Frankly the comparison with the dark side players is a gross exaggeration of Kent’s weaknesses.
Haksabanovic Abada really.
Firstly I do agree that in terms of goals and direct assists we are looking for more as the bare stats are poor.
However Kent is integral to the style of football we are playing under MB.
His workrate speed and ability to link up with the midfield and Borna are crucial.
I would suggest his actual involvement in goals at some point in the move will be far greater than the actual recorded stats.
If there is one player in our team that they would want us to get rid of it’s Kent I would guess.
In European football the one player which really concerns the opposition is Kent.
Imo he would be extremely hard to replace for what he gives to the team.
There's a lot in your post I agree with. But I'll start with the stuff we disagree on - Firstly, I think the comparison is fair. On pretty much every key stat Ryan Kent is inferior to his closest rival at Celtc, and in some cases even a distant second to Celtc's *third* choice for that position. That's not exaggeration it's fact. Unfortunately.
European performances are a good barometer of a player. Over a 6/8 game run on our UEFA cup final year, I'd agree he looked really good - but looking really good is a subjective measure, these performances are rolled into those stats. This year however, like most of his team mates, he looked awful.
There's a problem with cherry picking games too - We don't get to only play in Europe, and if those are the only games he's shining in the return isn't good enough. We need players who perform reliably, and in domestic competition too - it's our key to European competition.
I get where you're coming from when saying 'I would suggest his actual involvement in goals will be far greater' - Without evidence we have nothing but supposition. Me thinking the earth is flat doesn't make it more likely to be so - and people with empirical evidence can make a far more compelling case in refuting that and proving the earth is round.
The bits I agree with:
I totally agree that players like Kent are integral to Beale's plans for Rangers, and they are also the sort of player that fits the modern game well. If we want success domestically and in Europe we'll need players like that. What I'd say though is this: 'players *like* Kent, but not Kent himself'. By that I meant strong running, direct players with good athletic ability. I like Kent, he's a grafter. He's an excellent professional and never hides. He never gives less than 100%. Crucially though he's just not capable of delivering the standard of football or performance level we need. That's where the stats come in they inform us of the cold hard facts in regard to players - for example, the fact that Kent punched Brown in the face bought him a *lot* of credit with me. It also helps make us blind to his failings because he does things that subjectively we like, but that objectively contribute very little to the team succeeding.
Oddly I agree he'll be hard to replace, but that's got little to do (IMO) with his contribution to the team, the goals and assists (or more pertinently, the lack thereof). He'll be hard to replace because his commitment and work rate are good.
Ajax employ a system for assessing players called TIPS. TIPS are the key elements a player must possess to be a success - Talent, Intelligence, Personality, Speed. Kent has 3 out of the 4. The one he's lacking in is Intelligence. He lacks the judgement needed to make key passes, to set other players up and demonstrably lacks the ability to judge when to shoot.
Kent will leave with my best wishes. I like the guy, I just don't think he's even close to good enough. He can't give the team what it needs.
fbref.com
