worth taking a punt on, given the circumstances.
I disagree, seeing as he had an injury history which read like a casualty list from the battle of Agincourt.
A bit like Paul McGrath & Ronny Johnsen. They worked out.
One world class and one excellent defender, well worth taking a punt on. Jenas is an average midfielder at best. So not exactly 'a bit like' and more 'nothing like'.
We're talking about injury records, not ability. Jenas was the sort of player our manager believed we needed, and was therefore worth the lesser gamble than the two players mentioned.
Were either of those two actually injured when we signed them?
-
Thought you meant Gardner.
-
Jeans wasn't a bad signing... just an unlucky one. He was certainly worth taking a punt on, given the circumstances.
I disagree, seeing as he had an injury history which read like a casualty list from the battle of Agincourt.
A bit like Paul McGrath & Ronny Johnsen. They worked out.
One world class and one excellent defender, well worth taking a punt on. Jenas is an average midfielder at best. So not exactly 'a bit like' and more 'nothing like'.
We're talking about injury records, not ability. Jenas was the sort of player our manager believed we needed, and was therefore worth the lesser gamble than the two players mentioned.
Were either of those two actually injured when we signed them?
One of them had been advised to retire.
-
Jeans wasn't a bad signing... just an unlucky one. He was certainly worth taking a punt on, given the circumstances.
I disagree, seeing as he had an injury history which read like a casualty list from the battle of Agincourt.
A bit like Paul McGrath & Ronny Johnsen. They worked out.
One world class and one excellent defender, well worth taking a punt on. Jenas is an average midfielder at best. So not exactly 'a bit like' and more 'nothing like'.
We're talking about injury records, not ability. Jenas was the sort of player our manager believed we needed, and was therefore worth the lesser gamble than the two players mentioned.
Were either of those two actually injured when we signed them?
One of them had been advised to retire.
....by Manchester United who offered him money to. Not sure that the offer was made with the best of intentions.
-
How does the next part go.. ' Aston Villa refuse Daren Bent transfer request'
To be followed by Faulkner ''We did all we could to keep him, but the player wanted out''
I dont think Randy has the stubbornness or arrogance to care anymore in telling Liverpool to do one
what would you rather have them say so as not raise your level of anger or scepticism?
I would like for a start Lerner to come out and say the way it is.
Which you'd still dismiss as spin, or "we've heard that before". Even if he was telling the truth, would you believe it, and more importantly would you want to hear it?
Since when have you become a mind reader and know how I would react?
I'm stating that it would be good to hear from our chaiman once in awhile on club matters.
..and just for you TV, yes I would believe him.
if your opinion on Randy is that he doesn't care anymore, then why would you believe anything he says? I know if I was at that point I wouldn't believe him.
-
How does the next part go.. ' Aston Villa refuse Daren Bent transfer request'
To be followed by Faulkner ''We did all we could to keep him, but the player wanted out''
I dont think Randy has the stubbornness or arrogance to care anymore in telling Liverpool to do one
what would you rather have them say so as not raise your level of anger or scepticism?
I would like for a start Lerner to come out and say the way it is.
Which you'd still dismiss as spin, or "we've heard that before". Even if he was telling the truth, would you believe it, and more importantly would you want to hear it?
Since when have you become a mind reader and know how I would react?
I'm stating that it would be good to hear from our chaiman once in awhile on club matters.
..and just for you TV, yes I would believe him.
if your opinion on Randy is that he doesn't care anymore, then why would you believe anything he says? I know if I was at that point I wouldn't believe him.
Even if he said that he didn't care? ;)
-
....by Manchester United who offered him money to. Not sure that the offer was made with the best of intentions.
The fact remains that both players were gambles based on their injury record. We didn't just offer to take McGrath on loan, we paid what was for us a high fee for him and smashed our pay structure. He was also a long way from world-class at the time.
-
McGrath was a massive gamble, yes, but I'm not really sure how relevant that is to any other player.
If you took a punt on 100 alcoholic, injury wrecked players, how many of those would you expect to come through and be that good? I'd say probably 1.
Does that make it a risk worth taking? No, not really.
-
I don't get why so many say they wouldn't trust AM with transfer money? He's only signed 4 players, not really enough to judge him on.
Jenas, Hutton, Zog and Given. The latter was a good signing (if a little obvious), Zog's a good player but he's struggled to get the best out of him and doesn't seem to know quite how to use him, and the other two have been total catastrophes.
With Zog, most on here were planning him in for replacement of Young when we still thought we would be under Houllier. I wonder if the negotiations were under way before Alex even came in.
Maybe, but without knowing the ins and outs of how our club worked, he certainly seemed to want to bring in Zog for Blues and, albeit within a different team (despite his best efforts to turn us into them), which seems to me for an awful lot of planning time for a player he doesn't seem to know how to use.
Someone on here was sat next to Roberto Martinez at one of our matches recently, and engaged him in conversation.
Martinez was telling him how we weren't playing CNZ in the right way to get the best out of him. Maybe Alex could give Martinez a bell and ask him.
-
Someone on here was sat next to Roberto Martinez at one of our matches recently, and engaged him in conversation.
Martinez was telling him how we weren't playing CNZ in the right way to get the best out of him. Maybe Alex could give Martinez a bell and ask him.
Didn't he play a free roll/ second striker roll at Wigan and sometimes at Newcastle? He seemed to have been falling into that roll with Gabby up front and playing better. He's another one on why we don't seem to have a forward formation that works when all our players are fit.
-
If Bent does go it'll be interesting to see how the club spins it. The austerity masters of Europe. At least Greece won a trophy before it all went tits up.
If Liverpool are in for him and Bent knows it I'd expect him to hand in a transfer request like he did this time last year straight after a Sunderland game.
-
Jeans wasn't a bad signing... just an unlucky one. He was certainly worth taking a punt on, given the circumstances.
I disagree, seeing as he had an injury history which read like a casualty list from the battle of Agincourt.
A bit like Paul McGrath & Ronny Johnsen. They worked out.
One world class and one excellent defender, well worth taking a punt on. Jenas is an average midfielder at best. So not exactly 'a bit like' and more 'nothing like'.
To be fair Risso, how many England international midfielders with more than 20 caps have we signed over the years?
-
Martinez was telling him how we weren't playing CNZ in the right way to get the best out of him. Maybe Alex could give Martinez a bell and ask him
Doesn't seem to know how to get the best out of his own players so why should anyone take any notice?
-
Martinez was telling him how we weren't playing CNZ in the right way to get the best out of him. Maybe Alex could give Martinez a bell and ask him
Doesn't seem to know how to get the best out of his own players so why should anyone take any notice?
He could get the best out of Caldwell and Alcaraz by selling them as horsemeat.
-
I'm a little bemused by those suggesting selling Bent as 'we dont play in a way that suits him', he's the best English goalscorer of his generation, why don't we fucking start playing in a way that suits him?
-
I'm a little bemused by those suggesting selling Bent as 'we dont play in a way that suits him', he's the best English goalscorer of his generation, why don't we fucking start playing in a way that suits him?
I'm not sure it's true, the problem seems to me to be a lack of form from Bent. He can be excused the other night as he's been out for a while but his last start at Bolton he was missing sitters.
-
I'm a little bemused by those suggesting selling Bent as 'we dont play in a way that suits him', he's the best English goalscorer of his generation, why don't we fucking start playing in a way that suits him?
I'm not sure it's true, the problem seems to me to be a lack of form from Bent. He can be excused the other night as he's been out for a while but his last start at Bolton he was missing sitters.
In todays shit/greatest ever culture, loss of form doesn't seem to be considered.
-
Someone on here was sat next to Roberto Martinez at one of our matches recently, and engaged him in conversation.
Martinez was telling him how we weren't playing CNZ in the right way to get the best out of him. Maybe Alex could give Martinez a bell and ask him.
Didn't he play a free roll/ second striker roll at Wigan and sometimes at Newcastle? He seemed to have been falling into that roll with Gabby up front and playing better. He's another one on why we don't seem to have a forward formation that works when all our players are fit.
I thought he played fullback for Newcastle?
At Wigan he was in freer role, but then he was their best player, so they accomodated him the same way we did Ashley Young. Although I think he's good and his form is improving, he's not good enough for us to give him the same freedom with Gabby, Bent Ireland and Super Marc knocking about.
-
Martinez was telling him how we weren't playing CNZ in the right way to get the best out of him. Maybe Alex could give Martinez a bell and ask him
Doesn't seem to know how to get the best out of his own players so why should anyone take any notice?
Because he got the best out of the only player we really give a shit about?
-
I'm not so sure he is out of form, its hard to tell as he does so little but put the ball in the net. Over the years he's always missed a lot of chances but only a fool would bet against him scoring 15-20 a season.
It was a massive coup to get him to come in the first place, selling him 6 months later would be sheer lunacy.
-
Martinez was telling him how we weren't playing CNZ in the right way to get the best out of him. Maybe Alex could give Martinez a bell and ask him
Doesn't seem to know how to get the best out of his own players so why should anyone take any notice?
Because he got the best out of the only player we really give a shit about?
Did he? He stood out in a poor team but I'm not sure that's down to the manager.
In any case how many different ways of playing are we going have to adopt in order to get the best out of him, Bent, Ireland, Albrighton and Gabby? It's a team game and the players have to fit into that, not the other way round.
-
In any case how many different ways of playing are we going have to adopt in order to get the best out of him, Bent, Ireland, Albrighton and Gabby? It's a team game and the players have to fit into that, not the other way round.
Maybe that's the problem?
N'Zogbia - signed by McLeish
Bent - signed by Houllier
Gabby & Super Marc - developed by K-Mac & Sid, with Gabby then adapted to the first team by MON and Marc by Houllier
Ireland - signed without a manager
There's a lack of consistency of approach there, which is understandable when you look at the managerial changes we've had since MON walked 18 months ago. which is one of the reasons I think we have to give AM some time and back him in the market to evolve the squad as he wants. The big question is, whether it be him or someone else, the money is there to do that?
-
Martinez was telling him how we weren't playing CNZ in the right way to get the best out of him. Maybe Alex could give Martinez a bell and ask him
Doesn't seem to know how to get the best out of his own players so why should anyone take any notice?
Because he got the best out of the only player we really give a shit about?
Did he? He stood out in a poor team but I'm not sure that's down to the manager.
In any case how many different ways of playing are we going have to adopt in order to get the best out of him, Bent, Ireland, Albrighton and Gabby? It's a team game and the players have to fit into that, not the other way round.
I'm not saying anything to the contrary, but I'd have thought getting the best out of your players is pretty key to being successful on the pitch, whichever way you're going to play.
-
Would you trust AMC with the money from selling Bent? He might go and buy Zigic!! :'(
-
Would you trust AMC with the money from selling Bent? He might go and buy Zigic!! :'(
Why would he when he didn't buy him in the first place?
-
Would you trust AMC with the money from selling Bent? He might go and buy Zigic!! :'(
It's pretty much a known fatc that AM didn't want Zigic, but their board bought him anyway.
AM's signings have been a bit hit and miss (Hutton poor, CNZ getting better, Jenas unlucky & Given good), but that was working with very limited funds, plus we're a very short time into all their Villa careers, so who knows how they'll pan out eventually.
-
I think McLeish needs to be given some help by the board. He is being hung out to dry at the moment with the lack of investment.
-
In any case how many different ways of playing are we going have to adopt in order to get the best out of him, Bent, Ireland, Albrighton and Gabby? It's a team game and the players have to fit into that, not the other way round.
Maybe that's the problem?
N'Zogbia - signed by McLeish
Bent - signed by Houllier
Gabby & Super Marc - developed by K-Mac & Sid, with Gabby then adapted to the first team by MON and Marc by Houllier
Ireland - signed without a manager
There's a lack of consistency of approach there, which is understandable when you look at the managerial changes we've had since MON walked 18 months ago. which is one of the reasons I think we have to give AM some time and back him in the market to evolve the squad as he wants. The big question is, whether it be him or someone else, the money is there to do that?
That's a fair point.
-
Someone on here was sat next to Roberto Martinez at one of our matches recently, and engaged him in conversation.
Martinez was telling him how we weren't playing CNZ in the right way to get the best out of him. Maybe Alex could give Martinez a bell and ask him.
Didn't he play a free roll/ second striker roll at Wigan and sometimes at Newcastle? He seemed to have been falling into that roll with Gabby up front and playing better. He's another one on why we don't seem to have a forward formation that works when all our players are fit.
A wigan fan came on here after we signed him and said his best position whilst at Wigan was as a right sided player. I am not sure whether that means as a winger, midfielder or just off the striker. Whichever, it appears he, like gabby, is better coming in off the wing onto their stronger foot. That might mean less crosses for Bent, regardless he'll be there to rap in the rebound.
-
I think his best games for us so far have been on the left.
-
In any case how many different ways of playing are we going have to adopt in order to get the best out of him, Bent, Ireland, Albrighton and Gabby? It's a team game and the players have to fit into that, not the other way round.
Blimey, you really do have the same tactical nouse as MON. Saying 'that's the way I want to play and the players will just have to fit in to it' is how you end up with midfielder/centre halves playing right back/left back, etc.
Surely a manager's primary objective is to get the most out of the players at his disposal and I don't see how you can do that without playing to their strengths?
-
The issue is that a manager will evolve the squad to match how he wants to play, hence MON buying big strikers and wingers who can cross. AM has not had that luxury and instead has needed to try and blend together a set of forward players bought by different managers for different systems, as I mentioned above.
-
The issue is that a manager will evolve the squad to match how he wants to play, hence MON buying big strikers and wingers who can cross. AM has not had that luxury and instead has needed to try and blend together a set of forward players bought by different managers for different systems, as I mentioned above.
Good Point !
I don't believe Randy will not back Alex this window. It makes no sense I'm convinced we will spend biggish money. Otherwise he's just leaving the guy out to dry.
The other issue to me is I also don't think he's(AM) anywhere near to either gaining or losing the fans support, most people haven't made their minds up yet and can see what he's had to deal with. I don't believe he's had anywhere near what he had to spend over the road yet let alone MON/GH type budgets
The away crowd are probably happy with recent results I would imagine and lets be honest if you're a long term season ticket holder of our club this current situation is nothing new !
-
I don't believe Randy will not back Alex this window. It makes no sense I'm convinced we will spend biggish money. Otherwise he's just leaving the guy out to dry.
I agree, but think it will be in the summer window. If wages is our issue then the players reaching the end of big contracts give both McLeigh and Randy room to move again, but not until they go.
If that isn't the case then he really has left his manager up shit creek!
-
I don't believe Randy will not back Alex this window. It makes no sense I'm convinced we will spend biggish money. Otherwise he's just leaving the guy out to dry.
Bet he doesn't. Why does he need to give McLeish money to spend? All is going well for Randy. We don't look like we're going down, we're managing to put a squad together for every game, we win a match occasionally enough to stay away from the lower reaches of the league. It's hard to accept, because we want to see good football and exciting players and achievement on the field, but that's not what this season is about... and maybe not the next few seasons, either.
-
I don't believe Randy will not back Alex this window. It makes no sense I'm convinced we will spend biggish money. Otherwise he's just leaving the guy out to dry.
Bet he doesn't. Why does he need to give McLeish money to spend? All is going well for Randy. We don't look like we're going down, we're managing to put a squad together for every game, we win a match occasionally enough to stay away from the lower reaches of the league. It's hard to accept, because we want to see good football and exciting players and achievement on the field, but that's not what this season is about... and maybe not the next few seasons, either.
Mcliesh has said already that he has to sell to buy.
That does not sound like someone who has money to spend.
We will probably just get a couple on loan
-
The issue is that a manager will evolve the squad to match how he wants to play, hence MON buying big strikers and wingers who can cross. AM has not had that luxury and instead has needed to try and blend together a set of forward players bought by different managers for different systems, as I mentioned above.
That's true.
However, AM did buy N'Zogbia, so I'm not entirely sure that excuse is valid there.
Even thought he'd be playing with players AM didn't buy, it'd be nice to think he had an idea how he was going to use him with his other assets when signing him.
-
I think the initial plan was a 4-3-3 with CNZ and Gabby wide of Bent. Didn't I hear somewhere about AM trying to model it on the Dutch national side? Problem was that we were too narrow, his use of Heskey behind bent and Charlie struggling for form early on. Then, when Bent got injured we played better in more of a 4-2-3-1 formation as his form picked up, as did Marc's and Ireland's.
