As all Aston Villa fans are aware, the 2011/2012 season won’t be remembered too fondly. With the appointment of an unpopular manager, sales of several key players, and a poor league performance, things could certainly have been better and, hopefully, they will be next season.
There is, in my understanding, money available for whoever is the manager come the summer. All odds point to the fact that it will be Alex McLeish, embarking as he will be on his second campaign in charge of Birmingham’s top performing club.
Questions have been asked about both sales of players, and funding. For the former, players will invariably leave, both in terms of contract expiries and transfers, whilst the funding for new players will come from increased turnover in the past year.
In the eyes of many, when asked who the club could sell to raise revenue, especially amongst those fans who believe that sales will be necessary to fund new purchases, the same name pops up time and time again – Darren Bent.
Bent, the club’s record signing in a £18m initial deal that rose to £24m, is probably the most saleable asset in terms of market value. Whether he will be able to be sold is another matter, with his large contract something that many clubs would be unwilling or unable to pay for.
In Villa’s current team, Bent has been missing the components that he desires in a team that features the London born footballer. Bent’s wishes, when playing for a team, is that supply is both directed to him, and done via wingers. McLeish, in his desire to play to Bent as the strength of the team, played a single striker – which has helped direct supply to him – but a lack of wingers has meant the often quoted “prolific striker” has been less than such.
In fact, considering Bent’s reputation as a striker who scores goals regularly, Villa can not be happy with his contribution. Whilst there is a fairly logical argument that the sales of Ashley Young and Stewart Downing impacted Bent’s supply, most strikers would work in order to create chances for themselves in the absence of players to do so.
Not so in the case of Bent. As is often stated, Bent is something of a one trick pony. His talent is, as suggested by many fans, scoring goals. Sadly, when Bent isn’t scoring goals, he isn’t doing much for the team, as his contribution outside of finishing is less than first class.
Now there is a defence to state that if Bent’s goalscoring comes from not contributing to play, then he shouldn’t adapt his game. This is, in my opinion, a very fair point, but it’s not working for Villa and, when it comes down to it, I am an Aston Villa supporter, not a supporter of Darren Bent specifically.
So, for Villa to progress, they need to do what is best for the team. In my opinion, the needs that Bent must have fulfilled to perform are both costly financially and dangerous in footballing terms.
Putting your faith in a single player who can get injured, fall out of form, or otherwise not contribute is the definition of desperation. In order for Bent to be a suitable single striker, you need someone who plays exactly like him, is as good, and who is willing to sit on the bench. Can you find anyone who fits that criterion? No? Me either.
Some think I have an agenda against Bent, as though my statements about him being sold are somehow personally influenced based on my opinion of the man himself. As a person, I can’t say I’m overly bothered about Bent. He’s like a lot of footballers in that regard, but his personality is irrelevant. All that matters is if he is fulfilling a role for the benefit of Aston Villa and, in my opinion he isn’t.
If we wanted to keep him, then we need to sign wingers and focus play back through him. To get players of the quality of the two we’ve sold, you are talking about at least £20m, and that is based on taking young unproven players, much like Young was when we signed him from Watford.
Is Bent worth that £20m extra spending, though? Is it wise to continue to try to rely on putting all the goals through one player rather than sharing them throughout the team? Especially when said player can be double marked out of a game? Is it sensible to put Villa’s hopes on one person, given all of those facts?
Another question for you to ponder is this – why has Darren Bent never been at a club that has been successful during his time there. Yes, clubs have done fairly well, but he’s never moved up to a top four team. Why is that?
For me, it is because the reliance on one striker is not acceptable for any truly big club. Sir Alex Ferguson wouldn’t do it for Wayne Rooney, so he wouldn’t do it for Bent. Fernando Torres is dropped by Chelsea managers, and he is a better calibre of player, even if he has never been the same after being injured.
Of course, some could argue that Robin van Persie has been the single player relied on at Arsenal this season, and his goals have certainly contributed to their position, but Bent is neither as good as van Persie nor is he scoring anywhere near as much. Trust me, if Bent was scoring at the level of the Dutchman from Arsenal, I’d never sell him in a million years.
But he isn’t and, barring a dramatic change of players that we may not be able to afford, never mind pull off, I don’t think we will get the team back set up how Bent likes it.
That is fine though in my opinion. Not because I like or dislike Darren Bent, but rather that anything that means the responsiblity is spread amongst a whole team rather than one man is beneficial for Aston Villa Football Club, and that is all I care about.
The only question is – who would buy him? We can only hope Kenny Dalglish survives that season as it would be a joyous moment to mug off Liverpool two seasons in a row for more money than the players are worth.
The Author
