Darren Bent

[PieFacE]

I find the argument that goes "the board cant do anything about it" really infuriating and one that actually misses the point.

It has been used before for other players and will no doubt be used again. But that is just acceptance of a board not doing anything surely? I mean what then are they there for if not to try and help the club be competitive against other clubs , to raise our profile?

I mean certainly under Ellis we couldn't do anything about our better players wanting to leave, but I thought under Lerner it would be different? That he was a different owner?

If you just accept that there is nothing we can do then that absolves the board of any responsibility of doing something about it in the first place, they will never do anything about it and we will always lose our best players.

So let's say Darren Bent wants to leave, in the same way Gareth Barry, Milner, Young and Downing wanted too. What would YOU do to stop them wanting to leave? Offer a bigger contract? They did that. Show "ambition"? They don't have the money to compete the same way the top 6 do.

So, how would you convince players to stay?

Well this will sound like a cop out so apologies for that but, I am not running the club.

However, that does not mean I will excuse them for our best players leaving as I did not excuse us when Ellis was in charge

When Ugo and Southgate left to go to Boro citing lack of ambition, did I excuse the owner then?

Same thing is happening today really and for me that does not mean I can say "well the board can do f eck all" when specifically this board and the way they run the club is supposed to be better.

Yeah I understand what you're saying - But football is a fairly simple game for footballers, they all want more money and they all want trophys. (with the odd exception of a "Gabby"). So, whilst I understand that you dont run the club so you dont have the answer, I really don't think Lerner has the answer because there is no answer as far as i'm concerned. To me, unless you can spend a shitload on wages and players, then you will always lose your best players. It's horrible and i hate that part of the game but i'm yet to hear one good idea that will help keep your best players that doesnt involve more money. So for that reason, I really do sometimes believe that "the board cant do anything about it (other then get as much money back as they can)"

[micflair]

This is becoming a roundabout style discussion with no end to it.. haha

Where is mysteryman with some info when we need him..

[GeordieVillan]

I actually think Bent has been exactly the same as last season - he's scored 6 in 16 this year compared to 9 in 16 last year (I havn't checked this but someone else mentioned this stat earlier). This year he has missed some easy chances so he could/should have had at least 9 by now. I think he'll score at least 15 by the end of the season.

Secondly, he won't go to Liverpool, because he's not good enough for them, (sadly) he's good enough to be our most important player but I think that Liverpool are now more ambitious than signing players such as Darren Bent....

[OnlyOne]

Liverpool aren't ambitious when they think someone like Adam is good enough for them. This is the same club who had Mascherano and Alonso not that long ago. Bunch of idiots.

[GeordieVillan]

They are more amibitious than us and Darren Bent though! And this is the same Adam who we wanted apparently.

Look at the players they have signed since Dalglish took over, we would be creaming ourselves with Suarez/Carroll/Adam/Downing/Enrique/Bellamy/Henderson - even if they have paid over the odds.

Anyway, without going off topic, I just don't see them wanting Bent, and I would be amazed if they shipped out Carroll on loan after paying £35m for him. They don't have the money of Man City to be able to justify that.

[TheDrums]

Liverpool aren't ambitious when they think someone like Adam is good enough for them. This is the same club who had Mascherano and Alonso not that long ago. Bunch of idiots.

Eh?

They had completely different owners who were running the club financially into the ground.

New owners came in and they spent £100m on Carroll, Adam, Downing and Suarez.

As for Alonso he WANTED to leave for Real Madrid. Liverpool bought him for £12m and sold him for £30m.

[MYSTERYMAN]

This is becoming a roundabout style discussion with no end to it.. haha

Where is mysteryman with some info when we need him..

Will not be sold this window unless it's 30 mill plus and we can get a replacement and we can't ! Non starter they know they sell him we could go down place would be in meltdown :!:

[jat_r]

This is becoming a roundabout style discussion with no end to it.. haha

Where is mysteryman with some info when we need him..

Will not be sold this window unless it's 30 mill plus and we can get a replacement and we can't ! Non starter they know they sell him we could go down place would be in meltdown :!:

Do you think we will be signing anyone?

[PauloBarnesi]

Non starter they know they sell him we could go down place would be in meltdown :!:

Haven’t they worked out that McLeish could take us down :!:

[smetrov]

This is becoming a roundabout style discussion with no end to it.. haha

Where is mysteryman with some info when we need him..

Will not be sold this window unless it's 30 mill plus and we can get a replacement and we can't ! Non starter they know they sell him we could go down place would be in meltdown :!:

There was meltdown when we appointed Mcleish.

If lerner will shell out to appoint a 2nd rate blues manager - he will not think twice about selling bent for £20M

[micflair]

This is becoming a roundabout style discussion with no end to it.. haha

Where is mysteryman with some info when we need him..

Will not be sold this window unless it's 30 mill plus and we can get a replacement and we can't ! Non starter they know they sell him we could go down place would be in meltdown :!:

well thats that sorted. I rubbed your lamp and you appeared like a genie.. ooeer.

