Romelu Lukaku

[Tomo 21,681]

That comparison is fine until you consider RVP had Theirry Henry in front of him.

Arsenal played with 2 forwards where-as we play with one and Bergkamp was getting on a bit and couldn't play every game, either way It doesn't matter who was infront of who, the point remains the same that Lukaku needs time to be develop at his own pace, just like RVP did in 2004.

[Mouri_Matic 560]

Wait till Torres destroy Lukaku's Chelsea career like he done to Sturridge.

[CHOULO19 24,332]

Fucking hell. I thought I clicked on the Lukaku thread, not the Grey's Anatomy thread. So much drama!

[Eggman 118]

I don't think Lukaku will play anywhere near the amount of games that he needs to at his age, to develop his play and work on his flaws (which are well-known by now). You can't expect him to make progress if he gets 30 minutes of playing time out of every 360.

Mourinho has to decide whether he is willing to take a chance on him (and after pre-season, I felt confident that he would), or if he'd rather stick with Torres/Ba or a new world-class striker.

I expect the latter, which means: send Lukaku out on loan asap.

[Stingray 9,441]

Fucking hell. I thought I clicked on the Lukaku thread, not the Grey's Anatomy thread. So much drama!

It's even worse than the Mikel Thread, Choulo!

[Vybz Kartel 1,613]

The only think the boy can do is score goals when he comes in so that he can prove to Mourinho he deserves a chance to start every game. he should use the united game as motivation to force himself into Mourinho's thinking

[Blue Armour 4,165]

It's even worse than the Mikel Thread, Choulo!

Warning: Any thread on this forum can turn into a Mikel thread. Don't mention that name!

[yorkie 10]

That's probably why Jose is looking for a new forward. Lukaku wasn't even undisputed number 1 at West Brom last season so giving him that too soon here is asking for trouble. Making him number 1 forward we are practically pining our hopes for this season on him, is it fair to ask that off a 20 year old? I for one am happy for him to be part of the squad for the next 2/3 year and develop at his own pace.

I found that wierd at West Brom he was their most scoring CF and still got benched somethimes. For example the match on Manure where he got of the bench after 45 min and scored 3 goals

[CrayzayBarnet 126]

I don't think Lukaku will play anywhere near the amount of games that he needs to at his age, to develop his play and work on his flaws (which are well-known by now). You can't expect him to make progress if he gets 30 minutes of playing time out of every 360.

Mourinho has to decide whether he is willing to take a chance on him (and after pre-season, I felt confident that he would), or if he'd rather stick with Torres/Ba or a new world-class striker.

I expect the latter, which means: send Lukaku out on loan asap.

I hope he takes a chance on him and he doesn't go out on loan, he's a monster! Would offer more than Torres and Ba in my opinion.

[mediator 2,026]

I hope he takes a chance on him and he doesn't go out on loan, he's a monster! Would offer more than Torres and Ba in my opinion.

Don't forget that we will add another striker into the equation, may be Eto'o. Would be too much for him

[CrayzayBarnet 126]

Don't forget that we will add another striker into the equation, may be Eto'o. Would be too much for him

I'm not too sure about Eto'o, Hope Rooney joins us haha

[bouletje 82]

if he's barely playing now with this low lvl of competition(torres, ba, schurrle, trololololo) on the forward position i don't see him getting the minutes he wants after eto'o for example comes in.

we'll see how this turns out, if mourinho chooses torres as the sub for the new striker i don't see lukaku staying happy at the bridge. altho as a striker at such young age he should learn to deal with these things.

can't expect after one good PL season to be trusted as the main striker in a team with ambition like chelsea. we need to be certain we have a good striker, not making a guess and putting our trust on the 20yo fella that proved himself just one season in the PL so far.

for chelsea: always good to have a kid like lukaku with the ambition and talent to become very important for the team

for the guy himself: maybe one more season of bullying PL- defenses on a weekly base would have been a better idea, i'm starting to think they brought him back in one season too early.

[TorontoChelsea 4,064]

From the Paul Doyle at the Guardian: "J if you want my view, and his lack of faith in Romelu Lukaku is irritating: it's as if he's trying to exaggerate Chelsea's striking problems in orders to ensure he gets backing to buy at least one new centreforward."

An interesting theory but probably a little too cynical. I got the pursuit of Rooney. A top class player that would also weaken a major rival but is Eto'o an improvement? Like the Willian signing, the amount that it improves the team is pretty debatable. Chelsea's 3 strikers combined for 40 goals in the Premier League last season. None of them are elite, but then again, neither is Eto'o.

[Tomo 21,681]

I can see why Jose is slowly integrating Lukaku. Yes he is better than Ba and Torres but Ronaldo when he first joined United was on the bench with vastly inferior players playing ahead of him, why? because Fergie was treating him with care and not rushing him. I honestly believe the same is happening here with Lukaku.

[LukakutoStamford 779]

I said this earlie in the thread. Lukaku needed to go back to West Board for a second loan year to get significant playing time in order to improve his skill set.

Right now being at Chelsea is pointless unless he's going to get similar minutes to what he got last year at WBA.

He's not ready for the #1 role and Chelsea's striking options are poor for a PL side.

[Sheva. 5,373]

An interesting theory but probably a little too cynical. I got the pursuit of Rooney. A top class player that would also weaken a major rival but is Eto'o an improvement? Like the Willian signing, the amount that it improves the team is pretty debatable. Chelsea's 3 strikers combined for 40 goals in the Premier League last season. None of them are elite, but then again, neither is Eto'o.

40 goals? what Lukaku did at WBA doesn't matter, and i assume you counted Ba's at Newcastle also?

Right now Ba and Torres cant score in a brothel, and Lukaku is only good enough to be super sub. So we need someone to lead our line - Eto'o is still pretty decent and no matter how old, he's definitely better than the aforementioned 2.

Lukaku will get many chances to show what he's got, you only need to watch Madrid last season to see how Mourinho rotated his strikers. And if he does well, then we won't need to pursue another top striker next year. But going into the season with him and 2 strikers that can't score is just suicidal.

[zolayes 14,489]

From the Paul Doyle at the Guardian: "J if you want my view, and his lack of faith in Romelu Lukaku is irritating: it's as if he's trying to exaggerate Chelsea's striking problems in orders to ensure he gets backing to buy at least one new centreforward."

An interesting theory but probably a little too cynical. I got the pursuit of Rooney. A top class player that would also weaken a major rival but is Eto'o an improvement? Like the Willian signing, the amount that it improves the team is pretty debatable. Chelsea's 3 strikers combined for 40 goals in the Premier League last season. None of them are elite, but then again, neither is Eto'o.

The Guardian was originally called The Manchester Guardian ,,,It always has supported United so don't take their word as gospel

[Peace. 4,352]

Jesus. Some people need to think outside the box.

It was the right decision to play the ladyboy instead of him. To play the belgian over the spaniard would have made little difference. Our whole passing game was off and Manchester's defense was compact and organised. He would have been isolated and would have had struggled to make anything against Jones-Ferdinand-Vidic-Evra. Also he is not the kind of player who will grab the ball in his own half of pitch and then proceed to dribble the whole defense to finally score with a lob below the keeper. Finally it's not thirty odd minutes that will change the outcome of his development — especially when you take into account that it would have been thirty lacklustre and uninteresting minutes.

Had he played, he was always going to get a bad game (only the defenders had a good game, bar Rooney.. the game's physiognomy was not set for the "attacking" players to perform). It might not have hurt him thanks to his solid confidence, but it certainly would have not benefited him. By not playing him, José preserved him from the possible nasty repercussions — an altered confidence, knee-jerk reactions from the press and the fans (just look at the state in whom the forum is), etc... At the contrary, the ladyboy is a lost cause — it's not a few more criticisms and a bad performance that will hurt him.

That being said, it is too early to judge whether José disregards him or protects him. My mind tells me that José just protects him. We just need to be patient to draw conclusions, three games in a season are irrelevant.