Darren Bent

[StefanAVFC]

 

Wait, wait.

 

Why is it okay to slag off players over and over again who aren't even playing badly (Westwood this year, Vlaar last year) but when a player is so clearly over the hill (Bent) the same people are defending him.

 

Any reason to have a go at Lambert really.

 

I haven't slated any of the players.

 

 

It wasn't aimed at anybody in particular.

[nik986]

Bent is an easy target right now. Just feel its unnecessary, we are playing well, lets enjoy and get behind the players.

 

If someone was willing to pay Bents wages for the final year, I'd snap their hand off, but they aren't so we have him for the season.

 

Best to build his confidence, get him playing as the 20 goal a season man (in all comps) he could be.

[StefanAVFC]

Best to build his confidence, get him playing as the 20 goal a season man (in all comps) he could be.

 

Absolutely no chance.

[heid3ster]

The offside call today kind of sums up where Bent is in terms of fitness. He had a good yard on the defenders for that pass, and by the time the linesman flagged for offisde, old slow Michael Dawson who'd spent the previous 75 minutes getting run ragged by Gabby, had already caught up to Bent.

 

We'd all love for him to be the same player he was in 2011. It isn't going to happen.

 

That said, I don't think he was as terrible today as people have said. He definitely should have done better with that chance, would have been nice for all three of our misfiring strikers to bag one today.

 

Edit: Hee hee. 20 goals a season. Come on. It's nice that you want to defend the guy, I don't think he deserves most of the stick he's gotten either, but let's not be crazy. If he got 10 I'd be ecstatic.

Edited August 31, 2014 by heid3ster

[nik986]

 

Best to build his confidence, get him playing as the 20 goal a season man (in all comps) he could be.

 

Absolutely no chance.

 

 

There is still a good striker there. Having looked at him a bit over pre-season and since, he clearly needs to find the treadmill though.

[penguin]

Wait, wait.

 

Why is it okay to slag off players over and over again who aren't even playing badly (Westwood this year, Vlaar last year) but when a player is so clearly over the hill (Bent) the same people are defending him.

 

Any reason to have a go at Lambert really.

 

I haven't slated any of the players.

 

It wasn't aimed at anybody in particular.

The same people part of your post would suggest otherwise. Or you just drumming up a anti-lambert agenda conspiracy?

[TrentVilla]

It was either Lambert's policy, or one he bought in to, to marginalise all the high earners. He has done this with a number of players, Bent included.

 

Bent was told he just wouldn't play - so sought game time at, first Newcastle and when no one else came in for him, went to Fulham at the end of the window, as he had been told he'd be nowhere near a match day squad.

 

We could question this chain of events, but being as any man and his dog (Bowery) were picked ahead of him frequently at the end of Lambert's first season - I know where partial blame lies.

 

 

In reference to your first point? So what? Seriously so what? As I said he has been treated as professional footballer, they are told all the time that they aren't wanted by clubs and that they can find a new club or that they are being sold. I'm not sure that Bent has been badly treated because he was told he wasn't first choice or because other players were picked ahead of him.

 

As for what he was told, I'm not quite sure how you know what he was told but unlike Hutton, Bent was never completely omitted from the squad to suggest he was is simply inaccurate.

 

While I'm on the topic of inaccurate, Bent seemingly turned down Newcastle to go to London sorry Fulham.

 

As for any man and his dog being picked ahead of Bent at the end of Lambert's first season that simply isn't true.

[nik986]

 

It was either Lambert's policy, or one he bought in to, to marginalise all the high earners. He has done this with a number of players, Bent included.

 

Bent was told he just wouldn't play - so sought game time at, first Newcastle and when no one else came in for him, went to Fulham at the end of the window, as he had been told he'd be nowhere near a match day squad.

 

We could question this chain of events, but being as any man and his dog (Bowery) were picked ahead of him frequently at the end of Lambert's first season - I know where partial blame lies.

 

 

In reference to your first point? So what? Seriously so what? As I said he has been treated as professional footballer, they are told all the time that they aren't wanted by clubs and that they can find a new club or that they are being sold. I'm not sure that Bent has been badly treated because he was told he wasn't first choice or because other players were picked ahead of him.

 

As for what he was told, I'm not quite sure how you know what he was told but unlike Hutton, Bent was never completely omitted from the squad to suggest he was is simply inaccurate.

 

While I'm on the topic of inaccurate, Bent seemingly turned down Newcastle to go to London sorry Fulham.

