Romelu Lukaku

[ParNolio7 285]

Guess Lukaku will always have his admirers & haters.

But there's no denying his goal scoring ability.

Two seasons in a row scoring one after the other in the BPL, cannot be called luck.

I'm not much of a fan either, but I'd rather have him with me than against

[The only place to be 11,313]

the logic in saying someone has played poor or even pathetic , yet has scored 2 goals is not hard to understand. the statement means exactly what it says.

lukaku was a passenger for the majority of the game. he dint win a single aerial battle, lost the ball almost everytime he touched the ball, missed 3 1v1s before scoring and that would have been almost useless if allen had not missed a sitter.

even i would prefer an ST who scores goals vs the one who does everything but score goals but the "performance" of the player can not be determined only by the goals scored but by his actual performance in the match.

Actually he won 5 aerial duels.

[didierforever 7,349]

I dont think Ive ever read more bullcrap.

First of all, hide behind? His age is a FACT. Its not even something to hide behind because clearly he is doing more than well. Second, what is your point in even stating that "u can get lucky in scoring goals". That sentence just has no place in this thread. What Lukaku is consistantly doing has nothing to do with luck. Thirdly, have I stated that his performance was "phenomenolly out of the world"? I said his performance wasnt pathetic. That is a HUGE differance.

Now cut the crap, you're making yourself look like a fool honestly.

wow. u really are an idiot are u not? lukaku's age is a FACT. he is 20 years old, i know that. but if he performs poorly, no one is going to hear this age excuse because now that is the level of expectation from him.

"it has nothing to do with luck." read what i wrote in the bracket after that. guess it was asking too much of u to do that. i ll help u by writing it in bold and in a bigger font. (lukaku did not, he took both his goals very well)

now please stop bull-shitting and for once write some sense.

[Atholy 1,293]

Who would you choose? I say no more!!

[Gil 28]

x

[YouNameIt 1,511]

wow. u really are an idiot are u not? lukaku's age is a FACT. he is 20 years old, i know that. but if he performs poorly, no one is going to hear this age excuse because now that is the level of expectation from him.

"it has nothing to do with luck." read what i wrote in the bracket after that. guess it was asking too much of u to do that. i ll help u by writing it in bold and in a bigger font. (lukaku did not, he took both his goals very well)

now please stop bull-shitting and for once write some sense.

Yes, Im the one bullshitting when you are calling Lukakus performance pathetic when he scores 2 goals..

[didierforever 7,349]

Yes, Im the one bullshitting when you are calling Lukakus performance pathetic when he scores 2 goals..

talk to me when u grow up and actually understand the difference between a PERFORMANCE and scoring goals.

i tried to and wrote essays in previous posts about it but seems it all went over your head.

[Kish9 50]

Yes, Im the one bullshitting when you are calling Lukakus performance pathetic when he scores 2 goals..

Since when has scoring meant that you played well? Well done to the lad for taking those chances but his overall performance was below par

[YouNameIt 1,511]

talk to me when u grow up and actually understand the difference between a PERFORMANCE and scoring goals.

i tried to and wrote essays in previous posts about it but seems it all went over your head.

Since when has scoring meant that you played well? Well done to the lad for taking those chances but his overall performance was below par

To the both of you, and like Ive said before, If a striker scores 2 goals I cannot define his performance as anything but good. Especially not considering if its in the PL against a top team. Even more so if its from a guy that young.

To me, its more important for the striker to score goals, because that is his actual purpouse. Then, if he doesnt win as many duels or do enough defensively as some may think a striker should...I couldnt care less.

Again, calling his performance pathetic, NO MATTER HOW "BAD" IT WAS, he scored 2 goals and that automatically makes it anything but pathetic.

[didierforever 7,349]

To the both of you, and like Ive said before, If a striker scores 2 goals I cannot define his performance as anything but good. Especially not considering if its in the PL against a top team. Even more so if its from a guy that young.

To me, its more important for the striker to score goals, because that is his actual purpouse. Then, if he doesnt win as many duels or do enough defensively as some may think a striker should...I couldnt care less.

Again, calling his performance pathetic, NO MATTER HOW "BAD" IT WAS, he scored 2 goals and that automatically makes it anything but pathetic.

very good analysis.

its the same way as saying barkley had a pathetic match. why? cos he is a CAM and yet dint score a goal or assissted any of the goals. cos that is the only aspect by which a PERFORMANCE is judged, right?

also by your amazing and fabulous argument, mignolet must have had the worst match of his lifetime since he conceded 3 goals, hence overlooking all the amazing 1v1s against lukaku, delefour, mirallas, he saved or in general how good saves he made.

brilliant argument keep it up!!!

[ParNolio7 285]

mignolet must have had the worst match of his lifetime since he conceded 3 goals, hence overlooking all the amazing 1v1s against lukaku, delefour, mirallas, he saved or in general how good saves he made.

your reasoning is not correct imo:

a striker is mainly judged on the number of goals he scores. so 2 in one match will mean that his performance cannot be pathetic. bad field play may drop his performance from excellent to good or even average, but it cannot set it back to pathetic. agree?

a goalkeeper is judged on the number of saves he makes, not on the number of goals he conceided without his doing. so Mignolet stopping 5 goal bound occasions makes his performances excellent. goals conceided that he could have stopped could cause the performance to drop to average, never pathetic. goals conceided without his doing will not drop the performance judgement ...

[Magic Lamps 11,449]

Paul Parker about Chelsea and Lukaku http://uk.eurosport.yahoo.com/blogs/paul-parker/lukaku-winning-chelsea-title-123149468.html

Parker is such a fool.

If they'd kept him at Stamford Bridge this season, they could be top.

All this talk about Lukaku doing Chelsea favours is a cop out. It's the sort of thing Jose Mourinho himself would say to try and cover up a mistake - because that's exactly what it is. A huge mistake.

Mourinho's teams have never been about playing cultured football, they're about keeping things tight at the back and getting the ball forward as much as you can. If he'd wanted a side to play cultured football he'd have kept the same players and tactics that Rafa Benitez used last season, because that side was playing very nice stuff. At the very least he'd have made the most of having Juan Mata around.

But Mourinho has kept faith with the same direct tactics he's used throughout his career - and when you play like that the one thing you need is a great forward.

You need someone capable of scoring lots of goals, capable of pulling off great goals and capable of making goals for others through their sheer physical force. Lukaku is that player, and it was rash of Mourinho to send him out on loan.

......

Even though Parker might be right that loaning Lukaku might be a mistake, but going with experience cos u need it at least in the CL is somehow retraceable. Atm Lukaku has better from than all our strikers, but IMO he is not generally superior yet. To say with Lukaku we would be top is BS. With Lukaku we would not have won vs City, we would have been crushed by Bayern. When he came on in that Super Cup game everyone could see what he still is not. He was brought on to get some minutes of the clock, seconds would have sufficed for us to win, but the only time he got the ball he got bullied off it by players half his size in a situation where drogba, torres or eto'o would easily have won at least a series of throw-ins. Subsequently he shot one of the worst penalty ever. CAn you really blame Mourinho for not putting his entire faith in him as our first choice striker?

Even though it is bullshit writing Rafa was playing beautiful football all the time and mourinho just defends, it is true we need a striker capable of producing great goals on his own. Something which Lukaku is clearly not. He is quick, good on the counter, decent in 1vs1s and can attack a cross. But what he needs is service and more importantly space. He can only beat an opponent by pace or strength, but organized defences and clever defenders will not be too impressed with that. Lukaku will have more space playing for a team like Everton than playing for us. Our first striker has to be able to play every game no matter the opponent, but Lukaku is not ready to play against the big boys yet, so what should Mou do? Play lukaku in the league and Etoo/Torres in the CL and vs ManCity, Arsenal, Utd? Does not make any sense. The day Lukaku owns Kompany, Thiago Silva, Boateng or another top10 defender. I'll come out and say: this is our man. Technically, Lukaku is not even half as talented as guys like Sturridge or even Mirallas . But he has the attitude, he has the body and he has instincts to become better than those.

