Heroes & Villains, the Aston Villa fanzine
Heroes & Villains => Heroes Discussion => Topic started by: Villafirst on October 21, 2013, 08:46:38 PM
-
Sorry, I hope I'm wrong, but Kozak doesn't impress me - would he score more than Bent over a whole season? I don't think so. We should've kept Bent and spent the £7M on a creative midfielder......do you agree?
-
Had Benteke impressed at this point? I remember thinking similar things to him. I have also been slating Delph for years so if a player plays crap for now on I'm just going to just moan at Lambert then applaud them when they come good.
-
If we hadn't loaned Bent to Fulham we would have spent £3.5m of the £7m on his wages for the year.
-
If we hadn't loaned Bent to Fulham we would have spent £3.5m of the £7m on his wages for the year.
True, but Kojak must be on £30k per week
Should have kept Bent. However, lets wait and see if Kojak comes good. Still early days. He isnt exactly getting lots of chances and then missing is he?
-
Yes he cost some lolly, but I'm sure he will pop the goals in.
-
If you'd seen how well Bent has played in the first half tonight I don't think you'd be asking the question. (Cue 2nd half Bent hat trick!)
-
No, don't agree.
We all know the time it takes for some players to adjust to the premier, the time he is getting on the pitch now will reap dividends next year when he is our no. 1 striker after Benteke has left. Get the ball in the box when he is there and he will score, We should have also bought a no. 10.
-
What Kozak needs right now is Crystal Palace.
-
Can't say I've been impressed by Kozak.
That said, Bent wouldn't have been interested staying another year as a sub so I'd say neither.
We had enough with the current trio + Helenius without having to get another striker in. Kozak will score a few more winning goals this season I reckon so I wouldn't write him off just yet.
-
Silly choice really. Completely different players.
-
Economically we obviously can't have back up players on 60k a week anymore.
And how effective was Bent in games when he came on as a sub? I can only really remember WBA at home when he came on and scored.
-
Sorry, I hope I'm wrong, but Kozak doesn't impress me - would he score more than Bent over a whole season? I don't think so. We should've kept Bent and spent the £7M on a creative midfielder......do you agree?
Considering wage, age, and perhaps even ego, I think we're better of with Libor. Though I do agree spending that money on a creative midfielder may have been a wiser choice.
-
What we need is a bit more quality. We have lots of squad players, and footballers who will 'put in a shift'.
To make the step up, with or without Benteke, we need a bit of guile in the centre of the park and probably a couple of other upgrades too (see how Weimann/Luna and KEA go next season before deciding if we need better to take us to the next step).
I don't think Bent will be getting any better as a striker here on in. We had him during his peak (wasn't he 26 when he signed?) and from here on in he'll be losing his best attributes, pace and sharpness in the box.
-
If you'd seen how well Bent has played in the first half tonight I don't think you'd be asking the question. (Cue 2nd half Bent hat trick!)
I watched about half an hour of the first half in the gym, I didn't know he was actually playing till I read this
-
Kozak plays a team game. Thats why he is an easy winner in this contest
-
Bent's a luxury yadda yadda.
-
Ideally both. But we are not in the financial situation to have that kind of depth in bench.
Stats wise Kozak scores about 1 every 5 games or so. Bent scores about 1 in 3 games.
Kozak usually contributes more to open play with flick ons etc but Bent gets the nod defending set pieces (he is actually pretty good defending these, he has cleared off the line a lot).
Beneteke does both, scores 1 in 2 and contributes the most to open play but is a liability in defence.
Finally when i see Kozak play I see a player who I think will get better. Bent is an excellent striker but unlikely to get much better imho.
-
Bent's a luxury yadda yadda.
Bent needs service baa baa.
-
You'd always fancy Bent to nick a goal. Kozak I'm not so sure.
For me Libor's biggest problem so far is that he's basically waiting for service (like Bent would) and not getting involved in the game. There's also the problem that the majority of the limited service he does get is high balls launched to his head and for a big fella he's complete toss in the air. I think you could count on one hand the amount of headers he's won in the last 2 games. Libor does work very hard with chasing down etc, but when we have the ball, suddenly his movement becomes non existent. Again, he's finding his feet, this will hopefully improve, but we've got to start playing to his feet and he's got to start making himself more available.
It's part of the problem with our side at the moment. We seem to play more long balls than most other sides. It was labelled at us by Mourinho of course, and stats back it up. Obviously have a very tough start contributes to that because playing the teams we've played, aside from 3 matches, we'd not expect much more than 40% possession (even less sometimes). So inevitably we started launching it.
But if it's a choice between Kozak doing fuck all for most of the match, barely getting sniff and never looking like scoring, or Bent doing fuck all for most of a match and possibly getting and taking that one chance he needs, then I'd go for Bent, regardless of wages. Bent would win us more points if he played (as things stand).
But its early days. Kozak really needs to up his game, but we've got to help him too. Right now he barely looks a 1 million pound player, let alone 7.
-
I just can't see it with Kozak. Hope I'm wrong but I think he's a dud - time will tell of course but he looks way, way short of Benteke's quality; I think the money could have been better spent elsewhere.
