Forty-nine million pounds turns heads. It’s the kind of investment on which you’re going to want to keep the receipt. In four high profile moves, Darren Bent has accumulated a collective price-tag of nearly fifty mil., yet no one has ever really got him. He’s been at the clubs, turned up for training, and played reasonably well in games but never has he really gained the affections of the fans, or of the press. Why, when these clubs have shelled out progressively more and more for him, have they always needed to keep the receipt?
At 26, Bent is approaching what most would considered to be his golden years, and certainly there are no immediate causes for a mid-career crisis: 32 goals in 58 games at Sunderland; an impressive strike-rate at Spurs when you consider how many starts he got; and 31 in 68 whilst plying his professional trade at Charlton in the mid-noughties. There have never been any major concerns he would fall down the Jeffers, Nugent or Collymore route of English striking talent spurned. Yet with this move to Villa, the question has to be asked: if not now then when?
His seven England caps have been explained many ways, but the simple fact is that the FA appoints national coaches with all the thought and tact of a Tijuana temping agency. This is because the arrogance of the press decrees The Eleven Lions should pick themselves; we invented football and if only the weather/ref/WAGs/Germans had/hadn’t done this or that we’d be as unbeatable as Bolivia are when they play at the Estadio Hernando Siles. If the press aren’t on your side, the manager can’t pick you. And the more Bent roams off the pitch – on the pitch his off the ball movements aren’t the most subtle – the closer he wanders to journeyman status. And then he’s definitely not going to get picked.
It should be said that, while Bent lacked none the opportunities presented to more successful, but not necessarily more talented, strikers he’s never had a mentor. Charlton, Spurs and Sunderland have had twice as many managers in the last 7 years as Bent has international appearances, and the rewards to be reaped of full managerial backing can be best seen in his spell under Steve Bruce – possibly why his response to Randy Learner’s inquisitions was verbatim to Houllier’s instruction to his American chairman: get Bent. When old candle-face made disparaging comments about his finishing ability (not something any man wants) you have to feel it was not just the striker’s ability to breech David James’ goal he was bemoaning, but his credentials as a Champions League striker.
In that case then, more fool Villa surely: they’re the ones paying over the odds for a distinctly average striker. Or does Houllier believe that his investment is just that: something to be nurtured and built upon? The stats are there to see, and while Steve Bruce was able to rebuild Bent’s confidence, a lack of top-level managerial experience might have limited how far the rebirth could stretch. The Frenchman has nearly thirty years under his belt managing national (Lyon), European (Liverpool) and world (France) champions. Belief from him could prove the catalyst for consistently inspired form. At the end of the day, it comes down to individual temperament, the desire to be the best.
While you’re reeling from this sensational conclusion, I’d like to say, this article’s main focus isn’t actually Darren Bent (it just made too good a title not to pursue). The England man is however a salient case-study for the core discussion: the January transfer window.
Events on Monday have both dwarfed, and to an extent justified, the price Villa paid – Bent’s record looks like Shearer’s compared to Andy Carroll and while the latter is considered England’s hottest striking prospects, I would direct your eyes to aforementioned forwards before telling me which one you’d rather have in your team. The January transfer window is essentially double-glazed though: you have 30 days in which to pay an inflated fee for a player based on their performance since the start of the season; then you have 24 hours where all hell breaks loose. It paid to get Bent sooner.
The window’s initial purpose – to create stability – was doomed to failure from the beginning; why people thought that clubs would spend more sensibly if you limited the time in which they could do so is anyone’s guess. It’s like saying: there’s a food shortage and everyone’s hungry. In order to stop panic buying we’re only going to open Tesco from 5-8 in the evening. It’s already the busiest time of day but people definitely aren’t going to shit themselves when they release their access to already limited resources is being restricted further; I’m sure instead they can be trusted to save their existing food, not try to steal anyone else’s, and only buy what they need so that nothing runs out.
January brings out the worst in everyone – players become overly ambitious and therefore ever more egotistical; the director/board members jerk their puppets’ knees even more vigorously than usual and staff are discarded faster than the team is sinking; those managers who do survive desperately scour Football Manager for a decent full-back and a 20-goals-a-season centre-forward; meanwhile the press don’t so much fan the flames, as stoke the fires with all the methane they’re blowing out their ass, Lynx-can-on-a-bonfire style. Don’t get me wrong, it makes great viewing, Requiem for a Dream in footballing terms. It’s just that it is killing the Premier League.
The main problem about allowing players to move in January is that prices are based on form, not on ability. Players who were relatively unheard of in the summer become the obsessive focus of frenzy-eyed gaffers; while those who burned brightest in the spring are now highly-paid charcoal, desperate awaiting their phoenix’s arrival. The off-season in the summer – European Championships and World Cups obviously aside – allow for progressive scouting, sensible negotiations and a considered bargaining process (either that or Real Madrid post a cheque at the first available opportunity). A 5 million pound centre-back in June is still a five million pound centre-back in August. The difference is the selling club has had a chance to find a suitable replacement.
The primary focus of mid-season transfer should be to patch-up a squad; not to dramatically alter it for better (as in West London and arguably in Merseyside) or for worse (as on Tyne and to a lesser extent Wear). While nobody can deny that injuries, poor form and acts of God make it essential for the market to function in some respects during the season, to have fully blown bidding wars and the resulting fallout at a time in the year when most Premiership teams play mid-week and weekend is clearly massively detrimental to all involved.
The obvious solution would be to allow players to move on loan in January – and maybe even throughout the whole season – but limit transfers to the off-season: first of June to the middle of August, say the Tuesday or Wednesday before the first Saturday to let the furore die down a wee bit. That way holes can be polyfillad without rushed major structural changes. It might also instil some loyalty into players who consider a four-year contract to be worth roughly the same as Mark Lawrenson’s opinion: millions on paper but in reality fuck all.
Loan moves might then become more significant, it’s true – no longer just a way for youngsters to fill their boots a bit or fringe actors to kick a first team ball, but a major indication of a player’s preferred career progressions. But as long as the balance of power regarding the authorization of loans remains relatively even (i.e. the smaller or financially weaker clubs are not bullied into loaning their stars) squad deficiencies could still be addressed without the circus of permanent transfers. A club’s player would also be their player for the whole nine months of the season rather than the four in autumn.
Talented footballers could still achieve their dream moves to big clubs and play Champions League football or win trophies; they would just have to do so in a way that was respectful to those who got them where they were. Liverpool weren’t interested in Charlie Adam when he was a Rangers reject; only because of Ian Holloway is he the player he is (though whether or not the Tangerines’ manager deserves a cut of any sell-on fee is another matter). It’s only right therefore that the Scot plays the way he has been and does everything he can to keep Blackpool in the Premiership, before moving on amicable in the summer with an established replacement in place.
A model example of this can be found in an often much-maligned midfielder and captain. Cesc Fabregas has been the subject of admiring overtures from Barcelona since before Wenger’s last Specsavers test – and the fact that they are his dream move is both perfectly understandable and no secret – yet he continues to be the best player in an Arsenal shirt and honour his contract while those above him squabble about when (not if) he’s going to move and how much for.
By allowing players to sign for a mid-table team with sunny grins in the summer, raise golden hopes of Europe in the autumn and then crack, freeze and melt away into the shadows of a bigger club in the winter only benefits the over privileged: egoistical players and financially frivolous board-members. It increases pressure on managers by tacitly telling them if they’re struggling in November, someone else’ll be in by December so the squad can be overhauled in January; gives the already dreich demeanour of messers Moyes, Holloway, Bruce ECT an added venom as they use the twigs at their disposal to fend of the hyenas; and shatters squad morale by painting loyalties, etched shades of grey by the press, in stark black and white: “I think I deserve better teammates than you lot”.
Whether or not this will prove the case with Bent (or indeed Torres, Carroll, Luis, Sessegnon et al.) only time will tell. Anelka’s transfer in 2008 revitalised his career while Bellamy’s stuttered after a promising start. Both Bolton and West Ham however are still tenderly recovering from their brief flirtations with two of the Prem’s most notorious journeymen. That they had outgrown their ponds’ is evident, but the timing of their departure hurt the clubs that had nurtured their careers back to multimillion-pound health. Bent’s mileage doesn’t quite put him on this level yet, but he’s not far off. By being able to move in January you’d have to say the Black Cat’s chances of Europe have been severely jeopardized.
Nothing can be won in football by Christmas, but everything can be lost. Whether it’s the prestige of the title, European glamour, mid-table comfort or survival’s lucrative promises, a club aims to reach May with some dignity and pride intact: this season was a progressive one, we did well. Players receive various awards and accolades, but ultimately it’s the team which is held to account most in the summer. How is it fair to do this when ambitions can be crippled as early as the end of the January transfer window?
At 26, Bent is approaching what most would considered to be his golden years, and certainly there are no immediate causes for a mid-career crisis: 32 goals in 58 games at Sunderland; an impressive strike-rate at Spurs when you consider how many starts he got; and 31 in 68 whilst plying his professional trade at Charlton in the mid-noughties. There have never been any major concerns he would fall down the Jeffers, Nugent or Collymore route of English striking talent spurned. Yet with this move to Villa, the question has to be asked: if not now then when?
His seven England caps have been explained many ways, but the simple fact is that the FA appoints national coaches with all the thought and tact of a Tijuana temping agency. This is because the arrogance of the press decrees The Eleven Lions should pick themselves; we invented football and if only the weather/ref/WAGs/Germans had/hadn’t done this or that we’d be as unbeatable as Bolivia are when they play at the Estadio Hernando Siles. If the press aren’t on your side, the manager can’t pick you. And the more Bent roams off the pitch – on the pitch his off the ball movements aren’t the most subtle – the closer he wanders to journeyman status. And then he’s definitely not going to get picked.
It should be said that, while Bent lacked none the opportunities presented to more successful, but not necessarily more talented, strikers he’s never had a mentor. Charlton, Spurs and Sunderland have had twice as many managers in the last 7 years as Bent has international appearances, and the rewards to be reaped of full managerial backing can be best seen in his spell under Steve Bruce – possibly why his response to Randy Learner’s inquisitions was verbatim to Houllier’s instruction to his American chairman: get Bent. When old candle-face made disparaging comments about his finishing ability (not something any man wants) you have to feel it was not just the striker’s ability to breech David James’ goal he was bemoaning, but his credentials as a Champions League striker.
In that case then, more fool Villa surely: they’re the ones paying over the odds for a distinctly average striker. Or does Houllier believe that his investment is just that: something to be nurtured and built upon? The stats are there to see, and while Steve Bruce was able to rebuild Bent’s confidence, a lack of top-level managerial experience might have limited how far the rebirth could stretch. The Frenchman has nearly thirty years under his belt managing national (Lyon), European (Liverpool) and world (France) champions. Belief from him could prove the catalyst for consistently inspired form. At the end of the day, it comes down to individual temperament, the desire to be the best.
While you’re reeling from this sensational conclusion, I’d like to say, this article’s main focus isn’t actually Darren Bent (it just made too good a title not to pursue). The England man is however a salient case-study for the core discussion: the January transfer window.
Events on Monday have both dwarfed, and to an extent justified, the price Villa paid – Bent’s record looks like Shearer’s compared to Andy Carroll and while the latter is considered England’s hottest striking prospects, I would direct your eyes to aforementioned forwards before telling me which one you’d rather have in your team. The January transfer window is essentially double-glazed though: you have 30 days in which to pay an inflated fee for a player based on their performance since the start of the season; then you have 24 hours where all hell breaks loose. It paid to get Bent sooner.
The window’s initial purpose – to create stability – was doomed to failure from the beginning; why people thought that clubs would spend more sensibly if you limited the time in which they could do so is anyone’s guess. It’s like saying: there’s a food shortage and everyone’s hungry. In order to stop panic buying we’re only going to open Tesco from 5-8 in the evening. It’s already the busiest time of day but people definitely aren’t going to shit themselves when they release their access to already limited resources is being restricted further; I’m sure instead they can be trusted to save their existing food, not try to steal anyone else’s, and only buy what they need so that nothing runs out.
January brings out the worst in everyone – players become overly ambitious and therefore ever more egotistical; the director/board members jerk their puppets’ knees even more vigorously than usual and staff are discarded faster than the team is sinking; those managers who do survive desperately scour Football Manager for a decent full-back and a 20-goals-a-season centre-forward; meanwhile the press don’t so much fan the flames, as stoke the fires with all the methane they’re blowing out their ass, Lynx-can-on-a-bonfire style. Don’t get me wrong, it makes great viewing, Requiem for a Dream in footballing terms. It’s just that it is killing the Premier League.
