Richard Posted January 2, 2012 Share Posted January 2, 2012 I mean those arguing that we should rid ourselves of Bent and have the money to spend elsewhere on the squad Firstly, do you think all of it would be available for transfer funds ? I dont Secondly do you actually trust Mcleish to spend the money well ? His record for us so far has been dire Thirdly, what would that leave us with when the inevitable happens and Mclsish is got rid of ? A worse squad which requires even bigger rebuilding Selling Bent makses no sense at all. Getting shot of Mcleish however makes perfect sense Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OutByEaster? Posted January 2, 2012 Moderator Share Posted January 2, 2012 Selling Bent makses no sense at all. Getting shot of Mcleish however makes perfect sense It's not one or the other. I'm not the biggest fan of either tbh. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
juanpabloangel18 Posted January 2, 2012 Author Share Posted January 2, 2012 If you took a side and put Gabby in it up front on his own for a season and Bent in it up front on his own for a season, I've no doubt that Bent would score more goals, I'd be surprised if the team with Gabby in it didn't get more points. This is a thought that has been bugging me for some time. In the 2009-10 season when Bent got his 24 league goals, the rest of the side only got another 24 between them and Sunderland finished 13th. It seems to me that Bent is fine when the system is set up to help him score lots of goals but that doesn't necessarily convert into winning football and the rest of the team isn't automatically galvanised into going for goal as well. This... we would have been much better today with an extra midfielder or winger. Also, Gabby is a better player in many respects. Bent's useful - in a specific set up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OnlyOne Posted January 2, 2012 Share Posted January 2, 2012 It's laughable to think someone like Steve Bruce can get 20 odd goals out of him and Alex McLeish will struggle to get 10. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zatman Posted January 3, 2012 Share Posted January 3, 2012 how many times - he isnt going to be sacked. How about Darren Bent shows a bit of passion and enthusiasm to the cause instead of sulking like a spoilt child. How about McLeish starts actually managing the side properly then. Stops making curmudgeon substitutions and generally trying to destroy football games with his useless tactics. If Steve Bruce can get the best out of Bent but McLeish cannot ..well my God what an unparalleled crap manager we really must have. But Steve Bruce didnt always get the best out of Bent. Bent sulked for many of his last months at Sunderland and was out of form. HArry Redknapp didnt get the best out of him either. dont let facts get in teh way of his agenda you know MON has won 3 in 5 at Sunderland Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stevo985 Posted January 3, 2012 VT Supporter Share Posted January 3, 2012 If McLeish is to be our manager fro the forseeable future, then selling Bent wouldn't be the worst thing, as much as it pains me to say it. He's class, but he's completely unsuited to the system McLeish uses. I don't see that system changing any time soon so I think, very unfortunately, Bent will continue to be wasted here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shillzz Posted January 3, 2012 Share Posted January 3, 2012 ^ Pretty much what I came on here to say. There's no point in playing Bent in a McLeish team. The squad would benefit from getting £20m for Bent and spending it on a holding midfielder with the ability to pass and a right winger who has the ability to play a little narrower than Albrighton. Sadly, even if we did sell Bent for a large sum of money, we could only realistically expect arounf 50% of the funds to be re-invested. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Woodytom Posted January 3, 2012 Share Posted January 3, 2012 I mean those arguing that we should rid ourselves of Bent and have the money to spend elsewhere on the squad Firstly, do you think all of it would be available for transfer funds ? I dont Secondly do you actually trust Mcleish to spend the money well ? His record for us so far has been dire Thirdly, what would that leave us with when the inevitable happens and Mclsish is got rid of ? A worse squad which requires even bigger rebuilding Selling Bent makses no sense at all. Getting shot of Mcleish however makes perfect sense I think differing opinions on bent on based on one question and one question only: - How long does one believe Mcliesh will be AVFC manager? You describe his departure as inevitable. I cant see it Richard tbh. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shillzz Posted January 3, 2012 Share Posted January 3, 2012 ^ Exactly. We'd all much sooner be rid of McLeish than Bent, but the simple 'fact' is that we've played much better since Bent went out of the side. If Mcleish has to stay and continue to reduce the wage bill then we'd probably be better off getting rid of Bent, than one of our other top earners like Dunne. Ofcourse a better option would be to keep him, sell the rubbish players like Heskey and play better, but I dont think its that easy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheDrums Posted January 3, 2012 Share Posted January 3, 2012 The majority of the money would go into Lerners pocket and McLeish would be given a few million to sign someone like Zamora. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OnlyOne Posted January 3, 2012 Share Posted January 3, 2012 I don't buy this we play worse with Bent on the pitch. People seem to be forgetting how good we were against Bolton and Bent was on the pitch. Bent came on the pitch in the last 10 mins against Chelsea and suddenly we score 2 goals. Was that rubbish too? Also, Bent wasn't playing in the Liverpool game and that was one of our worst peformances this season. How you explain that one? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
b6bloke Posted January 3, 2012 Share Posted January 3, 2012 I mean those arguing that we should rid ourselves of Bent and have the money to spend elsewhere on the squad Firstly, do you think all of it would be available for transfer funds ? I dont Secondly do you actually trust Mcleish to spend the money well ? His record for us so far has been dire Thirdly, what would that leave us with when the inevitable happens and Mclsish is got rid of ? A worse squad which requires even bigger rebuilding Selling Bent makses no sense at all. Getting shot of Mcleish however makes perfect sense Spot on Richard, although In other circumstances I would sell, what you have written is good enough reason not to, plus who else would come to us! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
b6bloke Posted January 3, 2012 Share Posted January 3, 2012 I have been watching Bent closely since I was arguing with those saying "what does he do apart from score goals" Well I take it back, he dont do a great deal and have watch many a time when the ball came in to him him and the defender gets in first, Bent makes no effort to try and win the ball back or track back. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paddywhack Posted January 3, 2012 Share Posted January 3, 2012 If you took a side and put Gabby in it up front on his own for a season and Bent in it up front on his own for a season, I've no doubt that Bent would score more goals, I'd be surprised if the team with Gabby in it didn't get more points. That's a perfect way of explaining what I was trying to tell a blue nose friend of mine (altogether now) the other day. Gabby>Bent for me Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Qwpzxjor1 Posted January 3, 2012 Share Posted January 3, 2012 "Bent can't play in a McLeish team"... I'm against Player Power and all that - but if it's Bent or McLeish, I know exactly where my support would go. Bent is not a target man, he's never going to be happy or score goals with long balls down the middle. You need wingers who can get to the by-line and make cut backs. Bent is expert at finding the half a yard which not many others can do. Yes, his finishes are always tap ins which any of us could score - but there's a reason he can score 20+ of those a season where others don't.. because he reads the game so well and gambles on getting into those positions to begin with. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mantis Posted January 3, 2012 Share Posted January 3, 2012 "Bent can't play in a McLeish team"... I'm against Player Power and all that - but if it's Bent or McLeish, I know exactly where my support would go. Bent is not a target man, he's never going to be happy or score goals with long balls down the middle. You need wingers who can get to the by-line and make cut backs. Bent is expert at finding the half a yard which not many others can do. Yes, his finishes are always tap ins which any of us could score - but there's a reason he can score 20+ of those a season where others don't.. because he reads the game so well and gambles on getting into those positions to begin with.I agree completely. That said, failure to utilise Bent is just one of a long list of things McLeish is getting wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Overdubber Posted January 3, 2012 Share Posted January 3, 2012 Sadly, even if we did sell Bent for a large sum of money, we could only realistically expect arounf 50% of the funds to be re-invested. Yes, the rest will go on surcharges or services done by the board.... Being seriously ripped off here. The more people stay away from games, the sooner the board will rethink these issues. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Qwpzxjor1 Posted January 3, 2012 Share Posted January 3, 2012 That said, failure to utilise Bent is just one of a long list of things McLeish is getting wrong. And this is the main we're trusting, should Bent be sold, to re-invest the money wisely into a suitable replacement.. It's not like he's even being experimental.. "OK, its not usually how I like to play but let's try playing some wingers and trying to get crosses drilled across for Bent to get on the end of.." Instead it's "this is how I play, and you will all change to suit this". Even when it hasn't worked, he refuses to budge. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Woodytom Posted January 3, 2012 Share Posted January 3, 2012 That said, failure to utilise Bent is just one of a long list of things McLeish is getting wrong. And this is the main we're trusting, should Bent be sold, to re-invest the money wisely into a suitable replacement.. It's not like he's even being experimental.. "OK, its not usually how I like to play but let's try playing some wingers and trying to get crosses drilled across for Bent to get on the end of.." Instead it's "this is how I play, and you will all change to suit this". Even when it hasn't worked, he refuses to budge. Well, tbf, whats the point in having that tactic when the players who cross the ball for us, cant beat the first man. Seriously, some of the most abysmal crossing I have ever seen. When they clear the first man, they clear broad street as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
heystally! Posted January 3, 2012 Share Posted January 3, 2012 If it is true that "Bent can't play in a McLeish team" then one of two things has got to happen: 1) McLeish has got to sell Bent and get in players who will fit his style (which I'm assuming is long-ball, physical football). 2) McLeish has got to change his approach towards managing a football team, and start playing to the strengths of a player who can guarantee you 20-goals-a-season when you give him the service he needs. Considering McLeish's style got Blues relegated last season, I know which one of those two options I'd be voting for given a choice. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts