Darren Bent

[OutByEaster?]

Darren Bent has scored goals for all of the managers he has played for here, except for Paul Lambert who decided he was a player not worth investing in.

 

Some scruffy research here from me, apologies if it's wrong - he got 11 in 19 in his first (half) season here under Houllier - a very good return - he got 11 in 28 under McLeish, still very reasonable if not as good as under Houllier, I think you have to take into account that under McLeish we didn't do much in the way of attacking. Last year he got 6 in 23 for Lambert - only ten of those were starts though which makes a big difference.

 

I think you can argue that Bent has goals under any manager he's played for, but I think you can also argue that this is a player in decline. I wouldn't lose any sleep about him being at Fulham, put it that way.

[OutByEaster?]

I don't think it says too much at all Scott. They are all effectively on the transfer list anyway there is no need for them to actually ask for one

But if you take the Bent deal for example - if he wants to play, he can make the deal happen - effectively he'd be giving up his 'leaving present' but bringing his price into range for a new team - he's 29, he's played a lot of years in the top league and it's unlikely that he's short of a bob or two, but he'd sooner sit on his arse and collect it than push to play football.

[Electric Avenue]

Given, Hutton, Ireland, Bent and Nzogbia are costing us about £1.2m a month. That is just so sad.

[Richard]

Yes I see that chap but he is quite prepared to play for us I would guess. Not his fault the manager doesn't fancy him or that he doesn't fit the system now, not our fault either shit happens. So from his point of view why should he ask for ask for a transfer?

[markavfc40]

Strange, the way we're all happy to see the back of the guy who's scored 25 in 64 games for us due to his perceived lack of effort....yet the the 'Fans favourite' who's scored 74 in 296 remains blameless 'cos he's Villa through and through'.

 

 

Your figures are telling half the story. Your also not comparing like for like are you.

Gabby has started 265 games for us and scored 76 goals. I would be confident in saying he has played over half those games out wide. In that context his figures are more than decent. He has also had a habit of scoring very important goals for us in big or crucial games. He also contributes a great deal in terms of working his bollocks off, tracking back and creating chances for others.

Bents figures are impressive. However in the last 2 seasons without Downing and Ash supplying him with chances he has scored 17 goals in 51 appearances.

Given the choice of Bent or Gabby it is a no brainer. Gabby by a long way.

Edited August 3, 2013 by markavfc40

[CrackpotForeigner]

Strange, the way we're all happy to see the back of the guy who's scored 25 in 64 games for us due to his perceived lack of effort....yet the the 'Fans favourite' who's scored 74 in 296 remains blameless 'cos he's Villa through and through'.
 

 

I think there are very few Villa fans who want to see the back of Bent for any reason other than what he costs for what he does. We pretty much all acknowledge that his goals kept us up in the Houllier season. Considering this, and the fact that he's never said a bad word in public about the club or anyone at it, I think he will always be welcomed by the fans in future.

 

Forget who came up with the analogy, but worth wheeling it out again: In the current Villa setup, having DB in the team is like starting with a goal advantage and playing the game with 10 men.

 

Gabby might appear to make less effort than he should at times, but I think this has often been because he's been played when less than 100% fit. There is no questioning the fact that he is a fan of the club he plays for. If only there were more players like that. A proper Villa legend, not so much because of amazing goal stats, but because of when and how a lot of those goals have been scored.

[mikeyp102]

Anyone think that Bent could play a few games should he not be sold and we pick up a couple of injuries? Or are those bridges burnt fully?

[dont_do_it_doug.]

If we'd stayed up by a mile and banged in more goals in, then i'd have said Lambert was justified. But we didn't

I can't help but think if we'd played Benteke & Bent as a front pair and found a system that suited we'd have stayed up with far greater ease

I disagree, completely.

Our forward line performed well last year, and our goalscoring was not a problem. We struggled because of the defense.

Our goal scoring was pretty poor as well.

Only McLeish's season was lower in recent years. We scored more in Houllier's season with Bent up front for half of it.

Again bigger picture missed. We WERE pretty poor, up until February.

[AshVillain]

 

Strange, the way we're all happy to see the back of the guy who's scored 25 in 64 games for us due to his perceived lack of effort....yet the the 'Fans favourite' who's scored 74 in 296 remains blameless 'cos he's Villa through and through'.

 

 

I think there are very few Villa fans who want to see the back of Bent for any reason other than what he costs for what he does. We pretty much all acknowledge that his goals kept us up in the Houllier season. Considering this, and the fact that he's never said a bad word in public about the club or anyone at it, I think he will always be welcomed by the fans in future.

 

Forget who came up with the analogy, but worth wheeling it out again: In the current Villa setup, having DB in the team is like starting with a goal advantage and playing the game with 10 men.

 

Gabby might appear to make less effort than he should at times, but I think this has often been because he's been played when less than 100% fit. There is no questioning the fact that he is a fan of the club he plays for. If only there were more players like that. A proper Villa legend, not so much because of amazing goal stats, but because of when and how a lot of those goals have been scored.

