Arshavin And Milito

Sarni

But Hleb and Rosicky were their main wingers, the only reason why Eboue made it to the first team was Rosicky's long-term injury trouble which means that he was a back-up. Bentley would be a better back-up surely but no top 4 team is going to pay £17m for a back-up.

Lizard King

I wouldn't take Bentley for £5 million

Red Indian Chief Torn Rubber

You imagined that completely. I certainly don't use the type of criteria you cling to. The type you used to claim Lennon was a far better player than Milner.

Rather that is the proof of your delusion when it comes to football. I can bet a house most managers would take Milner over Lennon. For he ins't a o e trick pony like Lennon and he does have end product which Lennon has never had.


Typical. Soon you will tell me you cant see that a Bentley is just inferior to a Ronaldo. It has to be "explained further" for you.


Hargreaves starts for England when he is fully fit. & Barry if he plays, plays alongside him not instead of him.


Yes. A player any truly talented young winger would have displaced by now.

So? That doesn't stop the fact Bentley is more than likely not going to be the first one who takes up Beck's role.


From whom? A person who rates Lennon as a class talent? That is not an "endorsement" of any value really. It seems the English language is defeating you. For you have no clue what a solid reputation means. Because Hargreaves is proven at the highest level of football. As a top player. One who has performed at crunch time both in the Premiership, the Champions league and at the world cup. Not one who merely has "days" he performs on. Like Bentley.

That is because you have chosen to delude yourself that Bentley is any where near as good as him. Not because what you say is any where near true.

That is because that is the argument people like you cough up to defend crap points.
Bentley hasn't been compared to the likes of O'shea. Who are at clubs like United because they were brought through the ranks. But to champions like Hargreaves who have been actually bought by big clubs, 2 times in their career, before age 26, with a major effect on those clubs successes. Only an utter mad man would dare say their are holes in an argument that states that such a player is above Bentley's level.

Oh really? Was it not you tried to hoodwink me into believing Lennon is a better player than Milner? Even when stats on games started and end product didn't support you? and Milner had actually played win teams surrounded by inferior player to those which Lennon had played with?


So? Blackburn to Spurs aged 23 is hardly an ahcivement of note. Yet you are trying to convince everyone around that he will give you more than Nani and Anderson will give United, players who have taken a much higher step at younger age than him to learn from some of the best players on Earth.


That's pure bullshit. Ashley Young and Walcott are all more likely to become the long term replacements of Beckham than Him. Agbonlahor even. As for Hargreaves, he has been an England squad regular since age 20, and is at his peak now. You are beyond delusional if you believe Bentley will get more call ups than him. While playing for a Spurs.

No. I'm just not putting him on a pedestal like you.I'm being realistic. I like him as a player but he isn't the super star you are claiming him to be. There are a good number of players actually better than him around. In the England set up alone. Who are at good clubs, with managers excellent with youth

No oen is juding them soley by that. But it is a major factor. If your team does little. At least you should be by miles their best or amongst their best performers. Ala Juninho the year he shared player of the year honors with Zola while Boro was relegated. Or Carrick the year we bought him from you lot.

That is the same bullshit that has been spewed by Man United fans too. Especially those who have no clue about football. The same brigade that place Carrick in Pirlo and Xavi's league and also rate Lennon ironically.

Bottom line only pure fools call Hargreaves average. Average players don't help big sides win domestic Championships, semifinals and final of champions league and perform at world and Nations cups. On the regular. When their are not fringe players. PERIOD!

Red Indian Chief Torn Rubber

As a player yes, as a winger no.

jatin

thats debatable

bentley was never a traditional winger either

Ekeke

Babel is absolutely shit at creating for others from the wing and he doesn't score enough goals to make up for that.

Not sure why this board rates Bentley so badly, but he's actually a good player with a decent record of assists last season. Something quite nice for a winger. He also has very good technique, especially for an English player. I know he's a cnut, but that doesn't mean he wouldn't be useful for several of the top sides in the league. He'd do well at Spurs, especially if they were able to keep their current forward line. Though that looks tough for them right now.

Red Indian Chief Torn Rubber

True. But Bentley has adopted to the wing well. His crossing is very good and his good touch and vision compensates for his lack of searing pace for the role. He is actually a valuable creative asset on the wing on a regular basis in the league. In a team not blessed with attacking panache.

As for Babel he does little on the flank. He doesn't know how to release the ball or when. All he can do is run at and beat people. I know I'd prefer facing Liverpool with a Babel providing service for a Torres than a Bentley.

Red Indian Chief Torn Rubber

This I agree with

cesc's_mullet

Are delusion and typical your two favourite words Indian?

I don't think you've ever had a 'discussion' without them featuring heavily.

cesc's_mullet

That's all relative.

Red Indian Chief Torn Rubber

No. Just toned down versions of worse words I could use

Well I don't have much choice in the matter For "discussions" usually warrant it.

Red Indian Chief Torn Rubber

OH yes. Like it's relative that Fabregas is better a player than Jenas right? That type of "relative"?

kietotheworld

Nani's record of assists was exceptional, he was among the highest in our team despite playing I'd estimate less than half of our matches.

Ekeke

Indeed. But my point was A) Babel isnt a very good winger and B) Bentley is a good winger.

I rate Nani very highly as a player.

kietotheworld

Ah, I thought you were going back to the ridiculous Bentley > Nani claims from Glaston, my mistake.

jatin

i agree that bentley is more productive as a winger than babel

but babel is also 2 years younger than bentley
and has more natural talent, the only thing going against babel is that he plays for liverpool thus he might never really improve as a player

Diver

This seems a bit of a weird thread to reach 6 pages within two days, i haven't gone through it all so where is the argument?

Top

Glaston said on page two that Bentley would be a better deal for 17 mio than Nani or Hargreaves for the same price.
He also said that given the choice between Bentley and Nani most managers would choose Bentley - they'd also choose Bentley given the choice between him and Hargreaves.

Of course the fact that Bentley is rumoured to be very close to Spurs has nothing to with this opinion...
Basically just Glaston being his old deluded self.

peterstorey

Glaston's probably right about that, Bentley has delivered more in the PL than Nani and most non top 4 would choose DB. Bentley has however pretty much proven that he's not up to top 4, so all top 4 clubs would take the gamble on Nani, who might be a make-a-difference player.

Top

I think you're wrong. You've never rated Nani that highly, and I think this is clouding your judgement. Bentley is, as you say, not top 4 material, and Nani who's younger has already proven that he'd improve a top 4 team, like he did for United last season - even if it was a bit hot/cold. His contribution with several assist and some very important goals was actually one of the major reasons for us winning the league.

Most managers would choose Nani without even blinking if they had the choice between the two and the price was the same - Nani is simply just a better player and has a bigger potential.

Sam#1

GlastonSpur

Once again I'm misquoted in an effort to point-score.

What I actually said is that the money paid by MUFC for Nani, Hargreaves and Anderson is not a better deal in each and every case than would be 17m for Bentley.

In other words, 17m for Bentley would not be a worse deal than each and every one of the 3 of the deals made by MUFC for Nani, Hargreaves and Anderson.

Let's take Nani for example. Bentley is at least proven in the Prem, which Nani wasn't when you signed him, and nor has Nani especially set the world on fire since. I simply don't accept that 17m for Bentley would be a worse deal, even if the Nani deal could be be argued as being on a par.

Classy Cannon

I don't think Bentley is that good, he gets hyped coz he's English. I wouldn't want him at Utd & if any of our major rivals sign him I'll be quietly confident that he won't improve them.

jatin

Because you are simply deluded