Libor Kozák

[SikhInTrinity]

I don't believe there was a major issue between Bent and Lambert, Lambert just didn't rate him enough to keep at VP. All these comparisons to Rooney and Suarez are pointless as those two players in terms of ability are miles ahead of Bent. Lambert has a specific way he wants to play football, and Darren Bent didn't feature in his plans, it's that simple.

[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.

 

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.

 

Ah. So the principle of behaviour at clubs is based on whether you're any good or not. That didn't exactly help Stam at Man U did it or a plethora of other players at their respective clubs.

[Morpheus]

I don't believe there was a major issue between Bent and Lambert, Lambert just didn't rate him enough to keep at VP. All these comparisons to Rooney and Suarez are pointless as those two players in terms of ability are miles ahead of Bent. Lambert has a specific way he wants to play football, and Darren Bent didn't feature in his plans, it's that simple.

No its not that simple. If Bent hadn't figured in Lambert's plans why did he make him captain?

[Mantis]

What's that got to do with anything? Bent may have featured in Lambert's plans when he first became manager but that clearly wasn't the case a year later.

[Morpheus]

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.

If that is so who did they replace him with. Helenius? Kozak? Bowery? Who would you say has more quality?

[Mantis]

 

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.

If that is so who did they replace him with. Helenius? Kozak? Bowery? Who would you say has more quality?

 

Football is a team game. As an individual Bent may be better but someone like Kozak fits the team better at this moment in time, is also a lot younger and on much lower wages. What's so hard to understand about this?

[villan_007]

 

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.

If that is so who did they replace him with. Helenius? Kozak? Bowery? Who would you say has more quality?

 

 

If you don't know the answer to this then there isn't much hope for you. I'll again say thar Jol himself has come out and said Darren is a very limited player, who is a luxury and hard to accomodate in most games.

 

Still you go on with your bent obsession.

[SikhInTrinity]

 

I don't believe there was a major issue between Bent and Lambert, Lambert just didn't rate him enough to keep at VP. All these comparisons to Rooney and Suarez are pointless as those two players in terms of ability are miles ahead of Bent. Lambert has a specific way he wants to play football, and Darren Bent didn't feature in his plans, it's that simple.

No its not that simple. If Bent hadn't figured in Lambert's plans why did he make him captain?

 

 

Because he was a £ 24million player, he then realised he wasn't capable of playing up front on his own never mind being captain. At that time he had the most experience of PL football out of all of our line-up so you could understand why he made him captain to start with.

[SikhInTrinity]

 

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.

If that is so who did they replace him with. Helenius? Kozak? Bowery? Who would you say has more quality?

 

 

Have you ever considered that Darren Bent was not happy sitting on the bench, he made point after point saying he did not want to sit on the bench. Simple choice really Benteke or Bent?

[Morpheus]

What's that got to do with anything? Bent may have featured in Lambert's plans when he first became manager but that clearly wasn't the case a year later.

Its got everything to do with it when you and other posters keep banging on about Bent not being in Lambert's plans due to not fitting into his preferred system. When you give someone the captaincy you do that on the basis that the player is going to be part of the future of the club. You and other posters fail to realise that by giving the captaincy to Bent he would have already been aware of Bent's game and quite obviously was prepared to make sacrifices to play him unless he give Bent the captaincy with the idea to keep him on the bench?

 

No quite obviously something happened between player and manager which was the catalyst for Bent's alienation and subsequent loan to Fulham.

 

 

 

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.

If that is so who did they replace him with. Helenius? Kozak? Bowery? Who would you say has more quality?

 

 

If you don't know the answer to this then there isn't much hope for you. I'll again say thar Jol himself has come out and said Darren is a very limited player, who is a luxury and hard to accomodate in most games.

 

Still you go on with your bent obsession.

 

Refer to above.

 

 

 

I don't believe there was a major issue between Bent and Lambert, Lambert just didn't rate him enough to keep at VP. All these comparisons to Rooney and Suarez are pointless as those two players in terms of ability are miles ahead of Bent. Lambert has a specific way he wants to play football, and Darren Bent didn't feature in his plans, it's that simple.

No its not that simple. If Bent hadn't figured in Lambert's plans why did he make him captain?

 

 

Because he was a £ 24million player, he then realised he wasn't capable of playing up front on his own never mind being captain. At that time he had the most experience of PL football out of all of our line-up so you could understand why he made him captain to start with.