[didierforever 7,349]

a striker is mainly judged on the number of goals he scores. so 2 in one match will mean that his performance cannot be pathetic. bad field play may drop his performance from excellent to good or even average, but it cannot set it back to pathetic. agree?

probably this is where we differ. i count performance totally different from goals.

[ParNolio7 285]

probably this is where we differ. i count performance totally different from goals.

I follow that up to a certain point. A striker can make himself useful in a lot of other ways than just scoring goals. Assisting, creating room for his team mates, holding the ball etc. But at the end of the day SOMEONE needs to score goals for you. And if Lukaku is the one who can get that done, if that is his role, than you can't really call him pathetic when he makes two on the day.

[The Skipper 20,593]

I follow that up to a certain point. A striker can make himself useful in a lot of other ways than just scoring goals. Assisting, creating room for his team mates, holding the ball etc. But at the end of the day SOMEONE needs to score goals for you. And if Lukaku is the one who can get that done, if that is his role, than you can't really call him pathetic when he makes two on the day.

Our strikers need to do much more than just score, that's pretty obvious with what we're trying to create here.

'Pathetic' is probably an over exaggeration but his general play in that game was fairly average, and sometimes very poor. Him scoring 2 goals doesn't mask that - as I've said before, Romelu isn't going out on loan to prove he can be a reliable goalscorer, everyone knows that already, as you'd probably know very well he's shown that since a very young age - he's going out on loan to refine his general play in a possession based side where he'll get 90 minutes every week.

[didierforever 7,349]

Our strikers need to do much more than just score, that's pretty obvious with what we're trying to create here.

'Pathetic' is probably an over exaggeration but his general play in that game was fairly average, and sometimes very poor. Him scoring 2 goals doesn't mask that - as I've said before, Romelu isn't going out on loan to prove he can be a reliable goalscorer, everyone knows that already, as you'd probably know very well he's shown that since a very young age - he's going out on loan to refine his general play in a possession based side where he'll get 90 minutes every week.

could not agree more.

[Fastrobbie 26]

Might not be his best play, but at least he is scoring goals. He is only 20 years old, so there is still a lot of room for improvement.

At the end of the day, we still prefer a striker that has a nose for goals.

[Las7 951]

Our strikers don't do much and the main thing they don't do is score consistently - you can harp on about some ideal striker all you want but currently we have strikers who would struggle to get into the first eleven into the majority of top clubs around the continent.

The day our strikers are doing more than just scoring goals you can use this argument to belittle Lukaku's achievement and scoring.

The day Eto'o/Torres/Ba score two goals in a match where we should be losing but gain a point I don't doubt there would be plenty of posts about those players doing their job and talking about how our defense allowed the opposition to score a particular number of goals. Lukaku could have won all 3 points for Everton if he was clinical but Everton's defense is mainly at fault for allowing cheap goals from set pieces in a match where Lukaku and their midfield created enough chances and scored enough goals to win the game.

So you're all being hypocrites by saying his performance was poor against Liverpool because Torres/Ba/Eto'o had had a performance like that that WON us a point even though they missed a few chances or misshit a pass you'd be treating it entirely different.

Fact is that Jose's decision to loan him out is bad because the strikers we currently have are in no way superior at doing the main thing you want a striker to do - SCORE GOALS. If we had a striker scoring constantly than obviously it would have been a good move for both Lukaku and Chelsea, currently it's a good move only for Lukaku(with a small possibility that it might be good for us long term but looking at how we treated other young strikers I doubt it). In a season we didn't end up shelling out on a World Class striker like Cavani/Suarez/Rooney/Falcao it was the perfect time to give a chance to a lad who easily outscored Ba/Torres combined tally in League as an impact player at West Brom. For some reason we weren't even able to guarantee Lukaku a chance - which was what he deserved after his loan spell. I'm not even talking about starting lots of matches I'm talking about starting him in a match and seeing how he does. Instead we gave him a couple of sub appearances and despite Ba/Torres not doing much themselves we decided he is not better than them - which is fairly obvious a retarded decision.