Darren Bent

[Legion]

I heard the same on TS the other evening, so it's a load of old bollocks.

[midnite]

I'm not disrobing any players - I'm not that way inclined.

Lol. Damn iPhone!!

[Villanation]

Straight swap for Carroll is what is being punted around our bit of the Holte Lower.

Not a huge fan of Carroll, however I think this is something we should seriously consider if true, no question Bent is a good-un, but its not happening for him or really for us, I could easily imagine Bent could go to the end of the season with only another couple in the bag, the first person to stand up and say that is utterly unacceptable by his standards would be Darren Bent himself, at which point he will force the move.

[brian green]

Just so you know the sort of people I sit with, they also want Michael Owen.

[PaulWinch again]

Straight swap? no thanks.

[Legion]

Just so you know the sort of people I sit with, they also want Michael Owen.

How do they feel about Robbie Keane?

[brian green]

They are all very Brummie but they all have red hair (except the bald ones) and the younger ones all have Celt names so I imagine Keane is well up on their wish list

[Jimmy Smash]

Swapping Carroll for Bent would transfer Liverpool's disaster onto us. Definitely NO!

[Dante Lavelli]

Carroll was valued at 35m largely based on his potential (and the timing of the transfer).  He has since shown that he is not (yet) of that standard.  He is however a very good player.  Either way his value cannot be more than 20m.  In the real world about 15m.

Bent was 18 to 24m and has at the very least maintained his reputation.

I think I'd want at least 10m cash to consider the swap.  Then Carroll's attitude towards joining villa would have to be factored in.  And maybe Kelly off their hands too.

I just can't see it happening.

[fredm]

I think it all comes down to how Eck sees us playing in 12- 18 months time. If that is with the current formation, then as unpopular as it would be he will take a big bid for Bent, as it works better with Gabby up top, means we don't have to accommodate Gabby out of position for Bent to play, and probably create more opportunity to get the midfield forward. The down side is that there will be plenty of days where you will be saying, if only we had got Bent in there, he would have knocked that home.

The key for me though is how it is re-invested. If we sell him and have a very clear policy, with a clear plan of who we want, youngish players that have been scouted, and have good prospects but are already ready to play, maybe like the kid being mentioned from Barnsley, or the lad at Huddersfield, then fair enough, try a different direction as at least there would be a visible plan.

Why do we have to "accommodate Gabby"?  Because he's a fans favourite and works hard for the team?  Much as I have a lot of time for Gabby, an on form Albrighton is a better option out wide, and Bent is better at sticking Albrighton type deliveries in the onion bag.  Thus for me there is an argument for saying Gabby should be back up to both, and not an automatic choice.

I'd argue that we recently had one of those days you refer to - against Arsenal where Albrighton and N'zogbia put quite a few balls into the box that were tailor made for Bent, but Gabby didn't get on the end of any of them.
[/quote]

For me the question is Bent or Gabby as the central striker.  Personally I do not think Gabby has the nous to play the wide striker efficiently.  Yes, he has scored some goals there but when he was moved wide late on at Chelsea and again yesterday, tactically he is all at sea.  He spent most of yesterday keeping Cuellar company rather than pressing up on the full back and when our midfield have the ball he does not give them an option he waits till they put it into space and chases it.  Bent, as everyone says, is a six yard poacher so he cannot play wide so that leaves AM with a problem.  IMO it has to be one or the other, maybe play Gabby more away from home when the midfield is perhaps more defensive and he will chase down the channels and play Bent more at home when we should have more of the play and get the ball into the box on a regular basis.

Yesterday we should have started with the same team as at Chelsea and then brought Bent on for Gabby around the hour mark, with Bannan replacing Ireland and maybe Gardner coming on for the last 10 minutes again.

[glasses]

Paulie, I don't for a second think it is the way we should be playing by the way, but surely hoofing the ball like we have at times this season up to Carroll rather than Bent would perhaps give better results?

[Dante Lavelli]

Gabby holds the ball up better, has greater pace and brings players into play more often than Bent.  Whereas Bent has better movement off the shoulder of the last defenders and in the six yard box. 

If we want to be a counter attacking team the Bent is the man, if we want to try and control possession then I think Gabby is better (although I still like him as a winger).

[Ian.]

It's another game without a goal for Carol so I reckon the rumors will gather pace tonight.

[Nastylee]

Great, we swap a player that according to some on here contributes nothing except finishing ability with a player that appears to offer nothing at all.

[hawkeye]

Carol Dunne Mcliesh Hutton Ireland Warnock Boozers Losers and Jacuzi users