BOF Posted October 21, 2013 Moderator Share Posted October 21, 2013 so what you're really saying is, Lambert hasn't got a **** clue as he can't find a system for two strikers to play well in ?You're not even trying to read what is being posted now. Stop putting words in people's mouths. well what else can be taken from that ?, if people are saying both Bent and Kozak are garbage as lone strikers, why has the manager playing them that way ?. is it their fault or his ? i can't see anything controversial in voicing that opinion.Not that I subscribe to this line of thinking, but if someone is levelling the criticism at Lambert that 2 players are useless up top on their own, how can you take from that that he can't find 2 to play together? It makes no sense. It would be more logical to argue that Lambert struggles to find people to play up top effectively on their own, given that the evidence shows he has only really found one to date. I just think it is strange mental gymnastics to go from 2 'failed'(sic) lone strikers meaning he can't find partners. Quite apart from the fact Lambert doesn't historically prefer formations with 2 up top in the first place so he isn't going to try particularly hard to answer a question no-one asked. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PaulC Posted October 21, 2013 Share Posted October 21, 2013 Bent did very well for us when he first came to the club and had Downing and Young giving him good service. I wont knock Bent because he has a proven track record. Kozak can't be compared to him. As yet all he has show is a good workrate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SikhInTrinity Posted October 21, 2013 Share Posted October 21, 2013 Bent did very well for us when he first came to the club and had Downing and Young giving him good service. I wont knock Bent because he has a proven track record. Kozak can't be compared to him. As yet all he has show is a good workrate. Emile Heskey has a proven goalscoring record too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PaulC Posted October 21, 2013 Share Posted October 21, 2013 yes one in 6 compared to about 1 in 2 when Bent joined us. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AVTuco Posted October 21, 2013 VT Supporter Share Posted October 21, 2013 Just what we need - another Bent thread. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SikhInTrinity Posted October 21, 2013 Share Posted October 21, 2013 yes one in 6 compared to about 1 in 2 when Bent joined us. Key being when he joined us, now he's left. Emile Heskey is a proven goalscorer by the record books, still scored 100 PL goals. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
villan_007 Posted October 21, 2013 Share Posted October 21, 2013 Kozak didn't cost 7mill Kozak didn't cost 7mill Kozak didn't cost 7mill Kozak didn't cost 7mill Kozak didn't cost 7mill Kozak didn't cost 7mill Kozak didn't cost 7mill Kozak didn't cost 7mill Kozak didn't cost 7mill Kozak didn't cost 7mill Kozak didn't cost 7mill Kozak didn't cost 7mill Kozak didn't cost 7mill Kozak didn't cost 7mill Kozak didn't cost 7mill Kozak didn't cost 7mill Kozak didn't cost 7mill Kozak didn't cost 7mill Kozak didn't cost 7mill Kozak didn't cost 7mill Kozak didn't cost 7mill Kozak didn't cost 7mill Kozak didn't cost 7mill Kozak didn't cost 7mill Kozak didn't cost 7mill Kozak didn't cost 7mill Kozak didn't cost 7mill Kozak didn't cost 7mill Kozak didn't cost 7mill Kozak didn't cost 7mill Kozak didn't cost 7mill Kozak didn't cost 7mill Kozak didn't cost 7mill Kozak didn't cost 7mill Kozak didn't cost 7mill Kozak didn't cost 7mill Kozak didn't cost 7mill Kozak didn't cost 7mill Kozak didn't cost 7mill Kozak didn't cost 7mill Kozak didn't cost 7mill Kozak didn't cost 7mill Kozak didn't cost 7mill Kozak didn't cost 7mill Kozak didn't cost 7mill Kozak didn't cost 7mill Kozak didn't cost 7mill Kozak didn't cost 7mill Kozak didn't cost 7mill Kozak didn't cost 7mill Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BOF Posted October 21, 2013 Moderator Share Posted October 21, 2013 Kozak didn't cost 7mill Kozak didn't cost 7mill Kozak didn't cost 7mill Kozak didn't cost 7mill Kozak didn't cost 7mill Kozak didn't cost 7mill Kozak didn't cost 7mill Kozak didn't cost 7mill Kozak didn't cost 7mill Kozak didn't cost 7mill Kozak didn't cost 7mill Kozak didn't cost 7mill Kozak didn't cost 7mill Kozak didn't cost 7mill Kozak didn't cost 7mill Kozak didn't cost 7mill Kozak didn't cost 7mill Kozak didn't cost 7mill Kozak didn't cost 7mill Kozak didn't cost 7mill Kozak didn't cost 7mill Kozak didn't cost 7mill Kozak didn't cost 7mill Kozak didn't cost 7mill Kozak didn't cost 7mill Kozak didn't cost 7mill Kozak didn't cost 7mill Kozak didn't cost 7mill Kozak didn't cost 7mill Kozak didn't cost 7mill Kozak didn't cost 7mill Kozak didn't cost 7mill Kozak didn't cost 7mill Kozak didn't cost 7mill Kozak didn't cost 7mill Kozak didn't cost 7mill Kozak didn't cost 7mill Kozak didn't cost 7mill Kozak didn't cost 7mill Kozak didn't cost 7mill Kozak didn't cost 7mill Kozak didn't cost 7mill Kozak didn't cost 7mill Kozak didn't cost 7mill Kozak didn't cost 7mill Kozak didn't cost 7mill Kozak didn't cost 7mill Kozak didn't cost 7mill Kozak didn't cost 7mill Kozak didn't cost 7mill This is one of those 3d picture thingies that if you stare long enough through it it turns into a peacock isn't it? I could never do those Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AVFCforever1991 Posted October 21, 2013 Share Posted October 21, 2013 Kozak didn't cost 7mill Kozak didn't cost 7mill Kozak didn't cost 7mill Kozak didn't cost 7mill Kozak didn't cost 7mill Kozak didn't cost 7mill Kozak didn't cost 7mill Kozak didn't cost 7mill Kozak didn't cost 7mill Kozak didn't cost 7mill Kozak didn't cost 7mill Kozak didn't cost 7mill Kozak didn't cost 7mill Kozak didn't cost 7mill Kozak didn't cost 7mill Kozak didn't cost 7mill Kozak didn't cost 7mill Kozak didn't cost 7mill Kozak didn't cost 7mill Kozak didn't cost 7mill Kozak didn't cost 7mill Kozak didn't cost 7mill Kozak didn't cost 7mill Kozak didn't cost 7mill Kozak didn't cost 7mill Kozak didn't cost 7mill Kozak didn't cost 7mill Kozak didn't cost 7mill Kozak didn't cost 7mill Kozak didn't cost 7mill Kozak didn't cost 7mill Kozak didn't cost 7mill Kozak didn't cost 7mill Kozak didn't cost 7mill Kozak didn't cost 7mill Kozak didn't cost 7mill Kozak didn't cost 7mill Kozak didn't cost 7mill Kozak didn't cost 7mill Kozak didn't cost 7mill Kozak didn't cost 7mill Kozak didn't cost 7mill Kozak didn't cost 7mill Kozak didn't cost 7mill Kozak didn't cost 7mill Kozak didn't cost 7mill Kozak didn't cost 7mill Kozak didn't cost 7mill Kozak didn't cost 7mill Kozak didn't cost 7mill Wow, I don't think you can say that again... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
villan_007 Posted October 21, 2013 Share Posted October 21, 2013 Yeah as you can probably tell it annoys the crap out of me - and the only people that use this 7mill figure are those that question the signing and think he's rubbish. I put it to you that if he had 7mill to spend on one player we'd have seen the AM that we need. He came in when Bent left, and after the majority of our budget was sepnt which tells it's own tale. O and just to make sure.....Kozak didn't cost 7mill Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Electric Avenue Posted October 21, 2013 Share Posted October 21, 2013 Kozak didn't cost 7mill Kozak didn't cost 7mill Kozak didn't cost 7mill Kozak didn't cost 7mill Kozak didn't cost 7mill Kozak didn't cost 7mill Kozak didn't cost 7mill Kozak didn't cost 7mill Kozak didn't cost 7mill Kozak didn't cost 7millKozak didn't cost 7mill Kozak didn't cost 7mill Kozak didn't cost 7mill Kozak didn't cost 7mill Kozak didn't cost 7mill Kozak didn't cost 7mill Kozak didn't cost 7mill Kozak didn't cost 7mill Kozak didn't cost 7mill Kozak didn't cost 7millKozak didn't cost 7mill Kozak didn't cost 7mill Kozak didn't cost 7mill Kozak didn't cost 7mill Kozak didn't cost 7mill Kozak didn't cost 7mill Kozak didn't cost 7mill Kozak didn't cost 7mill Kozak didn't cost 7mill Kozak didn't cost 7millKozak didn't cost 7mill Kozak didn't cost 7mill Kozak didn't cost 7mill Kozak didn't cost 7mill Kozak didn't cost 7mill Kozak didn't cost 7mill Kozak didn't cost 7mill Kozak didn't cost 7mill Kozak didn't cost 7mill Kozak didn't cost 7millKozak didn't cost 7mill Kozak didn't cost 7mill Kozak didn't cost 7mill Kozak didn't cost 7mill Kozak didn't cost 7mill Kozak didn't cost 7mill Kozak didn't cost 7mill Kozak didn't cost 7mill Kozak didn't cost 7mill Kozak didn't cost 7millThis is one of those 3d picture thingies that if you stare long enough through it it turns into a peacock isn't it? I could never do those I'm only getting a barn door ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Isa Posted October 21, 2013 Share Posted October 21, 2013 I've never really got involved with the Darren Bent argument but here goes: A) Benteke is a far superior player. He and Benteke never showed any sign that they could play together. C) With A and B in mind, we are not in a position to have our highest earner as back-up. Surely those facts speak for themself? A) Correct Maybe you can list all those games when they did start together ? C) Yet we can spend 7m and a wage on another player to sit on our bench ? (and i doubt Seria A Lazio wages are peanuts) True they didn't start many games together but what I meant also was that playing them together ultimately compromised Benteke's game. Bent can only play as the most advanced striker. He isn't going to be able to drop deep, run the channels and other things that you'd want from a second striker. Not his fault, it just isn't his game. That then makes it a straight choice between him spearheading the attack or Benteke spearheading it and as you yourself accept, Benteke is the superior player. Benteke leading the line is vital to the way we play and his hold-up play and aerial play are important in bringing other plays into attacks. As was evident in the Chelsea home game last season. When Benteke went off, Gabby and Weimann all of a sudden were totally ineffective and unsure exactly what to do. Secondly, you won't find me defending the Kozak signing. I think with Benteke, Gabby, Weimann, Helenius, Bowery and even Burke, we had enough strikers. We also added Tonev and Bacuna who can play in the wider roles. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big_John_10 Posted October 21, 2013 Share Posted October 21, 2013 Kozak may not have cost £7 million but compared to other lambert signings he was one of the more expensive purchases. He was also someone we spent the entire summer trying to bring in. It's looking like money and time wasted at the moment. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PaulC Posted October 21, 2013 Share Posted October 21, 2013 Kozak may not have cost £7 million but compared to other lambert signings he was one of the more expensive purchases. He was also someone we spent the entire summer trying to bring in. It's looking like money and time wasted at the moment. Yes at this moment in time i would agree with you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
P3te Posted October 21, 2013 Share Posted October 21, 2013 He was probably brought in with a system change in mind, but with it likely to come next season when we don't have benteke Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TRO Posted October 21, 2013 Share Posted October 21, 2013 If my first impression is what I have to go by OMG Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Isa Posted October 21, 2013 Share Posted October 21, 2013 He was probably brought in with a system change in mind, but with it likely to come next season when we don't have benteke He wasn't. Lambert confirmed when we signed him he came to be another target-man like Benteke. His general game was similar to Benteke's when he was at Lazio anyway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
villan_007 Posted October 21, 2013 Share Posted October 21, 2013 (edited) Kozak may not have cost £7 million but compared to other lambert signings he was one of the more expensive purchases. He was also someone we spent the entire summer trying to bring in. It's looking like money and time wasted at the moment. I don't disagree that at this present time if he was all we had to rely on I'd be a little concerened, but I also realise that for 4.5mill you aren't getting the finished article. We have a manager and backroom staff that do their homework and bring people in that can compete at this level but might need games and time to adjust. KEA this week spoke of how homesick he was last season. The lad has had 4 and half games in the premier league scoring 1 goal, that's is nothing, simply no time at all to judge anybody on. I'm all for opinions but some of the comments of just writing him off I find insane. Regardless of how he scored them or the manner in which they were scored, he was the europa leagues top scorer, he has scored at international level and even though he did nothing of note in Serie A still came away with a reputation of being a handful and always a threat of a goal, and an elbow. Let's get behind him and watch him flourish as he adapts, because if not I can already hear that Villa Park groan when something goes wrong for him. Edited October 21, 2013 by villan_007 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big_John_10 Posted October 21, 2013 Share Posted October 21, 2013 He was probably brought in with a system change in mind, but with it likely to come next season when we don't have benteke I will well and truly give up on Lambert if Kozak is the main replacement for Benteke. And I don't agree he was signed with a system change in mind. Lambert said he was signed so we could play the same way when Benteke is out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big_John_10 Posted October 21, 2013 Share Posted October 21, 2013 Kozak may not have cost £7 million but compared to other lambert signings he was one of the more expensive purchases. He was also someone we spent the entire summer trying to bring in. It's looking like money and time wasted at the moment. I don't disagree that at this present time if he was all we had to rely on I'd be a little concerened, but I also realise that for 4.5mill you aren't getting the finished article. We have a manager and backroom staff that do their homework and bring people in that can compete at this level but might need games and time to adjust. KEA this week spoke of how homesick he was last season. The lad has had 4 and half games in the premier league scoring 1 goal, that's is nothing, simply no time at all to judge anybody on. I'm all for opinions but some of the comments of just writing him off I find insane. Regardless of how he scored them or the manner in which they were scored, he was the europa leagues top scorer, he has scored at international level and even though he did nothing of note in Serie A still came away with a reputation of being a handful and always a threat of a goal, and an elbow. Let's get behind him and watch him flourish as he adapts, because if not I can already hear that Villa Park groan when something goes wrong for him. Some players do need time to adjust but I just don't see what Kozak offers. He's complete lack of pace will stop him succeeding at this level and like I've said before he has nothing special about him to make up for that lack of pace. I really don't see what Lambert saw in him. I worry that this one is all about his attitude with little thought about ability. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts