Ruiz-Bent?
Bent to Villa for £18m
- Thread starter vanthaman
- Start date
fecked Steve Bruce's daughter and didn't hang around long enough at Sunderland for Brucey to cut his bollocks off.
Smart man, hats off.
Smart man, hats off.
Bender did too. Bruce signed him.
Dont think Bruce cares.
and bump
Apparently Liverpool are sniffing around.
Dont think Bruce cares.
and bump
Apparently Liverpool are sniffing around.
Is that Carrol back to Newcastle then? The gaffer came out yesterday? today? saying he would have him back.
I actually wouldn't be surprised to see Bent on the move again when January comes. I didn't think of Liverpool, however that could be a good move for him. He's the out and out goalscorer they need, and I think he would link-up well with Suarez. It would allow Suarez to play in behind the striker in a supporting role, where I feel he operates best.
Another one I've thought of is QPR. They could still do with a top class goalscorer, for me, and they've certainly got a lot of money available if they want to make a swoop for him.
Either way, Villa should do all they can to try and keep him. If they lose him, I worry for their survival chances. They've looked dodgy in defence, but they also look toothless up front under McLeish. They need someone like Bent who can keep their goals tally on a respectable level.
Another one I've thought of is QPR. They could still do with a top class goalscorer, for me, and they've certainly got a lot of money available if they want to make a swoop for him.
Either way, Villa should do all they can to try and keep him. If they lose him, I worry for their survival chances. They've looked dodgy in defence, but they also look toothless up front under McLeish. They need someone like Bent who can keep their goals tally on a respectable level.
I'd absolutely love it if Liverpool spent another small fortune on Bent. It seems they are determined to swoop every average English player for ridiculous amounts of money.
Bent is a player who has never impressed me despite his goals. For me when he isn't scoring he isn't really adding anything to the team. This is fine for a team that aspires to be midtable. Not a team that wants to play in the UCL. He is kept quite far too easily against good defenses.
Bent is a player who has never impressed me despite his goals. For me when he isn't scoring he isn't really adding anything to the team. This is fine for a team that aspires to be midtable. Not a team that wants to play in the UCL. He is kept quite far too easily against good defenses.
Kenny to drop 42m on Bent then
Interesting statement.
In that case, what would you say of Hernandez, who, outside of being great in the box and on the break against a turned high line, struggles a fair bit?
His movement and presence on the shoulder opens a lot of space in behind for Rooney et al. And he works hard for the team. But yeah he doesn't tangibly influence matches.
Why would Newcastle want him back? He hasn't exactly lit up the Premiership since his transfers - unless of course, they're prepared to pay a good chunk of the what they paid for him but with Mike Ashley, I can't see that happening either.
Promote that man, two very interesting posts.
Hernandez is better in every way to Bent even if their games are sort of similar.
Movement, pace, finishing, intelligence, workrate etc. Hernandez is superior.
In relation to United and the way we play, Hernandez is sorely lacking in more than a few facets needed to play the United way outside of scoring goals.
How is that any different to what you've said about Bent re. Liverpool?
Even in terms of being the dummy runner, both players will draw the CB's attention, albeit in different ways.
Great couple of posts I think. Always thought Sunderland looked better last season without him, and Villa worse since they got him.
Those posts are good, but I think that he may be slightly underrating Bent to an extent. He may not be as good as some people like to think he is, however his strike record is still decent nevertheless, for a striker who has generally played for mid-table clubs throughout most of the years where he's been seen as a good goalscorer.
The newbie's posts are absolutely spot on and something I've been saying about Bent for a while.
I find it funny when people say that his goal record is great considering the club's he's played for and that this is used as a positive slant on his abilities. The reason his goalscoring records for weaker clubs is so good is because the team's are nearly always built around his strengths and help to compensate for the weaknesses of the team he's in. At Sunderland he was in a struggling team that went literally months without winning at one point but he came out with good stats because the side was playing to his strengths, on the break and long diagonal passes over the top, constantly trying to feed the ball into him without much protracted build up and giving him as many possibilities as possible to score. The reason no top side has ever gone anywhere near him is because his game is completety unadaptable and incompatable to other styles of play. His allround game is poor and he can't play in a front two, when he's in a side that has more facets to their game he doesn't get anywhere near as many chances as he does when the side as built around him and hence he was marginalised at Tottenham.
The comparison to Hernandez is utterly ridiculous. Not only is Hernandez a much better finisher technically and simply superior in a number of different ways but what is also clear is the side doesn't need to be built around him to accomodate him. He is a proper poacher, like Inzaghi was, who is able to play in the very best teams despite his weaknesses in other areas of the game. His strike conversion rate is way above that of Bent's and he doesn't need the team to play through him to achieve it.
Bent's good (but vastly overrated statistically) goalscoring rate for weak teams shouldn't be used to praise him, it should be used as a stick to beat him with and highlight his limitations. It is the reason why he's spent his entire career at weaker sides, not a question that needs answering.
I find it funny when people say that his goal record is great considering the club's he's played for and that this is used as a positive slant on his abilities. The reason his goalscoring records for weaker clubs is so good is because the team's are nearly always built around his strengths and help to compensate for the weaknesses of the team he's in. At Sunderland he was in a struggling team that went literally months without winning at one point but he came out with good stats because the side was playing to his strengths, on the break and long diagonal passes over the top, constantly trying to feed the ball into him without much protracted build up and giving him as many possibilities as possible to score. The reason no top side has ever gone anywhere near him is because his game is completety unadaptable and incompatable to other styles of play. His allround game is poor and he can't play in a front two, when he's in a side that has more facets to their game he doesn't get anywhere near as many chances as he does when the side as built around him and hence he was marginalised at Tottenham.
The comparison to Hernandez is utterly ridiculous. Not only is Hernandez a much better finisher technically and simply superior in a number of different ways but what is also clear is the side doesn't need to be built around him to accomodate him. He is a proper poacher, like Inzaghi was, who is able to play in the very best teams despite his weaknesses in other areas of the game. His strike conversion rate is way above that of Bent's and he doesn't need the team to play through him to achieve it.
Bent's good (but vastly overrated statistically) goalscoring rate for weak teams shouldn't be used to praise him, it should be used as a stick to beat him with and highlight his limitations. It is the reason why he's spent his entire career at weaker sides, not a question that needs answering.
Lots of conjecture there with very little that can be refuted until Bent is at a club where this can be contested. Suffice it to say, the only team he has been where what you've said can be measured somewhat, is the England side, where he hasn't looked particularly out of place.
And regarding Hernandez; that's a question of relativity and you can't throw out a generic statement like 'any top team' because it has no basis given we're the only top team he has featured for and the likes of the big 2 in Spain ask for a lot more technical acumen in a striker than we do.
I feel Bent is being sorely underrated here to make points stick. Is he the second coming of Fat Ronaldo? Of course not, but he has more than a little something about him to remain as consistent as he has and there does come a time when a bona fide record should afford him a fair shot at the big time, which he did not get under Redknapp, who clearly didn't like him as a person and had no intention of giving him a fair crack of the whip.
I was saying the same thing a couple of years ago. I showed the statistics from when he was playing in Charlton and was alone with something like 15-18 goals. The second best goalscorer that year for Charlton was Darren Ambrose with 3 goals.........
In terms of shots-to-goals ratio, most strikers will look bad compared to Hernandez. Bent's rate of 1 in 5 is standard for the likes of Villa, Ibrahimovic and Defoe, while the likes of Rooney, Drogba, Ronaldo and Torres for various reasons have poorer averages. It's an interesting statistic for outliers like Pedro and Hernandez, but there's nothing to be surmised in the case of standard finishers in the 1:5 or 1:6 range - especially when you consider the other variables such as the quality of chance.
I thought the fact he had a worse conversion rate than Berbatov was pretty damning, even factoring in the quality of chance. He's looked promising enough for England recently though.
And quality of team.
Bent's game is that of a mid-table club footballer whose teams rarely see much more than 52% possession and rarely manage prolonged periods of sustained attacking, which in turn, I would think, ups the number of snatched shots and half-chances he's going to take, rather than gilt-edged-should-have-scored opportunities strikers at better clubs get.
That's why his performances in an England shirt and his strike rate there should hold more value than is being presented.
Bent's made a career out of performing for middling sides who play the kind of football elite strikers would be reviled by. It's clearly a case of apples and oranges here because the players he is being compared to have the life of Riley compared to him (outside of the England team.)
He is the focal point.. of shit teams, which probably boosts his numbers a little. But is anyone going to suggest that's more favourable than playing in a side with multiple threats, smart movement all over the shop and numerous opportunties to pick and choose when and where to take up space?
Bent has a good scoring rate. That's about it. The rest of his game is absolutely terrible. Poor movement and heading. His finishing for someone who has a record of being a good goalscorer is actually not very good. If things aren't going his way, will hide. Can't play in a front two (even with Berbatov, who managed to play well with both Defoe and Keane) and unless you're a crap midtable team who requires only the very finishing touches from their lone striker, cannot play as the focal point of a team that has any aspirations to play possession football.
He will get good scoring stats but almost always to the detriment of his team (especially if they have any aspirations to be a top half team).
Mcleish is partly the problem but its little surprise to me that Bent has the lowest touches per game of any striker in the league this season I believe. The comparisons to Hernandez are an insult. I will laugh if Liverpool splash out 20+ million on him.
He will get good scoring stats but almost always to the detriment of his team (especially if they have any aspirations to be a top half team).
Mcleish is partly the problem but its little surprise to me that Bent has the lowest touches per game of any striker in the league this season I believe. The comparisons to Hernandez are an insult. I will laugh if Liverpool splash out 20+ million on him.
I thought he was really poor against Spain, there was a marked difference in quality when Welbeck came on.
Some good points from redmeister, but stats can be used either way to prove or disprove a certain view. They are interesting but that is all.
The bottom line is Bent scores goals. End of. Whether the team is set up for him, or his conversion percentage rate for chances, it doesn't mean anything really, he scores goals wherever he goes and that is what he gets paid for.
I remember similar type of stats being used against Ronaldo a while back, someone saying his conversion rate compared to the amount of shots he had was poor, but what did that prove ultimately? He was still scoring shitloads of goals, and those goals contributed greatly to the success of the team. So the point of those stats, which were accurate iirc, ultimately meant nothing because they only told part of the story and missed the most important part.
Was our team back then not set up to suit Ronaldo in particular? I would say so, but so what? As long as the guy does what you want him to do, then that is all the justification needed.
For instance comparing Hernandez record to Bents means absolutely nothing yet again. Bent plays up front on his own the majority of the time, and still scores goals. Hernandez is playing with much better players, in a team that throws 5 or 6 players forward every time we attack. We simply create better quality chances for Hernandez than Villa do for Bent. Not that i am saying Bent is better than Hernandez, which i am certainly not doing, just playing devil's advocate to prove a point.
But what i am saying is that people need to consider the respective circumstances in which the 2 strikers are getting their goals. If Bent came to OT and played a Hernandez type role, he would get more and better chances to score than he does at Villa.
For a contrasting view, consider how many goals Hernandez would score in the current Villa set up, despite having the team set up for him and him playing every minute. Would his conversion percentage still be as good? Would he even score as many as Bent does? Would Bent's conversion rate increase playing at OT?
So for me stats do not sufficiently address any of those questions, they only provide an insight on how a striker has fared so far under certain conditions. They prove absolutely nothing in regards of accurately predicting how any given striker would potentially fare under different and varying circumstances.
The bottom line is Bent scores goals. End of. Whether the team is set up for him, or his conversion percentage rate for chances, it doesn't mean anything really, he scores goals wherever he goes and that is what he gets paid for.
I remember similar type of stats being used against Ronaldo a while back, someone saying his conversion rate compared to the amount of shots he had was poor, but what did that prove ultimately? He was still scoring shitloads of goals, and those goals contributed greatly to the success of the team. So the point of those stats, which were accurate iirc, ultimately meant nothing because they only told part of the story and missed the most important part.
Was our team back then not set up to suit Ronaldo in particular? I would say so, but so what? As long as the guy does what you want him to do, then that is all the justification needed.
For instance comparing Hernandez record to Bents means absolutely nothing yet again. Bent plays up front on his own the majority of the time, and still scores goals. Hernandez is playing with much better players, in a team that throws 5 or 6 players forward every time we attack. We simply create better quality chances for Hernandez than Villa do for Bent. Not that i am saying Bent is better than Hernandez, which i am certainly not doing, just playing devil's advocate to prove a point.
But what i am saying is that people need to consider the respective circumstances in which the 2 strikers are getting their goals. If Bent came to OT and played a Hernandez type role, he would get more and better chances to score than he does at Villa.
For a contrasting view, consider how many goals Hernandez would score in the current Villa set up, despite having the team set up for him and him playing every minute. Would his conversion percentage still be as good? Would he even score as many as Bent does? Would Bent's conversion rate increase playing at OT?
So for me stats do not sufficiently address any of those questions, they only provide an insight on how a striker has fared so far under certain conditions. They prove absolutely nothing in regards of accurately predicting how any given striker would potentially fare under different and varying circumstances.
Of course it does! Why would it not matter?
Have you read the rest of the post Gazza, because in the very next paragraph i explain how similar stats were used against ronaldo, claiming that he only scored something like one out of every ten of his shots. Ultimately though did that really matter?
