Libor Kozák

[Mantis]

Kozak fits the club better at this point in time than Bent, not to mention the latter is on much higher wages. I don't really see how "Premiership readiness" is that important either.

[Morpheus]

 

An average of 29% aerial success-rate over the last three league games. Benteke Mark II right there.

Also he didn't get an assist for the Weimann goal as he didn't touch it.

Even if he didn't get the assist his physical presence has been important in covering for Benteke's injury. That's all I'm saying. Physical presence is different to aerial success. I'm not sure where you got that stat from anyway. 

 

His physical presence was slated against Hull being out muscled by a previous player of ours who was deemed not good enough for our club.

[tomaspg]

i think kozack and bent offers the same in quality really, but with a massive price difference. and kozak has alot more potential for the future. well happy we got rid of bent and have this chap instead

[Morpheus]

Morpheus, I don't know how many times people have to point this out, but keeping Bent on the bench on his wages wasn't an option. The difference in wages between Kozak and Bent more than makes up for the 4.5 million fee. Wages matter more than fee, so it's not like this crazy amount was spent on Kozak when Villa could've kept Bent and spent that fee on someone else. There would've been no room in the wage budget.

Yes i understand that is yet another reason put forward to explain the decision to get rid of Bent but who made the decision in the first place to give Bent the captaincy? You don't award the captaincy to a player if your concerned about his wages. Who then stripped him of that honour and then decided to play a system that he wasn't suited to?

 

Who then decided to completely alienate Bent by giving his place to Bowery and then spend between 4.5m-7m on two more forwards while identifying like the rest of us the need to strengthen and bring more balance to our midfield but couldn't then afford to do that because he had spent most of our limited budget on players who aren't deemed to be ready for Premiership football?

 

I personally feel that Bent was part of Lambert's plans right up until something happened between player and manager. The wages issue concerning Bent was just a cover story for both player and manager to go their separate ways.

[Kwan]

PL: Hey Darren, we're going to need you to hold up the ball a bit and make a pass or two. Try to link up play every now and then.

DB: Yeahhhhh... I don't do that kind of stuff.

PL: Well... that's that then.

Edited October 13, 2013 by Kwan

[AntrimBlack]

i think kozack and bent offers the same in quality really, but with a massive price difference. and kozak has alot more potential for the future. well happy we got rid of bent and have this chap instead

 

I find it hard to believe that anyone could possibly think Kozak offers the same quality as Bent.

As for future potential, it is too early yet to know, but if Kozak reaches Bent's level we will have a terrific player on our books.

[heid3ster]

I personally feel that Bent was part of Lambert's plans right up until something happened between player and manager. The wages issue concerning Bent was just a cover story for both player and manager to go their separate ways.

 

 

It's interesting that you say that because that's my theory as well. Bent was given chances, even was awarded the captaincy as you stated. It's true that he doesn't really accommodate the system that Lambert plays, but I think Lambert would have been willing to alter that system if Bent had the right attitude and put the work in. There have been rumors of a bust-up between the two, and of Bent being a bad influence in the dressing room as well. I believe that's the primary reason he was frozen out. Lambert's teams rely partly on high team spirit and work rate, I would guess the theory is that a team that plays for each other makes them greater than the sum of their parts. But the whole team has to buy into that, and if one guy doesn't, there isn't room for him in the team.

 

If I'm reading you correctly, your position appears to be that despite the personal problems between the two, whatever they may have been, Lambert should have kept Bent and played him anyway. That's the part that I find interesting. What kind of message would that send out to the guys who are fighting for the shirt and playing for the team? Wouldn't it make Lambert's position as their leader a little untenable? He can't have one set of rules for Darren Bent and another set of rules for the rest of the team.

 

Back to Kozak, in his few (VERY few!!!) games for the club I will agree that he's not set the world on fire yet. He had a bad game vs. Hull, no question. But I disagree that he has more in common with Bent than with Benteke (talking style of play here, not attitude). He's a physical target man, his role is to win headers and flick-ons, hold up play, and link up with the other forwards. My belief is that his lack of aerial prowess vs. Hull is due to him adjusting to the league. His link-up play will improve when he gets used to his teammates. Do I think he'll be as good as Benteke? No, likely not. Benteke is world class and we won't be lucky enough to uncover a gem like him very often. Do I think he'll be better than Darren Bent? Yes, as an all-around player and a guy who will contribute long term for the good of the team, I think he will.

[PaulC]

i think kozack and bent offers the same in quality really, but with a massive price difference. and kozak has alot more potential for the future. well happy we got rid of bent and have this chap instead

 

Bent is a natural goalscorer. Maybe he offers more other ways but I doubt whether he will ever replicate Bent as a goalscorer.

[Czechlad]

How do so many people misspell Kozak when it is right on the top of the page?

[Morpheus]

 

I personally feel that Bent was part of Lambert's plans right up until something happened between player and manager. The wages issue concerning Bent was just a cover story for both player and manager to go their separate ways.

 

 

It's interesting that you say that because that's my theory as well. Bent was given chances, even was awarded the captaincy as you stated. It's true that he doesn't really accommodate the system that Lambert plays, but I think Lambert would have been willing to alter that system if Bent had the right attitude and put the work in. There have been rumors of a bust-up between the two, and of Bent being a bad influence in the dressing room as well. I believe that's the primary reason he was frozen out. Lambert's teams rely partly on high team spirit and work rate, I would guess the theory is that a team that plays for each other makes them greater than the sum of their parts. But the whole team has to buy into that, and if one guy doesn't, there isn't room for him in the team.

 

If I'm reading you correctly, your position appears to be that despite the personal problems between the two, whatever they may have been, Lambert should have kept Bent and played him anyway. That's the part that I find interesting. What kind of message would that send out to the guys who are fighting for the shirt and playing for the team? Wouldn't it make Lambert's position as their leader a little untenable? He can't have one set of rules for Darren Bent and another set of rules for the rest of the team.

 

Back to Kozak, in his few (VERY few!!!) games for the club I will agree that he's not set the world on fire yet. He had a bad game vs. Hull, no question. But I disagree that he has more in common with Bent than with Benteke (talking style of play here, not attitude). He's a physical target man, his role is to win headers and flick-ons, hold up play, and link up with the other forwards. My belief is that his lack of aerial prowess vs. Hull is due to him adjusting to the league. His link-up play will improve when he gets used to his teammates. Do I think he'll be as good as Benteke? No, likely not. Benteke is world class and we won't be lucky enough to uncover a gem like him very often. Do I think he'll be better than Darren Bent? Yes, as an all-around player and a guy who will contribute long term for the good of the team, I think he will.

 

As i don't want to repeat myself concerning Kozak i would rather give a short reply to the highlighted part of your post.

 

Although there were no reported problems with the manager i think the rest of your highlighted post could be answered by Suarez at Liverpool or maybe even Rooney at Man U.

[Mantis]

Bent isn't Rooney or Suarez. They're completely different situations.

Edited October 13, 2013 by Mantis

[Butterfingers]

Bent isn't Rooney or Suarez. They're completely different situations.

Think it's becoming increasingly hard these days to find a place for a player like Bent.

He's good at what he does & will most likely get into double figures for Fulham this season-Possibly outscoring both Gabby & Weiman.

Thought the signs looked promising for 60 mins at Southampton last year for a Bent/Benteke partnership but wouldn't swap our front 3 now. Bent was clearly not going to accept another season like last & AV obviously couldn't afford such high wages to a player who wasn't playing. It was a no brainer that Bent was going & when he did, the void was filled by Kozac. Didn't help that there was clearly an issue of some sort between manager & player.

Kozac is here now & he's the future-That is all that matters & he did make the goal against Man City because if not for his presence (whether he touched the ball or not) their defenders would have dealt with it.

[JoshVilla]

I think, given time, he'll become a solid player for us. I don't want to always use the "needs time to settle" card, but I think it's going to take him some time to bed into the Villa style. After seeing him for these 3 games, he seems a bit more of a "tap-in" striker than one who creates chances and space for himself, but I think that'll change. We play a more high-tempo running game that requires our attackers to be very mobile, and, because of the way Benteke moves and creates space for himself, we haven't really been used to using a goal hanger, so to speak. I just think it'll take a little time for Kozak to get used to our fast paced style of play, but once he does, he'll be some player. He's got the attributes to be a great centre forward and the coaches will no doubt work hard with him, as they have done with Benteke, to get the best out of him. I doubt he's gonna be Benteke 2, but I reckon he'll still prove a great striking option for us. 

[heid3ster]

 

 

If I'm reading you correctly, your position appears to be that despite the personal problems between the two, whatever they may have been, Lambert should have kept Bent and played him anyway. That's the part that I find interesting. What kind of message would that send out to the guys who are fighting for the shirt and playing for the team? Wouldn't it make Lambert's position as their leader a little untenable? He can't have one set of rules for Darren Bent and another set of rules for the rest of the team.

 

Although there were no reported problems with the manager i think the rest of your highlighted post could be answered by Suarez at Liverpool or maybe even Rooney at Man U.

 

Hang on, you don't get off that easy. We are not Liverpool or Manchester United, and Bent is certainly nowhere near Suarez or Rooney -- not in terms of ability, not in terms of importance to the team, not in terms of being a club legend or great servant or any terms at all. Those teams do not rely on team spirit and work rate to gut out results vs. higher opposition (I personally would credit team spirit and mental strength for the victory vs Man City, for example), and those managers do not place the same importance on teamwork and work rate as Lambert does. It doesn't answer my question at all, in fact it completely disregards my question.

 

I am asking if YOU, personally, think that Lambert should have kept Bent and played him DESPITE what you and I both perceive as personal problems between player and manager (we both perceive it, even though neither of us have any real solid fact to back it up). I am asking if you personally believe that would have no effect on the rest of the team. I will add this question -- in your opinion, does none of the above matter as long as Bent scores goals? I suspect that's the answer and if that's the case we simply have a fundamental difference of opinion, we can shake hands and move on.

 

For what it's worth, I think both Rodgers and Moyes made mistakes this season and should have let Suarez and Rooney (respectively) go. The fact that both players remain at their clubs (Suarez in particular) shows only that they are bigger than the clubs they play for.

[turnbull]

Ok, it's a case of Libor adapting to the PL, but it's also a case of Villa adapting to him. If our sole tactic is playing hoof ball up to him, then that won't get us very far. We need to be giving him proper service from the flanks, something we don't currently do very well anyway.

 

Stiill astounded by some people's lack of patience with the big guy. 

[Morpheus]

Bent isn't Rooney or Suarez. They're completely different situations.

Yet the poster stated 'He can't have one set of rules for Darren Bent and another set of rules for the rest of the team.'

 

Explain to me how that isn't applicable to either Rooney or Suarez.

[Morpheus]

 

 

 

If I'm reading you correctly, your position appears to be that despite the personal problems between the two, whatever they may have been, Lambert should have kept Bent and played him anyway. That's the part that I find interesting. What kind of message would that send out to the guys who are fighting for the shirt and playing for the team? Wouldn't it make Lambert's position as their leader a little untenable? He can't have one set of rules for Darren Bent and another set of rules for the rest of the team.

 

Although there were no reported problems with the manager i think the rest of your highlighted post could be answered by Suarez at Liverpool or maybe even Rooney at Man U.

 

Hang on, you don't get off that easy. We are not Liverpool or Manchester United, and Bent is certainly nowhere near Suarez or Rooney -- not in terms of ability, not in terms of importance to the team, not in terms of being a club legend or great servant or any terms at all. 

 

For what it's worth, I think both Rodgers and Moyes made mistakes this season and should have let Suarez and Rooney (respectively) go. The fact that both players remain at their clubs (Suarez in particular) shows only that they are bigger than the clubs they play for.

 

No but the principle is the same. Both players misbehaved or discredited the club yet one received a pay rise and the other stayed at his club which pretty much blows your argument out of the water.

 

As per my examples whatever the differences are between player, manager and club they can be dealt with to keep the player at the club and those players staying at their respective clubs didn't really seem to affect team performance either.  

[LondonLax]

Is it worth the club bending over backwards to accommodate a 29 year old Bent earning massive wages?

I think you'd be in a minority if you thought it was.

[Mantis]

 

Bent isn't Rooney or Suarez. They're completely different situations.

Yet the poster stated 'He can't have one set of rules for Darren Bent and another set of rules for the rest of the team.'

 

Explain to me how that isn't applicable to either Rooney or Suarez.

 

Rooney and Suarez are far far better than Bent - that's the difference. They're also both key players for their respective clubs whereas Bent hasn't been that for Villa for a year.

[villan_007]

 

 

 

 

If I'm reading you correctly, your position appears to be that despite the personal problems between the two, whatever they may have been, Lambert should have kept Bent and played him anyway. That's the part that I find interesting. What kind of message would that send out to the guys who are fighting for the shirt and playing for the team? Wouldn't it make Lambert's position as their leader a little untenable? He can't have one set of rules for Darren Bent and another set of rules for the rest of the team.

 

Although there were no reported problems with the manager i think the rest of your highlighted post could be answered by Suarez at Liverpool or maybe even Rooney at Man U.

 

Hang on, you don't get off that easy. We are not Liverpool or Manchester United, and Bent is certainly nowhere near Suarez or Rooney -- not in terms of ability, not in terms of importance to the team, not in terms of being a club legend or great servant or any terms at all. 

 

For what it's worth, I think both Rodgers and Moyes made mistakes this season and should have let Suarez and Rooney (respectively) go. The fact that both players remain at their clubs (Suarez in particular) shows only that they are bigger than the clubs they play for.

 

No but the principle is the same. Both players misbehaved or discredited the club yet one received a pay rise and the other stayed at his club which pretty much blows your argument out of the water.

 

As per my examples whatever the differences are between player, manager and club they can be dealt with to keep the player at the club and those players staying at their respective clubs didn't really seem to affect team performance either.  

 

 

Edit: delete can't be bothered

Edited October 14, 2013 by villan_007