Darren Bent

[Mister E]

Quick look at Wiki says:
....
13th - Charlton - 18 goals in 36 games
19th - Charlton - 13 goals in 32 games (IIRC he captained the side this season too)
11th - Tottenham - 6 in 27
8th - Tottenham - 12 in 33
13th - Sunderland - 24 in 38
...

As mister-e pointed out earlier, it's surprising that since leaving Ipswich that Bent has played barely more than 2 season for a club before moving on.

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.

The speculation is pointless.
Lambert has taken agin' Bent and / or his agent (otherwise, he would at least have been on the bench in the last 3 games) and is stonewalling interviewers in a very obvious manner. What the reason is will probably remain unclear for a few weeks.

All I'll say is that Bent has a track record of falling out of love with clubs / managers in his second-third season.

[pauliewalnuts]

Perhaps he just doesn't rate him to the extent that he doesn't even think he's worth being on the bench?

That would make you wonder why he made him captain briefly. I guess maybe he thought it might bring out more in his game?

Personally, I'd have had him on the bench, but so long as it's not out of some kind of financial clause-related issue handed down from above, I'm happy to trust Lambert with his judgement. If it all backfires, he'll certainly cop the blame for it.

I guess on the bright side, if that is what it's all about, at least he has the cojones to actually do it, despite knowing how much flack he'd get for it.

[Tuscans]

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

Jordan Bowery

[McGraths Dry Cleaning]

I can't see us selling Bent or loaning him out to another EPL team that we may be competing with relegation wise. Bent might not suit our current set up or the way Lambert wants us to play but he will score a shit load of goals in many teams. It would be lunacy to sell him/loan him to a competitor. Even our management team in their wildest moments of out-the-box-lets-appoint-McLeish type thinking would do that.

Maybe Bent will figure more in January when we pimp our midfield/team a bit? Its all a bit baffling but we're starting to speculate worse than the meeja.

[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.

Jordan Bowery

Jesus yes.  Rather worrying that I had this bloke in mind.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leigh_Bowery

[Boz]

The following on the BBC web site is IMO, hard to swallow -

Lambert told BBC Radio 5 live. "Gabriel Agbonlahor, I think, is playing at the top of his game, Andreas Weimann has energy to burn and Benteke, I do not want to say he is the complete player because he is not, but he has been absolutely brilliant.

But Gabby's not scoring often enough and Weimann also needs to improve his finishing.

[tomd2103]

Full page article by Mat Kendrick in the Evening Mail about the Bent saga.  Found this bit especially interesting, "By tweeting his availability for the Arsenal match, Bent clearly irked Lambert ...... And Bent's beeline to the press after his point-proving equaliser from the bench against Albion in September hardly endeared him to a boss who treated it as an unforgivable affront to his authority, shrugging it off publicly yet holding a private inquiry".   

[JUAN PABLO]

So why didnt Vlarr tweeting piss Lambert off .

I think theres nothing wrong with Bent tweeted , at least he was dying to play and couldnt wait.

[Percy McCarthy]

Hilts: I didn't say there were convincing arguments for Bent not being in the 18. It's up to the individual to be convinced or not. But there are logical ones, as outlined by Chris Smith.

[supertom]

We're having to work exceptionally hard for all the results we're getting of late. For me, if you take out the work rate of either Gabby or Weimann in the last two games, or if we'd played two up top to accomodate Bent. I don't think we'd have got 4 points. The system we're currently playing seems to be better for us. We look harder to beat, with the exception of capitulating against Man City. In our current system you play Bent or Benteke up front. Benteke is there on merit. In that regard PL is aboslutely right. I can only guess that Bent's thrown his toys out at some point, or he's not shown enough in training because otherwise he has to be in the 18. And I just can't see it being Randy pulling the strings, because PL would never have joined us if he didn't think he had full control of the team. Time will tell. On a tactical standpoint I agree with PL on the starting line up. I wouldn't play Bent either. I'd have him on the bench though. Then again I, nor anyone knows what's happened behind the scenes. He's a track record as people have said, of being moved on after a short time. Either at his behest, the clubs, or both.

