Romelu Lukaku

[mediator 2,026]

No. It was Crystal Palace. Also he only played 30 minutes yesterday so 'harmless again' as a statement is pretty harsh, considering he started 6 games and scored 5 + one assist. Memory sure is a biased biatch, innit?

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

[Barbara 15,149]

No. It was Crystal Palace. Also he only played 30 minutes yesterday so 'harmless again' as a statement is pretty harsh, considering he started 6 games and scored 5 + one assist. Memory sure is a biased biatch, innit?

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

I didn't watch the match against Crystal, only the match against Spurs, what I meant was the last match I've watched.

I also watched a couple of Belgium matches in the meanwhile, and if I'm not wrong he started in at least one of them (but I guess both).

I only meant that while he was scoring this topic was very hot and bothered about how the club is stupid, or Mourinho is Maleficent or how Lukaku is Chelsea's savior.

The boy is 20, he's in the middle of his learning curve, he'll score a lot, but he'll also be anonymous at some matches, more likely at Chelsea than at Everton, imo.

That's the only thing I meant, that I don't think the loan was such bad business as pointed for 30 pages here while he was scoring, although the topic went suddenly mum once he didn't for two matches...

I didn't question his quality, he has it, I'm just saying he's showing that he's still a bit inconsistent as he should given his age and there's nothing appalling on our part to have loaned him. Once Benteke got injured and the responsibility in Belgium was his, in the matches I've watched it seemed he felt a bit the pressure, although in his press conferences and other interviews he said he was going to win back the spot he considered his (I guess he was striker before Benteke, or something like that)

and @mediator, if an actual conversation that actually require words and thinking and not only gifs and nonsense is considered trolling now, then some people posting some complaints about quality may have a point.

Let me go back criticize David Luiz or Frank Lampard (although I'm not even criticizing Lukaku, just defending the loan). Haven't received this kind of answer on their threads... unsurprisingly

[Weckerz 3,781]

I didn't watch the match against Crystal, only the match against Spurs, what I meant was the last match I've watched.

I also watched a couple of Belgium matches in the meanwhile, and if I'm not wrong he started in at least one of them (but I guess both).

I only meant that while he was scoring this topic was very hot and bothered about how the club is stupid, or Mourinho is Maleficent or how Lukaku is Chelsea's savior.

The boy is 20, he's in the middle of his learning curve, he'll score a lot, but he'll also be anonymous at some matches, more likely at Chelsea than at Everton, imo.

That's the only thing I meant, that I don't think the loan was such bad business as pointed for 30 pages here while he was scoring, although the topic went suddenly mum once he didn't for two matches...

I didn't question his quality, he has it, I'm just saying he's showing that he's still a bit inconsistent as he should given his age and there's nothing appalling on our part to have loaned him. Once Benteke got injured and the responsibility in Belgium was his, in the matches I've watched it seemed he felt a bit the pressure, although in his press conferences and other interviews he said he was going to win back the spot he considered his (I guess he was striker before Benteke, or something like that)

and @mediator, if an actual conversation that actually require words and thinking and not only gifs and nonsense is considered trolling now, then some people posting some complaints about quality may have a point.

Let me go back criticize David Luiz or Frank Lampard (although I'm not even criticizing Lukaku, just defending the loan). Haven't received this kind of answer on their threads... unsurprisingly

Wether he scores goals right now or not doesn't really matter, the general concensus was, rightly so, that for Lukaku this loan was good business. For Chelsea though, at the time we had 2 missfiring strikers and brought in Eto'o who had played in the Russian league for 2 years. I'm not overly in awe by our strikeforce atm, although they're doing better than I expected in August, I still think we could've used him this season.

[Hamilton 2,120]

Only seen him for 15 mins yesterday, but liked some of his first touches and link up play with the Am's..

[robsblubot 3,530]

I didn't watch the match against Crystal, only the match against Spurs, what I meant was the last match I've watched.

I also watched a couple of Belgium matches in the meanwhile, and if I'm not wrong he started in at least one of them (but I guess both).

I only meant that while he was scoring this topic was very hot and bothered about how the club is stupid, or Mourinho is Maleficent or how Lukaku is Chelsea's savior.

The boy is 20, he's in the middle of his learning curve, he'll score a lot, but he'll also be anonymous at some matches, more likely at Chelsea than at Everton, imo.

That's the only thing I meant, that I don't think the loan was such bad business as pointed for 30 pages here while he was scoring, although the topic went suddenly mum once he didn't for two matches...

I didn't question his quality, he has it, I'm just saying he's showing that he's still a bit inconsistent as he should given his age and there's nothing appalling on our part to have loaned him. Once Benteke got injured and the responsibility in Belgium was his, in the matches I've watched it seemed he felt a bit the pressure, although in his press conferences and other interviews he said he was going to win back the spot he considered his (I guess he was striker before Benteke, or something like that)

and @mediator, if an actual conversation that actually require words and thinking and not only gifs and nonsense is considered trolling now, then some people posting some complaints about quality may have a point.

Let me go back criticize David Luiz or Frank Lampard (although I'm not even criticizing Lukaku, just defending the loan). Haven't received this kind of answer on their threads... unsurprisingly

Completely agree that he does go missing at times. He's so very young after all and that's what happens with youngsters. Oscar used to do that a lot, but now he's been able to become more consistent with (at least) the defensive side of his game.

However, I'd have to say I see no point in having Ba instead of Lukaku. Perhaps Considering Andre can also play striker, I'd say Torres and Lukaku would have been at least just as good as what we have today. Eto has shown signs of life though - he's been very sharp and scoring important goals. I hope that continues, but he's certainly a short-term solution.

TBH, since we have 3 strikers plus Andre, I'm glad Lukaku is at Everton and playing a lot.

WTF at the troll post & gif above... shameful way to make a point.

[Stingray 9,441]

No. It was Crystal Palace. Also he only played 30 minutes yesterday so 'harmless again' as a statement is pretty harsh, considering he started 6 games and scored 5 + one assist. Memory sure is a biased biatch, innit?

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

I didn't watch the match against Crystal, only the match against Spurs, what I meant was the last match I've watched.

I also watched a couple of Belgium matches in the meanwhile, and if I'm not wrong he started in at least one of them (but I guess both).

I only meant that while he was scoring this topic was very hot and bothered about how the club is stupid, or Mourinho is Maleficent or how Lukaku is Chelsea's savior.

The boy is 20, he's in the middle of his learning curve, he'll score a lot, but he'll also be anonymous at some matches, more likely at Chelsea than at Everton, imo.

That's the only thing I meant, that I don't think the loan was such bad business as pointed for 30 pages here while he was scoring, although the topic went suddenly mum once he didn't for two matches...Once Benteke got injured and the responsibility in Belgium was his, in the matches I've watched it seemed he felt a bit the pressure, although in his press conferences and other interviews he said he was going to win back the spot.

and @mediator, if an actual conversation that actually require words and thinking and not only gifs and nonsense is considered trolling now, then some people posting some complaints about quality may have a point.

Let me go back criticize David Luiz or Frank Lampard (although I'm not even criticizing Lukaku, just defending the loan). Haven't received this kind of answer on their threads... unsurprisingly

Well, he started against Croatia and Wales. Scoring two goals against Croatia and securing a world cup qualification. Against Wales, no goals - but thats hardly an issue, right?

On behalf of the gifs. They are not the problem of frustration on this forum. The quality difference in posters between now and last year is the problem apparantly (i do NOT mean you to be clear - though my jimmies get rustled because in pretty much every reply to a rebuttal you don't seem to mean it 'that way'. Maybe that is where Meciators gif came from. I don't know: pm him and ask)

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

[Barbara 15,149]

Completely agree that he does go missing at times. He's so very young after all and that's what happens with youngsters. Oscar used to do that a lot, but now he's been able to become more consistent with (at least) the defensive side of his game.

However, I'd have to say I see no point in having Ba instead of Lukaku. Perhaps Considering Andre can also play striker, I'd say Torres and Lukaku would have been at least just as good as what we have today. Eto has shown signs of life though - he's been very sharp and scoring important goals. I hope that continues, but he's certainly a short-term solution.

TBH, since we have 3 strikers plus Andre, I'm glad Lukaku is at Everton and playing a lot.

WTF at the troll post & gif above... shameful way to make a point.

but I guess the mother of all problems was that no one wanted Ba but Arsenal and the club wouldn't loan him to Arses...

I'm the first to say Lukaku >>>> Ba, but can you imagine how much game play Romelu would get if we kept the four strikers?

I also agree on Eto'o being short-term, but Lukaku absence is only short-term too imo. I'm positive he'll stay with us next season and he'll be more mature, more tested, and better technically, so chances are he'll fight for his place in the team. He could be what Torres or Eto'o are right now. Alternating matches between mid-week and weekend. I think he needed to mature more to be able to handle the pressure at Stamford Bridge. A lot has been said about our striker force since Didier left and there's a huge amount of pressure that I felt like he would feel a lot. In addition to the pressure there's the technical aspect that he also needs to improve. If he had stayed (along with Ba) his situation would probably be worse than Kevin's or at most the same thing. Kevin's already disheartening as it is.

and thanks for addressing the troll gif above. I really appreciate it.

Wether he scores goals right now or not doesn't really matter, the general concensus was, rightly so, that for Lukaku this loan was good business. For Chelsea though, at the time we had 2 missfiring strikers and brought in Eto'o who had played in the Russian league for 2 years. I'm not overly in awe by our strikeforce atm, although they're doing better than I expected in August, I still think we could've used him this season.

But maybe the pressure would affect his game, we don't know that. I treat those young talents very carefully. Why expose the boy to unnecessary pressure? Let's have Torres and Eto'o handle it, not the 20yo. He has a lot to learn even technically, the better place for him to do that is where he'll deal with less pressure.

[sutro 1,026]

but I guess the mother of all problems was that no one wanted Ba but Arsenal and the club wouldn't loan him to Arses...

I'm the first to say Lukaku >>>> Ba, but can you imagine how much game play Romelu would get if we kept the four strikers?

I also agree on Eto'o being short-term, but Lukaku absence is only short-term too imo. I'm positive he'll stay with us next season and he'll be more mature, more tested, and better technically, so chances are he'll fight for his place in the team. He could be what Torres or Eto'o are right now. Alternating matches between mid-week and weekend. I think he needed to mature more to be able to handle the pressure at Stamford Bridge. A lot has been said about our striker force since Didier left and there's a huge amount of pressure that I felt like he would feel a lot. In addition to the pressure there's the technical aspect that he also needs to improve. If he had stayed (along with Ba) his situation would probably be worse than Kevin's or at most the same thing. Kevin's already disheartening as it is.

Tbh, im glad we loaned Lukaku instead of Ba.

If you look at the gametime Ba gets, and im not that sure it would be much different for romelu if he stayed

[Barbara 15,149]

Well, he started against Croatia and Wales. Scoring two goals against Croatia and securing a world cup qualification. Against Wales, no goals - but thats hardly an issue, right?

On behalf of the gifs. They are not the problem of frustration on this forum. The quality difference in posters between now and last year is the problem apparantly (i do NOT mean you to be clear - though my jimmies get rustled because in pretty much every reply to a rebuttal you don't seem to mean it 'that way'. Maybe that is where Meciators gif came from. I don't know: pm him and ask)

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

I was actually trying to discuss something, not to take a jab and I felt the trolling comment was uncalled for - whether in gif form or words form. But as he didn't bother to try to discuss or say I was wrong and accused me of trolling and I was WTF?!?! The lack of quality is his answer is so ridiculous that I had to answer to it. When I said gifs and nonsense, the nonsense part was supposed to cover written answers, even if they're ridiculous as his answer.

Also, my memory that while crappy isn't as selective as implied, is good enough to let me know the loan was criticized universally here, not only by Belgians. So the fact that I said as time passes I still get the idea the loan was good for both Chelsea and Lukaku, I didn't mean it was Belgians defending him because it wasn't. That's something maybe you and G. thought I meant, but I didn't because if you check the posts after the loan you'll see it was universal except for a few people who thought the loan was good (some of which Belgians too). So that's the problem, maybe people are reading too much into others' words because they expect some kind of behavior or opinion that isn't there.

Tbh, im glad we loaned Lukaku instead of Ba.

If you look at the gametime Ba gets, and im not that sure it would be much different for romelu if he stayed

imo it's good for Lukaku and good for Chelsea, but I wanted Ba out of the team because I feel he never fit. But you do have a point, he would have very few matches and it wouldn't help him as much as being at Everton does. Again, I support the loan, even if he's better than Ba.

@Robguima, I added a comment to my previous post, after you liked it (so maybe you didn't read it) and I really appreciate what you did, so I'm mentioning you again.

[Stingray 9,441]

I was actually trying to discuss something, not to take a jab and I felt the trolling comment was uncalled for - whether in gif form or words form. But as he didn't bother to try to discuss or say I was wrong and accused me of trolling and I was WTF?!?! The lack of quality is his answer is so ridiculous that I had to answer to it. When I said gifs and nonsense, the nonsense part was supposed to cover written answers, even if they're ridiculous as his answer.

thats between you and him.

Also, my memory that while crappy isn't as selective as implied, is good enough to let me know the loan was criticized universally here, not only by Belgians. So the fact that I said as time passes I still get the idea the loan was good for both Chelsea and Lukaku, I didn't mean it was Belgians defending him because it wasn't.

My comment was never on this. It was about you positioning the hypotheses lukaku wasn't scoring - had a jinx after his comments. Factually, that was a bit off. Before or after jinxes.

