With Monday morning's news that Darren Bent was pursuing a move to Aston Villa, I shared the soccer world's shock. Reports of Villa's £18 million bid had to be a joke. There hadn't been a whisper. Nobody outside of Sunderland and Aston Villa's management (and later, we would find out, Darren Bent's representation) had suspected the occasional international was available, which made sense. After disappointment in North London, Bent just seemed to fit on Wearside. Only the most single-minded of Spurs supporters could fail to empathize with his redemption.
Darren Bent, Aston Villa, And A Case Of Disproportionate Incredulity
Many see Aston Villa as having overpaid for their new striker, handing over a club record fee to bring Darren Bent to Villa Park. Beyond agreeing with those voices, SB Nation Soccer Editor Richard Farley wonders where the same skepticism was during the last three years of high profile forward transfers.
As if to illustrate how little we know about such things, Bent and Sunderland have since detailed how ill the fit was. While 32 goals in 58 appearances superficially spoke to Bent having settled, he wanted bigger things. There is a reason he chose Tottenham over West Ham (and larger wages) in 2007, he would later reveal, and although he failed to make an impact during his first run on a big stage, it was time he tried again, something he told the Black Cats last summer. Some might argue that the difference in size between Sunderland and Villa is nothing compared to jumping into a relegation battle with a drifting team, but that would miss the point. Darren Bent thinks Villa’s the bigger, more prestigious club. When establishing motive, that’s all that matters.
There is, however, Villa's side of the equation, and given Bent's obvious ability to score goals in the Premier League, it's difficult to argue that the acquisition fails to improve the club. Between John Carew and Emile Heskey, Villa's two number nines, Gèrard Houllier's seen only three league goals. Add in Gabriel Agbonlahor and Nathan Delfouneso's contributions and Villa has only four goals from their entire striking core. Even the generous inclusion of sometime forward Ashley Young leaves you with seven, one less than Bent's accumulated on his own. While Steve Bruce notes that Bent's form and work ethic have diminished throughout the season, a sub-par Bent still appears more viable than anything Villa had in fold.
All of which brings us to the notion of price. Particularly in the emerging era of Financial Fair Play, no transfer exists in a vacuum. Where it is not uncommon for clubs to devote 60 percent of their resources to player wages, even a “free” transfer has to be evaluated against it’s costs. As a club pays another for a player, the move becomes increasingly difficult to justify, and when a club decides to pay a record outlay, the player not only must meet a high standard, but the fee must be justified within the market.
And therein lies the real question regarding Bent’s move to Aston Villa. The player wanted to leave Sunderland, perceived Villa as the bigger club and is demonstrably more likely to produce than the club’s striking incumbents. But that alone does not justify paying £19 million for a player, and with the fee likely to rise close to £24 million if Villa stay up (and Bent produces as expected), Houllier will have a lot of justifying to do. But he’ll also have kept his club up.
Opinions on the size of the fee have been mixed. Some have said Bent will be “worth every penny,” while others have intimated the price must be a joke (or, at best a panic move). Others have said the deal lacked common sense while noting great moves often do. With a quick perusal of Twitter and blogs you’ll find few who feel the evaluation is correct. Even those that defend Villa’s decision as necessary often note the price of doing business was likely higher than real value.
All of which may be true, false, or (more likely) a combination of both, none of which interests me. What interests me about the reaction to the Bent move is something my arrogant verbosity has come to think of as disproportionate incredulity. Seemingly every move as some skeptics, but Bent's price tag and relocation have met with more disbelief than other high profile moves. While it's probably true that Carlos Tévez's move to Manchester City and Dimitar Berbatov's move to Manchester United garnered louder outcries than Bent's Villa switch, the ubiquity of skepticism regarding Bent's price seems to curiously transcend each, so much so that I've started to wonder: Is there something about Darren Bent that people particularly don't like? Perhaps it's Aston Villa, an implied edict that clubs on that level shouldn't act this way? Why is Bent's move to Villa being so scrutinized when less prolific forwards have moved with higher price tags and less incredulity?
Consider the following examples: Six players recently moving to six different clubs, none of which (player or team) would be considered small, none of which met with anywhere near the level of eye-rubbing as Bent’s move south:
- On the last day of 2008's summer transfer window, Dimitar Berbatov moved to Manchester United for £30.75 million. In the preceding season with Tottenham, the 27-year-old Berbatov scored 15 league goals (36 appearances). Last year, as a 26-year-old, Bent scored 24 times.
- In January of 2008, Chelsea paid Bolton Wanderers £15 million for a 28-year-old Nicolas Anelka. Thus the France international finished has season-and-a-half at the Reebok, scoring 21 league goals in 53 appearances.
- In the summer of 2009, Carlos Tévez ended a two year run at Manchester United when he moved to rival Manchester City. Tévez, then 25, had scored 19 goals in in 63 league appearances yet garnered what was claimed to be a £47 million transfer fee, a move than many saw as a statement signing by City.
- In winter 2009, Arsenal made a rare splash in the transfer market when they bought then-disgruntled attacker Andrei Arshavin from Zenit St. Petersburg. The 27-year-old had scored 16 league goals across the two preceding Russian Premier League seasons before being sold to the Gunners for a reported, unconfirmed price of £15 million.
- In the same window, Jermain Defoe rejoined Tottenham Hotspur after a season with Portsmouth. Pompey had bought Defoe for £6 million only to see him register 15 league goals in 31 appearances before selling him back to Spurs for a reported £15.75 million. At 26 years old, Defoe was moving back to North London.
- And finally, Robbie Keane, who moved in the same window as Dimitar Berbatov, landing in Liverpool. The Republic of Ireland captain, then 28, had scored 26 goals in the preceding two league seasons, appearing 53 times. Rafa Benítez paid £19 million for Fernando Torres's proposed partner only to sell Keane back to Spurs six months later.
It’s an illustrious list of talent, and Darren Bent may no better than any of them. Some ardent football fans may put Bent seventh out of seven, if the latest Villan were put in this group, a ranking with which I might agree (depending on context), though that certainly would not be the point of this exercise.
The point: Other clubs pay a lot for players, too, and while there were critics of those deals, the criticism did not seem as ubiquitous or accepted as derision that’s met Bent’s move. In most of the examples, the player was either older, more expensive, or a less productive goal scorer. In two cases, the player was all three, yet the guffaws that met those moves were isolated compared to the reaction to Villa’s purchase, where even some of the most supportive Villans are ready to concede: We’re probably paying too much.
Perhaps Aston Villa is not allowed to make the same mistakes as other clubs. They’re supposed to be humble and modest, and even amidst a relegation battle, they must adhere to the greater perception. Or perhaps Premier League followers have developed a perverse intellectual investment in Darren Bent. He’s only a goal scorer - an anti-Emile Heskey - and can’t possibly be worth Villa’s record fee. Or maybe moves by big clubs are self-justifying, their track record of success absolving a mistake with Robbie Keane or head-shaking fee for Dimitar Berbatov. That outlay is fine because Manchester United know what they’re doing, the move implies.
I don’t know what a fair price for Darren Bent is. Looking over the last few years of big forward transfers, I don’t know how anybody can, but if they can, where were they when Spurs sold Berbatov and Keane or Tévez was trading red for blue? Where was the steady hum of disbelief that’s now settled around Villa, a purr set to linger until Bent bests his Sunderland output?
Why the different benchmarks? Why the disproportionate incredulity?
See More:
