Romelu Lukaku

[johnnythefirst 1,076]

21 minutes ago, OneMoSalah said:

Well it will cost somebody at least 40M for him considering they paid 28 or more. He would of got plenty of game time here but he didn't want to earn his place in the team but rather have it given to him it seems. 

Yes, plenty of game time. Like Remy for example. Are we still having this idiot argument?

[OneMoSalah 8,776]

Just now, johnnythefirst said:

Yes, plenty of game time. Like Remy for example. Are we still having this idiot argument?

Lukaku is better than Remy, I think its fair to say that, do you not agree? Also Lukaku's all round game is better than his. 

[johnnythefirst 1,076]

Just now, OneMoSalah said:

Lukaku is better than Remy, I think its fair to say that, do you not agree? Also Lukaku's all round game is better than his. 

Yes, it is now, because he's been playing every game for two seasons so he could develop. Here he would have played league cup games and some 15 minute subs for Costa. 

[LDN Blue 7,903]

23 minutes ago, OneMoSalah said:

Well it will cost somebody at least 40M for him considering they paid 28 or more. He would of got plenty of game time here but he didn't want to earn his place in the team but rather have it given to him it seems. 

 

1 minute ago, johnnythefirst said:

Yes, plenty of game time. Like Remy for example. Are we still having this idiot argument?

It's such a moot point as well. Regardless of whether Lukaku did or didn't have his opportunities here is irrelevant now. The lad has gone on to improve his overall game and though he still needs a bit of work to continue - To doubt the ability he has is foolish. He joined that illustrious list of goals scoring 50 goals before his 23rd birthday (joining Rooney, Owen and Cristiano Ronaldo) and we saw how he took apart our defense in one sublime move. 

I'd have no problem with us re-signing Lukaku to be honest, he's young and has great potential still to be untapped - Could Conte do it? The problem is, of course, with our strained tensions with Everton of late they'll be like Spurs and want a region in the excess of £60m knowing them. There are strikers out there that are more worth spending that than on Lukaku, hopefully we were smart enough to insert some kind of transfer clause?

[Stats 7,053]

1 hour ago, OneMoSalah said:

There is still a reason he went to Everton and not another team I feel. He will never get to the CL with Everton so it really was a stupid move in the long term but probably the easiest team for him to break in to and make a name for himself at out of the other teams he was linked to like Atletico and Wolfsburg. 

When he moves to a bigger team, you will soon come to your senses and realise he made the right move.

[chelseafan26 293]

2 hours ago, Tomo said:

Lukaku in his season here was up against Torres and a 34 year old Drogba, when you look at the minutes AVB gave Romeu then Lukaku would surely got some time if he impressed, he didn't!!!!!!

Im glad he's made a decent career for himself but quite frankly I don't miss him one bit and him scoring against us doesn't change that, Borini ended our title bid two years ago.

I have been reading your assessment of Lukaku, and quite frankly, you are either butthurt about him leaving or simply have no idea about what you are talking. comparing borini to lukaku, seriously mate.

Lukaku is already as good as costa. And he is 22. Whats worse is that anyone except for the genius at the helm of this club could see the amount of talent of this kid. Buddy, we screwed up. we Screwed up massively. No way around it.

[Tomo 21,733]

20 minutes ago, chelseafan26 said:

I have been reading your assessment of Lukaku, and quite frankly, you are either butthurt about him leaving or simply have no idea about what you are talking. comparing borini to lukaku, seriously mate.

Lukaku is already as good as costa. And he is 22. Whats worse is that anyone except for the genius at the helm of this club could see the amount of talent of this kid. Buddy, we screwed up. we Screwed up massively. No way around it.

And the minute Lukaku has a goal drought and Costa scores loads you wont come near this thread.

Lukaku isn't as good as Costa, Costa has fired two teams to the title in two different league's, Lukaku has proven little in comparison, but hey his goals has fired Everton to 12th so he must be better.

Im happy he has created a decent career for himself, but we have got a better striker and one who in my opinion will be at least as good (who proven more in a Chelsea shirt than Romelu ever did).

[Fulham Broadway 16,835]

The lad did well, but we were pretty pony. I think it was all about his reluctance to fight his way into the team and his tell tale stories to the media. Jose couldn't promise starts so he was off never to return.

Jose and Lukaku messed it up between them.

[the wes 7,212]

LUKAKU IS LEADING YOUNG GUNS 

Romelu Lukaku has scored more club goals at the age of 22 than these Premier League legends managed...

Romelu Lukaku: 119

Michael Owen: 111

Wayne Rooney: 94

Alan Shearer: 65 

[chelseafan26 293]

8 hours ago, Tomo said:

And the minute Lukaku has a goal drought and Costa scores loads you wont come near this thread.

Lukaku isn't as good as Costa, Costa has fired two teams to the title in two different league's, Lukaku has proven little in comparison, but hey his goals has fired Everton to 12th so he must be better.

Im happy he has created a decent career for himself, but we have got a better striker and one who in my opinion will be at least as good (who proven more in a Chelsea shirt than Romelu ever did).

Oh really? Wait a minute, where was costa when he was 22? Oh right, relegation spanish teams.

Mate, you are so off the target that its actually funny. If lukaku has "fired" everton to 12th, what has costa done this season, got our manager fired and a 10th spot? If you want to compare their careers, do it when lukaku reaches 26/27 and see how many teams he would have propelled to league titles.As of this minute, if you see their careers, lukaku is LIGHT YEARS AHEAD of costa.

If you see their game play, lukaku is better. Unless we are talking about street fighting. No one beats costa in that.

[Tomo 21,733]

22 minutes ago, chelseafan26 said:

Oh really? Wait a minute, where was costa when he was 22? Oh right, relegation spanish teams.

Mate, you are so off the target that its actually funny. If lukaku has "fired" everton to 12th, what has costa done this season, got our manager fired and a 10th spot? If you want to compare their careers, do it when lukaku reaches 26/27 and see how many teams he would have propelled to league titles.As of this minute, if you see their careers, lukaku is LIGHT YEARS AHEAD of costa.

If you see their game play, lukaku is better. Unless we are talking about street fighting. No one beats costa in that.

If we are going to judge players on how old they were when they emerged then Theo Walcott would be the best player in PL history, he was playing for Arsenal at 16, were was Bale at the same age? James? Suarez? Ibrahimovic? Drogba? Henry? Where were they at 16? Unless it's somewhere as big as Arsenal Walcott is better, no?

Light years ahead of Costa apart from areielly there isn't one thing Lukaku is better on, but of course he doesn't play for Chelsea so grass is greener, no doubt Salah will be better than Willian soon, Amelia will sign for a new club make a top save on his debut and be the one that got away.

[kiwi1691 255]

50 minutes ago, chelseafan26 said:

Oh really? Wait a minute, where was costa when he was 22? Oh right, relegation spanish teams.

Mate, you are so off the target that its actually funny. If lukaku has "fired" everton to 12th, what has costa done this season, got our manager fired and a 10th spot? If you want to compare their careers, do it when lukaku reaches 26/27 and see how many teams he would have propelled to league titles.As of this minute, if you see their careers, lukaku is LIGHT YEARS AHEAD of costa.

If you see their game play, lukaku is better. Unless we are talking about street fighting. No one beats costa in that.

Drogba was a late bloomer in football as well, will you crap on him too?

 

Lukaku is a very good striker, but Costa is a much better player on form. 

[chelseafan26 293]

16 minutes ago, Tomo said:

If we are going to judge players on how old they were when they emerged then Theo Walcott would be the best player in PL history, he was playing for Arsenal at 16, were was Bale at the same age? James? Suarez? Ibrahimovic? Drogba? Henry? Where were they at 16? Unless it's somewhere as big as Arsenal Walcott is better, no?

Light years ahead of Costa apart from areielly there isn't one thing Lukaku is better on, but of course he doesn't play for Chelsea so grass is greener, no doubt Salah will be better than Willian soon, Amelia will sign for a new club make a top save on his debut and be the one that got away.

read my post again. you were talking about costa leading 2 teams to league titles. Hence, i brought the age into consideration which is only fair since expecting a 22 year old to lead teams to league titles is not only unfair but also stupid when specially when you spend years on loan at teams like WBA. Understand what was being said rather than jumping to your own conclusions.

Aerial ability, link up play, dribbling, running at defenders. These are the things Lukaku is WAY better than costa. And once again you go out and make unbelievably stupid comparisions and statements. The light years comment was in comparision to their careers at 22. Costa was no where in the picture.

Lukaku has come leaps and bounds in his development, which was expected by most of the match goers. Yes, costa was the better striker 2 years ago but lukaku's development has brought him on the same level as costa and he is just going to get better. But i guess saying messi is better than costa is also grass is greener effect or that mata is ore creative than oscar.

[chelseafan26 293]

8 minutes ago, kiwi1691 said:

Drogba was a late bloomer in football as well, will you crap on him too?

 

Lukaku is a very good striker, but Costa is a much better player on form. 

Whose crapping on whom?

I am simply calling it as it is. When you are comparing a 27 year old settled striker and a 22 year old massive prospect, you cant begin an argument with "Guy1 has won 2 titles hence he is better than Guy2". How many league titles had henry led monaco to at the age of 22. you cant compare apples to oranges and then say that apples are better because they are redder. Hence i brought up the age component.

Exactly Lukaku is a brilliant player. Costa is better on "FORM". We all saw how poor he was when out of form because most of his general game play is poor. Linking up, aerial ability, creating chances, dribbling, all of these aspects lukaku is much better at. Costa's running behind the defenders and running the channels is second to none, but when he is not scoring, he can be very very frustrating to watch and almost a liability..

[Tomo 21,733]

2 hours ago, chelseafan26 said:

read my post again. you were talking about costa leading 2 teams to league titles. Hence, i brought the age into consideration which is only fair since expecting a 22 year old to lead teams to league titles is not only unfair but also stupid when specially when you spend years on loan at teams like WBA. Understand what was being said rather than jumping to your own conclusions.

Aerial ability, link up play, dribbling, running at defenders. These are the things Lukaku is WAY better than costa. And once again you go out and make unbelievably stupid comparisions and statements. The light years comment was in comparision to their careers at 22. Costa was no where in the picture.

Lukaku has come leaps and bounds in his development, which was expected by most of the match goers. Yes, costa was the better striker 2 years ago but lukaku's development has brought him on the same level as costa and he is just going to get better. But i guess saying messi is better than costa is also grass is greener effect or that mata is ore creative than oscar.

I apologise I misjudged some of it, i confess i did see light years and got the wrong end of the stick but the point is regardless of the age gap, Costa has proven himself at the very top level and Lukaku despite his very impressive goal record hasn't, scoring goals for Everton and West Bromwich makes him a good premier league level goalscorer, he might go to Real/United and get even better and win them titles, but he might equally flop and return to what he's doing now,being a very good level PL scorer.

If you want to compare Lukaku vs Costa when both are done then fine, but right now Costa is the much more proven pegigree if player, hes fired two different teams to titles in the two best leagues in the world, has done well for the most part in the CL (PSG 14/15 aside). Lukaku has so far had two shots at the top level which were with us in 11/12 (briefly again under Jose) and the 2014 World Cup, both of which he made complete dogs dinners out off. Jose is older than AVB, shall we hold off on saying Mou is better because Andre might have 8 league titles and two Champions League's when he is 53? If he does then he will be on level with Jose but right now he isn't, same goes with Romelu and Diego.

Also Lukakus link up play isn't great, it may have improved the last year or so (was hard not too) but Costa is very underrated in link up/decision making department, I can't be bothered to reel endless examples but I'll leave three here that ended in goals, his part in Andre Schurrle goal at The Ethiad last season, Hazards guilt edged chance at the same ground this season and Ramires vs Liverpool.

[chelseafan26 293]

5 hours ago, Tomo said:

 apologise I misjudged some of it, i confess i did see light years and got the wrong end of the stick but the point is regardless of the age gap, Costa has proven himself at the very top level and Lukaku despite his very impressive goal record hasn't, scoring goals for Everton and West Bromwich makes him a good premier league level goalscorer, he might go to Real/United and get even better and win them titles, but he might equally flop and return to what he's doing now,being a very good level PL scorer.

If you want to compare Lukaku vs Costa when both are done then fine, but right now Costa is the much more proven pegigree if player, hes fired two different teams to titles in the two best leagues in the world, has done well for the most part in the CL (PSG 14/15 aside). Lukaku has so far had two shots at the top level which were with us in 11/12 (briefly again under Jose) and the 2014 World Cup, both of which he made complete dogs dinners out off. Jose is older than AVB, shall we hold off on saying Mou is better because Andre might have 8 league titles and two Champions League's when he is 53? If he does then he will be on level with Jose but right now he isn't, same goes with Romelu and Diego.

Also Lukakus link up play isn't great, it may have improved the last year or so (was hard not too) but Costa is very underrated in link up/decision making department, I can't be bothered to reel endless examples but I'll leave three here that ended in goals, his part in Andre Schurrle goal at The Ethiad last season, Hazards guilt edged chance at the same ground this season and Ramires vs Liverpool.

Fair enough mate. Not many people have the etiquettes to accept and apologize. Also, I would like to apologize for my language/content in case i went a little over-board.

Again, fair enough on the AVB example but I have to add something here. Musonda vs Oscar. A 19 year old Rookie vs a proven PL-EL-LC winner. I know oscar is no where near costa's level but I am simply giving a for instance here. I would definitely say that musonda is a better "OPTION". Not saying "Player" but an "Option". The amount of risk we take replacing oscar with a rookie is acceptable for me considering musonda's talent. Similarly, it goes for lukaku. Also, its not a case of "grass is greener", its simply a case where people are wondering of "what might have been". I have never said, i want Lukaku "instead" of costa. But i do wonder how much better off we would be if we had him in the squad currently. Jose managed Lukaku very poorly. I love the man to bits, but by GOD, did he screw this one up. Buying a 33 year old for a season when he re-iterated multiple times that we wont be winning the PL was just suicide. Lukaku should have been Jose no.1 "egg" and should have been shown a lot more faith than starting no matches for the one month he was here. Also, to say, Lukaku got a chance at chelsea is just unfair. a match against fulham in league cup and a couple of minutes as a sub is not a chance. As for 2014 world cup, so did hazard and one of the main disappointment of the world cup was costa himself. Its not the correct stage to judge a 20 year old.

I can match all of those examples with lukaku's too. Costa's link up play leaves a lot to be desired. 5 months, when he was not scoring, he was not doing "ANYTHING". 

[Tomo 21,733]

21 hours ago, chelseafan26 said:

Fair enough mate. Not many people have the etiquettes to accept and apologize. Also, I would like to apologize for my language/content in case i went a little over-board.

Again, fair enough on the AVB example but I have to add something here. Musonda vs Oscar. A 19 year old Rookie vs a proven PL-EL-LC winner. I know oscar is no where near costa's level but I am simply giving a for instance here. I would definitely say that musonda is a better "OPTION". Not saying "Player" but an "Option". The amount of risk we take replacing oscar with a rookie is acceptable for me considering musonda's talent. Similarly, it goes for lukaku. Also, its not a case of "grass is greener", its simply a case where people are wondering of "what might have been". I have never said, i want Lukaku "instead" of costa. But i do wonder how much better off we would be if we had him in the squad currently. Jose managed Lukaku very poorly. I love the man to bits, but by GOD, did he screw this one up. Buying a 33 year old for a season when he re-iterated multiple times that we wont be winning the PL was just suicide. Lukaku should have been Jose no.1 "egg" and should have been shown a lot more faith than starting no matches for the one month he was here. Also, to say, Lukaku got a chance at chelsea is just unfair. a match against fulham in league cup and a couple of minutes as a sub is not a chance. As for 2014 world cup, so did hazard and one of the main disappointment of the world cup was costa himself. Its not the correct stage to judge a 20 year old.

I can match all of those examples with lukaku's too. Costa's link up play leaves a lot to be desired. 5 months, when he was not scoring, he was not doing "ANYTHING". 

Theres no need to apologise honestly, sometimes things can get heated and its nothing compared to what I've seen here before.

With Musonda vs Oscar, it's a bit different compared to Costa as Oscar is more a squad level player, the more appropriate players to use in this instance would be Hazard or Willian, to which I'd still be in favour of those two, if I compared Lukaku to a squad player say Remy in that instance, of course Lukaku even tho the latter is more decorated with his medals in top level.

The way I see it as far as chances go, theirs small chances then a "proper" chance, the small chance is like the audition so to speak, when Lukaku first came he got that coming on against Norwich, got game time away at United, full match vs Fulham, got some game time vs Everton, Arse and Liverpool not long after, he didn't even remotely impress, which is why I use the recent example of Traore, Pato signed January and at that time Bertrand was probably 5th choice, he could have gone out on loan, didn't and has had his "audition's" and has impressed enough to climb to Costa's immediate back up, started the last two league games and was the one called to take his place vs Paris, i really believe there was an opening for Romelu if he impressed Traore style in 2011, after all Romeu broke through under Andre.

The Eto'o signing was a complex but nessesery one, I touched up at the time that it was a pretty tough time for Romelu to be coming through, because all our attacking mids were really young too, I laid my concern's that summer that we were starting to look like Arsenal, we needed some experience to guide them young uns (Torres doesnt count) Samuel gave that, you only need to see how Eden Hazard mentions him to see what an impact he made on young player's. Eto'o gave us the bit of tactical intelligence our youth full attack line needed and truth be told, if he didn't get injured vs Arsenal, I think we would have won the title. Should have probably kept him as a sub option, but it appears he wanted a loan. I know the main thing for that season was build for the next, but their needs to be some sort of balance in the average age, Lukaku as #1 mixed with youthful AMs, lack of experience and would have took its toll.

It would have been good to have Costa and Lukaku here, but Romelu didn't want that, the same way it was good to have Courtois and Cech but Petr didn't want to be on the bench.

[Atholy 1,293]

On 13-3-2016 at 6:49 PM, Tomo said:

Lukaku isn't as good as Costa, Costa has fired two teams to the title in two different league's, Lukaku has proven little in comparison, but hey his goals has fired Everton to 12th so he must be better.

Im happy he has created a decent career for himself, but we have got a better striker and one who in my opinion will be at least as good (who proven more in a Chelsea shirt than Romelu ever did).

What's the use of comparing a 27 year old proven striker to a 22 year old kid?

I can imagine you say, RIGHT NOW, Diego is the better striker of the two (but even then... very close!). But all other things are just b***. If you watch their stats... I think 90% would put there money on Lukaku for having the better career/stats! 

Did you know Romelu has already scored more goals in Europe than Diego? Stunning!