Darren Bent

[Monty]

Haha, what about that midfielder Mozart who plays in Austria? Anyway yeah, imagine if we'd signed him. Mind you, this was when MON was about, and signing a player like Falcao is among the most unlikely things I could imagine him doing.

Could do with someone making overtures down the wing 

Aye, and the midfield quartet needs someone to orchestrate the play.

[sirlordbaltimore]

Darren Bent does well in low-scoring, poor teams that are in relegation battles.

Even more reason to wonder why he's not playing then

[ktvillan]

Montbert I've already given examples of where we didn't lack creativity with Bent in the team, which kind of refutes your argument straight away unless you want to base everything on the 20 odd minutes he had on Saturday.   As does his sub appearance against West Brom where he saved us a point.   When he came on on Saturday we had already started to lose our way a bit and to attribute the lack of creativity after he came on just to him is pure scapegoating.  We lost the midfield completely after he came on which was as much to do with Ireland having a shocker as anything else.  And it's certainly a first to say we missed Gabby's movement, because it's generally awful to non-existent.   Also we weren't exactly a counter attacking team under Houllier and Bent did just fine.   You and others seem to be trying your hardest to re interpret every thing that hasn't worked out for Villa as if it's all Bent's fault.  Which is utter nonsense.  I've heard him blamed for the defensive shambles at Southampton - quite laughable.  You can;t just ignore the games where he's played and we've created plenty just to suit your pet theory.

[Monty]

Thank you, KTV, for turning a debate into something where you call into question the honesty of me describing how I see it. Much appreciated.

I'm not trying to fit this into a pet theory - in fact, this is a return to the point of view I had in 2010, and debated an awful lot on here. I thought Bent was improving as an all-round forward towards the end of the GH season, and played well against Newcastle. He seems to have regressed, however, and the player we have now is not the answer to our creativity issues. Benteke helps chances get created, Bent seems to hinder it. As for Saturday, Gabby moved pretty well off the ball and was more of an option for the man in possession than Bent because he actually came outside of the 18 yard box, unlike Bent.

That is my view. Honestly, that's what I think. And just because I disagree with you, doesn't mean I think you're lying or have an agenda to push.

[ktvillan]

Darren Bent does well in low-scoring, poor teams that are in relegation battles. He wasn't particularly successful at Tottenham, in my opinion for that very reason.

If you build a team to furnish him with chances he'll score goals but to the detriment of the rest of the team's ability to do the same. His goal scoring rati at Spurs was worse than anywhere, his record at Villa is next best and then come the rest, all poor teams fighting relegation.

I suspect that you haven't factored in that many of his appearances for Spurs were off the bench.  And more recently the same for us.  A more accurate assessment would be to compare goals per minutes played, but even then it's more difficult to get into a game as a sub than as a starter.  Plus, his "bad"record at Spurs is still way better than most PL strikers of recent years and much better than anyone we've had probably since Yorke.  I think it was still around a goal every 3 games or so.  I don't think Sunderland were fighting relegation in his first season there when he scored shedloads, nor were Charlton struggling from what I remember when he was there.

[Percy McCarthy]

At least Bent's advocates have expanded their argument with those who disagree with them beyond 'You're mental' now, so that's progress I suppose.

[ktvillan]

Thank you, KTV, for turning a debate into something where you call into question the honesty of me describing how I see it. Much appreciated.

I'm not trying to fit this into a pet theory - in fact, this is a return to the point of view I had in 2010, and debated an awful lot on here. I thought Bent was improving as an all-round forward towards the end of the GH season, and played well against Newcastle. He seems to have regressed, however, and the player we have now is not the answer to our creativity issues. Benteke helps chances get created, Bent seems to hinder it. As for Saturday, Gabby moved pretty well off the ball and was more of an option for the man in possession than Bent because he actually came outside of the 18 yard box, unlike Bent.

That is my view. Honestly, that's what I think. And just because I disagree with you, doesn't mean I think you're lying or have an agenda to push.

Oh come on, where on earth have I questioned your honesty?   I've not disputed that you're entitled to your opinion and nor would I.   I have  pointed out that I've provided examples that indicate your opinion is not supported by the evidence of the games Bent has played in this season.  You've not really offered any concrete evidence to support your conclusions except for the 20 odd minutes on Saturday.  And even then it is questionable evidence.   

I'm pretty sure I didn't say that Bent alone is the answer to our creativity problems, or that he could or should be an all round forward.  I do think he could be part of a more creative attack under Lambert, more as the cutting edge than the creator.  And I think the Newcastle and Swansea games offer support to that view, where the team looked pretty  good going forward and carved out a fair few good chances in each, with Bent involved.  Apart from his cameo on Saturday, when else has he looked uninvolved, uninterested, isolated, a misfit? Was it perchance in some games when we were bloody awful as a team?  If so, why is it all Bent's fault? Or him and Ireland?

As for the Benteke comparison, it's not  a question of whether he is a better option than Benteke or not, it's a question of whether Bent can fit into Lambert's system or not.  Say if ever Benteke is unfit or suspended.   I haven't seen anything to prove that he can't, and I've seen a fair bit to suggest he can, if given a fair chance.  In any case, for all these chances Benteke creates for himself or others, he has one more league goal than Bent, and the team has still only managed something like 6 in the last 10 games.  And this in a team is supposedly playing to his strengths.  We're hardly creating chances for fun, so what makes him so much a better option than Bent?
     

[Monty]

Well for starters, you accused me of, essentially, selective evidence. That's questioning my honesty because it's saying I'm not taking all arguments into account, only ones which fit my agenda or 'pet theory'.

Now, Newcastle and Swansea he was pretty good, especially Newcastle, but almost every time he's been on the pitch since he's been poor and a waste of a shirt - like playing with ten men sometimes. And my theory doesn't live and die by his non-performance on Saturday, it lives and dies more by the fact that you can pick out a couple of games where he's been pretty good out of the batch where he's not been involved. By all accounts, we've improved since we went 4-3-3/4-2-3-1 at Sunderland, where every player on the pitch has looked to be pulling their weight. I have brought up more evidence, such as his time at Tottenham, statistical evidence about his involvement on the pitch in terms of average distance covered and touches taken etc, but to be honest I can't be bothered to bring them up again.

Big Ron sold Platt and bought a team which nearly won the title from the proceeds. With Bent, the best thing for all concerned might be to sell him and buy players with the proceeds, such as an attacking midfielder or two, who would benefit us more than building our entire style of play around the inadequacies of one player.

[ktvillan]

Well for starters, you accused me of, essentially, selective evidence. That's questioning my honesty because it's saying I'm not taking all arguments into account, only ones which fit my agenda or 'pet theory'.

Now, Newcastle and Swansea he was pretty good, especially Newcastle, but almost every time he's been on the pitch since he's been poor and a waste of a shirt - like playing with ten men sometimes. And my theory doesn't live and die by his non-performance on Saturday, it lives and dies more by the fact that you can pick out a couple of games where he's been pretty good out of the batch where he's not been involved. By all accounts, we've improved since we went 4-3-3/4-2-3-1 at Sunderland, where every player on the pitch has looked to be pulling their weight. I have brought up more evidence, such as his time at Tottenham, statistical evidence about his involvement on the pitch in terms of average distance covered and touches taken etc, but to be honest I can't be bothered to bring them up again.

Big Ron sold Platt and bought a team which nearly won the title from the proceeds. With Bent, the best thing for all concerned might be to sell him and buy players with the proceeds, such as an attacking midfielder or two, who would benefit us more than building our entire style of play around the inadequacies of one player.

If you want to see it as questioning your honesty, that’s up to you but,  the fact remains I’ve provided examples that cast doubt on your conclusions, and which you don’t appear to have taken into account.   

You haven’t mentioned any of the evidence you quote in your immediate discourse with me and I’m not about to plough back  through 50 odd pages to find it.  I can only go on what you said to me.

But whatever, his time at Spurs has got nothing to do with him being able to play in Lambert's system or not.  Neither has distance covered and number of touches.

We've improved since Sunderland – in some ways yes, we’ve become more solid, possibly more consistent if you ignore the two Manchester games, but I'd dispute that we've better than the performances against Swansea or Newcastle, in the creative sense at least.   And there is no evidence to suggest any perceived improvement is as a direct result of Bent not featuring much.

The batch of games where he’s not been involved - I'm not sure which of Bent's performances you are citing as further evidence he can’t play in Lambert’s system, as you don't specify them in our current dialogue, so it’s difficult to comment.  Apart from the ealry game when the whole team was garbage, I can think of the sub appearances on Saturday and away at Spurs, and , and maybe the Fulham game.  However where a negative proposition is involved, such as “Bent can’t play in Lambert’s system” any number of negative examples proves nothing,   whereas a single positive counter example disproves the proposition.  And I’ve offered two examples. Since when he's barely featured.

[Risso]

What happened to him tonight then?

[pauliewalnuts]

What happened to him tonight then?

Fucked hamstring.

bad news whatever your stance on him.

[danno]

What happened to him tonight then?

Fucked hamstring.

bad news whatever your stance on him.

it is, but at least the boss won't have to keep answering questions about why he's not playing.

(that really is the only positive thing about it i can think of.)

[Monty]

Shame, he was starting to play well and prove much of the above (ie me) wrong. Still, can't say Weimann didn't grab his chance with both hands.

[ktvillan]

It was a shame for Bent but it didn't turn out too badly for us on the night.

[LeeB]

Yesterdays man.