 

As for any man and his dog being picked ahead of Bent at the end of Lambert's first season that simply isn't true.

 

 

So what? It seems like a poor policy to put in place. Marginalise and not play footballers so their value dwindles and they become a £250k+ a week millstone around your neck. That's not clever. Not how most 'businesses' would treat valuable assets. And how has this policy worked for us? We still have them, but haven't used them for a number of seasons.

 

Bent was completely omitted at times - leading to the newspapers suggesting that we 'owed money on the deal so refused to play him in any more games'.

 

Do we know Bent turned down Newcastle? Reports at the time stated we couldn't agree a financial package with Newcastle for him - Fulham paid quite handsomely for him I believe?

 

Players of the ilk of Jordan Bowery were picked ahead of him - that is true.

 

Lambert's judgement of Benteke instead of Bent was proven to be a cracking decision - but i'll repeat again, creating the bomb squad is not a way to treat any professional, and weakened our hand when we were trying to sell them.

[StefanAVFC]

 

 

 

Wait, wait.

 

Why is it okay to slag off players over and over again who aren't even playing badly (Westwood this year, Vlaar last year) but when a player is so clearly over the hill (Bent) the same people are defending him.

 

Any reason to have a go at Lambert really.

 

I haven't slated any of the players.

 

It wasn't aimed at anybody in particular.

The same people part of your post would suggest otherwise. Or you just drumming up a anti-lambert agenda conspiracy?

 

 

Not at all. It's just bizarre with some people. They have never given Lambert's signings a chance, yet with Bent, it's Lambert's fault as well.

 

He can't win.

[dont_do_it_doug.]

Bent is an easy target right now. Just feel its unnecessary, we are playing well, lets enjoy and get behind the players.

If someone was willing to pay Bents wages for the final year, I'd snap their hand off, but they aren't so we have him for the season.

Best to build his confidence, get him playing as the 20 goal a season man (in all comps) he could be.

I'm never one to get on at the players. I say never when I mean very rarely. I'll give my honest opinion and stick at that. But when I see him waddle on to the pitch in that state, it makes my blood boil. It's disrespectful IMO.

I'm still behind him once he's on that pitch though, I will enjoy a goal from him just as much as I would any other player. That won't change how I feel about toys particular point.

[TrentVilla]

So what? It seems like a poor policy to put in place. Marginalise and not play footballers so their value dwindles and they become a £250k+ a week millstone around your neck. That's not clever. Not how most 'businesses' would treat valuable assets. And how has this policy worked for us? We still have them, but haven't used them for a number of seasons.

 

Bent was completely omitted at times - leading to the newspapers suggesting that we 'owed money on the deal so refused to play him in any more games'.

 

Do we know Bent turned down Newcastle? Reports at the time stated we couldn't agree a financial package with Newcastle for him - Fulham paid quite handsomely for him I believe?

 

Players of the ilk of Jordan Bowery were picked ahead of him - that is true.

 

Lambert's judgement of Benteke instead of Bent was proven to be a cracking decision - but i'll repeat again, creating the bomb squad is not a way to treat any professional, and weakened our hand when we were trying to sell them.

 

 

I'm not defending the policy, that is an altogether different debate. What I've said is that I don't think Bent has been treated badly there is a big difference.

 

A minute ago you were saying the world and his dog were picked frequently ahead of Bent, now you've downgraded that to him being omitted at times I see. He was regularly on the bench (when fit) behind Benteke, Gabby and Weimann and few were complaining about that at the time given our form at the end of the season. That isn't Bent being treated badly that is him being treated like a professional footballer.

 

As for Newcastle, yes.

 

http://www1.skysports.com/football/news/11681/8874470/newcastle-manager-alan-pardew-claims-darren-bent-took-safe-choice-by-joining-fulham

 

"But he has opted for Fulham and perhaps that is the safer option."

 

You can repeat the Bomb squad thing as much as you want but the fact is Bent was never in it and was always in the first team squad (sometimes not a match day squad) when fit.

[nik986]

 

So what? It seems like a poor policy to put in place. Marginalise and not play footballers so their value dwindles and they become a £250k+ a week millstone around your neck. That's not clever. Not how most 'businesses' would treat valuable assets. And how has this policy worked for us? We still have them, but haven't used them for a number of seasons.

 

Bent was completely omitted at times - leading to the newspapers suggesting that we 'owed money on the deal so refused to play him in any more games'.

