Current Avatar:
No Avatar image uploaded
No Avatar image uploaded
Aston Villa Rumours Member Posts
Tony37bar's Profile
Tony37bar's Posts and Other Poster's Replies To Tony37bar's Posts
To Tony37bar's last 5 banter posts
To Tony37bar's last 5 rumour replies
Tony37bar has no Rumours Posts
Tony37bar's banter posts with other poster's replies to Tony37bar's banter posts
13 Jul 2013 08:28:23
Why not keep Bent now that Benteke wants to leave. Bent is the best finisher we have had in years.
1.) Because he doesn't fit the way we play so is effectively useless to us
It's been demonstrated pretty clearly
Mendax
2.) Bent does not have the work ethic that PL requires.
Granted he is a good finisher, but is rarely able to create anything himself.
And I think Bent can also become ineffective if man marked, where players like Lukaku, Benteke, etc are difficult to mark because of their movement and physical strength.
villadave
3.) I wouldn't say he's "effectively useless to us", he's a player who could come on the bench for any team and score a goal. His finishing alone is worth something. But you're right that Lambert doesn't want us paying 60k a week or whatever he's on if he isn't going to play 90 mins every week.
4.) "Effectively useless" is this how we now describe an established goalscorer, not so long ago an England International. When Bent was injured for World cup, described by Hodgson as a big loss. We will play with wide players who will cross the ball, so why will bent be useless, his game is to run onto passes and score. His failing at villa is caused by his wages & Benteke's talent, We were all singing his name a short time ago, his time at VP may be over, but he has on the whole shown respect to the club, so stating he is "effectively useless" is out of order.
5.) So villadave would you have described Lineaker ineffective as well?
6.) I agree mate, his finishing is second to none.
But because of the way we play, he doesn't get a chance to demonstrate it
Its a shame but it's true.
No point us flogging a dead horse
Mendax
7.) Your not reading posts properly again are you.
I have said I think he CAN become INEFFECTIVE if man marked.
Not effectively Useless.
I also said he is a good finisher, but not in the system we now play.
I am not having a pop at Bent, but just saying it as it is, he is not needed by PL.
I thought he was a great signing at the time as well, and will be good for another club.
But the system & team we have now sorry but No.
villadave
8.) Lineker was a more mobile player than Bent, and could link up play better.
He was another great striker, and to answer your question, yes I have seen lineker man marked and become Ineffective.
That's what football is about is it not
To neutralise your opponent?
villadave
villadave
9.) I'm with mendax here, bent was useless as we had two strikers on the wing who let's be honest, haven't got the best delivery. Our delivery was always route one to benteke who got the ball down and we played from there, bent is useless at getting anywhere near a ball that's booted up to him. don't get me wrong, if you can give the ball to bents feet in the box 4/5 times a game he's a 20 goal a season striker but we couldn't do that last year. However with this said, maybe the players we have brought in (bacuna and tonev mainly) would be able to provide a much better service to bent. Its not worth the risk though, because if we can't get the ball to his feet just like last season then we're paying him 60k a week to warm the bench up for another year.
10.) To the guy who was quoting Hodgson's comment. I think you are mistaking the description "Effectively useless" with the description "useless"
Clearly Bent has ability and an eye for goal. He is not a player that is "useless" in the conventional sense of the word. That is why I used the caveat of "effectively". It is as much to do with the way we are set up to play that Bent has become "Effectively useless" to us.
I am not having a go at Bent. I am suggesting that he is the victim of circumstance and we have suffered because of it
Does that make it clear what I meant?
Mendax
11.) Villadave, I think you mean "less effective" if man marked, pretty much the same as any other manmarked forward.
12.) It is such a shame that because Bent agreed a deal that paid him £60k+ a week that he is surplus to requirements. He may come back to haunt us at a later date. A striker of ability who will always score vital goals and I will be sorry to see him leave.
13.) Yes I stand corrected.
"Less effective"
Good point
Villadave
19 Apr 2015 11:42:52
First of all I wouldn't sell either one. But if they were both to leave I would want to get much more than £35 million. If Lukaku went for £28 million then Benteke is worth £40. Don't want any young loan players unless we are going to buy them at the end of the loan. Look at Walker at spurs and Bertrand at southampton.
Tony37bar has no Banter Replies