villianusa Posted January 20, 2011 Share Posted January 20, 2011 I'm just glad I'm not related to any Spurs fans as I would have to disown them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gingerlad Posted January 20, 2011 Share Posted January 20, 2011 Glaston = Oliver Holt Im convinced of it Is that a new word filter? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stevo985 Posted January 20, 2011 VT Supporter Share Posted January 20, 2011 Glaston = the biggest douche in the universe Im convinced of it Fixed Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Genie Posted January 20, 2011 Share Posted January 20, 2011 2 Spurs fans in the office here, both came out with the same line ref the Bent transfer "Bent for £18m or VDV for £8m, I know which one I'd prefer..." pricks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fran_villa Posted January 20, 2011 Share Posted January 20, 2011 Why be such a sad bastard and go on an other fans forum and bang on about a player they have bought, i wouldn't mind so much if it was a sunderland fan put its a pair of Spuds fans FFS, you's are **** sad get a life for yourselfs.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zatman Posted January 20, 2011 Share Posted January 20, 2011 in fairness joey55 is a reliable and good poster. Oliver is just a word removed Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CarewsEyebrowDesigner Posted January 20, 2011 Share Posted January 20, 2011 spurss are bestessttt. i like when people make presumptions about clubs in order to suit their agenda without backing it up with anything substantial, of course they'd argue they do but it's easy to make an argument by being selective. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kurtsimonw Posted January 21, 2011 Share Posted January 21, 2011 PunchInTheFaceBook - Harry Redknapp Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wainy316 Posted January 21, 2011 Share Posted January 21, 2011 I've been punching him for hours now and the bastard won't go down! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ronk-villa Posted January 22, 2011 Share Posted January 22, 2011 I've been punching him for hours now and the bastard won't go down! you don't really want him to go down......if he stays up you can punch him for longer. Honestly....I'd never tire of punching that face. I'd punch him till my hand were just bloody stumps! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theunderstudy Posted January 22, 2011 Share Posted January 22, 2011 No, they got 8m in total as Sunderland hadn't paid them off yet! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GasGasGas Posted January 23, 2011 Share Posted January 23, 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ml1dch Posted January 23, 2011 Share Posted January 23, 2011 None of their goals come from penalties as it's too easy to score from them and insults their ability. Quite right - the number of penalties Defoe misses* suggests that he shares that exact philosophy. *Yes, I'm aware that this isn't an area we can really laugh at other teams for. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Rev Posted January 23, 2011 Share Posted January 23, 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. The top two Premier League goalscorers: Alan Shearer: Played 441, Goals 260, ratio: 0.58 Andy Cole: Played 414, Goals 189, ratio: 0.45 Alan Shearer is a lot better than Andy Cole isnt he? He has 71 more goals in just 27 more games. But hang on, penalties dont count do they? Alan Shearer: Played 441, Goals (not including penalties) 202, ratio: 0.45 Andy Cole: played 414, Goals (not including penalties) 188, ratio: 0.45 Given that Cole was used as a substitute a lot more than Shearer was, we could argue that Shearer wasnt worth the money because Andy Cole scored more goals per minute if we dont count spot kicks. Seriously, its all bollocks. You can argue any old shit with statistics, but the fact is Darren Bent is a 20+ goal a season striker in his mid twenties. We paid the going rate for him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PompeyVillan Posted January 23, 2011 Share Posted January 23, 2011 So do you think at the end of the season, is the league is decided statistically, with team with the best goal to game ratio winning the league? Goals win games and gain you points. Bent didn't do much against Man City apart from score the winning goal. Statistically, he might have had a shit game, but when all is said and done Villa got 3 points against one of the leagues best teams because of Bent's ability to put the ball in the back of the net. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AVFC-Prideofbrum Posted January 23, 2011 Share Posted January 23, 2011 Funnily enough though, he didn't have a shit game (not to say that's what you meant)...he was better than I expected, especially in the air. Even if he doesn't win the first ball, he made it difficult for their CB's to get a clear header. Anyway for me the most important thing with strikers who are in the team to score goals as are amount of goals and importance of goals, Bent fits those two bills. Bent scores a lot of important goals as well as a good number of goals which is why I've always rated him above Defoe (personal opinion) Good goalscorers miss chances. The more goalscoring positions you are in, the more goals you score but also the more you miss. Also what's good about Bent, he wastes 'chances' (although sounds bad, is completely expected) not the ball which are different things and quite important. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leviramsey Posted January 24, 2011 VT Supporter Share Posted January 24, 2011 Goals win games and gain you points. Bent didn't do much against Man City apart from score the winning goal. Statistically, he might have had a shit game, but when all is said and done Villa got 3 points against one of the leagues best teams because of Bent's ability to put the ball in the back of the net. Bent only added 2 points, actually. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sellyoakvilla Posted January 24, 2011 Share Posted January 24, 2011 Tottenham fans are so full of shit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
legov Posted January 24, 2011 Share Posted January 24, 2011 I actually kind of agree with him though, Houllier does have a record of signing shit strikers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sellyoakvilla Posted January 24, 2011 Share Posted January 24, 2011 But Bent isn't shit... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts