Kozak or Bent?

[SoccerHQ]

I do like Bent but BBC online put up a graphic after Fulham's hammering of Palace tonight. In a game where his side largely dominated, Dazza only touched the ball 13 times in 77 minutes.

He's the missing piece of the puzzle for a team that consistently dominate possession and waste countless chances. These teams invariably play strikers who bring a lot more to their game than ghosting into space (Bent's best attribute, and one with which very few other strikers compare) so it leaves Bent in an awkward position. He has become something of an anachronism. But I'm glad he played for us, and I think he's a decent professional and a personable guy so wish him the best in knocking-in an average of at least 11.37 goals a season until he retires.

Yeah him or Defoe were the missing piece for us in 08-10 imo, I think if we'd signed either during that period we'd have finished 4th one of those seasons.

Bent is a finisher and think back to that period when Milner and especially Ashley Young were whipping in crosses and set pieces, Bent would've had a hatful.

Just don't understand why MON didn't go for him, he was british and on high wages which seem to be the scouting criteria, heck I don't think he was even that overpriced as I believe Sunderland signed him for an initial 10m from Spurs.

Right player, wrong time.

[supertom]

I do like Bent but BBC online put up a graphic after Fulham's hammering of Palace tonight. In a game where his side largely dominated, Dazza only touched the ball 13 times in 77 minutes.

He's the missing piece of the puzzle for a team that consistently dominate possession and waste countless chances. These teams invariably play strikers who bring a lot more to their game than ghosting into space (Bent's best attribute, and one with which very few other strikers compare) so it leaves Bent in an awkward position. He has become something of an anachronism. But I'm glad he played for us, and I think he's a decent professional and a personable guy so wish him the best in knocking-in an average of at least 11.37 goals a season until he retires.

Yeah him or Defoe were the missing piece for us in 08-10 imo, I think if we'd signed either during that period we'd have finished 4th one of those seasons.

Bent is a finisher and think back to that period when Milner and especially Ashley Young were whipping in crosses and set pieces, Bent would've had a hatful.

Just don't understand why MON didn't go for him, he was british and on high wages which seem to be the scouting criteria, heck I don't think he was even that overpriced as I believe Sunderland signed him for an initial 10m from Spurs.

Right player, wrong time.

We didn't need Bent because we had Harewood and Heskey.


I'll get me coat.

[Monty]

Heskey was like the AntiBent - worked hard for the team but couldn't score (though Bent has better technique).

I think Bent would have improved us, but not actually that greatly. I know it's accepted wisdom that we needed a centre forward at the time and MON's Heskey signing was a little unbelievably insane, but all Bent would have done is help us to finish more counterattacks. Our problem then was similar to our problem now: too reliant on the break, unable to keep possession for long spells too often and, when we did, were unable to break down defences. At least now we play a 4-3-3ish system, instead of MON's lard-and-spuds 4-4-2, but the problem was the same and the solution was the same - the striker was important, but the creative central playmaker might have been more so. Who was the player who propelled Arsenal on the run at the same time as we collapsed? Not a centre forward, but in fact Andrei Arshavin. The creative players make the difference.

[Navin R Johnson]

Bent is undoubtedly a top quality player but lacks the mind set to settle with a club.   My attitude to Kozak is the same as my attitude to the police.   I would genuinely like to like him more but I see nothing in him but things which need to be rectified.   I would be happy to see neither at Villa Park and the savings invested in a player to make our midfield tick, a midfield which presently goes tickety tockety tock tick, oh fuck, tick tock.

[Damo70]

I think it is too soon to judge Kozak. He needs time to settle in on and off the pitch. I don't know what his grasp of the language is like but I suspect his English isn't as good as our players who came from Holland and Belgium for example.

[paul_e]

The big issue I have with this thread is the massive assumption from a lot of people that we signed Kozak instead of a creative midfielder.  The evidence that we'd been after Kozak for months, and the numerous links to attacking midfielders (with confirmed interest in a few) suggests that we were looking for both but for whatever reason the midfielder didn't happen.

[Dave]

I think Bent would have improved us, but not actually that greatly. I know it's accepted wisdom that we needed a centre forward at the time and MON's Heskey signing was a little unbelievably insane, but all Bent would have done is help us to finish more counterattacks. Our problem then was similar to our problem now: too reliant on the break, unable to keep possession for long spells too often and, when we did, were unable to break down defences. At least now we play a 4-3-3ish system, instead of MON's lard-and-spuds 4-4-2, but the problem was the same and the solution was the same - the striker was important, but the creative central playmaker might have been more so. Who was the player who propelled Arsenal on the run at the same time as we collapsed? Not a centre forward, but in fact Andrei Arshavin. The creative players make the difference.

