Darren Bent

[Dave Cooper please]

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?

[olaftab]

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.

[SamTheMouse]

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.

[eastie]

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.

[L.Bowker]

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.

[QBVILLA]

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.

[sirlordbaltimore]

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.

?

[sirlordbaltimore]

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)

[PaulWinch again]

Apparently that's nonsense and he's also played more than 47 games for us.

[sirlordbaltimore]

Apparently that's nonsense and he's also played more than 47 games for us.

He's played 47 league games

[Shrek]

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

[eastie]

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.

[Shrek]

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.

[Dave]

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.

[Chris Jameson]

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.