Heroes & Villains, the Aston Villa fanzine
Heroes & Villains => Heroes Discussion => Topic started by: ozzjim on November 27, 2012, 12:57:26 PM
-
So, would you start him at the moment - will add a poll. This is one of the biggest topics on the board, spilling into several other threads at the moment. Lets give it some space...
-
Natural goalscorer and we need goals- I'd bring him in for gabby.
-
I'd sell (If the price is right) and improve the team in other areas. Particularly midfield
-
Be on the bench for me til Jan, then I'd sell him and use all the cash to strengthen the squad.
-
All things being equal, yes, without doubt. Although I am resigned to thinking that there is a problem with him now and that he will be off very shortly.
He arrived at Villa 5 or 6 years too late and certainly 2 years too late.
But we need goals and so I'd play him although if he isnt putting the effort in, its a no brainer, he shouldn't play. Nobody should.
-
No, Ireland, Holman, Given, Lichaj, Baker and N'Zogbia are more unfortunate not to be in the starting line up right now imo.
-
Tough one. I can't see how he can fit into PL's preferred formation. Benteke is the sort of player you want as the main striker and I don't think Bent can do the role being asked of Gabby and Weimann.
So, maybe as a sub to bring on if we need to get something out of the game and change things around. However, that's an expensive sub.
Up until relatively recently, I'd always thought he's a definite starter, now I can't see it.
-
Get rid!
Goalscorers are boring. How DARE anybody question Lambert's decision to snub him anyway.
Stick him in with the youth team!
-
I can understand why Bent is not a guaranteed starter these days, but at the very least he should be involved in certain games and coming off the bench with 20-30 mins to go... surely he's the kind of guy you want to make the breakthrough when you're pushing Arsenal?
The fact he's not means I can't think anything else other than there's an issue here - despite what PL says - and he's off soon. Which is a shame.
-
He just doesn't fit into the current formation, so I can see why he's not playing at the moment. I would personally like to see Lambert switch to a formation that could incorporate two forwards without weakening the midfield (I've posted before that I would like to see him try 3-5-2) and give Bent a run in the team alongside Benteke.
-
I think he'll start tonight.
-
I wouldn't pick him as the one up front, and certainly not in either of the wide positions. However, if we're still in the shit in a couple of weeks time, I'd be tempted to go 4-4-2 with him and Benteke up front and a midfield of (left-to-right) Gabby, Westwood, KEA, Holman.
-
Needs to more time to see if he can combine with Benteke. All the stikers, Bent, Benteke, Gabby & Weiman have their place, whether starting on the bench or in the first 11. But as has been mentioned it does appear there is a problem between Bent and Lambert, despite PL's insistence otherwise.
I do think it would give the fans a lift if Bent started tonight though.
-
I'd only start him if we play 4-4-2. Which I don't see us doing for now.
Bench.
-
10 goals in 12 league goals suggests we have a problem.
Play him.
-
Needs to more time to see if he can combine with Benteke. All the stikers, Bent, Benteke, Gabby & Weiman have their place, whether starting on the bench or in the first 11. But as has been mentioned it does appear there is a problem between Bent and Lambert, despite PL's insistence otherwise.
I do think it would give the fans a lift if Bent started tonight though.
Would love to see him bang a hat trick tonight and then jump into lamberts arms for a hug but its not gonna happen I'm afraid.
-
10 goals in 12 league goals suggests we have a problem.
Play him.
This.
-
10 goals in 12 league goals suggests we have a problem.
Play him.
This.
Would qualify this by asking how many chances we have created / missed in those games....if we were creating 6/7/8 chances a game then DB is first name on teamsheet, if we aren't then not for me.
Can't see why he wouldn't be in squad though, that's bonkers
-
Logic says play him. But instinct tells me he is not going work out at the Villa. ShoppingGate tells you a lot.
-
the forward line needs rotation and he offers something different to what we have. Gabby stilll gives us much needed pace, and Benteke is the best line leader we have. Somehow we need to harness Bent's finishing ability using those two players. Weimann has tremendous desire and energy, but there is time for that, and I'd much rather he came off the bench right now than Bent.
-
The difference for me is when the ball is put into the box and bent is there I expect a goal. Can't say I feel that way with the other strikers.
-
I can see why he's not playing as he doesn't fit into the style Lambert's playing. It's all very well saying "he's a goalscorer, put him in" but for the system to work, you need someone who can hold the ball up and two wide forwards who'll run all day.
He's obviously a great option to have around though and he should certainly be around the first team but perhaps on the bench.
That said there's definitely something bigger at play here.
Definitely looks like he's going to be sold and if we can reinvest the money and strengthen our squad (Lambert seems to spend very well) then I'm all for it.
Someone mentioned that he's two games off a clause where we have to pay Sunderland 2 million. That may be the reason he's not playing him before January.
-
The way we're playing and what Lambert is asking of his strikers does not suit Bent, so he's out for footballing reasons. The problem is we simply can't afford an asset of his value not to be playing, so for financial reasons we need to shift him in January and invest in other areas of the team.
-
He looks like he's on his way out, if he can't even make a squad then there is a problem or Lambert doesn't want him
It seems quite obvious to me that the future of Bent will not be at Villa Park
-
Despite all that I have said on other threads, I think I would pick him tonight. Let's see how he responds. If he is looking for a move let him alert potential suitors by banging in a few goals.
If he looks as lethargic as ever, sub him at half time and let him go the first chance we get.
-
If he ends up going to Liverpool on loan I will not go down again whilst Lambert is in charge.
The idea that Aston Villa, a relegation candidate can afford to put a striker of his finishing instinct on the bench beggars belief.
-
If he ends up going to Liverpool on loan I will not go down again whilst Lambert is in charge.
The idea that Aston Villa, a relegation candidate can afford to put a striker of his finishing instinct on the bench beggars belief.
I love the thought that out there somewhere is a Manchester United supporter who won't go back until Ferguson goes because he sold Norman Whiteside.
-
If he ends up going to Liverpool on loan I will not go down again whilst Lambert is in charge.
The idea that Aston Villa, a relegation candidate can afford to put a striker of his finishing instinct on the bench beggars belief.
I just don't get your logic, Bent doesn't and will never fit into the system Lambert plays. I'd prefer a sale rather than a loan but if Liverpool are paying his wages we have spare wage budget to get us players we need.
The little threat about not going down again while Lamberts in charge is shocking!
-
The idea that Aston Villa, a relegation candidate can afford to put a striker of his finishing instinct on the bench beggars belief.
This
For every game for which he is fit to play but does not, his value in the January window will go down. He can't score any less goals then we are now. The lure of selling him in the January window and re-investing the money to bolster the squad ignores the fact that the transfer window is 8 league games (Including 1st January) away and we may be in a much worse position by then. We are in a real battle for our PL status and we need our best players on the pitch and for my money, Darren Bent should almost always be in that 11 starting tonight
.
-
I cant see why we would loan him to anyone - bents attributes and qualities are widely known as are his flaws - Liverpool or anyone know exactly what they are getting as he has been around a good few years .
-
To those saying he 'must' play, what sort of team would you pick around him?
-
To those saying he 'must' play what sort of team would you pick around him?
I'm not saying he must start but he should be on the bench
-
On the bench to start with and if Gabby or Benteke aren't doing the business on he comes.
If he doesn't get a game then they are doing it.
-
On the bench and then see where we are by January and consider selling him then - unless he has made a number of 'super sub' appearances.
-
He's got to be in the squad at the very least.
-
One of the most potent goal scorers of the last 10 years, ridiculous not playing him, especially as noone else is scoring.
-
He has to be on the bench at the very least. If we're not scoring goals in a game, it's clear the system we're playing in that game isn't working. Lambert should be flexible enough to change the system accordingly, so that Bent can come on and play within a system that'll get the goals HE can score, and the goals WE need.
Let's face the facts, the system we're playing at the moment isn't exactly chalking up many in the 'goals for' column. Although there are plenty in the 'goals against' chart. I understand Lambert needs time with it, so I am happy for him to persist. But if it's not working in a game, we need to change things around. Bent gives us that opportunity for a 'plan B'. Otherwise we'd be cutting off our nose to spite our face.
-
If there's anything in the Liverpool rumours and anything again in the previous rumours that they still owe us for Downing (two very big ifs) then I don't know that I'd be that happy with helping them out with a cashflow problem and throwing them a 20-goals-a-season striker to boot.
-
On the bench to start with and if Gabby or Benteke aren't doing the business on he comes.
If he doesn't get a game then they are doing it.
Spot on!
-
I would play him against Reading (main striker with Benteke and Weiman in support), and see if he gels with Benteke. If it isn't happening then back to the bench, but with the paucity of goals lately I do think it is worth a try fitting him into the formation before deciding to sell.
Can see him scoring against Reading, as Benteke and Weiman will create space for him.
-
Alf Ramsey, replying to Jack Charlton's question of why he was first choice over other more obviously talented players, replied that his job was to select the best team. For my own part, I trust PL's judgement, although I can see why many people are concerned.
-
To those saying he 'must' play, what sort of team would you pick around him?
Standard back five, two of Westwood, El Ahmadi or Bannan in front, two of Ireland, Gabby, Holman or N'Zogbia playing wider but not in touchline-hugging winger sense, then Bent and Beneteke up front, with Weimann in reserve behind them. Hopefully working the same way that Bent and Kenwyne Jones worked so well at Sunderland.
If Kenwyne Jones could form a great partnership with Bent managed by Steve Bruce, one would hope a better player like Benteke should be able to manage it and a better manager like Lambert should be able to help develop it.
-
On the bench but look to sell him in January.
Darren Bent is a square peg in Aston Villas round hole.
-
On the bench but look to sell him in January.
Darren Bent is a square peg in Aston Villas round hole.
I believe Mrs Ridgewell says something similar.
-
£24m for a bench player is ridiculous. Start him, he guarantees goals.
-
Simple fact is we have no conventional wide player and are poor at creating chances for the likes of Bent to thrive on. No invention in the final third, hence only 10 goals scored. We don't play to Bent's strengths.
-
Simple fact is we have no conventional wide player and are poor at creating chances for the likes of Bent to thrive on. No invention in the final third, hence only 10 goals scored. We don't play to Bent's strengths.
He's a complete forward though not just a finisher, I see no reason why Benteke can't play out wide with Bent in the middle. Gabby can also be used on the wing.
-
Simple fact is we have no conventional wide player
It's not a fact at all. N'Zogbia and Albrighton have spent their entire careers as wide-players and Gabby and Holman are hardly alien to playing there.
-
To those saying he 'must' play, what sort of team would you pick around him?
Standard back five, two of Westwood, El Ahmadi or Bannan in front, two of Ireland, Gabby, Holman or N'Zogbia playing wider but not in touchline-hugging winger sense, then Bent and Beneteke up front, with Weimann in reserve behind them. Hopefully working the same way that Bent and Kenwyne Jones worked so well at Sunderland.
If Kenwyne Jones could form a great partnership with Bent managed by Steve Bruce, one would hope a better player like Benteke should be able to manage it and a better manager like Lambert should be able to help develop it.
This , if we could get nzogbia fit and firing he could be a great provider to bent and benteke.
Bent and jones were a real handful and no reason why bent and benteke wouldn't be as well.
-
I think Bent and Benteke could work with the right midfield balance behind, probably Holman KEA Westwood Bannan. I see that as neither a particularly narrow 4 nor a mix of 2 touchline hugging attacking wingers with the central 2 isolated, I think it's a nice balance between the two as Holman and Bannan will work hard and help the central guys out yet are comfortable pulling out wide and whipping crosses in also. Ireland in for KEA could work as well at a push I reckon. But even with 442 I think there is an argument to say Weimann and Gabby would deserve a place even as a central striker ahead of Bent because of their workrate and threat.
-
Simple fact is we have no conventional wide player
It's not a fact at all. N'Zogbia and Albrighton have spent their entire careers as wide-players and Gabby and Holman are hardly alien to playing there.
Yes but why doesn't PL rate them? They simply aren't in Young or Downing's class. For that, the blame lies at Lerner's door. He should have sold up in August 2010 instead of trying to do things on the cheap.
-
Simple fact is we have no conventional wide player and are poor at creating chances for the likes of Bent to thrive on. No invention in the final third, hence only 10 goals scored. We don't play to Bent's strengths.
He's a complete forward though not just a finisher, I see no reason why Benteke can't play out wide with Bent in the middle. Gabby can also be used on the wing.
WHAT.! Complete forward??? Darren Bent is a poacher, that is all.
He can't hold up the ball, he can't head the ball and he doesn't work to try and win the team back.
He is nowhere near the complete forward.
-
Simple fact is we have no conventional wide player and are poor at creating chances for the likes of Bent to thrive on. No invention in the final third, hence only 10 goals scored. We don't play to Bent's strengths.
He's a complete forward though not just a finisher, I see no reason why Benteke can't play out wide with Bent in the middle. Gabby can also be used on the wing.
WHAT.! Complete forward??? Darren Bent is a poacher, that is all.
He can't hold up the ball, he can't head the ball and he doesn't work to try and win the team back.
He is nowhere near the complete forward.
He's certainly a goal scorer though. Something we haven't got n the team at the moment. 10 goals in 13 league games. A shameful stat.
-
Simple fact is we have no conventional wide player and are poor at creating chances for the likes of Bent to thrive on. No invention in the final third, hence only 10 goals scored. We don't play to Bent's strengths.
He's a complete forward though not just a finisher, I see no reason why Benteke can't play out wide with Bent in the middle. Gabby can also be used on the wing.
WHAT.! Complete forward??? Darren Bent is a poacher, that is all.
He can't hold up the ball, he can't head the ball and he doesn't work to try and win the team back.
He is nowhere near the complete forward.
He's certainly a goal scorer though. Something we haven't got n the team at the moment. 10 goals in 13 league games. A shameful stat.
So is it about Bent scoring goals or Villa winning? Southampton Bent scored, but we lost, we need a balance. If that means playing Gabby and him only getting 6 goals, then fine if they get us more points.
The facts are, in the current system, we are a better team without Bent.
-
The facts are, in the current system, we are a better team without Bent.
Yes, but the current system has got us to third from bottom with 10 goals scored all season
Plan B time?
-
Yes Darren Bent is a goalscorer but little else besides. That is not to say he is idle or his attitude is wrong, it is simply the sort of player he is.
We do not have sufficient quality to allow anything other than 10 outfield players all working effectively as a unit for the team.
If Bent had been on the pitch for us against Arsenal the team performance would have been less and we would probably have lost.
Darren Bent needs to be with a team where the other 9 outfield players are of sufficient quality to pass and create chances in the area which he can put away. Which brings me back to Arsenal.
If instead Darren Bent had been on the pitch for them against us he would probably have put away one of the chances they created and we would still have lost!
-
Bent doesn't thrive off wing play so much as counter-attacks - which of course often happen down the wings, as that's where 'pace 'n' space' are, especially if the opposition full-backs have advanced - but his use of the ball (even if he retains it) is pretty poor if we're attacking a defence in position. His relative lack of ability to hold onto the ball isn't just poor offensively - if we're the team attacking it can leave us vulnerable on the break. Also, if he's our out-ball on the break and he loses it - or more often, isn't making himself available to receive - that is dangerous as it just allows the opposition the ball, and gives them wave after wave of attacks with relatively little to worry about on the break, especially as we don't have much by way of winger.
Benteke is better on both fronts - contributing to our more standard attacks with superior build-up play, and holding the ball up for us to break effectively through him - not to mention that he's proving himself more than adequate as a finisher on the break as well. Add into this the need to play three in midfield to keep the ball (the diamond just did not work, and this 4-3-3/4-2-3-1 is clearly superior for us), and Benteke's selection becomes a mere formality to me.
This being said, in pure footballing terms having a traditional poacher like Bent to come off the bench is clearly a useful option, as Hernandez proves so often: there's more space late in the game, often a more stretched, end-to-end pattern of play, and it's a new threat which defenders might not adjust to (interesting to note that when Hernanez started against Norwich he was clearly nowhere near as effective, and United missed the impact of his coming off the bench fresh late in the game). The fact that he's being left out suggests to me that he thinks he's better than playing from the bench, that he's not putting in 100% in training.
I've seen people refer to him as a luxury player or some such, but this isn't Riquelme or Zlatan we're talking about here: he doesn't have the amazing creative talent to justify some arrogance or disregard of teamwork, merely some useful talents which have to be moulded to fit the team like everyone else (apart from Riquelme, Zlatan etc). If he thinks he's better than the team based in his rather prosaic abilities then flog him to whoever's foolish enough to handicap their team, or who are content to play on the break and have one player score fifteen instead of five scoring eight or nine.
-
I think Zog and Bent will be heading for the exits in Jan. That should give PL and nice warchest.
-
The facts are, in the current system, we are a better team without Bent.
Yes, but the current system has got us to third from bottom with 10 goals scored all season
Plan B time?
Has it?
Since Bent was dropped, we drew with West Brom, Norwich and Arsenal then beat Sunderland.
That's 6 points from our 10 (yes Bent scored against West Brom)
Prior to that we got 4 points against team like West Ham, Southampton with Bent playing.
So I would say we have improved as a team since Bent was dropped.
Edited Baggies not Fulham
-
Since Bent was dropped, we drew with Fulham, Norwich and Arsenal then beat Sunderland.
That's 6 points from our 10 (yes Bent scored against Fulham)
I'm a bit confused
we lost to fulham 1-0
edit - I understand what you were saying now.
Don't totally agree, mind
-
Since Bent was dropped, we drew with Fulham, Norwich and Arsenal then beat Sunderland.
That's 6 points from our 10 (yes Bent scored against Fulham)
I'm a bit confused
we lost to fulham 1-0
I think he means West Brom, where Bent's usefulness coming off the bench was shown.
-
If Lambert was half as good as he's being made out to be, surely he'd be able to come up with a system that suited Darren Bent's strengths? Just about every other manager who's worked with him has managed it. It's not like dropping him has led to a huge upturn in performances and results.
-
£24m for a bench player is ridiculous. Start him, he guarantees goals.
Agreed. Last season we were rubbish but Bent was still scoring. We've got him and we're lucky to have him.
-
I am fairly confident there is more to this than meets the eye, and I don't think money or formation are necessarily the reasons. I think work rate in training, attitude around the place and a bit of a sulk, and even a transfer request that has yet to be disclosed have a lot to do with the situation, but that is speculating.
-
£24m for a bench player is ridiculous. Start him, he guarantees goals.
Agreed. Last season we were rubbish but Bent was still scoring. We've got him and we're lucky to have him.
If only life were that simple.
-
Natural goalscorer and we need goals- I'd bring him in for gabby.
ditto
I dont care If players can run a marathon , they cant win games , we need goals. Bent might not move enough for some people , who cares , he is in the right place at the right time and scores the goals.
-
Oh and I put him on the bench. For all the stick I give Gabby, and much of it through frustration, his work rate in the wide role is vital. He started to sulk out there under Eck but has not done so under Lambert yet, I just wish we could get him to be a bit more aware.
Oh and 30 minutes to go, in a tight game, the ability to go 3-5-2 or 4-4-2 and get Bent up with Benteke would be very useful.
-
Simple fact is we have no conventional wide player and are poor at creating chances for the likes of Bent to thrive on. No invention in the final third, hence only 10 goals scored. We don't play to Bent's strengths.
He's a complete forward though not just a finisher, I see no reason why Benteke can't play out wide with Bent in the middle. Gabby can also be used on the wing.
WHAT.! Complete forward??? Darren Bent is a poacher, that is all.
He can't hold up the ball, he can't head the ball and he doesn't work to try and win the team back.
He is nowhere near the complete forward.
He's certainly a goal scorer though. Something we haven't got n the team at the moment. 10 goals in 13 league games. A shameful stat.
So is it about Bent scoring goals or Villa winning? Southampton Bent scored, but we lost, we need a balance. If that means playing Gabby and him only getting 6 goals, then fine if they get us more points.
The facts are, in the current system, we are a better team without Bent.
in the bottom 3?
-
If Bent had come on for 20 mins against Arse , we might have won that gamel .
-
The facts are, in the current system, we are a better team without Bent.
How is that a fact? It's a fact that the current manager appears to think so.
As we've seen from previous managers though, they're not always right about everything.
-
You could have asked Everton fans, after they'd just avoided relegation, about selling Rooney.
I reckon over 90% would have feared relegation once he'd gone.
Look at them now.
We have to trust Lamberts judgement on this, just as Everton had to trust Moyes.
We are moving forward, Villa will survive.
-
The facts are, in the current system, we are a better team without Bent.
How is that a fact? It's a fact that the current manager appears to think so.
As we've seen from previous managers though, they're not always right about everything.
The facts are that the league position, wins total and lack of goals suggest we are not a better team - it's results that count not how well we play.
-
You could have asked Everton fans, after they'd just avoided relegation, about selling Rooney.
I reckon over 90% would have feared relegation once he'd gone.
Look at them now.
We have to trust Lamberts judgement on this, just as Everton had to trust Moyes.
We are moving forward, Villa will survive.
Rooney wanted to go though , it's not the same with bent as the manager is the one who doesn't seem to want him.
-
Doesn't fit into the way we play. He won't drift out wide like Weimann or Gabby and isn't adept at holding up the ball. If Benteke has apoor game or two then Bent comes in.
-
If Bent had come on for 20 mins against Arse , we might have won that gamel .
And we might have lost it due to the ball not sticking up front.
-
The facts are, in the current system, we are a better team without Bent.
How is that a fact? It's a fact that the current manager appears to think so.
As we've seen from previous managers though, they're not always right about everything.
The facts are that the league position, wins total and lack of goals suggest we are not a better team - it's results that count not how well we play.
We are going round in circles here.
-
If Bent had come on for 20 mins against Arse , we might have won that gamel .
And we might have lost it due to the ball not sticking up front.
Arsenal weren't exactly any good dont thou
-
The facts are, in the current system, we are a better team without Bent.
How is that a fact? It's a fact that the current manager appears to think so.
As we've seen from previous managers though, they're not always right about everything.
The facts are that the league position, wins total and lack of goals suggest we are not a better team - it's results that count not how well we play.
We are going round in circles here.
Well if you're are just going to repeat "it's a fact that we're better without him in the team" with no real evidence to suggest that it's the case, while we are the lowest goalscorers in the whole division then don't be surprised when people asking for a bit more to back it up.
-
For me he, and players of his type, are best suited to coming off the bench and exploiting the space in the last 20minutes.
Does it feel right to use our record signing that way? - Clearly not but I don't think stops it being the best role for him.
I firmly believe that you need 2-3 options on the bench who can change the game, Bent and Nzogbia are great for that (as is holman if he doesn't start), if we can get them to see that it's a good role for them to have. It's certainly how I'd use them both, neither works hard enough for 90 minutes but late in a game they could be destructive.
-
Still left out, madness. He's clearly off.
-
I've said more than once that there may well be something we don't know. The fact he's not making the bench makes me think that can be the only reason.
-
Talk Sport reporting he has stormed out of VP.
Edit - sky have just shown him at the ground
-
You see, Darren, it's like this. The people who run Villa hate goals. Despise them. Maybe because they sold Andy Gray then won the league. Beats me, as well as you. The fans do like goals, but what does our view matter. Milosevic, Balaban, Angel, Vassell, Agbonlahor etc
-
well for PL sake . We better not lose tonight .
-
The facts are, in the current system, we are a better team without Bent.
How is that a fact? It's a fact that the current manager appears to think so.
As we've seen from previous managers though, they're not always right about everything.
The facts are that the league position, wins total and lack of goals suggest we are not a better team - it's results that count not how well we play.
We are going round in circles here.
Well if you're are just going to repeat "it's a fact that we're better without him in the team" with no real evidence to suggest that it's the case, while we are the lowest goalscorers in the whole division then don't be surprised when people asking for a bit more to back it up.
You know what I meant.
I've just heard a rumour saying that if he plays 2 more games, we have to pay a further 4 million to Sunderland. Anyone heard anything?
-
I have massive respect for Lambert over this. Instead of compromising his own beliefs to shoehorn an expensive player into his side, he's picking the team he thinks will do the job best. Kudos to him.
-
Benteke is Lamberts idea of a front man,he's big,he holds the ball well, brings other players into the game, good in the air.Bent is an opportunist,can't hold the ball, doesn't put himself about, doesn't bring others into the game and has half Bentekes work rate.
-
Lots of empty seats.
-
I have massive respect for Lambert over this. Instead of compromising his own beliefs to shoehorn an expensive player into his side, he's picking the team he thinks will do the job best. Kudos to him.
What absolute rubbish!! Leaving a102 PL goalscorer out for an ex Chesterfield rookie!
-
I've total respect for Lambert in sticking to his beliefs but I can't say I agree with the decision.
-
I've total respect for Lambert in sticking to his beliefs but I can't say I agree with the decision.
PL is an idiot - He'll drag us into the Championship!
-
Wrong thread!
-
If he is played, he risks being injured, and will not be a valuable asset in January. He is obviously going, the question is, who is making this decision Lambert or Lerner?
-
Bents been a long way from his sharpest this season. His finishing hasn't been up to his normal standard either. He's had a few chances where on form he'd have been more decisive but he's not looked right. I agree with PL that he's not done enough to warrant a starting spot, but we're facing a side in Reading who could suffer against Bents movement when they begin tiring. He should be on the bench.
I don't think there's any great conspiracy I just think perhaps Bent should show a bit more application. We're not privvy to what happens in training or the dressing room. Maybe he's not showing enough, who knows. I don't think Randy's actually even involved enough to put enough thought into keeping Bent out the side as he's sellable. That's probably a bit too astute for Randy in all honesty.
-
I've total respect for Lambert in sticking to his beliefs but I can't say I agree with the decision.
It's now starting to look like stubbornness to the detriment of the team.
-
There must already be a deal agreed to take him elsewhere.
If Benteke keeps scoring I don't care.
-
The problem is he needs a good team around him, to do all the work. He puts the ball in the back of the net. He has a team of lightweight kids who are learning their trade so to speak. Lambert doesn't think he works hard enough IMO. I can see that, but he will continue to score when he moves to a more complete team in Jan. I don't want to see him go, but his face don't fit and we haven't got the players to carry him anymore.
-
I'd be fascinated to hear the reasons of the 22 people (at the time of posting) who wouldn't even want him on the bench.
I can understand the logic of those who wouldn't want him starting (although I disagree with them), but I genuinely can't imagine there was anyone in the stadium on 78 minutes tonight who was glad that he wasn't an option to bring on.
-
Can't believe that he's not even involved - just don't understand at all.
I like Lambert, I don't blame him for our current position at all but quite frankly this is just madness.
-
He should be in the match-day squad.
-
I think it's time for Lambert to stop the bullshit and just be honest. The rumour that suggests we're not playing him as the add ons clause will kick in to the tune of a few million sounds extremely plausible, and frankly if true then i'm appalled
I'm not sure what Bent has done to deserve this kind of treatment
-
I'd be fascinated to hear the reasons of the 22 people (at the time of posting) who wouldn't even want him on the bench.
I can understand the logic of those who wouldn't want him starting (although I disagree with them), but I genuinely can't imagine there was anyone in the stadium on 78 minutes tonight who was glad that he wasn't an option to bring on.
That's exactly my stance on it, too.
-
I think it's time for Lambert to stop the bullshit and just be honest. The rumour that suggests we're not playing him as the add ons clause will kick in to the tune of a few million sounds extremely plausible, and frankly if true then i'm appalled
The most depressing thing in all that is the fact that, regardless of whether it is actually true or not, it is all so totally plausible.
-
The thing is, no one on here knows anything- you are just making it up.
-
He should if fit always be in the squad, no matter how Lambert feels about him he is more use to us on the bench than sat in the stand, I just dont get it, ok if the manager wants to sell him in Jan thats fine but make use of him till that moment arrives.
-
Whatever he has or hasn't done, he has to be worth a spot on the bench ahead of bloody Albrighton.
-
We have a manager who tells us it's all about picking the right team and it probably is but he's gone from putting Bent on the pitch when we were down to 10 men against norwich to not thinking he's good enough to be on the bench for a match versus Reading.
-
Lambert got away with it tonight as 0-0 and there would've been big questions not just from reporters but from the crowd. Such are the margins of being a manager.
Whatever the fall out (and there certainly has been) Bent should be on the bench as we're still paying him until January and I don't think it's worth it just to freeze him out until the window opens.
-
It's getting silly now. While PL is adamant that it's his decision, we fans deserve to know why a £20m striker, with a track record, is fit but not making the squad.
-
especially when our strikers are missing exactly the kind if chances that bent thrives on
-
Bent is not fit, that is why he was not involved
-
Bent is not fit, that is why he was not involved
Even though he himself has said that he's been fit and ready to play for the past two matches?
-
Bent is not fit, that is why he was not involved
Even though he himself has said that he's been fit and ready to play for the past two matches?
which means absoloutely nothing.
-
Bent is not fit, that is why he was not involved
Even though he himself has said that he's been fit and ready to play for the past two matches?
which means absoloutely nothing.
Except meaning that he's fit. Rather than not fit.
Or, to put it another way - the player himself has said that he is fit to play. Umpteen journalists have asked why Bent isn't playing and Lambert hasn't once taken the easy way out and just said 'he's not fit' (like he did when he y'know, wasn't fit).
What new insight are you basing your assertion on?
-
How about....
...he's not actually fully fit despite one tweet telling us otherwise and the physios have suggested he rest for another game or two to avoid aggravating a niggly injury?
Just a thought, surely better than conspiracy theories about clauses and arguments?
-
I think it's time for Lambert to stop the bullshit and just be honest. The rumour that suggests we're not playing him as the add ons clause will kick in to the tune of a few million sounds extremely plausible, and frankly if true then i'm appalled
The most depressing thing in all that is the fact that, regardless of whether it is actually true or not, it is all so totally plausible.
Didn't something similar happen with Curtis Davies and his contract improvement if he played any more games? When the selection decisions are not made for footballing reasons is a time to worry. It does have a hint of credibility about it. Bent is almost certainly off in Jan, and a couple of appearances before then may cost us a few million.
-
How about....
...he's not actually fully fit despite one tweet telling us otherwise and the physios have suggested he rest for another game or two to avoid aggravating a niggly injury?
Just a thought, surely better than conspiracy theories about clauses and arguments?
how about his agent telling him to tell every one he is fit and putting himself in the shop window for a January sale? He is not fit!
-
that would carry more weight if Lambert himself hadn't said he WAS fit and was training as normal, and then by not saying 'but now he's injured' when leaving him out of the last 2 match day squads.
he's fit. of that there is no question
-
I'd be fascinated to hear the reasons of the 22 people (at the time of posting) who wouldn't even want him on the bench.
I can understand the logic of those who wouldn't want him starting (although I disagree with them), but I genuinely can't imagine there was anyone in the stadium on 78 minutes tonight who was glad that he wasn't an option to bring on.
Sorry, but I will be glad when he has gone from the club. He is lazy and disruptive. Putting in a transfer request so early in the season was a bad move for him. The trouble at Bodymoor Heath for reasons, so far undisclosed but believed to involve him shagging Herd's missus and getting dotted for it, can hardly help his cause. Doing a bunk from the ground tonight, if it is true, is really the tin hat.
-
He was at the match.
-
I'd be fascinated to hear the reasons of the 22 people (at the time of posting) who wouldn't even want him on the bench.
I can understand the logic of those who wouldn't want him starting (although I disagree with them), but I genuinely can't imagine there was anyone in the stadium on 78 minutes tonight who was glad that he wasn't an option to bring on.
Sorry, but I will be glad when he has gone from the club. He is lazy and disruptive. Putting in a transfer request so early in the season was a bad move for him. The trouble at Bodymoor Heath for reasons, so far undisclosed but believed to involve him shagging Herd's missus and getting dotted for it, can hardly help his cause. Doing a bunk from the ground tonight, if it is true, is really the tin hat.
Which it's not, as he was shown to be there long after those rumours were spread.
Obviously don't let that stop you from adding it to the list of things that nasty Darren is supposed to have done.
-
Sorry, but I will be glad when he has gone from the club. He is lazy and disruptive. Putting in a transfer request so early in the season was a bad move for him. The trouble at Bodymoor Heath for reasons, so far undisclosed but believed to involve him shagging Herd's missus and getting dotted for it, can hardly help his cause. Doing a bunk from the ground tonight, if it is true, is really the tin hat.
1. What transfer request ?
2. Doing what to Herd's missus ?
3. He didn't do a bunk
I think you need to stop believing everything you read mate!
-
he's fit. of that there is no question
You know that for a fact yes?
-
he's fit. of that there is no question
You know that for a fact yes?
The evidence certainly seems to point that way. In that there is some, rather than none.
-
How about....
...he's not actually fully fit despite one tweet telling us otherwise and the physios have suggested he rest for another game or two to avoid aggravating a niggly injury?
Just a thought, surely better than conspiracy theories about clauses and arguments?
Lambert said before the game that Bent was fit, and he'd just chosen to pick a team without him to win the game.
-
One tweet?
We have no idea if he had a slight knock in training, or tweaked his existing injury, or Lambert asked the physios who said don't play him.
Honestly, I think if he had been fit, he would have been on the bench, but then I don't subscribe to conspiracy theories!
-
One tweet?
We have no idea if he had a slight knock in training, or tweaked his existing injury, or Lambert asked the physios who said don't play him.
Honestly, I think if he had been fit, he would have been on the bench, but then I don't subscribe to conspiracy theories!
LAMBERT CONFIRMED THAT BENT WAS FIT!!!11111ONEONEONE
-
One tweet?
We have no idea if he had a slight knock in training, or tweaked his existing injury, or Lambert asked the physios who said don't play him.
Honestly, I think if he had been fit, he would have been on the bench, but then I don't subscribe to conspiracy theories!
With all due respect, Lambert said he was fit and he chose not to pick him for the Arsenal game. That is a truth. You aren't certain he picked up a knock post interview pre game. That's conspiring right there
-
He's fit so he should be on the bench at least, regardless of whether he wants to leave the club. Aside from anything else, Lambert is putting enormous pressure on himself and the strikers he does pick.
-
Sorry, but I will be glad when he has gone from the club. He is lazy and disruptive. Putting in a transfer request so early in the season was a bad move for him. The trouble at Bodymoor Heath for reasons, so far undisclosed but believed to involve him shagging Herd's missus and getting dotted for it, can hardly help his cause. Doing a bunk from the ground tonight, if it is true, is really the tin hat.
1. What transfer request ?
2. Doing what to Herd's missus ?
3. He didn't do a bunk
I think you need to stop believing everything you read mate!
You need to stop disbelieving everything you read. He's going.
-
can some one point to a reliable and quoted source that Bent is in fact fit?
-
If anyone believes that Jordan Bowery is a better option off the bench than Darren Bent then they are either a) related to Bowery or b) sadly misguided
Bent should at the very least be on the bench if fit and all this posturing and showing him who is the boss by Lambert is pathetic; he said he has 25 players to look after but apparently Darren Bent is not one of them based on the last couple of games
Whatever the problem is, please sort it out for the good of the club or stick him on the transfer list and stop pissing around
-
Lambert was on Tom Ross's show after the game and confirmed he was fit to play tonight but he decided to choose a team to win the game. Asked if they had had a fall out he said no and if I had you'd be the first to know.
-
Daily mail
Lambert denied there was any fallout with Bent or that the striker had left the stadium before kick-off after his exclusion from his plans.
Lambert said: 'Darren was in the squad, it was the same on Saturday. I just picked the same group. I do what think is best for Aston Villa.
'But honestly, I don't have a problem with Darren Bent and I do rate him as a player.
'I've no problem with his attitude in training, none whatsoever.
'Did he storm off? No, not a thing. I would tell you. I thought he was fine. I read the team out. The most important thing is Aston Villa.
'Will I listen to offers in January? Honestly my main concern is winning games for this club, nothing else.
'Can Bent play again for us? Yes, never rule anything out. But I pick a team to win, I never pick one I think will lose.'
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-2239480/Darren-Bent-dropped-Paul-Lambert-defends-decision.html#ixzz2DTGkh500
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook
-
Sky interviewer asked PL about our Darren tonight and he said that,
Bent would be picked 'when he was training well'.
Also - there's no problem with selecting him apparently, which suggests that Bent has not met a fitness threshold.
What his agent is putting out there might be different, though!
-
https://twitter.com/aidansweeney_/status/264744145682300930
More fuel to add to the fire....?
-
That was on a sunderland site a few weeks ago.
Is that really Herd in the first pic, can't say I'd know how he was if he walked past me in the street!
-
He's fit so he should be on the bench at least, regardless of whether he wants to leave the club. Aside from anything else, Lambert is putting enormous pressure on himself and the strikers he does pick.
I agree with all of this completely, unless there is something pretty major from behind the scenes which we don't know about.
-
can some one point to a reliable and quoted source that Bent is in fact fit?
Lambert stated he would be fit soon a couple of weeks ago. Also the press are hounding him about this, wouldn't it be easy for lambert to say, he's not fit to play.
He's perfectly fine IMO, just on his way out in Jan.
-
Bent wasthere last night carrying his wash bag. Why would an unfit player have that with him? We were crying out for a goalscorer last night and he was sitting in the stands.
-
Bent wasthere last night carrying his wash bag. Why would an unfit player have that with him? We were crying out for a goalscorer last night and he was sitting in the stands.
We were crying out for 3 points last night. The team selected by Lambert did that. Mission accomplished.
-
Remember that Bent signed for 18 million rising to 24 million. I wonder when that extra 6 million kicks in? According to wikipedia so far he has played 47 games for us. I wouldn't be surprised if the 6 mill or at least half of it, kicks in at 50 games. I bet Lambert is trying to avoid that on learners direction giving him the option of spending that on a younger cheaper striker. One thing is certain' at the moment' if Benteke gets injured we are going down.
-
Yes Darren Bent is a goalscorer but little else besides. That is not to say he is idle or his attitude is wrong, it is simply the sort of player he is.
We do not have sufficient quality to allow anything other than 10 outfield players all working effectively as a unit for the team.
If Bent had been on the pitch for us against Arsenal the team performance would have been less and we would probably have lost.
Darren Bent needs to be with a team where the other 9 outfield players are of sufficient quality to pass and create chances in the area which he can put away. Which brings me back to Arsenal.
If instead Darren Bent had been on the pitch for them against us he would probably have put away one of the chances they created and we would still have lost!
I've got to disagree with this. He was on the pitch against Swansea and we won. He came off the bench against the Albion and scored the goal which won us the point in another game where chances had been squandered.
-
Remember that Bent signed for 18 million rising to 24 million. I wonder when that extra 6 million kicks in? According to wikipedia so far he has played 47 games for us. I wouldn't be surprised if the 6 mill or at least half of it, kicks in at 50 games. I bet Lambert is trying to avoid that on learners direction giving him the option of spending that on a younger cheaper striker. One thing is certain' at the moment' if Benteke gets injured we are going down.
If our Premier League future hinges on a 21yr old striker in his first season in England then we're in the shit. Benteke has on the whole done well so far, probably above expectations. However, to expect him to do it week in week out for the rest of the season is a massive ask.
-
The Dour Scot said on Sky "Darren Bent (not Darren I noticed) has to train and play well". This suggests Benty is not a good trainer,so what.
Both Jimmy Greaves and Bestie were by their own admission not good trainers. So we have good trainers and very little in the way of goals.
Does Lambert ever smile? He makes Andy Murray look positively joyful.
-
Remember that Bent signed for 18 million rising to 24 million. I wonder when that extra 6 million kicks in? According to wikipedia so far he has played 47 games for us. I wouldn't be surprised if the 6 mill or at least half of it, kicks in at 50 games. I bet Lambert is trying to avoid that on learners direction giving him the option of spending that on a younger cheaper striker. One thing is certain' at the moment' if Benteke gets injured we are going down.
If our Premier League future hinges on a 21yr old striker in his first season in England then we're in the shit. Benteke has on the whole done well so far, probably above expectations. However, to expect him to do it week in week out for the rest of the season is a massive ask.
IF the clause is true (and its still an if) then its Randynomics at its best, save a few million on Bent and run the gauntlet of losing millions if relegated.
-
Fuck him, I'm bored of this circus already.
-
Bent wasthere last night carrying his wash bag. Why would an unfit player have that with him? We were crying out for a goalscorer last night and he was sitting in the stands.
We were crying out for 3 points last night. The team selected by Lambert did that. Mission accomplished.
Spot on.
-
I think we all deserve to know the truth - is it the managers choice / pig headedness OR is it an appearance clause ?
Don't think we will though ......
-
Surely Bent is a better option on the bench than Albrighton.
-
Fuck him, I'm bored of this circus already.
Me too. Darrent Bent, or Paul Lambert are not bigger than Aston Villa. I wish they'd all just pipe the fuck down. And the press.
-
Pat murphy had a long interview with lambert on 5 live last night and repeatedly pressed lambert on bent, he said bent and benteke can play together as they did at st Mary's, he said bent is fit and available and there has been no bust up between them and that to get picked bent needs to train well and play well.
-
Or maybe it's something that is not for public consumption.
-
Or maybe it's something that is not for public consumption.
Seems to me that reading into lamberts comments he doesn't think bent is doing enough in training, I can't see bent staying here in January sadly.
-
Pat murphy had a long interview with lambert on 5 live last night and repeatedly pressed lambert on bent, he said bent and benteke can play together as they did at st Mary's, he said bent is fit and available and there has been no bust up between them and that to get picked bent needs to train well and play well.
Pat Murphy "On the face of it they look like they could play together "
Lambert "They did at Southampton........"
Eastie pal, Lambert was pointing out that when he played them together it was probably our worst showing this season.
-
Surely Bent is a better option on the bench than Albrighton.
Or Bowery???
-
Been away for a week so just catching up with everything.
I think there is a combination of factors with Bent - he's expensive, Lambert is building for the future and he's not totally suited to the system he wants to use.
It's a strange way to go about things, but if he doesn't want him as number 1 long-term and thinks we'll be better for it by not using him in the short term (and Bent hasn't reacted well) then it's understandable that he's been frozen out.
He's our highest earner and if we're skint and selling him enables Lambert to have £12m+ to spend and another 2 players with the wages Bent's departure frees up then it's understandable.
-
I'm not one for pop psychology but I've never seen someone touch their nose so clearly in response to a question, while raising their voice three octaves, as lambert did last night.
There is clearly a problem on a personal level and it smacks a bit of lambert establishing his status as 'big man' by picking on the fancy dan star player. Which might be to our long term benefit given the discipline problems we've had, but it's a bit of a risk.
-
He's our highest earner and if we're skint and selling him enables Lambert to have £12m+ to spend and another 2 players with the wages Bent's departure frees up then it's understandable.
If we want to sell him, at least get him in the shop window. If Bent wants to go, then he'll clearly want to do his best to secure a move away. Start him on Saturday against QPR, if he scores and we win, everyone's a winner.
-
Pat murphy had a long interview with lambert on 5 live last night and repeatedly pressed lambert on bent, he said bent and benteke can play together as they did at st Mary's, he said bent is fit and available and there has been no bust up between them and that to get picked bent needs to train well and play well.
Pat Murphy "On the face of it they look like they could play together "
Lambert "They did at Southampton........"
Eastie pal, Lambert was pointing out that when he played them together it was probably our worst showing this season.
Did bent score that day ? Yes!
Was bent responsible for our shit second half defending ? No
Bent scored and benteke missed a couple of great chances, the reason we lost was crap defending !
-
Remember that Bent signed for 18 million rising to 24 million. I wonder when that extra 6 million kicks in? According to wikipedia so far he has played 47 games for us. I wouldn't be surprised if the 6 mill or at least half of it, kicks in at 50 games. I bet Lambert is trying to avoid that on learners direction giving him the option of spending that on a younger cheaper striker. One thing is certain' at the moment' if Benteke gets injured we are going down.
I think you could be spot on. The way RL has controlled the finances in last few years, if Lambert says he doesn't figure long term then we ain't gonna pay another 6 million for a couple of games. We will struggle to get anywhere near 18 million back let alone 24. He's probably agreed that whatever we do get in Jan He can have to spend ?
-
I don't think it is understandable at all.
Last night was a vital game. It was very tight and we could easily have gone 1 or 2 down. When you are desperate for points, who would you rather have to come on to save / win a game?
There's clearly been a fall out and it looks irreconcilable. It could be disastrous if Betenke gets injured or loses form.
-
It would be interesting to see what would Brian Clough (The proper one) and Arsene Wenger do if they had Darren Bent in their team.
-
Surely Bent is a better option on the bench than Albrighton.
Or Bowery???
We don't know what Bowery can do at the moment, but we do know what Albrighton can do, not a fucking lot.
-
Pat murphy had a long interview with lambert on 5 live last night and repeatedly pressed lambert on bent, he said bent and benteke can play together as they did at st Mary's, he said bent is fit and available and there has been no bust up between them and that to get picked bent needs to train well and play well.
Pat Murphy "On the face of it they look like they could play together "
Lambert "They did at Southampton........"
Eastie pal, Lambert was pointing out that when he played them together it was probably our worst showing this season.
Do bent score that day ? Yes!
Was bent responsible for our shit second half defending ? No
Bent scored and benteke missed a couple of great chances, the reason we lost was crap defending !
Aye, he gets his tap in and does fuck all else.
If Bent were more flexible as a player he'd be playing, but he's not, and unfortunately we've got a better player in his position.
-
It would be interesting to see what would Brian Clough (The proper one) and Arsene Wenger do if they had Darren Bent in their team.
I don't think it's inconceivable that we'll find out what Wenger would do with Bent as I fancy he'll be looking to sign him in January.
-
Pat murphy had a long interview with lambert on 5 live last night and repeatedly pressed lambert on bent, he said bent and benteke can play together as they did at st Mary's, he said bent is fit and available and there has been no bust up between them and that to get picked bent needs to train well and play well.
Pat Murphy "On the face of it they look like they could play together "
Lambert "They did at Southampton........"
Eastie pal, Lambert was pointing out that when he played them together it was probably our worst showing this season.
Do bent score that day ? Yes!
Was bent responsible for our shit second half defending ? No
Bent scored and benteke missed a couple of great chances, the reason we lost was crap defending !
Aye, he gets his tap in and does fuck all else.
If Bent were more flexible as a player he'd be playing, but he's not, and unfortunately we've got a better player in his position.
I'd rather that than a player who covers 7 miles a game and doesn't produce. Centre forwards should score goals and that's what Bent does.
-
It would be interesting to see what would Brian Clough (The proper one) and Arsene Wenger do if they had Darren Bent in their team.
I don't think it's inconceivable that we'll find out what Wenger would do with Bent as I fancy he'll be looking to sign him in January.
In the arsenal team bent would score goals for fun, I don't think wenger will go for him though.
-
I agree with that. Bent is a limited player but useful in the right formation. Lambert, with his reputed tactical nous and flexibility, should be able to use him, he obviously just doesn't want to. Which either means he's not as good tactically as he's meant to be, bent has done something worthy of being frozen out, or he's cutting off his nose to spite his face and risking results.
-
and that just about sums it up!
-
Pat murphy had a long interview with lambert on 5 live last night and repeatedly pressed lambert on bent, he said bent and benteke can play together as they did at st Mary's, he said bent is fit and available and there has been no bust up between them and that to get picked bent needs to train well and play well.
Pat Murphy "On the face of it they look like they could play together "
Lambert "They did at Southampton........"
Eastie pal, Lambert was pointing out that when he played them together it was probably our worst showing this season.
Do bent score that day ? Yes!
Was bent responsible for our shit second half defending ? No
Bent scored and benteke missed a couple of great chances, the reason we lost was crap defending !
Aye, he gets his tap in and does fuck all else.
If Bent were more flexible as a player he'd be playing, but he's not, and unfortunately we've got a better player in his position.
I'd rather that than a player who covers 7 miles a game and doesn't produce. Centre forwards should score goals and that's what Bent does.
Our centre forward is producing, he won the game for us last night.
-
I don't have an issue with Benteke starting ahead of Bent. I do have an issue with Bent not being in the squad at all, especially when the likes of Albrighton, Delph and Bowery are on the bench,
-
I don't have an issue with Benteke starting ahead of Bent. I do have an issue with Bent not being in the squad at all, especially when the likes of Albrighton, Delph and Bowery are on the bench,
I concede that.
My guess (and that is all it is) would be that was how Lambert saw Bent's immediate future, as an impact sub, and Bent has not exactly taken this news too well.
-
Pat murphy had a long interview with lambert on 5 live last night and repeatedly pressed lambert on bent, he said bent and benteke can play together as they did at st Mary's, he said bent is fit and available and there has been no bust up between them and that to get picked bent needs to train well and play well.
Pat Murphy "On the face of it they look like they could play together "
Lambert "They did at Southampton........"
Eastie pal, Lambert was pointing out that when he played them together it was probably our worst showing this season.
Do bent score that day ? Yes!
Was bent responsible for our shit second half defending ? No
Bent scored and benteke missed a couple of great chances, the reason we lost was crap defending !
Aye, he gets his tap in and does fuck all else.
If Bent were more flexible as a player he'd be playing, but he's not, and unfortunately we've got a better player in his position.
I'd rather that than a player who covers 7 miles a game and doesn't produce. Centre forwards should score goals and that's what Bent does.
Our centre forward is producing, he won the game for us last night.
Nobody would be stupid enough to say Benteke of all players isnt producing. Its just that Darren Bent scores goals guaranteed and the two of them together would scare the lie out of most EPL centre backs. If only The Dour Scot would stop being so pig headed and get a vibrant winger to provide them with the ammunition.
But will he ,the hell he will! He likes his diamond formation and thats all he appears to know. Which is not at all what we were led to believe
-
Id certainly pick Bent over Albrighton, and he looks a danger on the bench for an opposing team. But a player like this should not be sitting on our bench taking huge wages. Either he pulls his finger out and makes himself selectable by what he does on the training pitch, and then undroppable by what he does on the pitch, or we sell, we cant afford a player like this to rot at this point.
-
We, and just about every other team in Christendom don't play 442 any more, so unless Darren Bent re-invents himself as hard working wide man he's not going to play much.
-
I don't have an issue with Benteke starting ahead of Bent. I do have an issue with Bent not being in the squad at all, especially when the likes of Albrighton, Delph and Bowery are on the bench,
Absolutely agree with you there. Isn't Lambert quoted saying its Aston villa football clubs that matters here? Well if that's the case then you would have Darren bent in that squad. What ever has gone on, it's personal between the two of them.
-
Pat murphy had a long interview with lambert on 5 live last night and repeatedly pressed lambert on bent, he said bent and benteke can play together as they did at st Mary's, he said bent is fit and available and there has been no bust up between them and that to get picked bent needs to train well and play well.
Pat Murphy "On the face of it they look like they could play together "
Lambert "They did at Southampton........"
Eastie pal, Lambert was pointing out that when he played them together it was probably our worst showing this season.
Do bent score that day ? Yes!
Was bent responsible for our shit second half defending ? No
Bent scored and benteke missed a couple of great chances, the reason we lost was crap defending !
Aye, he gets his tap in and does fuck all else.
If Bent were more flexible as a player he'd be playing, but he's not, and unfortunately we've got a better player in his position.
I'd rather that than a player who covers 7 miles a game and doesn't produce. Centre forwards should score goals and that's what Bent does.
Our centre forward is producing, he won the game for us last night.
Nobody would be stupid enough to say Benteke of all players isnt producing. Its just that Darren Bent scores goals guaranteed and the two of them together would scare the lie out of most EPL centre backs. If only The Dour Scot would stop being so pig headed and get a vibrant winger to provide them with the ammunition.
But will he ,the hell he will! He likes his diamond formation and thats all he appears to know. Which is not at all what we were led to believe
So basically Ron, because Lambert doesn't do what you think he should do he's wrong?
-
It's quite clear, he's on his way. Lambert just doesn't fancy him in his Villa team.
Why the hand-wringing and agonising? - I personally think it's a mistake on Lambert's part but he's obviously made up his mind (for a reason that is not obvious).
-
Lambert is playing with fire. As we all know Bent scores, and this is the problem it will potentially cause. As soon as Benteke has a dry spell, and if Bent isn't playing, or isn't here, Lambert will look like a right prick.
-
Reading the post match interview on the BBC webshite and other bits and pieces it looks like its more about Bent's attitude than anything. "Darren Bent just has to play well and train well," is the line that most interests me. He started with Bent as Captain so obviously in Lambert's original thinking he saw Bent as a key player and a leader - something we need looking at the youth and inexperience in our team. Clearly Lambert thinks hes either lazy or is showing a poor attitude. If you throw in a sulky strop on Bent's part (its not inconceivable hes done this) then you set up a situation where no one is going to back down - Lambert is not going to pick him without an attitude improvement and Bent is not going to buckle down and up his work rate as hes angry that hes not even getting on the bench when less able players are.
I'm guessing there have been a few dressing room bust ups at Villa over the last few seasons (we only know about the ones that have been reported) so I think part of Lambert's brief is to keep the poison away so its easy to see why Lambert might react extremely harshly to even a hint of disrespect. Anyway, thats my thoughts - I think the fitting in to the team style/system is not the reason hes not playing.
-
Reading the post match interview on the BBC webshite and other bits and pieces it looks like its more about Bent's attitude than anything. "Darren Bent just has to play well and train well," is the line that most interests me. He started with Bent as Captain so obviously in Lambert's original thinking he saw Bent as a key player and a leader - something we need looking at the youth and inexperience in our team. Clearly Lambert thinks hes either lazy or is showing a poor attitude. If you throw in a sulky strop on Bent's part (its not inconceivable hes done this) then you set up a situation where no one is going to back down - Lambert is not going to pick him without an attitude improvement and Bent is not going to buckle down and up his work rate as hes angry that hes not even getting on the bench when less able players are.
I'm guessing there have been a few dressing room bust ups at Villa over the last few seasons (we only know about the ones that have been reported) so I think part of Lambert's brief is to keep the poison away so its easy to see why Lambert might react extremely harshly to even a hint of disrespect. Anyway, thats my thoughts - I think the fitting in to the team style/system is not the reason hes not playing.
You could well be on the money.
And the manager would be right.
-
The 'play well and train well' is all we need to know. This for me spells it out plain and simple. DB is obviously displaying a bad attitude and until it improves we ain't gonna see him.
On this I back the manager 100%
-
As well as scoring, Bent also missed a tap-in at Southampton, from a worldy ball by Benteke.
And we're not playing a diamond in midfield anymore (stating the obvious I know, but just for anyone who doesn't know what they're looking at).
-
As well as scoring, Bent also missed a tap-in at Southampton, from a worldy ball by Benteke.
And we're not playing a diamond in midfield anymore.
All players miss chances. Benteke had a stinker against Albion but has been on the whole one of our better performers.
-
Pat murphy had a long interview with lambert on 5 live last night and repeatedly pressed lambert on bent, he said bent and benteke can play together as they did at st Mary's, he said bent is fit and available and there has been no bust up between them and that to get picked bent needs to train well and play well.
Pat Murphy "On the face of it they look like they could play together "
Lambert "They did at Southampton........"
Eastie pal, Lambert was pointing out that when he played them together it was probably our worst showing this season.
Do bent score that day ? Yes!
Was bent responsible for our shit second half defending ? No
Bent scored and benteke missed a couple of great chances, the reason we lost was crap defending !
Aye, he gets his tap in and does fuck all else.
If Bent were more flexible as a player he'd be playing, but he's not, and unfortunately we've got a better player in his position.
I'd rather that than a player who covers 7 miles a game and doesn't produce. Centre forwards should score goals and that's what Bent does.
Our centre forward is producing, he won the game for us last night.
I'm not disputing Benteke's place in the side. Personally i'd have Bent alongside him but each to their own. I do find it baffling though if there are those who don't think he's worthy of a place in the 18.
-
As well as scoring, Bent also missed a tap-in at Southampton, from a worldy ball by Benteke.
And we're not playing a diamond in midfield anymore.
All players miss chances. Benteke had a stinker against Albion but has been on the whole one of our better performers.
Also bent scored one and missed a sitter while benteke missed a couple of good chances which disproves the theory they can't play together, they could have scored a couple each that day and had chances.
-
Substitution: 'Brett Holman replaces Chris Herd'
-
As well as scoring, Bent also missed a tap-in at Southampton, from a worldy ball by Benteke.
And we're not playing a diamond in midfield anymore.
All players miss chances. Benteke had a stinker against Albion but has been on the whole one of our better performers.
Also bent scored one and missed a sitter while benteke missed a couple of good chances which disproves the theory they can't play together, they could have scored a couple each that day and had chances.
I'm with you mate. For me Bent played his best football at Sunderland alongside Kenwyne Jones and together they were very effective. I can't see why this wouldn't be the case with Bent and Benteke.
-
As well as scoring, Bent also missed a tap-in at Southampton, from a worldy ball by Benteke.
And we're not playing a diamond in midfield anymore.
All players miss chances. Benteke had a stinker against Albion but has been on the whole one of our better performers.
Also bent scored one and missed a sitter while benteke missed a couple of good chances which disproves the theory they can't play together, they could have scored a couple each that day and had chances.
It's not that they can't play together. It's that them playing together appears to leave us woefully short in other areas of the pitch. To the extent that we get hammered by the worst team in the division.
-
As well as scoring, Bent also missed a tap-in at Southampton, from a worldy ball by Benteke.
And we're not playing a diamond in midfield anymore.
All players miss chances. Benteke had a stinker against Albion but has been on the whole one of our better performers.
Also bent scored one and missed a sitter while benteke missed a couple of good chances which disproves the theory they can't play together, they could have scored a couple each that day and had chances.
It's not that they can't play together. It's that them playing together appears to leave us woefully short in other areas of the pitch. To the extent that we get hammered by the worst team in the division.
It happens. That Reading side beat Everton last week. The same Everton that gave us a whopping at Villa Park. I think we can all find arguments to be for or against a Bent/Benteke partnership.
-
£24m for a bench player is ridiculous. Start him, he guarantees goals.
But he doesn't 'Guarantee' goals.
If he guaranteed a goal a game then fair enough, but it's around 1 in 5 this season, which isn't good enough for a 'Guaranteed Goals' striker.
DB is good when the system suits, our system doesn't appear to suit him.
The majority on here wanted Lambert as manager, so let him get on with it.
We all knew this was going to be a tough season, but, this young, hungry team will come good
-
£24m for a bench player is ridiculous. Start him, he guarantees goals.
But he doesn't 'Guarantee' goals.
If he guaranteed a goal a game then fair enough, but it's around 1 in 5 this season, which isn't good enough for a 'Guaranteed Goals' striker.
DB is good when the system suits, our system doesn't appear to suit him.
The majority on here wanted Lambert as manager, so let him get on with it.
We all knew this was going to be a tough season, but, this young, hungry team will come good
I wanted Lambert as manager and still do but it doesn't mean I don't agree with all of his decisions.
-
£24m for a bench player is ridiculous. Start him, he guarantees goals.
But he doesn't 'Guarantee' goals.
If he guaranteed a goal a game then fair enough, but it's around 1 in 5 this season, which isn't good enough for a 'Guaranteed Goals' striker.
DB is good when the system suits, our system doesn't appear to suit him.
The majority on here wanted Lambert as manager, so let him get on with it.
We all knew this was going to be a tough season, but, this young, hungry team will come good
I wanted Lambert as manager and still do but it doesn't mean I don't agree with all of his decisions.
Likewise QB
-
Do you think if Lambert was our gaffer a couple of years ago and he went into the January window with £18m in his pocket, he'd have bought Darren Bent?
-
Pat murphy had a long interview with lambert on 5 live last night and repeatedly pressed lambert on bent, he said bent and benteke can play together as they did at st Mary's,
Aye, and that was really great result wasn't it?
-
Mr Bent needs to sort himself out. Lambert is not impressed with his attitude in training and won't pick him. It's hard to set aside a £20m asset but doing this will teach the rest of the squad not to mess about.
-
As well as scoring, Bent also missed a tap-in at Southampton, from a worldy ball by Benteke.
And we're not playing a diamond in midfield anymore.
All players miss chances. Benteke had a stinker against Albion but has been on the whole one of our better performers.
Also bent scored one and missed a sitter while benteke missed a couple of good chances which disproves the theory they can't play together, they could have scored a couple each that day and had chances.
I think there's too much emphasis on goalscoring stats. If it was as easy as just lining up the goalkeeper and defenders with the most clean sheets and the striker with the most goals, we wouldn't need managers. Randy could handle that on his own.
We have a young team that will need to play it long quite a bit. That means we can't do without Benteke. If you play Bent with him, that means 2 up front. So you have to play 442. Which leaves us wide open in midfield - hence the 4-1 loss at So'ton, for example. Last night we looked much tighter at the back, even without Vlaar and after losing Stevens, because Weimann and Gabby start from deeper positions than Bent would. If we had a more experienced defence and a couple of world class dominant midfielders, we could probably accommodate B&B up front, but with the resources we currently have, it's a luxury we can't afford.
-
Pat murphy had a long interview with lambert on 5 live last night and repeatedly pressed lambert on bent, he said bent and benteke can play together as they did at st Mary's,
Aye, and that was really great result wasn't it?
They had 2 great chances each and bent scored once, hardly a disaster!
The defending was shocking that day and neither bent or benteke can be blamed for any of the goals conceded- the point being that with them playing together we created very good chances for them both which should have been converted.
Against the Albion bent came on for benteke and scored a vital goal, so why shouldn't he at least be on the bench ? Bent is a goal threat and goals win games.
-
I don't think he has a place in the line-up atm.
I think we have proven you can't play him and Benteke together, as they both just cut inside and we lack width at the best of times. Given a choice of Bent or Benteke, i would choose Benteke every time as i feel he provides more versatility and can do more than just score.
Bent obvs has an attitude/ego problem, i think he was the same at spurs. We don't need a one man team, we want players who want to play for Aston Villa and not for themselves.
I don't think Bent is a bad player, not by any stretch but i don't think he fits in with Lamberts ideas and i think with the money he is on he is becoming some what of a luxury.
-
Bent obvs has an attitude/ego problem, i think he was the same at spurs. We don't need a one man team, we want players who want to play for Aston Villa and not for themselves.
I don't know about him obviously having an attitude problem. Plenty of good players and good managers have had personality clashes down the years, it could be just that and if it is then I think that it's to the detriment of the club. If this was say O'Leary or Mcleish dropping our record signing because he doesn't suit his system then i'm sure their coaching/managerial ability would be questioned. This isn't the case with Lambert as he is still a popular choice with the fans.
-
The 'play well and train well' is all we need to know. This for me spells it out plain and simple. DB is obviously displaying a bad attitude and until it improves we ain't gonna see him. On this I back the manager 100%
This despite Lambert saying last night ...
'But honestly, I don't have a problem with Darren Bent and I do rate him as a player.
'I've no problem with his attitude in training, none whatsoever.
?
-
I note Talksport mentioned the more believable rumour this morning. Eg. That once Bent plays 50 games we owe Sunderland the last part of the transfer 'add ons', rumoured to be anywhere between 4 and 6m
He's currently on 47 games. Sounds far more plausible than the bullshit about we don't need him (HELLO, look at the table and goals scored column)
-
Apparently that's nonsense and he's also played more than 47 games for us.
-
Apparently that's nonsense and he's also played more than 47 games for us.
He's played 47 league games
-
It doesn't matter what opinions people put forward, all you get is 'Bent should be playing' ' Bent scores goals' 'you're wrong'
People are highlighting how since Bent has been dropped we have improved as a team and got better results even though we've had a much tougher run.
We just have to move on from Bent, because I agree he is worthy of at least a spot on the bench, but something is obviously happening behind the scenes, be it attitude or political issues, ie money
-
Apparently that's nonsense and he's also played more than 47 games for us.
He's played 47 league games
I can't see that being the reason, from all the things said I think lambert wants more from him in training - if he goes as seems likely I will be sorry to see him go as we have waited a long time for a goalscorer of his ilk.
-
I note Talksport mentioned the more believable rumour this morning. Eg. That once Bent plays 50 games we owe Sunderland the last part of the transfer 'add ons', rumoured to be anywhere between 4 and 6m
He's currently on 47 games. Sounds far more plausible than the bullshit about we don't need him (HELLO, look at the table and goals scored column)
Yeah because we were so free scoring and winning matches when Bent was playing.
-
I note Talksport mentioned the more believable rumour this morning. Eg. That once Bent plays 50 games we owe Sunderland the last part of the transfer 'add ons', rumoured to be anywhere between 4 and 6m
He's currently on 47 games. Sounds far more plausible than the bullshit about we don't need him (HELLO, look at the table and goals scored column)
As Dave Woodhall and PWS keep pointing out, if you buy somebody for £18m you expect them to play 50 games regardless. You wouldn't write £4m-£6m of additional payments into that deal just because somebody had played 50 matches.
Scored 50 goals maybe, qualified for the Champions League maybe - but 50 games is obviously nonsense.
-
I can understand Lambert not starting Bent but what I don't understand is him not making the bench, if you're in need of a goal with 10 minutes remaining he's surely a better bet than somebody who didn't exactly set the world on fire playing up front for Chesterfield.
-
Do you think if Lambert was our gaffer a couple of years ago and he went into the January window with £18m in his pocket, he'd have bought Darren Bent?
no Charlie austin
-
I note Talksport mentioned the more believable rumour this morning. Eg. That once Bent plays 50 games we owe Sunderland the last part of the transfer 'add ons', rumoured to be anywhere between 4 and 6m
He's currently on 47 games. Sounds far more plausible than the bullshit about we don't need him (HELLO, look at the table and goals scored column)
As Dave Woodhall and PWS keep pointing out, if you buy somebody for £18m you expect them to play 50 games regardless. You wouldn't write £4m-£6m of additional payments into that deal just because somebody had played 50 matches.
Scored 50 goals maybe, qualified for the Champions League maybe - but 50 games is obviously nonsense.
Yes, totally agree, and the club have also rubbished these rumours.
-
Apparently that's nonsense and he's also played more than 47 games for us.
He's played 47 league games
the more this thing goes on , Im starting to believe it , which is worrying . He should have been on the bench last night , thank f**k we scored because a 0-0 would have been a complete disaster . Lambert got lucky last night .
-
Cheers Dave, saved me writing it out again. The only way you'd have a 50 game clause is someone like Bowery or Stevens where you pick them up cheap and pay an extra 100K or so if they reach that mark. Certainly not for an £18million player.
-
I can understand Lambert not starting Bent but what I don't understand is him not making the bench, if you're in need of a goal with 10 minutes remaining he's surely a better bet than somebody who didn't exactly set the world on fire playing up front for Chesterfield.
To be fair, it's virtually impossible to set the world on fire playing for Chesterfield.
-
People are highlighting how since Bent has been dropped we have improved as a team and got better results even though we've had a much tougher run.
Improved on what ?, we were in the bottom 3 before last night. And we're still joint worst goalscorers (or second worst)
Where has this myth we're playing well come from ?, last night was right up there with the garbage served up under McLeish last season. It was awful
-
Yes, totally agree, and the club have also rubbished these rumours.
Well I didn't know that, when did they rubbish it ?
-
I note Talksport mentioned the more believable rumour this morning. Eg. That once Bent plays 50 games we owe Sunderland the last part of the transfer 'add ons', rumoured to be anywhere between 4 and 6m
He's currently on 47 games. Sounds far more plausible than the bullshit about we don't need him (HELLO, look at the table and goals scored column)
As Dave Woodhall and PWS keep pointing out, if you buy somebody for £18m you expect them to play 50 games regardless. You wouldn't write £4m-£6m of additional payments into that deal just because somebody had played 50 matches.
Scored 50 goals maybe, qualified for the Champions League maybe - but 50 games is obviously nonsense.
It doesn't mean they're right though, and I don't think it's nonsense at all. The truth is that nobody knows what the clauses are, and it could easily be: score 50 goals = £2m, play 50 games = £2m, Get Champions League = £2m. Perhaps there was an injury concern at his medical which meant that the 50 games clause would be understandable. We've seen players have a clause in their contract that they get a new deal if they play so many games, so why would it be nonsense to pay another club on a similar basis?
-
Cheers Dave, saved me writing it out again. The only way you'd have a 50 game clause is someone like Bowery or Stevens where you pick them up cheap and pay an extra 100K or so if they reach that mark. Certainly not for an £18million player.
I agree with you that it would be ridiculous that after 50 league games if we had to pay £6m. However,it isn't totally out of the question that after 50 league games we pay say a million? I'd guess those league games were stipulated at premierleague as well given the position we were in at the time he signed. Obviously only speculating but i'd say there are multiple clauses ie England caps, goals, european qualification etc etc.
EDIT: I agree with Rissbert then
-
I note Talksport mentioned the more believable rumour this morning. Eg. That once Bent plays 50 games we owe Sunderland the last part of the transfer 'add ons', rumoured to be anywhere between 4 and 6m
He's currently on 47 games. Sounds far more plausible than the bullshit about we don't need him (HELLO, look at the table and goals scored column)
As Dave Woodhall and PWS keep pointing out, if you buy somebody for £18m you expect them to play 50 games regardless. You wouldn't write £4m-£6m of additional payments into that deal just because somebody had played 50 matches.
Scored 50 goals maybe, qualified for the Champions League maybe - but 50 games is obviously nonsense.
It doesn't mean they're right though, and I don't think it's nonsense at all. The truth is that nobody knows what the clauses are, and it could easily be: score 50 goals = £2m, play 50 games = £2m, Get Champions League = £2m. Perhaps there was an injury concern at his medical which meant that the 50 games clause would be understandable. We've seen players have a clause in their contract that they get a new deal if they play so many games, so why would it be nonsense to pay another club on a similar basis?
I can't see us or any club spending £18million on a player that they aren't sure is capable of playing 50 league games. It's less than a season and a half.
-
I note Talksport mentioned the more believable rumour this morning. Eg. That once Bent plays 50 games we owe Sunderland the last part of the transfer 'add ons', rumoured to be anywhere between 4 and 6m
He's currently on 47 games. Sounds far more plausible than the bullshit about we don't need him (HELLO, look at the table and goals scored column)
As Dave Woodhall and PWS keep pointing out, if you buy somebody for £18m you expect them to play 50 games regardless. You wouldn't write £4m-£6m of additional payments into that deal just because somebody had played 50 matches.
Scored 50 goals maybe, qualified for the Champions League maybe - but 50 games is obviously nonsense.
It doesn't mean they're right though, and I don't think it's nonsense at all. The truth is that nobody knows what the clauses are, and it could easily be: score 50 goals = £2m, play 50 games = £2m, Get Champions League = £2m. Perhaps there was an injury concern at his medical which meant that the 50 games clause would be understandable. We've seen players have a clause in their contract that they get a new deal if they play so many games, so why would it be nonsense to pay another club on a similar basis?
I can't see us or any club spending £18million on a player that they aren't sure is capable of playing 50 league games. It's less than a season and a half.
Which is assuming the player plays every league game the length of the financial year. Possibly a way of Sunderland saving a bit on income tax?
-
Well I've heard that someone pretty high profile at the club was talking about this at the match last night. According to them it isn't a contractural issue.
-
Cheers Dave, saved me writing it out again. The only way you'd have a 50 game clause is someone like Bowery or Stevens where you pick them up cheap and pay an extra 100K or so if they reach that mark. Certainly not for an £18million player.
I agree with you that it would be ridiculous that after 50 league games if we had to pay £6m. However,it isn't totally out of the question that after 50 league games we pay say a million? I'd guess those league games were stipulated at premierleague as well given the position we were in at the time he signed. Obviously only speculating but i'd say there are multiple clauses ie England caps, goals, european qualification etc etc.
EDIT: I agree with Rissbert then
I'd be very surprised if it was anything other than goals (an extra million or two for 50 for example), trophies won or European qualification. I doubt England caps as he was already an international when we signed him. Possibly an extra payment the season we signed him based on us staying up but I doubt that as well.
-
I would have thought 100 games would have been more like it .
-
Cheers Dave, saved me writing it out again. The only way you'd have a 50 game clause is someone like Bowery or Stevens where you pick them up cheap and pay an extra 100K or so if they reach that mark. Certainly not for an £18million player.
I disagree. For a starter, it's a negotiating tool. Instead of paying 'x' upfront, you delay the payment of 'x' until the player reaches 50 games. At that point it may be more, but keeps your cash in your bank account, for in this case, nearly two years.
-
Cheers Dave, saved me writing it out again. The only way you'd have a 50 game clause is someone like Bowery or Stevens where you pick them up cheap and pay an extra 100K or so if they reach that mark. Certainly not for an £18million player.
I agree with you that it would be ridiculous that after 50 league games if we had to pay £6m. However,it isn't totally out of the question that after 50 league games we pay say a million? I'd guess those league games were stipulated at premierleague as well given the position we were in at the time he signed. Obviously only speculating but i'd say there are multiple clauses ie England caps, goals, european qualification etc etc.
EDIT: I agree with Rissbert then
I'd be very surprised if it was anything other than goals (an extra million or two for 50 for example), trophies won or European qualification. I doubt England caps as he was already an international when we signed him. Possibly an extra payment the season we signed him based on us staying up but I doubt that as well.
To be honest it could have been anything. I've heard of players in the past having payments triggered by reaching x amount of England caps as it's a profile raiser for the club. I'd have had one stipulating how many of the players birds he would drop anchor in had i been the Sunderland chairman.
-
In this ruthless league you need two things. 1. A good defence. 2. An ability to score goals. We have neither, but are improving in the defensive side. The attacking side therefore could not do anything other than benefit from Bents presence in the starting line up. I really don't think it's any more simple than that.
-
Is he on Twitter? Can't someone just ask him?
-
Cheers Dave, saved me writing it out again. The only way you'd have a 50 game clause is someone like Bowery or Stevens where you pick them up cheap and pay an extra 100K or so if they reach that mark. Certainly not for an £18million player.
I disagree. For a starter, it's a negotiating tool. Instead of paying 'x' upfront, you delay the payment of 'x' until the player reaches 50 games. At that point it may be more, but keeps your cash in your bank account, for in this case, nearly two years.
So why don't more clubs do it? I can't think of any other example off the top of my head where there is even a rumour that a big money transfer rises based on 50 league appearances.
-
The only way you'd have a 50 game clause is someone like Bowery or Stevens where you pick them up cheap and pay an extra 100K or so if they reach that mark. Certainly not for an £18million player
You might be right, I have no idea, but Curtis Davies cost us £8m (or £11m if you check him on Wiki) and, according to his agent, he had a clause in his contract which would force Villa to re-negotiate his wages once he'd reached 60 games.
-
Cheers Dave, saved me writing it out again. The only way you'd have a 50 game clause is someone like Bowery or Stevens where you pick them up cheap and pay an extra 100K or so if they reach that mark. Certainly not for an £18million player.
I disagree. For a starter, it's a negotiating tool. Instead of paying 'x' upfront, you delay the payment of 'x' until the player reaches 50 games. At that point it may be more, but keeps your cash in your bank account, for in this case, nearly two years.
So why don't more clubs do it? I can't think of any other example off the top of my head where there is even a rumour that a big money transfer rises based on 50 league appearances.
How many other examples can you think of where the basic fee was £18m, with the maximum being £6m more on top, a whole third of the original price?
-
We'll lose fucking Kazillions in TV money if we go down, if this is a financial decision then it doesn't look a particularly sound one.
-
Cheers Dave, saved me writing it out again. The only way you'd have a 50 game clause is someone like Bowery or Stevens where you pick them up cheap and pay an extra 100K or so if they reach that mark. Certainly not for an £18million player.
I disagree. For a starter, it's a negotiating tool. Instead of paying 'x' upfront, you delay the payment of 'x' until the player reaches 50 games. At that point it may be more, but keeps your cash in your bank account, for in this case, nearly two years.
So why don't more clubs do it? I can't think of any other example off the top of my head where there is even a rumour that a big money transfer rises based on 50 league appearances.
How many other examples can you think of where the basic fee was £18m, with the maximum being £6m more on top, a whole third of the original price?
That's not answering my question. Regardless of how much of a percentage potential add ons are, how many cases can you name where there is even a rumour that one of the clauses is for 50 league games in a big money move?
-
Yes, totally agree, and the club have also rubbished these rumours.
Well I didn't know that, when did they rubbish it ?
Kendrick asked the question on Monday and was told it was utter rubbish.
-
In this ruthless league you need two things. 1. A good defence. 2. An ability to score goals. We have neither, but are improving in the defensive side. The attacking side therefore could not do anything other than benefit from Bents presence in the starting line up. I really don't think it's any more simple than that.
It isn't though. For example, changing one type of striker for another could mean that the ball comes back on the defence more quickly after clearing their lines, giving them less time to organise and leading to us conceding more. I'm not saying that this is the case here but rather pointing out that changing individuals can impact on the balance of the side.
-
One of the clauses might be 50 games, but if it is, it will only be one of several. There hasn't been any problem with the others.
-
Cheers Dave, saved me writing it out again. The only way you'd have a 50 game clause is someone like Bowery or Stevens where you pick them up cheap and pay an extra 100K or so if they reach that mark. Certainly not for an £18million player.
I disagree. For a starter, it's a negotiating tool. Instead of paying 'x' upfront, you delay the payment of 'x' until the player reaches 50 games. At that point it may be more, but keeps your cash in your bank account, for in this case, nearly two years.
So why don't more clubs do it? I can't think of any other example off the top of my head where there is even a rumour that a big money transfer rises based on 50 league appearances.
How many other examples can you think of where the basic fee was £18m, with the maximum being £6m more on top, a whole third of the original price?
That's not answering my question. Regardless of how much of a percentage potential add ons are, how many cases can you name where there is even a rumour that one of the clauses is for 50 league games in a big money move?
I think it's a classic example of some people playing too much Football Manager.
-
Cheers Dave, saved me writing it out again. The only way you'd have a 50 game clause is someone like Bowery or Stevens where you pick them up cheap and pay an extra 100K or so if they reach that mark. Certainly not for an £18million player.
I disagree. For a starter, it's a negotiating tool. Instead of paying 'x' upfront, you delay the payment of 'x' until the player reaches 50 games. At that point it may be more, but keeps your cash in your bank account, for in this case, nearly two years.
So why don't more clubs do it? I can't think of any other example off the top of my head where there is even a rumour that a big money transfer rises based on 50 league appearances.
Well all you hear is the term 'add-ons'. It's never fully disclosed as to what the add-ons are. It's all speculative to try and work out what terms are built into any transfer fee/agreement, but I wouldn't say that it would only happen with small transfer fees.
-
Cheers Dave, saved me writing it out again. The only way you'd have a 50 game clause is someone like Bowery or Stevens where you pick them up cheap and pay an extra 100K or so if they reach that mark. Certainly not for an £18million player.
I disagree. For a starter, it's a negotiating tool. Instead of paying 'x' upfront, you delay the payment of 'x' until the player reaches 50 games. At that point it may be more, but keeps your cash in your bank account, for in this case, nearly two years.
So why don't more clubs do it? I can't think of any other example off the top of my head where there is even a rumour that a big money transfer rises based on 50 league appearances.
How many other examples can you think of where the basic fee was £18m, with the maximum being £6m more on top, a whole third of the original price?
That's not answering my question. Regardless of how much of a percentage potential add ons are, how many cases can you name where there is even a rumour that one of the clauses is for 50 league games in a big money move?
I haven't but there again how many big money signings are being bombed out in a relatively short time. How are most transfers paid? I know i've read Liverpool still owe us a lot on Downing, how true it is I don't know. Who does?
-
I haven't but there again how many big money signings are being bombed out in a relatively short time. How are most transfers paid? I know i've read Liverpool still owe us a lot on Downing, how true it is I don't know. Who does?
Andy Carroll, Bosko Balaban for starters. It's not uncommon to spread a transfer fee over a period of time though.
-
The way we're playing and what Lambert is asking of his strikers does not suit Bent, so he's out for footballing reasons. The problem is we simply can't afford an asset of his value not to be playing, so for financial reasons we need to shift him in January and invest in other areas of the team.
I'd agree with this.
We don't have good enough wide players to support Bent, the central midfield also appeared too weak to cope with 4-4-2.
The ideal scenario given Lambert's commitment to 4-2-3-1 would be to offload Bent and Ireland and replace with a high quality 'hole' player. I can see us selling Bent but the a solution to the Ireland problem (like a solution to the Irish problem) will be a tad harder to sort.
-
One of the clauses might be 50 games, but if it is, it will only be one of several. There hasn't been any problem with the others.
Maybe that's the case. I guess the other clauses may have been goals scored (lets say 50), and finishing in Europe. Which were never going to be met following the sale of the supply line and the subsequent running of the clubs ambition into the ground with the shop local style financial squeeze.
So to sum up, it seems plausible that the board have managed to swerve all possible 'add on' payments by the way they've been running the club since we signed Bent.
-
I haven't but there again how many big money signings are being bombed out in a relatively short time. How are most transfers paid? I know i've read Liverpool still owe us a lot on Downing, how true it is I don't know. Who does?
Andy Carroll, Bosko Balaban for starters. It's not uncommon to spread a transfer fee over a period of time though.
I didn't write that too well. What I meant was how do we, the fans, know how a transfer fee is set up and paid?
-
The only way you'd have a 50 game clause is someone like Bowery or Stevens where you pick them up cheap and pay an extra 100K or so if they reach that mark. Certainly not for an £18million player
You might be right, I have no idea, but Curtis Davies cost us £8m (or £11m if you check him on Wiki) and, according to his agent, he had a clause in his contract which would force Villa to re-negotiate his wages once he'd reached 60 games.
Yeah, it was rumoured for ages and I think the General and MON both denied it.
Turned out to be true (well, according to Davies and his agent, anyway).
-
I haven't but there again how many big money signings are being bombed out in a relatively short time. How are most transfers paid? I know i've read Liverpool still owe us a lot on Downing, how true it is I don't know. Who does?
Andy Carroll, Bosko Balaban for starters. It's not uncommon to spread a transfer fee over a period of time though.
I didn't write that too well. What I meant was how do we, the fans, know how a transfer fee is set up and paid?
Most are paid in instalments with an upfront payment , few big transfers are done 100% cash up front.
-
Pat murphy had a long interview with lambert on 5 live last night and repeatedly pressed lambert on bent, he said bent and benteke can play together as they did at st Mary's, he said bent is fit and available and there has been no bust up between them and that to get picked bent needs to train well and play well.
Pat Murphy "On the face of it they look like they could play together "
Lambert "They did at Southampton........"
Eastie pal, Lambert was pointing out that when he played them together it was probably our worst showing this season.
Do bent score that day ? Yes!
Was bent responsible for our shit second half defending ? No
Bent scored and benteke missed a couple of great chances, the reason we lost was crap defending !
Aye, he gets his tap in and does fuck all else.
If Bent were more flexible as a player he'd be playing, but he's not, and unfortunately we've got a better player in his position.
I'd rather that than a player who covers 7 miles a game and doesn't produce. Centre forwards should score goals and that's what Bent does.
Our centre forward is producing, he won the game for us last night.
Yes he did and he's done well so far but he'll have a dip in form somewhere along the line and at his age we should'nt be relying on him too much.
-
Out of interest, say we were to sell Bent in January, who would want him?
QPR are the club lots of people mentioned, but there are two issues there. One is that Redknapp and Bent have a bit of previous (negative) history. The other is that we'd have to be wary of selling a proven goalscorer to a club we could very well spend the rest of the season struggling with.
I can't see Liverpool wanting him. Would he fit in with the way Rodgers likes to play - a goalscorer who only scores goals and offers nothing else?
So then, who would possibly come in for him?
Do Fulham need him? What about a European club? I am sure I read on that Sunderland forum (when the Bent to us story broke) that he'd been close to handing a transfer request in to force through a move to a Turkish team before we came in for him.
-
One of the clauses might be 50 games, but if it is, it will only be one of several. There hasn't been any problem with the others.
Maybe that's the case. I guess the other clauses may have been goals scored (lets say 50), and finishing in Europe. Which were never going to be met following the sale of the supply line and the subsequent running of the clubs ambition into the ground with the shop local style financial squeeze.
So to sum up, it seems plausible that the board have managed to swerve all possible 'add on' payments by the way they've been running the club since we signed Bent.
That's the funniest thing I have read on this website for a long time. You are saying that it's plausible, that to avoid paying out add on fees to Sunderland, Randy has deliberately avoided European football?
-
The way we're playing and what Lambert is asking of his strikers does not suit Bent, so he's out for footballing reasons. The problem is we simply can't afford an asset of his value not to be playing, so for financial reasons we need to shift him in January and invest in other areas of the team.
I'd agree with this.
We don't have good enough wide players to support Bent, the central midfield also appeared too weak to cope with 4-4-2.
The ideal scenario given Lambert's commitment to 4-2-3-1 would be to offload Bent and Ireland and replace with a high quality 'hole' player. I can see us selling Bent but the a solution to the Ireland problem (like a solution to the Irish problem) will be a tad harder to sort.
Surely the ideal scenario (when you have a proven goalscorer like Bent on your books) is to keep him and buy wingers to replace the ones sold ?
Must be more logical than selling the first likely 20 goal a season striker we've had since god knows when, and spending the money on more lower league squad fodder ?. I could understand the logic if the system Lambert wants to play was working or looked good. But it's not doing either is it ?.
Maybe Lambert needs to stop being stubborn and put the team first, and play a way that suits what he has at his disposal. For all the graft / running the likes of Gabby and Weimann do out wide, neither are capable of whipping a cross in, or are even very good at finishing. I'd also put forward the suggestion that one of Benteke's main attributes is his work outside the box. His hold up play, and his ability to link up play. That to me seems the ideal foil for a proper penalty box striker like Bent.
But what do I know. I'm just the mug paying to watch the shit currently being served up.
-
I'd be fascinated to hear the reasons of the 22 people (at the time of posting) who wouldn't even want him on the bench.
I can understand the logic of those who wouldn't want him starting (although I disagree with them), but I genuinely can't imagine there was anyone in the stadium on 78 minutes tonight who was glad that he wasn't an option to bring on.
I'm one of the 20 odd. If he's not going to be a more or less automatic choice then I'd get rid of him in January - IF we can replace him with someone who would add much needed quality to the squad. In the meantime, I agree with you, I can't see any reason not to have him on the bench.
Suspect there's something going/gone on behind the scnes on this one.
-
Out of interest, say we were to sell Bent in January, who would want him?
QPR are the club lots of people mentioned, but there are two issues there. One is that Redknapp and Bent have a bit of previous (negative) history. The other is that we'd have to be wary of selling a proven goalscorer to a club we could very well spend the rest of the season struggling with.
I can't see Liverpool wanting him. Would he fit in with the way Rodgers likes to play - a goalscorer who only scores goals and offers nothing else?
So then, who would possibly come in for him?
Do Fulham need him? What about a European club? I am sure I read on that Sunderland forum (when the Bent to us story broke) that he'd been close to handing a transfer request in to force through a move to a Turkish team before we came in for him.
I've got a sneaky feel that Arsenal will come in for him.
-
Out of interest, say we were to sell Bent in January, who would want him?
QPR are the club lots of people mentioned, but there are two issues there. One is that Redknapp and Bent have a bit of previous (negative) history. The other is that we'd have to be wary of selling a proven goalscorer to a club we could very well spend the rest of the season struggling with.
I can't see Liverpool wanting him. Would he fit in with the way Rodgers likes to play - a goalscorer who only scores goals and offers nothing else?
So then, who would possibly come in for him?
Do Fulham need him? What about a European club? I am sure I read on that Sunderland forum (when the Bent to us story broke) that he'd been close to handing a transfer request in to force through a move to a Turkish team before we came in for him.
It's vomit inducing to say it, but with Lukaku likely to be recalled in January to Chelsea, and if Albion are still siting where they are in the table, that could be an option for him. More than likely loan at first
-
That's the funniest thing I have read on this website for a long time. You are saying that it's plausible, that to avoid paying out add on fees to Sunderland, Randy has deliberately avoided European football?
In a round about way yes. If you mean do I think Randy told Houllier and McLeish to avoid European qualification, then of course not.
If you mean do I think by selling off the family jewels and replacing them with average fodder, and appointing managers incapable of reaching European qualification, then yes, Very much so.
-
Considering Albion have never paid £7million for a player I can't see them stumping up a Bent sized fee. Someone like Stoke if they are too close for comfort to the drop zone come January may help bump the price up.
-
Out of interest, say we were to sell Bent in January, who would want him?
QPR are the club lots of people mentioned, but there are two issues there. One is that Redknapp and Bent have a bit of previous (negative) history. The other is that we'd have to be wary of selling a proven goalscorer to a club we could very well spend the rest of the season struggling with.
I can't see Liverpool wanting him. Would he fit in with the way Rodgers likes to play - a goalscorer who only scores goals and offers nothing else?
So then, who would possibly come in for him?
Do Fulham need him? What about a European club? I am sure I read on that Sunderland forum (when the Bent to us story broke) that he'd been close to handing a transfer request in to force through a move to a Turkish team before we came in for him.
It's vomit inducing to say it, but with Lukaku likely to be recalled in January to Chelsea, and if Albion are still siting where they are in the table, that could be an option for him. More than likely loan at first
I just sicked up a lung at the very thought.
-
The way we're playing and what Lambert is asking of his strikers does not suit Bent, so he's out for footballing reasons. The problem is we simply can't afford an asset of his value not to be playing, so for financial reasons we need to shift him in January and invest in other areas of the team.
I'd agree with this.
We don't have good enough wide players to support Bent, the central midfield also appeared too weak to cope with 4-4-2.
The ideal scenario given Lambert's commitment to 4-2-3-1 would be to offload Bent and Ireland and replace with a high quality 'hole' player. I can see us selling Bent but the a solution to the Ireland problem (like a solution to the Irish problem) will be a tad harder to sort.
Surely the ideal scenario (when you have a proven goalscorer like Bent on your books) is to keep him and buy wingers to replace the ones sold ?
...
...
...
But what do I know. I'm just the mug paying to watch the shit currently being served up.
Sorry I truncated your quote. I think you raise a reasonable point and then Lambert would say that you answer your own question.
Lambert believes the best way to compete in the premier league is to have a forward who can hold the ball up and allow the game to be brought forward into the opposition half. By way of contrast, MON largely played on the counter attack. Bent is suited to the latter - as many have said already he's the right player at the wrong time.
For Lamber to be succesful we need goals to come from his 'link' player - I sense his ideal solution would be to trade Bent for get replacement for Ireland.
-
We only have 1 quality player, a proven goalscoring England International, at the club. We are struggling for goals, we are not playing him or even having him as an option off the bench. Don't think any logic can be applied to the current situation!
-
I cant say that I find it a particularly attractive scenario lending Albion our record signing in order to cement a European place whilst we fight a relegation battle.
-
I reckon there's more chance of me scoring our winner in the FA Cup final than there is of Albion signing Bent from us.
-
Cheers Dave, saved me writing it out again. The only way you'd have a 50 game clause is someone like Bowery or Stevens where you pick them up cheap and pay an extra 100K or so if they reach that mark. Certainly not for an £18million player.
I disagree. For a starter, it's a negotiating tool. Instead of paying 'x' upfront, you delay the payment of 'x' until the player reaches 50 games. At that point it may be more, but keeps your cash in your bank account, for in this case, nearly two years.
So why don't more clubs do it? I can't think of any other example off the top of my head where there is even a rumour that a big money transfer rises based on 50 league appearances.
How many other examples can you think of where the basic fee was £18m, with the maximum being £6m more on top, a whole third of the original price?
That's not answering my question. Regardless of how much of a percentage potential add ons are, how many cases can you name where there is even a rumour that one of the clauses is for 50 league games in a big money move?
Right, go and have a look at any set of football club accounts that you like. They all have "contingent liabilities" that are payments due to other clubs based on various factors. My whole point is that other than club officials and the player NOBODY KNOWS what they consist of! Games played, goals scored, European qualification, avoiding relegation, international appearances etc will all play a part somewhere, but I've never heard anything concrete about any player's add on clauses. All I'm disagreeing with is the fact that it's "total nonsense" that there might be a portion payable based on games played.
-
I cant say that I find it a particularly attractive scenario lending Albion our record signing in order to cement a European place whilst we fight a relegation battle.
I'd rather shit a watermelon, but we as fans don't make the decisions. See McLeish, Alex.
-
I reckon there's more chance of me scoring our winner in the FA Cup final than there is of Albion signing Bent from us.
Although in fairness, you scoring the winner is only slightly higher odds than us actually winning it :-(
-
I cant say that I find it a particularly attractive scenario lending Albion our record signing in order to cement a European place whilst we fight a relegation battle.
It'd be awfully neighbourly of us though old chap.
-
It'll be interesting to see how Bent takes to being squeezed out despite saying how happy he is at the club.
For all the club seemingly wanting him off the wage bill and wanting to cash in, he might be perfectly happy thinking, 'fuck them, i'm staying'. And looking at how things are going, with possible relegation maybe Lambert will be off before the end of the season and a replacement that would welcome a striker of Bent's pedigree in the team.
On the wage bill issue, looking at our squad right now, it must be the smallest wage bill possible. The team is full of kids on what must be very low wages.
-
I reckon there's more chance of me scoring our winner in the FA Cup final than there is of Albion signing Bent from us.
Only to have the goal disallowed by Phil Dowd
-
I reckon there's more chance of me scoring our winner in the FA Cup final than there is of Albion signing Bent from us.
Although in fairness, you scoring the winner is only slightly higher odds than us actually winning it :-(
As I typed it I did think that.
-
Nobody knows what is in Bent's contract, whether it is a 50 game clause or whatever, we don't know either way. Then again, I can't remember a case when the general public ever did know the ins and outs of a player's contract.
What is somewhat depressing is that, regardless of whether this rumour is true or not, it's so easily believable. That probably says a lot about the way the club is being run.
re Bent. it is clearly not just a case of the manager not thinking he deserves a starting place. This is about him not being on the bench, even, and there simply must have been something going on behind the scenes. Whether it be not training well / moaning / whatever, we don't know.
-
One of the clauses might be 50 games, but if it is, it will only be one of several. There hasn't been any problem with the others.
As we don't know what the clauses are, you can't say that. It might be a perfect storm of add on payments about to kick in, eg 50 appearances, 25 goals scored and an England call up. If all that meant £6m being paid out, I could well see Lerner having a quiet word with Lambert. It might sound implausible, but if it's a choice of having that £6m available in January to spend, or having to shell it out for a player he doesn't really fancy anyway, who knows, especially with Benteke doing so well anyway.
-
That's not answering my question. Regardless of how much of a percentage potential add ons are, how many cases can you name where there is even a rumour that one of the clauses is for 50 league games in a big money move?
Right, go and have a look at any set of football club accounts that you like. They all have "contingent liabilities" that are payments due to other clubs based on various factors. My whole point is that other than club officials and the player NOBODY KNOWS what they consist of! Games played, goals scored, European qualification, avoiding relegation, international appearances etc will all play a part somewhere, but I've never heard anything concrete about any player's add on clauses. All I'm disagreeing with is the fact that it's "total nonsense" that there might be a portion payable based on games played.
[/quote]
But we've all heard rumours of those other things being a part of add-ons for players. My point is I can't think of any rumour i've ever heard of for a big money player that's included 50 appearances, and neither it seems has anyone else. Which to me puts it in the highly unlikely file.
-
Quote fail * sigh*
-
There is something wrong. There just must be. Despite me not being his biggest fan, not being at least on the bench is odd.
I personally just think he's off in January, and Lambert doesn't see the point in playing him for the games in between. He would rather try and build momentum with what he will have for the remainder of the campaign.
-
I've looked into my crystal balls and I see the following happening.
Bent will be sold, probably for a trivial 10-12m in January. Lambert will spend about 5m of it on another striker, lesser quality than Bent but of the same type and will cause much scratching of heads by doing so. The rest of the money will stay in the bank.
Bent will go and score 8-10 goals for his new club.
We'll flirt with relegation until the end. The supporters will be on Lambert's back and the atmosphere will be the familiar frosty one.
Benteke will announce during the summer he wants off to a better side after becoming disillusioned with life at a struggling side.
And so on and so on
-
He could end up at any number of clubs, tbf. Depends who's desperate enough to spend big in January.
It's the wages that'll be the issue though, he's our highest earner. It'll be tough to find a club that'll take on 60k+ for 4 years on a 29 year old who has barely played in the last year.
-
Alternatively, he could just buckle down and win his place back.
-
Alternatively, he could just buckle down and win his place back.
Not sure what he's supposed to do that he isn't already ?. Lambert said he's training well and is fit. And the team Lambert's picking are banging in goals left right and centre
-
I heard from a reliable inside source, there is something written in his contract that doesn't allow him to be played during the run up to, or just after Christmas.
It's the Santa Clause.
-
But we've all heard rumours of those other things being a part of add-ons for players. My point is I can't think of any rumour i've ever heard of for a big money player that's included 50 appearances, and neither it seems has anyone else. Which to me puts it in the highly unlikely file.
Maybe because it's not been a problem for other clubs paying it? I've never heard of it in a player's case like Curtis Davies either, but it happened.
-
For a senior player to go from Captain to not even included in the squad in the space of a month suggests to me something is going on.
-
We should all be very grateful to Lambert (sorry, should i now be referring to him as the Dour Scot...oh how we chuckled!!) and Bent for giving us a reason to focus on conspiracy theories and negativity as the last thing we want to do is remember that long lost feeling of winning a game :-)
Putting the flippancy aside for a minute & focussing on the discussion it does completely beat me how Bent is not in the 18, starting XI yes but the bench is hardly littered with game changing players - including KEA and Delph who essentially do the same thing.
-
There is something wrong. There just must be. Despite me not being his biggest fan, not being at least on the bench is odd.
I personally just think he's off in January, and Lambert doesn't see the point in playing him for the games in between. He would rather try and build momentum with what he will have for the remainder of the campaign.
Sometimes the simplest explanations are closest to the truth.
-
All I'm disagreeing with is the fact that it's "total nonsense" that there might be a portion payable based on games played.
Which would be fine, were that what I said.
It's total nonsense that a signing that cost £18m would have a trigger payment of £4-6m payable once the first 50 games had happened. Which is what the daft rumour was.
-
The daft rumour now being peddled by Matt Holland on Talk Sport. Seriously, 4-6 million on 50 appearances? 500k maybe, but not that sort of money.
I think LeeB is right the more I think about it. Lambert wants this group to get and bond and create a very together attitude. As such, if he is off in January and has already requested a transfer some weeks back which is rumoured, then I can see the logic in pushing on without him.
-
The daft rumour now being peddled by Matt Holland on Talk Sport. Seriously, 4-6 million on 50 appearances? 500k maybe, but not that sort of money.
I think LeeB is right the more I think about it. Lambert wants this group to get and bond and create a very together attitude. As such, if he is off in January and has already requested a transfer some weeks back which is rumoured, then I can see the logic in pushing on without him.
The credit must go to glasses for that.
-
The daft rumour now being peddled by Matt Holland on Talk Sport. Seriously, 4-6 million on 50 appearances? 500k maybe, but not that sort of money.
I think LeeB is right the more I think about it. Lambert wants this group to get and bond and create a very together attitude. As such, if he is off in January and has already requested a transfer some weeks back which is rumoured, then I can see the logic in pushing on without him.
Maybe so, but he could still be useful from the bench if chasing a game or in case of an injury to benteke.
Where is this rumour of a transfer request coming from?
-
The daft rumour now being peddled by Matt Holland on Talk Sport. Seriously, 4-6 million on 50 appearances? 500k maybe, but not that sort of money.
I think LeeB is right the more I think about it. Lambert wants this group to get and bond and create a very together attitude. As such, if he is off in January and has already requested a transfer some weeks back which is rumoured, then I can see the logic in pushing on without him.
The credit must go to glasses for that.
I know, allowed me to read your post?
-
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-2239734/Darren-Bent-Paul-Lambert-row--Aston-Villa-misfit-playing.html
He is a stubborn son of a gun for sure.
-
It's total nonsense that a signing that cost £18m would have a trigger payment of £4-6m payable once the first 50 games had happened. Which is what the daft rumour was
With the total lack of transparency shown by the club relating to the transfer from Sunderland, is it any wonder that daft rumours circulate?
Do Villa have to account for this potential additional £6m outlay in their annual report?
It stinks a bit
-
The daft rumour now being peddled by Matt Holland on Talk Sport. Seriously, 4-6 million on 50 appearances? 500k maybe, but not that sort of money.
I think LeeB is right the more I think about it. Lambert wants this group to get and bond and create a very together attitude. As such, if he is off in January and has already requested a transfer some weeks back which is rumoured, then I can see the logic in pushing on without him.
The credit must go to glasses for that.
I know, allowed me to read your post?
No my four-eyed friend, mr glasses joined the dots, I was merely agreeing with his thoughts
-
It's on Twitter now
http://bbcsporf.lockerdome.com/articles/102831086
-
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-2239734/Darren-Bent-Paul-Lambert-row--Aston-Villa-misfit-playing.html
He is a stubborn son of a gun for sure.
He's not a man to be fucked with, which given time will mean we're not a club to be fucked with.
-
Bent also stormed away from Villa Park last night according to some sources. Which as we know turned out to be complete horlicks.
-
It's on Twitter now
http://bbcsporf.lockerdome.com/articles/102831086
I give up with the modern world.
-
Villa could knock these rumours on the head instantly if they really wanted to, instead of merely saying they're not true.
-
Villa could knock these rumours on the head instantly if they really wanted to, instead of merely saying they're not true.
They could, unless Lambert has decided that Bent's going in January. Which I think he must have, since why would you bring all this pressure on yourself by not at least putting the man on the bench?
-
If he's not on the bench this coming Saturday and we lose there will be more but deeper probing.
-
If he's not on the bench this coming Saturday and we lose there will be more but deeper probing.
Ffnar ffnar.
-
It's total nonsense that a signing that cost £18m would have a trigger payment of £4-6m payable once the first 50 games had happened. Which is what the daft rumour was
With the total lack of transparency shown by the club relating to the transfer from Sunderland, is it any wonder that daft rumours circulate?
Do Villa have to account for this potential additional £6m outlay in their annual report?
It stinks a bit
They don't account for it as such, it's in the form of a note as a contingent liability. So rather than having the £6m actually in the accounts, they just mention that it will be payable if some unspecified event occurs in the future. Bent signed in Jan 2011 and the accounts to 31 May 2011 say that the contingent liabilities as a whole were £4.6m. This is a total guess, but looking at that figure I would suggest that £2m of the £6m may be that we avoided relegation. It does prove beyond doubt that the £6m figure being bandied about is wrong, as there wasn't that much outstanding in contigent liabilities in the year he signed.
-
Cheers, Risso. Won't pretent to understand that explanation but does it mean that we've paid almost £20m now for Bent?
And he dosent even make the bench
-
Cheers, Risso. Won't pretent to understand that explanation but does it mean that we've paid almost £20m now for Bent?
And he dosent even make the bench
though we have probably made that back and more just by staying up and on the verge of the new Sky deal. What is far more concerning is why the manager isn't playing him irrespective of what we've shelled out. Spurs seemed to have the same issue towards the end and despite what he has the potential to do they were happy to ship him out as were Sunderland.
-
The daft rumour now being peddled by Matt Holland on Talk Sport. Seriously, 4-6 million on 50 appearances? 500k maybe, but not that sort of money.
I think LeeB is right the more I think about it. Lambert wants this group to get and bond and create a very together attitude. As such, if he is off in January and has already requested a transfer some weeks back which is rumoured, then I can see the logic in pushing on without him.
The credit must go to glasses for that.
I know, allowed me to read your post?
No my four-eyed friend, mr glasses joined the dots, I was merely agreeing with his thoughts
'You address me by my proper title, you little bollocks' ;-)
-
Cheers, Risso. Won't pretent to understand that explanation but does it mean that we've paid almost £20m now for Bent?
And he dosent even make the bench
All it means is that the amounts aren't included in the accounts. If the selling club have a clause that another £2m is payable if the player scores so many goals, you only record this when it happens, but you have to mention it in a note to the accounts.
-
Pat murphy had a long interview with lambert on 5 live last night and repeatedly pressed lambert on bent, he said bent and benteke can play together as they did at st Mary's, he said bent is fit and available and there has been no bust up between them and that to get picked bent needs to train well and play well.
Pat Murphy "On the face of it they look like they could play together "
Lambert "They did at Southampton........"
Eastie pal, Lambert was pointing out that when he played them together it was probably our worst showing this season.
Do bent score that day ? Yes!
Was bent responsible for our shit second half defending ? No
Bent scored and benteke missed a couple of great chances, the reason we lost was crap defending !
Aye, he gets his tap in and does fuck all else.
If Bent were more flexible as a player he'd be playing, but he's not, and unfortunately we've got a better player in his position.
I'd rather that than a player who covers 7 miles a game and doesn't produce. Centre forwards should score goals and that's what Bent does.
Our centre forward is producing, he won the game for us last night.
Nobody would be stupid enough to say Benteke of all players isnt producing. Its just that Darren Bent scores goals guaranteed and the two of them together would scare the lie out of most EPL centre backs. If only The Dour Scot would stop being so pig headed and get a vibrant winger to provide them with the ammunition.
But will he ,the hell he will! He likes his diamond formation and thats all he appears to know. Which is not at all what we were led to believe
So basically Ron, because Lambert doesn't do what you think he should do he's wrong?
No, buts its a case of going for the sensible option while we are at the bottom end of the table. If Agbonlahor and Weimann had the skills to play in his chosen formation we might be on the way up the table...but they dont.
And if Benteke gets an injury who exactly is going to score goals to keep us up?
Not Darren Bent it would seem.
-
You should read this for an interesting commentary on Bent's relative prowess for scoring / assists (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/football/teams/aston-villa/9709072/Stats-show-why-Paul-Lambert-picks-Christian-Benteke-ahead-of-Darren-Bent-for-Aston-Villa.html) (on the footballing rather than on the female front).
I'm not going to paste the text becuase there are some relevant graphics.
-
The daft rumour now being peddled by Matt Holland on Talk Sport. Seriously, 4-6 million on 50 appearances? 500k maybe, but not that sort of money.
I think LeeB is right the more I think about it. Lambert wants this group to get and bond and create a very together attitude. As such, if he is off in January and has already requested a transfer some weeks back which is rumoured, then I can see the logic in pushing on without him.
The credit must go to glasses for that.
I know, allowed me to read your post?
No my four-eyed friend, mr glasses joined the dots, I was merely agreeing with his thoughts
'You address me by my proper title, you little bollocks' ;-)
Right you are, Len.
-
I see the Telegraph have run with that "another instalment due on 50 appearances" line.
I don't know if it is true, but I hope it isn't. It'd say a lot about the way the club is run these days.
-
It saddens me that we're debating this. He misses a few, he appears to be lazy and possibly sulky, but generally he scores goals. That's pretty much all I want. Weimann is possibly the only other one who has that charm about him in that respect. I'll be sad to see Bent go.
-
It goes without saying that he should be at least on the bench.
'Arry Redkapp is interested in taking him in January according to todays reports, saying that past troubles between them are water under the bridge and that he atill rates Bent.
10 million is the figure they're quoting.
-
Bent also stormed away from Villa Park last night according to some sources. Which as we know turned out to be complete horlicks.
He got as far as his car before being persuaded to return, apparently by his agent.
-
You should read this for an interesting commentary on Bent's relative prowess for scoring / assists (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/football/teams/aston-villa/9709072/Stats-show-why-Paul-Lambert-picks-Christian-Benteke-ahead-of-Darren-Bent-for-Aston-Villa.html) (on the footballing rather than on the female front).
I'm not going to paste the text becuase there are some relevant graphics.
Another media story (http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2012/nov/28/darren-bent-qpr-aston-villa), with QPR regarded as faves to sign him.
It's becoming a media circus: time to ship him out and move on. A shame but there you go: all managers have their views on players and Bent seems to divide opinion.
-
Selling him to QPR would be utterly ridiculous but I would put nothing past the two in charge.
-
Maybe - and I don't particulalrly buy it - the clause would be that he jumps to something like £50k or £60k wages after 50 games. Again, I don't necessarily believe any of it.
-
Bear in mind he has some form in terms of his transfers: apart from his youth spell at Ipswich (4 seasons), he has been moved on after 2-3 seasons at each of his subsequent clubs.
Whether that is his agent's doing, whether it's DB getting bored / jaded; or whether it's some other factor - I don't know.
But he's a goner 'ere.
-
Just read the full transcript of the interview with Paul Lambert re Benty. The Dour Scot has been taking lessons from Shearer or any politician you care to name...he says absolutely nothing that might give a clue to whats going on.
I have come to the conclusion its financial and if this is the case those of us who like Bent will have to bite the bullet and accept he is going
elsewhere.
But not to QPR obviously as his goals could contribute to our demise. Of course if we hit a spell of good form in the second half of the season
it will not matter. Depends of course if our missing chairman is prepared to raid his piggy bank for the January sales!
-
I see the Telegraph have run with that "another instalment due on 50 appearances" line.
I don't know if it is true, but I hope it isn't. It'd say a lot about the way the club is run these days.
Pathetic if true.
If not true i'd like to hear some clarification of it from the club.
-
It better not be true, if you can't afford to play contract clauses then we shouldn't be putting these contracts together. He's clearly off, but it would be madness to sell him to QPR.
-
The long and short of it is that none of us have a clue.
It's all opinion based in what we want to believe. There is no evidence to support any viewpoint. Except that the manager hasn't picked him, for the last two games when he's supposedly fit.
We got a draw against Arsenal and a win against Reading. Most of us would have settled for that beforehand, with or without Darren Bent. So the manager got it right.
-
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-2239734/Darren-Bent-Paul-Lambert-row--Aston-Villa-misfit-playing.html
He is a stubborn son of a gun for sure.
Well with a stout defence like that it's perfectly clear why a man with a 1 in 2 goalscoring ratio in his time at the club wouldn't get in a side that has scored less than 1 goal a game on average so far.
-
Darren Bent will not hand in a transfer request at Aston Villa, but accepts he will be forced out of the club in the January transfer window, according to ESPN sources close to the striker.
Bent is set to be shipped out of Villa Park during the winter transfer window by manager Paul Lambert as a result of the mystifying break down in relations between the pair, paving the way for the England international making a potential move to Queens Park Rangers.
Aston Villa will be prepared to accept around half of the £24 million record transfer fee they paid Sunderland for the England international and new QPR manager Harry Redknapp is considering a reunion despite his own fall-out with Bent when the pair were together at Spurs.
Stoke City and Fulham have asked to be kept informed of Villa's intentions, but they appear clearer now that sources close to Bent claim the 28-year-old has been fit for the last three weeks, despite his manager claiming he was unavailable because of an ankle injury.
A source close to Bent said: "He won't ask for a transfer, but he has not been given any explanation for what has happened. He is frustrated and angry with the situation. He was left out of the squad for games with Arsenal and Reading, but he was fit to play against Manchester United and Manchester City before those matches."
Bent has been left out for the last four games and against Reading and Arsenal and for the last two matches lost his place in the 18-man squad to Jordan Bowery, a £600,000 signing from Chesterfield in August, amid claims from Lambert that all is "fine" with Bent.
"Darren is confused at what has been going on. He is as confused as everyone else. He does not feel he has a future at Villa beyond January. He will continue to be professional and train hard and wait to see what Villa do in the New Year."
Redknapp had a well-publicised dispute with Bent when he claimed his wife Sandra would have scored one of the chances the forward wasted in a game against Portsmouth, but his need is greater than most with key forwards Andrew Johnson and Bobby Zamora out of action long-term.
He is willing to bury the hatchet because of the need for goals at Loftus Road and Bent has 102 Premier League goals to his name at a ratio of almost one every two games.
"I like Darren. I've got no problems with Darren Bent," the QPR boss said. "I just made a comment that maybe I shouldn't, when I said I think my missus would have scored when he missed a header that day. I can laugh at myself, I don't mind.
"It was obviously difficult, he didn't like it and that was sort of it really, and within no time he decided that he didn't want to stay.
"But I think he's a good player. I'd like to have Darren Bent available, believe you me. He can score goals. I've got no problem with Darren as a boy or as a player. I think he's a good player."
Bent has over two years left on his £65,000-a-week contract, but there is no interest from Liverpool as he does not fit the profile for Anfield manager Brendan Rodgers. In an ironic twist, Bent will most likely be left out again for Saturday's trip to Loftus Road and Redknapp's first home game in charge since replacing Mark Hughes.
It has been reported by the Daily Mail that Villa are keen to offload Bent in order to stop a seven-figure payment being made to Sunderland when the striker reaches 50 appearances.
Bent moved to Villa for an initial fee of £18 million in January 2011, with further instalments factored in after significant milestones are reached. Bent has made 47 appearances for the Midlands club, leading to a stand-off.
© ESPN EMEA Ltd
-
Fuck off Redknapp!! That bloody rent-a-quote has to stick his beak in again.
Something's obviously not right with the whole Bent situation. Lambert's the man with the plan though. We'd be no better off had Bent been playing more. Possibly worse off, as Gabby and Weimann have worked extremely hard over the last few weeks.
We need to make some sort of clear statement. We can't have this issue dragging over xmas. We don't need it. If he's surplus to requirements then so be it, by why not just come out and say it. Some players and managers don't gel. For me, Bent joined us for money. I can't see in all seriousness how we could in his mind fulfil any other ambitions. Clearly we were in decline.
Lambert has a long term vision and I feel like a few results, and some good january signings mean we can turn a corner. The way we're currently set up, and at least seem to be getting some results, doesn't suit Bent. That's clear.
I didn't think so before, but the more it drags on, I can't really discount the theory Randy's had a say in this too.
-
This will just keep on rumbling in the press and is a distraction we can do without- its time to be open with fans and clear this matter up once and for all - if the club are holding him back to avoid paying the next instalment then it smacks of poor management at the top, we are hardly in a position of safety to take such a gamble.
-
Never understasnd why Redknapp can talk about other players like that.
-
This will just keep on rumbling in the press and is a distraction we can do without- its time to be open with fans and clear this matter up once and for all - if the club are holding him back to avoid paying the next instalment then it smacks of poor management at the top, we are hardly in a position of safety to take such a gamble.
Why? The club shouldn't share confidential information so that it can be broadcast all over the place.
-
Fucking sell him. Get this circus over. Boring as fuck now. Rant over.
-
They have done very well to keep Bent as quiet as they have.
-
Never understasnd why Redknapp can talk about other players like that.
Why can't he? There's nothing in the rules that says that he shouldn't.
-
This will just keep on rumbling in the press and is a distraction we can do without- its time to be open with fans and clear this matter up once and for all - if the club are holding him back to avoid paying the next instalment then it smacks of poor management at the top, we are hardly in a position of safety to take such a gamble.
Why? The club shouldn't share confidential information so that it can be broadcast all over the place.
The distraction is not good for the club or the manager, these stories will continue and we can nip it in the bud by clearing up the situation with a simple statement .
Clearly lambert can do without the constant questioning regarding bent and it seems that he will be leaving , it would be simpler to say that Darren is not part of the managers plans and then we can move on .
I feel sorry for bent , he came here with a good supply line which has been sold and has been left cast aside in a shabby manner If his sources are correct - poor management .
-
I don't believe Bent came to us purely for money. GH had a clear plan which DB bought into and he fitted into the system perfectly. We were showing Top 6 form after Jan and had the likes of Cabaye in our sights in the Summer. Pity it all went tits up
-
Think the way Rodgers handled the Andy Carroll situation in the summer is a good example of why it's better to keep it in house. The fact Bent, record signing, England international and proven goalscorer can't make the 18 man matchday squad of a side 17th in the league tells us that he's on his way out. Whether it's because of transfer clauses, a bust up with the manager, shagging of Herd's bird.... Whatever. He's on his way out. A mistake in my opinion, but my opinion means the same as everyone elses, absolutely bugger all. It's Lambert's call.
-
The trouble is also, if Lambert puts Bent back in the 18, or back in the side, there'll be naysayers wondering if he bowed to fan pressure, or even worse, press pressure.
I also hope that we sell him as early as possible in january. The sooner we can move on and also re-invest his fee, the better.
-
Ah Redknapp talking about other teams players what a fucking surprise. We shouldn't consider selling to QPR. Also this situation still makes no sense and Lambert could solve it just by including him in the squad.
-
The distraction is not good for the club or the manager, these stories will continue and we can nip it in the bud by clearing up the situation with a simple statement .
Lambert has already said that he didn't pick Bent because he picked a team to win the game.
There's your statement, Lambert doesn't think having Bent in the team will win games.
But it seems no one wants to believe that so there's no real point in the club saying anything else because until they say what you want to hear you'll ignore it anyway!
-
The distraction is not good for the club or the manager, these stories will continue and we can nip it in the bud by clearing up the situation with a simple statement .
Lambert has already said that he didn't pick Bent because he picked a team to win the game.
There's your statement, Lambert doesn't think having Bent in the team will win games.
But it seems no one wants to believe that so there's no real point in the club saying anything else because until they say what you want to hear you'll ignore it anyway!
To repeat what I think lots of us are saying, I'd find that very believable if he were on the bench in place of say Albrighton or Bowery.
As he's not, we can assume that Lambert thinks either Jordan Bowery is more likely to come on and get a late goal than Darren Bent (which although not impossible, I think even Bent's harshest critics would probably agree to be unlikely) or there is an issue at play beyond Bent's footballing ability.
-
Indeed Dave. We'd still have won the game if Bent was on the bench on Tuesday, as obviously Bowery had nothing to do with the result. Lambert wouldn't have looked half as smug if it had been 0-0 though.
-
perfect scenario for me, is he comes on on saturday, scores a hattrick, and then 'Arry buys him to QPR for 20mil over christmas
-
The distraction is not good for the club or the manager, these stories will continue and we can nip it in the bud by clearing up the situation with a simple statement .
Lambert has already said that he didn't pick Bent because he picked a team to win the game.
There's your statement, Lambert doesn't think having Bent in the team will win games.
But it seems no one wants to believe that so there's no real point in the club saying anything else because until they say what you want to hear you'll ignore it anyway!
That may be the case, but I can't think of any logical why Bowery is a better option on the bench than Bent.
-
The distraction is not good for the club or the manager, these stories will continue and we can nip it in the bud by clearing up the situation with a simple statement .
Lambert has already said that he didn't pick Bent because he picked a team to win the game.
There's your statement, Lambert doesn't think having Bent in the team will win games.
But it seems no one wants to believe that so there's no real point in the club saying anything else because until they say what you want to hear you'll ignore it anyway!
That may be the case, but I can't think of any logical why Bowery is a better option on the bench than Bent.
Or Albrighton. I'd rather have one less sub on the bench than have young Marc there, unfortunately, such is his total uselessness these days.
-
But no one apparently knows how good Bowery is, maybe he's superb in training and proving that he's the man to replace Benteke up front if we need to sub him for any reason.
-
That's clearly not the case though or he'd have had more game time.
-
But no one apparently knows how good Bowery is, maybe he's superb in training and proving that he's the man to replace Benteke up front if we need to sub him for any reason.
Again, it's not impossible.
But I'd certainly argue that it's improbable that a young man with a one in eight scoring ratio in League Two is scoring more often than of the most prolific goalscorers in the Premier League.
-
Funny how now he's got no problem with Bent, Redknapp is a ****** pure and simple
-
The distraction is not good for the club or the manager, these stories will continue and we can nip it in the bud by clearing up the situation with a simple statement .
Lambert has already said that he didn't pick Bent because he picked a team to win the game.
There's your statement, Lambert doesn't think having Bent in the team will win games.
But it seems no one wants to believe that so there's no real point in the club saying anything else because until they say what you want to hear you'll ignore it anyway!
That may be the case, but I can't think of any logical why Bowery is a better option on the bench than Bent.
Or Albrighton. I'd rather have one less sub on the bench than have young Marc there, unfortunately, such is his total uselessness these days.
Well yes I actually shuddered when I saw he was one of the substitutes coming on the other night.
-
It's one thing to sell Bent, it's quite another to consider selling him to a relegation rival - surely they wouldn't consider that option.
-
But no one apparently knows how good Bowery is, maybe he's superb in training and proving that he's the man to replace Benteke up front if we need to sub him for any reason.
Again, it's not impossible.
But I'd certainly argue that it's improbable that a young man with a one in eight scoring ratio in League Two is scoring more often than of the most prolific goalscorers in the Premier League.
And if it were the case he'd have had more game time than a few minutes against Citeh.
-
It's one thing to sell Bent, it's quite another to consider selling him to a relegation rival - surely they wouldn't consider that option.
After the McLeish debacle I would put nothing past them
-
And also, if true about the contract situation just shows how short term and narrow minded we have become, £6m saving now, £40m potential loss at the end of the season. Also, if true, it shows Lambert to be a yes man in my opinion seeing as he has 'no problem with Darren'.
-
The distraction is not good for the club or the manager, these stories will continue and we can nip it in the bud by clearing up the situation with a simple statement .
Lambert has already said that he didn't pick Bent because he picked a team to win the game.
There's your statement, Lambert doesn't think having Bent in the team will win games.
But it seems no one wants to believe that so there's no real point in the club saying anything else because until they say what you want to hear you'll ignore it anyway!
So lambert thinks Bowery is more useful to the club than bent? How can that possibly be conceived to be in the best interests of aston villa?
We all know bents goal scoring record and its ridiculous to suggest bent is not good enough to be in a squad containing an untried striker from a lower league- maybe lambert is toeing the party line and covering up the real reason but no way can he seriously put Bowery ahead of bent for footballing reasons!
-
And also, if true about the contract situation just shows how short term and narrow minded we have become, £6m saving now, £40m potential loss at the end of the season. Also, if true, it shows Lambert to be a yes man in my opinion seeing as he has 'no problem with Darren'.
If there is a financial clause re 50 appearances, why is everyone assuming it will be 6m? That sounds unlikely for a milestone like that. It could be a lot less than that. Which makes it more worrying if that really is the reason he is not getting used.
If the reason for selling him is he doesn't, and won't, fit in with the way we play, then I don't mind them selling him in January so long as the cash gets re-invested. The problem is, I think they'd flog him then go out and buy someone like Charlie Austin, or another lower leagues player who'll be on low wages when what we need are more experienced players.
If the reason for selling him is that we want him off the wage bill / we owe Sunderland some more money on 50 appearances then that's deeply worrying in terms of the way the club is being run.
-
But no one apparently knows how good Bowery is, maybe he's superb in training and proving that he's the man to replace Benteke up front if we need to sub him for any reason.
There could well be an element of truth in this.
Its quite clear that in the current system that PL is employing that DB is surplus to requirement. It may also be that in this current system he cannot see DB filling the roll that Benteke is doing and that should there be a problem with Benteke then Bowery may well be showing in training that he is more suited to that roll.
I also don't find it to difficult to imagine DB throwing a strop about this and making PL' decision even easier by his lack of effort in training.
PL' comment 'Football is easy play well, train well' could well point to something like this.
If this is the case that its almost impossible not to back the manager.
The trouble is non of us know what is going on but its good fun listening to all the different opinions.
I like DB for what he is good at and in an ideal world I would like him to stay equally I won't lose too much sleep over his departure if it happen.
-
The distraction is not good for the club or the manager, these stories will continue and we can nip it in the bud by clearing up the situation with a simple statement .
Lambert has already said that he didn't pick Bent because he picked a team to win the game.
There's your statement, Lambert doesn't think having Bent in the team will win games.
But it seems no one wants to believe that so there's no real point in the club saying anything else because until they say what you want to hear you'll ignore it anyway!
So lambert thinks Bowery is more useful to the club than bent? How can that possibly be conceived to be in the best interests of aston villa?
We all know bents goal scoring record and its ridiculous to suggest bent is not good enough to be in a squad containing an untried striker from a lower league- maybe lambert is toeing the party line and covering up the real reason but no way can he seriously put Bowery ahead of bent for footballing reasons!
Bent's scoring record is 2 league goals from 9 PL games (2 as sub) this season. If he's building for the future and Bent isn't in his plans it makes sense to give Bowery some experience of being around the first team.
-
Indeed Dave. We'd still have won the game if Bent was on the bench on Tuesday, as obviously Bowery had nothing to do with the result. Lambert wouldn't have looked half as smug if it had been 0-0 though.
The essence of your post reads as if you're criticising Lambert for being smug that we won.
On your other point, we'd still have won the game if Doug Ellis (and his overhead kick) had been on the bench. Lambert wouldn't have picked him either.
-
The distraction is not good for the club or the manager, these stories will continue and we can nip it in the bud by clearing up the situation with a simple statement .
Lambert has already said that he didn't pick Bent because he picked a team to win the game.
There's your statement, Lambert doesn't think having Bent in the team will win games.
But it seems no one wants to believe that so there's no real point in the club saying anything else because until they say what you want to hear you'll ignore it anyway!
So lambert thinks Bowery is more useful to the club than bent? How can that possibly be conceived to be in the best interests of aston villa?
We all know bents goal scoring record and its ridiculous to suggest bent is not good enough to be in a squad containing an untried striker from a lower league- maybe lambert is toeing the party line and covering up the real reason but no way can he seriously put Bowery ahead of bent for footballing reasons!
Spot on.
-
And also, if true about the contract situation just shows how short term and narrow minded we have become, £6m saving now, £40m potential loss at the end of the season. Also, if true, it shows Lambert to be a yes man in my opinion seeing as he has 'no problem with Darren'.
If there is a financial clause re 50 appearances, why is everyone assuming it will be 6m? That sounds unlikely for a milestone like that. It could be a lot less than that. Which makes it more worrying if that really is the reason he is not getting used.
If the reason for selling him is he doesn't, and won't, fit in with the way we play, then I don't mind them selling him in January so long as the cash gets re-invested. The problem is, I think they'd flog him then go out and buy someone like Charlie Austin, or another lower leagues player who'll be on low wages when what we need are more experienced players.
If the reason for selling him is that we want him off the wage bill / we owe Sunderland some more money on 50 appearances then that's deeply worrying in terms of the way the club is being run.
Agree with all that. I don't mind selling him if it's all reinvested in the team, and in experienced quality players. However I don't want us selling him to a direct rival and I'd hate to think he's not playing due to penny pinching. If that's the case it's a disgrace.
-
It's one thing to sell Bent, it's quite another to consider selling him to a relegation rival - surely they wouldn't consider that option.
You just know he will become that player who always score against us if we sell him.
-
The one possible problem i forsee is if we pick up a couple of defeats in the next few games (which is possible) and Bent is still sat in the stand on his mobile then you can expect a few Darren Bent reminder chants toward Lambert and it's not what we need really.
-
And also, if true about the contract situation just shows how short term and narrow minded we have become, £6m saving now, £40m potential loss at the end of the season. Also, if true, it shows Lambert to be a yes man in my opinion seeing as he has 'no problem with Darren'.
If there is a financial clause re 50 appearances, why is everyone assuming it will be 6m? That sounds unlikely for a milestone like that. It could be a lot less than that. Which makes it more worrying if that really is the reason he is not getting used.
If the reason for selling him is he doesn't, and won't, fit in with the way we play, then I don't mind them selling him in January so long as the cash gets re-invested. The problem is, I think they'd flog him then go out and buy someone like Charlie Austin, or another lower leagues player who'll be on low wages when what we need are more experienced players.
If the reason for selling him is that we want him off the wage bill / we owe Sunderland some more money on 50 appearances then that's deeply worrying in terms of the way the club is being run.
As I've pointed out, it can't be £6m. There wasn't that much owing at the end of May 2011 for all players with clauses like that.
-
There might be some appearance trigger. But it could be the case that Lambert has already decided that Bent isnt going to fit in with his plans, in which case why throw millions away giving Bent the odd cameo when he has somebody lined up in a month who will fit in? It could mean an extra player or two.
I must add though, that I'm a big fan of Bent, I've made no secret of that and I find it confusing and frustrating that he's not even figuring on the bench. But I also like Lambert and I have to accept that he has his reasons for doing what he's doing and that he'll either suffer for it or be vindicated but its his prerogative as manager.
I can at least understand the footballing reasons for playing Benteke instead of Bent at the moment but unless there's been something going on behind the scenes, I see no reason to drop Bent from the team altogether.
Which tells me that whatever he says, and he's a players manager and wont air his dirty linen in public for anything, there is a problem behind the scenes. Maybe Bent feels he's entitled to a place without trying and is mugging us off in training (a few things I get from Lambert's comments suggest this to me), maybe there are personal problems or maybe it's something nobody has considered.
It's a bit of a mess though and it's possibly distracting to the team so hopefully it will be resolved one way or another soon.
-
There might be some appearance trigger. But it could be the case that Lambert has already decided that Bent isnt going to fit in with his plans, in which case why throw millions away giving Bent the odd cameo when he has somebody lined up in a month who will fit in? It could mean an extra player or two.
The one thing I don't understand about that is that it doesn't make financial sense. Apart from the 'more goals therefore higher up the table' argument, if he was playing we could say we want to keep him and drive the price higher. As it is, he's seen as surplus to requirements and it's now a buyer's market.
-
There might be some appearance trigger. But it could be the case that Lambert has already decided that Bent isnt going to fit in with his plans, in which case why throw millions away giving Bent the odd cameo when he has somebody lined up in a month who will fit in? It could mean an extra player or two.
The one thing I don't understand about that is that it doesn't make financial sense. Apart from the 'more goals therefore higher up the table' argument, if he was playing we could say we want to keep him and drive the price higher. As it is, he's seen as surplus to requirements and it's now a buyer's market.
However, we could be playing him and he could be playing badly, not scoring, rising his record to say, 2 in 15 this season. He's clearly not wanted so it's better this way IMO
-
There might be some appearance trigger. But it could be the case that Lambert has already decided that Bent isnt going to fit in with his plans, in which case why throw millions away giving Bent the odd cameo when he has somebody lined up in a month who will fit in? It could mean an extra player or two.
The one thing I don't understand about that is that it doesn't make financial sense. Apart from the 'more goals therefore higher up the table' argument, if he was playing we could say we want to keep him and drive the price higher. As it is, he's seen as surplus to requirements and it's now a buyer's market.
However, we could be playing him and he could be playing badly, not scoring, rising his record to say, 2 in 15 this season. He's clearly not wanted so it's better this way IMO
He'd still be in the team and playing, though.
-
There might be some appearance trigger. But it could be the case that Lambert has already decided that Bent isnt going to fit in with his plans, in which case why throw millions away giving Bent the odd cameo when he has somebody lined up in a month who will fit in? It could mean an extra player or two.
The one thing I don't understand about that is that it doesn't make financial sense. Apart from the 'more goals therefore higher up the table' argument, if he was playing we could say we want to keep him and drive the price higher. As it is, he's seen as surplus to requirements and it's now a buyer's market.
I agree. It also doesn't make any sort of footballing sense, because it's always possible that Bent will nick a goal when you're up against it. If we were comfortably mid table, I'd say fine, Lambert has a plan and if that doesn't include Bent, then we're safe enough and now's the time to build for next season. When we're in and out of the bottom three as we are, we need all of our better players available. Lambert needs to get this sorted out.
-
From the Graun comments page:
There are four questions that still need to be asked:
Q: Did Bent shag your missus?
PL: No.
Q: Your daughter?
PL: No.
Q: You while you were sleeping?
PL: No.
Q: Did Bent fall under a bus a few weeks ago, and you are wheeling around a lookalike who can't play football, Fidel Castro style, to avoid a fall in shirt sales?
PL: That's a stupid question.
Q: But you've already denied the only three other explanations that are physically possible in this universe. If he's slouching around in training and not trying in matches, then it's quite right to leave him out of the starting XI. But it is universally recognised that a moody striker with a point to prove is often a very good weapon to have on the bench. When a match needs to be turned around and an unlikely hero is called for, an underperforming diva is more likely to score than a hard-working reserve.
PL: Ok, you got me. His name's Jim and he drives a cab in Telford. Bent's in a fridge in the executive suite. We just couldn't let him go *sob*.
-
Indeed, the surplus to requirements cat is well and truly out of the bag.
We'll be fending off piss take offers for him until somebody makes something approaching a decent offer or has players we want.
The financial implications is that if there is also an appearance trigger (for arguments sake - £4m) its £4m Lambert doesnt have in January to spend on a player or players he thinks will help us climb the table and rake in more money. And how many goals will Bent score in a month, largely playing from the bench? Will it make enough difference?
I personally think its nothing to do with money. I'm just playing Devil's advocate.
-
I think if there is a payment due to Sunderland it would be less than £2m.
-
And also, if true about the contract situation just shows how short term and narrow minded we have become, £6m saving now, £40m potential loss at the end of the season. Also, if true, it shows Lambert to be a yes man in my opinion seeing as he has 'no problem with Darren'.
If there is a financial clause re 50 appearances, why is everyone assuming it will be 6m? That sounds unlikely for a milestone like that. It could be a lot less than that. Which makes it more worrying if that really is the reason he is not getting used.
If the reason for selling him is he doesn't, and won't, fit in with the way we play, then I don't mind them selling him in January so long as the cash gets re-invested. The problem is, I think they'd flog him then go out and buy someone like Charlie Austin, or another lower leagues player who'll be on low wages when what we need are more experienced players.
If the reason for selling him is that we want him off the wage bill / we owe Sunderland some more money on 50 appearances then that's deeply worrying in terms of the way the club is being run.
As I've pointed out, it can't be £6m. There wasn't that much owing at the end of May 2011 for all players with clauses like that.
Makes it even more concerning then that the club couldn't afford less than that for the sake of a potential bigger loss at the end of the season.
-
Indeed, the surplus to requirements cat is well and truly out of the bag.
We'll be fending off piss take offers for him until somebody makes something approaching a decent offer or has players we want.
The financial implications is that if there is also an appearance trigger (for arguments sake - £4m) its £4m Lambert doesnt have in January to spend on a player or players he thinks will help us climb the table and rake in more money. And how many goals will Bent score in a month, largely playing from the bench? Will it make enough difference?
I personally think its nothing to do with money. I'm just playing Devil's advocate.
Well lambert has already said he has no problem with bent in training and there's been no bust up , so if he is to be believed the decision is because he picks a team to win and it's his choice - all very strange how a player with such a good goalscoring record cannot get even onto the bench of a team with such an awful goals total.
-
Funny how now he's got no problem with Bent, Redknapp is a c*** pure and simple
He's a moron. It's also funny how he no longer has a problem with Taarabt.
-
There might be some appearance trigger. But it could be the case that Lambert has already decided that Bent isnt going to fit in with his plans, in which case why throw millions away giving Bent the odd cameo when he has somebody lined up in a month who will fit in? It could mean an extra player or two.
The one thing I don't understand about that is that it doesn't make financial sense. Apart from the 'more goals therefore higher up the table' argument, if he was playing we could say we want to keep him and drive the price higher. As it is, he's seen as surplus to requirements and it's now a buyer's market.
However, we could be playing him and he could be playing badly, not scoring, rising his record to say, 2 in 15 this season. He's clearly not wanted so it's better this way IMO
He'd still be in the team and playing, though.
Somehow failed to make the point that if he was playing, and playing badly, then his value would drop. It would not benefit us and who is going to sign a striker who's scored 2 in 15 for decent money?
Just my take on things, I could be and probably am talking complete and utter b*llocks.
-
The day we sell our best striker to QPR is when it's time to give up surely isn't it. I mean, just how far down the pan do we have to go?
-
The day we sell our best striker to QPR is when it's time to give up surely isn't it. I mean, just how far down the pan do we have to go?
Nice to see variations of "How low have we sunk" can be used on any occasion.
-
There might be some appearance trigger. But it could be the case that Lambert has already decided that Bent isnt going to fit in with his plans, in which case why throw millions away giving Bent the odd cameo when he has somebody lined up in a month who will fit in? It could mean an extra player or two.
The one thing I don't understand about that is that it doesn't make financial sense. Apart from the 'more goals therefore higher up the table' argument, if he was playing we could say we want to keep him and drive the price higher. As it is, he's seen as surplus to requirements and it's now a buyer's market.
Maybe there is already a deal in place which sees him leave on January 1st and the money coming in is in turn needed for deals which are set up for incoming transfers? Bit far fetched I agree but this whole thread is littered with theories.
-
I think if there is a payment due to Sunderland it would be less than £2m.
The "rumour mill" up here is generating noises that it is 3 million owed if Bent plays another three games. This is from the actual press, not fan's chat sites, not that means it is any more truthful! :-\
-
I dont think there is much chance of Bent going to QPR after Redknapp's public humiliation of Bent. Not to mention they are probably favourites to go down right now and that probably (we hope) won't change much in January.
Fulham or Liverpool are more likely destinations.
-
I'd rather lambert just came out and said " Darren doesn't really fit into the system I'm trying to play and good player though he is we've decided he can look for another club come January ' in a similar way to how Brendan Rodgers froze out Andy Carroll , rather than the endless denials and press conferences dominated by the issue.
Twenty one questions were asked about bent in the last press conference on Tuesday night.
-
I dont think there is much chance of Bent going to QPR after Redknapp's public humiliation of Bent. Not to mention they are probably favourites to go down right now and that probably (we hope) won't change much in January.
Fulham or Liverpool are more likely destinations.
Feel free to poo poo this but I think he's got a good chance of going to Chelsea or even Arsenal. Both are looking for a goalscorer, Chelsea moreso. The fact he is eligible for European competition and a proven goal getter makes me think Arsenal might take a punt on him especially if as rumoured Walcott leaves in January.
-
I dont think there is much chance of Bent going to QPR after Redknapp's public humiliation of Bent. Not to mention they are probably favourites to go down right now and that probably (we hope) won't change much in January.
Fulham or Liverpool are more likely destinations.
Feel free to poo poo this but I think he's got a good chance of going to Chelsea or even Arsenal. Both are looking for a goalscorer, Chelsea moreso. The fact he is eligible for European competition and a proven goal getter makes me think Arsenal might take a punt on him especially if as rumoured Walcott leaves in January.
Bent would score a shedload of goals at arsenal - wherever he goes he will score goals .
-
The day we sell our best striker to QPR is when it's time to give up surely isn't it. I mean, just how far down the pan do we have to go?
Nice to see variations of "How low have we sunk" can be used on any occasion.
Not really, just when it's warranted. You probably think I am a serial miserablist, I am at the moment, I am just really pissed off at the way the whole club has eroded over a relatively short period. I wasn't around in the dark days of the late 60's so I recognise what I am seeing now maybe nothing compared to then, but, given the money that is swishing around these days, this decline makes it even more shocking.
-
The day we sell our best striker to QPR is when it's time to give up surely isn't it. I mean, just how far down the pan do we have to go?
Nice to see variations of "How low have we sunk" can be used on any occasion.
Not really, just when it's warranted. You probably think I am a serial miserablist, I am at the moment, I am just really pissed off at the way the whole club has eroded over a relatively short period. I wasn't around in the dark days of the late 60's so I recognise what I am seeing now maybe nothing compared to then, but, given the money that is swishing around these days, this decline makes it even more shocking.
Who a player is sold to really doesn't matter. We've sold our stars to worse, and better, than QPR when we've been worse and better than we are now.
-
There is quite a long way down the pan to go than where we are now, believe me.
Despite how frustrating the last few years have been I'm still fairly optimistic that we'll recover and have a team we can really be excited about in a year or two. The road will be rocky for a little while yet.
-
The day we sell our best striker to QPR is when it's time to give up surely isn't it. I mean, just how far down the pan do we have to go?
Nice to see variations of "How low have we sunk" can be used on any occasion.
Not really, just when it's warranted. You probably think I am a serial miserablist, I am at the moment, I am just really pissed off at the way the whole club has eroded over a relatively short period. I wasn't around in the dark days of the late 60's so I recognise what I am seeing now maybe nothing compared to then, but, given the money that is swishing around these days, this decline makes it even more shocking.
Who a player is sold to really doesn't matter. We've sold our stars to worse, and better, than QPR when we've been worse and better than we are now.
In this instance it very much does matter in my view. In the short term it could lose us £40m, in the longer term it could see us do a Forest, Southampton, Leeds, Coventry, Sheffield Wednesday.
It could of course mean nothing of the above, but it's a hell of a gamble to take considering where we are in the league.
-
The day we sell our best striker to QPR is when it's time to give up surely isn't it. I mean, just how far down the pan do we have to go?
Nice to see variations of "How low have we sunk" can be used on any occasion.
Not really, just when it's warranted. You probably think I am a serial miserablist, I am at the moment, I am just really pissed off at the way the whole club has eroded over a relatively short period. I wasn't around in the dark days of the late 60's so I recognise what I am seeing now maybe nothing compared to then, but, given the money that is swishing around these days, this decline makes it even more shocking.
Who a player is sold to really doesn't matter. We've sold our stars to worse, and better, than QPR when we've been worse and better than we are now.
In this instance it very much does matter in my view. In the short term it could lose us £40m, in the longer term it could see us do a Forest, Southampton, Leeds, Coventry, Sheffield Wednesday.
It could of course mean nothing of the above, but it's a hell of a gamble to take considering where we are in the league.
I think if qpr are prepared to pay the asking fee and nobody else is then randy would sell to qpr- it is up to us to finish safely and not worry about what qpr or anyone else does - I do think though that if bent went to qpr they would avoid relegation , I think we will avoid relegation too.
-
I dont think there is much chance of Bent going to QPR after Redknapp's public humiliation of Bent. Not to mention they are probably favourites to go down right now and that probably (we hope) won't change much in January.
Fulham or Liverpool are more likely destinations.
Feel free to poo poo this but I think he's got a good chance of going to Chelsea or even Arsenal. Both are looking for a goalscorer, Chelsea moreso. The fact he is eligible for European competition and a proven goal getter makes me think Arsenal might take a punt on him especially if as rumoured Walcott leaves in January.
I think his technical limitations make Arsenal an unlikely destination and Chelsea will surely cast their net a bit wider if they're in the market.
-
I dont think there is much chance of Bent going to QPR after Redknapp's public humiliation of Bent. Not to mention they are probably favourites to go down right now and that probably (we hope) won't change much in January.
Fulham or Liverpool are more likely destinations.
Feel free to poo poo this but I think he's got a good chance of going to Chelsea or even Arsenal. Both are looking for a goalscorer, Chelsea moreso. The fact he is eligible for European competition and a proven goal getter makes me think Arsenal might take a punt on him especially if as rumoured Walcott leaves in January.
Bent would score a shedload of goals at arsenal - wherever he goes he will score goals .
The point is being missed here
I am not against Bent, far from it go back to the days when we had Young / Milner / Barry providing brilliant service we ended up with Heskey when Bent would have been possibly the final piece in the jigsaw to get into the top 4. Everyone could see it but Pube head
You have to ask ourselves with Bents impressive goal to game ratio why the likes of Arse / Man U / Chelsea were never in for him? Look at the strikers they have and all of them not only score goals but also work their collective balls off for the team - it is the way of the modern CF
Long gone are the days of the likes of Ian Rush / Lineker almost goal hanging and scoring shed loads. The game is about 10 outfield players attacking and defending as a unit and Bent regrettably in ours (and almost all other teams) set up just does not fit in. Add to this the great service we could have provided previously for a multitude of reasons is not there today and instead we have a very young team who needs the ball held up front more now than ever so they can join up play. DB is not a natural at hold up play, does not like working towards his own goal and could almost be called a lazy footballer (in the nice way). All managers have a way that they set up and we have to accept that PL's way does not include DB, just like Carroll was told very early and publically that he was not for Rodgers. To accomodate Bent would mean PL completely changing the set up he is now getting settled into and it is easy to see that includes a big man to hold the ball up and terrorise defences hence buying Benteke. Now i do not claim to know anything at all about Bowery apart from he is a big bugger but i would not mind betting that he offers more in the shape of what PL wants from a CF than DB does hence having him on the bench. Player slots into way of playing rather than changing the wehole set up to accomodate a single player.
All Managers buy players to fit into their systems not the other way round
Or if thats not the case then its obvious DB has shagged PL's missus before 50 games means loads of money going to pube heads coffers
-
It would be stupid to sell to QPR. As things stand (especially if we beat them) they probably mean we only have to worry about being better than two other teams. Sell them Bent and we may as well hand them 10 points on a plate.
-
By Brendan McLoughlin | 28/11/12
QPR chief Harry Redknapp is willing to make up with Darren Bent and could offer him a shock escape route out of Aston Villa.
The new Hoops boss is desperate to bolster his attack in January and remains an admirer of Bent, who has been frozen out by Paul Lambert.
The striker quit Tottenham in a sulk in 2009 just months after Redknapp blasted him for missing a chance against Portsmouth he claimed his “missus could have scored.”
But Redknapp has indicated he is ready to bury the hatchet with the England ace as he bids to pull off another of his ‘Harry Houdini’ acts with rock-bottom Rangers.
Redknapp said: “We lack a bit of a cutting edge. It’s a lopsided squad, we could do with a couple of front men to give us a chance.
“I like Darren, I have no problems with him. I just made a comment that maybe I shouldn’t have.
“It was difficult, he didn’t like that and within no time he decided he wanted to go. But he’s a good player and he can score goals.”
While such a prospect was unthinkable not so long ago, it is move which could prove mutually beneficial with Bent out in the cold at Villa.
A January exit is now inevitable for the 28-year-old, whose last start came over a month ago.
Liverpool and Fulham are also keen on the £24million attacker, who could be sold for as little as £8m.
-
Better not be as little as £8 million, that would be utter insanity.
-
Never understasnd why Redknapp can talk about other players like that.
Why can't he? There's nothing in the rules that says that he shouldn't.
I seem to recall one of our managers talking about another player a few years back and getting fined for it. Can't remember who it was.
-
Never understasnd why Redknapp can talk about other players like that.
Why can't he? There's nothing in the rules that says that he shouldn't.
I seem to recall one of our managers talking about another player a few years back and getting fined for it. Can't remember who it was.
O Leary I think.
-
Never understasnd why Redknapp can talk about other players like that.
Why can't he? There's nothing in the rules that says that he shouldn't.
I seem to recall one of our managers talking about another player a few years back and getting fined for it. Can't remember who it was.
O'Leary over James Beattie. Only Villa could be fined for poaching a player we didn't sign.
-
David O'Leary and Beattie, then of Southampton
We are the only club that aren't allowed to do this.
On the other hand, if we don't talk about players before we sign them - as was the case with Bent where everyone was surprised - then we are "Desperate".
-
David O'Leary and Beattie, then of Southampton
We are the only club that aren't allowed to do this.
On the other hand, if we don't talk about players before we sign them - as was the case with Bent where everyone was surprised - then we are "Desperate".
I still wonder if much of the reason the media have always had a downer on us and Bent is that we caught them totally by surprise when signing him and upset a few generally-agreed theories into the bargain.
-
I dont think there is much chance of Bent going to QPR after Redknapp's public humiliation of Bent. Not to mention they are probably favourites to go down right now and that probably (we hope) won't change much in January.
Fulham or Liverpool are more likely destinations.
Feel free to poo poo this but I think he's got a good chance of going to Chelsea or even Arsenal. Both are looking for a goalscorer, Chelsea moreso. The fact he is eligible for European competition and a proven goal getter makes me think Arsenal might take a punt on him especially if as rumoured Walcott leaves in January.
I think his technical limitations make Arsenal an unlikely destination and Chelsea will surely cast their net a bit wider if they're in the market.
What technical limitations? Arsenals current strikers are Giroud, Podolski and Chamakh - Darren Bent scores more goals per game than those three combined.
-
I dont think there is much chance of Bent going to QPR after Redknapp's public humiliation of Bent. Not to mention they are probably favourites to go down right now and that probably (we hope) won't change much in January.
Fulham or Liverpool are more likely destinations.
Feel free to poo poo this but I think he's got a good chance of going to Chelsea or even Arsenal. Both are looking for a goalscorer, Chelsea moreso. The fact he is eligible for European competition and a proven goal getter makes me think Arsenal might take a punt on him especially if as rumoured Walcott leaves in January.
I think his technical limitations make Arsenal an unlikely destination and Chelsea will surely cast their net a bit wider if they're in the market.
What technical limitations? Arsenals current strikers are Giroud, Podolski and Chamakh - Darren Bent scores more goals per game than those three combined.
The two goals he scored at the Emirates at the end of the season before last were as good technically as you'll see from a centre forward. I personally don't buy into this idea that Bent is limted technically and think wherever he ends up he will score plenty of goals. For me that is the main job of a centre forward.
-
I have no logical basis on which to hang this idea but I just wonder if the poetic irony will be that we signed Bent who then kept us up 2 years ago and then conversely we sell him in January and we go down.
I know, pure boll****
-
From Todays Guardian.
Darren Bent: 22 questions about Aston Villa's record signing.
My favourite is...
Q We're only asking what the punters are talking about.
PL Listen, I totally respect what you're doing and what your questions are. All I can do is give you an honest answer. If I was going to lie to you, honestly I would lie. I ain't lying. I'm telling you the truth.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2012/nov/28/darren-bent-aston-villa
-
From Todays Guardian.
Darren Bent: 22 questions about Aston Villa's record signing.
My favourite is...
Q We're only asking what the punters are talking about.
PL Listen, I totally respect what you're doing and what your questions are. All I can do is give you an honest answer. If I was going to lie to you, honestly I would lie. I ain't lying. I'm telling you the truth.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2012/nov/28/darren-bent-aston-villa
Cheers for that link A.L.I.T.A.
-
Selling him to QPR would be utterly ridiculous but I would put nothing past the two in charge.
agree
They would stay up with his goals , we could go down . The owner would deserve what he gets .
-
Another from the Guardian `22 questions`comments page.
Q:Is this the real life?
PL: Oh, this is real, believe me, and the sooner my player know that the better.
Q:Is this just fantasy?
PL:We can’t be caught dreaming, you know, my player can’t be thinking they are better than what they are, they need to work hard and get us out of this.
Q:Caught in a landslide?
PL: No, there was that danger but I think tonight the three points has stopped the slide
Q:No escape from reality?
PL: Exactly, our players know this is real, they know what we have to do, the table doesn’t lie.
Q:Open your eyes?
PL: Exactly, theres no hidin’ from my players
Q:Look up to the skies and see?
PL: Exactly, we need to look up the table and move towards it.
Q: Just a poor boy, Need no sympathy?
PL: Well, yes we may not have the funds available but we certainly don’t expect anyone feeling sorry for themselves.
Q:Because You’re "easy come, easy go"?
PL: Well, in this game you live and die football but you got to get on and think about the next game, no point dwelling on what went on before.
Q:Little high, little low?
A: It’s a rollercoaster ride, the Barclays Premier League
Q: Any way the wind blows, doesn't really matter to me, to me?
A: Well, not unless you are playing Stoke (Assembled hacks laugh)
Q: Mama, just killed a man?
A: Aye me and all, Darren Bent’s in the freezer……shit……..
-
From Todays Guardian.
Darren Bent: 22 questions about Aston Villa's record signing.
My favourite is...
Q We're only asking what the punters are talking about.
PL Listen, I totally respect what you're doing and what your questions are. All I can do is give you an honest answer. If I was going to lie to you, honestly I would lie. I ain't lying. I'm telling you the truth.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2012/nov/28/darren-bent-aston-villa
Cheers for that link A.L.I.T.A.
Yes , having read that link its even more perplexing that bent is out of the 18. , lambert says he has no problem with him , he rates him , and there's no problem in training with him- so why the hell isn't he at least on the bench mr lambert?
If the most important thing is aston villa and. Winning matches then Darren bent MUST be on the bench at least.
-
I dont think there is much chance of Bent going to QPR after Redknapp's public humiliation of Bent. Not to mention they are probably favourites to go down right now and that probably (we hope) won't change much in January.
Fulham or Liverpool are more likely destinations.
Feel free to poo poo this but I think he's got a good chance of going to Chelsea or even Arsenal. Both are looking for a goalscorer, Chelsea moreso. The fact he is eligible for European competition and a proven goal getter makes me think Arsenal might take a punt on him especially if as rumoured Walcott leaves in January.
I think his technical limitations make Arsenal an unlikely destination and Chelsea will surely cast their net a bit wider if they're in the market.
true but he would score a lot more goals than Torres and Walcott put together.
-
Lambert is on a hiding to nothing with Bent, really. If he wants to play him, but can't due to clause trigger/transfer request/transfer agreed/refusal to play, then he has to fend off 22 questions asking him why Bent wasn't playing, even after winning a match. If he doesn't want to play him, the fans are on his back and the papers will print stories like the on a few pages ago 'A source close to Bent ...etc'
FWIW, I think that story sounds like an agent putting the story together for a move. What you read is that Bent is bemused at not being in the squad and feels like he is being forced out, and doesn't want to leave/hand in transfer request.
Rather than he wants a move as he is bored with us/frustrated the service to him isn't as good as when he signed, and he thinks he will be sold whether he puts the transfer request in or not, thus saving the handsome 'loyalty bonus' that he and no doubt most footballers get when they are sold.
-
If only we were half way up the table and scoring goals.
-
Never understasnd why Redknapp can talk about other players like that.
Why can't he? There's nothing in the rules that says that he shouldn't.
I seem to recall one of our managers talking about another player a few years back and getting fined for it. Can't remember who it was.
Completely different.
O'Leary was stupid enough to say 'I know that the player wants to join us' when we hadn't been given permission to talk to him. He later said that he bumped into Beattie at a racecourse and discussed whether he'd be open to a move to Villa.
If Redknapp had said 'I know Bent wants to come here' then he would be dragged over the coals, and if O'Leary had said 'I want to sign Beattie' then he would be fine.
It's the admission of talking to the player without permission of the club that was the problem, not the admission of interest in the player.
-
If he wants to play him, but can't due to clause trigger/transfer request/transfer agreed/refusal to play, then he has to fend off 22 questions asking him why Bent wasn't playing, even after winning a match.
Please, please,please. Can we stop going on about him playing triggering payments? That is all complete and utter bollox.
That stuff might be good enough for stupid wanky TalkSport pundits and lazy London hacks, but surely we can do better than that here?
-
If he wants to play him, but can't due to clause trigger/transfer request/transfer agreed/refusal to play, then he has to fend off 22 questions asking him why Bent wasn't playing, even after winning a match.
Please, please,please. Can we stop going on about him playing triggering payments? That is all complete and utter bollox.
That stuff might be good enough for stupid wanky TalkSport pundits and lazy London hacks, but surely we can do better than that here?
Well I haven't categorically said that, have I? I've tried to list a number of reasons which may mean Lambert's hands are tied. I don't think they are, but speculation is rife at the moment
-
I do wonder the logic of this extra payment argument. I can't imagine when Lambert joined he was told 'right you can play Bent 11 times and then that's your lot, we can't afford to play him anymore.' Why would he have made him captain if that were the case? it makes no sense.
-
If he wants to play him, but can't due to clause trigger/transfer request/transfer agreed/refusal to play, then he has to fend off 22 questions asking him why Bent wasn't playing, even after winning a match.
Please, please,please. Can we stop going on about him playing triggering payments? That is all complete and utter bollox.
That stuff might be good enough for stupid wanky TalkSport pundits and lazy London hacks, but surely we can do better than that here?
Well I haven't categorically said that, have I? I've tried to list a number of reasons which may mean Lambert's hands are tied. I don't think they are, but speculation is rife at the moment
I have no problems about speculation but the speculation about triggering payments has continued days after being absolutely and categorically denied by the club, and also re-iterated by the likes of reliable sources such as Kendrick. As I said, lazy journalists.
-
If he wants to play him, but can't due to clause trigger/transfer request/transfer agreed/refusal to play, then he has to fend off 22 questions asking him why Bent wasn't playing, even after winning a match.
Please, please,please. Can we stop going on about him playing triggering payments? That is all complete and utter bollox.
That stuff might be good enough for stupid wanky TalkSport pundits and lazy London hacks, but surely we can do better than that here?
Well I haven't categorically said that, have I? I've tried to list a number of reasons which may mean Lambert's hands are tied. I don't think they are, but speculation is rife at the moment
I have no problems about speculation but the speculation about triggering payments has continued days after being absolutely and categorically denied by the club, and also re-iterated by the likes of reliable sources such as Kendrick. As I said, lazy journalists.
I think all these theories ,contract rumours etc keep being bandied about because most people find it quite astonishing bent cannot even make the bench in such a low scoring struggling side.
-
And also because anyone who doesn't like conspiracy theories should really keep away from the internet.
-
I think all these theories ,contract rumours etc keep being bandied about because most people find it quite astonishing bent cannot even make the bench in such a low scoring struggling side.
True, but if you look at his career, he has some form in terms of his transfers: apart from his youth spell at Ipswich (4 seasons), he has been moved on after 2-3 seasons at each of his subsequent clubs.
Whether that is his agent's doing, whether it's DB getting bored / jaded; or whether it's some other factor - I don't know.
Lambert may have decided he's not prepared to put up with either Bent doing things that he shouldn't have been doing (the "shagging" theory) or Bent's agent agitating for a move / improved deal for his client.
Whatrever it is, he's a goner 'ere.
-
And also because anyone who doesn't like conspiracy theories should really keep away from the internet.
Isn't everything on the Internet true?
-
And also because anyone who doesn't like conspiracy theories should really keep away from the internet.
Isn't everything on the Internet true?
You'd better ask danlanza.
-
On the trigger payments, this is the info from the accounts. At the end of 2010, we had £3m of payments that we might have had to make to other clubs dependent on various factors. In 2009 and 2008 it was bettwen £2m and £3m. There is no indication of who the players are or what the triggers would be. We then bought Darren Bent in January 2011, there were £6m of possible liabilities, yet the total reported that we might have to pay at May 2011 was £4.5m. If we have an informed guess that £2m seems an average level for previous years for all other players' additional payments, then the maximum additional payment that we'd owe Sunderland at the end of the 2010/11 season was £2.5m. When the May 2012 accounts are out early next year, we'll have a better idea. The £6m being bandied about is impossible though. If we had no other contingent liabilities for any other player (highly unlikely) then the most it could possibly be is £4.5m, but a £2m - £3m payment based on us staying up under Houllier was probably quite likely.
-
£6m could have been the total of add-ons payable should everything in the contract become payable.
The first payment, £1.5m-£3m, would have been paid when we stayed up, the remainder at 30 games?
Whatever, when you look at the clubs he's played for, which are mostly not that good, he has a good strike rate but the team was poor. At Spurs it was a lower ratio, but they were a better team.
I'd say this points to him being selfish and banging them in but that the overall team performance suffers as a result.
-
And also because anyone who doesn't like conspiracy theories should really keep away from the internet.
Hey, who doesn't like conspiracy theories? Come on, if it wasn't for conspiracy theories what other reason is there to use the internet?
-
And also because anyone who doesn't like conspiracy theories should really keep away from the internet.
Hey, who doesn't like conspiracy theories? Come on, if it wasn't for conspiracy theories what other reason is there to use the internet?
Porn?
-
And also because anyone who doesn't like conspiracy theories should really keep away from the internet.
Hey, who doesn't like conspiracy theories? Come on, if it wasn't for conspiracy theories what other reason is there to use the internet?
A man with perfect 20/20 vision ladies and gentlemen!
-
Clampy. SuperTom.
I'll set 'em, you knock 'em down. ;D
-
WHAT (http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2012/nov/28/darren-bent-aston-villa) a bunch of shit-stirring, know-nothing hack bastards.
...our bwest-fwiend Darren cannot get a game of football, for a team we generally consider lower than whale shit and which we would ignore if we could if it wasn't for our bwest fwiend...
Is "work hard, play for each other, get into the team on merit" difficult to comprehend for these journalists? Darren Bent only plays for himself, hence his enforced Siberian holiday.
-
...having said that, from the comments:
Q24. Is Barry Bannan actually a footballer or just a small scottish child you found outside Villa Park one day?
-
Well, it's too difficult to comprehend for a lot of us on here, and has been for ages, so I don't see why the hacks should be any better.
They might as well write 'but he guarantees goals, FACT, END OF, etc.
-
On the trigger payments, this is the info from the accounts. At the end of 2010, we had £3m of payments that we might have had to make to other clubs dependent on various factors. In 2009 and 2008 it was bettwen £2m and £3m. There is no indication of who the players are or what the triggers would be. We then bought Darren Bent in January 2011, there were £6m of possible liabilities, yet the total reported that we might have to pay at May 2011 was £4.5m. If we have an informed guess that £2m seems an average level for previous years for all other players' additional payments, then the maximum additional payment that we'd owe Sunderland at the end of the 2010/11 season was £2.5m. When the May 2012 accounts are out early next year, we'll have a better idea. The £6m being bandied about is impossible though. If we had no other contingent liabilities for any other player (highly unlikely) then the most it could possibly be is £4.5m, but a £2m - £3m payment based on us staying up under Houllier was probably quite likely.
If £2.5 million is still outstanding that would cover everything we could possibly achieve with him in the team including European qualification and trophies. Sunderland (or any other club selling their star player) would have covered every eventuality.
-
£6m could have been the total of add-ons payable should everything in the contract become payable.
The first payment, £1.5m-£3m, would have been paid when we stayed up, the remainder at 30 games?
Whatever, when you look at the clubs he's played for, which are mostly not that good, he has a good strike rate but the team was poor. At Spurs it was a lower ratio, but they were a better team.
I'd say this points to him being selfish and banging them in but that the overall team performance suffers as a result.
In the hundreds of posts I have read about Darren Bent, noone seems to have mentioned his record at international level.
-
Anyway. Assuming 'Arry is going to going to put £10-£12million up front, what add ons should we include in the deal?
1. Bent scores more goals than 'Arrys missus during the rest of the season - £2m.
2. Bent gets picked for the full Ukranian national side - £1m.
3. Bent becomes a doctor and discovers cure for facial twitches - £1m.
4. Bent doesn't get caught shagging any QPR wags - £1m.
5. Bent finds absolute concrete evidence that would stand up in any court of law that`Arrys been involved in dodgy dealings but Bent says nothing - £1m.
6. Someone throws 50p at `Arry at Villa Park, Bent dashes half the length of the pitch and makes a diving header to deflect coin from hitting `Arry - £1m.
-
WHAT (http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2012/nov/28/darren-bent-aston-villa) a bunch of shit-stirring, know-nothing hack bastards.
...our bwest-fwiend Darren cannot get a game of football, for a team we generally consider lower than whale shit and which we would ignore if we could if it wasn't for our bwest fwiend...
Is "work hard, play for each other, get into the team on merit" difficult to comprehend for these journalists? Darren Bent only plays for himself, hence his enforced Siberian holiday.
There is definitely an air of "who do Villa think they are not playing our Darren" in most of the media reports which will only worsen now their mate 'Arry has stuck his nose in. I wonder how many of those commenting on the situation actually saw the half-hearted displays Bent turned in earlier on in the season?
-
To put a slightly different slant on things, is it beyond the realms of possibility that this situation has arisen from a combination of finance AND a decision by PL (as opposed to Randy Lerner)?
What I mean is, suppose Lambert was given an agreed transfer fund at the start of the season, on the understanding all add-ons and clauses triggered must come from it. Now what if PL has identified a target, agreed a fee in principle yet is aware Bent could eat up (for arguments sake) a couple of million of the kitty simply by playing and put a potential squad addition in jeopardy?
In other words, PL must choose between one or the other, hence his 'for the best of Aston Villa' quotes.
Both the falling out and contract clause theories have been denied by the club now but we've all been following football a long time and something here just does not add up, no matter what they say.
-
Anyway. Assuming 'Arry is going to going to put £10-£12million up front, what add ons should we include in the deal?
1. Bent scores more goals than 'Arrys missus during the rest of the season - £2m.
2. Bent gets picked for the full Ukranian national side - £1m.
3. Bent becomes a doctor and discovers cure for facial twitches - £1m.
4. Bent doesn't get caught shagging any QPR wags - £1m.
5. Bent finds absolute concrete evidence that would stand up in any court of law that`Arrys been involved in dodgy dealings but Bent says nothing - £1m.
6. Someone throws 50p at `Arry at Villa Park, Bent dashes half the length of the pitch and makes a diving header to deflect coin from hitting `Arry - £1m.
v.g.
-
This will run longer than The Mousetrap. Ive just caught up with this thread and nobody has mentioned the magic word (I think) which is Faulkner
He has had some input into this situation.
The whole thing has become a farce.
In which case we should sign Brian Rix!
or Arrys missus Sandra who not only can put away the goals Darren misses but is top notch on the old computer as Arry knows nuffin bout
them things but can open a bank account in Monaco in the name of his dog Rosie..which was
a hit in 1968 for Don Partridge!
-
Hearing all this stuff about Bent's myriad limitations and the rumours about his attitude I'm left wondering why we shelled out so much for him in the first place.
-
Anyway. Assuming 'Arry is going to going to put £10-£12million up front, what add ons should we include in the deal?
1. Bent scores more goals than 'Arrys missus during the rest of the season - £2m.
2. Bent gets picked for the full Ukranian national side - £1m.
3. Bent becomes a doctor and discovers cure for facial twitches - £1m.
4. Bent doesn't get caught shagging any QPR wags - £1m.
5. Bent finds absolute concrete evidence that would stand up in any court of law that`Arrys been involved in dodgy dealings but Bent says nothing - £1m.
6. Someone throws 50p at `Arry at Villa Park, Bent dashes half the length of the pitch and makes a diving header to deflect coin from hitting `Arry - £1m.
v.g.
The last bit about him running half the length of the pitch...I'm joking.
-
There might be some appearance trigger. But it could be the case that Lambert has already decided that Bent isnt going to fit in with his plans, in which case why throw millions away giving Bent the odd cameo when he has somebody lined up in a month who will fit in? It could mean an extra player or two.
The one thing I don't understand about that is that it doesn't make financial sense. Apart from the 'more goals therefore higher up the table' argument, if he was playing we could say we want to keep him and drive the price higher. As it is, he's seen as surplus to requirements and it's now a buyer's market.
However, we could be playing him and he could be playing badly, not scoring, rising his record to say, 2 in 15 this season. He's clearly not wanted so it's better this way IMO
He'd still be in the team and playing, though.
Somehow failed to make the point that if he was playing, and playing badly, then his value would drop. It would not benefit us and who is going to sign a striker who's scored 2 in 15 for decent money?
Just my take on things, I could be and probably am talking complete and utter b*llocks.
No. Very sensible view.
-
Hearing all this stuff about Bent's myriad limitations and the rumours about his attitude I'm left wondering why we shelled out so much for him in the first place.
to just score goals with a manager that had two very good wingers supplying him the ammunition. Both of those players are gone, the current wingers aren't at all close to that quality, and the new bloke isn't really a believer in wide players anyway.
-
Hearing all this stuff about Bent's myriad limitations and the rumours about his attitude I'm left wondering why we shelled out so much for him in the first place.
to just score goals with a manager that had two very good wingers supplying him the ammunition. Both of those players are gone, the current wingers aren't at all close to that quality, and the new bloke isn't really a believer in wide players anyway.
Sounds like a race to the bottom to me.
-
Hearing all this stuff about Bent's myriad limitations and the rumours about his attitude I'm left wondering why we shelled out so much for him in the first place.
to just score goals with a manager that had two very good wingers supplying him the ammunition. Both of those players are gone, the current wingers aren't at all close to that quality, and the new bloke isn't really a believer in wide players anyway.
Young and Downing were only responsible for 5 assists. Neither were "very good wingers" in that short period after Bent joined. Ashley was like a headless chicken and Downing, whilst brilliant at breaking forward with the ball, actually produced very little.
One thing I will say, Houllier knew exactly how to get the type of service Bent thrives on.
-
£6m could have been the total of add-ons payable should everything in the contract become payable.
The first payment, £1.5m-£3m, would have been paid when we stayed up, the remainder at 30 games?
Whatever, when you look at the clubs he's played for, which are mostly not that good, he has a good strike rate but the team was poor. At Spurs it was a lower ratio, but they were a better team.
I'd say this points to him being selfish and banging them in but that the overall team performance suffers as a result.
In the hundreds of posts I have read about Darren Bent, noone seems to have mentioned his record at international level.
He's scored 4 in 13 appearances. Worse than his club record anywhere and you'd have to say that comparatively, England are better Internationally than any of his clubs have been in the competitions they've been in. He scored against Switzerland, Wales, Denmark and Montenegro.
-
In which case we should sign Brian Rix
Wasn't he jailed for scuttling under-aged girls when he was Vialli's asistant at Chelsea?
No thanks
-
£6m could have been the total of add-ons payable should everything in the contract become payable.
The first payment, £1.5m-£3m, would have been paid when we stayed up, the remainder at 30 games?
Whatever, when you look at the clubs he's played for, which are mostly not that good, he has a good strike rate but the team was poor. At Spurs it was a lower ratio, but they were a better team.
I'd say this points to him being selfish and banging them in but that the overall team performance suffers as a result.
In the hundreds of posts I have read about Darren Bent, noone seems to have mentioned his record at international level.
He's scored 4 in 13 appearances. Worse than his club record anywhere and you'd have to say that comparatively, England are better Internationally than any of his clubs have been in the competitions they've been in. He scored against Switzerland, Wales, Denmark and Montenegro.
Still not bad when you think one of our forwards currently in the team has scored once in the his last 31 league games!
-
What's the highest position a side has finished in with bent? Our deceptive 9th place under houllier?
-
Article from the mirror website
It has to be one of the most bewildering sagas of the season - just why is Darren Bent being frozen out by Paul Lambert?
Do not expect the Aston Villa boss to give any more answers for the ongoing absence of the club's £24m record signing.
Despite being asked 22 questions about the forward, his future and the reasons for his axing after Tuesday's win over Reading, the media still departed none the wiser.
Sunderland have denied one rumour that there is a clause in Bent's contract requiring Villa to pay the remaining £3m if he plays three more matches, taking him to 50 appearances.
What I find particularly interesting about this affair is that Bent's situation is not like that of other senior pros like Stephen Warnock or Alan Hutton - now both out on loan in the Championship - whom Lambert soon decided were not for him.
Bent, on the other hand, was made his CAPTAIN at the start of the season - before it was stripped from him and handed to Ron Vlaar.
The million dollar question (or should that be £24m?) is what has happened to change Lambert's mind quite so dramatically?
Will we ever see the like again? Darren Bent celebrates a Villa goal
From skipper to sub to squad player to not even in the squad is quite some dramatic fall from grace in the space of two months.
Bent's demise can be traced back to a 4-1 defeat to Southampton - the only time Bent has started alongside Christian Benteke.
But surely that alone is not reason enough for his absence - Villa were collectively poor that day and Bent even scored.
Benteke has done reasonably well spearheading the attack - he might not be as good a finisher but he brings others into play more.
Lambert has settled on a 4-2-3-1 formation of late and whereas Gabby Agbonlahor and Andreas Weimann can perform the wider roles Bent is just not cut out to play anywhere except leading the line.
What is puzzling is that Lambert cannot find room for Bent on his bench. It is hardly as if Villa are spoilt for choice.
Leaving Bent out for what was Villa's biggest game of the season - the Royals were at the time one of just two sides below them - was a huge gamble by Lambert.
Anything but a victory and fingers would be pointed at the boss over why he was leaving out Villa's biggest star.
As it turned out, Christian Benteke got Villa out of jail with 10 minutes to go.
But that only came after Villa wasted a hatful of chances - the sort you would have expected Bent to at least stick some of away.
Whether a Villa side who look short on goals - Benteke's was their first in three matches and only QPR have managed less all season - escape every time remains to be seen.
Another crunch six-pointer with the Hoops awaits on Saturday and, as revealed on Thursday, Harry Redknapp has added further intrigue by indicating he is willing to offer Bent an olive branch.
It seems the most unlikely of link-ups after Bent left Tottenham in a sulk in 2009 after that now infamous Redknapp remark that even his "missus could have scored that" after Bent missed a chance in a draw with Portsmouth.
But marriages based of convenience are nothing new in football. Look at Neil Warnock signing El Hadji Diouf for Leeds after previously branding him a sewer rat!
Redknapp needs a goalscorer to keep QPR up, Bent will be desperate to play football again and kickstart a career beginning to stall.
And, when the alternative is playing under a manager giving him the cold shoulder, playing under Redknapp might not seem so bad.
-
£6m could have been the total of add-ons payable should everything in the contract become payable.
The first payment, £1.5m-£3m, would have been paid when we stayed up, the remainder at 30 games?
Whatever, when you look at the clubs he's played for, which are mostly not that good, he has a good strike rate but the team was poor. At Spurs it was a lower ratio, but they were a better team.
I'd say this points to him being selfish and banging them in but that the overall team performance suffers as a result.
In the hundreds of posts I have read about Darren Bent, noone seems to have mentioned his record at international level.
He's scored 4 in 13 appearances. Worse than his club record anywhere and you'd have to say that comparatively, England are better Internationally than any of his clubs have been in the competitions they've been in. He scored against Switzerland, Wales, Denmark and Montenegro.
Still not bad when you think one of our forwards currently in the team has scored once in the his last 31 league games!
Nail on head mate - completely agree.
-
Funny how now he's got no problem with Bent, Redknapp is a c*** pure and simple
Well he can "laugh at himself" when he's questioning someone else's ability in public, the twat.
-
Not a bad bit of gamesman ship by Arry, cant see us selling to them though.
-
What's the highest position a side has finished in with bent? Our deceptive 9th place under houllier?
Quick look at Wiki says:
13th - Charlton - 18 goals in 36 games
19th - Charlton - 13 goals in 32 games (IIRC he captained the side this season too)
11th - Tottenham - 6 in 27
8th - Tottenham - 12 in 33
13th - Sunderland - 24 in 38
Half season with Sunderland before he moved to us he scored 8 in 20, but I think he was playing second fiddle to Gyan around then? Sunderland were 6th and us struggling, we finished 9th and he scored 9 in 16 for us.
He's a good striker, and one of the best poachers in the league (I think probably only Hernandez is comfortably better than him) - but he's always struggled in teams when it's not been built around him and tended to sulk (at Spurs and at Sunderland when Bruce played him on the right and then when he brought Gyan in).
Also, his goal record is fantastic, but he was on penalties at Charlton, Sunderland and Villa. I'd like to see his statistics without penalties.
-
In fact, does anyone know where you can find a list of Premier League forwards goals tally without penalties and only including starts?
Still wouldn't prove anything, but it'll be a closer indication of strikers ability than the stats we generally use. I also reckon Carew's minutes to goals ratio would shit all over Bent's without sub appearances and penalties.
-
"I tell you wot, i' would be great to get Ben' in January, 'e's a good lad, top strikah. Reckon them Villa caants would be daahn by February."
"'Ere, son, do me a favah and do somefink abaht if I get 'im in and the club stays up, I would let him put one in me missus', if you know what I mean... yer cheeky caant."
"Ha, ha. Faacking gold, that..."
-
Carew took a fair few penalties too. Now that we're resigned to losing him I guess it's easy to try and make arguments for how average/shit he is.
-
Maybe Lambert knows we're going down and knows it's easier to shift him now
-
What's the highest position a side has finished in with bent? Our deceptive 9th place under houllier?
Quick look at Wiki says:
13th - Charlton - 18 goals in 36 games
19th - Charlton - 13 goals in 32 games (IIRC he captained the side this season too)
11th - Tottenham - 6 in 27
8th - Tottenham - 12 in 33
13th - Sunderland - 24 in 38
Half season with Sunderland before he moved to us he scored 8 in 20, but I think he was playing second fiddle to Gyan around then? Sunderland were 6th and us struggling, we finished 9th and he scored 9 in 16 for us.
He's a good striker, and one of the best poachers in the league (I think probably only Hernandez is comfortably better than him) - but he's always struggled in teams when it's not been built around him and tended to sulk (at Spurs and at Sunderland when Bruce played him on the right and then when he brought Gyan in).
Also, his goal record is fantastic, but he was on penalties at Charlton, Sunderland and Villa. I'd like to see his statistics without penalties.
Equally it could be said that scoring so many goals in average sides is even more impressive, than scoring them for teams at the top.
-
I was just thinking that "22 Questions" is a future fanzine name.
-
Bentys agent is a Neil Fewings .Anybody know anything about him.
Im getting nostalgic for those days when all agents seemed to be Eric Hall!
-
or a catchy book title on conspiracy theories.....like the 39 steps
-
Carew took a fair few penalties too. Now that we're resigned to losing him I guess it's easy to try and make arguments for how average/shit he is.
Nail on head. I don't remember anyone, with the possible exception of Monty, who brought up any of these perceived limitations when we were about to hand over a club record fee for him.
The fact is he's a proven goalscorer with an excellent record. Toronto got it right earlier when he said we no longer have players of sufficient quality to provide chances for him. Benteke fits in better because he can at least create chances for himself, even if he doesn't always put them away.
If circumstances were different the best solution would be to buy proper replacements for Young and Downing but that's not going to happen so we might as well cash in. But let's not pretend it's because Bent isn't good enough for us.
-
I personally think we waited for years for a striker like Bent and shouldn't consider selling him. Sadly that's not going to happen. He'll be scoring goals for someone else soon and it's very disappointing.
-
I personally think we waited for years for a striker like Bent and shouldn't consider selling him. Sadly that's not going to happen. He'll be scoring goals for someone else soon and it's very disappointing.
Yes i remember the excitement when we got him. I read somewhere he's our best goalscorer since the early 80s!
-
I do wonder what Lerner is making of this. He's a big admirer of Bent (dose'nt he nickname him 'the mailman' or something?). He seeing one of his big money signings who can score goals sitting in the stand who he could now eventually lose money on.
-
This situation is just indicative of the last few years which has seen a club go from CL maybes to a bag of shite.
Oh, and I just love the comments that DB only scores goals and does F-all else, and here's me thinking you had to score goals to win games. Obviously, it's all about how far you run these days.
-
The sadest thing here is that this has taken the first coat of paint off Lamberts credibility.
-
After the Newcastle game, which personally I rate as our best performance of the season, just about everybody was saying how hard Bent had worked. Now it turns out it was his fault we got battered by Southampton and he's nowt but a rubbish goal hanger.
-
It may not be Lamberts fault but I get the feeling he is reluctant to speak to his players . It looks as if Darren Bent is not being treated in the right way by his bosses.
However I would suggest a lot of people know exactly what is going on within the club especially Mr Faulkner.
Perhaps the local and national press should direct their questions at him.
-
After the Newcastle game, which personally I rate as our best performance of the season, just about everybody was saying how hard Bent had worked. Now it turns out it was his fault we got battered by Southampton and he's nowt but a rubbish goal hanger.
I thought he worked hard against Swansea at home as well. Him and Benteke linked up well on a couple of occasions.
-
This situation is just indicative of the last few years which has seen a club go from CL maybes to a bag of shite.
Oh, and I just love the comments that DB only scores goals and does F-all else, and here's me thinking you had to score goals to win games. Obviously, it's all about how far you run these days.
Very much agree with that last paragraph.
We need goals, have a proven goal scorer in the squad, but it seems he won't be played because he doesn't run about a lot......bloody crazy.
-
After the Newcastle game, which personally I rate as our best performance of the season, just about everybody was saying how hard Bent had worked. Now it turns out it was his fault we got battered by Southampton and he's nowt but a rubbish goal hanger.
I think it's more the case of
'Paul Lambert doesn't rate him, so he MUST be shit.'
-
Hmmm...quite a few people questioned his suitability and contribution to overall team performance before Lambert took over I think.
There has been a lessening of those people being diagnosed by those who disagreed as mentally ill though, thankfully.
-
After the Newcastle game, which personally I rate as our best performance of the season, just about everybody was saying how hard Bent had worked. Now it turns out it was his fault we got battered by Southampton and he's nowt but a rubbish goal hanger.
I thought he worked hard against Swansea at home as well. Him and Benteke linked up well on a couple of occasions.
Yeah me too. I like Lambert and I like Bent. I thought Bent had been working hard in his games this season. Really not sure whats going on.
-
i still rate him, we paid probably £10m too much for him (by the time you put the add ons on) but thats not his fault. Some would say he repaid his fee by keeping us up his 1st season. Perhaps if he got a few games off the bench he could adapt to the style pl wants to play.
-
The sade-st thing here is that this has taken the first coat of paint off Lamberts credibility.
I don't see how, Lambert's a smooth operator.
-
I really like Bent . But Lamberts big mistake was having DB has captain , a ridiculous decision.
-
There has been a lessening of those people being diagnosed by those who disagreed as mentally ill though, thankfully.
Go on then, i'll go for it, who?
-
I don't think that Lambert doesn't rate him, I just think he wants to get the team playing a certain way and that Bent isn't part of the equation.
-
Oh come on Fletch, many responses to the first posted rumblings of Bent-related discontent were met with 'if you think that you're mental'. I don't keep a note of who said it.
-
There has been a lessening of those people being diagnosed by those who disagreed as mentally ill though, thankfully.
Go on then, i'll go for it, who?
I'm pretty sure I questioned the sanity of Percy over Bent.
I followed it by stating how sure I was he would be a massive success under Lambert.
I think this was some time after thinking there was a decent player in Hutton, so I'm hoping these are the aberrations of an optimist, rather than the sign that I'm a fucking idiot.
-
I don't think that Lambert doesn't rate him, I just think he wants to get the team playing a certain way and that Bent isn't part of the equation.
If that's true - and it might well be - it surely must be worth having Bent on the bench instead of Bowery? Points and goals are likely to be at a premium this season and if we're chasing a game late on Bent must be a better option than Bowery.
-
See.
-
Would have been very interesting If we had finished 0-0 , would Lambert look as smug. Thank fook we didnt , but we were crying out for a goalscorer.
-
I don't know if it's been mentioned but wasn't Bent's fee something like 18m rising to 24m. I'm just wondering if the extras are related to appearances and he's not playing Bent to avoid having to pay it, as to invoke the cause would be a bit daft if he's not in Lambert's plans. If so, it would certainly indicate he's offski in January.
-
I don't know if it's been mentioned but wasn't Bent's fee something like 18m rising to 24m. I'm just wondering if the extras are related to appearances and he's not playing Bent to avoid having to pay it, as to invoke the cause would be a bit daft if he's not in Lambert's plans. If so, it would certainly indicate he's offski in January.
Aggggghhhhhhhhhh !
-
I don't know if it's been mentioned but wasn't Bent's fee something like 18m rising to 24m. I'm just wondering if the extras are related to appearances and he's not playing Bent to avoid having to pay it, as to invoke the cause would be a bit daft if he's not in Lambert's plans. If so, it would certainly indicate he's offski in January.
In other news, the USA have completed the first moon landing.
-
Barry was off the pitch, Milner doesn't look happy and we'd be fifth.
-
Maybe we could try Bent at right back and introduce zonal marking.
-
Get Shorey back.
Also go 4-1-5
-
Zonal marking? The system that made us the best team in the country at defending corners? The system that we abandoned and immediately became the worst team in the country at defending corners? You're off your fucking nut mate!
-
I voted for nope ship him out in January. It's a shame as his goals per goal ratio throughout his career are excellent and he is still very dependable within 12 yards of the goal. If he gets 2 chances in a match, you'd put your house on him to score one. Personally I'd keep him.
However, he clearly doesn't feature in lambert's plans at the moment and whilst it might be true what lambert says about not having any issues with his attitude or work rate in training, if he's not going to feature as a consequence of how we're currently set up, then it does seem as if he may be a luxury we can't afford to keep. This is where Lerner may have come in and said: righto we're up for another x mil to Sunderland in a few more games and Darren's wages will also go up another x grand a week, what do you want to do Paul, play him or sell him?
It would be madness to sell him to qpr though as he could quite feasibly do for redknapp what he did for houllier here, that is score the goals that keep us up. And that could be at our expense. Big gamble, but I'd back lambert to make the right call in this situation.
At the end of the day, he didn't sign bent and therefore there's no real loyalty required toward the other by either of them and as such it probably makes the decision to sell him that much easier to take.
The gamble is also reduced to a degree as it does look like we'll survive without him and the money we get could net us a top class midfielder, which if we got one might steady the young lads and improve further and result in more chances and goals for benteke gabby and weimann.
-
I'm gutted about the prospect of him going in January,and Im pretty sure it will come back and bite us on the arse. I think it's a lot to expect for Benteke to perform at the level he is now for a whole season given his age, a new striker would also have to bed in. Lambert is clearly a risk taker,let's hope it pays off
-
So he s off in January...really? Where is he going to go? QPR no Harry does not want him especially after the mother in law comment. Liverpool no they don't ave money and Rodgers plays a different style where Bent would not fit in. That leaves no one really as the other two mentioned, Fulham and Wet Ham can't afford him.. So I don't think he is going anywhere.
-
So he s off in January...really? Where is he going to go? QPR no Harry does not want him especially after the mother in law comment. Liverpool no they don't ave money and Rodgers plays a different style where Bent would not fit in. That leaves no one really as the other two mentioned, Fulham and Wet Ham can't afford him.. So I don't think he is going anywhere.
There will be teams queueing up for him. Don't discount him going abroad either.
-
I don't really see any confusion in this.
The simple answer is PL has decided Bent doesn't fit into his best side, has probably spoken to his agent and has an idea of who will bid in january. In the meantime he doesn't want him to get an injury (his fitness record hasn't been great in 2012 so a perfectly reasonable caution in my opinion) and wants the players he'll have all season to be the ones around the dressing room on matchdays.
Is there a value to Bent being on the bench, of course, it's a role he could be great at, but if Bent isn't happy with that, Lambert wants to build a group mentality and Bent is already on his way then it makes sense from a footballing point of view.
I don't necessarily agree but My vision of the side in 12-18 months isn't the same as PL's, I find it odd how many people seem certain we'd be better if Bent was playing when the form and stats from the start of the season don't back that up.
-
So he s off in January...really? Where is he going to go? QPR no Harry does not want him especially after the mother in law comment. Liverpool no they don't ave money and Rodgers plays a different style where Bent would not fit in. That leaves no one really as the other two mentioned, Fulham and Wet Ham can't afford him.. So I don't think he is going anywhere.
ahem
http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2012/nov/28/darren-bent-qpr-aston-villa
-
Christ, he's been injured for months and has not been given any time to get fully match fit and sharp.He was showing evidence of working much harder against Newcastle and Swansea and came on and saved our bacon against WBA but obviously this counts for nothing
-
Barry was off the pitch, Milner doesn't look happy and we'd be fifth.
Hahaha.
-
Maybe we could try Bent at right back and introduce zonal marking.
Anyone know why Bent has been left out recently?
-
What the hell would we want with a proven goalscorer in the team?
Our prolific forward line are scoring for fun and the midfield are rattling them in so we obviously don't need him. Get rid
-
Maybe we could try Bent at right back and introduce zonal marking.
Anyone know why Bent has been left out recently?
Bent's been left out?! Shit!
-
Maybe we could try Bent at right back and introduce zonal marking.
Anyone know why Bent has been left out recently?
Bent's been left out?! Shit!
Do you think it could be anything to do with the add-ons?
-
http://www.mirror.co.uk/sport/football/news/aston-villas-darren-bent-still-1464313
Gabby Agbonlahor is confident Darren Bent has not played his last game for Aston Villa.
Bent, Villa’s £24million club record signing, last appeared for Villa a month ago - as a substitute against League One side Swindon in the Capital One Cup.
He has even failed to make Paul Lambert’s bench in their last two games despite being declared fit by the boss.
QPR, who entertain Villa in a Saturday six-pointer, and Fulham could both be willing to offer Bent a January escape route.
But Agbonlahor insists his fellow England international can force his way back into the manager’s plans.
The Brummie forward said: “Darren is a great pro and he’s got on with it.
“Everyone has got a big part to play. We’ve got a long season and a lot of games coming around Christmas.
“He is still working hard in training and everyone is just fighting for places.
“There is not a player in the squad who has not gone through the stage where they’ve had to sit on the bench or not play.”
* STEPHEN WARNOCK wants Aston Villa to sell him to Bolton in January.
-
Sell? SELL? We're gonna get money? Like, real money, not Euros?
-
The gamble is also reduced to a degree as it does look like we'll survive without him and the money we get could net us a top class midfielder, which if we got one might steady the young lads and improve further and result in more chances and goals for benteke gabby and weimann.
The irony is that it is a lack of a top class midfielder that prevents us from properly utilising Darren Bent, and benefitting from his strengths.
-
Carew took a fair few penalties too. Now that we're resigned to losing him I guess it's easy to try and make arguments for how average/shit he is.
Nail on head. I don't remember anyone, with the possible exception of Monty, who brought up any of these perceived limitations when we were about to hand over a club record fee for him.
I don't remember anyone saying that MON wasn't the best man for the job when he took over. People's minds can change.
-
I don't remember anyone saying that MON wasn't the best man for the job when he took over. People's minds can change.
Generally around the time someone leaves or joins the club, apparently.
-
It would be madness to sell Bent to any of the clubs currently or likely to be in relegation battle with us this season. I would like to think that PL and Randy have the common sense not to sell to such clubs.
-
It would be madness to sell Bent to any of the clubs currently or likely to be in relegation battle with us this season. I would like to think that PL and Randy have the common sense not to sell to such clubs.
you would think so . He didnt have much common sense when he employed TSM thou
-
From Todays Guardian.
Darren Bent: 22 questions about Aston Villa's record signing.
My favourite is...
Q We're only asking what the punters are talking about.
PL Listen, I totally respect what you're doing and what your questions are. All I can do is give you an honest answer. If I was going to lie to you, honestly I would lie. I ain't lying. I'm telling you the truth.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2012/nov/28/darren-bent-aston-villa
That interview makes me cringe. We could do with some media training for Lambert. If you are going to lie or evade, at least do it with some skill. And to repeatedly state you are not lying will only convince people you are almost certainly lying.
-
From Todays Guardian.
Darren Bent: 22 questions about Aston Villa's record signing.
My favourite is...
Q We're only asking what the punters are talking about.
PL Listen, I totally respect what you're doing and what your questions are. All I can do is give you an honest answer. If I was going to lie to you, honestly I would lie. I ain't lying. I'm telling you the truth.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2012/nov/28/darren-bent-aston-villa
That interview makes me cringe. We could do with some media training for Lambert. If you are going to lie or evade, at least do it with some skill. And to repeatedly state you are not lying will only convince people you are almost certainly lying.
It's not an interview. The 22 questions are a collection from different journalists.
-
From Todays Guardian.
Darren Bent: 22 questions about Aston Villa's record signing.
My favourite is...
Q We're only asking what the punters are talking about.
PL Listen, I totally respect what you're doing and what your questions are. All I can do is give you an honest answer. If I was going to lie to you, honestly I would lie. I ain't lying. I'm telling you the truth.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2012/nov/28/darren-bent-aston-villa
That interview makes me cringe. We could do with some media training for Lambert. If you are going to lie or evade, at least do it with some skill. And to repeatedly state you are not lying will only convince people you are almost certainly lying.
It's not an interview. The 22 questions are a collection from different journalists.
I don't want the manager of Villa to be 'media trained'. I want a hard as nails, tactically aware, honest achiever. Fuck the 'media'.
-
Steve McLaren spent a fortune on media training. Do I need to go on?
-
Steve McLaren spent a fortune on media training. Do I need to go on?
That's Schteeve McLaren Percy, Schteeve McLaren. Close friend of Joseeph Bartohn.
-
From Todays Guardian.
Darren Bent: 22 questions about Aston Villa's record signing.
My favourite is...
Q We're only asking what the punters are talking about.
PL Listen, I totally respect what you're doing and what your questions are. All I can do is give you an honest answer. If I was going to lie to you, honestly I would lie. I ain't lying. I'm telling you the truth.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2012/nov/28/darren-bent-aston-villa
That interview makes me cringe. We could do with some media training for Lambert. If you are going to lie or evade, at least do it with some skill. And to repeatedly state you are not lying will only convince people you are almost certainly lying.
It's not an interview. The 22 questions are a collection from different journalists.
I don't want the manager of Villa to be 'media trained'. I want a hard as nails, tactically aware, honest achiever. Fuck the 'media'.
Amen brother.
-
I agree to a point but we do see plenty of grumblings about how the media and the press 'have it in for us'. When Gregory and MoN were in charge the media were a lot more positive about us.
-
The press don't have it in for us. We're a big club who could be relegated. That always draws attention.
-
I agree to a point but we do see plenty of grumblings about how the media and the press 'have it in for us'. When Gregory and MoN were in charge the media were a lot more positive about us.
I'm quite happy for a bit of "us vs. the world".
Whenever I read about us in the national media it's usually a hotch- potch of lies, summations and half truths, so fuck 'em.
-
The press don't have it in for us. We're a big club who could be relegated. That always draws attention.
I'm not just talking about this season. Bit before my time, dunno about you, but i've heard plenty of Villa fans talk about our league and subsequent European cup winning season and say the press/ media were against us. That'd be when Ron Saunders, another perceived dour character was at the helm.
-
While I'm happy to live in my own little Villa cocoon, it does get extremely tiring explaining to outsiders why things happen as they do with the club. I lost count of the amount of people I had to set the record straight with over O'Neill, for example.
-
From Todays Guardian.
Darren Bent: 22 questions about Aston Villa's record signing.
My favourite is...
Q We're only asking what the punters are talking about.
PL Listen, I totally respect what you're doing and what your questions are. All I can do is give you an honest answer. If I was going to lie to you, honestly I would lie. I ain't lying. I'm telling you the truth.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2012/nov/28/darren-bent-aston-villa
That interview makes me cringe. We could do with some media training for Lambert. If you are going to lie or evade, at least do it with some skill. And to repeatedly state you are not lying will only convince people you are almost certainly lying.
It's not an interview. The 22 questions are a collection from different journalists.
I don't want the manager of Villa to be 'media trained'. I want a hard as nails, tactically aware, honest achiever. Fuck the 'media'.
Screw the damn media. I couldn't care less if he's seen as evasive and not media-friendly. Better that than rent-a-quote Redknapp.
-
...
Young and Downing were only responsible for 5 assists. Neither were "very good wingers" in that short period after Bent joined. Ashley was like a headless chicken and Downing, whilst brilliant at breaking forward with the ball, actually produced very little.
One thing I will say, Houllier knew exactly how to get the type of service Bent thrives on.
Thanks for that stat Mark. Every time I've seen mention of Young and Downing's departures denying Bent service I have wondered. I don't remember them supplying him with an endless stream of crosses but had no idea where to look 'assists' up.
I suspect one of the 5 may even have been on Bent's debut when a shot from Young in a central position was parried by Hart into Bent's path.
-
The press don't have it in for us. We're a big club who could be relegated. That always draws attention.
I'm not just talking about this season. Bit before my time, dunno about you, but i've heard plenty of Villa fans talk about our league and subsequent European cup winning season and say the press/ media were against us. That'd be when Ron Saunders, another perceived dour character was at the helm.
Ron didnt like the press or the TV people and adopted a siege mentality. Looks like Lambert is following this way of thinking.
But there is one major difference between the two of them. Ron employed a skillful raiding winger Tony Morley but Lambert thinks thats old fashioned. Ron also employed a midfield.
Know what Lambert should do as Randy usually wakes up just before the Jan window and could give him some money. Have a go for Frank Lampard. Think about it, capable of scoring goals..and does. Can drive through the middle of the park like Mortimer did. Quite capable of being captain and would have the respect of our younger players. Give him a two year contract and let him deal with the press which he is very good at and who knows we could stay up.
Because if Randy lets Bent go to QPR and doesnt deal with the ramifications of that action we are are going to lose a hell of a lot of money
and get no respect from anyone in the future.
-
The press don't have it in for us. We're a big club who could be relegated. That always draws attention.
I'm not just talking about this season. Bit before my time, dunno about you, but i've heard plenty of Villa fans talk about our league and subsequent European cup winning season and say the press/ media were against us. That'd be when Ron Saunders, another perceived dour character was at the helm.
Ron didnt like the press or the TV people and adopted a siege mentality. Looks like Lambert is following this way of thinking.
But there is one major difference between the two of them. Ron employed a skillful raiding winger Tony Morley but Lambert thinks thats old fashioned. Ron also employed a midfield.
Know what Lambert should do as Randy usually wakes up just before the Jan window and could give him some money. Have a go for Frank Lampard. Think about it, capable of scoring goals..and does. Can drive through the middle of the park like Mortimer did. Quite capable of being captain and would have the respect of our younger players. Give him a two year contract and let him deal with the press which he is very good at and who knows we could stay up.
Because if Randy lets Bent go to QPR and doesnt deal with the ramifications of that action we are are going to lose a hell of a lot of money
and get no respect from anyone in the future.
There's another major difference too, namely that Ron hasn't managed for nearly 30 years.
I wonder if there were Villa fans in the late seventies giving him grief for not going with five up top.
-
...
Young and Downing were only responsible for 5 assists. Neither were "very good wingers" in that short period after Bent joined. Ashley was like a headless chicken and Downing, whilst brilliant at breaking forward with the ball, actually produced very little.
One thing I will say, Houllier knew exactly how to get the type of service Bent thrives on.
Thanks for that stat Mark. Every time I've seen mention of Young and Downing's departures denying Bent service I have wondered. I don't remember them supplying him with an endless stream of crosses but had no idea where to look 'assists' up.
I suspect one of the 5 may even have been on Bent's debut when a shot from Young in a central position was parried by Hart into Bent's path.
The point is though that both Young and Downing were very good attacking players for us, so looking up direct assists doesn't tell the whole story. It's possible they set up another player to play the final ball in, or just created space for other players by drawing defenders out of position. Whatever, it cannot be denied that we were a far better team with them in it.
-
Quick look at Wiki says:
....
13th - Charlton - 18 goals in 36 games
19th - Charlton - 13 goals in 32 games (IIRC he captained the side this season too)
11th - Tottenham - 6 in 27
8th - Tottenham - 12 in 33
13th - Sunderland - 24 in 38
...
As mister-e pointed out earlier, it's surprising that since leaving Ipswich that Bent has played barely more than 2 season for a club before moving on.
What also struck me was that with the exception of Spurs, at each club his first season goals per game ratio is very high, but has subsequently fallen away.
The breakdown for Sunderland is first season 24 from 38 followed by 8 from 20; at VP 9 from 16, 9 from 22 and now 2 from 9.
Maybe Lambert is being kicked for the wrong thing. He should have sold him in the summer.
-
Quick look at Wiki says:
....
13th - Charlton - 18 goals in 36 games
19th - Charlton - 13 goals in 32 games (IIRC he captained the side this season too)
11th - Tottenham - 6 in 27
8th - Tottenham - 12 in 33
13th - Sunderland - 24 in 38
...
As mister-e pointed out earlier, it's surprising that since leaving Ipswich that Bent has played barely more than 2 season for a club before moving on.
What also struck me was that with the exception of Spurs, at each club his first season goals per game ratio is very high, but has subsequently fallen away.
The breakdown for Sunderland is first season 24 from 38 followed by 8 from 20; at VP 9 from 16, 9 from 22 and now 2 from 9.
Maybe Lambert is being kicked for the wrong thing. He should have sold him in the summer.
Those second season stats are still nigh on 1 in 2. there aren't many in the division who can rival that.
-
I'm bored of this speculation already. If you're going to sell him just don't sell him to a relegation rival.
-
It's an excellent record whichever way you dress it up. He should at least be on the bench, simple as that.
-
The press don't have it in for us. We're a big club who could be relegated. That always draws attention.
I'm not just talking about this season. Bit before my time, dunno about you, but i've heard plenty of Villa fans talk about our league and subsequent European cup winning season and say the press/ media were against us. That'd be when Ron Saunders, another perceived dour character was at the helm.
Ron didnt like the press or the TV people and adopted a siege mentality. Looks like Lambert is following this way of thinking.
But there is one major difference between the two of them. Ron employed a skillful raiding winger Tony Morley but Lambert thinks thats old fashioned. Ron also employed a midfield.
Know what Lambert should do as Randy usually wakes up just before the Jan window and could give him some money. Have a go for Frank Lampard. Think about it, capable of scoring goals..and does. Can drive through the middle of the park like Mortimer did. Quite capable of being captain and would have the respect of our younger players. Give him a two year contract and let him deal with the press which he is very good at and who knows we could stay up.
Because if Randy lets Bent go to QPR and doesnt deal with the ramifications of that action we are are going to lose a hell of a lot of money
and get no respect from anyone in the future.
There's another major difference too, namely that Ron hasn't managed for nearly 30 years.
I wonder if there were Villa fans in the late seventies giving him grief for not going with five up top.
Not that I can recall. Perhaps others can.
Dont you like wingers then Lee?
-
I love wingers Ron, but I love vinyl too, and my love isn't saving either of them.
-
It's an excellent record whichever way you dress it up. He should at least be on the bench, simple as that.
I'm amazed there is any argument against him being in the 18. The opinion that Bent and Benteke can't play together is one that i don't agree with but can see it being a valid argument. However, I can't fathom how anyone can confidently say that Bent isn't our best option to replace Benteke should he tire/get injured/have a mare.
-
It's an excellent record whichever way you dress it up. He should at least be on the bench, simple as that.
Yep and there's no logical argument to counter that.
-
Vinyl provides a superior audio experience Lee . At least on my Princess Rockola it does!
Wingers provide a pleasant viewing experience for the discerning client.
Perhaps Mr Lambert thinks we are "Living in the Past"
-
Vinyl provides a superior audio experience Lee . At least on my Princess Rockola it does!
Wingers provide a pleasant viewing experience for the discerning client.
Perhaps Mr Lambert thinks we are "Living in the Past"
Perhaps we are? Our recent performances, the set up of successful teams would suggest that.
-
I see Lambert has said the financial clause reason is 'absolute drivel'. In which case put him in the squad.
-
...
What also struck me was that with the exception of Spurs, at each club his first season goals per game ratio is very high, but has subsequently fallen away.
The breakdown for Sunderland is first season 24 from 38 followed by 8 from 20; at VP 9 from 16, 9 from 22 and now 2 from 9.
Maybe Lambert is being kicked for the wrong thing. He should have sold him in the summer.
Those second season stats are still nigh on 1 in 2. there aren't many in the division who can rival that.
1 in 2.5, and one in 4.5 this season. OK rather than brilliant. It was more an observation. For whatever reason he doesn't seem to improve with years served. My final comment was a bit tongue in cheek.
Also, I can see a logic that says it does make football sense to leave Bent out completely.
Most seem to agree that Benteke is rightly preferred for the starting XI. Maybe Lambert believes that having Bent on the bench is more likely to be a Sword of Damocles than a viable option, and not just for him but for the team too.
Consider the Reading game. 0-0 after 70 minutes, the crowd start getting restless and the calls for Bent start. Lambert feels that to introduce Bent means taking a player out of midfield; with the midfielders we have we become less likely to win. He stays on the bench.
What is the effect on the team as the rest of the game is played out to increasing crescendo of unrest from the terraces?
Maybe he's doing the right thing in restricting the circus to himself in post match interviews and the ridiculous same question 22 times article in the Guardian.
-
Lambert says: "You need to look at the formation we're playing, with one man up front - and Christian Benteke has been brilliant for us."
Doesn't explain why Bent wouldn't at least be on the bench.
-
...
What also struck me was that with the exception of Spurs, at each club his first season goals per game ratio is very high, but has subsequently fallen away.
The breakdown for Sunderland is first season 24 from 38 followed by 8 from 20; at VP 9 from 16, 9 from 22 and now 2 from 9.
Maybe Lambert is being kicked for the wrong thing. He should have sold him in the summer.
Those second season stats are still nigh on 1 in 2. there aren't many in the division who can rival that.
1 in 2.5, and one in 4.5 this season. OK rather than brilliant. It was more an observation. For whatever reason he doesn't seem to improve with years served. My final comment was a bit tongue in cheek.
Also, I can see a logic that says it does make football sense to leave Bent out completely.
Most seem to agree that Benteke is rightly preferred for the starting XI. Maybe Lambert believes that having Bent on the bench is more likely to be a Sword of Damocles than a viable option, and not just for him but for the team too.
Consider the Reading game. 0-0 after 70 minutes, the crowd start getting restless and the calls for Bent start. Lambert feels that to introduce Bent means taking a player out of midfield; with the midfielders we have we become less likely to win. He stays on the bench.
What is the effect on the team as the rest of the game is played out to increasing crescendo of unrest from the terraces?
Maybe he's doing the right thing in restricting the circus to himself in post match interviews and the ridiculous same question 22 times article in the Guardian.
I was also thinking of Roy Hodgson not taking Rio Ferdinand to the World Cup, and how he said something about a player of that stature who's not starting being unhappy and possibly a malign influence.
I'm not saying it's right, but Lambert appears to be making great strides in changing the culture of the club and bringing a sense of togetherness that's been missing far too long.
I think it's something of the upmost importance for us, so I'm happy for him to take the call.
-
I would dare to say that Benteke & Bent would be a better starting combo with Gabby/ Andi to come on as an impact sub after 60-65 minutes and if Bent could feed off some of Benteke's lay offs
-
I would dare to say that Benteke & Bent would be a better starting combo with Gabby/ Andi to come on as an impact sub after 60-65 minutes and if Bent could feed off some of Benteke's lay offs
Bent biggest enemy is his lack of adaptability.
-
It's an excellent record whichever way you dress it up. He should at least be on the bench, simple as that.
I'm amazed there is any argument against him being in the 18. The opinion that Bent and Benteke can't play together is one that i don't agree with but can see it being a valid argument. However, I can't fathom how anyone can confidently say that Bent isn't our best option to replace Benteke should he tire/get injured/have a mare.
Bent and Benteke (2 out and out strikers) as a pair would require you to have a top quality, very energetic midfield 4 to make up for lack of numbers as most sides we'd face will have an extra man. As has been touched on elsewhere, with tackling all but outlawed this is a very risky strategy as the reduced numbers will see you chasing the ball for long periods.
-
I just saw Lambert on ssn he said that he sees what happens in training and around the club but wouldn't elaborate further, he said I was asked 105 questions about this the other night. Surely he can see if he doesn't answer the question he's going to continue to be asked
-
You can answer the question but if it's not the one the journos want then they will ask it again and again.......until they can write the one they want
-
Lambert sure would make a fine politician
-
I've now read several logical arguments for Bent not being in the 18. Perhaps those saying there isn't one have skipped those posts. If not, they can disagree with those arguments, but not say that there isn't one.
-
I've not seen a convincing argument yet to say why Leigh Bowery is better to have on the bench than Darren Bent.
-
I would at least put Bent on the bench.
-
I've not seen a convincing argument yet to say why Leigh Bowery is better to have on the bench than Darren Bent.
We're probably not going to be told directly, Lambert doesn't appear to be the type to air his laundry in public so we're just going to have to get used to it. However, there are plenty of possible explanations but if people want to believe the worst then they're not going to consider them.
Perhaps, he sees as him as a more like for like replacement in the case of injury; perhaps he wants him to gain experience of being in and around the first team; perhaps he's making an example of Bent for showing a bad attitude; perhaps he's selling him in January and doesn't want to risk him getting injured.
-
I've not seen a convincing argument yet to say why Leigh Bowery is better to have on the bench than Darren Bent.
We're probably not going to be told directly, Lambert doesn't appear to be the type to air his laundry in public so we're just going to have to get used to it. However, there are plenty of possible explanations but if people want to believe the worst then they're not going to consider them.
Perhaps, he sees as him as a more like for like replacement in the case of injury; perhaps he wants him to gain experience of being in and around the first team; perhaps he's making an example of Bent for showing a bad attitude; perhaps he's selling him in January and doesn't want to risk him getting injured.
I have no axe to grind, but from a footballing point of view Bent is a more likely source of goals from the bench than Bowery. If Lambert isn't particularly interested in goals from the bench then some of your theories are indeed possible.
But in so far as people believing the worst, I've seen no credible evidence that Bent has a bad attitude.
-
Quick look at Wiki says:
....
13th - Charlton - 18 goals in 36 games
19th - Charlton - 13 goals in 32 games (IIRC he captained the side this season too)
11th - Tottenham - 6 in 27
8th - Tottenham - 12 in 33
13th - Sunderland - 24 in 38
...
As mister-e pointed out earlier, it's surprising that since leaving Ipswich that Bent has played barely more than 2 season for a club before moving on.
What also struck me was that with the exception of Spurs, at each club his first season goals per game ratio is very high, but has subsequently fallen away.
The breakdown for Sunderland is first season 24 from 38 followed by 8 from 20; at VP 9 from 16, 9 from 22 and now 2 from 9.
Maybe Lambert is being kicked for the wrong thing. He should have sold him in the summer.
The speculation is pointless.
Lambert has taken agin' Bent and / or his agent (otherwise, he would at least have been on the bench in the last 3 games) and is stonewalling interviewers in a very obvious manner. What the reason is will probably remain unclear for a few weeks.
All I'll say is that Bent has a track record of falling out of love with clubs / managers in his second-third season.
-
Perhaps he just doesn't rate him to the extent that he doesn't even think he's worth being on the bench?
That would make you wonder why he made him captain briefly. I guess maybe he thought it might bring out more in his game?
Personally, I'd have had him on the bench, but so long as it's not out of some kind of financial clause-related issue handed down from above, I'm happy to trust Lambert with his judgement. If it all backfires, he'll certainly cop the blame for it.
I guess on the bright side, if that is what it's all about, at least he has the cojones to actually do it, despite knowing how much flack he'd get for it.
-
I've not seen a convincing argument yet to say why Leigh Bowery is better to have on the bench than Darren Bent.
Jordan Bowery :)
-
I can't see us selling Bent or loaning him out to another EPL team that we may be competing with relegation wise. Bent might not suit our current set up or the way Lambert wants us to play but he will score a shit load of goals in many teams. It would be lunacy to sell him/loan him to a competitor. Even our management team in their wildest moments of out-the-box-lets-appoint-McLeish type thinking would do that.
Maybe Bent will figure more in January when we pimp our midfield/team a bit? Its all a bit baffling but we're starting to speculate worse than the meeja.
-
I've not seen a convincing argument yet to say why Leigh Bowery is better to have on the bench than Darren Bent.
Jordan Bowery :)
Jesus yes. Rather worrying that I had this bloke in mind. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leigh_Bowery
-
The following on the BBC web site is IMO, hard to swallow -
Lambert told BBC Radio 5 live. "Gabriel Agbonlahor, I think, is playing at the top of his game, Andreas Weimann has energy to burn and Benteke, I do not want to say he is the complete player because he is not, but he has been absolutely brilliant.
But Gabby's not scoring often enough and Weimann also needs to improve his finishing.
-
Full page article by Mat Kendrick in the Evening Mail about the Bent saga. Found this bit especially interesting, "By tweeting his availability for the Arsenal match, Bent clearly irked Lambert ...... And Bent's beeline to the press after his point-proving equaliser from the bench against Albion in September hardly endeared him to a boss who treated it as an unforgivable affront to his authority, shrugging it off publicly yet holding a private inquiry".
-
So why didnt Vlarr tweeting piss Lambert off .
I think theres nothing wrong with Bent tweeted , at least he was dying to play and couldnt wait.
-
Hilts: I didn't say there were convincing arguments for Bent not being in the 18. It's up to the individual to be convinced or not. But there are logical ones, as outlined by Chris Smith.
-
We're having to work exceptionally hard for all the results we're getting of late. For me, if you take out the work rate of either Gabby or Weimann in the last two games, or if we'd played two up top to accomodate Bent. I don't think we'd have got 4 points. The system we're currently playing seems to be better for us. We look harder to beat, with the exception of capitulating against Man City. In our current system you play Bent or Benteke up front. Benteke is there on merit. In that regard PL is aboslutely right. I can only guess that Bent's thrown his toys out at some point, or he's not shown enough in training because otherwise he has to be in the 18. And I just can't see it being Randy pulling the strings, because PL would never have joined us if he didn't think he had full control of the team. Time will tell. On a tactical standpoint I agree with PL on the starting line up. I wouldn't play Bent either. I'd have him on the bench though. Then again I, nor anyone knows what's happened behind the scenes. He's a track record as people have said, of being moved on after a short time. Either at his behest, the clubs, or both.
-
Hilts: I didn't say there were convincing arguments for Bent not being in the 18. It's up to the individual to be convinced or not. But there are logical ones, as outlined by Chris Smith.
My post wasn't necessarily directed at you Perc. I think the only properly convincing argument that Chris mentioned was the one about Bent being sold. For me at least, the others don't add up. For instance, the suggestion that Lambert is picking Bowery because he wants him to get first team experience: I don't think for a moment that's true but if it was I'd worry about Lambert's judgement in making that a priority over picking the best available players when we're struggling for goals and points.
In any case, when you set those reasons against the logical reasons why Bent should be on the bench, if not in the team, they're even less convincing.
-
We're having to work exceptionally hard for all the results we're getting of late. For me, if you take out the work rate of either Gabby or Weimann in the last two games, or if we'd played two up top to accomodate Bent. I don't think we'd have got 4 points. The system we're currently playing seems to be better for us. We look harder to beat, with the exception of capitulating against Man City. In our current system you play Bent or Benteke up front. Benteke is there on merit. In that regard PL is aboslutely right. I can only guess that Bent's thrown his toys out at some point, or he's not shown enough in training because otherwise he has to be in the 18. And I just can't see it being Randy pulling the strings, because PL would never have joined us if he didn't think he had full control of the team. Time will tell. On a tactical standpoint I agree with PL on the starting line up. I wouldn't play Bent either. I'd have him on the bench though. Then again I, nor anyone knows what's happened behind the scenes. He's a track record as people have said, of being moved on after a short time. Either at his behest, the clubs, or both.
Agreed....it's a pity Bent can't up his contribution to the level of the two you mentioned, although I am finding it harder and harder to convince myself what Gabby is adding to the side with his headless chicken routines. Watching DB makes me think at times he has a teflon coating....ie nothing sticks to him unlike Benteke who can bring others into play
-
Gabby frustrates a lot still. He has a chance at Arsenal and if he was a natural finisher he buries it instead of hitting it straight at the keeper. In many ways he's turning into a younger Heskey. Without the injury problems. But in the Arsenal game he won a lot of set pieces in the Arsenal third and attacking throw ins from his work rate and running alone. He's always been good at that, using his pace to force errors. It gains us time, territory. We need to use it better. Then there's always that one game in 10, like City in the LC, where he's unplayable. It's the difference between a player who is Villa through and through and will run himself into the ground for the cause, and a player who's not known for his workrate and will happily move on to whichever club pays enough. I do believe money was a huge motivation in Bent joining us. Everyone knew Ash Young was gonna go that summer, and we were so dire when he left a comfortable Sunderland to come to us. By no means am I comparing Bent to some of the mercenaries at places like QPR, but for me, in Bents mind we're a job. Maybe one day too, he'll have as many clubs on his CV as Marcus.
-
My own take on the Bent saga is that Lambert either feels Bowery is fitting into the formation more comfortably than Bent does in training, or they have an impasse that can't be bridged.
Either way, I can't see Bent staying. Maybe it's for the best he doesn't make the bench tomorrow - last thing you want is Redknob having a 'quiet chat' if he gets the chance.
-
So why didnt Vlarr tweeting piss Lambert off .
I think theres nothing wrong with Bent tweeted , at least he was dying to play and couldnt wait.
That is one way of looking at it. Another could be that Bent tweeted that he was fit and ready to play to show that it was the manager who was deciding not to play him.
I just worry that Paul Lambert is backing himself into a corner with all of this and the more coverage it gets in the press, the more reluctant he will become to include Bent. I'm sure after all this coverage, some managers wouldn't play him simply because they would be made to look wrong and a little bit foolish if he played and scored. It would bring their judgement into question and being the egocentrics that some managers are, they would hate that. I'm not saying Lambert is like that, but some managers definitely are and some would put saving face above the welfare of the team every time.
-
Aston Villa boss Paul Lambert insists it is "pure fabrication" to suggest Darren Bent is not featuring because of financial reasons.
The £24m forward was left in the stands for the club's last two games despite being passed fit after an ankle injury.
Rumours have grown that the club record signing is missing out because of a clause stating more money has to be be paid if he makes 50 league appearances.
"It is nowhere near anything of that whatsoever," said Lambert.
"You get knocks in football, but it is how you bounce back from them."
Bent, 28, has scored twice in nine league games for the Midlanders this term.
He joined Villa in January 2011 and remains stuck on 47 top flight appearances, with Lambert preferring to use summer signing Christian Benteke as a lone frontman since the 4-1 defeat by Southampton in September when the strikers were paired together.
"The system at the minute is definitely suiting us," Lambert told BBC Radio 5 live. "Gabriel Agbonlahor, I think, is playing at the top of his game, Andreas Weimann has energy to burn and Benteke, I do not want to say he is the complete player because he is not, but he has been absolutely brilliant.
"His goal ratio is frightening from the national team to coming here, and he is leading the line exceptionally well."
Villa, who moved out of the Premier League bottom three thanks to Benteke's late goal against Reading on Tuesday, travel to bottom-placed Queens Park Rangers on Saturday.
Lambert, 43, said: "If you look at the middle of the table and down, it is very, very tight. Another win can take you up there and that is what we are going to try and do.
"I have a young team that is doing well at the minute, and they are giving everything they have got. For me, that is the main thing and we keep going as a group."
-
I wonder why PL in the following answered two questions with a definte NO but one with It's not true.
Does this indicate he's not sure of the position regarding this alleged clause?
"Have there been any enquiries for Bent? No. Has he asked to be put on the transfer list? No," said Lambert. "Is there a clause? That's not true. I'm not sure where that came from."
-
I wonder why PL in the following answered two questions with a definte NO but one with It's not true.
Does this indicate he's not sure of the position regarding this alleged clause?
"Have there been any enquiries for Bent? No. Has he asked to be put on the transfer list? No," said Lambert. "Is there a clause? That's not true. I'm not sure where that came from."
maybe he just got bored of saying no
-
I wonder why PL in the following answered two questions with a definte NO but one with It's not true.
Does this indicate he's not sure of the position regarding this alleged clause?
"Have there been any enquiries for Bent? No. Has he asked to be put on the transfer list? No," said Lambert. "Is there a clause? That's not true. I'm not sure where that came from."
"That's not true" is unequivocal
-
So Lambert is quoted as saying"Gabriel Agbonlahor,I think,is playing at the top of his game."
Good job he only thinks that because Gabriel Agbonlahor in the league has scored I in the last 31.... and Arrys wife could put that one in.
I worry about Mr Lambert mumbling things like that.
Perhaps it was lost in translation and he said Benteke!
-
I wonder why PL in the following answered two questions with a definte NO but one with It's not true.
Does this indicate he's not sure of the position regarding this alleged clause?
"Have there been any enquiries for Bent? No. Has he asked to be put on the transfer list? No," said Lambert. "Is there a clause? That's not true. I'm not sure where that came from."
"That's not true" is unequivocal
And also wrong. There IS a clause (although we don't know what it is). It might not be the reason for his non-selecion, but a clause does exist.
-
I wonder why PL in the following answered two questions with a definte NO but one with It's not true.
Does this indicate he's not sure of the position regarding this alleged clause?
"Have there been any enquiries for Bent? No. Has he asked to be put on the transfer list? No," said Lambert. "Is there a clause? That's not true. I'm not sure where that came from."
"That's not true" is unequivocal
And also wrong. There IS a clause (although we don't know what it is). It might not be the reason for his non-selecion, but a clause does exist.
Unless we have paid in full already.
-
I wonder why PL in the following answered two questions with a definte NO but one with It's not true.
Does this indicate he's not sure of the position regarding this alleged clause?
"Have there been any enquiries for Bent? No. Has he asked to be put on the transfer list? No," said Lambert. "Is there a clause? That's not true. I'm not sure where that came from."
"That's not true" is unequivocal
And that's exactly hoew it sounded when I heard it on the radio earlier; non-committal.
-
I wonder why PL in the following answered two questions with a definte NO but one with It's not true.
Does this indicate he's not sure of the position regarding this alleged clause?
"Have there been any enquiries for Bent? No. Has he asked to be put on the transfer list? No," said Lambert. "Is there a clause? That's not true. I'm not sure where that came from."
"That's not true" is unequivocal
And also wrong. There IS a clause (although we don't know what it is). It might not be the reason for his non-selecion, but a clause does exist.
Unless we have paid in full already.
Which we haven't.
-
Eric B & Rakim would have.
-
Has there ever been such a keen discussion on the line up of our subs bench?
-
I wonder why PL in the following answered two questions with a definte NO but one with It's not true.
Does this indicate he's not sure of the position regarding this alleged clause?
"Have there been any enquiries for Bent? No. Has he asked to be put on the transfer list? No," said Lambert. "Is there a clause? That's not true. I'm not sure where that came from."
"That's not true" is unequivocal
And also wrong. There IS a clause (although we don't know what it is). It might not be the reason for his non-selecion, but a clause does exist.
Unless we have paid in full already.
Which we haven't.
How do we know for certain?
-
Has there ever been such a keen discussion on the line up of our subs bench?
We've never had a player that cost £24m before.
-
Has there ever been such a keen discussion on the line up of our subs bench?
We've never had a player that cost £24m before.
Or yet it would appear.
Whatever fee he is sold for though, he will always be a good value signing purely based on keeping us up that season. We could lose 8-10 million on his fee and be up on his fee with what we gained by not going down by miles.
-
Has there ever been such a keen discussion on the line up of our subs bench?
We've never had a player that cost £24m before.
Surely it's a good thing that the manager doesn't take that into account.
-
Has there ever been such a keen discussion on the line up of our subs bench?
We've never had a player that cost £24m before.
Surely it's a good thing that the manager doesn't take that into account.
My thinking too pal.
-
Eric B & Rakim would have.
But we do have to follow the leader.
-
Has there ever been such a keen discussion on the line up of our subs bench?
We've never had a player that cost £24m before.
that scores goals when we are not actually scoring many
-
Has there ever been such a keen discussion on the line up of our subs bench?
We've never had a player that cost £24m before.
Surely it's a good thing that the manager doesn't take that into account.
His cost is irrelevant, the fact is he's an excellent goal scorer, and should at least be on the bench ahead of the likes of Bowery and Albrighton. Especially when we haven't even averaged a goal a game this season.
-
Has there ever been such a keen discussion on the line up of our subs bench?
We've never had a player that cost £24m before.
Surely it's a good thing that the manager doesn't take that into account.
His cost is irrelevant, the fact is he's an excellent goal scorer, and should at least be on the bench ahead of the likes of Bowery and Albrighton. Especially when we haven't even averaged a goal a game this season.
The only 'fact' , Rafa-isso, is that he has been an excellent goalscorer.
-
Has there ever been such a keen discussion on the line up of our subs bench?
We've never had a player that cost £24m before.
Surely it's a good thing that the manager doesn't take that into account.
His cost is irrelevant, the fact is he's an excellent goal scorer, and should at least be on the bench ahead of the likes of Bowery and Albrighton. Especially when we haven't even averaged a goal a game this season.
The only 'fact' , Rafa-isso, is that he has been an excellent goalscorer.
True, but that stacks up pretty well against the players who got ahead of him and got a place on the bench.
-
I don't want the manager of Villa to be 'media trained'. I want a hard as nails, tactically aware, honest achiever. Fuck the 'media'.
Agreed and you don't need any media training!
-
I have'nt got too much of a problem with him being left out the starting 11 if Lambert feels it's right for his system, but leaving him out altogether is just wrong.
-
Does he put the effort in ? Is he really willing to put his heart and soul into Villa ? Does he just want the ball played onto his toe and then take all the praise for hitting it into the back of the net from 4 yards ?
I don't think he is a team player. The only thing that matters to Darren Bent is... Darren Bent, and that is why Lambert is not playing him IMO.
-
Lambert doesn't strike me as a manager who would leave out Bent because of his the player's lack of popularity in the squad.
The players are paid handsomely to be professionals, and even if they don't get on too well with another member of the team their duty is to do their outmost to help the team win. If Lambert backs down from that principle, he's skating on thin ice, and I doubt that he's stupid enough to do that.
So my guess is that the reason that Bent isn't being picked is that Lambert doesn't rate him. And that Lambert isn't overly concerned about what others may think or believe about the matter.
-
Has there ever been such a keen discussion on the line up of our subs bench?
We've never had a player that cost £24m before.
Surely it's a good thing that the manager doesn't take that into account.
His cost is irrelevant, the fact is he's an excellent goal scorer, and should at least be on the bench ahead of the likes of Bowery and Albrighton. Especially when we haven't even averaged a goal a game this season.
The only 'fact' , Rafa-isso, is that he has been an excellent goalscorer.
Hard for him to carry on when he's not in the match day squad. Even if he isn't good as before (which I dispute, he just isn't [not] playing in a very good team), he's still got to be a better bet than Bowery or Albrighton. I'll bet you a shiny Isle of Man pound that Bowery doesn't score a single league goal this season. Not because he isn't any good, or indeed a decent future prospect, but because he's a young lad who's just come from a much lower division.
-
Has there ever been such a keen discussion on the line up of our subs bench?
We've never had a player that cost £24m before.
Surely it's a good thing that the manager doesn't take that into account.
His cost is irrelevant, the fact is he's an excellent goal scorer, and should at least be on the bench ahead of the likes of Bowery and Albrighton. Especially when we haven't even averaged a goal a game this season.
The only 'fact' , Rafa-isso, is that he has been an excellent goalscorer.
You can say that about any player. Falcao, Messi and Ibrahimovic will all struggle to score if you ostracise them and refuse to pick them.
If you then stop playing them, they find it difficult to carry on doing what they were doing before.
-
Has there ever been such a keen discussion on the line up of our subs bench?
We've never had a player that cost £24m before.
Surely it's a good thing that the manager doesn't take that into account.
His cost is irrelevant, the fact is he's an excellent goal scorer, and should at least be on the bench ahead of the likes of Bowery and Albrighton. Especially when we haven't even averaged a goal a game this season.
The only 'fact' , Rafa-isso, is that he has been an excellent goalscorer.
So what's that supposed to mean? That his record counts for nothing since Lambert decided not to pick him?
-
is it true that we are only 3 appearances away from paying a big whack off the transfer to Sunderland?
-
Why didn't Barry take the penalty?
-
is it true that we are only 3 appearances away from paying a big whack off the transfer to Sunderland?
Thank goodness you're back.
-
Has there ever been such a keen discussion on the line up of our subs bench?
We've never had a player that cost £24m before.
Surely it's a good thing that the manager doesn't take that into account.
But perhaps he should take the reasons why he cost 24m into account. Especially when we are hardly scoring for fun, and will have few alternative reliable goal sources if Benteke becomes unavailable.
-
Is it an MON type-signing?
-
is it true that we are only 3 appearances away from paying a big whack off the transfer to Sunderland?
Thank goodness you're back.
MEGALOLZ etc etc etc
why is that?
only asking a question
"It is interesting to read about Aston Villa supposedly having to pay Sunderland a big lump of money if their striker Darren Bent plays three more games for them."
so why would Lawrenson say that?
-
is it true that we are only 3 appearances away from paying a big whack off the transfer to Sunderland?
Thank goodness you're back.
MEGALOLZ etc etc etc
why is that?
only asking a question
"It is interesting to read about Aston Villa supposedly having to pay Sunderland a big lump of money if their striker Darren Bent plays three more games for them."
so why would Lawrenson say that?
a) He's a fucking idiot.
b) He hasn't spend the last five days discussing it at length, as has been the case on here.
-
to be fair on Nirniron , he could have been away for 5 days ;)
-
"It is interesting to read about Aston Villa supposedly having to pay Sunderland a big lump of money if their striker Darren Bent plays three more games for them."
so why would Lawrenson say that?
Three people at work have asked me the same thing this week and they know fuck all about the Villa as well.
Lawro's probably been too busy tugging over all the Benitez stories this week to read about anything else.
-
I find it truly remarkable that Mark Lawrenson is paid handsomely for his "analysis" of football, which consists of parrotting the same batch of about 15-20 cliches he's been parrotting for years.
-
I find it truly remarkable that Mark Lawrenson is paid handsomely for his "analysis" of football, which consists of parrotting the same batch of about 15-20 cliches he's been parrotting for years.
that is the only part of my License fee I want back
-
In his pre-match interview, Lambert repeatedly said that he based his selections on "What I see day in and day out on the training ground".
He couldn't have made it any clearer, why Bent was not figuring.
-
I find it truly remarkable that Mark Lawrenson is paid handsomely for his "analysis" of football, which consists of parrotting the same batch of about 15-20 cliches he's been parrotting for years.
that is the only part of my License fee I want back
And Shearers fee.
-
In his pre-match interview, Lambert repeatedly said that he based his selections on "What I see day in and day out on the training ground".
He couldn't have made it any clearer, why Bent was not figuring.
Even if he spent training on a deckchair in the penalty area, he'd be a better bet than Albrighton, who appears to have forgotten how to play football.
-
January 2011 transfer window was obviously not good for strikers. The 3 big money transfers Torres, Carroll, Bent all struggling to make an impact.
-
In his pre-match interview, Lambert repeatedly said that he based his selections on "What I see day in and day out on the training ground".
He couldn't have made it any clearer, why Bent was not figuring.
Even if he spent training on a deckchair in the penalty area, he'd be a better bet than Albrighton, who appears to have forgotten how to play football.
But may be doing really well in training and thus making the bench based on the fact he gives us width. In training he might be whipping brilliant balls across. We don't see it.
-
I've not seen a convincing argument yet to say why Leigh Bowery is better to have on the bench than Darren Bent.
(https://encrypted-tbn2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcS7oI6hnKCoadtwehH10DIij2LU2J4lt3LKYOC-CpB1fcvwgRha)
-
40 pages. I think we should give Nicky Keye the free role behind John Lerwill.
-
so a guy who has played football
has a lot of contacts in football
and would know a lot more than anybody on this site, is being dismissed because people on here say so?
okay
is the generals thread still going on here?
-
Hey, nornironvillan, how's about we just forget all this and you and me just ride a motorbike accross America?
-
so a guy who has played football
has a lot of contacts in football
and would know a lot more than anybody on this site, is being dismissed because people on here say so?
okay
is the generals thread still going on here?
I think its more to do with the fact that he has a long and consistent record of being a shit pundit that talks out of his arse.
Also, the 'payments to Sunderland' theory has been done to death in the last week, and is probably a load of ol' bollocks
-
so a guy who has played football
has a lot of contacts in football
and would know a lot more than anybody on this site, is being dismissed because people on here say so?
okay
is the generals thread still going on here?
I think its more to do with the fact that he has a long and consistent record of being a shit pundit that talks out of his arse.
Also, the 'payments to Sunderland' theory has been done to death in the last week, and is probably a load of ol' bollocks
"probably"
yip i would take the ex-footballers view, that still has a lot of contacts in the game of football
and not yours
no offence mate, thats why i was asking
he has put it up on the bbc website
-
In his pre-match interview, Lambert repeatedly said that he based his selections on "What I see day in and day out on the training ground".
He couldn't have made it any clearer, why Bent was not figuring.
Even if he spent training on a deckchair in the penalty area, he'd be a better bet than Albrighton, who appears to have forgotten how to play football.
But may be doing really well in training and thus making the bench based on the fact he gives us width. In training he might be whipping brilliant balls across. We don't see it.
We see how crap he is in matches though. He hasn't had a good game in two years. But anway, it's completely Lambert's choice not to play Bent. I just hope his pig headedness doesn't lead to relegation and him losing his job over it, as that would be a very expensive price to pay for making a point.
-
And nothing on the BBC website is ever complete bollocks. Our manager has flat denied it. So have the club. But you chose to believe Lawro? Famed for poor punditry and bad jokes during commentary and out of the game for how many years, with no links to Villa at all. Hmmmmmm.....
-
In his pre-match interview, Lambert repeatedly said that he based his selections on "What I see day in and day out on the training ground".
He couldn't have made it any clearer, why Bent was not figuring.
Even if he spent training on a deckchair in the penalty area, he'd be a better bet than Albrighton, who appears to have forgotten how to play football.
But may be doing really well in training and thus making the bench based on the fact he gives us width. In training he might be whipping brilliant balls across. We don't see it.
We see how crap he is in matches though. He hasn't had a good game in two years. But anway, it's completely Lambert's choice not to play Bent. I just hope his pig headedness doesn't lead to relegation and him losing his job over it, as that would be a very expensive price to pay for making a point.
What if he is genuinely not making a point, and simply does not see him fitting into the side? It may not be pigheaded, and if we are relegated I am pretty sure he will hold his hands up.
-
And nothing on the BBC website is ever complete bollocks. Our manager has flat denied it. So have the club. But you chose to believe Lawro? Famed for poor punditry and bad jokes during commentary and out of the game for how many years, with no links to Villa at all. Hmmmmmm.....
yip all that
and i hope its true as well.
-
Risso, as a moderator, do you have access to some sort of software that automatically predicts relegation every fifteenth post? If so, can you turn it off? It's been wrong every time but we are getting shitter. It might be the case that it does work but just isn't that good.
Anyway, do you like chatting and DVDs?
-
I'd love to shag a lad.
-
In his pre-match interview, Lambert repeatedly said that he based his selections on "What I see day in and day out on the training ground".
He couldn't have made it any clearer, why Bent was not figuring.
Even if he spent training on a deckchair in the penalty area, he'd be a better bet than Albrighton, who appears to have forgotten how to play football.
But may be doing really well in training and thus making the bench based on the fact he gives us width. In training he might be whipping brilliant balls across. We don't see it.
We see how crap he is in matches though. He hasn't had a good game in two years. But anway, it's completely Lambert's choice not to play Bent. I just hope his pig headedness doesn't lead to relegation and him losing his job over it, as that would be a very expensive price to pay for making a point.
What if he is genuinely not making a point, and simply does not see him fitting into the side? It may not be pigheaded, and if we are relegated I am pretty sure he will hold his hands up.
Then the bloke needs to look at the table, observe that we are shit at scoring goals and adapt his system so that Bent at least appears on the bench. Unless of course, Lambert isn't really that great and can't find a way to accommodate a player that at least two thirds of the Premier League would love to have in their team.
-
Risso, as a moderator, do you have access to some sort of software that automatically predicts relegation every fifteenth post? If so, can you turn it off? It's been wrong every time but we are getting shitter. It might be the case that it does work but just isn't that good.
Anyway, do you like chatting and DVDs?
I'm not a moderator, sorry. And I don't believe that I predicted relegation above, just opined that it might be an unwanted side effect of not scoring enough goals.
-
Risso, as a moderator, do you have access to some sort of software that automatically predicts relegation every fifteenth post? If so, can you turn it off? It's been wrong every time but we are getting shitter. It might be the case that it does work but just isn't that good.
Anyway, do you like chatting and DVDs?
I'm not a moderator, sorry. And I don't believe that I predicted relegation above, just opined that it might be an unwanted side effect of not scoring enough goals.
I thought you were a moderator, apols.
What DVDs do you like?
-
anybody that believes Bent isnt being sold in January, really needs a kick, no 2,3,4,5 kicks in the balls!!!!!!.
"the 3 games" thing is showing us up for what we are now
a small team fighting relegation
the last 2 years and now going for a third year in a row has shown that
and yet we still think everything is okay
where is the generals thread to tell us everything is alright?
-
"the 3 games" thing has been denied
by Villa Sunderland and Paul Lambert
the general hasn't been a director
for about 18 months
and I really do think
you should lay off the enter key
-
So we can all see that Bent is not ahead of Benteke and the formation would have to change to accomodate him. That's not going to happen.
He allegedly earns more than Vlaar, KEA, Lowton & Westwood combined. He would probably see the sale of Bent as an opportunity to bolster the squad with funds and extra space on the wage bill. He may not want one player earning so much and causing possible unrest in the squad.
With Bent getting over a major injury in the summer and then picking up niggly injuries since coming back, PL may have decided he doesn't want to risk any potential deal with an injury.
-
Risso, as a moderator, do you have access to some sort of software that automatically predicts relegation every fifteenth post? If so, can you turn it off? It's been wrong every time but we are getting shitter. It might be the case that it does work but just isn't that good.
Anyway, do you like chatting and DVDs?
I'm not a moderator, sorry. And I don't believe that I predicted relegation above, just opined that it might be an unwanted side effect of not scoring enough goals.
I thought you were a moderator, apols.
What DVDs do you like?
Hmmm, mainly British gritty dramas I'd say.
-
"the 3 games" thing has been denied
by Villa Sunderland and Paul Lambert
the general hasn't been a director
for about 18 months
and I really do think
you should lay off the enter key
I still don't think he's actually resigned has he?
-
/quote]
"the 3 games" thing has been denied
by Villa Sunderland and Paul Lambert
the general hasn't been a director
for about 18 months
and I really do think
you should lay off the enter key
and thats it "you should lay off the enter key"
fair enough Dave. i expect Bent to be here after January then?
-
The other way to look at it might be that having won 2 and drawn 1 of our last 5, only losing against the current top 2 that are clear by a distance, we might be turning a corner, and upsetting that balance right now for the sake of Bent is not worth it.
-
so a guy who has played football
has a lot of contacts in football
and would know a lot more than anybody on this site, is being dismissed because people on here say so?
okay
is the generals thread still going on here?
I hate to quote the entire post again, but Lawro said he'd read about it - I'd say that puts him in about the same position as us.
-
So we can all see that Bent is not ahead of Benteke and the formation would have to change to accomodate him. That's not going to happen.
He allegedly earns more than Vlaar, KEA, Lowton & Westwood combined. He would probably see the sale of Bent as an opportunity to bolster the squad with funds and extra space on the wage bill. He may not want one player earning so much and causing possible unrest in the squad.
With Bent getting over a major injury in the summer and then picking up niggly injuries since coming back, PL may have decided he doesn't want to risk any potential deal with an injury.
I bet players like Given, Gabby, Dunne and N'Zogbia all earn a heck of a lot more than the lower league recruits as well. Not having Bent in the squad isn't going to stop him earning that money.
-
The other way to look at it might be that having won 2 and drawn 1 of our last 5, only losing against the current top 2 that are clear by a distance, we might be turning a corner, and upsetting that balance right now for the sake of Bent is not worth it.
And having him in the squad; not replacing Benteke who is deservedly ahead of him in the lone striker pecking order; but merely on the bench ahead of the likes of Bowery (completely unproven lower league youth player), Albrighton (completely shit former footballer) or Delph (completely shit headless chicken) would upset that balance?
-
The other way to look at it might be that having won 2 and drawn 1 of our last 5, only losing against the current top 2 that are clear by a distance, we might be turning a corner, and upsetting that balance right now for the sake of Bent is not worth it.
no offence ozzjim or anybody on this site
but a guy has put up something on the BBC website - an ex-footballer,who earns a living talking to footballlers..... who has a lot more contacts than anybody on here
and has said "It is interesting to read about Aston Villa supposedly having to pay Sunderland a big lump of money if their striker Darren Bent plays three more games for them. "
and the way we have got rid of the big earners in the last year or so
it dosent worry anybody on here?
-
I wonder which three PL is saving him for?
-
I bet players like Given, Gabby, Dunne and N'Zogbia all earn a heck of a lot more than the lower league recruits as well. Not having Bent in the squad isn't going to stop him earning that money.
It would if he's sold in Jan. I suggested that he wasn't in the squad to avoid injury and the potential breakdown of a move.
-
Norn, we've worked out between us that the maximum we probably still owe Sunderland is between £1m and £2m. I looked at the accounts, Dave W seems to have talked to somebody at the club. It's not a small amount but probably not worth leaving him out over.
-
I bet players like Given, Gabby, Dunne and N'Zogbia all earn a heck of a lot more than the lower league recruits as well. Not having Bent in the squad isn't going to stop him earning that money.
It would if he's sold in Jan. I suggested that he wasn't in the squad to avoid injury and the potential breakdown of a move.
But players' salaries are all relative and there are big differentials at all clubs. Having a big earning player isn't a good or likely reason to drop him. Bent can rightly point to his scoring record and England caps. Why would that concern somebody like Westwood? It'd be like a first year audit trainee at PwC moaning about a partner taking home ten times his salary.
-
Norn, we've worked out between us that the maximum we probably still owe Sunderland is between £1m and £2m. I looked at the accounts, Dave W seems to have talked to somebody at the club. It's not a small amount but probably not worth leaving him out over.
And that's the total potentially owing. I don't think it's all for fifty appearances - some of it will be tied up in stuff like European qualification and winning trophies.
-
2,3,4,5 kicks in the balls!!!!!!.
That could be us, on the freeway, laughing at squares and eating corn dogs. I'd tip waitresses, you wouldn't but you'd help them with their music. Wyoming, Idaho, Utah...just us and our thoughts. x
-
Norn, we've worked out between us that the maximum we probably still owe Sunderland is between £1m and £2m. I looked at the accounts, Dave W seems to have talked to somebody at the club. It's not a small amount but probably not worth leaving him out over.
And that's the total potentially owing. I don't think it's all for fifty appearances - some of it will be tied up in stuff like European qualification and winning trophies.
Indeed. Although I bet Sunderland didn't put too much on the winning trophies bit. "£2m if you qualify for the Champions League?, bollocks Mr Lerner, we'll have it when Benty scores 30 goals if you don't mind!"
-
Norn, we've worked out between us that the maximum we probably still owe Sunderland is between £1m and £2m. I looked at the accounts, Dave W seems to have talked to somebody at the club. It's not a small amount but probably not worth leaving him out over.
And that's the total potentially owing. I don't think it's all for fifty appearances - some of it will be tied up in stuff like European qualification and winning trophies.
Indeed. Although I bet Sunderland didn't put too much on the winning trophies bit. "£2m if you qualify for the Champions League?, bollocks Mr Lerner, we'll have it when Benty scores 30 goals if you don't mind!"
I'd guess it'll be both, along with everything from staying up to playing in Euro 2012.
-
2,3,4,5 kicks in the balls!!!!!!.
That could be us, on the freeway, laughing at squares and eating corn dogs. I'd tip waitresses, you wouldn't but you'd help them with their music. Wyoming, Idaho, Utah...just us and our thoughts. x
I'm imaging a cross between 'Littlest Hobo', Bill Bryson's 'The Lost Continent: Travels in Small-Town America' and 'Brokeback Mountain'. With a side-order of 'On the Road' and 'Natural Born Killers'.
-
Norn, we've worked out between us that the maximum we probably still owe Sunderland is between £1m and £2m. I looked at the accounts, Dave W seems to have talked to somebody at the club. It's not a small amount but probably not worth leaving him out over.
And that's the total potentially owing. I don't think it's all for fifty appearances - some of it will be tied up in stuff like European qualification and winning trophies.
Indeed. Although I bet Sunderland didn't put too much on the winning trophies bit. "£2m if you qualify for the Champions League?, bollocks Mr Lerner, we'll have it when Benty scores 30 goals if you don't mind!"
I'd guess it'll be both, along with everything from staying up to playing in Euro 2012.
The rumour was that £3m was payable on us staying up. That would tally with what's in the accounts as well.
-
It all seems feasible and as you said, not leaving enough to leave him out for.
-
lot of "guessing" going on here lads
bit like Lawrenson?
-
Who is this bloke Bent you're all on about? Details please. Is he part of the set-up or what? Oh, got it, he is a QPR player!
-
lot of "guessing" going on here lads
bit like Lawrenson?
If Lawrenson had any insight into Bent's situation he wouldn't have put "Interesting to read..." which places his opinion at the same level as everyone else.
-
lot of "guessing" going on here lads
bit like Lawrenson?
If Lawrenson had any insight into Bent's situation he wouldn't have put "Interesting to read..." which places his opinion at the same level as everyone else.
fuck it, it really is such a shit answer
&feature=player_detailpage
deserve it
-
Not many games to go on, but in true Villadawg style here;s a few stats from the season :-
in all games in which Bent has played (9) either as sub or starter
team goals/game : 0.77, pts/game 0.55
as just sub (3)
team goals/game : 0.66, pts/game 0.66
Games where Bent has been nowhere to be seen (5)
team goals/game : 0.80, pts/game 1.40
Proving without any shadow of doubt - so conclusively that I am tempted to put 'fact' at the end of each sentence - that we should sell Bent pronto otherwise we will be relegated.
-
I think I've accidentally dropped some acid.
Either that or some of you have.
-
(https://fbcdn-sphotos-e-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-ash3/149175_10151121381496472_437500991_n.jpg)
-
2,3,4,5 kicks in the balls!!!!!!.
That could be us, on the freeway, laughing at squares and eating corn dogs. I'd tip waitresses, you wouldn't but you'd help them with their music. Wyoming, Idaho, Utah...just us and our thoughts. x
The winner of the most surreal way to deal with a troll award goes to you. Outstanding work.
-
All PL has achieved is to heap more negativity on the club at a time when it least needs it. Idiot!
-
2,3,4,5 kicks in the balls!!!!!!.
That could be us, on the freeway, laughing at squares and eating corn dogs. I'd tip waitresses, you wouldn't but you'd help them with their music. Wyoming, Idaho, Utah...just us and our thoughts. x
Noon Iron bouncing around on the back seat chucking empty crisp packets out the window asking "are we nearly there yet" every 10 minutes.
-
In his pre-match interview, Lambert repeatedly said that he based his selections on "What I see day in and day out on the training ground".
He couldn't have made it any clearer, why Bent was not figuring.
Even if he spent training on a deckchair in the penalty area, he'd be a better bet than Albrighton, who appears to have forgotten how to play football.
But may be doing really well in training and thus making the bench based on the fact he gives us width. In training he might be whipping brilliant balls across. We don't see it.
We see how crap he is in matches though. He hasn't had a good game in two years. But anway, it's completely Lambert's choice not to play Bent. I just hope his pig headedness doesn't lead to relegation and him losing his job over it, as that would be a very expensive price to pay for making a point.
I think the whole point is that Albrighton and others are putting more effort into training on a daily basis than Bent.
That is why he is left out.
-
Norn, we've worked out between us that the maximum we probably still owe Sunderland is between £1m and £2m. I looked at the accounts, Dave W seems to have talked to somebody at the club. It's not a small amount but probably not worth leaving him out over.
And that's the total potentially owing. I don't think it's all for fifty appearances - some of it will be tied up in stuff like European qualification and winning trophies.
Indeed. Although I bet Sunderland didn't put too much on the winning trophies bit. "£2m if you qualify for the Champions League?, bollocks Mr Lerner, we'll have it when Benty scores 30 goals if you don't mind!"
I'd guess it'll be both, along with everything from staying up to playing in Euro 2012.
The rumour was that £3m was payable on us staying up. That would tally with what's in the accounts as well.
Is that £3m part of the reported £18m transfer fee or on top of it? Was the extra £3m paid as a lump sum or is that spread across the years of the contract like the transfer fee?
-
Paper rumours..... Lambert could be forced to sell Bent for a cut price 10mil. QPR sniffing around.
-
Forced? Current state doesn't suggest that!
-
I really do not understand why we would sign into a appearance clause for an established experienced player. Saving us from relegation yes, getting to a particular position in the League yes, winning a cup or something yes, qualifying for Europe etc yes but number of appearance and at that as low as 50 NO.
-
10 mill would be quite low, certainly to QPR. To them we up the price. We're not in a rush to sell. If we only want 10, we can get that in the summer.
-
Paper rumours..... Lambert could be forced to sell Bent for a cut price 10mil. QPR sniffing around.
I love the way he's stuck his spoon in the porridge this week, what with us playing down there this week.
They won't be signing him, and at £10m they can whistle fucking Dixie.
-
I really do not understand why we would sign into a appearance clause for an established experienced player. Saving us from relegation yes, getting to a particular position in the League yes, winning a cup or something yes, qualifying for Europe etc yes but number of appearance and at that as low as 50 NO.
It might be a case that 50 appearances coincides with twelve months, assuming that the player plays week in week out. Thus helping out on tax payments. We had Davies on loan from Albion for a year due to the Albion not wanting his transfer fee on their yearly accounts if I remember correctly.
-
Darren Bent to Lincoln City for £74 million
In the latest in a series of inexplicable transfers for the player, Darren Bent has joined Lincoln City for £74 million. Bent tells the press:
"I've had some great days at Aston Villa - about thirteen, I think - but it's time to move on. People will question why I'm swapping a top Premier League side for unfashionable League Two strugglers, but then people questioned why Johnny Rotten done them butter adverts, so... you know."
(http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/comedy/Darren_Bent_350.jpg)
-
All this talk of £3 Million in clauses makes Villa look small-time. The root of Villa's problems lies at the Chairman's door. We never hear a thing from him so we haven't a clue at his intentions for the club, although I suspect his current austerity measures are probably linked to the Bent situation. As I've said before, he needs to sell up and move out. No wonder the Browns fans were glad to see the back of him!
-
All this talk of £3 Million in clauses makes Villa look small-time. The root of Villa's problems lies at the Chairman's door. We never hear a thing from him so we haven't a clue at his intentions for the club, although I suspect his current austerity measures are probably linked to the Bent situation. As I've said before, he needs to sell up and move out. No wonder the Browns fans were glad to see the back of him!
Whilst I agree that the Chairman is utterly useless, there is no evidence at all about this supposed £3m add on, so you can't have a go at him for that.
-
Its pleasing to see Norn Iron back talking cobblers as usual.
Someone who apparently values debate but, when his own points are proven to be incorrect, just shouts them louder.
-
All this talk of £3 Million in clauses makes Villa look small-time. The root of Villa's problems lies at the Chairman's door. We never hear a thing from him so we haven't a clue at his intentions for the club, although I suspect his current austerity measures are probably linked to the Bent situation. As I've said before, he needs to sell up and move out. No wonder the Browns fans were glad to see the back of him!
Whilst I agree that the Chairman is utterly useless, there is no evidence at all about this supposed £3m add on, so you can't have a go at him for that.
What I can have a go at him at is selling all our best players (incuding Bent soon) and replacing them with Championship quality players ready to play in that very league next season the way things are going.
-
All this talk of £3 Million in clauses makes Villa look small-time. The root of Villa's problems lies at the Chairman's door. We never hear a thing from him so we haven't a clue at his intentions for the club, although I suspect his current austerity measures are probably linked to the Bent situation. As I've said before, he needs to sell up and move out. No wonder the Browns fans were glad to see the back of him!
Whilst I agree that the Chairman is utterly useless, there is no evidence at all about this supposed £3m add on, so you can't have a go at him for that.
Lambert has clearly stated in his press conference that this "50 game" quote is complete rubbish. His comment was " i see them training every day . You lot don`t" when then asked "is he just not putting the work rate in" Lambert said. "i pick the team" .....
-
Apologies if this has been posted before, it's a transcript of the press conference after Tuesday's win: http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2012/nov/28/darren-bent-aston-villa
After reading that, and assuming Lambert is telling the truth, I still haven't got a clue what's going on between him and Bent.
-
January 2011 transfer window was obviously not good for strikers. The 3 big money transfers Torres, Carroll, Bent all struggling to make an impact.
Torres and Carroll ARE being played thou . I wouldnt swap Bent for any of the other two .
-
Carroll wasn't at Liverpool though was he, he is playing at West Ham on loan!
-
Andy Carroll out for 6-8 weeks apparently.
-
January 2011 transfer window was obviously not good for strikers. The 3 big money transfers Torres, Carroll, Bent all struggling to make an impact.
Torres and Carroll ARE being played thou . I wouldnt swap Bent for any of the other two .
There's no comparison.
Bent is struggling to make an impact at the moment, because he's not getting picked.
He had more of an impact last season, and has delivered goals for us, something Torres and Carroll haven't done for Chelsea and Liverpool.
-
Darren Bent to Lincoln City for £74 million
In the latest in a series of inexplicable transfers for the player, Darren Bent has joined Lincoln City for £74 million. Bent tells the press:
"I've had some great days at Aston Villa - about thirteen, I think - but it's time to move on. People will question why I'm swapping a top Premier League side for unfashionable League Two strugglers, but then people questioned why Johnny Rotten done them butter adverts, so... you know."
(http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/comedy/Darren_Bent_350.jpg)
Sorry ALITA, but there now playing in the Blue Square Conference
-
Common sense prevails and he's on the bench today.
-
Common sense prevails and he's on the bench today.
good
-
That's good to hear. Be interesting to see if he comes on. Hope this can all be forgotten about now.
-
Darren Bent to Lincoln City for £74 million
In the latest in a series of inexplicable transfers for the player, Darren Bent has joined Lincoln City for £74 million. Bent tells the press:
"I've had some great days at Aston Villa - about thirteen, I think - but it's time to move on. People will question why I'm swapping a top Premier League side for unfashionable League Two strugglers, but then people questioned why Johnny Rotten done them butter adverts, so... you know."
(http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/comedy/Darren_Bent_350.jpg)
Sorry ALITA, but there now playing in the Blue Square Conference
Don't blame me, I just copy and paste whatever bollox I find round the net. ;D
-
lot of "guessing" going on here lads
bit like Lawrenson?
If Lawrenson had any insight into Bent's situation he wouldn't have put "Interesting to read..." which places his opinion at the same level as everyone else.
fuck it, it really is such a shit answer
&feature=player_detailpage
deserve it
Darren is refusing to play by going on hunger strike? As plausible as a lot of the rumours I guess.
-
Darren off to Arsenal or Fulham?
-
Darren off to Arsenal or Fulham?
I can see Fulham having him, they're on a bad trot at the moment.
-
I don't get this myth that Bent only poaches goals. If you look at his performance at Newcastle he did a lot of work for the team.
-
I don't get this myth that Bent only poaches goals. If you look at his performance at Newcastle he did a lot of work for the team.
Never forget his debut against Man City.
Held the ball up really well in that game.
-
Exactly, so people implying that he just stands in the 6 yard box are wrong.
-
Those are two games. I can also remember the Arsenal game under GH/Gary Mac. Other than that, that is about it - and the stats really do bear it out.
-
Whilst we've used 4-3-3 the issue has been more about Benteke taking up the central role so Bent would have to play as an inside forward. If he were to do that, he would need to track back as well. We'll have to see whether he sticks with the 3-5-2 system in the Stoke game because Bent could certainly play alongside Benteke there.
-
Exactly, so people implying that he just stands in the 6 yard box are wrong.
It's just a myth Paul.
Hey ho, somebody else will have the benefits of his goalscoring soon.
It pisses me off that we were moaning for a goalscorer for years, we get one and then many seem happy for him to be shown the door.
My answer would be to get a quality midfielder in (for Bannan) that would allow us to play both Benteke AND Bent. I'm certain that they'd make a fantastic partnership (think Bent and Kenwyne Jones).
-
Exactly, so people implying that he just stands in the 6 yard box are wrong.
It's just a myth Paul.
Hey ho, somebody else will have the benefits of his goalscoring soon.
It pisses me off that we were moaning for a goalscorer for years, we get one and then many seem happy for him to be shown the door.
My answer would be to get a quality midfielder in (for Bannan) that would allow us to play both Benteke AND Bent. I'm certain that they'd make a fantastic partnership (think Bent and Kenwyne Jones).
Yep agreed, he should be involved.
-
IMHO, until we get 1. Some steel and 2. Some guile in midfield, we can't afford the luxury of Bent in the starting eleven. We have to have grafters and Bent isn't one!
-
The fact that we apparently need a team full of 'grafters' just tells you how far this club have fallen.
And also explains why you can't give tickets away these days. Who wants to go and watch that kind of football every other week ?
-
The fact that we apparently need a team full of 'grafters' just tells you how far this club have fallen.
And also explains why you can't give tickets away these days. Who wants to go and watch that kind of football every other week ?
Hard to argue with that statement, so I won't!
-
The fact that we apparently need a team full of 'grafters' just tells you how far this club have fallen.
And also explains why you can't give tickets away these days. Who wants to go and watch that kind of football every other week ?
Man City won the league with grafters. Man Utd have been the best team in the last 20 years through grafters. True, they are grafters who have great skill, but grafters they are.
Perhaps the best two teams in recent memory, Barcelona & Spain are both full if grafters. All players work extremely hard to get the ball back.
Grafting isn't a bad thing, it's what can make the difference.
-
So, it seems to me that there are a few things to realise here.
1. The club really is financially screwed. If we are not playing a prolific goal scorer because it will invoke some 'additional payment' clause, then we obviously don't have the money to pay it.
2. If 1 is correct, how fucking small time are we that we would rather not pay a desperately needed player, rather than have to pay for him. And, if we can' t afford him, why the fuck did we agree the fee, the payment terms and buy him in the first place.
3. because of the above, we can be pretty much 100% sure he won't be a Villa player come Feb 1st.
-
The fact that we apparently need a team full of 'grafters' just tells you how far this club have fallen.
And also explains why you can't give tickets away these days. Who wants to go and watch that kind of football every other week ?
Man City won the league with grafters. Man Utd have been the best team in the last 20 years through grafters. True, they are grafters who have great skill, but grafters they are.
Perhaps the best two teams in recent memory, Barcelona & Spain are both full if grafters. All players work extremely hard to get the ball back.
Grafting isn't a bad thing, it's what can make the difference.
Of course not, but then again grafting alone is a totally different thing, and nothing you could accuse any of those teams of.
-
Exactly, so people implying that he just stands in the 6 yard box are wrong.
3 touches in a game? Least touches in Europe one week, he is a poacher that is it.
He is a 1 in 2 striker but Benteke is near on a 1 in 2 aswell albeit with less experience and also offers so much more.
We have got got 5 points and 2 clean sheets in our last 3 games. This is an improvement.
-
The fact that we apparently need a team full of 'grafters' just tells you how far this club have fallen.
And also explains why you can't give tickets away these days. Who wants to go and watch that kind of football every other week ?
Man City won the league with grafters. Man Utd have been the best team in the last 20 years through grafters. True, they are grafters who have great skill, but grafters they are.
Perhaps the best two teams in recent memory, Barcelona & Spain are both full if grafters. All players work extremely hard to get the ball back.
Grafting isn't a bad thing, it's what can make the difference.
I think he means a team full of footballers that are very limited attacking wise, but run around a lot, like NRC etc
City won the league by spending half a billion not because of 'grafters' yes their very talented players work very hard, but what top team doesn't work hard? It was their talent that won them the league.
-
Exactly, so people implying that he just stands in the 6 yard box are wrong.
3 touches in a game? Least touches in Europe one week, he is a poacher that is it.
He is a 1 in 2 striker but Benteke is near on a 1 in 2 aswell albeit with less experience and also offers so much more.
We have got got 5 points and 2 clean sheets in our last 3 games. This is an improvement.
Well, he's a 1 in 3 striker (Benteke) based over a small sample of games for us
If you only look at PL games, he's scored 3 goals in 11 appearances, which makes him more like a 1 in 4 striker.
I can listen to, and agree with, lots of the criticisms of Bent, but the suggestion that a 1 in 2 striker is easy to replace is nuts, let alone the suggestion we've done so with a 21 year old who has played a handful of games for us.
Let's not forget, he's a kid, he might carry on getting better, but he might not. Long way to go yet.
-
Exactly, so people implying that he just stands in the 6 yard box are wrong.
3 touches in a game? Least touches in Europe one week, he is a poacher that is it.
He is a 1 in 2 striker but Benteke is near on a 1 in 2 aswell albeit with less experience and also offers so much more.
We have got got 5 points and 2 clean sheets in our last 3 games. This is an improvement.
Well, he's a 1 in 3 striker (Benteke) based over a small sample of games for us
If you only look at PL games, he's scored 3 goals in 11 appearances, which makes him more like a 1 in 4 striker.
I can listen to, and agree with, lots of the criticisms of Bent, but the suggestion that a 1 in 2 striker is easy to replace is nuts, let alone the suggestion we've done so with a 21 year old who has played a handful of games for us.
Let's not forget, he's a kid, he might carry on getting better, but he might not. Long way to go yet.
Using your method, Bent has 2 in 9 in the league so is also a 1-4 striker this season, he might go on and score a lot more, but judging by this season so far, it will be at a cost to the team.
The point is regardless of Benteke's age, the team have improved and have started picking up a lot more points since we started playing Benteke on his own and dropped Bent.
Yes I criticise Bent, but, i want whats best for the team and ii think he should be on the bench (he was today) and I would have brought him on before Benteke scored against Reading.
But today was not a game I would have, as I think we would have more likely lost than won with the way the game was.
-
Exactly, so people implying that he just stands in the 6 yard box are wrong.
It's just a myth Paul.
Hey ho, somebody else will have the benefits of his goalscoring soon.
It pisses me off that we were moaning for a goalscorer for years, we get one and then many seem happy for him to be shown the door.
My answer would be to get a quality midfielder in (for Bannan) that would allow us to play both Benteke AND Bent. I'm certain that they'd make a fantastic partnership (think Bent and Kenwyne Jones).
Or sell Benteke to Arsenal for 25mil sign Kenwyne Jones for4mil and pair him with Darren again.
Despite what Lambert says he does have his favorites and they dont include Mr Bent
-
Our loss will be somebody else's gain- bent is a goalscorer and we've been crying out for that for so long, I feel sorry for the guy but I think it's inevitable he will go.
-
Let's get some facts here. In the summer Lambert made Bent captain he repaid him by shagging Stephen Warnocks Mrs and followed that by doing the same with Chris Herds Mrs. Lambert was outraged as rest of squad was and so Bent was stripped of captaincy. Most of the squad despise him hence playing him ain't happening.. Don't feel sorry for Bent he has made Lambert's job much harder.
-
Let's get some facts here. In the summer Lambert made Bent captain he repaid him by shagging Stephen Warnocks Mrs and followed that by doing the same with Chris Herds Mrs. Lambert was outraged as rest of squad was and so Bent was stripped of captaincy. Most of the squad despise him hence playing him ain't happening.. Don't feel sorry for Bent he has made Lambert's job much harder.
Let's not get sued here. These aren't facts at all.
-
Let's get some facts here. In the summer Lambert made Bent captain he repaid him by shagging Stephen Warnocks Mrs and followed that by doing the same with Chris Herds Mrs. Lambert was outraged as rest of squad was and so Bent was stripped of captaincy. Most of the squad despise him hence playing him ain't happening.. Don't feel sorry for Bent he has made Lambert's job much harder.
Let's not get sued here. These aren't facts at all.
If that is the case then fuck him off. Where did Hoppo get this info from ?
-
Fair enough.
-
Let's get some facts here. In the summer Lambert made Bent captain he repaid him by shagging Stephen Warnocks Mrs and followed that by doing the same with Chris Herds Mrs. Lambert was outraged as rest of squad was and so Bent was stripped of captaincy. Most of the squad despise him hence playing him ain't happening.. Don't feel sorry for Bent he has made Lambert's job much harder.
Let's not get sued here. These aren't facts at all.
I recall something in the tabloids last year about Paul Lambert's marriage having gone down the proverbial pan. Unless they've reunited or she has very strong views that she feels others should live by, what on earth would Mrs Lambert care about alleged goings on at Villa anyway?
-
Let's get some facts here. In the summer Lambert made Bent captain he repaid him by shagging Stephen Warnocks Mrs and followed that by doing the same with Chris Herds Mrs. Lambert was outraged as rest of squad was and so Bent was stripped of captaincy. Most of the squad despise him hence playing him ain't happening.. Don't feel sorry for Bent he has made Lambert's job much harder.
Let's not get sued here. These aren't facts at all.
If that is the case then fuck him off. Where did Hoppo get this info from ?
www.loadsabolox.com
-
Let's get some facts here. In the summer Lambert made Bent captain he repaid him by shagging Stephen Warnocks Mrs and followed that by doing the same with Chris Herds Mrs. Lambert was outraged as rest of squad was and so Bent was stripped of captaincy. Most of the squad despise him hence playing him ain't happening.. Don't feel sorry for Bent he has made Lambert's job much harder.
Warnock must have crossed some old gypsy, the luck he's been having.
-
It's only a matter of time before he's implicated in one of the ongoing investigations involving 'celebrities' from the 70's.
-
Let's get some facts here. In the summer Lambert made Bent captain he repaid him by shagging Stephen Warnocks Mrs and followed that by doing the same with Chris Herds Mrs. Lambert was outraged as rest of squad was and so Bent was stripped of captaincy. Most of the squad despise him hence playing him ain't happening.. Don't feel sorry for Bent he has made Lambert's job much harder.
Warnock must have crossed some old gypsy, the luck he's been having.
Her name was Heather Sprigg ;)
-
Lizz's post is hilarious. Intentional or not.
-
Lizz's post is hilarious. Intentional or not.
Percy, talented as I am, in this case watching one of the best films ever, Crash on 4HD in preference to MOTD, and surfing t'internet, not sure what was hilarious about my post. Intentional or otherwise. I have had a large glass of wine if that helps.
-
In the post you were answering Lizz, I think you misread the full stop after 'Chris Herd's Mrs'.
Now have another read, you lush.
-
In the post you were answering Lizz, I think you misread the full stop after 'Chris Herd's Mrs'.
Now have another read, you lush.
Cheers Percy, see what you mean now ;). I was reading it as Mrs. Lambert. Anyway, genuinely glad I've made you laugh. And anyone else for that matter.
-
In the post you were answering Lizz, I think you misread the full stop after 'Chris Herd's Mrs'.
Now have another read, you lush.
Cheers Percy, see what you mean now ;). I was reading it as Mrs. Lambert. Anyway, genuinely glad I've made you laugh. And anyone else for that matter.
All of us Lizz.
-
Yeah, good one. I really thought you might have done it on purpose, real dead-pan like.
PS: Crash is a great film innit?
-
Despite what Lambert says he does have his favorites and they dont include Mr Bent
Lambert is probably pissed off that he kept trying on outfits without ever buying anything.
-
Yeah, good one. I really thought you might have done it on purpose, real dead-pan like.
PS: Crash is a great film innit?
Yes, good on so many levels. We've now turned over to MOTD, but given a choice, I'd rather watch Crash.
-
Get the DVD for Christmas.
-
Get the DVD for Christmas.
Is that the DVD of Lizz doing the best dry comedy act ever ?
-
Lizz Live at the Apollo.
-
Absolute madness to keep Bent out of the the team when we have the lowest scoring Villa team in years.
-
Found a formation that works & Benteke is the spearhead of it. Replacing him with Bent would be crazy.
-
Found a formation that works & Benteke is the spearhead of it. Replacing him with Bent would be crazy.
What is it, 12 league goals all season?? You really think its working?
-
How was it working when Bent was playing?
-
Found a formation that works & Benteke is the spearhead of it. Replacing him with Bent would be crazy.
What is it, 12 league goals all season?? You really think its working?
Finally, yes. Whatever we were trying early on didn't work (which was, I'm sure, a different formation anyway). However it's begun to show it's usefulness and we've picked up some points and had some good performances. Bent was hardly banging them in before he was dropped. Benteke came in and has offered much more.
-
I wouldn't be surprised if Lambert stuck with the 3-5-2 formation for a few games which could see Bent come back into play alongside Benteke. Stoke might be one to use it.
-
I wouldn't be surprised if Lambert stuck with the 3-5-2 formation for a few games which could see Bent come back into play alongside Benteke. Stoke might be one to use it.
Possibly. I mean Gabby spend large portions of the game yesterday, playing through the middle. If Bent is willing to put in some graft and work the channels from time to time, alternating with Eke, then we could have some joy, and more goal threat.
I love Gabba but he offers almost nothing in terms of goal threat these days.
-
regarding these alleged rumours re Bent shagging various alleged wives, a steward intimated as much to me at the Reading game, Whether it's bollox or not Lambert keeps denying it's anything other than a football decision and he was on the bench yesterday.He has been injured and I still think Lambert has been shocked by how poor we really are and the upturn in results has been without him.Maybe he feels he can't risk a defeat and playing Bent might result in that? Frustrating ain't it ?
-
Ha ha, brilliant Lizz!
-
I thought Herd had denied the rumour on Twatter? And those who wanted Warnock gone from the club, shouldn't you be glad of Bent going to the extra effort of helping it happen?
-
Yeah, good one. I really thought you might have done it on purpose, real dead-pan like.
PS: Crash is a great film innit?
It have me a good belly laugh too. You should have claimed it Lizz.
-
here is atweet which bent sent and then deleted ( alledgedly )
http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=4449566712318&set=a.1350086827258.2047257.1083962379&type=1&theater
-
The twitter world seems to think its a fake.
-
I can't imagine he'd be stupid enough to post something like that and include another players name.
-
I know that it's lazy to compare Lambert to MON, but one has to hope that the one trait he never has taken from his former manager is spitefulness. MON always strikes you as a spiteful person, never to be crossed or challenged. I hope what Lambert is doing with Bent, and now possibly with Ireland on the bench isn't just spiteful and that he has genuine cause. If not, he's carving away at all of our noses.
-
The twitter world seems to think its a fake.
Well the twitter account its attributed to is definitely Darren bents twitter account , he hasn't posted on it since the message about being fit and ready 12 days ago , unless of course he has posted and deleted tweets as suggested there.
I was on about that time last night and never saw a tweet from him so it's dubious.
-
I know that it's lazy to compare Lambert to MON, but one has to hope that the one trait he never has taken from his former manager is spitefulness. MON always strikes you as a spiteful person, never to be crossed or challenged. I hope what Lambert is doing with Bent, and now possibly with Ireland on the bench isn't just spiteful and that he has genuine cause. If not, he's carving away at all of our noses.
Take away the 2 Manchester games, we have got 8 points from 4 games, without Bent.(Sunderland,Norwich,Reading,QPR) so Lambert isn't doing anything other than what's best for the team.
I know we all have our opinions on Bent, but we are getting results without Bent, so Lambert is right in what he is doing.
-
That screenshot is fake. When a tweet is first sent it says how many minutes ago it was posted on the right at first, then changes to the date once 24 hours has passed.
-
Being suggested that the club have put Bent up for sale and are looking for 18m
-
Being suggested that the club have put Bent up for sale and are looking for 18m
If true, glad we're not looking to loan him out as that'd be pointless. If we can get £15m + and then get a couple of quality grown ups in Mid and Defence, I'd be happy enough.
-
Anything over 14 and we have done ok. He saved us the season before, and his goals early season probably did as much as any to keep us up last season too. A 5-6 million loss now he is 28 would be fair enough, and he has more than paid for himself. If Lambert could add that to the pot and get 3-4 really top players in we could be flying.
-
I would be very surprised if we got much more than £12m top whack.
It will be a buyers market and I think we will have to get the best offer we can or be stuck with an unhappy player on huge wages frozen out.
-
I'd guess £12m would be about what we'd get
-
Bent is supposedly on between 60-80k a week isn't he?
With those wages and between £14-18m, Lambert would probably be able to bring in three players.
Not surprising he wants rid.
-
You have to ask who would pay anywhere near £18m for him, especially when he'll have no resale value. Perhaps QPR? I can't see Liverpool wanting to, because I don't see how he'd fit into their system on a constant basis.
I imagine around £12m is the most we could get
Randy must weep when he sees the money we get back for so many of his purchases
-
Neil Moxley is a great journo, but I don't believe for a moment that we are looking to get that much back. Even taking into account that Randy and Boy Wonder have the football business acumen of my 10 year old son on Fifa13, it's inconceivable that they'd think that Bent is worth that. It we are offered 12m from a club we should leap at the chance.
-
Don't think we'd have a chance of getting that much.
-
Don't think we'd have a chance of getting that much.
12mil.....and not a penny less. I think the Jan sales are going to throw up a few surprises ,not just for us, but all round.
-
How much will we get for the Zog? Two balti pies anybody?
-
How much will we get for the Zog? Two balti pies anybody?
1 very soggy chicken and mushroom, if we are lucky.
-
Of course we won't get £18mil but we're hardly going to let other clubs know we'd accept a lot less. We've got to play the game.
-
Darren Bent is worth £18m of any club's money and if he can score 20 goals in 47 for Villa, and help keep a club in the Premiership like he certainly helped Villa, he would represent good value.
He's only 28 and retains substantial sell-on value.
Obviously Villa are determined to sell him because not only is he being paid £65k a week (£3.38m) according to some sources, he's costing the club at least £4.5m a year in amortisation, depending on what you believe the transfer-fee to be.
Bringing a total of £7.88m.
As we know, Villa's losses over the past few years, have been caused by a combination of a wage bill which represented too high a proportion of turnover and the amortisation (the depreciation of the value of the clubs playing assets). Addressing this has been the main aim of Mr Faulkner and explains why Villa are buying cheaper players and paying lower wages these days.
Darren Bent was obviously a distress purchase which went contrary to the club's general policy.
Anyone understanding this to be true would probably conclude that selling Bent was always the plan and that doing so would represent a fantastic piece of business for the club, assuming the consequences do not involve relegation.
The temptation to sell too cheaply will be hard to avoid because the rewards in terms of improvement in the numbers is so tempting.
If they can get what they paid for him, the amortisations vanishes from the books and the cost of purchasing Bent drops by more than 50%.
If that happens I am sure there will be a certain amount of dancing around the Villa's Chief Executive's office.
How much of those gains will be reinvested remains unknown but it will not be impossible to calculate eventually.
-
I disagree that Bent was a panic purchase because we made first enquiries about him early in the season.
Ergo we weren't really in trouble then but needed a goalscorer. That was still the case when the window opened and we spent a fortune on the best striker we could have feasibly got and paid him lavishly i the process.
Also, I fail to see how selling Bent was ever a means to make money. His price at his age will not represent a profit or even the same money back and paying him around 70k a week doesn't seem all that profitable either.
I think the truth is that Houllier wanted Bent as we needed a top goalscorer and the club went out and made it happen at great expense. Now he doesnt really fit what this manager wants to do and may have to be sold to make room for others. It happens.
Anything else is, with respect, absolute bollocks. In my opinion.
-
I disagree that Bent was a panic purchase because we made first enquiries about him early in the season.
Ergo we weren't really in trouble then but needed a goalscorer. That was still the case when the window opened and we spent a fortune on the best striker we could have feasibly got and paid him lavishly i the process.
Also, I fail to see how selling Bent was ever a means to make money. His price at his age will not represent a profit or even the same money back and paying him around 70k a week doesn't seem all that profitable either.
I think the truth is that Houllier wanted Bent as we needed a top goalscorer and the club went out and made it happen at great expense. Now he doesnt really fit what this manager wants to do and may have to be sold to make room for others. It happens.
Anything else is, with respect, absolute bollocks. In my opinion.
I can't recall suggesting that a profit was possible.
But if you think the words say that it would be pointless to dispute with you.
-
Of course we won't get £18mil but we're hardly going to let other clubs know we'd accept a lot less. We've got to play the game.
True.
QPR may be desperate enough to pay £12m however I don't see anyone else wanting him at that sort of price.
I seriously doubt any of the big clubs would want him nor the rest be able to afford him (or want to pay his fee + wages).
So if QPR are the only team interested and we're clearly looking to sell it doesn't leave us in a great position.
-
So judging by the news, he is now for sale?
-
I disagree that Bent was a panic purchase because we made first enquiries about him early in the season.
Ergo we weren't really in trouble then but needed a goalscorer. That was still the case when the window opened and we spent a fortune on the best striker we could have feasibly got and paid him lavishly i the process.
Also, I fail to see how selling Bent was ever a means to make money. His price at his age will not represent a profit or even the same money back and paying him around 70k a week doesn't seem all that profitable either.
I think the truth is that Houllier wanted Bent as we needed a top goalscorer and the club went out and made it happen at great expense. Now he doesnt really fit what this manager wants to do and may have to be sold to make room for others. It happens.
Anything else is, with respect, absolute bollocks. In my opinion.
I can't recall suggesting that a profit was possible.
But if you think the words say that it would be pointless to dispute with you.
Well, I said profit or the same money back. You were after all suggesting that was a possibilty or even some sort of plan from the begining "if they can get what they paid for him". But if you want to go down the semantics route to avoid the point, that's up to you.
And in any case, I argued that Bent was bought because he was a player we needed and not because of any fears of relegation. Which you have not addressed but instead have chosen a glib reply. Which just tells me your argument is weak.
Shall we try again?
Essentially your argument is:
- Bent was bought to avoid relegation and make some money back like some sort of mercenary on a sale and reurn policy.
No, I disagree and think it far fetched to say the least based on the fact we first approached Sunderland in August when there were no apparent relegation issues and that there were no doubt cheaper options available than one we had to practically double our record outlay for.
We had a new manager, we'd made some money from selling Milner, he wanted to use it to buy some players and we did just that. Circa £30m. That's all there is to it as far as I'm concerned.
And if Bent goes it's Lamberts decision, a footballing decision, not some sort of sinister financial endgame.
-
I disagree that Bent was a panic purchase because we made first enquiries about him early in the season.
Ergo we weren't really in trouble then but needed a goalscorer. That was still the case when the window opened and we spent a fortune on the best striker we could have feasibly got and paid him lavishly i the process.
Also, I fail to see how selling Bent was ever a means to make money. His price at his age will not represent a profit or even the same money back and paying him around 70k a week doesn't seem all that profitable either.
I think the truth is that Houllier wanted Bent as we needed a top goalscorer and the club went out and made it happen at great expense. Now he doesnt really fit what this manager wants to do and may have to be sold to make room for others. It happens.
Anything else is, with respect, absolute bollocks. In my opinion.
I can't recall suggesting that a profit was possible.
But if you think the words say that it would be pointless to dispute with you.
Well, I said profit or the same money back. You were after all suggesting that was a possibilty or even some sort of plan from the begining "if they can get what they paid for him". But if you want to go down the semantics route to avoid the point, that's up to you.
And in any case, I argued that Bent was bought because he was a player we needed and not because of any fears of relegation. Which you have not addressed but instead have chosen a glib reply. Which just tells me your argument is weak.
Shall we try again?
Essentially your argument is:
- Bent was bought to avoid relegation and make some money back like some sort of mercenary on a sale and reurn policy.
No, I disagree and think it far fetched to say the least based on the fact we first approached Sunderland in August when there were no apparent relegation issues and that there were no doubt cheaper options available than one we had to practically double our record outlay for.
We had a new manager, we'd made some money from selling Milner, he wanted to use it to buy some players and we did just that. Circa £30m. That's all there is to it as far as I'm concerned.
And if Bent goes it's Lamberts decision, a footballing decision, not some sort of sinister financial endgame.
You missed this sentence: "Anyone understanding this to be true would probably conclude that selling Bent was always the plan and that doing so would represent a fantastic piece of business for the club, assuming the consequences do not involve relegation."
If you don't think it is true then your conclusions are as reasonable as the opposite conclusion would be, if someone believed it.
It may not be a fact but it is my opinion that Bent was a distress purchase and my argument follows from that.
I don't make any claim that it is a conspiracy, I just say that given Villa's losses, selling would improve the clubs accounts substantially.
The argument merely follows from asking the question Cui bono? (who gains?), which is not an unreasonable starting point when trying to work out why someone might do something.
But of course, if someone thought that there is absolutely no evidence that Faulkner is trying to cut costs, then indeed it would be, as you say, total bollocks.
-
Selling Bent would improve the clubs accounts until the inevitable situation of replacing him arose and would do so immediately. So in essence, it wouldn't. The money would and I believe will be, redistributed towards the squad.
The squad needs strengthening, and so selling those players who don't figure makes perfect sense. If only MON did it sooner, or at all.
And I don't recall saying there was no evidence that Faulkner is trying to cut costs. Clearly it has to or had to be done, such was the extravagant waste of resources under MON. No doubt the board were naive in his lavish backing.
But which is the worse crime, naivety? or willful negligence?
Regarding Bent. If we approached Sunderland to sign him so early in the season (which I know to be the case) how could it have been a distress purchase? Why wasnt it simply a case of going for a player we wanted? Why does Darren Bent = distress?
The fact we signed him in January doesn't mean we approached them in January. In fact that's not even likely given how long deals take to complete, especially very expensive ones.
I've explained "who gained" or more accurately "to whose benefit". Clearly Villa gained the player they wanted and Sunderland gained a price they thought too good to refuse and so also gained. No cui prodest here I think.
-
Selling Bent would improve the clubs accounts until the inevitable situation of replacing him arose and would do so immediately. So in essence, it wouldn't. The money would and I believe will be, redistributed towards the squad.
The squad needs strengthening, and so selling those players who don't figure makes perfect sense. If only MON did it sooner, or at all.
And I don't recall saying there was no evidence that Faulkner is trying to cut costs. Clearly it has to or had to be done, such was the extravagant waste of resources under MON. No doubt the board were naive in his lavish backing.
But which is the worse crime, naivety? or willful negligence?
Regarding Bent. If we approached Sunderland to sign him so early in the season (which I know to be the case) how could it have been a distress purchase? Why wasnt it simply a case of going for a player we wanted? Why does Darren Bent = distress?
The fact we signed him in January doesn't mean we approached them in January. In fact that's not even likely given how long deals take to complete, especially very expensive ones.
I've explained "who gained" or more accurately "to whose benefit". Clearly Villa gained the player they wanted and Sunderland gained a price they thought too good to refuse and so also gained. No cui prodest here I think.
I was saying "who gains" from selling Bent, not "who gained" from his original purchase.
It depends what you think Villa's priorities are.
As I wrote in the original post, we will have to wait a while before we know whether any saving from the sale have been reinvested in the squad.
But I will be amazed if the costs of the squad weren't substantially lower next time the accounts are published.
-
Citing the improvement since Bent has been left out as evidence that Lambert is right to do so is spurious in my opinion. Many of Bent's appearances this season were during the time when Lambert hadn't really hit on a formation that worked. Apart from Swansea at home and Newcastle away, the whole team was misfiring and Lambert's spurning of wingers never played to Bent's strengths anyway. To imply Bent was the main reason for those early struggles, or the heavy defeat at Southampton (in which Benteke also played I believe), doesn't hold water. It reminds me of the time some people tried to claim Cuellar was our best option at right back because we got hammered 7-1 by Chelsea when Luke Young was brought back, as if it was all Young's fault.
Since our general play/results started to improve slightly (and let's face it we're still a long way from convincing), Bent hasn't really been given a chance. There is no evidence to suggest we would revert to general shiteness if he were brought back in.
-
I agree kt - that non argument is doing the rounds a lot lately. Bent may be sold and it may be the right thing in the long run but his lack of contribution so far this season, given his qualities and track record, combined with our paucity of playing resources, is to lambert's discredit, not Bent's.
-
Lambert could be setting up for one hell of a fall with this. He must have a lot of faith in Benteke. Which, is understandable. It's Gabby I'm worried about. If Benteke gets injured after Bent leves then we're fucked.
-
Lambert could be setting up for one hell of a fall with this. He must have a lot of faith in Benteke. Which, is understandable. It's Gabby I'm worried about. If Benteke gets injured after Bent leves then we're fucked.
what if he has a replacement for Bent that will actually be able to contribute?
-
As I fully believe he has. Perhaps two forwards.
-
Is that ITK Maz or a tingling of your spidey sense?
-
Spidey sense all the way.
-
As I fully believe he has. Perhaps two forwards.
Me too, I think we could see Bent leave and three or four really good players coming in. A centre back, a couple of midfielders and a forward.
-
As I fully believe he has. Perhaps two forwards.
Me too, I think we could see Bent leave and three or four really good players coming in. A centre back, a couple of midfielders and a forward.
If that scenario transpires then I think Lambert's decision to sell Bent would have been justified and would have been a good one. It would be similar to the way Big Ron used the money generated by the sale of David Platt to buy Steve Staunton, Garry Parker, Kevin Richardson and Dalian Atkinson.
-
If bent does go and we need the money for new signings then I hope it doesn't drag on through January as we don't want to haggle until the final day and find ourselves out of time in getting a replacement like Liverpool did .
We need to get our targets early in January .
-
We do and Lambert knows it. Inevitably some will drag on longer than you'd wish when all the shysters get involved but Lambert has shown he won't be messed around too much and will have more than one option for each position he wants. It's the smart game.
-
If we do sell Bent I hope the money is re-invested
-
The piece from Neil Moxley making the claim that Bent is for sale, has been removed.
-
I can't see why some can't see us getting decent money for Bent.
There's plenty of teams with money in the Prem who need a proven goalscorer. Bent is the only one seemingly available, let them out bid each other.
-
January is the time to sell as clubs panic and pay silly premiums ?
-
Lambert could be setting up for one hell of a fall with this. He must have a lot of faith in Benteke. Which, is understandable. It's Gabby I'm worried about. If Benteke gets injured after Bent leves then we're fucked.
what if he has a replacement for Bent that will actually be able to contribute?
Then he is doing his job properly.
-
I can't see why some can't see us getting decent money for Bent.
There's plenty of teams with money in the Prem who need a proven goalscorer. Bent is the only one seemingly available, let them out bid each other.
Hope you're right. But going through the PL I'm not so sure:
Manc clubs, Chelsea, Arsenal, Spurs? No.
Liverpool. Maybe but doesn't strike me a a Rogers-style player
Fulham, Baggies? Have plenty of forwards.
Everton? No money
Norwich, Wigan, Swansea? Doubt they have the funds/not their style to spend big anyway
West Ham, Stoke, Newcastle? Dosen't fit a 'direct' style
Sunderland? Ha!
Reading, Southampton? Perhaps
QPR? Yeah, can see that
-
An apology to Aston Villa:
http://www.footballfancast.com/premiership/aston-villa/an-apology-to-aston-villa-football-club
-
Yeah I'm not sure either. That argument applied equally when we bought him but no one was interested in coming to the table then.
-
An apology to Aston Villa:
http://www.footballfancast.com/premiership/aston-villa/an-apology-to-aston-villa-football-club (http://www.footballfancast.com/premiership/aston-villa/an-apology-to-aston-villa-football-club)
Still on the ESPN site (http://soccernet.espn.go.com/news/story/_/id/1253227?cc=5739#), but seems to have been removed everywhere else.
Villa want £18m for Bent
December 6, 2012
Ian Edwards
Paul Lambert is ready to sell Darren Bent in the January transfer window - but Aston Villa will demand £18 million in a bid to recover most of the money they paid Sunderland for the England striker.
Bent has been out of Lambert’s plans for most of the season and owner Randy Lerner appears ready to sanction the sale of the 29-year-old next month in a bid to bring a conclusion to the stand-off between the pair.
Villa made Sunderland an initial £18 million down payment on the striker in January 2011 and are understood to have paid a further £3 million in add-ons, with another £3 million payment still outstanding on the deal.
It was initially thought Villa would be prepared to listen to offers of around £10 million for Bent, but ESPN sources have confirmed the club are determined to recoup most of the original £18 million fee, which could leave Bent in limbo at Villa Park.
“Villa would be willing to sell, but they are not prepared to do any kind of cheap deal,” the source said. “The figure they have in mind is the £18 million they paid for the player.”
Villa received a number of tentative enquiries for Bent in the summer, believed to be from Liverpool and Queens Park Rangers, but there were no formal offers.
New QPR manager Harry Redknapp has made no secret of his admiration for the player, who has a scoring record of a goal almost every two games in the Premier League, but the Hoops are unlikely to be able to meet Villa’s valuation.
Bent remains out of favour under Lambert, with the Scot preferring to operate with £7 million summer signing Christian Benteke. Bent was left out of Villa’s four previous squads before returning to the bench for last weekend’s draw with QPR at Loftus Road.
-
I can't see why some can't see us getting decent money for Bent.
There's plenty of teams with money in the Prem who need a proven goalscorer. Bent is the only one seemingly available, let them out bid each other.
Villa need a proven scorer perhaps we should bid for him!
-
West Ham, Stoke, Newcastle? Dosen't fit a 'direct' style
Who Bent? I'd say he absolutely suits a direct style. It what he thrived under with Sunderland and Charlton.
Besides I think nearly everyone would agree that the weaker elements of his games are his linking and involved in general play rather than the smash, bang, wallop of putting chances away.
-
I can only see him going to Newcastle as a replacement for Ba.
-
Is there any big European club need a quality striker and we could do a deal with them for 2 quality players and maybe small fee for Bent. Such as Valencia or Dortsmund or Seville for example.
-
Crikey
Chasing web sites around for posting transfer gossip that isn't true? That's a great big can of worms to open.
-
Lambert is sending out a clear message that he believes Bent is not good enough for our below par side, yet it's believed he wants £18m for him. Confusing.
-
I can't see why some can't see us getting decent money for Bent.
There's plenty of teams with money in the Prem who need a proven goalscorer. Bent is the only one seemingly available, let them out bid each other.
Villa need a proven scorer perhaps we should bid for him!
100 % agree.
-
Lambert is sending out a clear message that he believes Bent is not good enough for our below par side, yet it's believed he wants £18m for him. Confusing.
Not quite though. The article says the club want £18m for him not Lambert. I reckon (pure speculation) that Lambert would happily let him go for £10-12m if he was allowed all the funds.
-
It's bloody depressing that we're looking to get rid of him given the precarious situation we're in. But I'm actually boring myself saying it,so whatever :(
-
Lambert is sending out a clear message that he believes Bent is not good enough for our below par side, yet it's believed he wants £18m for him. Confusing.
I don't think football is ever as black and white as that. He just doesn't fit into what Lambert wants.
I see no reason why we can't get a decent fee for him. We've no chance of getting back what we paid, but 12-15 mill isn't unrealistic. Plus it would seem (but you never no), that we're financially stable again. If no one stumps up the cash, then we keep hold of him till the summer window and try again. Better to take a lower fee then than in January. We sell on our terms this window or not at all.
If Bent's still here on Feb 1st, then it's down to him to work his bollocks off and force himself back into the side, and make sure he's got plenty of potential suitors come the summer window.
Lamberts playing a very dangerous game, but I do appreciate the ballsiness. It's a gamble, but I'll take that over how godawful we were under McLeish. We were just resigned to everything. No fight, no determination. We never went out to win games. It was pathetic.
-
I think one of the reasons Lambert dropped Bent a couple of weeks back was to make sure that, by the time the window opens, we'd all be so bored to tears by talking or thinking about the situation, nobody would complain when we sold him.
We'd just be glad it was over.
-
I've read a lot of theories on this thread as to what's happening with Bent and why he's not playing / going to be sold. He's shagged his team mates wife, he's disruptive, Villa don't want to pay any further money to Sunderland. I honestly think it's because Daren Bent is a one-dimensional player who is very, very effective in a certain type of team (not us anymore) and he is most saleable asset and we need experienced players in key roles so need the money from his sae to balance the books. Of course, that's just my opinion but it does seem the most obvious one.
It says much about what we've put up with over the past couple of years that we need to put the whole thing under the microscope so much.
-
I've read a lot of theories on this thread as to what's happening with Bent and why he's not playing / going to be sold. He's shagged his team mates wife, he's disruptive, Villa don't want to pay any further money to Sunderland. I honestly think it's because Daren Bent is a one-dimensional player who is very, very effective in a certain type of team (not us anymore) and he is most saleable asset and we need experienced players in key roles so need the money from his sae to balance the books. Of course, that's just my opinion but it does seem the most obvious one.
It says much about what we've put up with over the past couple of years that we need to put the whole thing under the microscope so much.
Agree totally but it doesn't account for Bent not even making a bench of 7.
That is what has caused the rampant speculation.
-
I've read a lot of theories on this thread as to what's happening with Bent and why he's not playing / going to be sold. He's shagged his team mates wife, he's disruptive, Villa don't want to pay any further money to Sunderland. I honestly think it's because Daren Bent is a one-dimensional player who is very, very effective in a certain type of team (not us anymore) and he is most saleable asset and we need experienced players in key roles so need the money from his sae to balance the books. Of course, that's just my opinion but it does seem the most obvious one.
It says much about what we've put up with over the past couple of years that we need to put the whole thing under the microscope so much.
Agree totally but it doesn't account for Bent not even making a bench of 7.
That is what has caused the rampant speculation.
Yeah but let's say he plays, ineffectively in a team not suited to his talents, gets injured and we can't rebuild? Is it worth the risk?
-
I've read a lot of theories on this thread as to what's happening with Bent and why he's not playing / going to be sold. He's shagged his team mates wife, he's disruptive, Villa don't want to pay any further money to Sunderland. I honestly think it's because Daren Bent is a one-dimensional player who is very, very effective in a certain type of team (not us anymore) and he is most saleable asset and we need experienced players in key roles so need the money from his sae to balance the books. Of course, that's just my opinion but it does seem the most obvious one.
It says much about what we've put up with over the past couple of years that we need to put the whole thing under the microscope so much.
Agree totally but it doesn't account for Bent not even making a bench of 7.
That is what has caused the rampant speculation.
Yep, entirely agree.
It's easy to see reasons for not starting Bent, but not having him on the bench when our squad is so short of goals and experience is the clincher that says something (whatever it is) more is going on in the background.
-
I've read a lot of theories on this thread as to what's happening with Bent and why he's not playing / going to be sold. He's shagged his team mates wife, he's disruptive, Villa don't want to pay any further money to Sunderland. I honestly think it's because Daren Bent is a one-dimensional player who is very, very effective in a certain type of team (not us anymore) and he is most saleable asset and we need experienced players in key roles so need the money from his sae to balance the books. Of course, that's just my opinion but it does seem the most obvious one.
It says much about what we've put up with over the past couple of years that we need to put the whole thing under the microscope so much.
Is it fact or rumour that he shagged a team mates wife ?
If it is fact then he should be shown the door without any doubt.
Who was the team mate in question ?
-
I've read a lot of theories on this thread as to what's happening with Bent and why he's not playing / going to be sold. He's shagged his team mates wife, he's disruptive, Villa don't want to pay any further money to Sunderland. I honestly think it's because Daren Bent is a one-dimensional player who is very, very effective in a certain type of team (not us anymore) and he is most saleable asset and we need experienced players in key roles so need the money from his sae to balance the books. Of course, that's just my opinion but it does seem the most obvious one.
It says much about what we've put up with over the past couple of years that we need to put the whole thing under the microscope so much.
Is it fact or rumour that he shagged a team mates wife ?
If it is fact then he should be shown the door without any doubt.
Who was the team mate in question ?
Chris Herd was mentioned, but it was rubbish. The photo of Bent with her was taken at a photo shoot the year before.
I heard a rumour about Holman, but I reckon that's just shit too.
-
So the shagging thing is just hearsay really.
This whole Bent thing should be moved to the conspiracy thread, it is turning into one more and more. I wish somebody from the club would just come out and tell us what is going on.
-
I've read a lot of theories on this thread as to what's happening with Bent and why he's not playing / going to be sold. He's shagged his team mates wife, he's disruptive, Villa don't want to pay any further money to Sunderland. I honestly think it's because Daren Bent is a one-dimensional player who is very, very effective in a certain type of team (not us anymore) and he is most saleable asset and we need experienced players in key roles so need the money from his sae to balance the books. Of course, that's just my opinion but it does seem the most obvious one.
It says much about what we've put up with over the past couple of years that we need to put the whole thing under the microscope so much.
Agree totally but it doesn't account for Bent not even making a bench of 7.
That is what has caused the rampant speculation.
Yep, entirely agree.
It's easy to see reasons for not starting Bent, but not having him on the bench when our squad is so short of goals and experience is the clincher that says something (whatever it is) more is going on in the background.
I agree. There are a couple of quotes I've seen that make me put two and two together and make five but nevertheless. One quote about Benteke "I think he (Benteke) has really good manners and he's really humble which is a great thing for a footballer," which i saw on 442 and the one was about attitude in training thats appeared in several places that Lambert had to then go on and deny was directed at Bent. I'm speculating that there has been some kind of bust up and Lambert's waiting for an apology or change of attitude from Bent.
I also think Lambert's answers to the press are often open to interpretation which encourages media interest. I suppose Lamberts under more scrutiny now than at any point in his career so he does need to be more effective with the media - not necessarily being matey with them but giving clearer and more concise answers.
-
I think he's handled the situation really well.
It's nobody else's business.
-
I think he's handled the situation really well.
It's nobody else's business.
Nobody knows what the real issue is, so how you can judge that he's handled it well is baffling. All he's done is drop Bent for reasons unknown.
-
Well, he keeps explaining it but people choose not to believe it.
Maybe he should just make something up that people will fall for.
-
I think he's handled the situation really well.
It's nobody else's business.
Nobody knows what the real issue is, so how you can judge that he's handled it well is baffling. All he's done is drop Bent for reasons unknown.
And those reasons are nobody else's business.
-
Well, he keeps explaining it but people choose not to believe it.
Maybe he should just make something up that people will fall for.
Maybe he's just not telling the plain facts because, well, it should be kept behind doors and not aired in public?
Ultimately, so long as he's doing what he thinks is best, fair enough to the bloke.
-
Also he probably doesn't want to put off potential suitors by saying he's unprofessional,bad influence on dressing room(if this is the case.) No need to de-value the player.
-
We barely score, we barely win. We barely look threatening
Isn't it obvious why we don't play our record signing, and best striker of over a decade ?
-
It'll be interesting to see if he keeps his place on the bench tomorrow.
I would'nt even think about selling him until at least the end of the season.
-
I would'nt even think about selling him until at least the end of the season.
And have the same debate and situation going on for the rest of the season? I would be very surprised if there wasn't some sort of conclusion next month.
-
Surely someone has heard a whisper somewhere of what the issue is?
-
He is a square peg and our team has a round hole. When he played we didn't do all that well, now he's out there are signs of improvement. I can't see why anyone would want him playing, we would only regress.
-
I would'nt even think about selling him until at least the end of the season.
And have the same debate and situation going on for the rest of the season? I would be very surprised if there wasn't some sort of conclusion next month.
There's a situation and debate because he's a very expensive and very good goalscorer who can't even get on the bench a lot of the time. There'll be rumours about Benteke being next once Bent has gone so it's something we'll have to get used to.
-
Well, he keeps explaining it but people choose not to believe it.
Maybe he should just make something up that people will fall for.
Maybe he's just not telling the plain facts because, well, it should be kept behind doors and not aired in public?
Ultimately, so long as he's doing what he thinks is best, fair enough to the bloke.
Spot on paulie.
-
Realistically, if we get offers for Bent they're likely to be from our reasonably wealthy relegation threatened rivals, ie QPR or Sunderland. It would be extremely risky selling to one of them, whatever they offered.
-
Realistically, if we get offers for Bent they're likely to be from our reasonably wealthy relegation threatened rivals, ie QPR or Sunderland. It would be extremely risky selling to one of them, whatever they offered.
I think there's more chance of Bent signing for my seven-a-side team than him going back to Sunderland.
-
The Bent bashers won't be glad to hear that according to today's Times, Darren has a place in the top 20 Premiership players of the decade, based upon statistical analysis.
Drogba does not.
-
The Bent bashers won't be glad to hear that according to today's Times, Darren has a place in the top 20 Premiership players of the decade, based upon statistical analysis.
Drogba does not.
You don't need stats to know Drogba has been a better player than Bent.
As for these Bent bashers? Do they post on another website? What do they say?
-
The Bent bashers won't be glad to hear that according to today's Times, Darren has a place in the top 20 Premiership players of the decade, based upon statistical analysis.
Drogba does not.
If ever there were a time to whip out 'Lied, damned lies and...', then this is it.
-
The Bent bashers won't be glad to hear that according to today's Times, Darren has a place in the top 20 Premiership players of the decade, based upon statistical analysis.
Drogba does not.
Brilliant. I bet Drogba struggles to sleep at night wishing he was as good statistically as Darren Bent. I bet he'd give up every penny of that £800k he spent on Champion's League winner rings for his team mates and the many medals he's won to have had the career of Darren Bent.
-
So we're all narrative changing revisionists and Bent bashers (errrrm...). I also don't give to charity. Where's the General's thread?I needto bring down Mammon.
-
hope to see him get some game action today. going to be a tight game of few chances. dont think the direct ball to benteke will work at all. maybe bent to come in the second half and sniff out a goal like he did v west brom
-
So he came on and....??
-
Touched the ball 3 times in 28 minutes
-
Touched the ball 3 times in 28 minutes
Mainly as a result of the massive holman shaped hole that Ireland completely and utterly failed to fill.
-
Not his fault at not getting much attention. Think we'd come to a dead end by that point and Stoke had been Stoke for far too long.
In this formation, I can see him playing, but he & Benteke must put the effort in all the time to put pressure on when we don't have the ball.
-
The Bent bashers won't be glad to hear that according to today's Times, Darren has a place in the top 20 Premiership players of the decade, based upon statistical analysis.
Drogba does not.
If ever there were a time to whip out 'Lied, damned lies and...', then this is it.
It seems likely that The Times knew exactly what they were doing when they wrote the sentence about Bent and Drogba.
They were obviously trying to entice people to sign up to The Times site to find out what were the parameters which produced such a surprising result.
But if I were to guess based on their previous output, I would say that their parameters probably are based on how many points a player adds to his team and the difference between when he plays and when he doesn't.
So if Bent has played for teams who have heavily relied on him to score their goals (Charlton, Sunderland, Villa) then that would be the outcome.
Chelsea having more than one good striker to call upon would be less dependent on Drogba's goals and would miss him less when he was out of the team, so the value he added to the team would be less.
Such a method would produce the outcome they mention.
-
Doesn't work with the way we play under Lambert. He had an opportunity to stake a claim on a place today and then was, at best, anonymous. Get the cash for him and move on. At the right team he will be very very successful but it won't be us.
-
Touched the ball 3 times in 28 minutes
Mainly as a result of the massive holman shaped hole that Ireland completely and utterly failed to fill.
Agreed. Holman going off was a bad move, imv.
-
Reckon he'll play either Tuesday or at Anfield.
-
Bent wouldn't be the first big money and talented player to find himself not being able to make an impact because his game didn't happen to fit his manager's style of play.
There are countless examples of this. Bent suits a certain style. That's why we fans are even able to rule out certain potential transfer destinations because we know he wouldn't fit that team's style.
He has looked out of place under both TSM and PL. Under Houllier we were set up perfectly to utilise his strengths, that's why we splashed that cash. Times have changed and these days we actually look less likely to score with him in the side.
-
As soon as he came on we lost shape and stoke came info the game more, not Bent bashing either
-
As soon as he came on we lost shape and stoke came info the game more, not Bent bashing either
I agree, apart from the not Bent bashing bit *winky thing*.
It does look more like not fitting into the system more than anything, but he doesn't help himself. He just doesn't do anything in particular outside of the box, and that fundamentally limits our ability to create the type of chance he thinks his job is to convert. It just doesn't go.
-
totally ineffective within our style of play. he doesnt fit, he was a total spectator for the half hour he was on the pitch. i feel this may have been his epitaph. if lambert wants him out then he will show any doubters this half hour of football.
-
Unless we get some more width Bent is surplus, Gabby and Benteke are not on the same page on yesterdays evidence so I'd have another go with Weimann and Benteke.
Either Lambert is; a) playing him to show everyone that he doesn't fit our system and try and subdue the media pressure b) realises that with only a couple of games till the transfer window opens he won't reach 50 league starts to trigger the Sunderland payment so won't cost us anything before he leaves or c) the hatchet has been buried and we'll play a different formation for the goal machine to start the next game. If I was on million pound drop I'd be looking at splitting between A and B, if Benty is still here in January I'll be amazed.
-
.
-
Touched the ball 3 times in 28 minutes
Mainly as a result of the massive holman shaped hole that Ireland completely and utterly failed to fill.
Agreed. Holman going off was a bad move, imv.
Yes it was. The thing is next week at Liverpool is more suited for Bent and Ireland and he'll probably leave them both on the bench.
-
I agree Liverpool may be suited for Ireland. But I don't agree on Bent. Liverpool will have lots of the ball, we need to keep it when we get it.
Interesting to see what Lambert does against Norwich. I imagine he'll keep a pretty strong side.
-
I'm not entirely sure right now, which games would suit Ireland. He continues to disappear in games. We do seriously need an inspired midfield signing. I think goals from midfield is our biggest problem. We need to take the pressure of Benteke, Weimann and Gabby. A strong signing in defence, midfield and attack is still required, but I think we'll be fine.
As for Bent. How much of it was his fault I don't know, but for me, 3 touches in half an hour isn't good enough at this level. Our shape went a little. I don't put it so much on Ireland, despite him being something of a ghost out there, where Holmans non stop industry had previously been.
For me a big reason we faded a little, and also why Benteke faded somewhat when Bent came on, was because Gabby had gone off. Say what you will about the frustrating sides of his game. He's also running, working, getting on the ball. Where Bent did little more than float around waiting, Gabby was all over the place, coming for the ball. Benteke does this too. If the ball doesn't come to him in a while, he comes for it.
In my opinion, and looking at the majority of top teams in the world, and most of the top flight clubs. A striker like Bent is dying out in this game. Front man have to be much more involved these days. Fergie recognized this when RVN was becoming less effective. Okay Hernandez is something of the old fashioned goal hanging poacher, but he works hard with it and gets involved in the build up. Bad example as we're a million miles from comparison, but Barcelona have forwards who can all play, drop deep, have an impact on games. They'd never ever carry a player who has 10 touches a game. No forward thinking, 21st century club, with any sort of ambition would IMO.
Bent did save our necks. Fair enough. But if we want to progress, as Lambert is trying, then a different breed of striker is required, or of Darren Bent has to adapt. There's a few clubs who could probably carry him left in the Prem. Funnily enough, he could have joy at Stoke playing off one of their behemoths. They don't have much in the way of intricate build up.
In our position too, the last thing we need is playing large chunks with 10 men. Bent will leave. Good luck to him but he's not for us right now. The way we want to play just can't carry him because the catch 22 is, that by him staying on the peripheral of a game, waiting for his chance, makes the build up to create those chances, that bit harder.
I'm firmly in the Lambert camp on this one. Tis the future.
-
Strikers like bent are definitely dying out. 100% agree
-
I think that people are over-complicating this 'Bent doesn't fit in with Lambert's style' thing. Bent simply does well in teams that create chances, ie he scores them. We don't create chances.
-
I have got to go on instinct on this as I have not seen too much football this season. What my conclusion is I have more faith in Lambert than I do in Bent.
Sometimes you have to ask why Bent has never cut it in the long scheme of things at a club. Harry obviously felt Spurs were better without him even though his goals ratio was pretty good. He did save us a couple years ago, so thank you, but time to move him on.
-
I think that people are over-complicating this 'Bent doesn't fit in with Lambert's style' thing. Bent simply does well in teams that create chances, ie he scores them. We don't create chances.
But Benteke seems to get chances. Why is that?
-
Benteke makes chances by destabilising defences Bent waits for chances to fall in his lap.
-
Strikers like bent are definitely dying out. 100% agree
Hmmmm... I wonder if Gerd Muller will still score 85 in a season now days?
-
You have to be a bit of a star player to be significant enough that people debate whether it's you at fault for not performing or the style of the whole team.
Presently we don't have many obvious options to choose from in terms of playing in a different way. The team is full of kids, some with little experience at this level. Our team looks a bit like a newly promoted squad in terms of quality, and we're about where you'd expect one of them to be in the league.
In such a situation I am looking for the senior players to step up. I want them to take responsibility and do things for the good of the team even if it might take something away from what they are best at. The younger players need their help.
Not all players are going to be arsed, I understand that. Great players will be though. Good professionals will be.
Darren Bent cost us £18m+. I think it's reasonable to expect that at least he might try and get the fucking ball.
-
Bent needs traditional wingers to feed off, Lambert says the games changed and we use wing backs, simple as, what did suprise me is that he bought Bent on at all although he does have to advertise him i suppose. What stood out for me was the lack of midfield support in their penalty box, if you leave Benteke one out all the time we will never score and what happens should he get injured? we seem to be over relient on the twenty one year old, he has done well but he shouldn't have to carry the forward line.
-
I think Lambert will bring in some wingers to create more chances in January. And if we can add some strength and creativity in the middle of the park. Bent could be become a major part of next years battle to stay in the prem .......
-
Strikers like bent are definitely dying out. 100% agree
Hmmmm... I wonder if Gerd Muller will still score 85 in a season now days?
I think Muller himself said he probably wouldn't.
The point is, football evolves, not progresses. Tactics change to suit the times they live in, especially from steps forward in player preparation. Bent's type of forward may come back one day as a solution to some problem which hasn't come up yet, but the way the game is at the moment pretty much squeezes his type of player out.
-
.
-
Strikers like bent are definitely dying out. 100% agree
Hmmmm... I wonder if Gerd Muller will still score 85 in a season now days?
I think Muller himself said he probably wouldn't.
The point is, football evolves, not progresses. Tactics change to suit the times they live in, especially from steps forward in player preparation. Bent's type of forward may come back one day as a solution to some problem which hasn't come up yet, but the way the game is at the moment pretty much squeezes his type of player out.
I don't agree with that at all. He's a great goal scorer as his record over the last few years shows.
-
Strikers like bent are definitely dying out. 100% agree
Hmmmm... I wonder if Gerd Muller will still score 85 in a season now days?
I think Muller himself said he probably wouldn't.
The point is, football evolves, not progresses. Tactics change to suit the times they live in, especially from steps forward in player preparation. Bent's type of forward may come back one day as a solution to some problem which hasn't come up yet, but the way the game is at the moment pretty much squeezes his type of player out.
I don't agree with that at all. He's a great goal scorer as his record over the last few years shows.
His spell at Spurs was really interesting. When he played more and scored more, the number of goals scored by the team as a whole went down. There's a type of system he can play in but it's becoming less and less common - I'd say about two or three out of the whole league play it.
Someone on p. 56 mentioned that it's funny Benteke gets chances and doesn't necessarily score all of them, but when Bent's on 'the service is terrible'. Bent coming on on Saturday made us less likely to score. I don't want him on the pitch if building the side around him scoring prevents the team as a whole creating chances.
-
It's for very similar reasons that Michael Owen never fulfilled his potential an arsenal won the league with Christopher wreh up front after years if getting nowhere near with Ian wright. You have to play these guys with a partner to do all of the hold up / running into channels stuff. And that has a whole host of other consequences for the way the rest of the team is set up.
-
His spell at Spurs was really interesting. When he played more and scored more, the number of goals scored by the team as a whole went down.
Is that interesting because it shows Bent is bad for a team, or is it not that interesting because it just shows that an on-form Berbatov and 29 year old Robbie Keane are better for the team? If we had that at the moment I imagine the stats would back up the fact that he shouldn't be playing.
I'm pretty certain that if he's not been in the team at Sunderland that Kenwyne Jones and Frazier Campbell wouldn't have scored more. Ditto at Charlton when Kevin Lisbie and Marcus Bent probably wouldn't have done much better had Bent not played.
And I think our 'goals scored' column at the moment suggests that although the team might be running around a bit more and passing it around the centre-circle better, we're not really showing any signs of scoring many goals while he is out of the team.
-
His spell at Spurs was really interesting. When he played more and scored more, the number of goals scored by the team as a whole went down.
Is that interesting because it shows Bent is bad for a team, or is it not that interesting because it just shows that an on-form Berbatov and 29 year old Robbie Keane are better for the team?
I'm pretty certain that if he's not been in the team at Sunderland that Kenwyne Jones and Frazier Campbell wouldn't have scored more. And I think our 'goals scored' column suggests that although the team might be running around a bit more and passing it around the centre-circle a bit more, we're not really showing any signs of scoring many goals while he is out of the team.
This is where it gets subjective, but I remember that Spurs team looking pretty flat and unimaginative when he was playing. At the time I put it down to the absence of those two, agreed, but that in itself tells a story - Berbatov is a unique player in his own way, but Bent does nowhere near the work of Robbie Keane off the ball, even of Jermaine Defoe, nor does he move into space outside of the box to help out his midfield.
That passing around the centre circle problem you mention is not helped by Bent coming on and giving zero options to the midfielders in possession. Saturday for m was a case in point - we created precious little with him off the field, with him on the field we created nothing at all as we lost Gabby making himself available outside the box. What we need to improve on is the Ireland/Gabby/Weimann/Holman position (or positions in the 4-2-3-1), because Bent standing around upfield doesn't really help much.
-
It's for very similar reasons that Michael Owen never fulfilled his potential an arsenal won the league with Christopher wreh up front after years if getting nowhere near with Ian wright. You have to play these guys with a partner to do all of the hold up / running into channels stuff. And that has a whole host of other consequences for the way the rest of the team is set up.
When Arsenal won the league in 97/98, Ian Wright scored 10 goals in 24 games. Wreh scored 3 in 9. Arsenal's rise owed more to Wenger and Bergkamp.
-
Make the most of it because Bent is going. Nothing we can do about it. Ta ta.
-
re Berbatov, i saw an infographic in (I think) the Guardian the other day which showed Berbatov's involvement with the game for whoever Fulham had just played, and it was extraordinary. He was everywhere.
-
re Berbatov, i saw an infographic in (I think) the Guardian the other day which showed Berbatov's involvement with the game for whoever Fulham had just played, and it was extraordinary. He was everywhere.
I love Berbatov. I don't know if there's a single (non-Villa) Premier League player I enjoy watching more.
-
There was apparently an outcry when Ramsey dropped Greaves for Hurst prior to the 1966 World Cup. Closer to home Peter Withe was seen as a huge step down after Andy Grey. In both cases, the managers were proved correct as the team were better without the more highly regarded individuals.
Time will tell with Bent but Lambert clearly isn't going to disrupt the development of the way he wants us to play to accommodate him.
-
Time will tell with Bent but Lambert clearly isn't going to disrupt the development of the way he wants us to play to accommodate him.
Well said. The rest of the team is too weak to build it around a lazy player like Bent. In a couple of years time, with the addition of a few decent players, we will be up there with the best of them.
-
We have scored 12 goals in 16 league games; at this moment in time our system (that Bent is apparently unable to fit into) is not really working is it?
Lots of hard work, lots of endeavour but no cutting edge and very few chances created is reason enough to at least persevere with Bent on the bench until we are safe
If Lambert wants to move him on in the summer then fair play, he's the boss but 7 or 8 goals from Bent off the bench (or in the team) can at the very least help us stay up
-
It will be interesting if Bent and Benteke start together tomorrow.
-
Make the most of it because Bent is going. Nothing we can do about it. Ta ta.
That's what I've heard. He is choosing between QPR and Newcastle apparently.
-
Time will tell with Bent but Lambert clearly isn't going to disrupt the development of the way he wants us to play to accommodate him.
Well said. The rest of the team is too weak to build it around a lazy player like Bent. In a couple of years time, with the addition of a few decent players, we will be up there with the best of them.
I think it will be a lot longer than 2 years before we are up there with the best of them, top 8 maybe as good as it will get by then , but although we have bought some really good players in Westwood, benteke, Lowton the fear is that once they get really established then one of the so called big 4 will snap them up and we will sell.
-
Time will tell with Bent but Lambert clearly isn't going to disrupt the development of the way he wants us to play to accommodate him.
Well said. The rest of the team is too weak to build it around a lazy player like Bent. In a couple of years time, with the addition of a few decent players, we will be up there with the best of them.
I think it will be a lot longer than 2 years before we are up there with the best of them, top 8 maybe as good as it will get by then , but although we have bought some really good players in Westwood, benteke, Lowton the fear is that once they get really established then one of the so called big 4 will snap them up and we will sell.
The hope is though that we buy 1-2 of them in every window, as well as replacing any that do leave. As I've said before it's all down to a strong scouting network. Our current side is very reliant on Benteke as a focal point for the team, if our scouting system is working as I expect Lambert wants it too we'll be looking all over the world for similar players and building a portfolio of replacements so, if he does leave we can sign a replacement within days and then use the profit to build the squad up.
-
What we need to improve on is the Ireland/Gabby/Weimann/Holman position (or positions in the 4-2-3-1), because Bent standing around upfield doesn't really help much.
This is bang on: we created some chances on Saturday - as we did against the Arse - but none of them were nailed-on goalscoring opportunities. Although we should have won both games, and the press reports generally had us as the likely winners, we were not 'robbed'.
We need players in the '3' who can conssitently make the killer pass, make the run ahead of the lone striker and be able to beat their man with the ball.
We are, I think, close to this but not quite yet.
-
There were plenty on here using the subs appearances on Saturday as proof positive that there's no room for Bent or Ireland in Lambert's system. I don't think the facts necessarily bear that out. Our big problems are creativity and cutting edge. My take on that is that Lambert is willing to sacrifice those aspects to an extent for the time being in order to make us more solid and hard to beat.
But at some stage we’re going to need to add the creativity and cutting edge to the mix, and I think we will need both Ireland and Bent. For all the talk about the pair of them not fitting into Lambert’s system, Bent is still our joint second top PL scorer (despite hardly playing for 12 games), with only one fewer than Benteke, and is sitting on the bench (sometimes) with our other joint second top scorer, Weimann. Some of our better attacking performances (Newcastle, Swansea, Man Yoo, Sunderland) have featured Ireland linking play very nicely. Bent started in the first two, with no apparent defensive calamities ensuing, for which he seemed to attract an awful lot of blame at Southampton, despite Vlaar, Lowton, Westwood, Clark and a few other all being abysmal that day. And I recall plenty of creative attacking play in those games. I recall Bent was also fairly heavily involved in both games, yet he is accused of standing around waiting for chances on a plate. Weimann also started in all four of the games mentioned
For me, those games demonstrate that both Ireland and Bent can play under Lambert, and they add to our creativity and cutting edge when they do so. I think with Bent it’s that Lambert only wants to play with one up front so it’s either Bent or Benteke, and Lambert seems to prefer a big, target man type up front.
With Ireland, and to an extent Weimann, I think Lambert prefers the perceived extra work rate and solidity provided by Holman and Gabby. For the moment. I think it’s premature to write anyone off simply because they are not first choice at the moment, because I think Lambert will use all his squad at various stages of the season. But to say neither Bent or Ireland can fit into Lambert’s system is cobblers, in my humble opinion. It's a bit dull at the moment but maybe the flashy bits will come later. I think it would be a mistake to write off Bent and Ireland on the basis that they may not be the best fit for this - hopefully temporary - defeat-avoidance philosophy.
-
We're the lowest scorers in the Premier League and we need to start scoring goals. If Lambert had anything about him, he'd find a system that utilised the respective strengths of Bent and Ireland in conjunction with Benteke. Most teams in the bottom half would snap our hands off for Darren Bent, and while we've shown slight signs of improvement, we're still far too close to the bottom three for comfort. The time to start laying down the law, if that's what he's doing is when we've got enough points on the board that we feel safe.
-
KTV, I think you're right about Ireland, but we visibly looked less threatening, in my view, as a result of Bent being on the pitch. The sheer lack of movement outside the penalty area when Gabby was off and Bent on was alarming and obvious, and not alleviated by Ireland's hard work to link up midfield and attack.
For me, Bent isn't the type of player who fits well into a front-foot attacking side. He's a counter-attacking player, who does well in low-scoring defend-and-break sides who play pace 'n' space wingers. Think of MON's style, he'd fit into that perfectly: 4-4-2, two deep midfielders capable of springing an out-ball for two pacey wingers, or to find a target man forward who could draw defenders' attention away from Bent. In this style, the fact that he tends to hog the goal stats for his teams can be seen as a virtue - who needs many different scorers if you're winning 1-0 away from home?
However, when you're looking to play your way through teams - as you always will have to at some point, especially at home where very few will come and attack you - Bent is next to useless. There's very little space for him to find in the penalty area, he doesn't have the touch or creativity to help craft chances for himself or others and he doesn't provide a threat from shooting outside the box. When he's in the team, it's quite clear that we lack spark, creativity and off-the-ball movement even more than usual.
There's a natural tendency when a team isn't scoring goals to look at the striker options. However, that often misses the point, as a team of 11 Gerd Mullers probably wouldn't score very many as nobody is creating the chances in the first place. These days, the predominance of one up front means the striker has to contribute more to the build up play in order to help the creative and goal-scoring midfielders. Benteke is clearly the better option for this - it's behind him we need to improve, and taking out one player behind the striker in order to have one hang redundantly around him won't solve anything.
-
Make the most of it because Bent is going. Nothing we can do about it. Ta ta.
That's what I've heard. He is choosing between QPR and Newcastle apparently.
QPR then , London , more money and he did play for Sunderland , so the topless magpies wont warm to him.
-
. Our big problems are creativity and cutting edge.
thats the one
-
KTV, I think you're right about Ireland, but we visibly looked less threatening, in my view, as a result of Bent being on the pitch. The sheer lack of movement outside the penalty area when Gabby was off and Bent on was alarming and obvious, and not alleviated by Ireland's hard work to link up midfield and attack.
For me, Bent isn't the type of player who fits well into a front-foot attacking side. He's a counter-attacking player, who does well in low-scoring defend-and-break sides who play pace 'n' space wingers. Think of MON's style, he'd fit into that perfectly: 4-4-2, two deep midfielders capable of springing an out-ball for two pacey wingers, or to find a target man forward who could draw defenders' attention away from Bent. In this style, the fact that he tends to hog the goal stats for his teams can be seen as a virtue - who needs many different scorers if you're winning 1-0 away from home?
However, when you're looking to play your way through teams - as you always will have to at some point, especially at home where very few will come and attack you - Bent is next to useless. There's very little space for him to find in the penalty area, he doesn't have the touch or creativity to help craft chances for himself or others and he doesn't provide a threat from shooting outside the box. When he's in the team, it's quite clear that we lack spark, creativity and off-the-ball movement even more than usual.
There's a natural tendency when a team isn't scoring goals to look at the striker options. However, that often misses the point, as a team of 11 Gerd Mullers probably wouldn't score very many as nobody is creating the chances in the first place. These days, the predominance of one up front means the striker has to contribute more to the build up play in order to help the creative and goal-scoring midfielders. Benteke is clearly the better option for this - it's behind him we need to improve, and taking out one player behind the striker in order to have one hang redundantly around him won't solve anything.
Very well put.
I think Bent was dropped due to tactical reasons, mainly being our lack of width, and it's his reaction to this that has kept him out since. However, that tactical issue still remains and having a goal hanger with little overall contribution simply does not fit into our pattern of play.
-
They were talking about Falco last night and saying he just hangs on the last defender waiting for the through ball. Bit like Bent I suppose.
would we turn Falco down ? no but whats the point in having him with the system we play .
I would not mind Bent not playing If we were scoring goals , we will have to just wait until January and see what happens.
-
Falcao doesn't just do that though. Falcao does that when his team are defending so he can break away on the counterattack, but when they're attacking he joins in as much as anyone. He can also score from just about anywhere on the pitch. Falcao is not a goal-hanger, he's an unbelievable all-round forward, and comparisons with Bent are totally erroneous.
-
The 6 games Bent started this season we took 4 points, 0.66 points per game. The 10 games he didn't start we've taken 11 points, 1.1 points per game.
Doesn't really prove anything but possibly QI for some folks.
-
Falcao doesn't just do that though. Falcao does that when his team are defending so he can break away on the counterattack, but when they're attacking he joins in as much as anyone. He can also score from just about anywhere on the pitch. Falcao is not a goal-hanger, he's an unbelievable all-round forward, and comparisons with Bent are totally erroneous.
I was on about the austrian singer mate ;) amadeus amadeus
-
Falcao doesn't just do that though. Falcao does that when his team are defending so he can break away on the counterattack, but when they're attacking he joins in as much as anyone. He can also score from just about anywhere on the pitch. Falcao is not a goal-hanger, he's an unbelievable all-round forward, and comparisons with Bent are totally erroneous.
to think there was a few of us banging on about him years ago on here ;(
-
The 6 games Bent started this season we took 4 points, 0.66 points per game. The 10 games he didn't start we've taken 11 points, 1.1 points per game.
Doesn't really prove anything but possibly QI for some folks.
still terrible either way
and going to be worse after the next 3 games
-
Haha, what about that midfielder Mozart who plays in Austria? Anyway yeah, imagine if we'd signed him. Mind you, this was when MON was about, and signing a player like Falcao is among the most unlikely things I could imagine him doing.
-
It's clear to me that we need a creative spark and we should also be utilising Bent. We simply have to start scoring a lot more goals.
-
It's clear to me that we need a creative spark and we should also be utilising Bent. We simply have to start scoring a lot more goals.
But when playing against massed defences Bent actually makes it harder for creative players, not easier.
-
I'm not sure we played against that many massed defences though. There's very few teams(Stoke excepted) who will shut up shop against Villa and we need to use that to our advantage.
-
The 6 games Bent started this season we took 4 points, 0.66 points per game. The 10 games he didn't start we've taken 11 points, 1.1 points per game.
Doesn't really prove anything but possibly QI for some folks.
still terrible either way
and going to be worse after the next 3 games
Indeed, but extrapolated over a 38 game season one leads to relegation the other survival.
If only predictions were actually this simple.
-
Haha, what about that midfielder Mozart who plays in Austria? Anyway yeah, imagine if we'd signed him. Mind you, this was when MON was about, and signing a player like Falcao is among the most unlikely things I could imagine him doing.
true he got offered that french striker for 4 million and hesitated and then when he wanted him , he had gone up to 10 million. Mind, he ended up crap I think , but couldnt be worse than Heskey. Forgot his name , gignac or something .
Proberly thought he was a bottle of spirit
-
I'm not sure we played against that many massed defences though. There's very few teams(Stoke excepted) who will shut up shop against Villa and we need to use that to our advantage.
Stoke do make everyone else look like they're playing 1-0-9, true. I think a better piece of terminology would be defences in position - not everyone crowds 11 in their own box, but everyone plays the game by putting all their players in their half when defending, having solid layers of midfield and defence and attempting to break, and if the break doesn't work they have to attack more slowly as the opposition get all their men in position. Bent can only do one of these types of attacks, and we need to attack in more than one way.
Haha, what about that midfielder Mozart who plays in Austria? Anyway yeah, imagine if we'd signed him. Mind you, this was when MON was about, and signing a player like Falcao is among the most unlikely things I could imagine him doing.
true he got offered that french striker for 4 million and hesitated and then when he wanted him , he had gone up to 10 million. Mind, he ended up crap I think , but couldnt be worse than Heskey. Forgot his name , gignac or something .
Proberly thought he was a bottle of spirit
Haha, I have a friend who lives in Marseille, and says that Gignac is well known as one of the worst, most flashy, vulgar, dislikable people in France.
-
The 6 games Bent started this season we took 4 points, 0.66 points per game. The 10 games he didn't start we've taken 11 points, 1.1 points per game.
Doesn't really prove anything but possibly QI for some folks.
still terrible either way
and going to be worse after the next 3 games
Indeed, but extrapolated over a 38 game season one leads to relegation the other survival.
If only predictions were actually this simple.
true . we will be lucky there is some worse teams than us , as both statistics are relegation form.
-
I'm not sure we played against that many massed defences though. There's very few teams(Stoke excepted) who will shut up shop against Villa and we need to use that to our advantage.
Stoke do make everyone else look like they're playing 1-0-9, true. I think a better piece of terminology would be defences in position - not everyone crowds 11 in their own box, but everyone plays the game by putting all their players in their half when defending, having solid layers of midfield and defence and attempting to break, and if the break doesn't work they have to attack more slowly as the opposition get all their men in position. Bent can only do one of these types of attacks, and we need to attack in more than one way.
Haha, what about that midfielder Mozart who plays in Austria? Anyway yeah, imagine if we'd signed him. Mind you, this was when MON was about, and signing a player like Falcao is among the most unlikely things I could imagine him doing.
true he got offered that french striker for 4 million and hesitated and then when he wanted him , he had gone up to 10 million. Mind, he ended up crap I think , but couldnt be worse than Heskey. Forgot his name , gignac or something .
Proberly thought he was a bottle of spirit
Haha, I have a friend who lives in Marseille, and says that Gignac is well known as one of the worst, most flashy, vulgar, dislikable people in France.
It just shows that MON nearly brought him for 10 million when a few months before he could have had him for 4 .
I think Luke Young was similar . Like double the money?
-
I thought Luke Young was a decent enough buy for the money. He wasn't spectacular i'll admit, but I reckon he could do a reasonable job at LB even now.
-
I think the point was he moved for about £3 million the previous summer and we could have bought him then.
-
Anyone remember MON's reaction when there was talking about Radamel Falcao coming here - his agent having tried to get the deal to happen, as he had done with JPA?
-
Anyone remember MON's reaction when there was talking about Radamel Falcao coming here - his agent having tried to get the deal to happen, as he had done with JPA?
MON said at the time: "It’s news to me. I think we’d be looking a little closer to home."
Says it all really.
-
Darren Bent does well in low-scoring, poor teams that are in relegation battles. He wasn't particularly successful at Tottenham, in my opinion for that very reason.
If you build a team to furnish him with chances he'll score goals but to the detriment of the rest of the team's ability to do the same. His goal scoring rati at Spurs was worse than anywhere, his record at Villa is next best and then come the rest, all poor teams fighting relegation.
-
Anyone remember MON's reaction when there was talking about Radamel Falcao coming here - his agent having tried to get the deal to happen, as he had done with JPA?
I realise the point that was being made, I just don't think the error was particularly catastrophic. He was worth the 6m we paid for him and he didn't let us down. He may have had the option to come to us when the price was 3m and turned it down, who knows? It's difficult to know what goes on behind the scenes.
-
Haha, what about that midfielder Mozart who plays in Austria? Anyway yeah, imagine if we'd signed him. Mind you, this was when MON was about, and signing a player like Falcao is among the most unlikely things I could imagine him doing.
Could do with someone making overtures down the wing :D
-
Haha, what about that midfielder Mozart who plays in Austria? Anyway yeah, imagine if we'd signed him. Mind you, this was when MON was about, and signing a player like Falcao is among the most unlikely things I could imagine him doing.
Could do with someone making overtures down the wing :D
Aye, and the midfield quartet needs someone to orchestrate the play.
-
Darren Bent does well in low-scoring, poor teams that are in relegation battles.
Even more reason to wonder why he's not playing then
-
Montbert I've already given examples of where we didn't lack creativity with Bent in the team, which kind of refutes your argument straight away unless you want to base everything on the 20 odd minutes he had on Saturday. As does his sub appearance against West Brom where he saved us a point. When he came on on Saturday we had already started to lose our way a bit and to attribute the lack of creativity after he came on just to him is pure scapegoating. We lost the midfield completely after he came on which was as much to do with Ireland having a shocker as anything else. And it's certainly a first to say we missed Gabby's movement, because it's generally awful to non-existent. Also we weren't exactly a counter attacking team under Houllier and Bent did just fine. You and others seem to be trying your hardest to re interpret every thing that hasn't worked out for Villa as if it's all Bent's fault. Which is utter nonsense. I've heard him blamed for the defensive shambles at Southampton - quite laughable. You can;t just ignore the games where he's played and we've created plenty just to suit your pet theory.
-
Thank you, KTV, for turning a debate into something where you call into question the honesty of me describing how I see it. Much appreciated.
I'm not trying to fit this into a pet theory - in fact, this is a return to the point of view I had in 2010, and debated an awful lot on here. I thought Bent was improving as an all-round forward towards the end of the GH season, and played well against Newcastle. He seems to have regressed, however, and the player we have now is not the answer to our creativity issues. Benteke helps chances get created, Bent seems to hinder it. As for Saturday, Gabby moved pretty well off the ball and was more of an option for the man in possession than Bent because he actually came outside of the 18 yard box, unlike Bent.
That is my view. Honestly, that's what I think. And just because I disagree with you, doesn't mean I think you're lying or have an agenda to push.
-
Darren Bent does well in low-scoring, poor teams that are in relegation battles. He wasn't particularly successful at Tottenham, in my opinion for that very reason.
If you build a team to furnish him with chances he'll score goals but to the detriment of the rest of the team's ability to do the same. His goal scoring rati at Spurs was worse than anywhere, his record at Villa is next best and then come the rest, all poor teams fighting relegation.
I suspect that you haven't factored in that many of his appearances for Spurs were off the bench. And more recently the same for us. A more accurate assessment would be to compare goals per minutes played, but even then it's more difficult to get into a game as a sub than as a starter. Plus, his "bad"record at Spurs is still way better than most PL strikers of recent years and much better than anyone we've had probably since Yorke. I think it was still around a goal every 3 games or so. I don't think Sunderland were fighting relegation in his first season there when he scored shedloads, nor were Charlton struggling from what I remember when he was there.
-
At least Bent's advocates have expanded their argument with those who disagree with them beyond 'You're mental' now, so that's progress I suppose.
-
Thank you, KTV, for turning a debate into something where you call into question the honesty of me describing how I see it. Much appreciated.
I'm not trying to fit this into a pet theory - in fact, this is a return to the point of view I had in 2010, and debated an awful lot on here. I thought Bent was improving as an all-round forward towards the end of the GH season, and played well against Newcastle. He seems to have regressed, however, and the player we have now is not the answer to our creativity issues. Benteke helps chances get created, Bent seems to hinder it. As for Saturday, Gabby moved pretty well off the ball and was more of an option for the man in possession than Bent because he actually came outside of the 18 yard box, unlike Bent.
That is my view. Honestly, that's what I think. And just because I disagree with you, doesn't mean I think you're lying or have an agenda to push.
Oh come on, where on earth have I questioned your honesty? I've not disputed that you're entitled to your opinion and nor would I. I have pointed out that I've provided examples that indicate your opinion is not supported by the evidence of the games Bent has played in this season. You've not really offered any concrete evidence to support your conclusions except for the 20 odd minutes on Saturday. And even then it is questionable evidence.
I'm pretty sure I didn't say that Bent alone is the answer to our creativity problems, or that he could or should be an all round forward. I do think he could be part of a more creative attack under Lambert, more as the cutting edge than the creator. And I think the Newcastle and Swansea games offer support to that view, where the team looked pretty good going forward and carved out a fair few good chances in each, with Bent involved. Apart from his cameo on Saturday, when else has he looked uninvolved, uninterested, isolated, a misfit? Was it perchance in some games when we were bloody awful as a team? If so, why is it all Bent's fault? Or him and Ireland?
As for the Benteke comparison, it's not a question of whether he is a better option than Benteke or not, it's a question of whether Bent can fit into Lambert's system or not. Say if ever Benteke is unfit or suspended. I haven't seen anything to prove that he can't, and I've seen a fair bit to suggest he can, if given a fair chance. In any case, for all these chances Benteke creates for himself or others, he has one more league goal than Bent, and the team has still only managed something like 6 in the last 10 games. And this in a team is supposedly playing to his strengths. We're hardly creating chances for fun, so what makes him so much a better option than Bent?
-
Well for starters, you accused me of, essentially, selective evidence. That's questioning my honesty because it's saying I'm not taking all arguments into account, only ones which fit my agenda or 'pet theory'.
Now, Newcastle and Swansea he was pretty good, especially Newcastle, but almost every time he's been on the pitch since he's been poor and a waste of a shirt - like playing with ten men sometimes. And my theory doesn't live and die by his non-performance on Saturday, it lives and dies more by the fact that you can pick out a couple of games where he's been pretty good out of the batch where he's not been involved. By all accounts, we've improved since we went 4-3-3/4-2-3-1 at Sunderland, where every player on the pitch has looked to be pulling their weight. I have brought up more evidence, such as his time at Tottenham, statistical evidence about his involvement on the pitch in terms of average distance covered and touches taken etc, but to be honest I can't be bothered to bring them up again.
Big Ron sold Platt and bought a team which nearly won the title from the proceeds. With Bent, the best thing for all concerned might be to sell him and buy players with the proceeds, such as an attacking midfielder or two, who would benefit us more than building our entire style of play around the inadequacies of one player.
-
Well for starters, you accused me of, essentially, selective evidence. That's questioning my honesty because it's saying I'm not taking all arguments into account, only ones which fit my agenda or 'pet theory'.
Now, Newcastle and Swansea he was pretty good, especially Newcastle, but almost every time he's been on the pitch since he's been poor and a waste of a shirt - like playing with ten men sometimes. And my theory doesn't live and die by his non-performance on Saturday, it lives and dies more by the fact that you can pick out a couple of games where he's been pretty good out of the batch where he's not been involved. By all accounts, we've improved since we went 4-3-3/4-2-3-1 at Sunderland, where every player on the pitch has looked to be pulling their weight. I have brought up more evidence, such as his time at Tottenham, statistical evidence about his involvement on the pitch in terms of average distance covered and touches taken etc, but to be honest I can't be bothered to bring them up again.
Big Ron sold Platt and bought a team which nearly won the title from the proceeds. With Bent, the best thing for all concerned might be to sell him and buy players with the proceeds, such as an attacking midfielder or two, who would benefit us more than building our entire style of play around the inadequacies of one player.
If you want to see it as questioning your honesty, that’s up to you but, the fact remains I’ve provided examples that cast doubt on your conclusions, and which you don’t appear to have taken into account.
You haven’t mentioned any of the evidence you quote in your immediate discourse with me and I’m not about to plough back through 50 odd pages to find it. I can only go on what you said to me.
But whatever, his time at Spurs has got nothing to do with him being able to play in Lambert's system or not. Neither has distance covered and number of touches.
We've improved since Sunderland – in some ways yes, we’ve become more solid, possibly more consistent if you ignore the two Manchester games, but I'd dispute that we've better than the performances against Swansea or Newcastle, in the creative sense at least. And there is no evidence to suggest any perceived improvement is as a direct result of Bent not featuring much.
The batch of games where he’s not been involved - I'm not sure which of Bent's performances you are citing as further evidence he can’t play in Lambert’s system, as you don't specify them in our current dialogue, so it’s difficult to comment. Apart from the ealry game when the whole team was garbage, I can think of the sub appearances on Saturday and away at Spurs, and , and maybe the Fulham game. However where a negative proposition is involved, such as “Bent can’t play in Lambert’s system” any number of negative examples proves nothing, whereas a single positive counter example disproves the proposition. And I’ve offered two examples. Since when he's barely featured.
-
What happened to him tonight then?
-
What happened to him tonight then?
Fucked hamstring.
bad news whatever your stance on him.
-
What happened to him tonight then?
Fucked hamstring.
bad news whatever your stance on him.
it is, but at least the boss won't have to keep answering questions about why he's not playing.
(that really is the only positive thing about it i can think of.)
-
Shame, he was starting to play well and prove much of the above (ie me) wrong. Still, can't say Weimann didn't grab his chance with both hands.
-
It was a shame for Bent but it didn't turn out too badly for us on the night.
-
Yesterdays man.
-
I've showed earlier on this thread that his record of staying with clubs beyond two seasons is poor. I still think - despite his merits generally and his value to PL's Villa squad in particular - that he'll be gone in January.
I personally favour the movement and strength of Gabby and the instinctiveness and energy of Weimann as alternatives / complements to Benteke. Lambert should be focussing on finding a third option and then we'll have a strong and variable strike force, with Benteke as the focal point but not total reliance on one man.
-
I also suspect Bent will go in January, but not because he can't fit into Lambert's system, more because he won't be happy not being first choice. I agree about Weimann I think he's going to be a top player. But Gabby? His "movement" about a hundred miles from the area is one thing, but anywhere near the box and it's always been poor and not a patch on Bent's. With his recent goal record he barely deserves to be described as part of a "strikeforce".
-
I also suspect Bent will go in January, but not because he can't fit into Lambert's system, more because he won't be happy not being first choice. I agree about Weimann I think he's going to be a top player. But Gabby? His "movement" about a hundred miles from the area is one thing, but anywhere near the box and it's always been poor and not a patch on Bent's. With his recent goal record he barely deserves to be described as part of a "strikeforce".
Agreed, if a choice of gabby or bent them I would certainly go with bent , but I think Weimann could be something special and deserves a long run with benteke.
Gabby has has enough chances and his record of one goal on over 30 league games is not good enough to warrant him a place as a striker.
-
Id keep Bent and get rid of Gabby . Be great to keep the four front men , alternate them but would be hard to keep everyone happy.
Gabby has had too many chances and flatters to deceive for me . use him for 20 mins at the end .
-
The problem with Gabby as well with Bent is that they won't fit Lambert's playing style. Gabby is more suited to play for counter attacking side, and I wouldn't be surprised if MON would try to sign him and I think he could flourish for Sunderland.
-
The problem with Gabby as well with Bent is that they won't fit Lambert's playing style. Gabby is more suited to play for counter attacking side, and I wouldn't be surprised if MON would try to sign him and I think he could flourish for Sunderland.
If hes mad enough to pay £10 million , yes please and I do think hes mad enough to pay £12 million ;)
-
I said when Bent limped off last night that he has played his last game for us.
Hope i am wrong, but it could be the case.
-
I'd be interested to hear from Weimann how much he learns from Bent on the training field.
He's certainly picking up the knack of right run, right place, right time.
-
The problem with Gabby as well with Bent is that they won't fit Lambert's playing style. Gabby is more suited to play for counter attacking side, and I wouldn't be surprised if MON would try to sign him and I think he could flourish for Sunderland.
If we continue 5-3-2 (3-5-2), then I think Bent can fit in the formation (provided he pulls his weight).
-
Weimann's movement around the box is similar to Bent's. I noticed Weimann gesturing to Benteke and pointing to exactly where he wanted the ball put for his second goal. It was duly delivered on the exact spot and despatched very coolly.
-
If we play 2 up front Benteke and Weimann deserve the spots on form. The key is, both work hard for the team and offer a goal threat. I think dropping weimann when we changed to 352 was a mistake and I hope he gets a run playing off Benteke now.
As for Bent I really do like him and wish we could keep him but on form this season he doesn't deserve to start, if he can adapt his game to supersub and is willing to accept the role then I'd happily keep him to be our hernandez, but I don't think that will be the case.
-
You all might find this harsh, but I hope he isn't injured badly as I want him gone in January, for as much as we can get.
-
You all might find this harsh, but I hope he isn't injured badly as I want him gone in January, for as much as we can get.
I don't think so.
He should have scored with that chance last night, and there was another played in on his left and didn't seem to want it, Bassong eat up ground on him and cleared.
We were better without him.
-
By the sounds of it, he put into the sort of performance last night that would make him an asset to our team. If he can apply himself in a way that suits us then we don't need to sell him.
-
I saw Bent have the best chance of the first half and hit it straight at the keeper. His replacement had two chances in the second half and took both of them. Which one cost £24m again?
-
I saw Bent have the best chance of the first half and hit it straight at the keeper. His replacement had two chances in the second half and took both of them. Which one cost £24m again?
We came out saying if ever Lambert need justification for his selection policy then that game was it.
-
I saw Bent have the best chance of the first half and hit it straight at the keeper. His replacement had two chances in the second half and took both of them. Which one cost £24m again?
So you're judging him on that and not his prolific goalscoring record?
This thread is good practice for when we flog Benteke.
-
I saw Bent have the best chance of the first half and hit it straight at the keeper. His replacement had two chances in the second half and took both of them. Which one cost £24m again?
So you're judging him on that and not his prolific goalscoring record?
This thread is good practice for when we flog Benteke.
It was the general mood amongst those who I spoke to. We looked better without him. Again.
-
Some people can't comprehend that concept Lee. They just think playing him would automatically add 20 to our 'goals for' column.
-
We looked better without Gabby.
-
We looked better without Gabby.
Miles better. He's a one trick pony now, who's trick is getting slower and faster. I like him, but we don't need him like we used to.
-
I saw Bent have the best chance of the first half and hit it straight at the keeper. His replacement had two chances in the second half and took both of them. Which one cost £24m again?
So you're judging him on that and not his prolific goalscoring record?
This thread is good practice for when we flog Benteke.
That was in response to the post above mine, not a judgement.
-
Gabby's not the player he was and hasn't been for some time. To his credit, you get a good work ethic from him but there's very little goal threat now. It's probably best for all parties for him to move on in the summer.
-
Gabby's main threat was always his pace and now that has gone he struggles - he hasn't got a football brain to be able to compensate for the lack of pace. He should be used as an impact player or, get MO'N to pay £15m on him - be unusual for MO'N though buying a British player from a former club.
-
It's funny that that's always a stick that's used to beat MON, that he overpaid for British/British based Players.
Why is that not the case when we talk about Bent? £24m for and English centre forward. What could we have got abroad for that money etc etc
-
If gabby wasn't a villa boy, then he would have been booed/hounded out ages ago. He has a good engine, but that is it. He's fast, however his acceleration isn't what it was. Get rid of him and Bent and get another 'gem' in to replace them.
-
Bent needed to come in and have an immediate impact, and was the only player of that type houllier signed. His goals were very important to us that season and he made sense. A foreign equivalent for cheaper might've taken a few months to settle and seen us relegated.
Mon signed Dunne, Collins, Beye, Warnock, Heskey from a position of strength, we were 6th and had looked very good the year before, we didn't need someone to be an instant success, we needed quality at the right price.
-
Some people can't comprehend that concept Lee. They just think playing him would automatically add 20 to our 'goals for' column.
I'm not saying that at all.
I just don't understand the clamour to get rid of him.
What's the harm in hanging on to him, even if it's just to have him on the bench?
-
Some people can't comprehend that concept Lee. They just think playing him would automatically add 20 to our 'goals for' column.
I'm not saying that at all.
I just don't understand the clamour to get rid of him.
What's the harm in hanging on to him, even if it's just to have him on the bench?
We need money to beef up our midfield and Bent is saleable.
I wouldn't say I'm joining the 'clamour' for him to be sold but if it's the only way Plumbutt can have some cash in January then so be it.
-
It's funny that that's always a stick that's used to beat MON, that he overpaid for British/British based Players.
Why is that not the case when we talk about Bent? £24m for and English centre forward. What could we have got abroad for that money etc etc
We wouldn't have got the instant impact that Bent always seems to make when he moves.
His transfer history shows he's an 18-month man; thereafter he dries up or his agent moves him on (or, he's allegedly doing naughty things with somone's wife / daughter / girlfriend ...)
-
If gabby wasn't a villa boy, then he would have been booed/hounded out ages ago. He has a good engine, but that is it. He's fast, however his acceleration isn't what it was. Get rid of him and Bent and get another 'gem' in to replace them.
Who would buy him and match his current wages? Can't see it happening.
He'll be here until the end of his contract I would think
-
After the Norwich result who needs him?
We may struggle in the league but we're on our way to Wem-bell-ee!!
-
Some people can't comprehend that concept Lee. They just think playing him would automatically add 20 to our 'goals for' column.
I'm not saying that at all.
I just don't understand the clamour to get rid of him.
What's the harm in hanging on to him, even if it's just to have him on the bench?
Because he will be fed fed up sitting on the Bench and it will hardly inspire him to play well when he does get a chance.
I agree it would be brilliant to have that tool to use and If you're one of the current Bigger clubs you can get away with having that luxury but were currently in a relegation battle and we cant get away with having an England International on the Bench.
That doesn't mean to say I think he should be starting either, Benteke has been brilliant and playing Bent is sometimes like playing with 10.5 men at times.
-
I still like Gabby. He's not perfect in many ways, but he's well capable of causing defenders a lot of problems if he gets a little space to run into, and the better we get the more space we'll be able to engineer for him.
-
I still like Gabby. He's not perfect in many ways, but he's well capable of causing defenders a lot of problems if he gets a little space to run into, and the better we get the more space we'll be able to engineer for him.
He's flexible too, he could quite easily fill in for Benteke as the target man.
-
I still like Gabby. He's not perfect in many ways, but he's well capable of causing defenders a lot of problems if he gets a little space to run into, and the better we get the more space we'll be able to engineer for him.
Yep I agree, I think we should keep hold of Gabby hes a one of ours and as long as we want him I think he will always stay. If he could engage his brain just before his feet he would be fantastic, still he provides something that not many teams have so he his a good asset.
At some point he will need to adjust his game as he gets older but he still has a good few years where he can use that blistering pace.
-
I understand people who do not rate gabby but I'd definitely keep him. I think he's a solid and flexible player plus, more importantly he (and players like him - bannan, clark and baker) are the dna of the club. They've been at club all their adult lives, probably know the tea lady's name and you'd hope have the club in their hearts.
Alex Ferguson has mentioned this a few times, he'd prefer to have Johnny Evans in his squad - despite not being good enough - because he knows the Man U way.
-
Gabby's not the player he was and hasn't been for some time. To his credit, you get a good work ethic from him but there's very little goal threat now. It's probably best for all parties for him to move on in the summer.
Yeah I'm thinking that aswell. He's sort of become our Ameobi, Anchiebe, Carlton Cole striker, someone who can be a nuisance to defences when he feels like it but generally dosen't really score that many goals.
Disappointing as first couple of seasons I really did believe he'd mature into a 20 goal a season striker, barely gets to 5 nowadays.
Clearly some of the spark went with MON.
-
Bent out until the New Year apparently. The conspiracist in me thinks this is convenient, but the Villa fan thinks how typical it is that he gets injured 35 minutes into a match where he's finally looking like he could fit into the Lambo system. Ah well.
-
Bent out until the New Year apparently. The conspiracist in me thinks this is convenient, but the Villa fan thinks how typical it is that he gets injured 35 minutes into a match where he's finally looking like he could fit into the Lambo system. Ah well.
We've picked up some better form without him, so it shouldn't disrupt things too much for us.
I think he'll be off in January.
-
Bent out until the New Year apparently. The conspiracist in me thinks this is convenient, but the Villa fan thinks how typical it is that he gets injured 35 minutes into a match where he's finally looking like he could fit into the Lambo system. Ah well.
We've picked up some better form without him, so it shouldn't disrupt things too much for us.
I think he'll be off in January.
Oh agreed, and his replacement on Tuesday didn't exactly do badly! It's just always nice to have options. However, if we get some decent money for him, I'm sure Lambert could use the proceeds better than any Villa manager in years.
-
Well now he's injured it gives us all a chance to brush this under the carpet for a while.
-
Sky Sports News
Aston Villa striker Darren Bent has been ruled out of the club's Christmas programme of fixtures with a hamstring injury.
Bent has been out of favour under new boss Paul Lambert but made his return to the team in the midweek Capital One Cup victory at Norwich.
However, he limped out of what was his first game in six weeks after only half an hour.
The England international underwent a scan on Wednesday and Lambert is resigned to being without the club's record signing until the New Year.
Lambert said; "He went for a scan on Wednesday and he has got a problem with his hamstring which will keep him out for a few weeks.
"I think a few weeks. Maybe four weeks, I'd say, before we see him back."
Meanwhile, Villa skipper Ron Vlaar is to undergo a scan on Friday on the calf problem which has sidelined him for the past month.
-
The problem for DB and Villa is that he seems to need regular football to get match sharp, coming off the bench just doesnt work for him, he`s no Dzeko, its a chicken/egg situation now. and it says it all that he can`t get in a side thats the lowest scoring in the premiership. bye bye DB i reckon.
-
TSM has just been on SSN saying that Darren Bent will have to make a difficult decision about his Villa future in January.
-
I'd like him to stay as you can't have enough quality strikers in the squad and at some point Weimann/Benteke will go off the boil. Adding Gabby as well, the 4 of them make for a strong attack with variety.