Kozak or Bent?

[Monty]

I'm not saying that we weren't lacking a top-class forward, but we lacked at least one creative midfield player as well. My memory isn't of some free-flowing, chance-vomiting team, sweeping forward brilliantly only to sky chance after chance. An excellent forward who could help create his own chances like Benteke would have helped, but a poacher like Bent, who has proven more than once that he's good but not top-level, would not have helped us - in fact, it is that type of old-fashioned, functional thinking, the 'get this bloke to do this, and this guy to do this' thinking, that doomed us under MON in any case.

[LeeB]

I'm not saying that we weren't lacking a top-class forward, but we lacked at least one creative midfield player as well. My memory isn't of some free-flowing, chance-vomiting team, sweeping forward brilliantly only to sky chance after chance. An excellent forward who could help create his own chances like Benteke would have helped, but a poacher like Bent, who has proven more than once that he's good but not top-level, would not have helped us - in fact, it is that type of old-fashioned, functional thinking, the 'get this bloke to do this, and this guy to do this' thinking, that doomed us under MON in any case.

Precisely.

[SoccerHQ]

From memory Milner was making some assists when he was moved to central midfield and was just generally awesome for 6 months.

[Monty]

Milner started assisting the following season after Barry went. Even so, the system we played limited even him - he had to play as two players in that midfield, whereas playing a proper three would have helped him out. In any case, he was excellent but in a thrusty, upanddown kind of way - not quite the dictating playmaker we've needed for about twenty years.

[eastie]

I'm not saying that we weren't lacking a top-class forward, but we lacked at least one creative midfield player as well. My memory isn't of some free-flowing, chance-vomiting team, sweeping forward brilliantly only to sky chance after chance. An excellent forward who could help create his own chances like Benteke would have helped, but a poacher like Bent, who has proven more than once that he's good but not top-level, would not have helped us - in fact, it is that type of old-fashioned, functional thinking, the 'get this bloke to do this, and this guy to do this' thinking, that doomed us under MON in any case.

Bents goals kept us up under houllier and we created plenty of supply to him - he did the rest .
Under mon had we had bent rather than heskey i firmly believe we would have finished top 4 rather than top 6

[Monty]

A player good enough to keep you up isn't necessarily one good enough to get you into the top four. See Exhibit B: Charles N'Zogbia.

[Dave]

A player good enough to keep you up isn't necessarily one good enough to get you into the top four. See Exhibit B: Charles N'Zogbia.

What an odd comparison. N'Zogbia wasn't bought to get us into the top four, he was bought as a cut-price replacement for Young and with the intention of staying up.

I still don't get which one of Young, Milner or Downing you would be scrapping to accommodate this new creative player to provide the bullets for Heskey.

On that season's form you'd expect Downing to be the lesser of those three, but then you'd be moving Milner out wide to accommodate this new central thread.

[Ads]

I think what Montbert meant was that N'Zogbia did wonders at Wigan at the dangerous end of the table, but that doesn't mean he has it within him mentally or ability to wise to perform at the top end of the table.

If we use the players mentioned (Ozil and Fabregas) , then I would have played  Barry and Fabreags deep, with Young and Milner either side of Gabby, with Ozil in ze hole. We'd have qualified for the Champions League at a stroll.

Do you remember when we went down to Arsenal that Sunday and it was very nip and tuck until Wenger brought on an injured Fabregas for twenty minutes which changed the game.

We had some good players, but nobody world class.

[Monty]

A player good enough to keep you up isn't necessarily one good enough to get you into the top four. See Exhibit B: Charles N'Zogbia.

What an odd comparison. N'Zogbia wasn't bought to get us into the top four, he was bought as a cut-price replacement for Young and with the intention of staying up.

I still don't get which one of Young, Milner or Downing you would be scrapping to accommodate this new creative player to provide the bullets for Heskey.

On that season's form you'd expect Downing to be the lesser of those three, but then you'd be moving Milner out wide to accommodate this new central thread.

Firstly, I didn't say he was brought in to get us into the top four, just that he was good enough to save Wigan but will never be a top four player.

Secondly, I didn't say buying Heskey was a good option, I'd rather have Bent than Heskey, but neithe of them are actually good enough for a real top level side - Bent is closer, but he's still not there (also, you don't have to take out any of them - you take out one striker and play three in midfield).

Finally, it was the formation which was a huge problem, and the whole backwards attitude that went with it. The big man and the finisher? One stays one goes? Get it wide and cross it? MON's really got something going for him in the motivational department, but his deficiencies everywhere else were always going to clear away that smokescreen in the end.

Ed: totes agree, Ads.

[Dave]

But now we're arguing two different things. I fully agree that it would have great if O'Neill completely changed his mentality, chosen formation, his mindset and became a Rinus Michels for the new millennium. That definitely would have made more of a difference than just getting a better striker in.

If though, we're talking about what he could have feasibly done within his limited imagination, then 'buying Bent instead of Heskey' is clearly a something that was affordable, achievable and would have made a very real difference (as shown by how productive Bent was with Young and Downing providing for him for six months).

[Monty]

Oh I agree, Bent better than Heskey, but it still wouldn't have been enough I think - the systemic problems were overwhelming.

[LeeB]

Oh I agree, Bent better than Heskey, but it still wouldn't have been enough I think - the systemic problems were overwhelming.

Most people would agree that Bent is better than Heskey, yet Heskey's got 5 times as many caps and has won five major trophies, to Bent's zero.

I'm just saying, like.

[eastie]

Oh I agree, Bent better than Heskey, but it still wouldn't have been enough I think - the systemic problems were overwhelming.

Most people would agree that Bent is better than Heskey, yet Heskey's got 5 times as many caps and has won five major trophies, to Bent's zero.

I'm just saying, like.

Means nothing- Carlton Palmer had more caps than Gordon cowans but I know which was the better player by miles

[Dave]

Most people would agree that Bent is better than Heskey, yet Heskey's got 5 times as many caps and has won five major trophies, to Bent's zero.

It's almost as if players who spend the bulk of their career at Liverpool rather than Charlton and Sunderland might win more trophies and international recognition.

It's a bit of a flawed argument, otherwise we're putting Phil Neville down as one of the best English footballers of all time.

[LeeB]

Most people would agree that Bent is better than Heskey, yet Heskey's got 5 times as many caps and has won five major trophies, to Bent's zero.

It's almost as if players who spend the bulk of their career at Liverpool rather than Charlton and Sunderland might win more trophies and international recognition.

It's a bit of a flawed argument, otherwise we're putting Phil Neville down as one of the best English footballers of all time.

Well yes, but then players who play for clubs that win trophies tend to because they are better players than the ones who don't. Darren Bent got to one final with Spurs, and was an unused sub.