This is a very subjective area of football. For years I have regularly heard mitigation for strikers, even at some of the very best teams, not delivering enough goals due to a ‘lack of service’. It has been said of our own £75m (or £90m depending on what you believe) striker this season a number of times.
What is ‘service’? - ‘The repeated delivery of the ball, unopposed, in front of the opponents goal?’ I think strikers, especially expensive ones at top teams, need to do better than this.
I remember growing up watching the PL in the 90s and early 00s and regularly hearing ‘experts’ saying ‘strikers will get 5-8 every season in the 6 yard box’. It seems now, to use a name, say Lukaku is expecting to get 30 there. Football doesn’t work like that. I think with ‘service’, I could get 10 PL goals a season myself.
I must say this is largely inspired by watching Lukaku, but is certainly a wider topic. Chicharito was also discussed similarly. But with Lukaku, he is hard to criticise logically, as he has a great attitude, and typically does what he’s ‘supposed’ to do. The areas where he falls short for me is the ability to do anything he perhaps is not expected to do. When Pogba put him through in the second half yesterday and he got a weak shot on target, that probably wouldn’t count as the creation of a ‘chance’. But to me, it should have been for a top striker. I have thought over the course of the whole season that Lukaku doesn’t have enough shots on target. Perhaps he just isn’t good enough to have enough shots, and largely will get the shots on target that are obvious, which generally won’t happen often enough.
Basically, a top striker cannot be using a lack of service as an excuse if they play for a top 6 team.