Bent got two seasons to prove himself - that's just as long as Crouch, and much longer than Zamora or Postiga got.
Oh, come on! Surely, you are not going to attempt to put forward a case that Bent was given any kind of chance like the other of our strikers! What team was ever built around Bent?
Which teams were built around Defoe, or Pavlyuchenko, or Postiga, or Zamora? The side Ramos put together (by holding the instructions upside down...) was built more for Bent than Pavlyuchenko.
No team was ever built around Postiga or Zamora, but neither was it for Bent. They all fit into the same category. But both Pav and Defoe (particularly the latter) have been given the kind of chances that most Prem strikers can only dream about. If a man isn't given a proper chance to prove himself he cannot be criticised, and that is why I will not criticise Bent the way most of our fans do. But Defoe (Pav has already been sacked-off, so I cannot keep bleating on about him), has absolutely no excuses. I cannot believe the chances he has been given, and how Spurs fans still rate him.
...and Defoe-philes bleat on about him matching Chivers' goals in Europe, but forget to mention that Chivers played 367 matches for Spurs, whereas Defoe has already played about 530 for us. Do you not think that if Bent had been handed 530 games on a plate for us (or any team), he might not have a chance of at least matching that?
Pav got chances? When? Bent was ahead of him under Ramos, and Harry bought back Keane and Defoe at the earliest opportunity before adding Crouch - he went from second choice (out of three) under Ramos down to fourth choice (out of four) under Harry pretty damn quickly. As has been said numerous times over the year, Bent was the wrong striker for us for so many reasons, starting with... i.) Comolli signing him against Jol's wishes - Jol said sign one striker if both Defoe and Mido left, only Mido left but £16.5m was pissed away on Bent anyway ii.) The team at the time was built around the Keane/Berbatov partnership, a partnership we'd have to break up to play Bent iii.) Signing Bent meant that Defoe wanted out and left for Pompey, six months later Keane and Berbatov both left after tapping-up campaigns iv.) Bent is most effective with a ball over the top for him to run onto, a style we never played under Ramos or Harry He was a striker we didn't need signed for a fee we should've spent elsewhere, and that's why he's seen as a waste of time and money - because he was. Compared to that, Pav gets let off the hook as he's seen as a panic buy (and there's a theory that Comolli signed the wrong Russian striker, as he intended to sign Pogrebnyak...), and the fact is Harry binned off Crouch in pretty much the same way he binned off Bent.
Fair play to HIAG for seeing that Saldado is pretty ****ing useless in this league, and needs to turn it round quick, which to be honest doesn't look likely the way you're playing - and also it's not just him, the majority of your signings have looked poor. In January you need a top class clinical striker to put these chances away. But unless you're prepared to break the bank I can't see who'll come - maybe give Soldado till the summer (and to fair he should be given a full season) but will that effect you finishing top 4?? Could be risky. 100mil + Soldado and Lamela for Suarez
Which is exactly my point. Bent never really got much of a look in. If he'd been given the chances that both Pav and Defoe were given (particularly the latter), then I'd say that nearly all of the criticism I have heard leveled at Bent by his detractors would be fair, but not when he wasn't given a proper chance. We've not had an effective striker (or strikers) since those heady days of the Keane/Berbatov partnership. If only we'd had our current defence and midfield back in those days!
talksport last night old spurs fan calls in and says Hoddle should be made manager with Ossie as his assistant
Bent was a bad buy cos we did not need him. We needed a good holding/defensive midfielder at that time. It was this position not being filled that led to our poor start in 2007/08 season that in turn led to jol being sacked.
Martin Jol never wanted Bent, cause we had berba, keane and defoe. Jol also never played Murphy when he was looking decent for us. Then Murphy ends up at Fulham with Jol, and now Berba is at Fulham with Bent and Jol! funny game!
Bent was ****e. His first touch was terrible, added nothing to the game other than a few goals. Theres a reason every team he has played in has struggled in the league, and why he is not getting played at all at Villa.
Him being on loan at Fulham is that reason! I've always thought Bent being frozen out at Villa was for similar reasons that Given was - either there was a clause in their contracts for a wage increase after a certain number of games, or the clubs they were signed from would be due a slug of cash. That would explain why both were pretty much frozen out of league games but played in cup games last season.
Bent scored a few goals, but as in every other team he's played for, he sucked all the goals out of the rest of the team. One goal every three games is not enough if playing him means that no one else in the team scores.
I'm told Mousers are apparently famous for their sense of humour, so I thought they might appreciate this little story. It's true, so I am told. True story 53,000 Scousers meet in Anfield for a 'Scousers Are Not Stupid' convention. Steven Gerrard addresses the crowd. 'We are all here today to prove to the world that Scousers are not stupid. Can I have a volunteer please?' Wayne Rooney gingerly works his way through the crowd and steps up to the stage. Gerrard asks him 'What is 15 plus 15?' After 15 or 20 seconds Rooney says, ' Forty!' Obviously, everyone is a little disappointed. Then the Scousers start chanting: 'Give him another chance! Give him another chance!' Gerrard says, 'Well since we have a capacity crowd, world-wide press and global broadcast media here, I think we can give him another chance.' So he asks, 'What is 5 plus 5?' After nearly 30 seconds he eventually says, 'Twelve?' Gerrard looks down and just lets out a dejected sigh. Everyone is disheartened and Rooney starts crying. But then the 53,000 Scousers begin to yell and wave their hands shouting, 'Give him another chance! Give him another chance!' Gerrard, unsure whether he is now doing more harm than good eventually says, 'OK then, what is 2 plus 2?' Silence hangs over the stadium. Rooney closes his eyes, and after a whole minute eventually says, 'Four?' Pandemonium breaks out throughout the stadium as the Scouse crowd stand to a man, wave their arms, stomp their feet and scream, 'Give him another chance! Give him another chance!'
Personally, I saw nothing wrong with that Mirrallas challenge on Goofy. Goofy did the same to him last season, and didn't even get a yellow, so fair's fair, as they say.
Typically, Roy has come out and claimed that Mirallas deserved a red card, yet quickly diverted from and defended Gerrard`s elbow. Gerrard does this quite regularly and continues to get away with it (remember the deliberate elbow from behind on Bale at Klanfield last season), along with his diving. Gerrard knows that Liverpool loving referees will not send the England captain off and always give him the benefit of doubt (perks of the position I suppose), and so plays on this fact. As for Sewerez, has Roy Rodgers not seen the long list of intentional dangerous tackles that he has committed and got away with unpunished, and he continues to tiresomely bleat on about Goofy`s phantom and non existent victimisation by referees (if anything referees are all to quick to fall for Goofy`s diving and over reacting).