I completely disagree. We were fine for creativity - if we assume our front five around that time were Milner, Young, Downing, Gabby and either Heskey or a latter years-Carew I think it's obvious the position that needed improving.

You can't really equate our position with Arsenal's at the time, as they didn't have Young, Milner, Gabby and Downing but they did have Robin Van Persie and Emmanuel Adebayor scoring 35+ goals between them. We didn't.

[eastie]

I think Bent would have improved us, but not actually that greatly. I know it's accepted wisdom that we needed a centre forward at the time and MON's Heskey signing was a little unbelievably insane, but all Bent would have done is help us to finish more counterattacks. Our problem then was similar to our problem now: too reliant on the break, unable to keep possession for long spells too often and, when we did, were unable to break down defences. At least now we play a 4-3-3ish system, instead of MON's lard-and-spuds 4-4-2, but the problem was the same and the solution was the same - the striker was important, but the creative central playmaker might have been more so. Who was the player who propelled Arsenal on the run at the same time as we collapsed? Not a centre forward, but in fact Andrei Arshavin. The creative players make the difference.

I completely disagree. We were fine for creativity - if we assume our front five around that time were Milner, Young, Downing, Gabby and either Heskey or a latter years-Carew I think it's obvious the position that needed improving.

You can't really equate our position with Arsenal's at the time, as they didn't have Young, Milner, Gabby and Downing but they did have Robin Van Persie and Emmanuel Adebayor scoring 35+ goals between them. We didn't.

Exactly , we created the chances but lacked a prolific striker to put them away - had we had that I believe we would have made the top 4 and bent at that time could well have the man to provide the goals.

[LeeB]

We didn't have creativity, we had players slinging crosses in. That may have been ok 20 years ago, but the games moved on.

I don't remember glorious chance after chance being spurned by Ivanhoe and co., I remember flat displays and an inabilty to find openings.

[eastie]

We didn't have creativity, we had players slinging crosses in. That may have been ok 20 years ago, but the games moved on.

I don't remember glorious chance after chance being spurned by Ivanhoe and co., I remember flat displays and an inabilty to find openings.

Milner, downing and young provided many chances and threaded in some lovely passes - it wasn't all about crossing it - heskey missed loads of sitters and gabby himself as well as Carew were both guilty of missing far more than they scored - if we had a pair of strikers at the time who chipped in with 35 goals between them we would have cracked the top 4

[Dave]

We didn't have creativity, we had players slinging crosses in. That may have been ok 20 years ago, but the games moved on.

I don't remember glorious chance after chance being spurned by Ivanhoe and co., I remember flat displays and an inabilty to find openings.

We weren't scoring Arsenal-versus-Norwich style, one touch passing around the six-yard box type goals, but nor were we lumping the ball up in the manner of Stoke.

Man Utd won the league last year on a style of play based around slinging crosses into the box.

Also, if the striker that our creative players are working with is Heskey or Carew then it stands to reason we're going to try and cross it a lot.

If it were Bent in the side instead, maybe they might be trying a few more through balls? It seemed to work a treat from January to May under Houllier. I can't see how this would have been worse than replacing one of Gabby, Milner, Young or Downing with somebody else to bounce balls off Heskey's shins.

[Ads]

I think Bent would have improved us, but not actually that greatly. I know it's accepted wisdom that we needed a centre forward at the time and MON's Heskey signing was a little unbelievably insane, but all Bent would have done is help us to finish more counterattacks. Our problem then was similar to our problem now: too reliant on the break, unable to keep possession for long spells too often and, when we did, were unable to break down defences. At least now we play a 4-3-3ish system, instead of MON's lard-and-spuds 4-4-2, but the problem was the same and the solution was the same - the striker was important, but the creative central playmaker might have been more so. Who was the player who propelled Arsenal on the run at the same time as we collapsed? Not a centre forward, but in fact Andrei Arshavin. The creative players make the difference.

I completely disagree. We were fine for creativity - if we assume our front five around that time were Milner, Young, Downing, Gabby and either Heskey or a latter years-Carew I think it's obvious the position that needed improving.

You can't really equate our position with Arsenal's at the time, as they didn't have Young, Milner, Gabby and Downing but they did have Robin Van Persie and Emmanuel Adebayor scoring 35+ goals between them. We didn't.

We weren't good enough at home at any point to break the top four. We had championship winning form away from home, but mid-table form at home. I think that is because we didn't have it within ourselves to beat the sides (the vast majority in the end) who would brick coming to Villa Park and defend deep.

We lacked the player, and still do, who could work between the compressed lines of the opposition back four and midfield five.

Edit: I personally think our midfield was all about getting it wide as quickly as possible and squaring the opposition back four up for the likes of Carew etc.

Its interesting, but I was watching Dortmund last night and they spent two or three minutes going backwards and forwards from the flanks, back into the back four, across the centre and back again, just keeping the ball; probing, making the opposition work.

You would never get away with that at Villa Park. The whinging from the Holte that erupts should a Villa player dare keep possession without looking lethal all the time, is shocking. Part of that is because we were relatively successful recently by going from back to front as quickly as we could.

[LeeB]

We didn't have creativity, we had players slinging crosses in. That may have been ok 20 years ago, but the games moved on.

I don't remember glorious chance after chance being spurned by Ivanhoe and co., I remember flat displays and an inabilty to find openings.

We weren't scoring Arsenal-versus-Norwich style, one touch passing around the six-yard box type goals, but nor were we lumping the ball up in the manner of Stoke.

Man Utd won the league last year on a style of play based around slinging crosses into the box.

Also, if the striker that our creative players are working with is Heskey or Carew then it stands to reason we're going to try and cross it a lot.

If it were Bent in the side instead, maybe they might be trying a few more through balls? It seemed to work a treat from January to May under Houllier. I can't see how this would have been worse than replacing one of Gabby, Milner, Young or Downing with somebody else to bounce balls off Heskey's shins.

It worked under Houllier (a bit) because he actually encouraged the whole team to pass, and got a decent full back in on one side at least, and in doing that he nearly caused a revolt amongst the defenders who believed their job was to stand on the edge of the box and head balls away.

Bent worked for us when he did because we had changed the style to suit him. I'm not convinced he'd have been the silver bullet solution under O'Dinosaur.

[LeeB]

I think Bent would have improved us, but not actually that greatly. I know it's accepted wisdom that we needed a centre forward at the time and MON's Heskey signing was a little unbelievably insane, but all Bent would have done is help us to finish more counterattacks. Our problem then was similar to our problem now: too reliant on the break, unable to keep possession for long spells too often and, when we did, were unable to break down defences. At least now we play a 4-3-3ish system, instead of MON's lard-and-spuds 4-4-2, but the problem was the same and the solution was the same - the striker was important, but the creative central playmaker might have been more so. Who was the player who propelled Arsenal on the run at the same time as we collapsed? Not a centre forward, but in fact Andrei Arshavin. The creative players make the difference.

I completely disagree. We were fine for creativity - if we assume our front five around that time were Milner, Young, Downing, Gabby and either Heskey or a latter years-Carew I think it's obvious the position that needed improving.

You can't really equate our position with Arsenal's at the time, as they didn't have Young, Milner, Gabby and Downing but they did have Robin Van Persie and Emmanuel Adebayor scoring 35+ goals between them. We didn't.

We weren't good enough at home at any point to break the top four. We had championship winning form away from home, but mid-table form at home. I think that is because we didn't have it within ourselves to beat the sides (the vast majority in the end) who would brick coming to Villa Park and defend deep.

We lacked the player, and still do, who could work between the compressed lines of the opposition back four and midfield five.

Edit: I personally think our midfield was all about getting it wide as quickly as possible and squaring the opposition back four up for the likes of Carew etc.

Its interesting, but I was watching Dortmund last night and they spent two or three minutes going backwards and forwards from the flanks, back into the back four, across the centre and back again, just keeping the ball; probing, making the opposition work.

You would never get away with that at Villa Park. The whinging from the Holte that erupts should a Villa player dare keep possession without looking lethal all the time, is shocking. Part of that is because we were relatively successful recently by going from back to front as quickly as we could.

That bit there Ad, what Dortmund did last night, I saw us do it at Norwich last season (the league cup win) and it was like a fucking revelation. No wingers needed, we kept the ball until the centre halfs had switched off.

I'm surprised we've not seen more of it.

[Ads]

We needed somebody more mobile and consistent in front of goal than Carew. As good as he was for us, he is not a patch on The Beast.