So I reckon 4-3-3 was the plan, and maybe still is, but it hasn't been a roaring succes.
-
The issue is that a manager will evolve the squad to match how he wants to play, hence MON buying big strikers and wingers who can cross. AM has not had that luxury and instead has needed to try and blend together a set of forward players bought by different managers for different systems, as I mentioned above.
Sorry but I have to take issue with this. Most new managers up and down the country across all the divisions have to and are expected to make the best of what they've got initially. AM cant be blamed for the group of players at his disposal (such as Ireland, Bent, Gabby and Albrighton) but its not exactly a bad hand to be dealt with and its his job to get them to work and play as a team regardless of who signed them. In additon to this he also had an initial (albeit relatively small) budget to bring in 4 players of his own choice.
The squad clearly needs improving particularly in defence and midfield, but please dont make new excuses for AM for not getting the best out of the players initially or currently at his disposal. Would the other new managers such as Hodgson, Pardew, Boas, Daglish, Jol or even MON be able to get better results and performances given the same hand that AM has been dealt?
-
I think the initial plan was a 4-3-3 with CNZ and Gabby wide of Bent. Didn't I hear somewhere about AM trying to model it on the Dutch national side? Problem was that we were too narrow, his use of Heskey behind bent and Charlie struggling for form early on. Then, when Bent got injured we played better in more of a 4-2-3-1 formation as his form picked up, as did Marc's and Ireland's.
So I reckon 4-3-3 was the plan, and maybe still is, but it hasn't been a roaring succes.
System and game plan have to go hand in hand, it's no use playing the most modern, up-to-date formation if you don't know (or just plain don't) execute an appropriate strategy. MON-ball may have been a little outdated, but his functional 4-4-2 with pace on the wings and a midfield with energy and an out-ball is perfect for counter-attacking. System and style must be complementary.
What I guess I'm saying is that, even if Eck were to try to play that 4-3-3, the fact that he played Heskey in that middle three and, in the words of Zog earlier in the season, tried to "hit the striker early" shows that he either doesn't know how to execute the strategy appropriate to the formation or at the very least just got it wrong at that point. There's no point having a midfield good on the ground and inverted wingers good at cutting in on the diagonal if you encourage (or perhaps more tellingly, don't discourage) your defence and keeper to smack it down field when they get it, thus conceding possession. Our approach is confused and seems based less on a genuine, consistent approach and more on inconsistent and conflicting received wisdom and just 'doing things the way they're done', which is no good to anyone really.
-
The issue is that a manager will evolve the squad to match how he wants to play, hence MON buying big strikers and wingers who can cross. AM has not had that luxury and instead has needed to try and blend together a set of forward players bought by different managers for different systems, as I mentioned above.
Sorry but I have to take issue with this. Most new managers up and down the country across all the divisions have to and are expected to make the best of what they've got initially. AM cant be blamed for the group of players at his disposal (such as Ireland, Bent, Gabby and Albrighton) but its not exactly a bad hand to be dealt with and its his job to get them to work and play as a team regardless of who signed them. In additon to this he also had an initial (albeit relatively small) budget to bring in 4 players of his own choice.
The squad clearly needs improving particularly in defence and midfield, but please dont make new excuses for AM for not getting the best out of the players initially or currently at his disposal. Would the other new managers such as Hodgson, Pardew, Boas, Daglish, Jol or even MON be able to get better results and performances given the same hand that AM has been dealt?
The point I made was in relation to the formation/pattern of play, not getting the most out of the players. I agree they're capable of more and it's the manager's job to get it out of them.
-
I think the initial plan was a 4-3-3 with CNZ and Gabby wide of Bent. Didn't I hear somewhere about AM trying to model it on the Dutch national side? Problem was that we were too narrow, his use of Heskey behind bent and Charlie struggling for form early on. Then, when Bent got injured we played better in more of a 4-2-3-1 formation as his form picked up, as did Marc's and Ireland's.
So I reckon 4-3-3 was the plan, and maybe still is, but it hasn't been a roaring succes.
System and game plan have to go hand in hand, it's no use playing the most modern, up-to-date formation if you don't know (or just plain don't) execute an appropriate strategy. MON-ball may have been a little outdated, but his functional 4-4-2 with pace on the wings and a midfield with energy and an out-ball is perfect for counter-attacking. System and style must be complementary.
What I guess I'm saying is that, even if Eck were to try to play that 4-3-3, the fact that he played Heskey in that middle three and, in the words of Zog earlier in the season, tried to "hit the striker early" shows that he either doesn't know how to execute the strategy appropriate to the formation or at the very least just got it wrong at that point. There's no point having a midfield good on the ground and inverted wingers good at cutting in on the diagonal if you encourage (or perhaps more tellingly, don't discourage) your defence and keeper to smack it down field when they get it, thus conceding possession. Our approach is confused and seems based less on a genuine, consistent approach and more on inconsistent and conflicting received wisdom and just 'doing things the way they're done', which is no good to anyone really.
It's an old argument on here, but I personally think the 'hoof' (if ever there was a word to be banned on H&V, that's it!) is a symptom of the lack of movement from the midfield, not least in part due to his inclusion of Emile in that midfield. It's no coincidence that our recent better play has come with Clark playing as a deep lying midfielder, thereby providing a passing option we didn't have previously.
So I think it's at least partly personnel issue, but I'd like to think they've got more used to what's being asked of them and we're slowly getting better at it.
-
It's an old argument on here, but I personally think the 'hoof' (if ever there was a word to be banned on H&V, that's it!) is a symptom of the lack of movement from the midfield, not least in part due to his inclusion of Emile in that midfield. It's no coincidence that our recent better play has come with Clark playing as a deep lying midfielder, thereby providing a passing option we didn't have previously.
So I think it's at least partly personnel issue, but I'd like to think they've got more used to what's being asked of them and we're slowly getting better at it.
Well the fabled hoof (notice I didn't use the word! ;)) is more indicative of a problematic overall way of thinking which is fundamentally territorial. The logical extreme of this way of thinking is POMO and all that Charles Hughes abomination of twenty years ago. I'm not saying that Eck subscribes entirely to that, but if he wants us to play possession football he has to understand that that is totally at odds with 'hitting the striker early'. We have played better football of late, noticeably since Heskey went off at half-time at Stoke - but had Heskey not been injured it's not terrible to assume he would have played in the next few games where the football improved with Ireland in the midfield.
This is my major problem - it all seems to be by chance rather than design, he doesn't seem to have an entirely consistent way of doing things (his interviews are never promising either - his lowest ebb for me was when he said "the passing was poor, which I can't do anything about), and whether something goes well or badly it doesn't seem to matter to how he thinks. He doesn't appear to be very evidence-based in his thinking, is all I'm saying.
-
I don't believe Randy will not back Alex this window. It makes no sense I'm convinced we will spend biggish money. Otherwise he's just leaving the guy out to dry.
I agree, but think it will be in the summer window. If wages is our issue then the players reaching the end of big contracts give both McLeigh and Randy room to move again, but not until they go.
If that isn't the case then he really has left his manager up shit creek!
The other issue is the number of elderly kids we have in the squad. This season is all about accesssing their real value and whether or not they can step up a level before we go splashing millions in the transfer market. By my count we have nine (ten if you now include Enda Stevens) players that are in that catagory. We're all very proud of our youth academy but the reality is we need to give these players a chance if they're showing real potential.
So far I'd say Clark and probably Albrighton look like they will make the step up. I'm still undecided on Bannan and Delph, I'd like to see both in more advanced roles, neither are defensive midfielders, much more box to box players. Herd looks like he could be useful and Eric Lichij was looking the real deal before he got injured. Gardner hopefully will be given game time and despite his age, looks and sounds like a gem. I've almost given up on the Fonz, whilst Weimann I imagine will get more chances from the bench this season.
I'd guess Randy Lerner is reluctant to put his hand in his pocket to bring in more Habib Beye's and Heskey's to fill the squad, at least until we know the true worth of what we already have. Saying that, if a real quality player at the right age did become available, it wouldn't surprise me if we went in for him. I think John's right though, it will probably be the summer before we see any real activity in the transfer market and we can expect quite a few of the nine leaving the club.
-
Ok so we're 5mths and over 20 games into AMs tenure at VP and he still doesnt know what tactics and formation/pattern of play best suit the players at his disposal. Even though I still dont see him as "Villa manager" when he's interviewed, I want him to succeed and get results for Aston Villa so prepared to give him time but he really needs to start to make things click and we need to see both improved results and performances in the second half of the season regardless of how much financial backing he gets from Randy this transfer window.
In other news, a miserable looking AM has just interviewed on SSN...apparently the deal for Keane is 50-50 and Bent is not for sale. He correctly identified Bent as a prolific goal scorer that we will need to push us up the table. If Bent is sold then I believe that it will be a matter taken out of his hands and beyond his control.
edit: in future "HOOF" shall be termed as "hopeless long ball clearance"...or "Stoke"
-
Heskey in midfield is a baffling one.
However, some things happen by chance in football. I remember Mourinho having to play the 4-3-3 system he had some much joy with at Chelsea due to injuries, for instance. I don't care how he gets there as long as he finds a system that suits and is successful.
-
Heskey in midfield is a baffling one.
However, some things happen by chance in football. I remember Mourinho having to play the 4-3-3 system he had some much joy with at Chelsea due to injuries, for instance. I don't care how he gets there as long as he finds a system that suits and is successful.
Really? I always thought of that Chelsea system as one of the most thoroughly planned tactical systems in living memory. The squad, for instance, consisted mostly of like-for-likes Mourinho could throw into the first team without changing the system. And yes, while I don't mind how he'd reach a system which works, I'm still not so sure he'd identify the correct reason why any given system would work and would be prone to changing it for the worse.
-
Ok so we're 5mths and over 20 games into AMs tenure at VP and he still doesnt know what tactics and formation/pattern of play best suit the players at his disposal.
I don't think any of us do. The problem is accomodating both Bent and Gabby, which leaves the problem of who do you leave out whilst ensuring you play to the strengths of Bent and provide him the type of service he needs. Unless we provide that service, he may as well not be there, which is a complete waste.
-
Heskey in midfield is a baffling one.
However, some things happen by chance in football. I remember Mourinho having to play the 4-3-3 system he had some much joy with at Chelsea due to injuries, for instance. I don't care how he gets there as long as he finds a system that suits and is successful.
Really? I always thought of that Chelsea system as one of the most thoroughly planned tactical systems in living memory. The squad, for instance, consisted mostly of like-for-likes Mourinho could throw into the first team without changing the system. And yes, while I don't mind how he'd reach a system which works, I'm still not so sure he'd identify the correct reason why any given system would work and would be prone to changing it for the worse.
I think the style of play (defensive strength, organisation, big man upfront and ability supporting him) was maybe not as hap hazard as the formation, but I do remember them playing 4-3-3 due to injuries and then sticking with it as it worked so well.
That was during his first season, so I'd imagine all subsequent buys by him were to fit into that way of playing.
-
In any case how many different ways of playing are we going have to adopt in order to get the best out of him, Bent, Ireland, Albrighton and Gabby? It's a team game and the players have to fit into that, not the other way round.
Blimey, you really do have the same tactical nouse as MON. Saying 'that's the way I want to play and the players will just have to fit in to it' is how you end up with midfielder/centre halves playing right back/left back, etc.
Surely a manager's primary objective is to get the most out of the players at his disposal and I don't see how you can do that without playing to their strengths?
That really is a very poor attempt at an an argument and despite your astonishing argument Martin O'Neill has worked all of his life in professional football, to think he has less tactical nouse than any of us is ridiculous.
The strengths of our players are not necessarily complimentary so by adjusting to suit one it might not be playing to the strengths of another. That's why it's always said that you judge a manager properly when he has his own players. As John points out above, we've got a collection of players but they weren't bought with any consistent policy to underpin it. McLeish has therefore had to make do and mend after losing 6 first team regulars in the summer. Every manager would have faced similar problems in trying to create a team from that.
-
Ok so we're 5mths and over 20 games into AMs tenure at VP and he still doesnt know what tactics and formation/pattern of play best suit the players at his disposal.
I don't think any of us do. The problem is accomodating both Bent and Gabby, which leaves the problem of who do you leave out whilst ensuring you play to the strengths of Bent and provide him the type of service he needs. Unless we provide that service, he may as well not be there, which is a complete waste.
The only way to accommodate them both in their natural positions and to get the best out of those 2 players is either the old 442, 352 or 4312. Given the current squad, the best formation IMO would be 442 but we'd need Hutton and Warnock to do a lot of leg work going forward whilst trying their best not to be complete liabilities at the back. Any combination of N'Zog, Albrighton or Bannan should be able to provide decent crosses and service to the forward pair; with a central combination of Petrov and Ireland or Clark providing service through the channels. The key to this is being flexible with or without possession, and whilst we may not be blessed with outstanding talent at the moment, AM needs to install the basics of teamwork, graft, discipline and focus into the players.
-
... AM needs to install the basics of teamwork, graft, discipline and focus into the players.
I agree strongly with this.
Looking at Newcastle last night, Everton against us earlier in the season, Man City against Liverpool on Tuesday the simple theme emerges that if teams relentlessly close down the ball when not in possession and move the ball quickly when in possession they are likely to score goals and keep clean sheets.
It's not a complicated game but there is an enormous margin for error if teams err from the basics.
-
... AM needs to install the basics of teamwork, graft, discipline and focus into the players.
I agree strongly with this.
Looking at Newcastle last night, Everton against us earlier in the season, Man City against Liverpool on Tuesday the simple theme emerges that if teams relentlessly close down the ball when not in possession and move the ball quickly when in possession they are likely to score goals and keep clean sheets.
It's not a complicated game but there is an enormous margin for error if teams err from the basics.
And a the pinnacle of the football pyramid Barcelona are the best example of the pressing type of football. We struggle to string three passes together before the ball is launched towards Darren Bent!
-
What really boils my piss is that we havent even attempted to replace Milner, and its no coincidence that things have gone down hill quite rapidly since he left. His graft and work rate are a major missing element in our play, whether that be harrassing the opposition and gaining possession in the middle of the park or supporting and providing an outlet for the forwards. What really really boils my piss is the thought of where we could be now if we'd kept Milner and AYoung with the addition of Bent.
-
I agree, Milner has easily been the biggest loss of everyone who's departed in the last 4 years.
-
What really boils my piss is that we havent even attempted to replace Milner, and its no coincidence that things have gone down hill quite rapidly since he left. His graft and work rate are a major missing element in our play, whether that be harrassing the opposition and gaining possession in the middle of the park or supporting and providing an outlet for the forwards. What really really boils my piss is the thought of where we could be now if we'd kept Milner and AYoung with the addition of Bent.
It's true, though arguably we couldn't have signed Bent had we not sold Milner.
-
What really boils my piss is that we havent even attempted to replace Milner, and its no coincidence that things have gone down hill quite rapidly since he left. His graft and work rate are a major missing element in our play, whether that be harrassing the opposition and gaining possession in the middle of the park or supporting and providing an outlet for the forwards. What really really boils my piss is the thought of where we could be now if we'd kept Milner and AYoung with the addition of Bent.
if all fans played that game, West Ham would have been premiership champions a fair few times
-
I think the most concerning question is perhaps - Why would he want to stay?
-
I think the most concerning question is perhaps - Why would he want to stay?
It's a fair question as we don't appear to have any plan or ambition at the moment. However I'd hope since we staked a lot of money on him, he'd show some loyalty.
-
Heskey in midfield is a baffling one.
Specially for Emile himself! He knows he is a thoroughbred striker.
-
Darren Bent not for sale at any price statement from the club has set this up nicely for "Well the player wanted to leave and we have reluctantly agreed"
So the club can say it's not our fault.
-
I agree, were beginning to see how Randy works and i'm afraid the benefit of any doubt lies with the us looking to sell if we can make a profit. I think RL will probably sell Bent if we get an offer of 22m+.
-
I think the most concerning question is perhaps - Why would he want to stay?
It's a fair question as we don't appear to have any plan or ambition at the moment. However I'd hope since we staked a lot of money on him, he'd show some loyalty.
I'd ask Sunderland fans their views on Darren Bent's loyalty...
-
I think the most concerning question is perhaps - Why would he want to stay?
It's a fair question as we don't appear to have any plan or ambition at the moment. However I'd hope since we staked a lot of money on him, he'd show some loyalty.
I'd ask Sunderland fans their views on Darren Bent's loyalty...
I'm aware of that, but that's why I hope.
-
I think the most concerning question is perhaps - Why would he want to stay?
It's a fair question as we don't appear to have any plan or ambition at the moment. However I'd hope since we staked a lot of money on him, he'd show some loyalty.
I'd ask Sunderland fans their views on Darren Bent's loyalty...
There's loyalty and living in Birmingham, then there's loyalty and living in Coventry-upon-sea.
-
Has McLeish got a daughter?
-
I think the most concerning question is perhaps - Why would he want to stay?
It's a fair question as we don't appear to have any plan or ambition at the moment. However I'd hope since we staked a lot of money on him, he'd show some loyalty.
I'd ask Sunderland fans their views on Darren Bent's loyalty...
I don't recall him forcing a move. I recall Bruce and Quinn accepting a bid for Bent which we did with stealth and complete professionalism. They didn't have to accept the bid. Bent didn't force his way out Charlton, and Spurs were dicking him around which is why he was desperate to get out of there. Sunderland fans can go fuck themselves. They should be angry at Bruce and Quinn not Bent.
-
I think the most concerning question is perhaps - Why would he want to stay?
It's a fair question as we don't appear to have any plan or ambition at the moment. However I'd hope since we staked a lot of money on him, he'd show some loyalty.
I'd ask Sunderland fans their views on Darren Bent's loyalty...
I don't recall him forcing a move. I recall Bruce and Quinn accepting a bid for Bent which we did with stealth and complete professionalism. They didn't have to accept the bid. Bent didn't force his way out Charlton, and Spurs were dicking him around which is why he was desperate to get out of there. Sunderland fans can go fuck themselves. They should be angry at Bruce and Quinn not Bent.
I agree that Bruce and Quinn accepted the offer but didn't Bent hand in a transfer request to force the issue? Regardless, both Bruce and Quinn should have said "errrr NOPE! you are a sunderland player and staying here MATE! Get on with it"
-
I'm sure many clubs have the board saying on the quiet, "hand in a request" then we look good and you get a nice bonus.
-
I wouldn't blame him if he wanted to leave.
-
There were issues connected with Bruce's daughter. I have no idea whether Bruce was happy about it or not, but it's not that hard to imagine that he condemned it and Bent thought it was a good idea to get away from sunderland to have a better chance of making it work.
...And there was obviously the pay rise that went with the move.
-
I think the most concerning question is perhaps - Why would he want to stay?
It's a fair question as we don't appear to have any plan or ambition at the moment. However I'd hope since we staked a lot of money on him, he'd show some loyalty.
I'd ask Sunderland fans their views on Darren Bent's loyalty...
I don't recall him forcing a move. I recall Bruce and Quinn accepting a bid for Bent which we did with stealth and complete professionalism. They didn't have to accept the bid. Bent didn't force his way out Charlton, and Spurs were dicking him around which is why he was desperate to get out of there. Sunderland fans can go fuck themselves. They should be angry at Bruce and Quinn not Bent.
I agree that Bruce and Quinn accepted the offer but didn't Bent hand in a transfer request to force the issue? Regardless, both Bruce and Quinn should have said "errrr NOPE! you are a sunderland player and staying here MATE! Get on with it"
He did, but like you are alluding to, it was only after they accepted the offer. He was under contract. They didn't have to sell him.
-
Bent is on 110k a week here. Cant see him leaving. Simply because no other team will give him that wage. He earns more than RVP, Modric, Van Der Vaart etc etc.
I even heard that if he scores he gets another 20k. But not sure if thats true.
Supposedly he signed on 90k a week and because of some clause he's now on over 100k a week. Which is insane. Bent isnt a player that would go to Liverpool for the Champions League (lol) or because its a big club, he'll only go there if he gets a big signing on fee and bigger wages. (Didnt we give him a 5m signing on fee?) So it depends how badly the teams want him..
-
Bent is on nothing like 110G.
-
Maybe im wrong then. But im sure it was said he is now on over 100k.
-
The only time i've ever seen it mentioned that Bent is on £110K a week is by a few posters on here. As such, I think it's a load of twaddle.
-
Maybe im wrong then. But im sure it was said he is now on over 100k.
I have heard this too and he also received a £5m signing on fee.
-
I'm sure he gets £80K a week, and for me, if he's scoring goals, he's worth every penny.
-
I reckon he's on 480k a week.
I definitely heard that.
-
He has women delivered to his house as well. Which is made of gold of course. It's all in his contract according to that Facebooks.
-
I just looked on twitter and apparently when he scores his 50th goal we have to name the stadium after him. If he makes it to 100 goals we have to rename the club as well.
-
Maybe im wrong then. But im sure it was said he is now on over 100k.
I have heard this too and he also received a £5m signing on fee.
Per letter in his signature apparently.
-
I reckon he's on 480k a week.
I definitely heard that.
I've now heard that, so I'm going to tweet it #madoldhippie
-
Bent is on 110k a week here. Cant see him leaving. Simply because no other team will give him that wage. He earns more than RVP, Modric, Van Der Vaart etc etc.
I even heard that if he scores he gets another 20k. But not sure if thats true.
Supposedly he signed on 90k a week and because of some clause he's now on over 100k a week. Which is insane. Bent isnt a player that would go to Liverpool for the Champions League (lol) or because its a big club, he'll only go there if he gets a big signing on fee and bigger wages. (Didnt we give him a 5m signing on fee?) So it depends how badly the teams want him..
Y'se, this is why people should ignore anything they read on Twitter.
What a complete load of bollocks.
-
Bent is on 110k a week here. Cant see him leaving. Simply because no other team will give him that wage. He earns more than RVP, Modric, Van Der Vaart etc etc.
I even heard that if he scores he gets another 20k. But not sure if thats true.
Supposedly he signed on 90k a week and because of some clause he's now on over 100k a week. Which is insane. Bent isnt a player that would go to Liverpool for the Champions League (lol) or because its a big club, he'll only go there if he gets a big signing on fee and bigger wages. (Didnt we give him a 5m signing on fee?) So it depends how badly the teams want him..
Y'se, this is why people should ignore anything they read on Twitter.
What a complete load of bollocks.
It depends who is tweeting it, obviously, but yes, what a load of utter horseshit.
-
Bent is on £6.90 per hour but he gets time and a half on Saturdays, true, saw it on Twatter.
-
Every time someone tweets about Bent's wages he gets a £10,000 bonus from the club.
-
I'm sure he gets £80K a week, and for me, if he's scoring goals, he's worth every penny.
I hope that had a sarcastic edge!
-
If we're gonna start giving him service, then keep him. This for starters means that the other 9 outfield players have to be able to keep the ball a lot better.
If we don't, then we may as well sell him and use the money to buy 2-3 decent players and sort out the midfield and defence. If we could pull off a Yakubu type signing, or a Demba Ba then we could replace the goals. Big IF of course. Gabby playing up top could get enough goals IMO.
Right now though, I'd suggest that when Bent plays, we don't look quite as effective as a team. You know with that type of player you basically have to play much of the game with 9 outfielders. I don't think we'll pull off that with McLeish. Bent's still our top scorer, but lets face it, 6 goals so far is not enough. Him doing next to nothing in games has hindered more than its helped.
However would I really want us to sell? No. Because I don't trust the manager signing the players that money would be used for. Furthermore I don't trust the board to fully re-invest it in players.
And Bent is apparently on infinity plus 2 dollars a week.
-
The problem is that it is not up to us whether we keep him or not. Does he want to go? What tools can he use to force a sale? Maybe it's better to sell him if he wants to go and use the money to buy someone who wants to be here? Ironic smily face thing.
-
Bent is on £6.90 per hour but he gets time and a half on Saturdays, true, saw it on Twatter.
No footballer in the world is on that much.
-
been out all day , what is the latest . This Liverpool fan told me earlier , they are paying 15 million and Carroll for DB ....
-
That £6.90 an hour is before tax don't forget and he has to pay for his half an orange at half time and dubbin for his boots out of that.
-
Is that why he moonlights as a personal shopper in his spare time?
-
been out all day , what is the latest . This Liverpool fan told me earlier , they are paying 15 million and Carroll for DB ....
I've had it confirmed again that Darren Bent is a Liverpool player.
We will soon know, if he plays tomorrow he's Villa's, think about it, just the kind of game to get his eye back in, if he doesn't figure that's because the club have taken the decision not to risk him against what could potentially be a team of cloggers, with all due respect to Bristol Rovers, but lower league team players are much more full blooded and they will want to leave a few scars and dents tomorrow.
Villa won't want to risk Bent getting a dent ;D
-
been out all day , what is the latest . This Liverpool fan told me earlier , they are paying 15 million and Carroll for DB ....
I've had it confirmed again that Darren Bent is a Liverpool player.
We will soon know, if he plays tomorrow he's Villa's, think about it, just the kind of game to get his eye back in, if he doesn't figure that's because the club have taken the decision not to risk him against what could potentially be a team of cloggers, with all due respect to Bristol Rovers, but lower league team players are much more full blooded and they will want to leave a few scars and dents tomorrow.
Villa won't want to risk Bent getting a dent ;D
You can't have something confirmed if it hasn't happened.
-
It's a bit of brass neck for us to accuse other teams of being cloggers at the moment.
-
been out all day , what is the latest . This Liverpool fan told me earlier , they are paying 15 million and Carroll for DB ....
I've had it confirmed again that Darren Bent is a Liverpool player.
We will soon know, if he plays tomorrow he's Villa's, think about it, just the kind of game to get his eye back in, if he doesn't figure that's because the club have taken the decision not to risk him against what could potentially be a team of cloggers, with all due respect to Bristol Rovers, but lower league team players are much more full blooded and they will want to leave a few scars and dents tomorrow.
Villa won't want to risk Bent getting a dent ;D
You can't have something confirmed if it hasn't happened.
I can confirm I'm about to eat Spaghetti Bolognese.
-
been out all day , what is the latest . This Liverpool fan told me earlier , they are paying 15 million and Carroll for DB ....
I've had it confirmed again that Darren Bent is a Liverpool player.
We will soon know, if he plays tomorrow he's Villa's, think about it, just the kind of game to get his eye back in, if he doesn't figure that's because the club have taken the decision not to risk him against what could potentially be a team of cloggers, with all due respect to Bristol Rovers, but lower league team players are much more full blooded and they will want to leave a few scars and dents tomorrow.
Villa won't want to risk Bent getting a dent ;D
You can't have something confirmed if it hasn't happened.
You know what I mean, what I should have said is I have had yet someone else confirm the comment made to me the other day that Bent is indeed on his way.
Jez.....How many lawyers are on this board. ;)
-
been out all day , what is the latest . This Liverpool fan told me earlier , they are paying 15 million and Carroll for DB ....
I've had it confirmed again that Darren Bent is a Liverpool player.
We will soon know, if he plays tomorrow he's Villa's, think about it, just the kind of game to get his eye back in, if he doesn't figure that's because the club have taken the decision not to risk him against what could potentially be a team of cloggers, with all due respect to Bristol Rovers, but lower league team players are much more full blooded and they will want to leave a few scars and dents tomorrow.
Villa won't want to risk Bent getting a dent ;D
You can't have something confirmed if it hasn't happened.
I can confirm I'm about to eat Spaghetti Bolognese.
That's because you are about to eat spaghetti bolognese - the key words being 'about to'. You cannot yet confirm you are eating, or have eaten, spaghetti bolognese.
-
Exactly PWS. When he was dropped..er, sorry injured the other day he came shopping in Cambridge.
He came in ours and asked what we had going cheap. I offered him a very nice hardly used Chair in Applied Calculus for three grand or a PhD is Nuclear Physics for fifteen hundred or leaf sweeping for Jesus broom and overalls provided fifty notes a day cash in hand. He was not interested so I carried on serving Stephen Hawking.
-
been out all day , what is the latest . This Liverpool fan told me earlier , they are paying 15 million and Carroll for DB ....
I've had it confirmed again that Darren Bent is a Liverpool player.
We will soon know, if he plays tomorrow he's Villa's, think about it, just the kind of game to get his eye back in, if he doesn't figure that's because the club have taken the decision not to risk him against what could potentially be a team of cloggers, with all due respect to Bristol Rovers, but lower league team players are much more full blooded and they will want to leave a few scars and dents tomorrow.
Villa won't want to risk Bent getting a dent ;D
You can't have something confirmed if it hasn't happened.
I can confirm I'm about to eat Spaghetti Bolognese.
Don't forget the cheese ;)
-
been out all day , what is the latest . This Liverpool fan told me earlier , they are paying 15 million and Carroll for DB ....
I've had it confirmed again that Darren Bent is a Liverpool player.
We will soon know, if he plays tomorrow he's Villa's, think about it, just the kind of game to get his eye back in, if he doesn't figure that's because the club have taken the decision not to risk him against what could potentially be a team of cloggers, with all due respect to Bristol Rovers, but lower league team players are much more full blooded and they will want to leave a few scars and dents tomorrow.
Villa won't want to risk Bent getting a dent ;D
You can't have something confirmed if it hasn't happened.
I can confirm I'm about to eat Spaghetti Bolognese.
That's because you are about to eat spaghetti bolognese - the key words being 'about to'. You cannot yet confirm you are eating, or have eaten, spaghetti bolognese.
We'll call it a draw then ;)
-
Garlic bread?
-
been out all day , what is the latest . This Liverpool fan told me earlier , they are paying 15 million and Carroll for DB ....
I've had it confirmed again that Darren Bent is a Liverpool player.
We will soon know, if he plays tomorrow he's Villa's, think about it, just the kind of game to get his eye back in, if he doesn't figure that's because the club have taken the decision not to risk him against what could potentially be a team of cloggers, with all due respect to Bristol Rovers, but lower league team players are much more full blooded and they will want to leave a few scars and dents tomorrow.
Villa won't want to risk Bent getting a dent ;D
You can't have something confirmed if it hasn't happened.
I can confirm I'm about to eat Spaghetti Bolognese.
Don't forget the cheese ;)
No, it's rank. Leave it to the missus.
-
I can confirm Legion is going to have an accident.
-
Garlic bread?
Garlic, and bread?
Well someone had to say it.
-
been out all day , what is the latest . This Liverpool fan told me earlier , they are paying 15 million and Carroll for DB ....
I've had it confirmed again that Darren Bent is a Liverpool player.
We will soon know, if he plays tomorrow he's Villa's, think about it, just the kind of game to get his eye back in, if he doesn't figure that's because the club have taken the decision not to risk him against what could potentially be a team of cloggers, with all due respect to Bristol Rovers, but lower league team players are much more full blooded and they will want to leave a few scars and dents tomorrow.
Villa won't want to risk Bent getting a dent ;D
You can't have something confirmed if it hasn't happened.
I can confirm I'm about to eat Spaghetti Bolognese.
That's because you are about to eat spaghetti bolognese - the key words being 'about to'. You cannot yet confirm you are eating, or have eaten, spaghetti bolognese.
He thinks he's about to eat spaghetti bolognese. If it wasn't made with milk then it's not spaghetti bolognese.
-
Garlic bread?
But of course. Only the best for us.
-
Garlic bread?
But of course. Only the best for us.
Garlic bread ffs, get some decent soda down your neck
-
Ditch bread completely. That's my advice.
-
Ditch bread completely. That's my advice.
Somebody has to ask, Why?
-
Ciabatta bread with spaghetti bolognaise surely??
-
If he does go (and frankly I'm ambivalent) a) will AM get the money to spend and b) would you trust him with it? [shudder]
-
Ditch bread completely. That's my advice.
Somebody has to ask, Why?
Because it bloats you, knackers you out, and makes you fat.
-
Ditch bread completely. That's my advice.
Somebody has to ask, Why?
Because it bloats you, knackers you out, and makes you fat.
Beer does the same but that's no reason to give it up. ;)
-
Ditch bread completely. That's my advice.
Somebody has to ask, Why?
Because it bloats you, knackers you out, and makes you fat.
Beer does the same but that's no reason to give it up. ;)
Ditch that too. Yeast.
-
Wine however...
-
Ditch bread completely. That's my advice.
Somebody has to ask, Why?
Because it bloats you, knackers you out, and makes you fat.
What do you recommend as a substitute?
Bread or Bent?
Daddy or chips?
-
been out all day , what is the latest . This Liverpool fan told me earlier , they are paying 15 million and Carroll for DB ....
I've had it confirmed again that Darren Bent is a Liverpool player.
We will soon know, if he plays tomorrow he's Villa's, think about it, just the kind of game to get his eye back in, if he doesn't figure that's because the club have taken the decision not to risk him against what could potentially be a team of cloggers, with all due respect to Bristol Rovers, but lower league team players are much more full blooded and they will want to leave a few scars and dents tomorrow.
Villa won't want to risk Bent getting a dent ;D
Not that you are confirming Carroll as part of your ITK, but they played him tonight. So he is now cup tied. If this Bent thing is true, we should be returning the favour shouldn't we. So by that logic expect Bent to start.
-
Ditch bread completely. That's my advice.
Somebody has to ask, Why?
Because it bloats you, knackers you out, and makes you fat.
What do you recommend as a substitute?
Bread or Bent?
Daddy or chips?
Forego the Irish soda and the Welsh lava bread. Go continental... go for an Italian salad... or some nice Spanish potatoes. Supplement with some North African fragrant rice. Certainly avoid the English dough that refuses to rise and remain a lump.
-
Ditch bread completely. That's my advice.
Somebody has to ask, Why?
Because it bloats you, knackers you out, and makes you fat.
What do you recommend as a substitute?
Bread or Bent?
Daddy or chips?
Forego the Irish soda and the Welsh lava bread. Go continental... go for an Italian salad... or some nice Spanish potatoes. Supplement with some North African fragrant rice. Certainly avoid the English dough that refuses to rise and remain a heavy tasteless lump.
-
You know you can edit your original post Jimmy. Saves you quoting the whole thing to add two words.
-
Bread or Bent?
Daddy or chips?
Can I vote for Bent and Chips, please.
-
You know you can edit your original post Jimmy. Saves you quoting the whole thing to add two words.
Oh yeah. Thanks for that. ::)
-
interesting
http://www.liverpoolfc.tv/news/media-watch/liverpool-deal-for-bent-is-done
-
interesting
http://www.liverpoolfc.tv/news/media-watch/liverpool-deal-for-bent-is-done
Some unknown journo says it is, so it must be. I see that he only put it on twatter and it's not in the paper he works for.
Also Liverpool are only doing what all other clubs do and reporting what the press are saying about them. Take a look at our OS.
At least if said journo was to pop up on The Sausage Sandwich Game we know he'd go for red sauce!!
-
What a tremendous sly piece of tapping up that is - ofcourse not written by anyone connected with 'The Mighty Reds YNWA' but they're happy for it to appear on their OS nonetheless.
I'm sure they also re-print any editorials that are critics of their handling of the Suarez fiasco - thought not.
It still amazes me that DOL seems the only person that's ever been found guilty of this sort of thing.
-
Given the behaviour of Saurez, the squad wearing those t-shirts and last nights incident, if you were Darren Bent would you look forward to playing for such a nice club?
-
Given the behaviour of Saurez, the squad wearing those t-shirts and last nights incident, if you were Darren Bent would you look forward to playing for such a nice club?
If you were a professional footballer would you have any moral fibre whatsoever or would you just play for the highest bidder?
History would suggest the latter.
-
It still amazes me that DOL seems the only person that's ever been found guilty of this sort of thing.
It really shouldn't. He's the only person to stupid enough to admit to doing it.
-
It still amazes me that DOL seems the only person that's ever been found guilty of this sort of thing.
It really shouldn't. He's the only person to stupid enough to admit to doing it.
Point taken, it's often easy to forget what a tool DOL was. Thanks for reminding me.
-
Wine however...
OK. It's shit now everything is shit. i don't like the weather, don't like football...I just hate everything.
Is that enough?
-
I can confirm Legion is going to have an accident.
Did he survive?
-
I think Carroll would be a better fit for us than Bent is, if we got him and a nice cash sum, did someone say £15 mill??, of which we could spend say £10 mill then maybe.
-
Darren Bent doesn't strike me as the most loyal of players. I'd also say with how we are as a club, who's in charge, and our style of play, we'll be better off having a striker who works harder, and probably one with more physical presence. We're not supplying Bent enough, and thus he's not proving useful enough to justify what we paid. Sell for a profit and use that to go towards adding 2-3 decent players to make our squad just about the bare minimum of what's needed to compete in the top half of the table. If we still had Houllier in charge (can't believe I'm saying this) then we'd be getting the best out of Benty. Right now he's mostly been a liability IMO.
Anyway, there's probably better shops in Liverpool.
I'd rather play Gabby up top on his own. I'd also make it part of the deal, that they have to take Heskey with Bent.
-
It still amazes me that DOL seems the only person that's ever been found guilty of this sort of thing.
It really shouldn't. He's the only person to stupid enough to admit to doing it.
Sad but true.
-
Darren Bent doesn't strike me as the most loyal of players. I'd also say with how we are as a club, who's in charge, and our style of play, we'll be better off having a striker who works harder, and probably one with more physical presence. We're not supplying Bent enough, and thus he's not proving useful enough to justify what we paid. Sell for a profit and use that to go towards adding 2-3 decent players to make our squad just about the bare minimum of what's needed to compete in the top half of the table. If we still had Houllier in charge (can't believe I'm saying this) then we'd be getting the best out of Benty. Right now he's mostly been a liability IMO.
Anyway, there's probably better shops in Liverpool.
I'd rather play Gabby up top on his own. I'd also make it part of the deal, that they have to take Heskey with Bent.
Pretty much how I see it.
-
Bent is a limited player in terms of what he is capable of, and I'd prefer a more technically gifted and skillful player over Bent any day of the week, but we bought him last winter to contribute goals to steer us clear from relegation and that is exactly what is needed for the second half of this season.
There are much better players out there than Bent so if we sell him in the summer then I really wont be bothered as long as his fee is substantial enough to replace him with someone better plus funds for additional players, however the timing is completely wrong to sell him now.
-
Bent would be brilliant at say arsenal , he would score 25 prem goals a season , at the moment with Villa , he is looking like Luke Moore.
-
Bent would be brilliant at say arsenal , he would score 25 prem goals a season , at the moment with Villa , he is looking like Luke Moore.
I appalled myself by thinking "Darren Bent is wasted with us" when I read that JP
Then I saw the terrible truth of it...
-
Bent would be brilliant at say arsenal , he would score 25 prem goals a season , at the moment with Villa , he is looking like Luke Moore.
I appalled myself by thinking "Darren Bent is wasted with us" when I read that JP
Then I saw the terrible truth of it...
Ha ha! Same here. Frankly, the stat about Bent having fewest touches in the Prem still disturbs the shit out of me.
-
Darren Bent would never get in the Arsenal side. Can you imagine their one touch football working with his cumbersome first touch? Not me.
-
Bent had issues of racism at Sunderland. I dont think he'd want to go to the Scouse reich.
-
Bent had issues of racism at Sunderland. I dont think he'd want to go to the Scouse reich.
You have to think it would make him think twice wouldn't you?
I think the stick he gets for his work rate and first touch is incredible too, considering how brilliant he was for us last season when we played to his strengths.
-
Bent had issues of racism at Sunderland. I dont think he'd want to go to the Scouse reich.
The 100,000 a week would make it more palatable.
-
Darren Bent would never get in the Arsenal side. Can you imagine their one touch football working with his cumbersome first touch? Not me.
I don't think they'd care about that if he scored 20+ goals a season. Which he would if he was given the service.
-
Darren Bent would never get in the Arsenal side. Can you imagine their one touch football working with his cumbersome first touch? Not me.
I don't think they'd care about that if he scored 20+ goals a season. Which he would if he was given the service.
Is exactly right given the right service Bent would score for fun, I said when we signed him people would soon get on his back.! It's not Bents fault is the manager and the chairman. Manager for being shit and Randy for not buying decenct players to replace young & Downing
-
I think his fewest touches in the Prem statistic is a misleading one. Darren Bent does not actually work to touch the ball. His innate skill is in the runs he makes and the positions he takes up to finish with a goal. In a team with the right set up it is devastating in a team without the set up his talents are wasted. With a player like Bent it is a very fine line between a shed load of goals and none. Jimmy Greaves was exactly the same. That is why Alf Ramsey had problems with him.
-
It's not misleading, he doesn't get involved, he doesn't contribute, he just creates more pressure for his own team. We play worse with him in the team.
I'll give him one thing, he is certainly unique, I've never known a player like him.
-
I think his fewest touches in the Prem statistic is a misleading one. Darren Bent does not actually work to touch the ball. His innate skill is in the runs he makes and the positions he takes up to finish with a goal. In a team with the right set up it is devastating in a team without the set up his talents are wasted. With a player like Bent it is a very fine line between a shed load of goals and none. Jimmy Greaves was exactly the same. That is why Alf Ramsey had problems with him.
A classic example of this was his debut against Man City last season. He probably had no more than 3 or 4 touches in the entire game. But one of those he scored with and we won.
Everyone that says he doesn't contribute to the wider team is absolutely right but they're missing the point. The hardest thing to do in football is score goals and he's one of the best, if not the best, in the country at putting them away with minimal involvement. That's why Spurs paid £17m for him. That's why we paid £20m for him. That's why he plays for England.
If we can play to his strengths we'll have one hell of a player on our hands. If we can't then given his track record I think he'll be off as soon as anyone comes in for him with a decent offer.
-
It's not misleading, he doesn't get involved, he doesn't contribute, he just creates more pressure for his own team. We play worse with him in the team.
We do at the moment because we're playing a style that virtually eliminates him from the game. Hence the fewest touches stat. But that's not his fault. Everyone knows how one-dimensional he is but he's damn good at that one dimension.
You don't buy a Ferrari then use it to pull a caravan.
-
A great finisher but he doesn't contribute enough otherwise and without regular quality service his talent is wasted- if we got an offer giving us back our money and spent it on 3 quality players I'd see it as good business- bent kept us up but we are playing a much different style to the way houllier liked to play and Darren is not suited to this game.
The big question being would randy give Alex all of the money to spend and would Alex spend it well or waste it?
-
Selling Bent and getting in three quality players means three quality player salaries, not one.
That's why the selling Bent thing might happen, but the three in one won't.
-
If he gets a run in the team and Ireland and N'Zogbia continue with their improved form he'll soon be banging them in regularly again. We're too quick to write off players.
-
Certainly not writing him off- he is a quality finisher but he needs service and this season the service to him has been poor- gabby contributes more as a striker and links play better and we looked very good with him leading the line and Ireland , just behind him- if we keep bent we must play to his strengths or he is wasted.
-
I went to the game last night and people were giving Bent loads. The fact remains that we have a proven goal scorer who has scored for every club and at international level. We simply don't play to his strengths. Just like all season, nearly every ball played to him last night was hoofed in the air, a complete waste of time. I just can't understand how AM can't see this. We should build our play around Bent and he will score goals. For me it's just another reason why AM will never make it at the Villa. He has a far superior quality of player at Villa but just wants to recreate the style of play and general negative foootball that he was known for at the Blues. I haven't seen anything to suggest that AM has the ability to change the way he sets up a team to suit the players we have. In Bent's case this is a criminal waste of goal scoring talent .
-
It looks likely he is staying, which I am very glad about. Lets use him properly and get him scoring again. Once he starts he'll be on fire again.
My main concern is the stupid mistakes we keep making. Again yesterday another one. We can not afford these mistakes as against Swansea proved.
-
I just do not get the use of the word contribute. A game is won or lost on the number of goals scored and the number of goals conceded. Bent's contribution is the final conversion of play into a goal. It is a priceless asset for a team to have. The fact that he does not hurl himself about and celebrate when he wins a corner kick like Marlon Harewood is irrelevant. If you own a world class five furlong sprinter you put it in the Kings Stand Stakes at Royal Ascot not the Grand National at Aintree.
-
It's not misleading, he doesn't get involved, he doesn't contribute
He contributed last season, or has that been forgotten already?
-
Darren Bents main contribution is indeed goals.
Has he contributed enough this season? Not really.
I just don't think our team is set up to get as much out of Bent as we can. Largely down to Randy's failure to re-invest funds from our sales last summer into the squad, and McLeish's rubbish brand of football.
But yes, if he stays, then signs do seem to be pointing to some kind of upturn in fortune. Alby and Zog are finding form and Ireland is finally playing. Most importantly, if we can avoid having Heskey as our midfield playmaker, we'll certainly create more for Benty.
If we are going to sell him, it has to be this month, or in the summer to make a decent return. I still hope we get a better manager in the summer, sign a few players and Bent bangs in 20+ next season.
-
If he gets a run in the team and Ireland and N'Zogbia continue with their improved form he'll soon be banging them in regularly again. We're too quick to write off players.
This
-
It's not misleading, he doesn't get involved, he doesn't contribute
He contributed last season, or has that been forgotten already?
Isn't last season irrelivent? 1 goal in our last 10 I think isn't enough, granted he missed 3 games.
I Do hope he gets his mojo back and the team can all adapt.
-
It's not misleading, he doesn't get involved, he doesn't contribute
He contributed last season, or has that been forgotten already?
Isn't last season irrelivent?
Not really, without his goals we might have gone down.
-
It's not misleading, he doesn't get involved, he doesn't contribute, he just creates more pressure for his own team. We play worse with him in the team.
I'll give him one thing, he is certainly unique, I've never known a player like him.
So being top scorer is no contribution?
-
With his
It's not misleading, he doesn't get involved, he doesn't contribute
He contributed last season, or has that been forgotten already?
Isn't last season irrelivent? 1 goal in our last 10 I think isn't enough, granted he missed 3 games.
I Do hope he gets his mojo back and the team can all adapt.
How can it be irrelivent? He is capable of scoring and playing well as proven in his career. He helped to keep us up last season and in doing that does he not deserve a little faith from us now?
It is not all his fault as the whole team is suffering from loss of form and confidence.
-
Bent would be brilliant at say arsenal , he would score 25 prem goals a season , at the moment with Villa , he is looking like Luke Moore.
...or Swansea.
-
It's not misleading, he doesn't get involved, he doesn't contribute
He contributed last season, or has that been forgotten already?
Isn't last season irrelivent?
Not really, without his goals we might have gone down.
The thing is most of his goals were set up by young or downing- both have left and whereas houllier played to his strengths Mcleish doesn't.
-
He definatley needs more service, that goes without saying and that's Eck's job to sort that out, which so far he's failed to do. I would'nt be selling him though.
-
He definatley needs more service, that goes without saying and that's Eck's job to sort that out, which so far he's failed to do. I would'nt be selling him though.
Theres my gripe, he needs better service, he needs to get involved more.
And last season is irrelivent. What I mean by that is the past is the past, Torres and Carroll were good first half of last season, Bent was good for most of it.
But he doesn't look the same player as last season, he isn't making these runs off the shoulder of defenders, he stands by them basically cancelling himself out as an option.
The manager needs to get his confidence back and some how get the team to play as a team, because at the moment Bent looks an outsider.
-
He definatley needs more service, that goes without saying and that's Eck's job to sort that out, which so far he's failed to do. I would'nt be selling him though.
Theres my gripe, he needs better service, he needs to get involved more.
And last season is irrelivent. What I mean by that is the past is the past, Torres and Carroll were good first half of last season, Bent was good for most of it.
But he doesn't look the same player as last season, he isn't making these runs off the shoulder of defenders, he stands by them basically cancelling himself out as an option.
The manager needs to get his confidence back and some how get the team to play as a team, because at the moment Bent looks an outsider.
Sorry Shrek, but being involved more will adversely effect his goal ratio. His runs are behind defenders, into space in the box that relies on someone seeing it and having the ability to hit it. The way we were set up last season, Young could have put Bent clean through 4-5 times a game and often over hit the ball, yet he still got 9 in 14. This season he has 6 in 15 or so, so not woeful but not bad, in a side that is just not creative at all.
The working gripe annoys me too, he linked play a number of times last night, found team mates etc. and because it is Bent it is ignored, people believe the preconception that he is poor at it. He even wins the flicks from the hoofs a fair amount, but there is no one around him for the flick.
-
He scores for fun at Charlton, are we now creating less opportunities than Charlton did when Bent was there?
-
It's not misleading, he doesn't get involved, he doesn't contribute
He contributed last season, or has that been forgotten already?
Isn't last season irrelivent?
Not really, without his goals we might have gone down.