 

Mostly this. I personally want to see the back of Bent because our current options in his position - Benteke and Helenius (possibly ... the test of time will tell but he looks pretty good so far) - are better than him. The money matters of course, but the on field performances matter much more for me. Bent will score 15-20 a season IF YOU PLAY HIS WAY. If you don't, maybe 10-15 .... which both Gabby and Andi are even capable of ..... like I said, for me, we just have better options than Bent.

Edited August 3, 2013 by AshVillain

[Morpheus]

 

And what about the 16m if we did indeed purchase Bent for 18m?

We could ask Sunderland for a refund because he wasn't what we wanted, but I don't think they'll be too keen.

 

I guess your question leads to the question - Was buying him a mistake? 

 

For me the answer is yes, I think we could have spent that money more wisely, even in the situation we were in - I also think we overpaid.

 

My point was whatever we save now by selling him won't get anywhere near to covering the original cost and we should focus on that rather than trying to sweep the overall loss underneath the carpet.

 

However i suppose that deficit will now will be offset in the future with the eventual sale of Benteke should he repeat his form of last season?

[OutByEaster?]

 

 

And what about the 16m if we did indeed purchase Bent for 18m?

We could ask Sunderland for a refund because he wasn't what we wanted, but I don't think they'll be too keen.

 

I guess your question leads to the question - Was buying him a mistake? 

 

For me the answer is yes, I think we could have spent that money more wisely, even in the situation we were in - I also think we overpaid.

 

My point was whatever we save now by selling him won't get anywhere near to covering the original cost and we should focus on that rather than trying to sweep the overall loss underneath the carpet.

 

However i suppose that deficit will now will be offset in the future with the eventual sale of Benteke should he repeat his form of last season?

 

The loss is the loss, there's nothing we can do about it - we're in the business of damage limitation on this one - again, that goes back to the question of whether he was worth it, in my opinion he wasn't. It was too much to pay, and he's been poor value for it - a poor decision - we're certainly never going to see that money again, it's gone. I'm not sure there's any value in focussing on it - maybe in the Lerner thread, but not particularly here.

 

 

Not sure there's any real merit in trying to link the money we'll make on Benteke to the loss on Bent either - you can say swings and roundabouts I guess, but I wouldn't have it down as a plan.

[Danwichmann]

Anyone think that Bent could play a few games should he not be sold and we pick up a couple of injuries? Or are those bridges burnt fully?

 

Depends what his attitude is like on the training ground really, and the truth is we can only guess and speculate about that. But if he has a positive attitude then I think he should be involved if or when it benefits the team.

[rbcuk]

Newcastle are hopeful to do a deal according to kinnear http://www1.skysports.com/football/news/11677/8854480/newcastle-are-hopeful-of-signing-strikers-loic-remy-and-darren-bent

[villa-revolution]

Joke In here has just been on SSN stating that Newcastle held talks with DB & his agent for over 3 hours last week & that they have agreed a deal in principle with him but not yet Aston Villa.

 

Seeing as we have made it clear all summer that we won't accept less than 6M what is their problem.

 

Will be so happy when this transfer saga is finally over.

[OutByEaster?]

In that article, Joe claims - "We were with Darren's agent for two or three hours, we thrashed out a deal."

 

I must have missed the bit where we gave Newcastle permission to speak to him then?

[VillaForever1970]

They need to bid more than 50p for starters.

[brommy]

Newcastle are hopeful to do a deal according to kinnear http://www1.skysports.com/football/news/11677/8854480/newcastle-are-hopeful-of-signing-strikers-loic-remy-and-darren-bent

Interesting. Perhaps with two clubs after Bent we will receive the fee we want. I wouldn't be surprised if the same fee was agreed with both clubs and it was left up to Bent to decide between the bigger club or landan.

On a side note related to the link above, what shape would VT be in if we had a director of football who we could only hope was in full agreement with Lambert. Gulp!

[brommy]

In that article, Joe claims - "We were with Darren's agent for two or three hours, we thrashed out a deal."

 

I must have missed the bit where we gave Newcastle permission to speak to him then?

Didn't they speak to his agent and not Bent himself? I presume that's allowed.

[skarroki]

if he goes good luck to him, i certainly won't boo on his return and i hope no-one else would either. i think a club like Newcastle with the way they play he will be a real bargain

[OutByEaster?]

 

 

In that article, Joe claims - "We were with Darren's agent for two or three hours, we thrashed out a deal."

 

I must have missed the bit where we gave Newcastle permission to speak to him then?

 

Didn't they speak to his agent and not Bent himself? I presume that's allowed.

I've always thought permission to speak to the player meant permission to speak to his agent(s) rather than to speak to the player himself -  I mean, who in the middle of a multi-million pound deal wants to speak to a half educated massively greedy ego maniac?