kurtsimonw Posted January 24, 2011 Share Posted January 24, 2011 Top scorer since 2005. Fact. If he's played more than others, good. It means he doesn't get injuried very often which is what you want from a top striker. If he scores a few penalties, good, because you want someone to score regular penalties. Joey also seems to miss out the fact that Bent has had absoloute toss service his entire career so far. Charlton? Spurs? Sunderland? No wonder he scores once every 179 minutes or whatever, those teams between them create **** all. Oh, and something I noticed earlier today. Winger supreme Gareth Bale has 1 assist this season. Scott Carson had more than that when he was at Villa I think! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TrentVilla Posted January 24, 2011 Moderator Share Posted January 24, 2011 I would have thought Spurs fans would be more interested in their need for a decent keeper than our new striker. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oaks Posted January 24, 2011 Share Posted January 24, 2011 He's better than Defoe thats for sure Bent -------------- Defoe 36/18----05/06---36/9 32/13---06/07----34/10 27/6----07/08-----27/12 33/12----08.09----27/10 38/24----09/10---34/18 21/9----10/11-----6/0 Comparable players and Bents on another Level, 82 goals to 59. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jonno_2004 Posted January 24, 2011 Share Posted January 24, 2011 I've never heard so much drivel in my entire life. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TrentVilla Posted January 24, 2011 Moderator Share Posted January 24, 2011 Bent has a history or flopping as a big money signing. I've not read your entire post if I'm honest but this one line jumped out at me and make me shout 'utter bollocks'. How exactly you come to this conclusion is beyond me it really is. He went from Ipswich to Charlton for what at the time was big money for them and was a huge success, so much so you paid £16.5m for him because of the amount of goals he scored. Then while with you he continued to score and though he eventually found himself out of the starting line up, he moved for £10m rising to £16.5m. At Sunderland he scored a load more goals, so many in fact we opted to pay £18m rising to £24m for him. To say he has a history as flopping as a big money signing is total and utter bollocks. Its rubbish Joey utter rubbish. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dodgyknees Posted January 24, 2011 Share Posted January 24, 2011 Harry Redknapp has a history of signing fraudulent tax returns. Harry Redknapp has a history of "killing" his chairmen. Harry Redknapp has a history of ruining clubs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
joey55 Posted January 24, 2011 Share Posted January 24, 2011 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. WOW! IMPRESSIVE! Please enlighten me then as to why he has scored more goals than any of your players in every single season he's had except one (when he was with your shit club, and even then the other season he was with your shit club he was your top scorer!). It makes you look **** stupid really, writing all that pointless rubbish. Oh and I bet Spurs players only score their goals from moves of the highest quality in sweeping open play. None of their goals come from penalties as it's too easy to score from them and insults their ability. It's pointless posting anything on the board, as the Villa fans always try and turn it into a Spurs Vs Villa argument. It's as if you've chosen to find an angle in which to turn it into a Spurs fan criticising Villa, as oppossed to a discussion about the validitiy of Villa's purchase of Bent. Your very first question suggests you simply haven't understood the points I've made. Yet again in this thread I've been accussed of being stupid. You may call me stupid and i'm sure other Villa fans will come along and agree, but none of them who have grasp of basic maths will mean it. I've not bothered returning insults with others in this thread and have avoided making smug retorts when even Villa fans have pointed out that those such as yourself, who have called me stupid or an idiot have simply not been able to grasp the points I've made. Only time will tell if the Bent transfer turns out to be the right move for Villa, but if it doesn't it shouldn't come as a suprise and I've simply highlighted reasons for this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
joey55 Posted January 24, 2011 Share Posted January 24, 2011 Top scorer since 2005. Fact. If he's played more than others, good. It means he doesn't get injuried very often which is what you want from a top striker. If he scores a few penalties, good, because you want someone to score regular penalties. Joey also seems to miss out the fact that Bent has had absoloute toss service his entire career so far. Charlton? Spurs? Sunderland? No wonder he scores once every 179 minutes or whatever, those teams between them create **** all. Oh, and something I noticed earlier today. Winger supreme Gareth Bale has 1 assist this season. Scott Carson had more than that when he was at Villa I think! But haven't Sunderland created more chances this season than Villa? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TrentVilla Posted January 24, 2011 Moderator Share Posted January 24, 2011 But haven't Sunderland created more chances this season than Villa? Like all stats it depends on who is using them and how. I'm not sure how you define a chance, after all the 'chance' Bent took on Saturday was only a chance because of his reading of the game and the fact he put himself in the right position to take advantage. Any Villa fan would tell you that none of the other strikers on our books would have been in that position so the chance would never have been a chance. In addition with crosses, we have great players with ability to put the ball in the right areas, what we didn't have before Bent was someone to get on the end of them and make them 'chances'. Sunderland might have created more 'chances' this season but this is far from being a easy stat to quantify. I certainly think we have far better creative players than them and as a result Bent will get more opportunities here than he got at Sunderland. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BOF Posted January 24, 2011 Moderator Share Posted January 24, 2011 Exactly Trent. A 'chance' in the context of this discussion is any cross that went into the box, or any ball that went across the box unchallenged. Our lot were rooted to a spot somewhere else at the time. I'd say the fact Sunderland have created more chances i.e. shots on or off target is because they had one Darren Bent getting on the end of them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
joey55 Posted January 24, 2011 Share Posted January 24, 2011 I think you're focusing on the fact you have some very good creative players and perhaps not paying enough attention to the fact that overall the team isn't particuarly creative. You're looking at the likes of Albrighton, Young and Downing and suggesting that they will give Bent better service than he's had before adn I can see the logic there. But they are just 3 players. But do these 3 players make up for the lack of creativity in the rest of the side? I don't think so and though you'll raise quesrtions over their worth, the stats don't suggest it either. And this is one the reasons I'm critical of the Bent deal. As Bent himself does not really add much in that area either. If you look at the league leaders, they have attacking full backs, and strikers who create as much as the wide players. I don't think Bent will score at a higher rate than he did at Sunderland and I don't think spending the money on him is the answer to getting you challenging for a top 4 spot. I think Bent will score around 6 goals for you from open play this season. Walker might add important impetus going forward, but I think depsite having 3 very good creative players, this still doesn't mean that overall you'll create more chances than the likes of Sunderland. Only 4 of your players have created a double figured amount of chances this season, whcilst Sunderland have 10. So there is a suggestion that their creativity is spread more throughout the team. So I can see why you'd assume he'll get more chances at Villa, as at first glance you look at their squad and then see the likes of Downing and Young in yours and it does seem the better creative players are at Villa. But overall there is a little between the sides on that front. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
joey55 Posted January 24, 2011 Share Posted January 24, 2011 Exactly Trent. A 'chance' in the context of this discussion is any cross that went into the box, or any ball that went across the box unchallenged. Our lot were rooted to a spot somewhere else at the time. I'd say the fact Sunderland have created more chances i.e. shots on or off target is because they had one Darren Bent getting on the end of them. But I've already pointed out that Gyan gets on the end of more, so it isn't a case of Bent standing out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
walesavfc Posted January 24, 2011 Share Posted January 24, 2011 Hey this is a redknob/spurs hatefest topic...... why is Bent even being mentioned here ? unless joey55 ang gladston are coming out the closet. then........... bah to what a spurs fan says about bent... they are harry loved up Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ml1dch Posted January 24, 2011 Share Posted January 24, 2011 It's pointless posting anything on the board, as the Villa fans always try and turn it into a Spurs Vs Villa argument. It's as if you've chosen to find an angle in which to turn it into a Spurs fan criticising Villa, as oppossed to a discussion about the validitiy of Villa's purchase of Bent. Odd that, when that discussion is taking place on a thread titled "The All New Spurs Hatefest". So while we're doing a bit of that, do you not think that for such a one-dimensional, disappointing player it's quite surprising that this (by his standards, below-par) season he's scored three more league goals than every striker at your club put together? And as for the stats about being the worst player in the league for chance conversion - do you want to have a guess at who the player is in the league who requires the fewest number of shots per goals scored? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TrentVilla Posted January 24, 2011 Moderator Share Posted January 24, 2011 I think you're focusing on the fact you have some very good creative players and perhaps not paying enough attention to the fact that overall the team isn't particuarly creative. Actually no, what we are focussing upon is the fact we've signed a very good goal scorer. Period. What you and your Spurs support pal seem to be focusing on is anything you can that will support your pre-determined opinion. One minute its this stat then its another and frankly is all rather boring, you aren't discussing, your aren't debating you are preaching. Your mind is made up, fine you are entitled to your opinion but so are others without having you preaching and giving this or that stat which you claim proves your view to be the definitive truth. Do you not think we know the strengths and weaknesses of our own team which we spend a great deal more time watching? We aren't focussing on the creativity of these players simply demonstrating yet again the 'stats' you quote to prove your view point are like most stats subjective and easy to be adapted to whatever point you are trying to prove. You're looking at the likes of Albrighton, Young and Downing and suggesting that they will give Bent better service than he's had before adn I can see the logic there. But they are just 3 players. But do these 3 players make up for the lack of creativity in the rest of the side? What on earth are you blathering on about???? How many creative players do you have to have before you can be deemed to be able to create chances? You have no point at all. You raised the issue of chances created and I like many people think we have better players than Sunderland when it comes to creating chances. Period. End of point. We aren't saying we have the most creative team in the world or anything close but more creative than Sunderland? Yes I would say so. I don't think so and though you'll raise quesrtions over their worth, the stats don't suggest it either. And this is one the reasons I'm critical of the Bent deal. As Bent himself does not really add much in that area either. Ah the stats, the stats, the stats, the stats. I think we've already covered that and shown that a) stats can be made to show anything and stats for 'chances' are more than just a little subjective. If you look at the league leaders, they have attacking full backs, and strikers who create as much as the wide players. Really. How interesting. I don't think Bent will score at a higher rate than he did at Sunderland and I don't think spending the money on him is the answer to getting you challenging for a top 4 spot. We will see. No one player we could sign would be though so that is a bit of a meaningless point. I think Bent will score around 6 goals for you from open play this season. Walker might add important impetus going forward, but I think depsite having 3 very good creative players, this still doesn't mean that overall you'll create more chances than the likes of Sunderland. Well its one down in one game so far. As for the 'chances' stat I can't even be bothered. Only 4 of your players have created a double figured amount of chances this season, whcilst Sunderland have 10. So there is a suggestion that their creativity is spread more throughout the team. Because that is what you want it to suggest, I've already explained to you that there is a very different way of viewing that which you have ignored. So I can see why you'd assume he'll get more chances at Villa, as at first glance you look at their squad and then see the likes of Downing and Young in yours and it does seem the better creative players are at Villa. But overall there is a little between the sides on that front. If you say so. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
orkneyvilla Posted January 24, 2011 Share Posted January 24, 2011 You make some interesting points Joey 55. I think its a bit harsh comparing our teams level of creativity so far this season with Sunderland. Perhaps you can take into account that we will create more in the second half of the season given the fact that the team is more settled and probably coming out of transition. If you can tell me were less creative overall than Sunderland last season - which might be a more reflective statistic (although Milner's gone) - then fair play to you. You also make the point that there may have been cheaper talent around that could of done the same job as Bent - please tell me who. Proven goalscorer, premiership experience ? willing to come to Villa in our current situation ? The whole thing is a bit of a gamble yes but it always was going to be expensive at this time of year. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
villa_shere Posted January 24, 2011 Share Posted January 24, 2011 Wahey! Levy taking Spurs out of Tottenham..... So much for bashing "Woolwich Arsenal" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brumstopdogs Posted January 24, 2011 Share Posted January 24, 2011 The Tottenham nomads! Bent has been playing in the top flight for 6 seasons and in 5 of them no other Tottenham player has scored more than him in the league! I expected them to be jealous and no surprise they are. Can I also just mention that in 129 years of playing football Tottenham have won a quarter of our total of the main 2 trophies combined. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kurtsimonw Posted January 24, 2011 Share Posted January 24, 2011 I thought joey was a good poster, but like most Spurs fans it's becoming a bit of a 'Spurs do no wrong' thing with him. Amazing how he's trying to criticise Bent the way he is. Talking of strikers, another absoloute stinker from Defoe at the weekend, he need to get back to his hit and hope rather than trying to place his shots. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brumstopdogs Posted January 24, 2011 Share Posted January 24, 2011 Bent has been rubbish this season in the league. He's only scored more than Defoe, Crouch, Keane and Pav put together! Super, massive, all conquering Tottenham. That have won....lots of the smaller trophies. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts