Darren Bent

[cheron85]

9 minutes ago, Saity said:

Is that really fair on Nick Blackman 

For clarity (in case needed) I like Bent - He's a poacher and a good one still - But we don't play a system which suits a poacher which is a shame for him

I also think Blackman could be a decent player given a chance in the right position - My point in the thread I created was that people don't seem to be looking back very far when they state that Blackman is the worst player we ever signed - He would WALK into the early Nigel Clough sides

[Mostyn6]

13 minutes ago, Coconut said:

Nobody is (or at most very, very few people are) BLAMING Ince and Bent for being the type of player they are. They're blaming the fact that when these players were signed it was clear that they weren't the right fit to help us carry on a certain style. They're blaming the way the team has been developed since that point, bad decision after bad decision after bad decision.

how do you explain the following:-

1. Being top of the league for 3/4 of 2014/2015 season
2. Being top 6 for all of 2015/2016 season

I would argue that we didn't suffer when Bent and Ince were involved.

[RoyMac5]

4 minutes ago, cheron85 said:

For clarity (in case needed) I like Bent - He's a poacher and a good one still - But we don't play a system which suits a poacher which is a shame for him

I also think Blackman could be a decent player given a chance in the right position - My point in the thread I created was that people don't seem to be looking back very far when they state that Blackman is the worst player we ever signed - He would WALK into the early Nigel Clough sides

Perhaps Burton could sign him then.

[S8TY]

5 minutes ago, Coconut said:

There's that word again, blame.

Every defence of Ince & Bent comes with an accusation that someone blaming them for this, that or the other. It's a defence which tries to make the person arguing against their inclusion seem irrational, like they've got a personal vendetta.

Nobody is (or at most very, very few people are) BLAMING Ince and Bent for being the type of player they are. They're blaming the fact that when these players were signed it was clear that they weren't the right fit to help us carry on a certain style. They're blaming the way the team has been developed since that point, bad decision after bad decision after bad decision.

They're frustrated that we've slowly drifted towards being the sort of team we've become by making these players key to our performance.

They're frustrated because they feel that they could see this situation coming a mile off and that the stock response, ever since the end of 2014/15, to posts they've made saying we'd be better off not going down that route has been "but they've scored goals, you can't criticise them, stop blaming them for doing their jobs!" , even when they were doing no such thing (the posters, not the players)

But theyre not criticising the managers or tactical decisions they're blaming the individual player ....eg  Bent is one of the worst players we've ever signed.....really ???? thats laughable!!!

Why would you buy someone different ?? That doesnt fit into your 4-3-3 system ??? If you want to change tactics ??? different formation ??? theres loads of reasons Bent was a good signing if we wanted something different to CM.

We had no plan B in lots of games where the 433 got found out and to have someone who can nick a goal is invaluable whether hes a starter,sub, whatever.

Who wasn't frustrated at our capitulation at times I'm just defending Bent because i think the criticism is unfair thats all ...its my opinion just like yours is yours thats whay theres a discussion forum

[rynny]

24 minutes ago, Saity said:

No but to criticise his positioning on a pitch  if he ends up scoring to me is a non starter.

 His positioning must've been  purelyinstinct/ spot on and thats virtually impossible to teach.

Why would you want Bent playing a hold up role when it doesn't suit him therfore probably taking away why we signed him...to score goals.

When any team was interested in signing Bent i bet the first thing that sprang to mind was, he'll get goals....well he does that, so basically does what hes always done and thats know where the net is....we was never going to bring him in and try to mould him into anything else and you need different types of  strikers.

in my view and its only my view i think he's done what was expected of him as what else was we expecting of him ??

Well you would have to ask why we were in a situation where our team is so disjointed that we are left with the best option of Bent upfront on his own and trying to play a game that isn't suited to him.

His first goal against Cardiff was not down to good positioning, I am sorry but it really wasn't. He was lucky, Ince drags his shot and he is no where near the ball, Ince connects properly with the ball and he is no where near the ball. Look again and tell me that is good positioning. Again I know he scored but it is down to a huge slice (literally) of luck.

 

[t'oldu]

Difficult to assess how bad/good Mikkel   Beck was  /  was not  because no-one gave him the ball..........Jim decided to sign him when en route to the airport to spend time at his villa in Spain.

We did have briefly on loan an elderly CB who was so bad he hung his boots up when he left us !! Another of Jim's good ideas??

[brady1993]

15 minutes ago, Mostyn6 said:

how do you explain the following:-

1. Being top of the league for 3/4 of 2014/2015 season
2. Being top 6 for all of 2015/2016 season

I would argue that we didn't suffer when Bent and Ince were involved.

Not a great argument that @Mostyn6.

1. We signed Bent and Ince in January 14/15 and there is a definate correlation (I'm not saying there is causation, mind) between them playing and our slide down the table.

2. In 15/16 Bent barely played.

 

[S8TY]

10 minutes ago, rynny said:

Well you would have to ask why we were in a situation where our team is so disjointed that we are left with the best option of Bent upfront on his own and trying to play a game that isn't suited to him.

His first goal against Cardiff was not down to good positioning, I am sorry but it really wasn't. He was lucky, Ince drags his shot and he is no where near the ball, Ince connects properly with the ball and he is no where near the ball. Look again and tell me that is good positioning. Again I know he scored but it is down to a huge slice (literally) of luck.

 

it is a bit of luck but not bad positioning but he improvised and adjusted himself well to score, listen I'm not saying hes fantastic but just think its a bit unfair some of the criticism ....if he doesn't fit into our system thats down to the manager or whoever bought him.

I personally thought he'd get goals when we signed him and he has....did he fit into a 433 ? definitely not!!

[cheron85]

6 minutes ago, rynny said:

His first goal against Cardiff was not down to good positioning, I am sorry but it really wasn't. He was lucky, Ince drags his shot and he is no where near the ball, Ince connects properly with the ball and he is no where near the ball. Look again and tell me that is good positioning. Again I know he scored but it is down to a huge slice (literally) of luck.

Just watched it - And it was good positioning

He snuck behind the defender who had no idea where he was - which is what he does well - so that he is goal side of the defender

Also - He wasn't positioning himself for the pass - He was positioning himself to be the first player to the ball from a REBOUND - Either off the keeper or off the post/bar etc - With the offside rule it take good positioning by the forward to be the first to the ball when they have to start behind the defender

Yes - The exact thing which happened was lucky - But you can't say his positioning was bad

[LazloW]

8 minutes ago, t'oldu said:

Difficult to assess how bad/good Mikkel   Beck was  /  was not  because no-one gave him the ball..........Jim decided to sign him when en route to the airport to spend time at his villa in Spain.

We did have briefly on loan an elderly CB who was so bad he hung his boots up when he left us !! Another of Jim's good ideas??

I want to say Simon Webster??  (without looking it up, I'm probably way off).

[Mostyn6]

5 minutes ago, brady1993 said:

Not a great argument that @Mostyn6.

1. We signed Bent and Ince in January 14/15 and there is a definate correlation (I'm not saying there is causation, mind) between them playing and our slide down the table.

2. In 15/16 Bent barely played.

 

we went top after they signed and stayed there for 3 months.

[JuanFloEvraTheCocu'sNesta]

9 minutes ago, Mostyn6 said:

we went top after they signed and stayed there for 3 months.

After Bent scored a late winner versus the Wendies if my memory serves correctly.

[brady1993]

10 minutes ago, Mostyn6 said:

we went top after they signed and stayed there for 3 months.

That season the win ratio where Darren Bent made an appearance was 44%. 

Win ratio where Tom ince made an appearance was 28%.

Disclaimer: I'm not claiming they are directly responsible for the downturn in form there are a myriad of factors that contributed, just pointing out that the correlation (again not causation) exists

[cheron85]

51 minutes ago, brady1993 said:

That season the win ratio where Darren Bent made an appearance was 44%. 

Win ratio where Tom ince made an appearance was 28%.

Disclaimer: I'm not claiming they are directly responsible for the downturn in form there are a myriad of factors that contributed, just pointing out that the correlation (again not causation) exists

Ahhhhh correlation  LOVE a good correlation...

Did you know that ice cream sales and shark attacks in Australia have a high correlation?

Which obviously means sharks hate people who eat ice cream

[brady1993]

6 minutes ago, cheron85 said:

Ahhhhh correlation  LOVE a good correlation...

Did you know that ice cream sales and shark attacks in Australia have a high correlation?

Which obviously means sharks hate people who eat ice cream

Yeah it's why I've tried to be careful in my language. My point ultimately was that the original argument was deeply flawed not that Bent or ince have had a direct effect on results. 

Thats interesting about sharks and ice cream, is "increased beach numbers" the confounding variable ?

[May Contain Nuts]

1 hour ago, Mostyn6 said:

how do you explain the following:-

1. Being top of the league for 3/4 of 2014/2015 season
2. Being top 6 for all of 2015/2016 season

I would argue that we didn't suffer when Bent and Ince were involved.

I'd argue that the times your questioning are the times when we didn't set up to rely on a single creative spark.

Top for 3/4 of 2014/2015 until a horrible run of injuries, no suitable replacements - Ince & Bent join, they play well together (largely to the benefit of each other's own performances),  this covers the cracks for a while but ultimately it all falls down.

2015/16. We still have Martin, so Bent isn't really getting a look in except as a late sub. Clement's defensive work makes us hard to beat and we win a lot of close games, often with individual strikes from a number of players, in a year where there really aren't many goals being scored in the league as a whole.

Wassall comes in, gets us playing as a team again, but it isn't enough. During this period we put Ince on the left which takes away his instinct to shoot 8 times out of 10, we're not making Ince the 'star man' but he contributes well and everyone benefits, we even get a 6 goal return out of Russell!. Bent is still a bench warmer.

& then Pearson happened, everyone struggled. After that Mac2 happened and he went full on reliant again,  it produced a great run of form, but once more or we were papering over the cracks until once again our house fell down.

See, not blaming anyone bar McClaren, Clement & Pearson!

[cheron85]

5 minutes ago, brady1993 said:

Yeah it's why I've tried to be careful in my language. My point ultimately was that the original argument was deeply flawed not that Bent or ince have had a direct effect on results. 

Thats interesting about sharks and ice cream, is "increased beach numbers" the confounding variable ?

Yeh - It's one of those farcical ones which statisticians always show about the danger of only using 2 stats

Better weather causes more ice creams to be eaten, more time in the sea and therefore more shark attacks...

 

 

Probably

 

 

Might be the ice cream thing though

[MackworthRamIsGod]

1 hour ago, LazloW said:

I want to say Simon Webster??  (without looking it up, I'm probably way off).

Maybe Paul Parker?

[May Contain Nuts]

1 hour ago, Mostyn6 said:

we went top after they signed and stayed there for 3 months.

...and if a season was only 3 months long, that would be fantastic, but ultimately it isn't a sustainable way of playing and tends to catch up with you, as Steve McClaren found on two separate occasions.

He had the balance nearly perfect for the first half of 2014/15

[eddie]

44 minutes ago, cheron85 said:

Yeh - It's one of those farcical ones which statisticians always show about the danger of only using 2 stats

Better weather causes more ice creams to be eaten, more time in the sea and therefore more shark attacks...

 

 

Probably

 

 

Might be the ice cream thing though

I'm drinking a Belgian beer called Cornet at the moment. Should I watch out for sharks?