-
Kozak every time. He is a team player and he will do us proud. You cannot slag the bloke off ffs. He has only made the starting line-up since Benteke got injured and every game he has played in he has put in a proper shift, been climbed all over and fouled ridiculously. Give him a chance.
Darren Bent......Selfish player, playing for himself, not the team.
-
Last 4 games stats.
Kozak aerial duels won:
Norwich 3/14
Man City 4/11
Hull 4/17
Spurs 3/9
Play it to his feet.
In comparison, Benteke tends to average over 50% of aerial duels won.
-
Last 4 games stats.
Kozak aerial duels won:
Norwich 3/14
Man City 4/11
Hull 4/17
Spurs 3/9
Play it to his feet.
In comparison, Benteke tends to average over 50% of aerial duels won.
And how many of those challenges should a foul have been given in Kozak's favour ? If you watch the replays of the games he has been involved in, i would say Kozak has been very harshly treated by the refs.
-
I do like Bent but BBC online put up a graphic after Fulham's hammering of Palace tonight. In a game where his side largely dominated, Dazza only touched the ball 13 times in 77 minutes.
He's the missing piece of the puzzle for a team that consistently dominate possession and waste countless chances. These teams invariably play strikers who bring a lot more to their game than ghosting into space (Bent's best attribute, and one with which very few other strikers compare) so it leaves Bent in an awkward position. He has become something of an anachronism. But I'm glad he played for us, and I think he's a decent professional and a personable guy so wish him the best in knocking-in an average of at least 11.37 goals a season until he retires.
-
Neither. No point of keeping our highest earner as back-up and the Kozak money should've been spent on an AM.
-
I agree with the play it to his feet comment - lets face it, how much service has he had in his 3-4 games so far? I think he has the potential to do well - and will do well. But Lambert needs to vary the style up a little bit instead of kick and chase, and maybe give some of the other forwards a chance. I love Gabby to bits but he doesn't look like stepping up a gear at the moment and Weimann is still young and out of form at the mo. Hopefully we can see the best of Helenius too at some point because we have to have more of a threat than simply Benteke.
-
Bent, Kozak looks a carthorse.
-
Why are we so quick to jump on players without giving them time to settle in a new league and a new way of playing? I remember some on here calling Benteke Emule Heskey Mark II
-
No point in keeping Bent anyway, without width he'd be a passenger
-
Shoulda woulda coulda about Kozak. People may have wanted an attacking midfielder, but he's a striker, he'll be played and it's up to Lambert to find a way to use his skills effectively. The fact that it hasn't really happened yet doesn't mean it won't. I don't think he was fantastic against Tottenham but then again Benteke was competently marshalled by a defence that was mainly centre backs and is by and large very frugal. As someone mentioned earlier, Kozak should be measured when he's faced defences he should be dominating as well as better teams.
With Bent, it's tricky. I don't think we miss him, but I do think if Lambert wasn't manager he'd be starting for us.
-
The role Kozak has been playing dose'nt suit him at all. It suits Benteke down to the ground and you could see the difference it made to the team when he came on Sunday.
We need to wait and see how Kozak will do with a partner alongside him before writing him off.
-
So far, Kozak has had to deal with a lot of long passes, I have yet to see how he deals with crosses. We do not have any real wingers and do not tend to cross a lot. He has not had many goal chances and we do not create a lot, but so far I have not been impressed with Kozak, but I also look forward to see how he performs against teams in the bottom half of the table, we shall see in november.
-
I't doesn't matter whether it's Bent Or Kozak if they don't get the supply they can't score, We hit gold with Benteke as he can take players on and is good in the air and has good foot skills, not many of them around.
-
The role Kozak has been playing dose'nt suit him at all. It suits Benteke down to the ground and you could see the difference it made to the team when he came on Sunday.
We need to wait and see how Kozak will do with a partner alongside him before writing him off.
He is supposed to be an understudy to Benteke thus his game should be very similar. To be fair, he was a similar type of player to Benteke at Lazio. He is just (surprisingly) stuggling to cope with the physicality of the EPL at the moment.
-
Kozak reminds me a fair bit of Crouch. He looks awkward and would probably be difficult to defend against inside the box (but there seems to be some kind of Kozak force-field surrounding the penalty area at the moment.
It's similar with Crouch though. Use him as a target man, pumping long balls at him and he struggles. It's not his game. He's probably better at winning headers in the box when he can attack the ball. Angel was similar outside the box with his back to goal he was very poor in the air (and when he'd often be used as a target man during our less attractive stylings he struggled a lot) but get him in the box on the end of crosses and he was actually a very good header of the ball.
Also like Crouch I wonder if he'll be a bit of a flat track bully. He'll do okay against teams from the bottom half-lower top, but struggles to standout against top 6 opposition. That was something always labelled at Crouch somewhat. At international level too. Good goal record but mostly against the drek opposition.
If the team starts playing with more width and getting balls in the box then we can start helping Kozak a bit.
-
Why are we so quick to jump on players without giving them time to settle in a new league and a new way of playing? I remember some on here calling Benteke Emule Heskey Mark II
The positives were Benteke was getting in the right positions or beating a man to the ball just not hitting the target but his physical prescence and positioning still looked good.
