Libor Kozák

[Irinous]

^ very frustrating theory Edit: my bad this was for the last post on the other page haha, getting used to the app

Edited October 14, 2013 by Irinous

[Isa]

By that logic, Lowton is also now a reserve I take it? Also, I wasn't intending to back-up Morpheus' statement with my comment. Just pointing out an obvious mistruth.

 

Yep he's a reserve as he's not even in the squad. It depends on your understanding of what a reserve is.

So you are a 'reserve' as soon as you are dropped for one game? Do you even think your comments through before you post them?

[jjaacckk91]

sooo kozak,

he likely to get any game time tomorrow against Bulgaria?

[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. 

 

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.

 

Does it? So when you cut out portions of people's posts that you're responding to, do you also skip over reading those portions? Because here's what my post actually said in its entirety:

 

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 put the part that you cut out in BOLD FACE so that you could see it more easily, since it in fact answers your counter argument.

 

 

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.

 

And as per the portion of my post that you conveniently removed, the situations are not even remotely similar. So my question still stands.

 

I've been attempting to have a reasoned debate with you on this topic because I'm interested in your views on it. When you respond with phrases like "pretty much blows your argument out of the water" it makes me think we're operating on different levels. I don't consider an exchange of viewpoints on an internet message board as something to be won or lost. When you deliberately cut portions of my post out of your response in order to craft replies that suit your viewpoint, it makes your responses come across as disingenous, and when you fail to answer direct questions posed to you, it makes me realize I'm pretty much on a fool's errand for bothering to reply. But I'm a glutton, so I'll try one more time, bringing this back around to the subject of Libor Kozak who is supposed to the focus of this thread:

 

Is it your belief that Darren Bent, at the age of 29 and on his 70k/week wage, and taking into account our mutual belief that he's had a bust-up with the manager, is better value for money for Aston Villa Football Club than Libor Kozak, who is 24 and on greatly reduced wages? I'm not sure how much he's on but I'd guess around 20k. It's obvious that you believe Bent offers more than Kozak, but does he offer 50k/week more? I'm surprised you don't want Bent's wages freed up for the AM everyone's been banging on about.

[Morpheus]

I cut the selected passage of your post not out of convenience but due to the fact while replying to other posters elsewhere concerning the debate i covered the context within the said passage. Read back within the debate as i did answer direct questions concerning both players and there wasn't any point in repeating what i had said. I resent the implication by the way not that it matters much on an internet forum.

 

However you've asked the question concerning Bent and although i've explained my reasons for criticising the allocation of funding i will state them again it the context of your question.

 

You mention 'value for money.' Are we now going to accept value for money over quality of squad?

 

Darren Bent match fit as he has proven when given an extended run in any team scores goals and saved us from being relegated. Now by no stretch of anyone's imagination can anyone say that Bent was given a fair crack of the whip by Lambert and when he was given a chance while not being match fit he was also played in a system not suited to his best attributes. That being said the consensus of opinion was that under Lambert we had outgrown Bent whose style had become draconian and we needed to move him on and find an understudy for Benteke who would fit into our system. Thats fine but who did we replace him with.

 

Lets say for the sake of argument it was Kozak although there are those who have previously suggested Helenius.

 

Some have described Kozak as poor while others have stated that we should give him time and i agree with the latter. However if Bent was loaned on the basis of getting someone more suitable in as understudy to Benteke to play in a system devised to get the best out of Benteke is Kozak the clone we all expected. No he isn't. He seems to be an old fashioned target man who lacks acceleration, thrives on crosses, yet is seemingly easily muscled off the ball. That might be an unfair judgement on him in the long run but since you've asked me the question i must answer by commenting on what i and many others have seen so far.

 

What is the general consensus on why we got rid of Bent?

 

At the moment with Benteke's injury who would i want up front playing for me and who would i be more confident in scoring the goals we need. 100% Darren Bent not because he isn't better value for money than Kozak but quite simply he has been there, done it, got the t-shirt and guarantees goals.  

[Mantis]

We can't afford to have a back-up striker on 70k a week or whatever huge wages Bent is on. Most clubs can't afford that in fact.

[Morpheus]

 

 

Morpheus, think you need to get over it, he's gone, he's been gone for a few months now. You may be right, there may have been an issue but quite frankly talking about something that'll never change is pointless. You may think that Bent is better than Kozak, Helnius, Bowery. But let me remind you, you also thought Charlie Adam would add quality to our side. You have every right to an opinion but the majority of the time its bollocks, just takes you a while to realise.

Again my original point was based on allocation of funding and Charlie Adam would walk into our present midfield.

Its a pity also that you see fit to call anyone's opinion bollocks but so be it.

Haha Adam really wouldn't. And the wages he's on wouldn't make it worth it even if he would.

 

The question was 'Charlie Adam would add quality to our side.' No mention of wages.

[Morpheus]

 

And so has Bent being stripped of the captaincy and then being replaced on the bench by Bowery.

 

How do you know Bent being stripped of the captaincy was down to a falling out? How do you know it wasn't just naivety on Lambert's part?

 

And Bent was on the bench most of the time he was fit.

 

I don't but the implication is there and how do you get match fit while sitting on the bench.

[Mantis]

 

 

And so has Bent being stripped of the captaincy and then being replaced on the bench by Bowery.

 

How do you know Bent being stripped of the captaincy was down to a falling out? How do you know it wasn't just naivety on Lambert's part?

 

And Bent was on the bench most of the time he was fit.

 

I don't but the implication is there and how do you get match fit while sitting on the bench.

 

 

You're clutching at straws there.

 

What, do you think Bent should've been playing ahead of Benteke then?

[Morpheus]

We can't afford to have a back-up striker on 70k a week or whatever huge wages Bent is on. Most clubs can't afford that in fact.

Thats a comment i've seen repeatedly and one which i wholly disagree with.

 

First of all you agree that without getting rid of Bent our overall outlay on wages has already come down significantly. Taking that into consideration i don't think its a case of we can't afford it, its rather that the chairman won't allocate the money due to probably preparing us for a sale in the not so distant future.

 

Therefore its not that we can't afford it, rather its more, i won't afford it.

[Mantis]

 

We can't afford to have a back-up striker on 70k a week or whatever huge wages Bent is on. Most clubs can't afford that in fact.

Thats a comment i've seen repeatedly and one which i wholly disagree with.

 

First of all you agree that without getting rid of Bent our overall outlay on wages has already come down significantly. Taking that into consideration i don't think its a case of we can't afford it, its rather that the chairman won't allocate the money due to probably preparing us for a sale in the not so distant future.

 

Therefore its not that we can't afford it, rather its more, i won't afford it.

 

It's hardly reasonable to expect the owner of the club to have to fork out so much money for a bench warmer. Don't you believe in sensible spending?

 

Besides, is Bent really worth that much money, especially when he's hardly playing? Forget about your gripes with Lerner for not spending more for a minute, how in any way shape or form is having Bent earning so much money for sitting on the bench every week value for money?

Edited October 14, 2013 by Mantis

[Czechlad]

sooo kozak,

he likely to get any game time tomorrow against Bulgaria?

Still no word, but I am sure it will pop up tomorrow if he will play. Likely will see him on the bench to start the match.

[heid3ster]

I cut the selected passage of your post not out of convenience but due to the fact while replying to other posters elsewhere concerning the debate i covered the context within the said passage. Read back within the debate as i did answer direct questions concerning both players and there wasn't any point in repeating what i had said. I resent the implication by the way not that it matters much on an internet forum.

 

No offense was intended. I have read your posts and have not seen where you directly addressed my assertion that Villa rely, in part, on team spirit and work rate to win games, particularly games vs. greater opposition, so Bent's supposed bust-up with the manager and the theory that he has caused disharmony in the dressing room would directly affect that aspect of our play. In the cases of Rooney and Suarez, it would not affect their play because those teams do not rely on team spirit -- they have better skills and technical ability, due in part to their ability to pay higher wages to a larger squad of guys. That's why the examples of Rooney and Suarez did not apply to what happened at Villa with Darren Bent.

 

That's why I said Lambert can't have one set of rules for Darrent Bent and another set for everyone else -- because we rely on that team play where other teams do not. Rodgers clearly can have, and does have, a completely different set of rules for Luis Suarez because it's evident that Suarez is bigger than the club. When Pepe Reina suggested it was his dream to play for Barcelona one day -- BANG, off he went on loan to another club without so much as a by-your-leave. Suarez? Well, he can pretty much do whatever he wants. I'm frankly quite glad we don't see stuff like that at our club.

 

 

However you've asked the question concerning Bent and although i've explained my reasons for criticising the allocation of funding i will state them again it the context of your question.

You mention 'value for money.' Are we now going to accept value for money over quality of squad?

 

They are not mutually exclusive concepts, in fact they are directly related. I will ask it another way if this makes more sense to you: Do you think the quality that Darren Bent brings to the squad vs. Kozak is worth an additional 50k/week?

 

It's not just the wage. Look, Stephen Ireland was making, what, 70, 75k/week? I think we can all agree he was not worth that wage (or any wage) for the quality he brought to the team. Gabby, on the other hand, is reportedly on a pretty fair whack, I think I read around 60k/week? Now, to me, for what Gabby brings to the team, he's worth that, just about. And Benteke is worth the rather large wage increase he received over the summer.

 

In other words I don't think Lambert was given a mandate to summarily remove all high wage-earners from the team regardless of their contribution. I think he gave Bent a chance to prove he was worth that wage and Bent failed, at least in Lambert's eyes.

 

 

Darren Bent match fit as he has proven when given an extended run in any team scores goals and saved us from being relegated. Now by no stretch of anyone's imagination can anyone say that Bent was given a fair crack of the whip by Lambert and when he was given a chance while not being match fit he was also played in a system not suited to his best attributes. That being said the consensus of opinion was that under Lambert we had outgrown Bent whose style had become draconian and we needed to move him on and find an understudy for Benteke who would fit into our system. Thats fine but who did we replace him with.

Lets say for the sake of argument it was Kozak although there are those who have previously suggested Helenius.

Some have described Kozak as poor while others have stated that we should give him time and i agree with the latter. However if Bent was loaned on the basis of getting someone more suitable in as understudy to Benteke to play in a system devised to get the best out of Benteke is Kozak the clone we all expected. No he isn't. He seems to be an old fashioned target man who lacks acceleration, thrives on crosses, yet is seemingly easily muscled off the ball. That might be an unfair judgement on him in the long run but since you've asked me the question i must answer by commenting on what i and many others have seen so far.

 

To be honest I don't think we're too far apart here. I've said that I think Kozak's current weaknesses will improve as he adjusts to the league and to his teammates, just as Benteke improved last season, and I'll stick by that. But if my question were "Do you think Darren Bent right now is a better player than Libor Kozak right now?" your answer would probably be yes (not trying to put words in your mouth, so correct me if I'm wrong). And in fact I don't even disagree. I don't think he's 50k/week better, but I think he's better. Which isn't too surprising given their relative amounts of experience in the league.

 

So where we differ appears to be short-term solutions vs. long-term solutions. Darren Bent is a short-term solution. It's not all that unusual, of course fans want short-term results. But managers have to plan for the long term.

 

 

What is the general consensus on why we got rid of Bent?

 

There doesn't appear to be any concensus among VT'ers, and the truth is, we'll probably never know unless Bent writes some tell-all book about it. You and I are in agreement with the theory that he and Lambert had a bust-up of some kind, while others says there isn't any evidence of it. Some people says it's the wages, others say it's the style of play. Most likely it's a combination of all of these factors. But I don't think we'll get any concensus on it and I'm not sure we need it for the purposes of this discussion.

 

 

At the moment with Benteke's injury who would i want up front playing for me and who would i be more confident in scoring the goals we need. 100% Darren Bent not because he isn't better value for money than Kozak but quite simply he has been there, done it, got the t-shirt and guarantees goals.

 

This is the meat of the matter right here and goes back to short-term solution vs. long-term. I don't disagree that Bent can score goals, and goals win games, and winning games keeps you away from relegation. I just don't agree that his value to the team is worth the wage he's on, and I think Helenius and Kozak will improve us more in the long term. Bent's a short-term solution due to his high wage which is unsustainable over a length of time, and due to his age. He's probably got another good 3 or 4 years left in him. And if he spends the rest of that time at Fulham and bangs goals in, good luck to him and I wish him well. Fulham's actually a really good example of a club that doesn't plan for the long term, their squad is full of old dudes.

 

The theory is that Kozak and Helenius will improve with time and with experience, with their wages increasing over time as is warranted, but within a sustainable structure. I expect by the end of the season for Kozak to be offering at least as much as Bent offered us last year, but without the high wages and without the attitude. That makes him better value for money to me.

[KjParton]

The short-sightedness is astounding at times. 

[Anything11]

 

We can't afford to have a back-up striker on 70k a week or whatever huge wages Bent is on. Most clubs can't afford that in fact.

Thats a comment i've seen repeatedly and one which i wholly disagree with.

 

First of all you agree that without getting rid of Bent our overall outlay on wages has already come down significantly. Taking that into consideration i don't think its a case of we can't afford it, its rather that the chairman won't allocate the money due to probably preparing us for a sale in the not so distant future.

 

Therefore its not that we can't afford it, rather its more, i won't afford it.

 

 

We can't afford it with respect to our league position/annual turnover of the last few years. It is not sustainable. How can you not see that? Bent didn't fit our system and it was glaringly obvious. Kozak will need time but he plays in a way that benefits our style and formation - he may never work out but we don't know that yet.

[turnbull]

Meanwhile, over on the Darren Bent thread........................

[Raver50032]

Meanwhile, over on the Darren Bent thread........................

 

I went off to try and find something more interesting in the E-book section of Amazon and WH Smith, but I found out they withdrew everything I had any interest in reading... **** censorship eh? words removed,

Edited October 15, 2013 by Raver50032

[Morpheus]

 

 

 

And so has Bent being stripped of the captaincy and then being replaced on the bench by Bowery.

 

How do you know Bent being stripped of the captaincy was down to a falling out? How do you know it wasn't just naivety on Lambert's part?

 

And Bent was on the bench most of the time he was fit.

 

I don't but the implication is there and how do you get match fit while sitting on the bench.

 

 

You're clutching at straws there.

 

What, do you think Bent should've been playing ahead of Benteke then?

 

No clutching at straws just a reply to your question which seemingly you have no answer for and have tried to deflect that by changing the point of the question.

 

However to answer it anyway no i don't but as stated that wasn't the point of the debate.

 

I'll ask you again. How could Darren Bent be 100% match fit while being on the bench?

Edited October 15, 2013 by Morpheus

[SikhInTrinity]

I cut the selected passage of your post not out of convenience but due to the fact while replying to other posters elsewhere concerning the debate i covered the context within the said passage. Read back within the debate as i did answer direct questions concerning both players and there wasn't any point in repeating what i had said. I resent the implication by the way not that it matters much on an internet forum.

 

However you've asked the question concerning Bent and although i've explained my reasons for criticising the allocation of funding i will state them again it the context of your question.

 

You mention 'value for money.' Are we now going to accept value for money over quality of squad?

 

Darren Bent match fit as he has proven when given an extended run in any team scores goals and saved us from being relegated. Now by no stretch of anyone's imagination can anyone say that Bent was given a fair crack of the whip by Lambert and when he was given a chance while not being match fit he was also played in a system not suited to his best attributes. That being said the consensus of opinion was that under Lambert we had outgrown Bent whose style had become draconian and we needed to move him on and find an understudy for Benteke who would fit into our system. Thats fine but who did we replace him with.

 

Lets say for the sake of argument it was Kozak although there are those who have previously suggested Helenius.

 

Some have described Kozak as poor while others have stated that we should give him time and i agree with the latter. However if Bent was loaned on the basis of getting someone more suitable in as understudy to Benteke to play in a system devised to get the best out of Benteke is Kozak the clone we all expected. No he isn't. He seems to be an old fashioned target man who lacks acceleration, thrives on crosses, yet is seemingly easily muscled off the ball. That might be an unfair judgement on him in the long run but since you've asked me the question i must answer by commenting on what i and many others have seen so far.

 

What is the general consensus on why we got rid of Bent?

 

At the moment with Benteke's injury who would i want up front playing for me and who would i be more confident in scoring the goals we need. 100% Darren Bent not because he isn't better value for money than Kozak but quite simply he has been there, done it, got the t-shirt and guarantees goals.  

 

Paul Lambert could easily say, the same questions were asked when I replaced Bent with Benteke. The same argument was used back then when Benteke wasn't on form. You seem to be obsessed with Bent, but my final two points, he didn't fit into Lamberts plans and second he was on astronomical wages. You may carry on saying well he was given the captaincy, well Bannan, Holman, N'Zogbia were all given positions in the side, Lambert then deemed them surplus to requirements. Managers change their minds on what players fit into his system. Time for you to let it go and move on. Instead of stating Bent would have scored more than  Kozak as it will never be proved.

[SikhInTrinity]

 

 

By that logic, Lowton is also now a reserve I take it? Also, I wasn't intending to back-up Morpheus' statement with my comment. Just pointing out an obvious mistruth.

 

Yep he's a reserve as he's not even in the squad. It depends on your understanding of what a reserve is.

So you are a 'reserve' as soon as you are dropped for one game? Do you even think your comments through before you post them?

 

 

Dropped for one game? He hasn't featured for a whole month (3 games in fact). He is back-up to a Bacuna, a reserve, i.e. he hasn't been a regular starter. In fact he was left out of the whole squad in the last game. I don't think its my lack of reading my comments, its your lack of understanding of what a reserve is.