[CarewsEyebrowDesigner]

he isn't going anywhere until summer, i doubt anyone has the money we'd ask for mid-season, considering we spent quite a bit on him last year.

[Daweii]

I personally don't mind what Villa do with Bent as we actually played some very good football when he was injured.. I think 4-4-2 or a variation on that like 4-3-1-2 just stifles our creativity and the only time we play that is when Bent plays.. It's either that or play 4-4-1-1 with Ireland/Bannan/Gardner roaming behind the striker and let McLeish decide between Bent or Gabby for the lone striker role.

If McLeish started doing that Bent would never play as Gabby is head and shoulders the better player.. Sure Bent is a more prolific scorer but other than that when he's not scoring it's like playing with 10 men. Gabby on the other hand tracks back and defends, he runs the wings, he creates his own chances and the most important thing is he links up with the rest of the team, he doesn't just stand around like a £24 million paperweight until someone passes to him.

Don't get me wrong I think Bent is a great guy and a good striker but I don't think he's a fit for Aston Villa. We play counter attacking football for the most part which means we need attacking players that can run with the ball and create chances. Bent literally needs to get the ball in and around the 6 yard box to do anything with it.. That's not good for us.

[MikeMcKenna]

Non starter they know they sell him we could go down place would be in meltdown :!:

Haven’t they worked out that McLeish could take us down :!:

:!:

[MikeMcKenna]

Delete

[TezzRexx]

I honestly can't believe people are wanting Bent sold now.

2010/2011 - Bent scores goals through supply line. Not a problem.

2011/2012 - Bent doesn't score as many due to a lack of proper supply line.

It's flawed logic to say that Bent is the problem here. We just need to improve the central midfield. Playing Petrov and a defender is never going to create a decent supply to Bent as say, Petrov and a box to box mid-fielder (or ideally two box to box mid-fielders instead of Petrov), similar to James Milner.

It's also flawed to think that a more dynamic striker would get us more goals under the current system and team we're playing with.

[andym]

I personally don't mind what Villa do with Bent as we actually played some very good football when he was injured...

some good football without Bent? passing it square and backwards in the middle of the pitch a bit more than we had in the few games before doesnt make good football. we still hardly created anything or looked like scoring. games we have played without Bent

QPR 1-1 poor performance could only score with a soft penalty

Liverpool 0-2 rubbish, never looked like scoring

Arsenal 1-2 only scored with a gift from arsenal, only other effort on goal was gabbys header early on.

stoke 0-0 dull, boring game, made their keeper work just once

chelsea, the only game you could call good. 1-1 when he came on, finished 3-1 to us.

Sure Bent is a more prolific scorer but other than that when he's not scoring it's like playing with 10 men.

just like the gabby "has no football brain, is an athlete not a footballer" myth that we had a few seasons back, it seems we now have the Bent just stands there waiting for the ball myth. im not going to claim his hold up play is great, but it is adequate, and he clearly worked on it under houllier. get the ball to his feet and get some support quick and it is fine. smash the ball at his head while he has 2 cbs marking him and no support and hes never going to hold it up. he is not physically big and strong enough.

We play counter attacking football for the most part which means we need attacking players that can run with the ball and create chances. Bent literally needs to get the ball in and around the 6 yard box to do anything with it.. That's not good for us.

i have no idea what style of football we play, and it looks like the players have no idea either. we could do we getting bent the ball in the final third with some regularity, let alone the 6 yard box. the same goes for gabby. we spent most of monday punting aimless balls up to them, or having them watch as deep booming crosses sail over their heads.

mind you, its not a surprise Mcleish is killing our strikers. last season blues scored just 37 league goals. their top scorer was craig gardner with 8. defenders accounted for another 8. phillips, jerome, zigic, o'connor, derbyshire, martins and mcfadden scored just 9 league goals combined. i know most of them are shit, but you should still be able to get more than 9 goals out of all of them. pretty clear mcleishs tactics were to play negative anti football and hope gardner could score a screamer or they could nick 1 from a set piece.

he has no idea how to utilise decent attacking players. blues couldnt score enough due to him and went down because of it. we are having the same troubles in scoring. hopefully its not the same result

[Ulver]

If it were a simple choice of selling either Gabby or Bent, it'd be Gabby every day. But it should be neither

The only downside would be we'd only get offered about half as much for Gabby. All the running in the world isn't going to make you a top bracket 20m+ player

Only proven goalscorers (and Andy Carroll ...) command the big fees

[juanpabloangel18]

If it were a simple choice of selling either Gabby or Bent, it'd be Gabby every day

GTFO, seriously.

[Mantis]

Oh no, heaven forbid someone favours one of our good strikers over the other good striker.

Personally I'd sell Bent over Gabby, but I rate them both the same. I think they both have things they're excellent at and other things they're not so good at.