CI Posted December 7, 2012 Share Posted December 7, 2012 Yes but we've seen what he can do this season - Southampton and WBA Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VillaCas Posted December 7, 2012 Share Posted December 7, 2012 You can't play both - we would always lose the midfield battle Benteke or Bent - no contest Glad when he's gone and we can discuss something different Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChrisVillan Posted December 7, 2012 Share Posted December 7, 2012 Yes but we've seen what he can do this season - Southampton and WBA I know that, but Southampton is arguably a good example to highlight my point, although personally I think it's too small a sample. And WBA he came off the bench which is a different situation, not to mention that he had a massive point to prove. All complications in a debate that has been too often over-simplified, in the media and to a lesser extent on here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Copey11 Posted December 7, 2012 Share Posted December 7, 2012 I think Lambert wants to keep Bent, but can't use him RIGHT NOW. I think Lambert is trying to sort out the midfield, hence all the tinkering there, to be more consistent, to keep more possession, and generate more chances. But at the moment we just aren't that consistent and he is reluctant to take a body out of there to accomodate a 442 with Bent up front with a partner, either Benteke or Gabby. I think Lambert feels that is the only formation in which Bent can be effective RIGHT NOW, and his references to Southampton match seems to me to say not that he can't play Bent, but he can't play 442 right now. I suspect we will see some reinforcements in midfield, or perhaps some more consistency as the players gain experience and comfort in the system, and that will allow us to play 442, especially against lower table teams where we might get more of the ball. We just can't count on getting that possession consistently right now. Now I have no idea whether Bent is acting out because of this, I assume he's not happy because players want to play, and believe they can fit in any system, and Bent has played in different formations. But I think this is about what Lambert perceives as Bent's strengths, and his hesitation to take a player out of the midfield. When Bent hasn't made the bench I figure Bowery is as close to like for like with Benteke, Lambert assumed we wouldn't get as much of the ball and therefore didn't use Bent. I don't necessarily agree with it, as you never know how the games will progress, but if he doesn't envision using a 442, he doesn't use Bent. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
villan_007 Posted December 7, 2012 Share Posted December 7, 2012 It's all been arranged - bent will be unleashed soon and we'll be sick of goals! hmmmmm is it that the truth or the cold becks?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big_John_10 Posted December 7, 2012 Share Posted December 7, 2012 We haven't got the quality to create good chances for bent. So would it not make sense to keep bent and bring in that quality? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sne Posted December 7, 2012 Share Posted December 7, 2012 We haven't got the quality to create good chances for bent. So would it not make sense to keep bent and bring in that quality? Haha one would think so, but aperrently not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChrisVillan Posted December 7, 2012 Share Posted December 7, 2012 We haven't got the quality to create good chances for bent. So would it not make sense to keep bent and bring in that quality? Sure, I think there will be a lot of sympathy for that view. What would you do in the meantime? Do we know that this isn't what Lambert would want to do? In any case I think Villa should play one (three) up front, and that one for me is Benteke over Bent every single time. So I'm not really arsed about Bent, but ultimately none of us should be pretending to know exactly what's going on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Copey11 Posted December 7, 2012 Share Posted December 7, 2012 Big John, I don't know if your question was in response to my post, but I actually I agree with you and think that is what Lambert is doing. I think what he values above all else is options to play any formation he chooses based on his squad form and the opponent. So therefore, I think he is looking to increase the quality of the midfield, and even the attacking options (currently Gabby, Weimann, Holman, Ireland) in a 4231, so that he can comfortably play multiple formations. I don't think he is comfortable yet, so he continues to try different partnerings but maintain more in midfield as it is our main area of weakness. So I think he will keep Bent and bring in quality, it just won't be solely "442 quality" geared only to accomodate Bent, but rather versatile so that Bent is an option. The question is will Bent a) force himself out before that plan is completed or be open to that plan going forward, where he isn't necessarily the first name on the teamsheet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big_John_10 Posted December 7, 2012 Share Posted December 7, 2012 Sure, I think there will be a lot of sympathy for that view. What would you do in the meantime? Do we know that this isn't what Lambert would want to do? In any case I think Villa should play one (three) up front, and that one for me is Benteke over Bent every single time. So I'm not really arsed about Bent, but ultimately none of us should be pretending to know exactly what's going on. I think bent should have been dropped and i do think the current set up is best. I don't see why Bowery has been on the bench ahead of him and I think there have been chances for bent to come into the game. If its Lambert's plan to keep bent and add quality to the squad then great. Some though seem desperate to slag off bent and want him sold in some sort of way to defend Lamberts decision. I don't really get that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChrisVillan Posted December 7, 2012 Share Posted December 7, 2012 I think bent should have been dropped and i do think the current set up is best. I don't see why Bowery has been on the bench ahead of him and I think there have been chances for bent to come into the game. If its Lambert's plan to keep bent and add quality to the squad then great. Some though seem desperate to slag off bent and want him sold in some sort of way to defend Lamberts decision. I don't really get that. That's fair enough. Bowery on the bench ahead of him is the part of all this that makes me think there's more than meets the eye, because there's no way that's a football decision. Whatever the plan is or was, it might easily have been taken over now by another problem. Makes me wonder how Bent and Lambert get on day to day in light of the original choice to not select him, and Bent's reaction. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
briny_ear Posted December 7, 2012 Share Posted December 7, 2012 Lambert's inability to integrate Bent, and his potential to score 1 goal every 2 games, in the squad is his first big strategic failure in my view. It's always the same with Villa, isn't it? Whenever we have a great squad within our reach it seems we have to watch it slip away through our fingers. Bent & Benteke together with the right support could have been exceptional. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Avflife Posted December 7, 2012 Share Posted December 7, 2012 Problem is we haven't got the support e.g. like when we had Young and Downing to supply Bent. He is still one of the laziest players I've seen in a Villa shirt. Least Benteke will bring other players into the game Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Lions_Roar Posted December 7, 2012 Share Posted December 7, 2012 Did Charlton and Sunderland have lots of creative talent surrounding bent? Isn't the point of football to score goals and win? Our team does neither of these things enough at the moment and yet Bent still finds himself doing nothing. Would a good manager not find a way to utilise one of the best goal scorers in the league? Exactly, he's scored goals where ever he's been. We're the 2nd lowest scorers in the league ffs! I want a striker that can put the ball in the net, not one that will work his socks off and never look like scoring. Strikers are judged on goals, not how hard they work. We don't create many chances so I'd like the few we do create to fall to him. I like Benteke but he has missed a hat full of sitters. You can't judge a partnership on a training pitch! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mikeyp102 Posted December 7, 2012 Share Posted December 7, 2012 Just a question who were these world class players supplying bent when he was at charlton? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jim Posted December 7, 2012 Share Posted December 7, 2012 Just a question who were these world class players supplying bent when he was at charlton? Matt Holland and Darren Ambrose. But football was different back in the olden days...... Apparently! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
markavfc40 Posted December 7, 2012 Share Posted December 7, 2012 Just a question who were these world class players supplying bent when he was at charlton? Very true. The team though was built around him and he was the focal point. He had great personal success there and a record of almost a goal every two games. Charlton as a team though struggled and in his two seasons there finished 13th and 19th ( relegated with just 34 points ). At Sunderland, Charlton and at Ipswich (what was for the most part during his time an average Championship team ) Bent was the main man. Personally he did well. Collectively those clubs struggled or at best didn't pull up any trees. You look at Bents record and you think he should be at one of the top clubs, certainly one of the top 4 or 5 clubs, but for whatever reason they won't touch him with a barge pole. In fact I doubt very much when he leaves in January he will go to a club that finishes in the top 8. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
markavfc40 Posted December 7, 2012 Share Posted December 7, 2012 double post Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
briny_ear Posted December 8, 2012 Share Posted December 8, 2012 You look at Bents record and you think he should be at one of the top clubs, certainly one of the top 4 or 5 clubs, but for whatever they won't touch him with a barge pole. In fact I doubt very much when he leaves in January he will go to a club that finishes in the top 8. Undoubtedly correct, Mark, but we are not a top club by any means so I think Lambert needs to be very careful about his (apparent) decision to ditch Bent. In Bent's first season with us, he helped pull us back from the brink of relegation and took us up to an improbable 9th place. That looks like a fantastic performance now! So far this season we have managed three wins and twelve goals in fifteen games. Despite the outbreak of optimism on the site at present, based on taking 4 points from two games against absolutely nailed on relegation candidates, we are in deep, deep trouble based on that overall performance. I think Lambert should work with the proven goalscorer he has in the squad and not gamble on untested talent. He needs to be very sure he can improve our results and scoring record before he decides to put Bent up for sale. BTW, I saw a suggestion a little earlier in the thread that Lambert has apparently said he tried playing Bent and Benteke against Southampton and that proved it can't work. If that is true, it betrays a worrying lack of judgement on our new manager's behalf. Players get just one game to prove themselves? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Raymond Posted December 8, 2012 Share Posted December 8, 2012 The picture that Chris herd himself said was fake? You asked what he was talking about. If you already knew why did you ask the question? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts