Finding a striking partner for Darren Bent

[Whiney MacWhineface]

Personally I think a (non mental) Stephen Ireland would be brilliant for Darren Bent.

From an outsiders point of view, I'd agree totally. Though it would require a change of managers to mend that particular rift.

But when Craig Bellamy was talking about Ireland earlier this season, he said that although he was one of the best footballers he'd played with Ireland didn't like playing in the hole, wasn't suited to a four man midfield and ideally needed to work in a 5.

Now I know this is one nutbar talking about another nutbar but presumably those were Ireland's feeling on the matter, and it doesn't give the impression there's much tactical room to manoeuvre with him (even supposing someone could re-wire his head).

All a bit pish really.

[darren woolley]

What about Oscar Cardozo i think he would be ok to play alongside DB.

[Merv]

I'd like to give Gabby and Bent a run together in the side before making any judgements - they've had two games together in a 4-4-2, we've got four points from those games. It seems more traditional to go with a 'big man' alongside Bent, but there are other ways. It's fair to say the two don't seem a natural mix because neither really has the guile to act as a creative player for the other... but that's not say they couldn't strike up an understanding from playing more regularly together. Bent's the more prolific goalscorer but I'd still like to see a future for Gabby.

[KevinGage]

Agree to an extent.

We're brainwashed in this country to think of forward partnerships as either a nippy forward 'playing off the big man' or a creative type playing in the hole.

Gabby playing more like he did yesterday ties up at least two defenders and creates more space for Bent to ghost into the box - if we can actually find him with a decent delivery and make the extra space count.

[Whiney MacWhineface]

There were  several occasions where his drive caused Newcastle real issues. If he could form a link with Bent that'd be great.

[garyshawsknee]

I'd like to see Gab get a run of games with Bent. I thought he put in a good shift,pulled players out of position and created space.

I think his form suffers from a lack of confidence at times,hopefully a run in the team will improve this.

[Percy McCarthy]

Agree to an extent.

We're brainwashed in this country to think of forward partnerships as either a nippy forward 'playing off the big man' or a creative type playing in the hole.

Gabby playing more like he did yesterday ties up at least two defenders and creates more space for Bent to ghost into the box - if we can actually find him with a decent delivery and make the extra space count.

Agree too. They are two of our best players and we've got a lot invested in them. We need to find out how effective they can be before we abandon one of them because of any pre-conceived ideas.

[Mazrim]

sturridge is all pace for me. one bad injury and you get left with michael owen

Nothing of the sort. He's very skillful and his general play is excellent.

I must also qualify that although I'd like to sign Sturridge, I dont want to sell Gabby.

[Merv]

Agree to an extent.

We're brainwashed in this country to think of forward partnerships as either a nippy forward 'playing off the big man' or a creative type playing in the hole.

Gabby playing more like he did yesterday ties up at least two defenders and creates more space for Bent to ghost into the box - if we can actually find him with a decent delivery and make the extra space count.

Yes - the way I see it, it's Gabby who'll need to adapt his game to make the partnership work; Bent's the man in the box looking to finish and I can't see that changing. Gabby needs to work on his delivery, for sure, but he is comfortable playing the channels, running at defenders and, as you say, he stretched the Newcastle defence on occasions yesterday.

For variety and options we will need a more physical striker next season - Carew's leaving and Heskey must surely be. I can see Fonz being able to play a slightly deeper striking role, dropping off Bent slightly. He's good on the ball, very comfortable in possession.

Sturridge, incidentally, looks excellent, far better than I thought. He's not just about pace, far from it. His ability on the ball is really impressive. Perhaps we could offer Chelsea Ashley Young in part exchange?

[eastie]

Gabby isn't the answer as a partner for bent although I don't think we will be playing a 442 once safe, I think the attacking midfielder playing just behind bent is the role we need to get someone , a lampard kind of player who gets forward and supports the striker and can thread in bent too.

[Phil from the upper holte]

If he's going to stick with Bent up top on his own I don't see the point in buying an expensive striker. Gabby was always good at running the line on his own. I would rather Bent had a striking partner but I can't see it, I don't know why he hasn't put Heskey with him (even though I don't really like him or see him having a future at VP. I think he would hold the ball up well)

[Concrete John]

I'd like to give Gabby and Bent a run together in the side before making any judgements - they've had two games together in a 4-4-2, we've got four points from those games. It seems more traditional to go with a 'big man' alongside Bent, but there are other ways. It's fair to say the two don't seem a natural mix because neither really has the guile to act as a creative player for the other... but that's not say they couldn't strike up an understanding from playing more regularly together. Bent's the more prolific goalscorer but I'd still like to see a future for Gabby.

I said before we signed him, when the great 'we should have' debate was in full swing, that I couldn't see a Bent/Gabby partnership working.  I stand by that, but agree we need to give it a chance before abandoning the idea.

Ideally I think that if we go 4-4-2 a withdrawn striker who can link with midfield would get the best out of Bent - a Sheringham type.

[Monty]

Gabby isn't the answer as a partner for bent although I don't think we will be playing a 442 once safe, I think the attacking midfielder playing just behind bent is the role we need to get someone , a lampard kind of player who gets forward and supports the striker and can thread in bent too.

I don't think it'll even be that. We're playing 4-4-2 at the moment because it improves defensive solidity and we'll need that in the run-in, plus Gabby's pace is such a useful counter-attack weapon. Trouble is, we don't create nearly as much with it, we look more solid, yes, but also more stolid and laboured - like England in the World Cup or ourselves under MON - because 4-4-2 doesn't give you many options on the ball. However, having one designated 'playmaker' in a 4-4-1-1 or even a 4-2-3-1 is also a weakness, because it's too easy to just mark him out of the game and thus severely limit your attacking options.

The best system for us, I think, would be a 4-3-3 where the midfield three especially have the understanding to interchange positions and roles. At its best, this is Barca - Busquets, Xavi, Iniesta, Keita, Thiago, even Mascherano, they can all play the killer pass - but West Ham's recent improvement can be put down to this system, as well as Chelsea's double last season and Blackpool's run to promotion (ie it works at all levels). Therefore it's not about finding a striking partner for Bent, so much as finding a way to get the best out of him and the whole team with him - and we'll need more creativity in midfield for that.

[TimTheVillain]

It's an interesting question.

I don't see Gabby and Bent as a true partnership - Bent needs someone better on the ball and a more intelligent striker alongside him - Sturridge would be ace, but would Chelsea sell ?

I am of the opinion that Gabby is a great 'away' player - chasing onto long balls - counter attacking.

Sturridge is no one game wonder, he's been seen as a massive future star for a while - he is very talented.

[Mazrim]

Gabby isn't the answer as a partner for bent although I don't think we will be playing a 442 once safe, I think the attacking midfielder playing just behind bent is the role we need to get someone , a lampard kind of player who gets forward and supports the striker and can thread in bent too.

I don't think it'll even be that. We're playing 4-4-2 at the moment because it improves defensive solidity and we'll need that in the run-in, plus Gabby's pace is such a useful counter-attack weapon. Trouble is, we don't create nearly as much with it, we look more solid, yes, but also more stolid and laboured - like England in the World Cup or ourselves under MON - because 4-4-2 doesn't give you many options on the ball. However, having one designated 'playmaker' in a 4-4-1-1 or even a 4-2-3-1 is also a weakness, because it's too easy to just mark him out of the game and thus severely limit your attacking options.

The best system for us, I think, would be a 4-3-3 where the midfield three especially have the understanding to interchange positions and roles. At its best, this is Barca - Busquets, Xavi, Iniesta, Keita, Thiago, even Mascherano, they can all play the killer pass - but West Ham's recent improvement can be put down to this system, as well as Chelsea's double last season and Blackpool's run to promotion (ie it works at all levels). Therefore it's not about finding a striking partner for Bent, so much as finding a way to get the best out of him and the whole team with him - and we'll need more creativity in midfield for that.

Yes I agree with this. Also its about having the options to change it around. I like 4-3-3 and in certain examples of it offers the most flexibility but the option to revert to 4-4-2 is also desirable.

But going back to 4-3-3 or 4-2-3-1 and how I'd like to see it employed.
It firstly requires full backs to support the attack as the three in midfield would be isolated. It requires one defensive minded midfielder or better still, two box to box types behind a playmaker. The wide men need to be able to tuck back to protect their full backs but also support the striker. This asks quite a lot of them but they're paramount to it working or not.