That's something maybe you and G. thought I meant, but I didn't because if oyu check the posts after the loan you'll see it was universal except for a few people who thought the loan was good (some of which Belgians too).

I have no clue who G is, really. Sorry ...

So that's the problem, maybe people are reading too much into others' words because they expect some kind of behavior or opinion that isn't there.

Yes B! And it is a universal problem.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

[Reddish-Blue 2,355]

Will be good to see Lukaku back at Chelsea at the start of next season.

[bushman 2,043]

I know, rumors should not be taken seriously. However, today´s rumor talks about Lukaku.

What long-term plans are for Lukaku by Jose ?

According to some reports, 25m plus is his asking price. I believe, teams like Real, PSG, Citeh, even Monaco would pay it, happily.

Let´s assume, Falcao is bought in January, what are Lukaku´s chances to play for Chelsea, then ?

[ParNolio7 285]

I only meant that while he was scoring this topic was very hot and bothered about how the club is stupid, or Mourinho is Maleficent or how Lukaku is Chelsea's savior. The boy is 20, he's in the middle of his learning curve, he'll score a lot, but he'll also be anonymous at some matches, more likely at Chelsea than at Everton, imo. That's the only thing I meant, that I don't think the loan was such bad business as pointed for 30 pages here while he was scoring, although the topic went suddenly mum once he didn't for two matches... I didn't question his quality, he has it, I'm just saying he's showing that he's still a bit inconsistent as he should given his age and there's nothing appalling on our part to have loaned him. Once Benteke got injured and the responsibility in Belgium was his, in the matches I've watched it seemed he felt a bit the pressure, although in his press conferences and other interviews he said he was going to win back the spot he considered his (I guess he was striker before Benteke, or something like that)

Once again, Barbara is absolutely right about everything.

When Mourinho goes, I vote for Barbara as replacement! (not kidding ;-))

> In short Lukaku (imo) remains too inconsistent to be important for Chelsea. But I don't think age has a lot do with it, don't forget that he's already been playing first team football since the age of 16 so he has more experience than a lot of 23-year olds. It's just the way he plays, a bit rough in the technical department (a problem if you want to play for Chelsea) but always a menace due to his uncomparable strength, pace and - most importantly - his unbreakable will to improve himself and succeed wherever whenever. So I value him as a massive player, just don't think he's a good match with Chelsea. Ideally you play him in a 4-4-2 with a more technical, controlling striker beside him, who just needs to launch him towards goal. That's where he's best at.

[bushman 2,043]

I can´t believe someone would say Lukaku is rough in technical department.

How many goals does he need to score for some of you to wake up & judge him on it.

LUKAKU = STRIKER = scores goals.

[zolayes 14,489]

not going to speculate ,, just have to wait till next season to hopefully see Lukaku starting for US

[BlueLyon 9,359]

I see two things;

1.) Lukaku is 20 yrs old and has plenty of time. Who knows, maybe he will explode at age 25?? Give the kid time

2.) At the moment he isnt ready for Chelsea and as long he wont be ready, he wont play regular here. That means, he will either go on loans for few more seasons or get side chances here in less important games. Chelsea isnt the proper club for his development at all. Mourinho wont play him ahead of more experienced players (abd

[The only place to be 11,313]

2.) At the moment he isnt ready for Chelsea

In what way?

We must be the only club who could say that a striker who has scored the same number of goals as Rooney and Giroud 'isn't ready'. At some point the club has to have the balls to give youngsters a chance but there's a fear and that seems to emanate from a certain section of the support.

[BlueLyon 9,359]

I see three things;

1.) Lukaku is 20 yrs old and has plenty of time. Who knows, maybe he will explode at age 25?? Give the kid time.

2.) At the moment he isnt ready for Chelsea and as long he wont be ready, he wont play regular here. That means, he will either go on loans for few more seasons or get side chances here in less important games. Chelsea isnt the proper club for his development at all. Mourinho wont play him ahead of more experienced strikers.

3.) Lukaku scores goals for West Brom. Everton. Belgium. But he doesnt score them for Chelsea (yet, he got little chance). That is major difference. We all know Ba scored goals for nufc, Torres scored for Lpool. They dont do it here. As long Lukaku is banging goals for Everton, that means little for Chelsea. He will need to score goals for us, nothing else will matter. And the biggest trick will be to handle pressure.

Atm, he is better than other 20yrs old strikers, he is goalscoring machine in mid club(s). But he isnt ready to be main man at Chelsea. Not yet. Simple as that. He doesnt have experience nor tactical sense to fit Mourinho. But he has talent and belongs to Chelsea. Lets hope it works out.