Kozak looks like another Tony Cascarino.
-
I recall Savo Milosevic being labelled the new Cascarino in his first couple of games. I guess it depends on your viewpoint as to whether he was a success or not but I personally think he was great - he hit double figures in his first year, formed an amazing strike partnership with Yorkie for 2 years (until Collymore arrived and the formation was tinkered with) plus he scored the opening goal when we won our lost trophy. Even two years later around winter 97 or so the goals had dried up and we had the spitting incident but he still gave 100% and was holding the ball up/creating chances. I still haven't seen a player hold the ball up for Villa with some skilful touches as he did - Yorke excepted. Anyway the main point is we said the same thing about Savo. We gotta give Libor time.
ha ha that should read last trophy
-
Too soon for this comparison - give Kozak at least a season before judging him.
I believe alongside benteke he would be a better player.
-
Why are we so quick to jump on players without giving them time to settle in a new league and a new way of playing? I remember some on here calling Benteke Emule Heskey Mark II
The positives were Benteke was getting in the right positions or beating a man to the ball just not hitting the target but his physical prescence and positioning still looked good.
Kozak looks like another Tony Cascarino.
You've decided that after 5 games?
-
I recall Savo Milosevic being labelled the new Cascarino in his first couple of games. I guess it depends on your viewpoint as to whether he was a success or not but I personally think he was great - he hit double figures in his first year, formed an amazing strike partnership with Yorkie for 2 years (until Collymore arrived and the formation was tinkered with) plus he scored the opening goal when we won our lost trophy. Even two years later around winter 97 or so the goals had dried up and we had the spitting incident but he still gave 100% and was holding the ball up/creating chances. I still haven't seen a player hold the ball up for Villa with some skilful touches as he did - Yorke excepted. Anyway the main point is we said the same thing about Savo. We gotta give Libor time.
ha ha that should read last trophy
Loved Savo. Remember expecting him to turn up and play in a headband because of the pre signing pics i'd seen of him. Never happened. He had a great first touch and a bit of vision and scored 1 in 3, got a rough ride from the dickhead cockney media and that shit nicknameWhy are we so quick to jump on players without giving them time to settle in a new league and a new way of playing? I remember some on here calling Benteke Emule Heskey Mark II
The positives were Benteke was getting in the right positions or beating a man to the ball just not hitting the target but his physical prescence and positioning still looked good.
Kozak looks like another Tony Cascarino.
You've decided that after 5 gamWhy are we so quick to jump on players without giving them time to settle in a new league and a new way of playing? I remember some on here calling Benteke Emule Heskey Mark II
The positives were Benteke was getting in the right positions or beating a man to the ball just not hitting the target but his physical prescence and positioning still looked good.
Kozak looks like another Tony Cascarino.
You've decided that after 5 games?
Not definitely no. Looks more of a Cascarino than a Benteke so far though. £7M looks about £5M too much. Would be glad to be wrong and see him score a bagful.
-
bent for me
but would have prefered the creative midfield than either .
If we had got the money to buy him and the midfielder I would not be to concerned but that money should have been spent in another area . It looks way too much money .
-
Kozak, frankly. I know this just looks like more Bent-hate, but Kozak works harder and does more for the team and, where we are, you can't have any passengers.
-
Last 4 games stats.
Kozak aerial duels won:
Norwich 3/14
Man City 4/11
Hull 4/17
Spurs 3/9
Play it to his feet.
In comparison, Benteke tends to average over 50% of aerial duels won.
And how many of those challenges should a foul have been given in Kozak's favour ? If you watch the replays of the games he has been involved in, i would say Kozak has been very harshly treated by the refs.
big players always do , look at Crouch . Im afraid you just have to except it.
-
ask me again , when we get in the Europa cup ;)
-
Last 4 games stats.
Kozak aerial duels won:
Norwich 3/14
Man City 4/11
Hull 4/17
Spurs 3/9
Play it to his feet.
In comparison, Benteke tends to average over 50% of aerial duels won.
And how many of those challenges should a foul have been given in Kozak's favour ? If you watch the replays of the games he has been involved in, i would say Kozak has been very harshly treated by the refs.
big players always do , look at Crouch . Im afraid you just have to except it.
Yep, defenders will get 9 decisions out of 10. Again, it's not really Kozaks forte and in all honesty it just takes us backwards to be chuffing long balls up to a big mans head all the time. It doesn't help us, and certainly doesn't help Kozak.
He does have to adapt but I think he's only in the starting line up because of Bentekes injury. He didn't have a pre-season here. He's been thrown in somewhat.
He's got to change his movement to get in the game. We've got to get someone playing closer to him as well.
But in terms of effort I've no complaints, Kozak has bust a gut every match he's played.
-
I do like Bent but BBC online put up a graphic after Fulham's hammering of Palace tonight. In a game where his side largely dominated, Dazza only touched the ball 13 times in 77 minutes.
He's the missing piece of the puzzle for a team that consistently dominate possession and waste countless chances. These teams invariably play strikers who bring a lot more to their game than ghosting into space (Bent's best attribute, and one with which very few other strikers compare) so it leaves Bent in an awkward position. He has become something of an anachronism. But I'm glad he played for us, and I think he's a decent professional and a personable guy so wish him the best in knocking-in an average of at least 11.37 goals a season until he retires.
Yeah him or Defoe were the missing piece for us in 08-10 imo, I think if we'd signed either during that period we'd have finished 4th one of those seasons.
Bent is a finisher and think back to that period when Milner and especially Ashley Young were whipping in crosses and set pieces, Bent would've had a hatful.
Just don't understand why MON didn't go for him, he was british and on high wages which seem to be the scouting criteria, heck I don't think he was even that overpriced as I believe Sunderland signed him for an initial 10m from Spurs.
Right player, wrong time.
-
I do like Bent but BBC online put up a graphic after Fulham's hammering of Palace tonight. In a game where his side largely dominated, Dazza only touched the ball 13 times in 77 minutes.
He's the missing piece of the puzzle for a team that consistently dominate possession and waste countless chances. These teams invariably play strikers who bring a lot more to their game than ghosting into space (Bent's best attribute, and one with which very few other strikers compare) so it leaves Bent in an awkward position. He has become something of an anachronism. But I'm glad he played for us, and I think he's a decent professional and a personable guy so wish him the best in knocking-in an average of at least 11.37 goals a season until he retires.
Yeah him or Defoe were the missing piece for us in 08-10 imo, I think if we'd signed either during that period we'd have finished 4th one of those seasons.
Bent is a finisher and think back to that period when Milner and especially Ashley Young were whipping in crosses and set pieces, Bent would've had a hatful.
Just don't understand why MON didn't go for him, he was british and on high wages which seem to be the scouting criteria, heck I don't think he was even that overpriced as I believe Sunderland signed him for an initial 10m from Spurs.
Right player, wrong time.
We didn't need Bent because we had Harewood and Heskey.
I'll get me coat.
-
Heskey was like the AntiBent - worked hard for the team but couldn't score (though Bent has better technique).
I think Bent would have improved us, but not actually that greatly. I know it's accepted wisdom that we needed a centre forward at the time and MON's Heskey signing was a little unbelievably insane, but all Bent would have done is help us to finish more counterattacks. Our problem then was similar to our problem now: too reliant on the break, unable to keep possession for long spells too often and, when we did, were unable to break down defences. At least now we play a 4-3-3ish system, instead of MON's lard-and-spuds 4-4-2, but the problem was the same and the solution was the same - the striker was important, but the creative central playmaker might have been more so. Who was the player who propelled Arsenal on the run at the same time as we collapsed? Not a centre forward, but in fact Andrei Arshavin. The creative players make the difference.
-
Bent is undoubtedly a top quality player but lacks the mind set to settle with a club. My attitude to Kozak is the same as my attitude to the police. I would genuinely like to like him more but I see nothing in him but things which need to be rectified. I would be happy to see neither at Villa Park and the savings invested in a player to make our midfield tick, a midfield which presently goes tickety tockety tock tick, oh fuck, tick tock.
-
I think it is too soon to judge Kozak. He needs time to settle in on and off the pitch. I don't know what his grasp of the language is like but I suspect his English isn't as good as our players who came from Holland and Belgium for example.
-
The big issue I have with this thread is the massive assumption from a lot of people that we signed Kozak instead of a creative midfielder. The evidence that we'd been after Kozak for months, and the numerous links to attacking midfielders (with confirmed interest in a few) suggests that we were looking for both but for whatever reason the midfielder didn't happen.
-
I think Bent would have improved us, but not actually that greatly. I know it's accepted wisdom that we needed a centre forward at the time and MON's Heskey signing was a little unbelievably insane, but all Bent would have done is help us to finish more counterattacks. Our problem then was similar to our problem now: too reliant on the break, unable to keep possession for long spells too often and, when we did, were unable to break down defences. At least now we play a 4-3-3ish system, instead of MON's lard-and-spuds 4-4-2, but the problem was the same and the solution was the same - the striker was important, but the creative central playmaker might have been more so. Who was the player who propelled Arsenal on the run at the same time as we collapsed? Not a centre forward, but in fact Andrei Arshavin. The creative players make the difference.
I completely disagree. We were fine for creativity - if we assume our front five around that time were Milner, Young, Downing, Gabby and either Heskey or a latter years-Carew I think it's obvious the position that needed improving.
You can't really equate our position with Arsenal's at the time, as they didn't have Young, Milner, Gabby and Downing but they did have Robin Van Persie and Emmanuel Adebayor scoring 35+ goals between them. We didn't.
-
I think Bent would have improved us, but not actually that greatly. I know it's accepted wisdom that we needed a centre forward at the time and MON's Heskey signing was a little unbelievably insane, but all Bent would have done is help us to finish more counterattacks. Our problem then was similar to our problem now: too reliant on the break, unable to keep possession for long spells too often and, when we did, were unable to break down defences. At least now we play a 4-3-3ish system, instead of MON's lard-and-spuds 4-4-2, but the problem was the same and the solution was the same - the striker was important, but the creative central playmaker might have been more so. Who was the player who propelled Arsenal on the run at the same time as we collapsed? Not a centre forward, but in fact Andrei Arshavin. The creative players make the difference.
I completely disagree. We were fine for creativity - if we assume our front five around that time were Milner, Young, Downing, Gabby and either Heskey or a latter years-Carew I think it's obvious the position that needed improving.
You can't really equate our position with Arsenal's at the time, as they didn't have Young, Milner, Gabby and Downing but they did have Robin Van Persie and Emmanuel Adebayor scoring 35+ goals between them. We didn't.
Exactly , we created the chances but lacked a prolific striker to put them away - had we had that I believe we would have made the top 4 and bent at that time could well have the man to provide the goals.
-
We didn't have creativity, we had players slinging crosses in. That may have been ok 20 years ago, but the games moved on.
I don't remember glorious chance after chance being spurned by Ivanhoe and co., I remember flat displays and an inabilty to find openings.
-
We didn't have creativity, we had players slinging crosses in. That may have been ok 20 years ago, but the games moved on.
I don't remember glorious chance after chance being spurned by Ivanhoe and co., I remember flat displays and an inabilty to find openings.
Milner, downing and young provided many chances and threaded in some lovely passes - it wasn't all about crossing it - heskey missed loads of sitters and gabby himself as well as Carew were both guilty of missing far more than they scored - if we had a pair of strikers at the time who chipped in with 35 goals between them we would have cracked the top 4
-
We didn't have creativity, we had players slinging crosses in. That may have been ok 20 years ago, but the games moved on.
I don't remember glorious chance after chance being spurned by Ivanhoe and co., I remember flat displays and an inabilty to find openings.
We weren't scoring Arsenal-versus-Norwich style, one touch passing around the six-yard box type goals, but nor were we lumping the ball up in the manner of Stoke.
Man Utd won the league last year on a style of play based around slinging crosses into the box.
Also, if the striker that our creative players are working with is Heskey or Carew then it stands to reason we're going to try and cross it a lot.
If it were Bent in the side instead, maybe they might be trying a few more through balls? It seemed to work a treat from January to May under Houllier. I can't see how this would have been worse than replacing one of Gabby, Milner, Young or Downing with somebody else to bounce balls off Heskey's shins.
-
I think Bent would have improved us, but not actually that greatly. I know it's accepted wisdom that we needed a centre forward at the time and MON's Heskey signing was a little unbelievably insane, but all Bent would have done is help us to finish more counterattacks. Our problem then was similar to our problem now: too reliant on the break, unable to keep possession for long spells too often and, when we did, were unable to break down defences. At least now we play a 4-3-3ish system, instead of MON's lard-and-spuds 4-4-2, but the problem was the same and the solution was the same - the striker was important, but the creative central playmaker might have been more so. Who was the player who propelled Arsenal on the run at the same time as we collapsed? Not a centre forward, but in fact Andrei Arshavin. The creative players make the difference.
I completely disagree. We were fine for creativity - if we assume our front five around that time were Milner, Young, Downing, Gabby and either Heskey or a latter years-Carew I think it's obvious the position that needed improving.
You can't really equate our position with Arsenal's at the time, as they didn't have Young, Milner, Gabby and Downing but they did have Robin Van Persie and Emmanuel Adebayor scoring 35+ goals between them. We didn't.
We weren't good enough at home at any point to break the top four. We had championship winning form away from home, but mid-table form at home. I think that is because we didn't have it within ourselves to beat the sides (the vast majority in the end) who would brick coming to Villa Park and defend deep.
We lacked the player, and still do, who could work between the compressed lines of the opposition back four and midfield five.
Edit: I personally think our midfield was all about getting it wide as quickly as possible and squaring the opposition back four up for the likes of Carew etc.
Its interesting, but I was watching Dortmund last night and they spent two or three minutes going backwards and forwards from the flanks, back into the back four, across the centre and back again, just keeping the ball; probing, making the opposition work.
You would never get away with that at Villa Park. The whinging from the Holte that erupts should a Villa player dare keep possession without looking lethal all the time, is shocking. Part of that is because we were relatively successful recently by going from back to front as quickly as we could.
-
We didn't have creativity, we had players slinging crosses in. That may have been ok 20 years ago, but the games moved on.
I don't remember glorious chance after chance being spurned by Ivanhoe and co., I remember flat displays and an inabilty to find openings.
We weren't scoring Arsenal-versus-Norwich style, one touch passing around the six-yard box type goals, but nor were we lumping the ball up in the manner of Stoke.
Man Utd won the league last year on a style of play based around slinging crosses into the box.
Also, if the striker that our creative players are working with is Heskey or Carew then it stands to reason we're going to try and cross it a lot.
If it were Bent in the side instead, maybe they might be trying a few more through balls? It seemed to work a treat from January to May under Houllier. I can't see how this would have been worse than replacing one of Gabby, Milner, Young or Downing with somebody else to bounce balls off Heskey's shins.
It worked under Houllier (a bit) because he actually encouraged the whole team to pass, and got a decent full back in on one side at least, and in doing that he nearly caused a revolt amongst the defenders who believed their job was to stand on the edge of the box and head balls away.
Bent worked for us when he did because we had changed the style to suit him. I'm not convinced he'd have been the silver bullet solution under O'Dinosaur.