My point is that conversion rates are subjective evidence at best. they do not tell the whole story. Hernandez does not shoot often from outside the box compared to Ronaldo for instance. So his conversion rate is always going to be better than Ronaldos because his chances are harder to score from. Is Hernandez a better goalscorer than Ronaldo? I think not personally.
Do you see my point? Like i said i am not for a minute claiming Bent is better than Hernandez, but i just don't really agree with stats being used as a sole judge of a players contributions or merits, they just don't give enough details about the circumstances involved imo.
I find it hilarious that Bent is being dissed for being the main scorer in a shit team. He is the type of forward you play in front of a creative 5 man midfield and he'd rake in goals. Attempt to use him in a twin or in build up strategy and he'd make you cry with how terrible he'd be.
This is my point Chief, i am not dismissing stats outright, i am merely cautioning against using them as a sole barometer to judge the merits of strikers based on goals ratios and percentages.
They simple do not account for the differing circumstances in which those statistics have been achieved. Therefore in my view they can not be deemed as an accurate barometer for judging the merits of one player against another.
Like i said before if Hernandez were to go to Villa and play in their set up, would Chica's stats still be so superior to Bent's? Probably not, but that does not lessen Hernandez's quality, it only means conditions are no longer as conducive for such an impressive goal ratio and percentage to be maintained.
Horses for courses as they say.
Atleast if he goes to liverpool Suarez has a nickname lined up for him already - Blackie, Blackie, Blackie
Shame Paolo Negro has retired. They could have signed him and made excuses for years.
Is it just me, or would a £24m move to Liverpool be Dalglish yet again not learning from his previous mistakes? He's gone out and overpaid on limited British players in the past year, and it looks like he might be about to do so again.
I am a big fan of Bent, and think that he would be a decent forward for Liverpool, however if you're going to spend £24m on a striker at all, then surely you'd go out and buy someone better than Bent? It's almost as if Dalglish isn't trying at times. Go in, buy a Brit he knows and has seen enough of to cast a rough judgement on.
Bent would score goals for Liverpool, but for £24m, you could probably find a good European striker who can equal his goals tally, and add a lot more to the team as well, in the process.
I am a big fan of Bent, and think that he would be a decent forward for Liverpool, however if you're going to spend £24m on a striker at all, then surely you'd go out and buy someone better than Bent? It's almost as if Dalglish isn't trying at times. Go in, buy a Brit he knows and has seen enough of to cast a rough judgement on.
Bent would score goals for Liverpool, but for £24m, you could probably find a good European striker who can equal his goals tally, and add a lot more to the team as well, in the process.
Quite possibly, but then again buying a foreign striker is often considered more of a risk in many ways. I don't think anyone will dispute that Bent scores goals in the EPL, but a foreign striker, you just never know how they will adapt to the culture change, not being able to understand scouse, and having his own fans robbing his house as soon as he goes on holiday!
Carroll was a risk because he was unproven really and the whole deal was based upon a decent half season with Newcastle. Bent would surely have to be considered much less of a risk, as he has proved himself capable of scoring goals for different clubs. With regards to his last move it could also be argued that he still performed at Villa under the increased scrutiny of a controversial move for a fairly large fee.
£24m for Bent? You should be looking at a potentially top class striker for that price - something Bent will never be.
He would be relatively low risk as he would certainly score goals and is already adjusted but he wouldn't ever be better than a striker suited for a UEFA Cup team at best. With Liverpool aiming for the top 4 place they should be looking at someone with the potential to be better than Bent.
He would be relatively low risk as he would certainly score goals and is already adjusted but he wouldn't ever be better than a striker suited for a UEFA Cup team at best. With Liverpool aiming for the top 4 place they should be looking at someone with the potential to be better than Bent.
If i were one of the owners at Liverpool, Dalglish wouldn't be getting £24m to spend on another striker. He would be told in no uncertain terms to start getting the best out of the striker he paid £35m for last Jan!
He has Carroll, Bellend and Kuyt and nobhead when he comes back from his ban. Considering how frivolously he has spent his money so far, i would not be giving him another penny for a striker. He has a big squad of players and Gerrard now back, so i would tell him to feck off basically and start managing what he already has.
Bent to Liverpool could be a PR masterstroke.
Liverpool bound apparently.
Cant see why Villa would let him go on the cheap
Mark Lawrenson apparently said on the radio that he's heard that it's a done deal. Odd signin for them, IMO.