VillaCas Posted November 29, 2012 Share Posted November 29, 2012 hernandez has started 9 out of 17 games for utd who play with rooney and van persie as the main forwards he has scored 9 times for them in those 17 games How many times has he started against Arsenal, Chelsea, Liverpool, Spuds, etc - none He gets games in the League Cup and against second tier sides The out and out goal poacher is a dying breed Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brummybloke Posted November 29, 2012 Share Posted November 29, 2012 I agree with this of course but I think there are other reasons why he is not being picked - my guess would be to avoid injury prior to January departure that is the most likely reason in my view i think a deal with liverpool may have been pencilled in already, shame as with downing looking likely to be leaving liverpool it would for footballing reasons, have been worth a cheeky punt getting him back in to occupy the left or right side of midfield, benteke and bent would have reaped the rewards and i think so would the team as a whole as downing also pops up with 7 or 8 goals per season oh what could have been 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Morpheus Posted November 29, 2012 Share Posted November 29, 2012 gabby who has scored 1 goal in 33 league games? thats been working hasnt it? the squad we have NOW is whats important , not who we may or may not get in the summer, as it stands we dont have midfielders to score 8 or 10 goals, infact at the moment of the players who are being picked we have only 1 player who looks to score 10 or more goals this season, so the focal point will be on one player, something which you suggest we shouldnt be doing? so get rid of the player who most likely will hit the 18 goals and stick with the rest of the team who between them havent mustered 11 goals in 14 games ( bent scoring 2 of them), hmm? while bent is still a villa player he should be in the first 18 at least unless injured based purely on footballing reasons, the stats show it. i find it odd also that now we do have another forward scoring regular, he isnt team up with the other regular scorer, bent hasnt had a regular scoring partner since he has been here Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
villan_avfc Posted November 29, 2012 Share Posted November 29, 2012 Bent is a luxury that we cannot afford, probably not financially and and definitley not tactically what we can't afford is going down and missing out on the 70% rise in the tv deal next season. scoring goals is a problem. creating chances no longer seems to be. the chances we've created against the likes of sunderland, reading & arsenal; bent puts those away. i'm not suggesting he's the correct fit for every game, but what an option to have at the club. it's baffling to me that he's not being utilised... 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AndyBM Posted November 29, 2012 Share Posted November 29, 2012 if bent is sold, he will go to london, liverpool want daniel sturridge now, for an unbeleiveable £15m tbh, if we do sell bent, sturridge would be a good choice, well worth £15m as well Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shillzz Posted November 29, 2012 Share Posted November 29, 2012 I can understand Lambert wanting to sell Bent, when you consider the cost of our purchases in other areas of the team, we could probably get 2 or 3 important players in to replace him. I don't really understand Bent being left out of the matchday squads, but what I will say is that there will be a reason for it. We may not be privvy to Lambert's reasoning, but rest assured, he is not leaving a striker like Bent out of the matchday squad without a good reason. And I am happy to let Lambert do whatever it is that he has to do. That said, selling him to QPR could see us relegated. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brummybloke Posted November 29, 2012 Share Posted November 29, 2012 How many times has he started against Arsenal, Chelsea, Liverpool, Spuds, etc - none He gets games in the League Cup and against second tier sides The out and out goal poacher is a dying breed but he has scored more than wellbeck who is a regular for england, utd have 4 top forwards who would get into most of the sides in the premier league, only possibly 2 other teams would wellbeck and 'chico' possibly not be starters each week goals are what win matches which is why forwards 90% of the time will cost more than any other position on the pitch because their task is arguably admittedly, the most important 'end product'. and with bent you are getting the 'end product', you just dont get all the fancy packaging Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jacketspuds Posted November 29, 2012 Share Posted November 29, 2012 As long as we don't sell Bent to QPR. That will most certainly come back and bite us in the arse. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AvfcRigo82 Posted November 29, 2012 Share Posted November 29, 2012 I do not want to get too personal on the matter as I don't think it is anything personal between the manager or the striker but more the fact that what sort of deal happens will give us a much better indication into whats really going on. The more I think about it the more I am convinced that its going to be a straight cash deal that will happen as I feel its definately a top to bottom clean up job sanctioned from the board to cut the wage bill to free up as much on wages and transfer funds as possible whilst continuing to build the new team of the future but at a much cheaper rate for better quality players that will grow in value along the way and depending the fee gained it would allow another cycle of the same kind of players to be signed similar to the summer signings we made. Yes bigger fish will come along and nick them one day maybe and I have the tin hat at the ready for that argument but on a brighter note if they do go to the bigger fish its for alot more money than what we paid for them. As long as we continue to grow and that money is reinvested back into the team maintaining our strength and continuous rise then it will be good for everyone all round. So I guess this also means that anyone else existing from the reigns of the last 3 managers signings may also be on there way out between January and the summer (except Ireland). . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AVFCforever1991 Posted November 29, 2012 Share Posted November 29, 2012 As long as we don't sell Bent to QPR. That will most certainly come back and bite us in the arse. Its looking like that's a possibility. Unfortunately. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Morpheus Posted November 29, 2012 Share Posted November 29, 2012 if bent is sold, he will go to london, liverpool want daniel sturridge now, for an unbeleiveable £15m tbh, if we do sell bent, sturridge would be a good choice, well worth £15m as well ABM Lambert seemingly wants to persevere with just one up front which is fine if Benteke stays fit and i suppose if the worst is to happen then Gabby could be switched as the front man or even Weimann or Bowery. I wouldn't advocate that as i don't think Gabby, Weimann or Bowery would be prolific enough but i'm trying to get inside the thinking of our manager, so Lambert might not necessarily want to replace Bent? Thats why i have suggested in previous posts if Harry comes calling for Bent in January, then we should sell to QPR only on the basis of a possible swap with Hoilett plus say 5m coming our way. Hoilett is exactly what we need at the moment someone to supply and score from behind our front man! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