 

So Lambert gave Bent the captaincy due to his fee? Right.

Edited October 14, 2013 by Morpheus

[SikhInTrinity]

 

What's that got to do with anything? Bent may have featured in Lambert's plans when he first became manager but that clearly wasn't the case a year later.

Its got everything to do with it when you and other posters keep banging on about Bent not being in Lambert's plans due to not fitting into his preferred system. When you give someone the captaincy you do that on the basis that the player is going to be part of the future of the club. You and other posters fail to realise that by giving the captaincy to Bent he would have already been aware of Bent's game and quite obviously was prepared to make sacrifices to play him unless he give Bent the captaincy with the idea to keep him on the bench?

 

No quite obviously something happened between player and manager which was the catalyst for Bent's alienation and subsequent loan to Fulham.

 

 

 

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.

If that is so who did they replace him with. Helenius? Kozak? Bowery? Who would you say has more quality?

 

 

If you don't know the answer to this then there isn't much hope for you. I'll again say thar Jol himself has come out and said Darren is a very limited player, who is a luxury and hard to accomodate in most games.

 

Still you go on with your bent obsession.

 

Refer to above.

 

 

 

I don't believe there was a major issue between Bent and Lambert, Lambert just didn't rate him enough to keep at VP. All these comparisons to Rooney and Suarez are pointless as those two players in terms of ability are miles ahead of Bent. Lambert has a specific way he wants to play football, and Darren Bent didn't feature in his plans, it's that simple.

No its not that simple. If Bent hadn't figured in Lambert's plans why did he make him captain?

 

 

Because he was a £ 24million player, he then realised he wasn't capable of playing up front on his own never mind being captain. At that time he had the most experience of PL football out of all of our line-up so you could understand why he made him captain to start with.

 

So Lambert gave Bent the captaincy due to his fee? Right.

 

 

Nice to know how you miss the later comment, he was the most experienced player we had in the PL, hence he got the captains armband. Like I said he will not be the first player that a manager doesn't fancy. It also speaks volumes that not many clubs came in for this proven goalscorer. Because the way he's made out on this forum, you'd think all the top 4 would take him.

[bannedfromHandV]

 

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.

If that is so who did they replace him with. Helenius? Kozak? Bowery? Who would you say has more quality?

 

 

 

Wow.

 

7 games into the new season including wins over Arsenal and Man City, the latter done so without our best player who we will be welcoming back in the near future incidentally, new signings looking like in the long run they may well contribute - Bacuna, Okore (before the injury obv) and Kozak and a certain Fabian Delph playing out of his skin.........and you're still 'talking' (use the term talking loosely as that would mean conversating which would mean taking on board other peoples opinions which you're not doing) about Darren **** Bent, give it a rest for christs sake, it got boring about 2 months ago.

 

You seem to live in a very black and white world, something either is or isn't, for you the equation seems to be has Bent scored lots of Premier League goals, yes - has Kozak / Helenius, no....ergo Bent is better and Lambert is an idiot for not using this kind of logic.

 

Buying the 'best' players does not and never has guranteed success........there's more to be said for team spirit and unity and if Bent is counter-productive to this then not only does he become ineffectual in his 1 position but he has a damaging effect on the rest of the team and squad.

 

Please give it a rest, we all know your position on this and as far as I can see you have one or two people prepared to back you up whilst the other 99.8% of the people using this board would tell you you're being stupid.

 

No need to keep reiterating an opinion unless you're doing so for effect which would be churlish at best.

[Ghost_of_Pongo_Waring]

It's worth remembering that the majority of the season Bent was injured. He was injured towards the start of the season came back for Norwich in the C1 cup and lasted half the game. Out for a couple of weeks came back and again lasted half a game. Add that to the half a season he missed under McLeish and it's entirely possible that it was felt unwise to build a team around a player thats having continual niggles and problems. Especially when Benteke had firmly cemented his place as main striker.

[Mantis]

 

What's that got to do with anything? Bent may have featured in Lambert's plans when he first became manager but that clearly wasn't the case a year later.

Its got everything to do with it when you and other posters keep banging on about Bent not being in Lambert's plans due to not fitting into his preferred system. When you give someone the captaincy you do that on the basis that the player is going to be part of the future of the club. You and other posters fail to realise that by giving the captaincy to Bent he would have already been aware of Bent's game and quite obviously was prepared to make sacrifices to play him unless he give Bent the captaincy with the idea to keep him on the bench?

 

No quite obviously something happened between player and manager which was the catalyst for Bent's alienation and subsequent loan to Fulham.

 

Interesting that you prefer to cook up some conspiracy as to why Bent was sold instead of believing the more plausible option that it took Lambert a while to figure out who he wanted to keep and how he wanted to play. It wasn't for a few months until we got a settled team. It's far more likely that Lambert just decided that Bent didn't fit into his plans and how he wanted us to play.

[Tomaszk]

[villan_007]

O so it's all changed to be about him getting the captaincy now!! right got it.

 

Ok he came in having never worked with Darren Bent before, thought right he is my most experienced player, I'll give it to him, the youngster will look up to him and we'll go from there. Few more months into his new job as Aston Villa manager....hmmm bent is one lazy f^cker, he is not really buying into what we are doing here, think it's time to re-think the captaincy.

 

Or are we saying now that Lambert cannot change his mind?

[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.

If that is so who did they replace him with. Helenius? Kozak? Bowery? Who would you say has more quality?

He replaced him with all of the above and our side will be much better for it in the long term.

[Electric Avenue]

I'm in the camp that says something went on behind the scenes. Making Bent Captain then within weeks marginalising him makes for a very odd man management strategy.

[SikhInTrinity]

I'm in the camp that says something went on behind the scenes. Making Bent Captain then within weeks marginalising him makes for a very odd man management strategy.

 

Why doesn't that surprise me.

[Morpheus]

 

 

What's that got to do with anything? Bent may have featured in Lambert's plans when he first became manager but that clearly wasn't the case a year later.

Its got everything to do with it when you and other posters keep banging on about Bent not being in Lambert's plans due to not fitting into his preferred system. When you give someone the captaincy you do that on the basis that the player is going to be part of the future of the club. You and other posters fail to realise that by giving the captaincy to Bent he would have already been aware of Bent's game and quite obviously was prepared to make sacrifices to play him unless he give Bent the captaincy with the idea to keep him on the bench?

 

No quite obviously something happened between player and manager which was the catalyst for Bent's alienation and subsequent loan to Fulham.

 

Interesting that you prefer to cook up some conspiracy as to why Bent was sold instead of believing the more plausible option that it took Lambert a while to figure out who he wanted to keep and how he wanted to play. It wasn't for a few months until we got a settled team. It's far more likely that Lambert just decided that Bent didn't fit into his plans and how he wanted us to play.

 

 

 

 

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.

If that is so who did they replace him with. Helenius? Kozak? Bowery? Who would you say has more quality?

 

 

 

Wow.

 

7 games into the new season including wins over Arsenal and Man City, the latter done so without our best player who we will be welcoming back in the near future incidentally, new signings looking like in the long run they may well contribute - Bacuna, Okore (before the injury obv) and Kozak and a certain Fabian Delph playing out of his skin.........and you're still 'talking' (use the term talking loosely as that would mean conversating which would mean taking on board other peoples opinions which you're not doing) about Darren **** Bent, give it a rest for christs sake, it got boring about 2 months ago.

 

You seem to live in a very black and white world, something either is or isn't, for you the equation seems to be has Bent scored lots of Premier League goals, yes - has Kozak / Helenius, no....ergo Bent is better and Lambert is an idiot for not using this kind of logic.

 

Buying the 'best' players does not and never has guranteed success........there's more to be said for team spirit and unity and if Bent is counter-productive to this then not only does he become ineffectual in his 1 position but he has a damaging effect on the rest of the team and squad.

 

Please give it a rest, we all know your position on this and as far as I can see you have one or two people prepared to back you up whilst the other 99.8% of the people using this board would tell you you're being stupid.

 

No need to keep reiterating an opinion unless you're doing so for effect which would be churlish at best.

 

If you go right back to my original point on this it was allocation of our limited budget on players either not playing or no better than what we already had at the club. If you then read those replies to my post they required a response. So please excuse me for reponding but like you i am entitled to an opinion. It may not fall in line with your opinion or others but i do show due consideration to other people's opinions by responding. Its what you do on a forum and no i don't post for effect or call people stupid.