 

Do we know Bent turned down Newcastle? Reports at the time stated we couldn't agree a financial package with Newcastle for him - Fulham paid quite handsomely for him I believe?

 

Players of the ilk of Jordan Bowery were picked ahead of him - that is true.

 

Lambert's judgement of Benteke instead of Bent was proven to be a cracking decision - but i'll repeat again, creating the bomb squad is not a way to treat any professional, and weakened our hand when we were trying to sell them.

 

 

I'm not defending the policy, that is an altogether different debate. What I've said is that I don't think Bent has been treated badly there is a big difference.

 

A minute ago you were saying the world and his dog were picked frequently ahead of Bent, now you've downgraded that to him being omitted at times I see. He was regularly on the bench (when fit) behind Benteke, Gabby and Weimann and few were complaining about that at the time given our form at the end of the season. That isn't Bent being treated badly that is him being treated like a professional footballer.

 

As for Newcastle, yes.

 

http://www1.skysports.com/football/news/11681/8874470/newcastle-manager-alan-pardew-claims-darren-bent-took-safe-choice-by-joining-fulham

 

 

"But he has opted for Fulham and perhaps that is the safer option."

 

You can repeat the Bomb squad thing as much as you want but the fact is Bent was never in it and was always in the first team squad (sometimes not a match day squad) when fit.

 

 

I think we'd agree on most of this but somethings we probably just won't agree.

 

However, I'd say being stripped of the number 9 (which was given to Helenius) and given 39 was being placed into the bomb squad....

[TrentVilla]

 

 

So what? It seems like a poor policy to put in place. Marginalise and not play footballers so their value dwindles and they become a £250k+ a week millstone around your neck. That's not clever. Not how most 'businesses' would treat valuable assets. And how has this policy worked for us? We still have them, but haven't used them for a number of seasons.

 

Bent was completely omitted at times - leading to the newspapers suggesting that we 'owed money on the deal so refused to play him in any more games'.

 

Do we know Bent turned down Newcastle? Reports at the time stated we couldn't agree a financial package with Newcastle for him - Fulham paid quite handsomely for him I believe?

 

Players of the ilk of Jordan Bowery were picked ahead of him - that is true.

 

Lambert's judgement of Benteke instead of Bent was proven to be a cracking decision - but i'll repeat again, creating the bomb squad is not a way to treat any professional, and weakened our hand when we were trying to sell them.

 

 

I'm not defending the policy, that is an altogether different debate. What I've said is that I don't think Bent has been treated badly there is a big difference.

 

A minute ago you were saying the world and his dog were picked frequently ahead of Bent, now you've downgraded that to him being omitted at times I see. He was regularly on the bench (when fit) behind Benteke, Gabby and Weimann and few were complaining about that at the time given our form at the end of the season. That isn't Bent being treated badly that is him being treated like a professional footballer.

 

As for Newcastle, yes.

 

http://www1.skysports.com/football/news/11681/8874470/newcastle-manager-alan-pardew-claims-darren-bent-took-safe-choice-by-joining-fulham

 

 

"But he has opted for Fulham and perhaps that is the safer option."

 

You can repeat the Bomb squad thing as much as you want but the fact is Bent was never in it and was always in the first team squad (sometimes not a match day squad) when fit.

 

 

I think we'd agree on most of this but somethings we probably just won't agree.

 

However, I'd say being stripped of the number 9 (which was given to Helenius) and given 39 was being placed into the bomb squad....

 

 

So you are saying that is the point he entered the 'bomb squad'? So he wasn't in Lambert's first season then?

As for being given 39 he was hardly going to be given 9 when he was on the verge of going to Newcastle or Fulham.

 

But that is immaterial, being told you aren't wanted is part of football it isn't an example of how he has been treated badly.

[penguin]

So what? It seems like a poor policy to put in place. Marginalise and not play footballers so their value dwindles and they become a £250k+ a week millstone around your neck. That's not clever. Not how most 'businesses' would treat valuable assets. And how has this policy worked for us? We still have them, but haven't used them for a number of seasons.

 

Bent was completely omitted at times - leading to the newspapers suggesting that we 'owed money on the deal so refused to play him in any more games'.

 

Do we know Bent turned down Newcastle? Reports at the time stated we couldn't agree a financial package with Newcastle for him - Fulham paid quite handsomely for him I believe?

 

Players of the ilk of Jordan Bowery were picked ahead of him - that is true.

 

Lambert's judgement of Benteke instead of Bent was proven to be a cracking decision - but i'll repeat again, creating the bomb squad is not a way to treat any professional, and weakened our hand when we were trying to sell them.

 

I'm not defending the policy, that is an altogether different debate. What I've said is that I don't think Bent has been treated badly there is a big difference.

 

A minute ago you were saying the world and his dog were picked frequently ahead of Bent, now you've downgraded that to him being omitted at times I see. He was regularly on the bench (when fit) behind Benteke, Gabby and Weimann and few were complaining about that at the time given our form at the end of the season. That isn't Bent being treated badly that is him being treated like a professional footballer.

 

As for Newcastle, yes.

 

http://www1.skysports.com/football/news/11681/8874470/newcastle-manager-alan-pardew-claims-darren-bent-took-safe-choice-by-joining-fulham

 

"But he has opted for Fulham and perhaps that is the safer option."

 

You can repeat the Bomb squad thing as much as you want but the fact is Bent was never in it and was always in the first team squad (sometimes not a match day squad) when fit.

Couldn't disagree more about Bent not being in the bomb squad.

Are plenty of newspaper articles etc referencing the fact he was in it, one including this quote from Ireland:

‘They had two squads, one they wanted to keep and one they didn’t, and I was in the second group. I never called it the Bomb Squad, although a couple of the others, like Darren Bent, took it to heart more than I did

http://metro.co.uk/2013/09/05/stephen-ireland-happy-to-be-out-of-aston-villa-bomb-squad-3951163/

Pretty conclusive imo.

[TrentVilla]

Couldn't disagree more about Bent not being in the bomb squad.

Are plenty of newspaper articles etc referencing the fact he was in it, one including this quote from Ireland:

‘They had two squads, one they wanted to keep and one they didn’t, and I was in the second group. I never called it the Bomb Squad, although a couple of the others, like Darren Bent, took it to heart more than I did

http://metro.co.uk/2013/09/05/stephen-ireland-happy-to-be-out-of-aston-villa-bomb-squad-3951163/

Pretty conclusive imo.

 

 

Well his inclusion in squads in Lambert's first season would suggest otherwise.

 

But as I've said, irrespective if he was or wasn't in the 'bomb squad' is it not entirely normal for clubs to tell players they are not going to be a first team regular and that they can talk to other clubs?

[penguin]

Couldn't disagree more about Bent not being in the bomb squad.

Are plenty of newspaper articles etc referencing the fact he was in it, one including this quote from Ireland:

‘They had two squads, one they wanted to keep and one they didn’t, and I was in the second group. I never called it the Bomb Squad, although a couple of the others, like Darren Bent, took it to heart more than I didhttp://metro.co.uk/2013/09/05/stephen-ireland-happy-to-be-out-of-aston-villa-bomb-squad-3951163/

Pretty conclusive imo.

 

Well his inclusion in squads in Lambert's first season would suggest otherwise.

 

But as I've said, irrespective if he was or wasn't in the 'bomb squad' is it not entirely normal for clubs to tell players they are not going to be a first team regular and that they can talk to other clubs?

I'd agree that would be normal yes, but at the danger of turning this into the bomb squad thread, I'd say completely ostracising said players from the team is not.

Changing the subject, just seen Bents chance on MOTD and yes while you would like him to be scoring it's certainly not the complete sitter made out by some.

[Brumstopdogs]

Played well today considering he only came on at the 85th minute and almost scored in that time.

 

Hopefully his confidence is gradually being rebuilt after the way he was treated by Lambert.

[StefanAVFC]

Played well today considering he only came on at the 85th minute and almost scored in that time.

 

Hopefully his confidence is gradually being rebuilt after the way he was treated by Lambert.

 

[Swerbs]

My farts are far more deadlier than the Bent of today.

[leviramsey]

So what? It seems like a poor policy to put in place. Marginalise and not play footballers so their value dwindles and they become a £250k+ a week millstone around your neck. That's not clever. Not how most 'businesses' would treat valuable assets.

You might want to look up sunk costs.

It's quite true that most businesses let the fact that they've committed so much to a given asset cloud their decisions as to what to do with the asset in the future. On the other hand, nearly every business out there is managed by an idiot; that such businesses succeed is a combination of "God watching out for drunks and fools", blind luck, and being smarter than enough other idiots such that the proverbial bear catches them first.