January Transfer Thread: Speculation, Lies, Absolute Cr*p and Bosman Rumours

[PeterWithesShin]

Although he played in every game we scored 3 in.

How many times did we score 3 last season? Off the top of my head I can think of Blackburn, Chelsea and Wolves. Must be some sort of record low whatever it was.

I think it's fair to say that regardless of who is in the team it's very rare that scoring has been our strong point over the last few decades.

[1874]

Although he played in every game we scored 3 in.

How many times did we score 3 last season? Off the top of my head I can think of Blackburn, Chelsea and Wolves. Must be some sort of record low whatever it was.

I think it's fair to say that regardless of who is in the team it's very rare that scoring has been our strong point over the last few decades.

EDIT- Don't know where my original message went! Anyway I meant to say that I blame our managers for our lack of goals over the years rather then the players we have at our disposal.

[andym]

It's not a difficult concept. With Bent in the team, we usually look disjointed, have very little possession in the final third, and create hardly any chances. Therefore he scores the odd goal in low-scoring (for us) games. The other team has more chance of scoring more because they usually have the lion's share of possession.

Being a better team without him seems pretty logical to me.

but we are not a better team without him. under houllier we were poor, then bent arrived in the january window and we markedly improved. last season under mcleish we were not great at any point, but when bent was injured at the end of the season we managed to get even worse.  league games going back to the start of houlliers season and up till now -

with bent  -     played - 45; points - 58; goals for - 57; goals against 62
without bent - played - 38; points - 33; goals for- 34; goals against 63.

not much difference between the number of games bent has played some part in and games he hasnt, yet a large difference between goals scored and points gained.  also we do not concede more with him in the team, which was surprising.
   

[Dante Lavelli]

I think the assumption is that if Bent was to be sold then the revenue would be reinvested into the team so the logic above is not exactly relevant (assuming you're saying that Villa play better with Bent).

[villadelph]

Sturridge is on his way out at Stamford Bridge, make it happen.

[Toronto Villa]

If we are going to sell him, do it now while his value is highest and make sure we reinvest wisely. Better still don't sell him and reinvest wisely to get the most out of him. I don't know that we have the resources to do the latter effectively right now however.

[Dave]

If we are going to sell him, do it now while his value is highest and make sure we reinvest wisely. Better still don't sell him and reinvest wisely to get the most out of him. I don't know that we have the resources to do the latter effectively right now however.

But then when Bent was scoring 25 goals for Sunderland a couple of years ago, his service was being provided by Andy Reid, Teemu Tainiom, Frazier Campbell and Kenwyne Jones.

It's not like he had Iniesta or Sneijder passing to him.

[Dante Lavelli]

If we are going to sell him, do it now while his value is highest and make sure we reinvest wisely. Better still don't sell him and reinvest wisely to get the most out of him. I don't know that we have the resources to do the latter effectively right now however.

But then when Bent was scoring 25 goals for Sunderland a couple of years ago, his service was being provided by Andy Reid, Teemu Tainiom, Frazier Campbell and Kenwyne Jones.

It's not like he had Iniesta or Sneijder passing to him.

That team and also his successful spell for Charlton was based on a counter attacking style of football, whereas at Spurs where they are expected to win and teams sat back, he was not so prolific.

At the moment Lambert is clearly trying to develop a possession based game which arguably does not play to Bent's strengths as a player. 

[Shrek]

If we are going to sell him, do it now while his value is highest and make sure we reinvest wisely. Better still don't sell him and reinvest wisely to get the most out of him. I don't know that we have the resources to do the latter effectively right now however.

But then when Bent was scoring 25 goals for Sunderland a couple of years ago, his service was being provided by Andy Reid, Teemu Tainiom, Frazier Campbell and Kenwyne Jones.

It's not like he had Iniesta or Sneijder passing to him.

Sunderland built a team around Bent, he scored 25 goals and they finished 13th, so the logic that the team suffers to get the best out of Bent seems correct. Proved by the fact they finished only one place lower the season he left.

[PaulWinch again]

We should be getting the best out of Bent full stop, and should not be selling him.

[VillaAlways]

If we are going to sell him, do it now while his value is highest and make sure we reinvest wisely. Better still don't sell him and reinvest wisely to get the most out of him. I don't know that we have the resources to do the latter effectively right now however.

But then when Bent was scoring 25 goals for Sunderland a couple of years ago, his service was being provided by Andy Reid, Teemu Tainiom, Frazier Campbell and Kenwyne Jones.

It's not like he had Iniesta or Sneijder passing to him.

Sunderland built a team around Bent, he scored 25 goals and they finished 13th, so the logic that the team suffers to get the best out of Bent seems correct. Proved by the fact they finished only one place lower the season he left.

But were 7th in the league when Bent left.Who knows where they'd have finished if he'd stayed

[Le Lapin]

Sturridge is on his way out at Stamford Bridge, make it happen.

That sounds interesting if true, would he come to us though? If Bent doesn't go to the Dippers I could see Sturrige going there instead. Would be a great player for us.

[Shrek]

What if we sell Bent and buy Charlie Austin? It's the type of thing I think Lambert would do.

[paul_e]

First thing - There is no conspiracy in why Bent hasn't started the last 2.  Before then he'd scored 1 in 5 and looked a little out of form, Benteke came on against Swansea and played well and carried his form on against Man City and was given the nod to start on the back of that.  For years we've been crying out for players who are in form to get a run of games, it happens and we get people posting conspiracy theories about trying to sell the players who are replaced.

Second - Bent's goalscoring record at tottenham - this is often quoted as proof that he's not all that and can't do it at a good club.  In all competitions he had 41 starts and 38 subs appearances, with the starts very rarely being in a run of games.  he scored 24 goals in that times, not a ground breaking record but not proof that he is incapable of palying in a decent side and if you look at the 2nd season on it's own you get 28 starts, 17 subs and 17 goals.  That's a good record for anyone other than the very top players in the league, and saw him finish as top scorer for a club who had Defoe, Keane and Pavlyuchneko as the other options.  So the reality is he had 1 poor season, directly after becoming one of the most expensive players in the country, I'd suggest it was pressure of expectation rather than ability that caused the problems.

Finally the idea that teams play better without him is a myth.  The stats have been presented above, we're a better team with him since he joined, the idea that selling him to buy a midfielder or 2 would improve us is hugely risky.

[Bernie Gallacher]

Wouldn't hurt to have a quick gander at him