-
I think Bent would have improved us, but not actually that greatly. I know it's accepted wisdom that we needed a centre forward at the time and MON's Heskey signing was a little unbelievably insane, but all Bent would have done is help us to finish more counterattacks. Our problem then was similar to our problem now: too reliant on the break, unable to keep possession for long spells too often and, when we did, were unable to break down defences. At least now we play a 4-3-3ish system, instead of MON's lard-and-spuds 4-4-2, but the problem was the same and the solution was the same - the striker was important, but the creative central playmaker might have been more so. Who was the player who propelled Arsenal on the run at the same time as we collapsed? Not a centre forward, but in fact Andrei Arshavin. The creative players make the difference.
I completely disagree. We were fine for creativity - if we assume our front five around that time were Milner, Young, Downing, Gabby and either Heskey or a latter years-Carew I think it's obvious the position that needed improving.
You can't really equate our position with Arsenal's at the time, as they didn't have Young, Milner, Gabby and Downing but they did have Robin Van Persie and Emmanuel Adebayor scoring 35+ goals between them. We didn't.
We weren't good enough at home at any point to break the top four. We had championship winning form away from home, but mid-table form at home. I think that is because we didn't have it within ourselves to beat the sides (the vast majority in the end) who would brick coming to Villa Park and defend deep.
We lacked the player, and still do, who could work between the compressed lines of the opposition back four and midfield five.
Edit: I personally think our midfield was all about getting it wide as quickly as possible and squaring the opposition back four up for the likes of Carew etc.
Its interesting, but I was watching Dortmund last night and they spent two or three minutes going backwards and forwards from the flanks, back into the back four, across the centre and back again, just keeping the ball; probing, making the opposition work.
You would never get away with that at Villa Park. The whinging from the Holte that erupts should a Villa player dare keep possession without looking lethal all the time, is shocking. Part of that is because we were relatively successful recently by going from back to front as quickly as we could.
That bit there Ad, what Dortmund did last night, I saw us do it at Norwich last season (the league cup win) and it was like a fucking revelation. No wingers needed, we kept the ball until the centre halfs had switched off.
I'm surprised we've not seen more of it.
-
We needed somebody more mobile and consistent in front of goal than Carew. As good as he was for us, he is not a patch on The Beast.
-
We lacked the player, and still do, who could work between the compressed lines of the opposition back four and midfield five.
I'm not saying that our creative players were faultless or that we never had any problems at all.
But I still maintain that we'd have been better off with Milner and Young creating chances for Bent than Ozil and Fabregas creating chances for Heskey.
-
We needed somebody more mobile and consistent in front of goal than Carew. As good as he was for us, he is not a patch on The Beast.
We needed a natural finisher to put chances away - I'd have taken bent far ahead of Carew , gabby or heskey to score the goals.
-
We lacked the player, and still do, who could work between the compressed lines of the opposition back four and midfield five.
I'm not saying that our creative players were faultless or that we never had any problems at all.
But I still maintain that we'd have been better off with Milner and Young creating chances for Bent than Ozil and Fabregas creating chances for Heskey.
I'd disagree with that Dave, because for all his faults Ivanhoe would at least create chances for them too.
-
We needed somebody more mobile and consistent in front of goal than Carew. As good as he was for us, he is not a patch on The Beast.
We needed a natural finisher to put chances away - I'd have taken bent far ahead of Carew , gabby or heskey to score the goals.
It's not as simple as that though mate, we had enough trouble getting up the pitch against the likes of bastard Hull and Portsmouth, christ knows what we'd have done if Bent was the target man.
-
If you have Ozil supplying Heskey with 10 chances per game he'd at least have bagged one. It's the supply we lack.
-
Also, we seem to hoof it quite a lot. That's why Bent was deemed surplus to requirments.
-
If you have Ozil supplying Heskey with 10 chances per game he'd at least have bagged one. It's the supply we lack.
We lack the supply now , but with Milner downing and young we had the supply - look at bent when he arrived and thrived on downing and youngs service to him - he is never going to deliver in a team set up the way we are now.
-
If you have Ozil supplying Heskey with 10 chances per game he'd at least have bagged one. It's the supply we lack.
We lack the supply now , but with Milner downing and young we had the supply - look at bent when he arrived and thrived on downing and youngs service to him - he is never going to deliver in a team set up the way we are now.
Bent would only have need 2-3 chances a game to find the net. We were never that bad back then that we wouldn't have created that for him. Carew and Gabby did very well but some games could miss hatfuls and in Gabs case fluff one on ones.
Bent would have been the 20 goal forward to push us up a level back then. We had two strikers who'd get you 10-15 a season, which is decent, but not quite enough.
-
MON pretty much always played 4-4-2 unless there were injuries upfront.
I believe we could've gone with Gabby and Bent upfront or indeed Bent and Carew (although that combo would've been a tad shy on workrate) with Gabby playing on the right as he played numerous times in the MON years.
Bent could've even played upfront on his own as he did for Sunderland that season where he scored a lot of goals for a much poorer team than ourselves.
Heskey would never have been signed in my mind and easy with hindsight but nor would Downing either when Bent was moving for a similar fee.