El-Reacho Posted November 29, 2012 Share Posted November 29, 2012 You will find that football tactics have changed - Robbie Fowler, Darren Bent fox-in-the-box types are a dying breed. Teams are moving towards a lone forward who can hold the ball up with a number of attacking midfielders quickly moving up to support More and more teams are going 4-2-3-1 and playing a narrower style (so out and out wingers are also a dying breed) and in a formation like that Benteke is the type of forward required not Bent. A few teams will persevere with 4-4-2 but in the end they will lose out to 4-2-3-1 teams who will domitate midfield possession This is exactly the reason why Hernandez doesn't start for MU At best Bent is a player who would sit on the bench and come on if you are desperate for a goal. Bent is a luxury that we cannot afford, probably not financially and and definitley not tactically Agree with this - Redknapp and O'Neill are the guys that will be after him. Rodgers would be unlikely IMHO. The likes of Barca/Spain and some of the Italian teams are now playing 4-6-0. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Demitri_C Posted November 29, 2012 Share Posted November 29, 2012 why would supermon go for him now? he could have signed him for cheap from spurs but chose not to and went for heskey Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LondonLax Posted November 29, 2012 Share Posted November 29, 2012 Redknapp has been making his feelings known to anyone who will listen that he is after Bent in January. We wouldn't be that stupid would we? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chappy Posted November 29, 2012 Share Posted November 29, 2012 I think at the very most the £3m would come out of lamberts transfer kitty. (so if he doesn't play him he gets £3m extra in jan) I really can't see Randy imposing a sale TBH. Lets get one thing straight Randy has not said he will not pay the £3Million, the decision is totally down to PL, PL possibly feels with possibly 12million he can get better value to strengthen the squad rather than paying £3million for Bent. If he is to be sold in January then why pay 3m now, total waste of money Unbelievable. For the sake of 3m and potentially losing 50m if we go down we are worried about a measley 3m pathetic pay the £3m, get another 50 games out of him and possibly another 20 goals simple I really very much doubt that of 6m of potential add-ons there was 3m for him playing 50 games. As bad as Faulkner is at negotiating that would be a ridiculous clause for a record signing. Please can people stop taking it as gospel? (nothing against the people I have quoted, just these were examples of this 3m being quoted in the last couple of pages) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brummybloke Posted November 29, 2012 Share Posted November 29, 2012 I really very much doubt that of 6m of potential add-ons there was 3m for him playing 50 games. As bad as Faulkner is at negotiating that would be a ridiculous clause for a record signing. Please can people stop taking it as gospel? (nothing against the people I have quoted, just these were examples of this 3m being quoted in the last couple of pages) i think people are hypothesising rather than taking anything for gospel, different scenarios are being ran through by all of us and they are being discussed, i bet none of us will know for sure any time soon if ever the real reasons for what is happening Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
El-Reacho Posted November 29, 2012 Share Posted November 29, 2012 Redknapp has been making his feelings known to anyone who will listen that he is after Bent in January. We wouldn't be that stupid would we? Does Darren hold a grudge I wonder? Redknapp clearly trying to build bridges. Why would the club not be furious about 'Arry tapping up one of our players, if, as Lambert says there's no issue here and he's not for sale. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big_John_10 Posted November 29, 2012 Share Posted November 29, 2012 @OptaJoe: 1.23 - The average goals scored by Aston Villa when @DarrenBent starts compared to 0.76 when he doesn't. Can anything be taken from that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gilbertoAVFC Posted November 29, 2012 Share Posted November 29, 2012 Clearly Lambert has an issue with Bent - probably because he contributes very little to the team other than putting chances away and at times we need more than that. Leaving him out of the eighteen is just baffling though and he is insulting the intelligence of the fans if he thinks we'll believe him that there are not ulterior motives. I can understand leaving him on the bench, but putting Jordan Bowery on the bench ahead of him is just an insult. He still has one of the best goals to games ratios in the league and is extremely useful to have around. If we're thinking of selling him for financial reasons, it doesn't make sense. We'll probably get less than half of what we paid for him and he's one of the very few players in the squad, if not the only one, who could single-handedly win us points and thus keep us in the league. If Benteke gets injured, what happens then if Bent's also been sold? Gabby and Weimann? Or we gamble on another unproven replacement whilst flirting with relegation? The reasoning Lambert is using seems to be very much based on a personal level and we're hardly in a situation where we can allow that to hinder us. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Didiersix Posted November 29, 2012 Share Posted November 29, 2012 I know no one believes me but we did try and sell Bent last January. So this has been rumbling on for a while now. Why? I am not so sure. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts