Premier League Spurs - Arry's gone but we still dislike them...

[colhint]

i actually want Redknob to get the England job. I can just imagine the conversation . "Well sepp I know Messi Xavi Iniesta and Villa wern't exactly born in England but the fax machine broke at 11:57 you see. Can you hold this suitcase of money for me while i try and fix it

[JMilnereatsnails]

Lol at Spurs using there reserve game as a cattle market for all there players they cant get rid off.

Well hopefully for you your scouts were there. You don't want to end up paying a ridiculous fee for a very average player from another club in a couple of years time, that you could have bought from us for half the price.

Hopefully enough of your coaches were there. You don't want to let another very good player go for half the price you could have got.

His starts:goals ratio was very good at Spurs, better than any of the strikers he had to compete with actually.

His starts to goals ratio doesn't tell you much as it includes goals when coming off the bench. Minutes per goal is the best way to judge things and when they were all at Spurs together (which was only for a short time) both Defoe and Keane had better records than him.

So often players (i'm not just talking about Bent, but in general) get judged on cumulative data and this really distorts things. You can only score when on the pitch so it's unfair to make comparisons by just looking at the amount of goals a player has scored, which is so often done. We are apparently trying to sign Suarez at the moment and our fans are excited by this as yours were over Bent. But I can tell by reading most of the comments on Spurs boards that hardly anyone has watched him, other than casually during the WC. I keep reading how fast, strong and clinical he is! I've seen a fair bit of Suarez and he's not fast, goes over easily and often has about 5 chances before he scores. Yet his stats say he's got an incredible record and he looks a bit like Tevez, so our fans seem to have decided he has Teves attributes and the clinical finishing of RVN (as they scored similar amounts in Holland). I genuinely think you're in for shock concerning Bent and we might well be if we sign Suarez.

His starts to goals ratio doesn't tell you much, yet mins per goal does? Yet players who get judged on culmative data distort things?

joey55 you are an idiot. The same culmative data refers to both sides of the argument from differing angles, does it not?

[joey55]

The difference being that Bent has a similar record in recent years to Rooney and Dorgba in the Premier League (That includes a season at Spurs where he wasn't even played all that much), while Suarez has a similar record to Afonso Alves in Holland.

You can only go by what you see and what the figures say. We have all seen alot of Bent given that he plays in this league and we know how he can perform in this league. Anybody, be it a nobody or Messi, from another country is always going to be a risk, regardless of their record, because it's not the same league.

Can't really understand the criticism of the Bent signing. Prime age, scores a great amount of goals and hasn't really had much service throughout his career - no doubt if he had a fancy name it'd be different. Here he has Young, Downing and Albrighton. Don't think there's another team in the country that can boast that sort of delivery, if there is, there certainly aint many.

The trouble with cumulative data is that it leads people to make comparisons between the likes on Bent and Rooney. And I don't mean just from fans, but so called experts also. When a player scores a lot of goals it's only natural that people look to the positives of his game to find out why. But often there are important aspects that are missed. For example, Bent had his best ever scoring season last year and this has won him plenty of plaudits. But it does ignore the fact he played a lot of football and scored 5 penalties. In terms of goals from open play per minute he is in no way comparable with the likes of Drogba and Rooney. Drogba scored a goal every 99 mins, which is brilliant, whilst Bent scored every 178 minutes, which isn't even in the top 10 of Prem scorers last season. Rooney scored every 123 mins and he still did so much for the team, making twice as many passes as Bent. So cumulative data allows Bent and Rooney and Drogba be seem similar, but they aren't really.

I know that you aren't claiming he is in anyway comparable to those two in terms of his overall game, but like others, you just want him there to finish the chances from the likes of Downing, Albrighton and Young. This is where I think you'll be most disappointed wit him. The amount of goals he scores compared to other players makes people assume he's a good finisher. But he isn't. His youtube clips are very impressive, but when he's actually playing for your team and you're desperate for him to score, you soon come to realise he's a poor finisher. Even if you watched loads of him as a neutrl it just isn't the same as when you are a fan. You'll remember the misses as much, if not more than those he scores, when you are a fan.

I saw a stat on Sky today saying he's got the third worst conversion rate of this seasons scorers. But this isn't true, as again it includes pens. I'm sure you aren't signing him for his ability to score from the spot, as you'll already have players who can do that (and Bent missed 3 last season). You're signing him to finish the chances made for him by the quality midfielders you have. But his conversion rate from open play is just 8%. This may come as a suprise to Villa fans, but not to Spurs or Sunderland fans. Youtube clip and MOTD just don't show you the amount of chances he totally fluffs. There isn't anyone in the top 20 goals scorers in the Prem this season with such a bad conversion rate. So whilst Sky say he 3rd worst, he is actaully the worst. To pay £18 million for a player who many want there to convert chances, yet who has the worst conversion rate of the top 20 scorers in the Prem this season, must casue some concern? This isn't just a case of stats being manipulated to say whatever one wants. Spurs and Sunderland fans will tell you he's a poor finsher and stats will strongly support this argument.

You could argue that his chance conversion rate doesn't matter and that his main asset is his ability to get into good positions and that's why he gets so many chances. But this isn't true either and if you look at how he compared to the other strikers playing at Sunderland, he has a shot every 30 minutes, whilst Wellbeck every 36 mins and Gyan every 23 mins. So he's just average for the side he's playing in, but with a lower conversion rate. Again this might seem nit picking when you look at the amount of goals he scored, but it will be no suprise to Spurs and Sunderland fans and again suggest alot of his reputation is down to playing alot of minutes and scoring pens.

So, you might provide him with some of the best service, but he's equally as likely to return the favour with some of the worst finishing. It might seem unbelievable that Houllier would pay so much money for him if he really was as average as I'm suggesting, but he's done it before. He bought Heskey, Barros and Diouf. Why can't he do it again? And the same could be said of Bent. On paper he had a good scroing record at Charlton. But when you take away pens and see how many mins it took him to score those goals, his record suddenly doesn't look so impressive. And so it shouldn't have been a shock when he was so poor at Spurs. And he really was pretty average. I'm not saying he was shit or anything, but not worth anywhere near the £16 million we paid for him.

Bent really isn't a bad striker, it's the deal I'm really criticising. In terms of age and the goals he'll score, there is nothing wrong with him, as he'll probably score a few more than Gabby. So I suspect you will improve a bit. But the amount of money you are paying for him is absurd. There are so many better options out there for far less money and his reputation really is built on cumulative data and penalty taking. There are many better players out there who would make more of the excellent service they'd get at Villa. If you were Man City it wouldn't be a problem, but I think Houllier is gambling on Bent taking you up a level and blowing a very large amount of your transfer budget. I honestly think this signing will be the end of Houllier and cause you financial problems for a couple of seasons.

Bent isn't bad, but the stats totally misrepresent him. We could argue this back and fourth, but as they say the proof of the pudding is in the eating, so we should agree to disagree for the moment and just wait and see. But Houllier has a history of signing bad strikers for big money and Bent has a history or flopping as a big money signing.

[joey55]

Lol at Spurs using there reserve game as a cattle market for all there players they cant get rid off.

Well hopefully for you your scouts were there. You don't want to end up paying a ridiculous fee for a very average player from another club in a couple of years time, that you could have bought from us for half the price.

Hopefully enough of your coaches were there. You don't want to let another very good player go for half the price you could have got.

His starts:goals ratio was very good at Spurs, better than any of the strikers he had to compete with actually.

His starts to goals ratio doesn't tell you much as it includes goals when coming off the bench. Minutes per goal is the best way to judge things and when they were all at Spurs together (which was only for a short time) both Defoe and Keane had better records than him.

So often players (i'm not just talking about Bent, but in general) get judged on cumulative data and this really distorts things. You can only score when on the pitch so it's unfair to make comparisons by just looking at the amount of goals a player has scored, which is so often done. We are apparently trying to sign Suarez at the moment and our fans are excited by this as yours were over Bent. But I can tell by reading most of the comments on Spurs boards that hardly anyone has watched him, other than casually during the WC. I keep reading how fast, strong and clinical he is! I've seen a fair bit of Suarez and he's not fast, goes over easily and often has about 5 chances before he scores. Yet his stats say he's got an incredible record and he looks a bit like Tevez, so our fans seem to have decided he has Teves attributes and the clinical finishing of RVN (as they scored similar amounts in Holland). I genuinely think you're in for shock concerning Bent and we might well be if we sign Suarez.

His starts to goals ratio doesn't tell you much, yet mins per goal does? Yet players who get judged on culmative data distort things?

joey55 you are an idiot. The same culmative data refers to both sides of the argument from differing angles, does it not?

What I'm saying is that is a player scores 10 goals in a season and starts 20 games, it suggest his goals to starts ratio is 1 in 2. But 5 of those goals could have been scored from the subs bench, so shouldn't be relevant in a goals to starts ratio. In reality he'd have a goals to starts ratio of 1 in 4. Hence a goals per minute ratio is better as it is a more accurate assesment of a players striker rate. Goals to starts give a distinct advantage to those players who spend more time on the pitch.

[JMilnereatsnails]

Lol at Spurs using there reserve game as a cattle market for all there players they cant get rid off.

Well hopefully for you your scouts were there. You don't want to end up paying a ridiculous fee for a very average player from another club in a couple of years time, that you could have bought from us for half the price.

Hopefully enough of your coaches were there. You don't want to let another very good player go for half the price you could have got.

His starts:goals ratio was very good at Spurs, better than any of the strikers he had to compete with actually.

His starts to goals ratio doesn't tell you much as it includes goals when coming off the bench. Minutes per goal is the best way to judge things and when they were all at Spurs together (which was only for a short time) both Defoe and Keane had better records than him.

So often players (i'm not just talking about Bent, but in general) get judged on cumulative data and this really distorts things. You can only score when on the pitch so it's unfair to make comparisons by just looking at the amount of goals a player has scored, which is so often done. We are apparently trying to sign Suarez at the moment and our fans are excited by this as yours were over Bent. But I can tell by reading most of the comments on Spurs boards that hardly anyone has watched him, other than casually during the WC. I keep reading how fast, strong and clinical he is! I've seen a fair bit of Suarez and he's not fast, goes over easily and often has about 5 chances before he scores. Yet his stats say he's got an incredible record and he looks a bit like Tevez, so our fans seem to have decided he has Teves attributes and the clinical finishing of RVN (as they scored similar amounts in Holland). I genuinely think you're in for shock concerning Bent and we might well be if we sign Suarez.

His starts to goals ratio doesn't tell you much, yet mins per goal does? Yet players who get judged on culmative data distort things?

joey55 you are an idiot. The same culmative data refers to both sides of the argument from differing angles, does it not?

What I'm saying is that is a player scores 10 goals in a season and starts 20 games, it suggest his goals to starts ratio is 1 in 2. But 5 of those goals could have been scored from the subs bench, so shouldn't be relevant in a goals to starts ratio. In reality he'd have a goals to starts ratio of 1 in 4. Hence a goals per minute ratio is better as it is a more accurate assesment of a players striker rate. Goals to starts give a distinct advantage to those players who spend more time on the pitch.

I simply disagree. Because what you say is bollocks.

If a player comes off the bench twice and scores 2 goals he has earnt the right to be in the starting 11, the fact that the player does not score in the games he starts should not make a difference to any starts per/ mins per total. Many differentials could be factored into this argument, (manager utilisation as an impact sub etc.) hence the reason it fails.

All that matters is "how many (total) goals per season?" Who scores the most? Simple.

[joey55]

Lol at Spurs using there reserve game as a cattle market for all there players they cant get rid off.

Well hopefully for you your scouts were there. You don't want to end up paying a ridiculous fee for a very average player from another club in a couple of years time, that you could have bought from us for half the price.

Hopefully enough of your coaches were there. You don't want to let another very good player go for half the price you could have got.

His starts:goals ratio was very good at Spurs, better than any of the strikers he had to compete with actually.

His starts to goals ratio doesn't tell you much as it includes goals when coming off the bench. Minutes per goal is the best way to judge things and when they were all at Spurs together (which was only for a short time) both Defoe and Keane had better records than him.

So often players (i'm not just talking about Bent, but in general) get judged on cumulative data and this really distorts things. You can only score when on the pitch so it's unfair to make comparisons by just looking at the amount of goals a player has scored, which is so often done. We are apparently trying to sign Suarez at the moment and our fans are excited by this as yours were over Bent. But I can tell by reading most of the comments on Spurs boards that hardly anyone has watched him, other than casually during the WC. I keep reading how fast, strong and clinical he is! I've seen a fair bit of Suarez and he's not fast, goes over easily and often has about 5 chances before he scores. Yet his stats say he's got an incredible record and he looks a bit like Tevez, so our fans seem to have decided he has Teves attributes and the clinical finishing of RVN (as they scored similar amounts in Holland). I genuinely think you're in for shock concerning Bent and we might well be if we sign Suarez.

His starts to goals ratio doesn't tell you much, yet mins per goal does? Yet players who get judged on culmative data distort things?

joey55 you are an idiot. The same culmative data refers to both sides of the argument from differing angles, does it not?

What I'm saying is that is a player scores 10 goals in a season and starts 20 games, it suggest his goals to starts ratio is 1 in 2. But 5 of those goals could have been scored from the subs bench, so shouldn't be relevant in a goals to starts ratio. In reality he'd have a goals to starts ratio of 1 in 4. Hence a goals per minute ratio is better as it is a more accurate assesment of a players striker rate. Goals to starts give a distinct advantage to those players who spend more time on the pitch.

I simply disagree. Because what you say is bollocks.

If a player comes off the bench twice and scores 2 goals he has earnt the right to be in the starting 11, the fact that the player does not score in the games he starts should not make a difference to any starts per/ mins per total. Many differentials could be factored into this argument, (manager utilisation as an impact sub etc.) hence the reason it fails.

All that matters is "how many (total) goals per season?" Who scores the most? Simple.

I'm sorry but i think you are just getting confused. kursimonw made the point that Bent had a good goals to starts ratio when at Spurs. However, I pointed out that not all his goals were scored in games in which he started, so the goals per starts ratio isn't accurate.

I also highlighted a greater problem when judging a players scoring potential based on simply adding up or accumulating the goals he scored throughout the season, as it isn't a fair comparison with players who have had less playing time. The goals per minute ratio is simply being used to achieve to sort of parity. I'm not suggesting some goals should be simply dismissed, but merely that when making comparisons between players ability to score, time spent of the pitch chould be taken into account.

[Stevo985]

I **** HATE Tottenham Hotspur. words removed.

[TrentVilla]

I'm sorry but i think you are just getting confused. kursimonw made the point that Bent had a good goals to starts ratio when at Spurs. However, I pointed out that not all his goals were scored in games in which he started, so the goals per starts ratio isn't accurate.

I also highlighted a greater problem when judging a players scoring potential based on simply adding up or accumulating the goals he scored throughout the season, as it isn't a fair comparison with players who have had less playing time. The goals per minute ratio is simply being used to achieve to sort of parity. I'm not suggesting some goals should be simply dismissed, but merely that when making comparisons between players ability to score, time spent of the pitch chould be taken into account.

I don't like Spurs but Joey is right.

[Gingerlad]

We should've kept Harewood if goals per minutes is the way to judge things.

[kurtsimonw]

mins:goal is just as bad, Harewood came 2nd only to Ronaldo a few years back in that category.

Edit: Gingerlad beat me to it.

[HJ]

Minutes per goal is nowhere near as bad as goals per start.

Harewood scored 5 goals per start for us. Says it all about that stat if used on anyone with substantial amount of sub appearances.

In fact, I don't see what's bad with minutes per goals. So Harewood scored a lot of goals when he was on the pitch, well done to him.

[kurtsimonw]

Because alot of substitute appearances can really skew the numbers (in the opposite way as to how Harewood fared), in my opinion.

I'm pretty sure most strikers would rather start and come off then just play the end of games. A player is more likely to score, in my opnion, playing the first hour of a game than they are playing the last 15 minutes of 4 games. It can take a while to get into a game, so the more short appearances you make, the less likely you are to score.

[HJ]

Because alot of substitute appearances can really skew the numbers (in the opposite way as to how Harewood fared), in my opinion.

I'm pretty sure most strikers would rather start and come off then just play the end of games. A player is more likely to score, in my opnion, playing the first hour of a game than they are playing the last 15 minutes of 4 games. It can take a while to get into a game, so the more short appearances you make, the less likely you are to score.

And on the other hand, more goals are scored in the last 15 minutes of matches than any other 15 minute period. And you are fresh vs. possibly tired defenders.

[theunderstudy]

Either way Spurs fans are very bitter about Bent.

I saw the comment earlier "you could have got Pavlyuchenko for less" eh? So he's available for 9.5m? DOn't think so.

[HJ]

And since its the topic at hand: Bent started 32 games for Spurs and scored 11 goals in those.

[ml1dch]

Either way Spurs fans are very bitter about Bent.

I saw the comment earlier "you could have got Pavlyuchenko for less" eh? So he's available for 9.5m? DOn't think so.

I'm fairly sure that if Pavlyuchenko was as good a goalscorer as the bloke we've just bought then we might have been interested.

And Joey, if his goals record is so good then why aren't you playing him? It's not as if the player who he would be replacing in the starting line is doing much of note.

Since minutes-per-goal is the most important thing to base anything on, what is Crouch's Premier League minutes-per-goal this season?

[GlastonSpur]

Either way Spurs fans are very bitter about Bent.

....

Why would we be bitter?

Since Bent left we've finished 4th and are now going well in the Champion's League - so it's not as if we've especially missed him.

Besides, we received 16.5m for selling him. And now we'll get - due to a sell-on clause in his sale contract - 10% of the 7.5m profit made by Sunderland on his 24m price tag to Villa.

I think you've overpaid for him, but he's no doubt a good striker and will certainly help a lot in your battle against relegation.

However, it looks like Villa will be heading for another massive loss in your next set of accounts because your wage bill continues to be huge and your spending spree of recent years continues. So either Lerner will continue to subsidise you or else the sale of Young is around the corner. I'd guess the latter.

[Danwichmann]

Either way Spurs fans are very bitter about Bent.

....

Why would we be bitter?

Since Bent left we've finished 4th and are now going well in the Champion's League - so it's not as if we've especially missed him.

Besides, we received 16.5m for selling him. And now we'll get - due to a sell-on clause in his sale contract - 10% of the 7.5m profit made by Sunderland on his 24m price tag to Villa.

I think you've overpaid for him, but he's no doubt a good striker and will certainly help a lot in your battle against relegation.

However, it looks like Villa will be heading for another massive loss in your next set of accounts because your wage bill continues to be huge and your spending spree of recent years continues. So either Lerner will continue to subsidise you or else the sale of Young is around the corner. I'd guess the latter.

Young may well be sold, but it won't be to balance the books, it'll be because he wants to go and won't sign a new contract.

Not that that'll be much consolation, but still, you're wrong.

[ED]

Either way Spurs fans are very bitter about Bent.

....

Why would we be bitter?

Since Bent left we've finished 4th and are now going well in the Champion's League - so it's not as if we've especially missed him.

Besides, we received 16.5m for selling him. And now we'll get - due to a sell-on clause in his sale contract - 10% of the 7.5m profit made by Sunderland on his 24m price tag to Villa.

I think you've overpaid for him, but he's no doubt a good striker and will certainly help a lot in your battle against relegation.

However, it looks like Villa will be heading for another massive loss in your next set of accounts because your wage bill continues to be huge and your spending spree of recent years continues. So either Lerner will continue to subsidise you or else the sale of Young is around the corner. I'd guess the latter.

**** off

[kurtsimonw]

It was £10m with future add-ons, Glaston. Unless you know what those add-ons were, it's just as likely you only got £10m than you claiming it was £16.5m + the sell on.

Bitterness is pretty easy to target on the net. The fact Spurs fans are coming on another forum to slag off a player that used to play for them says it all. When Citeh sell Milner/Barry I don't think you'll see us flooding whichever teams signs them forum saying "LOL u jst signed a shit playa 4 lots ov munneyz!"

£350m spent in the last 7 years and 1 top 4 finish to show for it. Well done, you must be so proud. As bad as Citeh.