When you look at the teams we were competiting with at that time, there's no question we were understocked in the forward department.
-
Harewood and Heskey.
*Shudders*
-
MON pretty much always played 4-4-2 unless there were injuries upfront.
I believe we could've gone with Gabby and Bent upfront or indeed Bent and Carew (although that combo would've been a tad shy on workrate) with Gabby playing on the right as he played numerous times in the MON years.
Bent could've even played upfront on his own as he did for Sunderland that season where he scored a lot of goals for a much poorer team than ourselves.
Heskey would never have been signed in my mind and easy with hindsight but nor would Downing either when Bent was moving for a similar fee.
When you look at the teams we were competiting with at that time, there's no question we were understocked in the forward department.
If we'd had Bent in the side we definitely would have hit 4th place in 2009. I wonder what position we'd be in now had that happened? We would likely have kept hold of Young, Downing, and Milner, and the financial boost would have prevented the near collapse we saw in the following 3 years and would have given us enough money to build a strong back-line as strong as the midfield.
-
MON pretty much always played 4-4-2 unless there were injuries upfront.
I believe we could've gone with Gabby and Bent upfront or indeed Bent and Carew (although that combo would've been a tad shy on workrate) with Gabby playing on the right as he played numerous times in the MON years.
Bent could've even played upfront on his own as he did for Sunderland that season where he scored a lot of goals for a much poorer team than ourselves.
Heskey would never have been signed in my mind and easy with hindsight but nor would Downing either when Bent was moving for a similar fee.
When you look at the teams we were competiting with at that time, there's no question we were understocked in the forward department.
If we'd had Bent in the side we definitely would have hit 4th place in 2009. I wonder what position we'd be in now had that happened? We would likely have kept hold of Young, Downing, and Milner, and the financial boost would have prevented the near collapse we saw in the following 3 years and would have given us enough money to build a strong back-line as strong as the midfield.
Yes had bent arrived and not heskey how very different things might be today .
-
I wonder what position we'd be in now had that happened?
I expect we'd have been either spanked in the qualifying round against somebody like Marseille or Schalke, or we'd have puffed on through to be spanked in the group stages.
Sneijder or Ribery running at Warnock and Collins? Doesn't bear thinking about.
-
I wonder what position we'd be in now had that happened?
I expect we'd have been either spanked in the qualifying round against somebody like Marseille or Schalke, or we'd have puffed on through to be spanked in the group stages.
Sneijder or Ribery running at Warnock and Collins? Doesn't bear thinking about.
O'Neill would have done what he did best and bought a new back four.
-
I wonder what position we'd be in now had that happened?
I expect we'd have been either spanked in the qualifying round against somebody like Marseille or Schalke, or we'd have puffed on through to be spanked in the group stages.
Sneijder or Ribery running at Warnock and Collins? Doesn't bear thinking about.
O'Neill would have done what he did best and bought a new back four.
That wasn't as good as the one he'd replaced.
-
I'm not saying that we weren't lacking a top-class forward, but we lacked at least one creative midfield player as well. My memory isn't of some free-flowing, chance-vomiting team, sweeping forward brilliantly only to sky chance after chance. An excellent forward who could help create his own chances like Benteke would have helped, but a poacher like Bent, who has proven more than once that he's good but not top-level, would not have helped us - in fact, it is that type of old-fashioned, functional thinking, the 'get this bloke to do this, and this guy to do this' thinking, that doomed us under MON in any case.
-
I'm not saying that we weren't lacking a top-class forward, but we lacked at least one creative midfield player as well. My memory isn't of some free-flowing, chance-vomiting team, sweeping forward brilliantly only to sky chance after chance. An excellent forward who could help create his own chances like Benteke would have helped, but a poacher like Bent, who has proven more than once that he's good but not top-level, would not have helped us - in fact, it is that type of old-fashioned, functional thinking, the 'get this bloke to do this, and this guy to do this' thinking, that doomed us under MON in any case.
Precisely.
-
From memory Milner was making some assists when he was moved to central midfield and was just generally awesome for 6 months.
-
Milner started assisting the following season after Barry went. Even so, the system we played limited even him - he had to play as two players in that midfield, whereas playing a proper three would have helped him out. In any case, he was excellent but in a thrusty, upanddown kind of way - not quite the dictating playmaker we've needed for about twenty years.
-
I'm not saying that we weren't lacking a top-class forward, but we lacked at least one creative midfield player as well. My memory isn't of some free-flowing, chance-vomiting team, sweeping forward brilliantly only to sky chance after chance. An excellent forward who could help create his own chances like Benteke would have helped, but a poacher like Bent, who has proven more than once that he's good but not top-level, would not have helped us - in fact, it is that type of old-fashioned, functional thinking, the 'get this bloke to do this, and this guy to do this' thinking, that doomed us under MON in any case.
Bents goals kept us up under houllier and we created plenty of supply to him - he did the rest .
Under mon had we had bent rather than heskey i firmly believe we would have finished top 4 rather than top 6
-
A player good enough to keep you up isn't necessarily one good enough to get you into the top four. See Exhibit B: Charles N'Zogbia.
-
A player good enough to keep you up isn't necessarily one good enough to get you into the top four. See Exhibit B: Charles N'Zogbia.
What an odd comparison. N'Zogbia wasn't bought to get us into the top four, he was bought as a cut-price replacement for Young and with the intention of staying up.
I still don't get which one of Young, Milner or Downing you would be scrapping to accommodate this new creative player to provide the bullets for Heskey.
On that season's form you'd expect Downing to be the lesser of those three, but then you'd be moving Milner out wide to accommodate this new central thread.
-
I think what Montbert meant was that N'Zogbia did wonders at Wigan at the dangerous end of the table, but that doesn't mean he has it within him mentally or ability to wise to perform at the top end of the table.
If we use the players mentioned (Ozil and Fabregas) , then I would have played Barry and Fabreags deep, with Young and Milner either side of Gabby, with Ozil in ze hole. We'd have qualified for the Champions League at a stroll.
Do you remember when we went down to Arsenal that Sunday and it was very nip and tuck until Wenger brought on an injured Fabregas for twenty minutes which changed the game.
We had some good players, but nobody world class.
-
A player good enough to keep you up isn't necessarily one good enough to get you into the top four. See Exhibit B: Charles N'Zogbia.
What an odd comparison. N'Zogbia wasn't bought to get us into the top four, he was bought as a cut-price replacement for Young and with the intention of staying up.
I still don't get which one of Young, Milner or Downing you would be scrapping to accommodate this new creative player to provide the bullets for Heskey.
On that season's form you'd expect Downing to be the lesser of those three, but then you'd be moving Milner out wide to accommodate this new central thread.
Firstly, I didn't say he was brought in to get us into the top four, just that he was good enough to save Wigan but will never be a top four player.
Secondly, I didn't say buying Heskey was a good option, I'd rather have Bent than Heskey, but neithe of them are actually good enough for a real top level side - Bent is closer, but he's still not there (also, you don't have to take out any of them - you take out one striker and play three in midfield).
Finally, it was the formation which was a huge problem, and the whole backwards attitude that went with it. The big man and the finisher? One stays one goes? Get it wide and cross it? MON's really got something going for him in the motivational department, but his deficiencies everywhere else were always going to clear away that smokescreen in the end.
Ed: totes agree, Ads.
-
But now we're arguing two different things. I fully agree that it would have great if O'Neill completely changed his mentality, chosen formation, his mindset and became a Rinus Michels for the new millennium. That definitely would have made more of a difference than just getting a better striker in.
If though, we're talking about what he could have feasibly done within his limited imagination, then 'buying Bent instead of Heskey' is clearly a something that was affordable, achievable and would have made a very real difference (as shown by how productive Bent was with Young and Downing providing for him for six months).
-
Oh I agree, Bent better than Heskey, but it still wouldn't have been enough I think - the systemic problems were overwhelming.
-
Oh I agree, Bent better than Heskey, but it still wouldn't have been enough I think - the systemic problems were overwhelming.
Most people would agree that Bent is better than Heskey, yet Heskey's got 5 times as many caps and has won five major trophies, to Bent's zero.
I'm just saying, like.
-
Oh I agree, Bent better than Heskey, but it still wouldn't have been enough I think - the systemic problems were overwhelming.
Most people would agree that Bent is better than Heskey, yet Heskey's got 5 times as many caps and has won five major trophies, to Bent's zero.
I'm just saying, like.
Means nothing- Carlton Palmer had more caps than Gordon cowans but I know which was the better player by miles ;)
-
Most people would agree that Bent is better than Heskey, yet Heskey's got 5 times as many caps and has won five major trophies, to Bent's zero.
It's almost as if players who spend the bulk of their career at Liverpool rather than Charlton and Sunderland might win more trophies and international recognition.
It's a bit of a flawed argument, otherwise we're putting Phil Neville down as one of the best English footballers of all time.
-
Most people would agree that Bent is better than Heskey, yet Heskey's got 5 times as many caps and has won five major trophies, to Bent's zero.
It's almost as if players who spend the bulk of their career at Liverpool rather than Charlton and Sunderland might win more trophies and international recognition.
It's a bit of a flawed argument, otherwise we're putting Phil Neville down as one of the best English footballers of all time.
Well yes, but then players who play for clubs that win trophies tend to because they are better players than the ones who don't. Darren Bent got to one final with Spurs, and was an unused sub.
-
Oh I agree, Bent better than Heskey, but it still wouldn't have been enough I think - the systemic problems were overwhelming.
Most people would agree that Bent is better than Heskey, yet Heskey's got 5 times as many caps and has won five major trophies, to Bent's zero.
I'm just saying, like.
Means nothing- Carlton Palmer had more caps than Gordon cowans but I know which was the better player by miles ;)
Yeah, but they weren't competing for the same spot. Sid was competing with a number of quality players, whereas Palmer was playing in a period of transition.
Bent and Heskey's careers overlapped, and Heskey's got picked whist Darren didn't.
-
The funny thing about Heskey is that he got picked precisely because he played well with the poacher striker type, ie the Darren Bent type - and that type of player has been outmoded at the highest level for most of Bent's career and for the whole of the second half of Heskey's.
-
Bent