Darren Bent

[PaulWinch again]

I see Lambert has said the financial clause reason is 'absolute drivel'. In which case put him in the squad.

[Steve R]

...
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.

[PaulWinch again]

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.

[LeeB]

...
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.

[oldtimernow]

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

[LeeB]

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.

[Chris Smith]

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.   

[Phil from the upper holte]

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

[oldtimernow]

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

[Irish villain]

Lambert sure would make a fine politician

[Percy McCarthy]

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.

[hilts_coolerking]

I've not seen a convincing argument yet to say why Leigh Bowery is better to have on the bench than Darren Bent.

[darren woolley]

I would at least put Bent on the bench.

[Chris Smith]

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.

[hilts_coolerking]

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.