The main problem about allowing players to move in January is that prices are based on form, not on ability. Players who were relatively unheard of in the summer become the obsessive focus of frenzy-eyed gaffers; while those who burned brightest in the spring are now highly-paid charcoal, desperate awaiting their phoenix’s arrival. The off-season in the summer – European Championships and World Cups obviously aside – allow for progressive scouting, sensible negotiations and a considered bargaining process (either that or Real Madrid post a cheque at the first available opportunity). A 5 million pound centre-back in June is still a five million pound centre-back in August. The difference is the selling club has had a chance to find a suitable replacement.
The primary focus of mid-season transfer should be to patch-up a squad; not to dramatically alter it for better (as in West London and arguably in Merseyside) or for worse (as on Tyne and to a lesser extent Wear). While nobody can deny that injuries, poor form and acts of God make it essential for the market to function in some respects during the season, to have fully blown bidding wars and the resulting fallout at a time in the year when most Premiership teams play mid-week and weekend is clearly massively detrimental to all involved.
The obvious solution would be to allow players to move on loan in January – and maybe even throughout the whole season – but limit transfers to the off-season: first of June to the middle of August, say the Tuesday or Wednesday before the first Saturday to let the furore die down a wee bit. That way holes can be polyfillad without rushed major structural changes. It might also instil some loyalty into players who consider a four-year contract to be worth roughly the same as Mark Lawrenson’s opinion: millions on paper but in reality fuck all.
Loan moves might then become more significant, it’s true – no longer just a way for youngsters to fill their boots a bit or fringe actors to kick a first team ball, but a major indication of a player’s preferred career progressions. But as long as the balance of power regarding the authorization of loans remains relatively even (i.e. the smaller or financially weaker clubs are not bullied into loaning their stars) squad deficiencies could still be addressed without the circus of permanent transfers. A club’s player would also be their player for the whole nine months of the season rather than the four in autumn.
Talented footballers could still achieve their dream moves to big clubs and play Champions League football or win trophies; they would just have to do so in a way that was respectful to those who got them where they were. Liverpool weren’t interested in Charlie Adam when he was a Rangers reject; only because of Ian Holloway is he the player he is (though whether or not the Tangerines’ manager deserves a cut of any sell-on fee is another matter). It’s only right therefore that the Scot plays the way he has been and does everything he can to keep Blackpool in the Premiership, before moving on amicable in the summer with an established replacement in place.
A model example of this can be found in an often much-maligned midfielder and captain. Cesc Fabregas has been the subject of admiring overtures from Barcelona since before Wenger’s last Specsavers test – and the fact that they are his dream move is both perfectly understandable and no secret – yet he continues to be the best player in an Arsenal shirt and honour his contract while those above him squabble about when (not if) he’s going to move and how much for.
By allowing players to sign for a mid-table team with sunny grins in the summer, raise golden hopes of Europe in the autumn and then crack, freeze and melt away into the shadows of a bigger club in the winter only benefits the over privileged: egoistical players and financially frivolous board-members. It increases pressure on managers by tacitly telling them if they’re struggling in November, someone else’ll be in by December so the squad can be overhauled in January; gives the already dreich demeanour of messers Moyes, Holloway, Bruce ECT an added venom as they use the twigs at their disposal to fend of the hyenas; and shatters squad morale by painting loyalties, etched shades of grey by the press, in stark black and white: “I think I deserve better teammates than you lot”.
Whether or not this will prove the case with Bent (or indeed Torres, Carroll, Luis, Sessegnon et al.) only time will tell. Anelka’s transfer in 2008 revitalised his career while Bellamy’s stuttered after a promising start. Both Bolton and West Ham however are still tenderly recovering from their brief flirtations with two of the Prem’s most notorious journeymen. That they had outgrown their ponds’ is evident, but the timing of their departure hurt the clubs that had nurtured their careers back to multimillion-pound health. Bent’s mileage doesn’t quite put him on this level yet, but he’s not far off. By being able to move in January you’d have to say the Black Cat’s chances of Europe have been severely jeopardized.
Nothing can be won in football by Christmas, but everything can be lost. Whether it’s the prestige of the title, European glamour, mid-table comfort or survival’s lucrative promises, a club aims to reach May with some dignity and pride intact: this season was a progressive one, we did well. Players receive various awards and accolades, but ultimately it’s the team which is held to account most in the summer. How is it fair to do this when ambitions can be crippled as early as the end of the January transfer window?
No comments:
Post a Comment