That's bollocks Clampy. Without his game we WOULD have gone down.
Seriously, why anyone would ever want to sell him is utterly beyond me.
-
He definatley needs more service, that goes without saying and that's Eck's job to sort that out, which so far he's failed to do. I would'nt be selling him though.
Theres my gripe, he needs better service, he needs to get involved more.
And last season is irrelivent. What I mean by that is the past is the past, Torres and Carroll were good first half of last season, Bent was good for most of it.
But he doesn't look the same player as last season, he isn't making these runs off the shoulder of defenders, he stands by them basically cancelling himself out as an option.
The manager needs to get his confidence back and some how get the team to play as a team, because at the moment Bent looks an outsider.
Sorry Shrek, but being involved more will adversely effect his goal ratio. His runs are behind defenders, into space in the box that relies on someone seeing it and having the ability to hit it. The way we were set up last season, Young could have put Bent clean through 4-5 times a game and often over hit the ball, yet he still got 9 in 14. This season he has 6 in 15 or so, so not woeful but not bad, in a side that is just not creative at all.
The working gripe annoys me too, he linked play a number of times last night, found team mates etc. and because it is Bent it is ignored, people believe the preconception that he is poor at it. He even wins the flicks from the hoofs a fair amount, but there is no one around him for the flick.
Can't argue with that really. I do remember Ash over hitting so many passes.
Is Bent still making those runs now though?
-
Bent cannot be in two places at once. His currency in football is runs off the last defender's shoulder. That's pretty much what he has done all his career. This is great as it creates opportunities for chances.
On the flip side it encourages players to make longer, more ambitious passes resulting in us losing possession.
He is great in a counter attacking team that do not worry too much about retaining possession whereas he is not suited to a game plan like Arsenal who try and pass teams to death.
-
Unlike us, who bore teams to death.
-
He scores for fun at Charlton, are we now creating less opportunities than Charlton did when Bent was there?
Almost certainly.
-
Shrek - so, we sell Darren Bent.
1. Who is going to score our goals?
2. Are they going to score enough of them to stay clear of the relegation zone?
-
Just imagine if we'd bought Darren Bent instead of Emile Fucking Heskey. The last two years could have been so, so different.
-
Shrek - so, we sell Darren Bent.
1. Who is going to score our goals?
2. Are they going to score enough of them to stay clear of the relegation zone?
I don't know, but tell me this.
1. Who is scoring our goals now? (Bent 1 in 7 out of last 10 villa games, correct me if I'm wrong on that)
2. Are they going to score enough either.
Ozzjim made a good point, how many overhit through balls did Ash
Play last season? Is Bent still making those runs of are we just not seeing the passes?
-
Or Marlon Fucking Harewood.
-
Shrek - so, we sell Darren Bent.
1. Who is going to score our goals?
2. Are they going to score enough of them to stay clear of the relegation zone?
I don't know, but tell me this.
1. Who is scoring our goals now? (Bent 1 in 7 out of last 10 villa games, rrect me if I'm wrong on that)
2. Are they going to score enough either.
Ozzjim made a good point, how many overhit through balls did Ash
Play last season? Is Bent still making those runs of are we just not seeing the passes?
Every striker goes through sticky patches.
What is your "are they going to score enough either" question?
You're the one who wants to sell him, but you've no idea whatsoever as to where the goals will come from.
In a season where we've played in such a way that Bent sees next to nothing of the ball, he's still scored seven goals. Bent will emerge from this iffy spell (although, he scored at Chelsea, so it's not exactly the most hellish of poor patches) and is a recognised goal scorer with a proven record of doing just that.
-
So Darren Bent who has been one of the most prolific goal scorers in his generation comes to Villa has a barren patch and you want to sell him? Every striker in all of history will have a barren patch. He has enough credit in the bank to have some faith in him. He scored in our last away match in the league did he not?
-
It is mental, we should not be thinking of selling Bent full stop.
-
Is this still going? It seems he's going nowehere so deal with it.
-
It is mental, we should not be thinking of selling Bent full stop.
Absolutely. When was the last time we had a nailed-on 20+ a season goalscorer? We should be set up to deliver to his strengths. I might be naive but were we to do so (1) he'd score 1-game-in-2; (2) we'd win matches.
Still it makes the coaching genius of AM not to recognise this, coupled with RL's determination to sell all the players likely to deliver the service.
-
Everyone is moaning about Bents record but in the league gabbys is actually worse for goal scoring considering he played in 2 more matches. Although I will grant that he has created some of the goals. In fact I would argue that when Bent is on form, so is Gabby as Bent will drag defenders around that allows the space for him to run at.
-
It's like we have some sort of collective, psychological complex and are determined to talk him away to somebody else.
-
Where will the goals come from? ... Here.
Albrighton. Ireland Clark Petrov. N'Zog
Agbonlahor
-
Our team has declined in quality in the last couple of years. In the same period of time we have sold our best players. Why is it then a good idea to, yet again, sell our best player?
Some of the reasoning for selling Bent seems to be: "There is no point in having a good player when the rest of the team is shite!"
-
Linked with some Aussie striker who has managed 6 goals this season in the Dutch league, brilliant. We should be very happy we have Bent.
-
I was at the game yesterday, don't know if anybody else bothered, first time I've seen this team under AM, my perception is there is something very wrong with the balance of the side, often the lads don't seem to communicate or gel, don't seem to have any game plan other than the formation they are playing, Dunne's mistake and response allowing the Bristol Rovers goal for me was indicative but despite all of that one thing is overwhelmingly, outstandingly clear, Darren Bent either doesn't give a crap or lacking confidence to the point its psychological or he's doing his best to orchestrate a move out the club.
That or AM simply doesn't know how to form a team around a player like Bent to get the best out of him.
Awful performance.
If we aren't going to relief this blokes pain and sell him then we need to give him a long rest and drop him until he gets his energy back
-
Shrek - so, we sell Darren Bent.
1. Who is going to score our goals?
2. Are they going to score enough of them to stay clear of the relegation zone?
I don't know, but tell me this.
1. Who is scoring our goals now? (Bent 1 in 7 out of last 10 villa games, rrect me if I'm wrong on that)
2. Are they going to score enough either.
Ozzjim made a good point, how many overhit through balls did Ash
Play last season? Is Bent still making those runs of are we just not seeing the passes?
Every striker goes through sticky patches.
What is your "are they going to score enough either" question?
You're the one who wants to sell him, but you've no idea whatsoever as to where the goals will come from.
In a season where we've played in such a way that Bent sees next to nothing of the ball, he's still scored seven goals. Bent will emerge from this iffy spell (although, he scored at Chelsea, so it's not exactly the most hellish of poor patches) and is a recognised goal scorer with a proven record of doing just that.
My worry is that Bent doesn't look interested and yes if we suddenly start playing creative football and giving him lots of chances we will be fine.
But at the moment we look weak, poor and lacklustre when Bent is in the team.
Your theory is based on the assumption Bent will score lots of goals the rest of the season.
My opinion is based on the last 6 games.
I don't think we can get the best out of Bent unless N'Zogbia, Ireland and Albrighton play, which means Gabby on the bench.
So what do we do?
-
What we do is we start playing in such a way to get Bent the ball again, and we'll score more goals.
Our goalscoring record is utter shite.
My opinion of Bent's goalscoring ability is based on the last five years.
-
What we do is we start playing in such a way to get Bent the ball again, and we'll score more goals.
Our goalscoring record is utter shite.
My opinion of Bent's goalscoring ability is based on the last five years.
Other than selling him its the only option, had you have been pitch side yesterday watching him wonder aimlessly around I doubt you'd even be giving him a 2nd chance.
We have to get him hungry again and we have to make sure he gets the service, otherwise we have to simply say we can't use him and get someone we can, many players have been transfer'd into clubs with great records and flopped, problem is for Villa Bent's position is all important.
-
Gabby put him through yesterday but his touch was poor and the defender cleared. It's far too simplistic to say it's all down to others, his form is below what it should be.
-
Gabby put him through yesterday but his touch was poor and the defender cleared. It's far too simplistic to say it's all down to others, his form is below what it should be.
Half time yesterday was saying to a mate I reckon we are going to lose this, I can see a penalty or own goal giving Bristol Rovers the advantage, we both commented as to where the next Villa goal was coming from and both commented that Bent looked absolutely and completely knackered, only when Gabby came on in the 2nd did we look to have something about us again.
-
I don't think he looks knackered, but he does look to be lacking belief and his touch is really poor at the moment. Still got 6 league goals though. You'd have to think his form will improve at some point so I reckon he should be on for around 15.
I really think the 4-2-3-1 doesn't seem to suit him much. wouldn't be surprised to see gabby partner him against everton, with ireland playing left or right (depending on whether CNZ or Albrighton plays).
-
I don't think he looks knackered, but he does look to be lacking belief and his touch is really poor at the moment. Still got 6 league goals though. You'd have to think his form will improve at some point so I reckon he should be on for around 15.
I really think the 4-2-3-1 doesn't seem to suit him much. wouldn't be surprised to see gabby partner him against everton, with ireland playing left or right (depending on whether CNZ or Albrighton plays).
Ireland is useless on the wing, 442 could work, but then Ireland doesn't play.
We need to pick the best team available based on form, in which case Chelsea team with Bent coming on.
-
Gabby put him through yesterday but his touch was poor and the defender cleared. It's far too simplistic to say it's all down to others, his form is below what it should be.
Half time yesterday was saying to a mate I reckon we are going to lose this, I can see a penalty or own goal giving Bristol Rovers the advantage, we both commented as to where the next Villa goal was coming from and both commented that Bent looked absolutely and completely knackered, only when Gabby came on in the 2nd did we look to have something about us again.
Really?
I don't think we looked even remotely like losing that match at any point yesterday, let alone half time.
-
Its strange to think that a player like Bent might lose a bit of belief and confidence but I think he has, however I am still confident he will get 12-15 league goals and if he achieves that we will finish comfortably mid table, I think I read somewhere that he has never gone more than 5 league games without a goal in his career and he has kept that record up this season which is pretty good considering how poor we have been.
-
Gabby put him through yesterday but his touch was poor and the defender cleared. It's far too simplistic to say it's all down to others, his form is below what it should be.
Half time yesterday was saying to a mate I reckon we are going to lose this, I can see a penalty or own goal giving Bristol Rovers the advantage, we both commented as to where the next Villa goal was coming from and both commented that Bent looked absolutely and completely knackered, only when Gabby came on in the 2nd did we look to have something about us again.
Really?
I don't think we looked even remotely like losing that match at any point yesterday, let alone half time.
No quite other than a couple of fuck ups at the end we were very comfortable.
-
how many games did Rooney go without scoring once . Was Fergie going to sell him .
-
how many games did Rooney go without scoring once . Was Fergie going to sell him .
A hell of a lot more than 5 which is the most that Bent has gone for us or any former clubs.
-
9 or 10 wasn't it? In a Man U side.
-
how many games did Rooney go without scoring once . Was Fergie going to sell him .
Yeah because Rooney does nothing else but score does he.
-
Before it gets silly lets not even compare Rooney and Bent please, there is no comparison.
-
Before it gets silly lets not even compare Rooney and Bent please, there is no comparison.
There is if the question at hand is whether strikers are allowed a barren spell.
-
Rooney has played totally crap for united for weeks on end in the past, but they don't start thinking about selling him, they may rest him here or there, but they generally keep faith. The worst of them all last Jan is Dzeko for me. He misses so many chances it is scary. Bent would have hatfuls of goals in the man city side for certain
-
Rooney is heavily involved in most things even when he isn't scoring, he is a top footballer, if Bent isn't scoring the team are basically playing with 10 men.
And i'd swap Bent for Dzecko all day, he creates goals for himself and is better in every department than Bent.
-
There are much better players out there than Bent so if we sell him in the summer then I really wont be bothered as long as his fee is substantial enough to replace him with someone better plus funds for additional players
Can you run that one by me again. There are better players out there than Bent + sell him for a fee so that we can replace him with some one better + funds for additional players
McLeish would have to be Merlin the f****** magician to make that happen!!!
-
Rooney is heavily involved in most things even when he isn't scoring, he is a top footballer, if Bent isn't scoring the team are basically playing with 10 men.
And i'd swap Bent for Dzecko all day, he creates goals for himself and is better in every department than Bent.
Dzeko missed about 300 chances in that match against Sunderland alone.
-
On the flip side it encourages players to make longer, more ambitious passes resulting in us losing possession.
He is great in a counter attacking team that do not worry too much about retaining possession whereas he is not suited to a game plan like Arsenal who try and pass teams to death.
Most of Bent's chances were created by through balls along the ground, predominantly by Young and Downing. They were not ambitious long balls from the back.
What we are seeing now are long hit and hope balls from the back that mostly go nowhere near him. The one decent move he was involved with last night was when the ball was played along the ground to him and he laid it off to Gabby and spun around for a one-two but as Chris Smith mentioned, his first touch let him down.
-
Rooney is heavily involved in most things even when he isn't scoring, he is a top footballer, if Bent isn't scoring the team are basically playing with 10 men.
And i'd swap Bent for Dzecko all day, he creates goals for himself and is better in every department than Bent.
Not when he was shagging someone behind his Mrs back he wasn't. His first goal that was from open play and not a penalty came in Jan of last season. Even then, when he was scoring some, he was pretty shit (relative to his previous form). Remember the total mis control of a ball and pass in the build up to his overhead kick against Cit£h. He was doing that alot.
-
Ireland is useless on the wing, 442 could work, but then Ireland doesn't play.
We need to pick the best team available based on form, in which case Chelsea team with Bent coming on.
I agree it's not his best position but I thought he played well there yday.
However, I tend to agree the Chelsea front 6 may be our best side at the moment, but leaving bent out would be a risk, not least in terms of fan and bent's reaction. But oh form he'd be the one to leave out.
-
Rooney is heavily involved in most things even when he isn't scoring, he is a top footballer, if Bent isn't scoring the team are basically playing with 10 men.
And i'd swap Bent for Dzecko all day, he creates goals for himself and is better in every department than Bent.
No argument from me there. So just how do we go about getting Dzecko? Can't see Man City doing swapsies anytime soon. Meantime, we have a very capable centre forward whose lost a bit of form and confidence. Perhaps he'll recapture that soon and start scoring regularly. We certainly can't just demand players are disposed of because they go through a bad patch. Can we? And if so, just who is going to as good as Bent for us?
-
There are much better players out there than Bent so if we sell him in the summer then I really wont be bothered as long as his fee is substantial enough to replace him with someone better plus funds for additional players
Can you run that one by me again. There are better players out there than Bent + sell him for a fee so that we can replace him with some one better + funds for additional players
McLeish would have to be Merlin the f****** magician to make that happen!!!
No problem OMVF...for the fee that we could get for Bent (lets say £30m for arguments sake), we could get an all round better forward for £15m that contributes to the team as well as score goals, plus a couple of decent £7.5m players in defence or midfield. Is that easy enough to understand?
Just remember....Darren Bent is not the messiah...he's a very naughty boy! :D
-
There is only one club that might be silly enough to give us 30 million for Bent and they, through their manager, have been counted out, and if Lerner is carrying on with his stringency plans we wouldn't get any of it for new players anyway. His record says he is the best finisher in the premiership, someone we've wanted for years and yet there are those who want him gone, the worlds gone mad.
-
Rooney is heavily involved in most things even when he isn't scoring, he is a top footballer, if Bent isn't scoring the team are basically playing with 10 men.
And i'd swap Bent for Dzecko all day, he creates goals for himself and is better in every department than Bent.
Dzeko missed about 300 chances in that match against Sunderland alone.
I've told you a million times... don't exaggerate.
-
There is only one club that might be silly enough to give us 30 million for Bent and they, through their manager, have been counted out, and if Lerner is carrying on with his stringency plans we wouldn't get any of it for new players anyway. His record says he is the best finisher in the premiership, someone we've wanted for years and yet there are those who want him gone, the worlds gone mad.
A mischievous poster may point out here that Damian Comoli does the buying at Anfield.
-
There are much better players out there than Bent so if we sell him in the summer then I really wont be bothered as long as his fee is substantial enough to replace him with someone better plus funds for additional players
Can you run that one by me again. There are better players out there than Bent + sell him for a fee so that we can replace him with some one better + funds for additional players
McLeish would have to be Merlin the f****** magician to make that happen!!!
No problem OMVF...for the fee that we could get for Bent (lets say £30m for arguments sake), we could get an all round better forward for £15m that contributes to the team as well as score goals, plus a couple of decent £7.5m players in defence or midfield. Is that easy enough to understand?
The numbers stack up.
Now, how do that striker's £60,000 wages and the other two players £45,000 wages (each) compare to Bent's circa £70,000 wages and how does that help us reduce the wage bill?
-
There are much better players out there than Bent so if we sell him in the summer then I really wont be bothered as long as his fee is substantial enough to replace him with someone better plus funds for additional players
Can you run that one by me again. There are better players out there than Bent + sell him for a fee so that we can replace him with some one better + funds for additional players
McLeish would have to be Merlin the f****** magician to make that happen!!!
No problem OMVF...for the fee that we could get for Bent (lets say £30m for arguments sake), we could get an all round better forward for £15m that contributes to the team as well as score goals, plus a couple of decent £7.5m players in defence or midfield. Is that easy enough to understand?
The numbers stack up.
Now, how do that striker's £60,000 wages and the other two players £45,000 wages (each) compare to Bent's circa £70,000 wages and how does that help us reduce the wage bill?
The likes of heskey, cuellar, beye and maybe petrov will shortly be off the wage bill so i would expect there to be some leeway if alex finds the players he needs.
-
Thing is once the wage bill is under control, I don't think transfer fees will be too much of an issue, covering the costs of the wages etc will be though.
-
Thing is once the wage bill is under control, I don't think transfer fees will be too much of an issue, covering the costs of the wages etc will be though.
I'm not convinced of that, ozz.
The message has been that the club must be self supporting - living on what we produce. If wages go down to 75% of turnover, or whatever, that still doesn't leave a massive amount for transfers.
There's certainly not anything to suggest we're going to embark on a new round of big spending, anyway.
I get the impression Lerner really respects what Moyes has done at Everton, and the way Everton are run - spending next to nothing and over-achieving, and that is what he wants us to become.
The problem is, there's no guarantee we can recreate that, and Everton are increasingly into hock with the bank just to stand still.
Then there's the question of just how much Everton fans are enjoying it at the moment. The answer to which is "not a lot".
-
QPR's reason for sacking Warnock was so that they could replace him with a manager better able to attract the kind of player that their huge budget is able to afford.
The new man is obviously going to be Hughes and I would expecty a sizeable bid for Bent to follow shortly after his appointment.
What happens next will be very interesting.
-
QPR's reason for sacking Warnock was so that they could replace him with a manager better able to attract the kind of player that their huge budget is able to afford.
The new man is obviously going to be Hughes and I would expecty a sizeable bid for Bent to follow shortly after his appointment.
What happens next will be very interesting.
I can definitely see something like this happening especially as Kenny has said that he is NOT after Bent. That only leaves QPR who are looking at premiership survival and looking to purchase a number of players this window. I was one of those fans that was adamant that Bent would not be leaving this window but I have now changed my mind and feel he will be leaving soon. My only concern with this is whether Eck will be given money to purchase a replacement or reinforcements
-
There are much better players out there than Bent so if we sell him in the summer then I really wont be bothered as long as his fee is substantial enough to replace him with someone better plus funds for additional players
Can you run that one by me again. There are better players out there than Bent + sell him for a fee so that we can replace him with some one better + funds for additional players
McLeish would have to be Merlin the f****** magician to make that happen!!!
No problem OMVF...for the fee that we could get for Bent (lets say £30m for arguments sake), we could get an all round better forward for £15m that contributes to the team as well as score goals, plus a couple of decent £7.5m players in defence or midfield. Is that easy enough to understand?
The numbers stack up.
Now, how do that striker's £60,000 wages and the other two players £45,000 wages (each) compare to Bent's circa £70,000 wages and how does that help us reduce the wage bill?
The numbers don't stack up at all.
If there's a player better than Bent who could be bought for £15m then why would anyone buy Bent for £30m.
It's nonsense.
-
So you're telling me that you couldnt find a better player than Bent for half the cost? Liverpool paid £35m for Carroll, Chelsea paid £50m for Torres, Spurs paid £7.5m Van der Vaart. I know which player is better out of those 3 and there are very good players out there that can be signed for significantly less if you look outside of the Premier League.
-
Who?
-
Unfortunately it isnt my job to scout players across the globe, but if it was then I'm sure I could provide you with a strong list of suitable players.
-
Or most probably not, because it's easy to say something should be done, but not so easy to do it. It's like saying we should sell a player for an astronomical figure far in excess of his worth then buy another for peanuts, or that we should move for some promising youngster every club in the country is watching.
-
So you're telling me that you couldnt find a better player than Bent for half the cost?
Not at all.
I'm saying that if this player better than Bent is available for £15m as you said, why would anyone buy Bent for £30m?
-
Why did Chelsea pay £50m for Torres?
Why did Liverpool pay £35m for Carroll?
Why did we pay £24m for Bent?
I dont know the answers to those questions either, but like I said, if you look outside of the PL then you discover other options that other clubs may not be aware of. Look at Hernandez at Man Utd and Demba Ba signing for West Ham as examples. Why did we sign Bent when we could have bought either of those for less than half the cost?
-
Anyone know why Redknapp is allowed to make it known abot Demba Ba release fee?
-
Bent's relative dry spell this season has been down to a combination of his bad form and our lack of creativity. I think over the last month or so our chance creation has been much better, even though there's been a couple of really shit performances thrown in. Once he gets one I'm sure he'll be back to his old self so I'm very surprised to see people writing him off. Imagine if every club sold their striker because he didn't score for 5 games? Every forward would have played for every club in the league
-
Anyone know why Redknapp is allowed to make it known abot Demba Ba release fee?
Because he's a loveable cockney rouge.
-
Anyone know why Redknapp is allowed to make it known abot Demba Ba release fee?
Because he's a loveable cockney rouge.
Is that a euphemism for gaping asshole?
-
I was thinking ruder, but we can go with that.
-
We seem determined to keep keep trying to invent scenarios in which Bent will leave in January. Unless he's unhappy at Villa or the manager wants rid then I just don't see him leaving for QPR, depite wealthy backers they play in a tiny stadium and their only ambition for this season is to not get relegated. It really would make no sense with the Euros coming up in the summer.
Before anyone cites money he's not exactly short of a few bob as it is. I'm sure that he'll be assessing his options in the summer and looking at what our plans are and what other options might be on the table, but not now.
-
despite wealthy backers they play in a tiny stadium and their only ambition for this season is to not get relegated. It really would make no sense with the Euros coming up in the summer.
Before anyone cites money he's not exactly short of a few bob as it is. I'm sure that he'll be assessing his options in the summer and looking at what our plans are and what other options might be on the table, but not now.
Seems to be our ambition for this season as well.
On the second point, since when did footballers take into account the fact that they already have a lot of money when presented with a better contract offer? I'm not saying he will go, but if they offer him more money he might well want to.
-
There can't be anything in the bent to QPR rumour. They've just loaned macheda and I read one report today that Warnock and Fernandes fell out because Warnock wanted to sign Yakubu and Fernandes didn't. I don't see them spending £20m on anyone.
I think Mark Lawrenson is the only one left who thinks he's going anywhere.
-
despite wealthy backers they play in a tiny stadium and their only ambition for this season is to not get relegated. It really would make no sense with the Euros coming up in the summer.
Before anyone cites money he's not exactly short of a few bob as it is. I'm sure that he'll be assessing his options in the summer and looking at what our plans are and what other options might be on the table, but not now.
Seems to be our ambition for this season as well.
On the second point, since when did footballers take into account the fact that they already have a lot of money when presented with a better contract offer? I'm not saying he will go, but if they offer him more money he might well want to.
Just how much do you think they can offer him? How soon after that will SWP and Barton be demanding similar. People seem to lose all sense of perspective at this time of year.
-
QPR from here is a backwards move. OK, Sunderland fans could argue the same given the two clubs league positions last January, but we have the established PL pedigree both they and QPR lack.
Just can't see it interesting him.
-
despite wealthy backers they play in a tiny stadium and their only ambition for this season is to not get relegated. It really would make no sense with the Euros coming up in the summer.
Before anyone cites money he's not exactly short of a few bob as it is. I'm sure that he'll be assessing his options in the summer and looking at what our plans are and what other options might be on the table, but not now.
Seems to be our ambition for this season as well.
On the second point, since when did footballers take into account the fact that they already have a lot of money when presented with a better contract offer? I'm not saying he will go, but if they offer him more money he might well want to.
Just how much do you think they can offer him? How soon after that will SWP and Barton be demanding similar. People seem to lose all sense of perspective at this time of year.
Well thanks for saying I've lost all perspective there Chris, I thought I was being perfectly reasonable. I don't think that QPR will be his destination and I don't know how much they can offer him. All I'm saying is that, if they were able to offer him a bigger salary than he's on here, he'd consider it. That's all.
-
The point is, Monty, it makes no sense NOW. If he wants away he'll surely have more options in the summer rather than tie himself to a struggling club for the sake of a pay rise.
-
The point is, Monty, it makes no sense NOW. If he wants away he'll surely have more options in the summer rather than tie himself to a struggling club for the sake of a pay rise.
Not saying it's the same situation because we're probably a bigger club than Sunderland, but that's what he did last year.
Like I say, not saying that he will go to QPR, just that, were they in a position to significantly improve his pay he would surely consider it. He hardly looks happy here just at the moment.
-
Anyone know why Redknapp is allowed to make it known abot Demba Ba release fee?
In fairness he never, the reporter mentioned it, Harry just acknowledged he knew about it.
On the issue, Ba is a prime example, bought last January for a fraction of what we paid for Bent scored goals and contributes a hundred times more than Bent.
Also, what makes people think Hughes will be interested in Bent?
-
Anyone know why Redknapp is allowed to make it known abot Demba Ba release fee?
In fairness he never, the reporter mentioned it, Harry just acknowledged he knew about it.
Just once I'd like this to read:-
In fairness he never, the reporter mentioned it, Harry refused to comment as it wasn't his player.
-
The point is, Monty, it makes no sense NOW. If he wants away he'll surely have more options in the summer rather than tie himself to a struggling club for the sake of a pay rise.
Not saying it's the same situation because we're probably a bigger club than Sunderland, but that's what he did last year.
Like I say, not saying that he will go to QPR, just that, were they in a position to significantly improve his pay he would surely consider it. He hardly looks happy here just at the moment.
Please tell me how you have this ability to detect Bent's current level of happiness?
-
Anyone know why Redknapp is allowed to make it known abot Demba Ba release fee?
In fairness he never, the reporter mentioned it, Harry just acknowledged he knew about it.
Just once I'd like this to read:-
In fairness he never, the reporter mentioned it, Harry refused to comment as it wasn't his player.
Dream on.
-
QPR from here is a backwards move.
Its a bit like when Andy Gray went to Wolves.
-
The point is, Monty, it makes no sense NOW. If he wants away he'll surely have more options in the summer rather than tie himself to a struggling club for the sake of a pay rise.
Not saying it's the same situation because we're probably a bigger club than Sunderland, but that's what he did last year.
Like I say, not saying that he will go to QPR, just that, were they in a position to significantly improve his pay he would surely consider it. He hardly looks happy here just at the moment.
Please tell me how you have this ability to detect Bent's current level of happiness?
I just said he doesn't look happy, not that he measures 2.7/10 on my patented Bent-happiness-ometer.
-
He certaintly didnt look happy against Bristol Rovers. Probably as he was frustrated at not scoring? all talk was about him not celebrating with the players. For anyone who was at the game, was this true? Did he not celebrate with the players after they scored?
-
IMO you can't read a lot into the celebrations on the weekend. When PL teams score against lower league opposition they tend to be understated about it and don't run across the pitch to congratulate each other as much as the would in a league game.
-
He certaintly didnt look happy against Bristol Rovers. Probably as he was frustrated at not scoring? all talk was about him not celebrating with the players. For anyone who was at the game, was this true? Did he not celebrate with the players after they scored?
From the tv pics I saw he kind of half-heartedly high-fived Albrighton, and after Clarke scored didn't react at all, just sort of turned and loped back towards the halfway line.
-
People need to stop reading a players body language and making such snap judgements. When Albrighton scored nobody raced over the congratulate him. We were playing Bristol Rovers not AC Milan, and when Marco scored he turned and jogged back. I think it would have been massively small time for any player to go nuts against that opposition. Bent barely shows any emotion when he scores. In fact I can't think of that many games; Man City at home, Chelsea away recently where he's really gone an celebrated a goal. It's not his style. He normally just points a finger and gets mobbed by others. And as for when others score, he's gone over and congratulated Gabby or others when they've scored. He just isn't the type to go jumping on someones back and giving it the big one to the fans.
-
Albrighton almost looked pissed off at scoring so I wouldn't read too much in to that.
-
Anyone know why Redknapp is allowed to make it known abot Demba Ba release fee?
In fairness he never, the reporter mentioned it, Harry just acknowledged he knew about it.
On the issue, Ba is a prime example, bought last January for a fraction of what we paid for Bent scored goals and contributes a hundred times more than Bent.
Also, what makes people think Hughes will be interested in Bent?
Complete exaggeration.
-
I really think the 4-2-3-1 doesn't seem to suit him much. wouldn't be surprised to see gabby partner him against everton, with ireland playing left or right (depending on whether CNZ or Albrighton plays).
Theoretically with three players supplying him, a 4231 is Bent's ideal formation but I do think that the three have to have the freedom to get closer to Bent so he is not isolated.
I think we need to have a bit of patience here. This line up has hardly played together and yet we're expecting it to click straight away. A combination of Ireland, Nzog, gabby and Albrighton feeding Bent has the potential to be a pretty decent attacking unit, but it will take some time for them to get used to each other's moves etc.
-
Bent hardly looks happy. I was there saturday its obvious Bent just needs goals. That is the problem if he doesnt score you have to look hard for his plus points! I was happier to see Clark Albrighton Bannan Gardner and Gabby on the pitch at the same time. I was also disturbed by the nonchalent way Dunne reacted to his own mistake! Im hoping Hughes puts a 10mill bid in for him and ireland!
-
Year after year after year the cry " We need a striker!" We buy one at 24 million. 43 say sell him. God help us.
-
Year after year after year the cry " We need a striker!" We buy one at 24 million. 43 say sell him. God help us.
Don't you think that the demand for a striker is usually a sign of a person's tactical naivety?
We're not winning = We need a better striker! Most people simplify football to just being about scoring goals and so the striker is the hero position.
-
Year after year after year the cry " We need a striker!" We buy one at 24 million. 43 say sell him. God help us.
Don't you think that the demand for a striker is usually a sign of a person's tactical naivety?
We're not winning = We need a better striker! Most people simplify football to just being about scoring goals and so the striker is the hero position.
Spot on. The cliche "putting the ball in the net is the hardest thing in the game" is a typical and silly one. What's more difficult, a tap-in to an open net from one yard or keeping possession when surrounded by five opponents with your closest team-mate 20 yards away?
-
The fatal flaw in that argument is goals win games. Emile Heskey is better than Bent at holding the ball up. Does anyone consider him to be a top striker?
-
The fatal flaw in that argument is goals win games. Emile Heskey is better than Bent at holding the ball up. Does anyone consider him to be a top striker?
He was, but then so was Bent!! ;)
-
When Bent made his debut last year the stats showed that he only touched the ball a few times,but importantly scored. Most of us on here stated that we hadn't had that type of player for years and it was just what was needed,now the goals have dried up people now want him out.
If Nzog and Albrighton,Ireland continue to improve like they have,then the chances will come and hopefully the goals will as well. He's been so isolated in some games and as we all know link up play isnt his strong point,but if Gab and other are closer to him on the pitch i think his form will come back.
-
When Bent made his debut last year the stats showed that he only touched the ball a few times,but importantly scored. Most of us on here stated that we hadn't had that type of player for years and it was just what was needed,now the goals have dried up people now want him out.
If Nzog and Albrighton,Ireland continue to improve like they have,then the chances will come and hopefully the goals will as well. He's been so isolated in some games and as we all know link up play isnt his strong point,but if Gab and other are closer to him on the pitch i think his form will come back.
I agree about Gabbs and said so previously he needs to come in closer to Bent, IMO AM is playing him way to wide leaving Bent isolated also just as important Gabby himself is quite handy at popping in a few goals and he carries that threat, but not out in no man's land.
-
When Bent made his debut last year the stats showed that he only touched the ball a few times,but importantly scored. Most of us on here stated that we hadn't had that type of player for years and it was just what was needed,now the goals have dried up people now want him out.
If Nzog and Albrighton,Ireland continue to improve like they have,then the chances will come and hopefully the goals will as well. He's been so isolated in some games and as we all know link up play isnt his strong point,but if Gab and other are closer to him on the pitch i think his form will come back.
I agree about Gabbs and said so previously he needs to come in closer to Bent, IMO AM is playing him way to wide leaving Bent isolated also just as important Gabby himself is quite handy at popping in a few goals and he carries that threat, but not out in no man's land.
Yeah,i think McCleish sets us up so that our wide men are a bit deeper,fullbacks don't push on like they did last season,overall the teams sits a bit deeper and as a result Bent is isolated. Hopefully Ireland's improvement and maybe Keane's introduction(though i have my reservations) will help Bents game,give him chances as his record shows and more often than not he'll score.
-
The fatal flaw in that argument is goals win games. Emile Heskey is better than Bent at holding the ball up. Does anyone consider him to be a top striker?
Sadly Alex McLeish seems to! But no, my main point is that football is a team game, and I don't care how many goals one player scores compared to how many the team scores. If we have one player not contributing to making chances, demanding essentially that all chances go to him, then I think there's an argument for saying the team may score fewer goals overall with him in than it could with a good all-round forward (not Heskey, but Ba, say). Besides, Bent actually isn't a great finisher. I don't know how many half-chances I've ever seen him score.
-
Bent is a shit finisher, he is such a limited footballer.
BUT he has that natural talent that cannot be taught of being in the right place at the right time.
-
Bent is a shit finisher, he is such a limited footballer.
BUT he has that natural talent that cannot be taught of being in the right place at the right time.
Shit finisher? You have completely and utterly lost your mind
-
Bent is a shit finisher, he is such a limited footballer.
BUT he has that natural talent that cannot be taught of being in the right place at the right time.
Shit finisher? You have completely and utterly lost your mind
I was going to comment myself Toronto, but posts like that are not even worthy of a response. Ignore.
-
I think Bent has been shagging Shrek's missus.
-
Sometimes if you keep saying something enough you end up convincing yourself and you have no idea you are talking out of your own arse.
-
Bent is a shit finisher, he is such a limited footballer.
BUT he has that natural talent that cannot be taught of being in the right place at the right time.
;D ;D I mean come on guys, these kind of post's have to be deemed priceless, this and Zogmans reply ;D brilliant.
-
He's not a shit finisher, but he's not world class at it. What he is world class at is movement and timing of runs. Finishing, however, is a technical skill, and he'll never be world class at anything technical.
-
He's not a shit finisher, but he's not world class at it. What he is world class at is movement and timing of runs. Finishing, however, is a technical skill, and he'll never be world class at anything technical.
Not even for his goal at Arsenal? I thought that showed great technique.
-
He's not a shit finisher, but he's not world class at it. What he is world class at is movement and timing of runs. Finishing, however, is a technical skill, and he'll never be world class at anything technical.
Not even for his goal at Arsenal? I thought that showed great technique.
He doesn't do it on a regular basis though. Technique is consistently doing difficult things, and while he's far from bad he's not brilliant.
-
He's not a shit finisher, but he's not world class at it. What he is world class at is movement and timing of runs. Finishing, however, is a technical skill, and he'll never be world class at anything technical.
He's the best player I have ever seen at beating the offside, he times his runs superbly.
-
Bent is a shit finisher, he is such a limited footballer.
BUT he has that natural talent that cannot be taught of being in the right place at the right time.
Shit finisher? You have completely and utterly lost your mind
I was going to comment myself Toronto, but posts like that are not even worthy of a response. Ignore.
If we'd signed Lineker in his prime, Shrek would have been moaning that he didn't put a shift in like Mark Hateley, and we should sell him.
-
Yeah,i think McCleish sets us up so that our wide men are a bit deeper,fullbacks don't push on like they did last season,overall the teams sits a bit deeper and as a result Bent is isolated. Hopefully Ireland's improvement and maybe Keane's introduction(though i have my reservations) will help Bents game,give him chances as his record shows and more often than not he'll score.
Do other people agree with this synopsis? Are the team say 10 yards deeper than they should be?
I ask because I do not attend games and therefore cannot see this macro picture from the TV. Personally I like the idea of Clark and Petrov sitting pretty deep as this protects the back fours and encourages the defenders to pass out of defence. However this protection should give the front three license to join Bent and also give the full backs a chance to get forward.
Ideally the front three (behind Bent) should have the freedom to interchange and get forward pretty much at will as long as there is communication between them. This would make them effing hard to mark and us a good/great team to watch.
-
He's not a shit finisher, but he's not world class at it. What he is world class at is movement and timing of runs. Finishing, however, is a technical skill, and he'll never be world class at anything technical.
He's the best player I have ever seen at beating the offside, he times his runs superbly.
Agree, his movement is superb. This gets in him great positions, from which he occasionally misses.
World class movement. Good finisher.
-
Darren Bent a shit finisher? If that's the case then I wonder what's the opinion of the other forwards at Villa. Bent is probably the best finisher in the Premier League outside last season's top four.
-
His movement is world class but i do not think his finishing is anything extraordinary. He misses a helluva lot of sitters for a finisher. What was Harry Redknapp's quote? "my wife could have finished that" or something similar.
-
Everyone will miss sitters from time to time, but not everyone will be there to miss them.
Finishing - 8/10
Movement - 10/10
-
When people say Bent has missed some sitters, which ones? He has had good opportunities against Bolton but I wouldnt say any of them were "sitters". Strikers of all levels have missed the same sort of chances as Bent. People are being too over critical of him.
-
He's not a shit finisher, but he's not world class at it. What he is world class at is movement and timing of runs. Finishing, however, is a technical skill, and he'll never be world class at anything technical.
He's the best player I have ever seen at beating the offside, he times his runs superbly.
Agree, his movement is superb. This gets in him great positions, from which he occasionally misses.
World class movement. Good finisher.
I also love the way he waits on the shoulder of the last defender, turns at exactly the right time to stay on side, and gets himself into lots of space.
Imagine how many goals he'd have at a club who play like Arsenal and provide plenty of through balls of that type to get on the end of.
-
I also love the way he waits on the shoulder of the last defender, turns at exactly the right time to stay on side, and gets himself into lots of space.
Imagine how many goals he'd have at a club who play like Arsenal and provide plenty of through balls of that type to get on the end of.
Thats where his strengths mie and we should be playing them. We all know he is not a work horse and he will never become that but what he will offer is great movement and good finishing. How Eck has not got this right yet i will never know
-
My gosh I caused Abit of a stir on here eh.
Bent isnt the best finisher at all, maybe shit is harsh, but my gosh you lot just don't like my opinion on Bent.
He is being built up on here as irreplaceable, I don't know how the rest of the league cope without Bent.
-
Darren bent does miss very good chances, to be fair, especially one on ones. He's very good at first time shots from balls into the box. But when he's playing well he tends to get himself into at least 3 or 4 very good shooting positions a game, so missing half his chances isn't exactly a problem.
There's no question he should be in the team, its up to AM to work out which 3 of Gabby, Ireland, The Zog, Marc and now Keane are going to work best behind him.
-
My gosh I caused Abit of a stir on here eh.
Bent isnt the best finisher at all, maybe shit is harsh, but my gosh you lot just don't like my opinion on Bent.
He is being built up on here as irreplaceable, I don't know how the rest of the league cope without Bent.
Shit isn't a bit harsh, it's completely and utterly wrong.
-
I can't believe that there is a debate going on here around whether Darren Bent is good enough for us !!
And that nearly 23% who voted would sell him
Incredible.
-
Darren Bent is the modern day Andy Cole.
-
Look at how many chances Bent misses, yes he puts most chances that are easier to miss away, but his actual finishing isn't that good, it's just his positioning in the box is second to none which makes up for it.
-
I can't believe that there is a debate going on here around whether Darren Bent is good enough for us !!
And that nearly 23% who voted would sell him
Incredible.
That's not the issue, it's the fact he doesn't for into how our manager plays.
-
Bent is a shit finisher, he is such a limited footballer.
BUT he has that natural talent that cannot be taught of being in the right place at the right time.
Shit finisher? You have completely and utterly lost your mind
I was going to comment myself Toronto, but posts like that are not even worthy of a response. Ignore.
If we'd signed Lineker in his prime, Shrek would have been moaning that he didn't put a shift in like Mark Hateley, and we should sell him.
If we'd have signed Lineker Walkers crisps wouldn't have been the company they are now.... ;)
-
He may not be performing for us now, but hopefully when we are playing better football in the future he would be an integral part of the team (he says with forlorn hope).
-
I think Bent and Gabby have quite similar finishing ability. Bent has much better movement though, which means he generally gets more chances to have a go at. Hence he generally converts more than Gabby.
-
Darren Bent is a true goal scorer of the classic sense, however that doesn't mean to say that he can or will do it for Villa, it happened many times in football Diago Forlan Man Utd, and many others.
Lets face it that scoring thing is a very fine line and if you use play a player that is purely that, a goal scorer, then the side must be set up for him, otherwise you take him out the game and that's what's happening with Darren Bent....IMO.
-
I think Bent and Gabby have quite similar finishing ability. Bent has much better movement though, which means he generally gets more chances to have a go at. Hence he generally converts more than Gabby.
I actually think Gabby Agbonlahor has enormous potential as a goal scorer, the difference between Gabby and Benty is that Gabby is a grafter, hence you often see him working a situation, places a killer pass into the channels, wants the return pass, doesn't get it, and then you see his impression of the crucifix, Benty gets into the box and wants the ball straight at him, doesn't want to be to far out of position for it.
Gabby is a modern type of front man ( although he's stuck everywhere else but up front) and Benty is the old Centre Forward style IMO.
Personally I think if Gabby was playing for a real passing team, playing a high pace of football like Arsenal or Man Utd or Spurs i think you would see Gabby getting 20+ with consummate ease, the fact that Gabby consistently got his goal tally up there under O'Neill virtually on his own, season after season, without a gripe or a sulk tells you the quality the player has, yes he had Ashley Young but nobody could make me believe there is that much difference, for me it comes down to the fact that Gabby worked for his goals, Benty wants the ball to into his area of choice.
-
In many ways I love the fact that Bent has made such a good player out of himself on almost pure intelligence (in the footballing sense) alone. There's certainly more to be admired in that than, say, Cattermole making a career out of thuggery or Delap out of throwing a ball well far. However, without the technique there there will always be a glass ceiling to how good Bent can be, and if we construct a side purely to maximise his one great strength and minimise his few but noticeable weaknesses, we may ensure that he scores goals but could decrease the chances of others scoring, meaning fewer goals for the team overall. I'm not saying we're too good for him, but if we want to get better, we may have to be.
I'm speaking in pure hypotheticals, of course. While we are fighting in the middle-to-wrong-end parts of the table, Bent needs to stay and play.
-
Bent's record speaks for itself. He misses some for sure but he keeps getting the chances because he's a natural 18 yard box predator. Something we were crying out for during the entirety of MON's reign and perhaps not had since Dublin.
-
I never have any confidence when Gabby is put through 1 on 1 with the keeper. Always seems to hit the keeper, like Vassell did.
-
I never have any confidence when Gabby is put through 1 on 1 with the keeper. Always seems to hit the keeper, like Vassell did.
couldnt agree with you more on this.
Also, just imagine if we had Bent during MON's time at the club. I definitely think we could have challenged for the top 4 with him in our side.
-
Monty and Villanation summed Bent up perfectly.
Everyone enjoys the masochistic pleasure of salivating over the transfer windows, yet the cold reality is that we have no money. Cashing in on Bent maybe gives everyone the chance to play a bit of fantasy football.
I'd be surprised if there is anyone on here who thinks Bent is not good enough for this Villa team. However it is fun listing "the next big things" and imagine them playing for Villa. Alas at the moment we need to imagine selling Bent to make this happen.
-
I never have any confidence when Gabby is put through 1 on 1 with the keeper. Always seems to hit the keeper, like Vassell did.
couldnt agree with you more on this.
Also, just imagine if we had Bent during MON's time at the club. I definitely think we could have challenged for the top 4 with him in our side.
We challenged for the top 4 wothout him. The big question is whether it would have become a successful challenge with him?
-
I never have any confidence when Gabby is put through 1 on 1 with the keeper. Always seems to hit the keeper, like Vassell did.
couldnt agree with you more on this.
Also, just imagine if we had Bent during MON's time at the club. I definitely think we could have challenged for the top 4 with him in our side.
We challenged for the top 4 wothout him. The big question is whether it would have become a successful challenge with him?
Yes I believe we would have been. He would have had better players around him at the time, Ashley, Milner, Barry (possibly). Look how well he did with half a season with Ash and Downing. When Sunderland signed him for £12m, we should have been in there for him as well.
-
Bent's only as good as the ball you play him.
-
I think Sunderland signed him the same summer we sold Chubby.
Would have been interesting to see Bent in a side with Ash and Milner though, especially as I reckon Milner could have played the kind of through ball that Bent thrives on.
-
I think Sunderland signed him the same summer we sold Chubby.
Would have been interesting to see Bent in a side with Ash and Milner though, especially as I reckon Milner could have played the kind of through ball that Bent thrives on.
Exactly. I know we were flirting in and around top 4 but I never actually believed we would finish or maintain a good run to see us get in there hence why I stated just above that we would have challeneged for top 4 with him possibly in our side.
-
I never have any confidence when Gabby is put through 1 on 1 with the keeper. Always seems to hit the keeper, like Vassell did.
couldnt agree with you more on this.
Also, just imagine if we had Bent during MON's time at the club. I definitely think we could have challenged for the top 4 with him in our side.
We challenged for the top 4 wothout him. The big question is whether it would have become a successful challenge with him?
Unequivocably, yes. I am 100% certain of it. We dont buy Heskey and stick our necks out and get Bent instead and we're top 4 without doubt. And possibly cup winners too.
-
So Darren Bent is in the same league as Linekar, Cole and Rooney...
You've all lost the plot, Bent is a proven goal scorer, but is wasted at Villa while AM is in charge.
Ideally we should change to suit, but it's not going to happen is it really?
We are stuck with Mcleish and are going nowhere.
-
Not convinced as to how successful we would have been under MON and Bent, that's a difficult call, if you look at the stats (for what they are worth) goals to games ratio Bent is not a million miles different from Carew and his ratio is falling big time, Gabby goes out to something like 3.6 games per goal over his career, but what you have to take on board is, length of Gabby career and the fact for getting onto 2 seasons he's been played out of position, so you can't call him as a striker.
I can see where people feel a lack of confidence with Gabby in certain situations on the park such as 1 to1's, but I was always told these where by far the most difficult positions a striker can find himself in (most difficult to score) another point to that I've seen Bent miss some absolute unbelievable sitters 1 to1's and no more than a couple of yards out from goal, namely last season for England. (not knocking Bent)
Another point where Gabbs is concerned , you can see his coaches are working with him to try and give him a quick fix to the problem, anybody notice his quick step of late, not saying it is the reason but that is a problem solver for Gabby, because when you have an unusual player like Gabby who moves at such a fast pace, then gets himself into the 1 on 1 with Cech his whole body is surging forward, so is his brain and his adrenalin, no brakes, so little composure, he just goes for it, that's the price you pay, sometimes it pays of sometimes he misses, Walcott the same, Lennon the same, Bale the same, what Gabby is doing now I've noticed is taking a step to steady himself and bring his foot to side of ball to balance and stop himself then follows through with his shooting foot. However, when Gabby does have time and can compose himself we have all seen how clinical his finishing can be as in earlier in the season v Blackburn i think.
This shows his step before taking his shot.
http://www.soccerclips.net/videos/bristol-rovers-v-aston-villa-highlights
If I had to make a choice between Benty and Gabby, have to say it, Gabby every time purely because if he's not scoring them he's making sure someone else does, whereas old Benty drifts out of game almost disinterested.
That my version anyway.
-
When you say when he is not scoring them he is making sure someone else does, who exactly? Just wondering thats all.
Gabby and Bent are 2 different types of striker and I think they would work in a 4-4-2 formation.
-
Gabby Has assisted 4 of Bents 7 goals this season (I think)
-
Then lets play them together, rather than sell one of them.
-
Can we try a four four two now?
-
Then lets play them together, rather than sell one of them.
Problem is, it's been against the bottom teams where Gabby has had an absolute stormer.
Against better teams Gabby won't create as much on the wing.
-
I love the way people expect a striker to score every chance they get. Comments like, "I've seen Bent miss a sitter." I remember greats such as Lineker and Shearer go on droughts, shit happens but strikers with a 100% conversion of chances do not exist.
-
I love the way people expect a striker to score every chance they get. Comments like, "I've seen Bent miss a sitter." I remember greats such as Lineker and Shearer go on droughts, shit happens but strikers with a 100% conversion of chances do not exist.
The point I'm making is that Bent is not infallible, personally I think this is more than just a drought that Bent is going through, reason I say that is because he's listless in a lot of games, by and large he's not even getting himself into a position to miss, that's the problem.
Personally I think he's just being played wrong and there will come a point if this carries on where we will have to say "its not working" and that has nothing to do with drought, saying that in defence of Bent.
The other thing to consider is, unlike Gabbs, if Bent is not scoring goals what else is he there to do.
-
Then lets play them together, rather than sell one of them.
Problem is, it's been against the bottom teams where Gabby has had an absolute stormer.
Against better teams Gabby won't create as much on the wing.
This is true, and for that reason he should get closer into Bent and AM should have a natural winger there.
-
So Darren Bent is in the same league as Linekar, Cole and Rooney...
Can I suggest you have a look at a list of top Premier League goalscorers over the last say, five seasons?
-
So Darren Bent is in the same league as Linekar, Cole and Rooney...
Can I suggest you have a look at a list of top Premier League goalscorers over the last say, five seasons?
Good point:
1 Alan Shearer 260
2 Andrew Cole 187
3 Thierry Henry 174
4 Robbie Fowler 163
5 Les Ferdinand 149
Michael Owen 149
6 Frank Lampard 148
7 Teddy Sheringham 147
9 Wayne Rooney 130
10 Jimmy Floyd Hasselbaink 127
-
So Darren Bent is in the same league as Linekar, Cole and Rooney...
Can I suggest you have a look at a list of top Premier League goalscorers over the last say, five seasons?
Good point:
1 Alan Shearer 260
2 Andrew Cole 187
3 Thierry Henry 174
4 Robbie Fowler 163
5 Les Ferdinand 149
Michael Owen 149
6 Frank Lampard 148
7 Teddy Sheringham 147
9 Wayne Rooney 130
10 Jimmy Floyd Hasselbaink 127
Which of the last 5 seasons did Shearer, Cole, Henry, Fowler, Ferdinand, Sheringham or Hasselbaink score in?
-
decided not to trawl through all the posts so i'm unaware whether this is in there other than villanation's post i think we need to get a genuine left sided player in and go 442 with gabby and bent up front this i feel would give us more balance with pace and bent scoring would scare many teams
-
If someone can post a list of top goalscorers in the premier league in the last 5 seasons I am sure you will find Bent would be very near the top.
-
Amazing. Bent is shit?
-
So Darren Bent is in the same league as Linekar, Cole and Rooney...
Can I suggest you have a look at a list of top Premier League goalscorers over the last say, five seasons?
Good point:
1 Alan Shearer 260
2 Andrew Cole 187
3 Thierry Henry 174
4 Robbie Fowler 163
5 Les Ferdinand 149
Michael Owen 149
6 Frank Lampard 148
7 Teddy Sheringham 147
9 Wayne Rooney 130
10 Jimmy Floyd Hasselbaink 127
Which of the last 5 seasons did Shearer, Cole, Henry, Fowler, Ferdinand, Sheringham or Hasselbaink score in?
the way its going with Henry and Scholes, it still could happen !
-
Don't forget about Keane!
-
I reckon Heskey will make a late run to get to the top of the list. And then fall over just before he gets there.
-
Bent reminds me of Andy Cole.
-
Amazing. Bent is shit?
There were three games this season when he got his radar wrong, Sunderland away, Bolton away and Swansea away, had things been different in those games he would have been on around 10 goals and we would be purring about him, he is just a bit off colour and needs our support so I am also amazed that some might consider him even a teeny weeny bit shit.
-
Bent is not shit, but Villa play better without him. Still, anyone who believes this is apparently mentally ill.
-
Bent is not shit, but Villa play better without him. Still, anyone who believes this is apparently mentally ill.
Exactly, dare you not agree..
-
Most press outlets are saying he is Hughes top target and they are targeting Europe next season. Ambition above ours and back in London.
-
Bent is not shit, but Villa play better without him. Still, anyone who believes this is apparently mentally ill.
I think we have been playing better without him recently, Bolton aside; I don't think that means we will always play better without him.
-
Most press outlets are saying he is Hughes top target and they are targeting Europe next season. Ambition above ours and back in London.
To be fair, the only reason we attracted people was with high wages.
So as we know, it'll all end in tears.
-
Most press outlets are saying he is Hughes top target and they are targeting Europe next season. Ambition above ours and back in London.
To be fair, the only reason we attracted people was with high wages.
So as we know, it'll all end in tears.
We attracted people because we had a good manager and owners who appeared ambitious and prepared to back him. I doubt we offered wages that couldn't have easily been matched elsewhere.
-
Bent reminds me of Andy Cole.
Who won a number of trophies with Man Utd. Exactly. The sort of player a team wanting to do well would want.
-
Bent is not shit, but Villa play better without him. Still, anyone who believes this is apparently mentally ill.
I think we have been playing better without him recently, Bolton aside; I don't think that means we will always play better without him.
Last season we would have been fine without him. Should never have bought him in the first place, we simply never needed his 1 in 2 record for us. We ooze goals from so many areas of the pitch, having the top premier league goalscorer over the last 3-4 seasons is simply below us really. And coming into his prime. What were we thinking I just don't know.
-
Carroll to barcodes for 10 million ? Dalglish is a really muppet If true , pardew would really have stitched him up.
But £10 million for 'The Mighty Reds YNWA' to go towards someone else ..
-
Whereas this season, we'd be better off with Gabby playing up front.
-
The Bolton, Norwich and Blackburn games shown that if we just go for it a little more Bent can be good in our team. I think it's as simple as that.
-
Amazing. Bent is shit?
There were three games this season when he got his radar wrong, Sunderland away, Bolton away and Swansea away, had things been different in those games he would have been on around 10 goals and we would be purring about him, he is just a bit off colour and needs our support so I am also amazed that some might consider him even a teeny weeny bit shit.
Agreed. Totally.
-
Whereas this season, we'd be better off with Gabby playing up front.
We weren't against Arsenal. Gabby was pants up front on his own, absolutely awful. There were plenty of great balls into the box that night from Albrighton and N'Zogbia that Bent would have thrived on. Gabby didn't get near any of them.
-
He did miss some good chances at Bolton. I can't remember Sunderland too well, so I'll take your word for it on that one. But for me Swansea was more not getting the service/chances than failing to put them away. He also missed a sitter at home to Newcastle that had me thinking it was Heskey it was that bad!
If you're looking for a 1 in 2 striker then he's scored 6 from 16, which is only two goals shy of that. When you consider the poor play we've had at times this season and lack of creativity, there's not that much wrong with him.
-
KT- but the team played better without Bent.
You have a different opinion to me so, in the traditions of this thread, here goes ...you've taken leave of your senses, sheer lunacy, that's mental etc.
-
Most press outlets are saying he is Hughes top target and they are targeting Europe next season. Ambition above ours and back in London.
To be fair, the only reason we attracted people was with high wages.
So as we know, it'll all end in tears.
We attracted people because we had a good manager and owners who appeared ambitious and prepared to back him. I doubt we offered wages that couldn't have easily been matched elsewhere.
Right so the likes of Luke Young didn't go Liverpool and Beye has been around doing sod all because we were ambitious.
I agree we were on the up, but we paid over the odds for wages which is what QPR will now do.
-
We did pay over the odds to some players, but if you look at the better ones we bought under MON (Ash, Milner, etc.) then I'm sure they could have got the same or similar elsewhere, but we were on the up, had a good manager and a chairman that was backing him.
-
Most press outlets are saying he is Hughes top target and they are targeting Europe next season. Ambition above ours and back in London.
To be fair, the only reason we attracted people was with high wages.
So as we know, it'll all end in tears.
We attracted people because we had a good manager and owners who appeared ambitious and prepared to back him. I doubt we offered wages that couldn't have easily been matched elsewhere.
Right so the likes of Luke Young didn't go Liverpool and Beye has been around doing sod all because we were ambitious.
I agree we were on the up, but we paid over the odds for wages which is what QPR will now do.
It was fairly common knowledge that Young wanted to move back to London and if he'd gone to Liverpool it would just have been as understudy to Johnson.
Beye was a fuck up but when we signed him he'd just been Newcastle player of the season and it would have been the going rate.
The important signings, Ash, Milner, Downing, Dunne, Friedel etc came because we looked like a club prepared to have a go at competing.
-
If you're looking for a 1 in 2 striker then he's scored 6 from 16, which is only two goals shy of that. When you consider the poor play we've had at times this season and lack of creativity, there's not that much wrong with him.
Good points, plus he did miss 4 games over Xmas?
-
KT- but the team played better without Bent.
You have a different opinion to me so, in the traditions of this thread, here goes ...you've taken leave of your senses, sheer lunacy, that's mental etc.
Blimey is it that obvious..?
-
If you're looking for a 1 in 2 striker then he's scored 6 from 16, which is only two goals shy of that. When you consider the poor play we've had at times this season and lack of creativity, there's not that much wrong with him.
Good points, plus he did miss 4 games over Xmas?
That's taken into account by only counting his 6 goals agianst the 16 games he's actually played in.
-
KT- but the team played better without Bent.
Not sure if it's justifiable to put the better performance that night down to Bent not being there. We played a similar shape to if he had been there, with one up front, and the one in question contributed little in terms of general play, and was unable to get on the end of anything. I agree that Bent may well have had the same negligible effect in terms of general contribution, but at least he might have got on the end of one of those crosses. I also think the effect of his runs is underestimated, he unnerves defences with them for a start off. Ultimately his goal record speaks for itself and for me any manager with sense would see that as the most potent weapon he has and set his team up to maximise its potential.
-
KT- but the team played better without Bent.
Ultimately his goal record speaks for itself and for me any manager with sense would see that as the most potent weapon he has and set his team up to maximise its potential.
Unfortunately we don't have a manager who seems to have a great deal of sense. Bent should be our most potent weapon. He should be banging in goals that have us at the very least, sitting nicely above Stoke. I think we're wasting Bent, and it's criminal. Sometimes though, we do look better when Bent isn't playing, merely because Gabby for example does far more on the pitch. Even if it's as much as chasing back for the ball because we spend too much time on the back foot, or getting involved in our forward play. Bent simply waits for the ball.
We are creating more just of late (Swansea aside) and hopefully we'll see Dazza banging them in from now. But Eck must start being more adventurous and must start playing a more balanced side. None of this Heskey in midfield bollocks. Thankfully for the next month, that's not a possibility.
-
Sounds like the man is hungry to bang in goals for us after reent injuries:-
http://www.avfc.co.uk/page/NewsDetail/0,,10265~2574005,00.html
-
Has anyone else thought that, if 'arry Redknapp is going to be the England boss, would Bent even stand a chance of getting into the England team?
-
Darren Bent, hmmm I know let's play him, then put Heskey on one wing and Marc on the other and ask them to defend.
Great managerial skills there..
-
Bents game is much better when playing a 4-3-3 though having Keane as his partner has been fairly sucessful ....
-
Biggest problem with playing him on his own is that when it gets knocked up to him nobody makes a positive run because they have absolutely no confidence in him retaining possession. And rightly so.
Many strikers would struggle to hold on to some of the passes Bent receives. But not quite so much as he does.
-
So how did he look in some of the later friendlies? I saw him against Mansfield and he looked so unfit and fat that I thought it was a different player.
His head even looks different!
-
Well if he could bang in 10 goals for us this season, that'd be a massive help.
-
So how did he look in some of the later friendlies? I saw him against Mansfield and he looked so unfit and fat that I thought it was a different player.
His head even looks different!
I know it sounds nuts - given the training regime and the fact he's a professional footballer - but I thought he looked overweight, too. I know what you mean about him looking different.
This photo is on the OS. He looks pretty chunky here.
(http://www.avfc.co.uk/javaImages/11/db/0,,10265~13032209,00.jpg)
(obviously, when I say "chunky", i mean for a professional footballer, not by comparison with us civilians)
-
The new Mick Quinn, hopefully.
-
I hope so, I think he's a good player.
-
I think he's guiven up on it all. He should havce been busting a gut to get to Brazil seeing as we're not blessed with an abundance of quality forwards. Yet his performances at Fulham saw him dropped frequently. I don't think his heart's in it anymore.
-
It's the collar.
-
I think it is the stripes on his shirt that make him look fat
Fo me he should be long gone, but no doubt if he scores 6 goals this season there will be some who will be saying give him a new contract!
-
Been hanging out with grant holt too much
-
His recent change in marital status explains his girth. After a year or two that will change and he'll back to packing his own lunch and finding his dinner missing when arriving home.
-
I think it is the stripes on his shirt that make him look fat
Any mod, woman or gay man will tell you that vertical stripes are slimming.
God help him if he goes to Celtic or QPR.
-
I think he's guiven up on it all. He should havce been busting a gut to get to Brazil seeing as we're not blessed with an abundance of quality forwards. Yet his performances at Fulham saw him dropped frequently. I don't think his heart's in it anymore.
Could be Peter, but it just might have the past couple of years totally demoralised him. Hopefully he has realised that this is his last chance and is willing to put the effort in.
-
I have a feeling that he will play well for us in the year ahead. Especially if he plays with a decent crosser of the ball who looks up now and again. Yes Charlie I am looking at you.
-
If we play with wide men who cross balls into the box rather than cut in and take endless shots themselves, he'll score goals
That's my prediction anyway
-
I think it is the stripes on his shirt that make him look fat
Any mod, woman or gay man will tell you that vertical stripes are slimming.
God help him if he goes to Celtic or QPR.
I don't think that is considered true any more.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/science-news/3351615/Horizontal-stripes-make-you-look-thinner.html
the closer to 'square' it is the less vertical stripes have any effect and at a certain point it flips and makes you look fatter. I think I saw soemthing that proved that the thinner the stripes the more exaggerated the effect becomes, so vertical pinstripes on a male torso will have the effect of making you look much chubbier, but on the legs will make you look taller and thinner.
Sorry about that, back to Darren Bent, I think he can score a few for us in the first couple of months and that might well be all we need him for.
-
I think Bent will do ok this season if he has the service. Big if but on paper we have at least two v v v good goalscorers, possibly even three if Kozak can live up to the promise he showed before he got hurt.
-
I really, really can't see him starting at Stoke, just not his sort of game. Play him against Orient and see how he does would be my thoughts.
-
I agree Chris but I suspect Stoke are not the head bangers of yore. A bit of patient guile might do the trick where once only a tin hat and body armour gave you a chance at Stoke.
-
I wouldnt think that Hutton or Bent would have any time for Lambert but Roy Keane may be able to coax a good standard of performance out of both.
-
I really, really can't see him starting at Stoke, just not his sort of game. Play him against Orient and see how he does would be my thoughts.
Tiny Penis (as you brilliantly renamed him) doesn't manage them (or anyone else) anymore though, "Sparky" has got 'em playing sparklier stuff.
-
"Ailsa Stewart" has got 'em playing sparklier stuff.
Had to google that one - not a clue.
-
(http://k14.vcmedia.vn/Images/Uploaded/Share/2010/10/29/291010ngoisao10.jpg)
Mark Hughes Ailsa Stewart
-
"Ailsa Stewart" has got 'em playing sparklier stuff.
Had to google that one - not a clue.
I actually typed ''S.p.a.r.k.y." (without the dots) but the word filter is obviously very clever.
-
I think it is the stripes on his shirt that make him look fat
Any mod, woman or gay man will tell you that vertical stripes are slimming.
God help him if he goes to Celtic or QPR.
Lol.
-
Is Benty seriously being considered for a new contract at 31.
I'd rather young Robinson gets his chance and maybe take a punt at the Blackburn man, especially if Tekkers moves on.