[hilts_coolerking]

Hilts: I didn't say there were convincing arguments for Bent not being in the 18. It's up to the individual to be convinced or not. But there are logical ones, as outlined by Chris Smith.

My post wasn't necessarily directed at you Perc.  I think the only properly convincing argument that Chris mentioned was the one about Bent being sold.  For me at least, the others don't add up.  For instance, the suggestion that Lambert is picking Bowery because he wants him to get first team experience: I don't think for a moment that's true but if it was I'd worry about Lambert's judgement in making that a priority over picking the best available players when we're struggling for goals and points.

In any case, when you set those reasons against the logical reasons why Bent should be on the bench, if not in the team, they're even less convincing.

[oldtimernow]

We're having to work exceptionally hard for all the results we're getting of late. For me, if you take out the work rate of either Gabby or Weimann in the last two games, or if we'd played two up top to accomodate Bent. I don't think we'd have got 4 points. The system we're currently playing seems to be better for us. We look harder to beat, with the exception of capitulating against Man City. In our current system you play Bent or Benteke up front. Benteke is there on merit. In that regard PL is aboslutely right. I can only guess that Bent's thrown his toys out at some point, or he's not shown enough in training because otherwise he has to be in the 18. And I just can't see it being Randy pulling the strings, because PL would never have joined us if he didn't think he had full control of the team. Time will tell. On a tactical standpoint I agree with PL on the starting line up. I wouldn't play Bent either. I'd have him on the bench though. Then again I, nor anyone knows what's happened behind the scenes. He's a track record as people have said, of being moved on after a short time. Either at his behest, the clubs, or both.

Agreed....it's a pity Bent can't up his contribution to the level of the two you mentioned, although I am finding it harder and harder to convince myself what Gabby is adding to the side with his headless chicken routines. Watching DB makes me think at times he has a teflon coating....ie nothing sticks to him unlike Benteke who can bring others into play

[supertom]

Gabby frustrates a lot still. He has a chance at Arsenal and if he was a natural finisher he buries it instead of hitting it straight at the keeper. In many ways he's turning into a younger Heskey. Without the injury problems. But in the Arsenal game he won a lot of set pieces in the Arsenal third and attacking throw ins from his work rate and running alone. He's always been good at that, using his pace to force errors. It gains us time, territory. We need to use it better. Then there's always that one game in 10, like City in the LC, where he's unplayable. It's the difference between a player who is Villa through and through and will run himself into the ground for the cause, and a player who's not known for his workrate and will happily move on to whichever club pays enough. I do believe money was a huge motivation in Bent joining us. Everyone knew Ash Young was gonna go that summer, and we were so dire when he left a comfortable Sunderland to come to us. By no means am I comparing Bent to some of the mercenaries at places like QPR, but for me, in Bents mind we're a job. Maybe one day too, he'll have as many clubs on his CV as Marcus.

[curiousorange]

My own take on the Bent saga is that Lambert either feels Bowery is fitting into the formation more comfortably than Bent does in training, or they have an impasse that can't be bridged.

Either way, I can't see Bent staying. Maybe it's for the best he doesn't make the bench tomorrow - last thing you want is Redknob having a 'quiet chat' if he gets the chance.

[tomd2103]

So why didnt Vlarr tweeting piss Lambert off .

I think theres nothing wrong with Bent tweeted , at least he was dying to play and couldnt wait.

That is one way of looking at it.  Another could be that Bent tweeted that he was fit and ready to play to show that it was the manager who was deciding not to play him.

I just worry that Paul Lambert is backing himself into a corner with all of this and the more coverage it gets in the press, the more reluctant he will become to include Bent.  I'm sure after all this coverage, some managers wouldn't play him simply because they would be made to look wrong and a little bit foolish if he played and scored.  It would bring their judgement into question and being the egocentrics that some managers are, they would hate that.  I'm not saying Lambert is like that, but some managers definitely are and some would put saving face above the welfare of the team every time.