He was only a failure for England because he wasn’t picked.he took a while to settle in, and was a failure for England
I think that's why he isn't rated so highly, but he was quality for us
Lukaku tier 4!!Nah we break the record back then to sign him after his impressive scoring record in Newcastle (41 goals in a season), but he never quite managed to repeat near to that when he was in here. We even sold Hughes to accommodate him here, and let him start most of the games, and bench club legend Solskjaer. But he was frustrating to watch in his first few seasons here, squandering chances after chances (I sometimes wonder Cantona might have double his assists numbers if we don't have Cole up front) He did form a formidable partnership with Yorke though, and improve his overall game in later years though, so I think he did alright overall, but he was never quite near the level of best striker in the league in his time here. He is kind of like Lukaku for us - big price tag, but not what we may have expected, but still top goalscorer for us for a few good seasons, but never quite the best striker in the league.
If we rate our main striker/forward generation by generation in past 30 years (Hughes, Cantona, Cole, Yorke, Ruud, Ronaldo, Rooney, Van Persie, Lukaku), then I'm afraid he would be near the last at the pecking order.
Tier 1: Cantona, Ronaldo
Tier 2: Ruud, Rooney
Tier 3: Hughes, Van Persie, Yorke
Tier 4: Cole, Lukaku
I rate Van Persie and Yorke higher than Cole, even though their time here was short and brief, their impact on our success was bigger. To be fair Cole has about 3 really good seasons with us (especially his partnership with Yorke), but he also has about 3 or 4 bad and disappointing seasons here too.
Nah, goal compilation only show the best and hide the worst. I've watched the whole of Cole career in United, In his first few seasons (94-97), Cole is actually more frustrating to watch than Lukaku. In latter part of his United career (98-00), especially when he forms formidable partnership with Yorke, he improves alot is better player though.Are people really comparing Cole to Lukaku? Go and watch Cole’s goals compilation on YouTube. Some of you were obviously to young to see him live. He was a far better player than Lukaku it’s not even close.
Third highest goal scorer in premier league history. (Without taking penalties) putting Yorke higher than him, and Lukaku on par is laughable.Nah, goal compilation only show the best and hide the worst. I've watched the whole of Cole career in United, In his first few seasons (94-97), Cole is actually more frustrating to watch than Lukaku. In latter part of his United career (98-00), especially when he forms formidable partnership with Yorke, he improves alot is better player though.
Well known that he was moody and a bit of a loner.What was the issue with his personality?
This is the key point for me. Goal scoring comparisons only tell so much. Individual comparisons that is, with Cole the team's overall attack worked better, he was unselfish, moved the ball quickly, keeping the tempo up as you indicate, and outside of Cantona he could play with anyone and adapt his game to their strengths and weaknesses. Smart player despite his erratic finishing. Lukaku is levels below Cole, numbers might say otherwise but there is more to being a quality striker than goals. Cole was a better player at Utd scoring 25 than at Newcastle scoring 40. The Cavani comparion is a decent one in terms of their impact and perception if not in a pure style correlation.Cole could be immensely frustrating at times, but that's where the Lukaku comparisons end. No United fan who is old enough to watch the entirety of Cole's career at United would make technical comparisons with Cole and Lukaku. Cole's linkup play was light years ahead of Romelu. He wouldn't slow a game down; in fact, his quick feet and movement would keep moves going; Lukaku, by comparison halts them.
Absolutely spot on. Everybody seems obsessed with stats these days. I’m convinced half the people posting never seen him play live.This is the key point for me. Goal scoring comparisons only tell so much. Individual comparisons that is, with Cole the team's overall attack worked better, he was unselfish, moved the ball quickly, keeping the tempo up as you indicate, and outside of Cantona he could play with anyone and adapt his game to their strengths and weaknesses. Smart player despite his erratic finishing. Lukaku is levels below Cole, numbers might say otherwise but there is more to being a quality striker than goals. Cole was a better player at Utd scoring 25 than at Newcastle scoring 40. The Cavani comparion is a decent one in terms of their impact and perception if not in a pure style correlation.
RVN was the better player but he was a lot more one dimensional than Cole and ultimately for all their individual exellence that type of player limits the team, forces the others to play to that one player exclusively and brings a certain predictability to the overall style.
Lukaku scored 113 premier league goals in 207 games (7 full seasons), Cole scored 187 premier league goals in 407 games (14 full Premier league seasons). Yes like it or not its comparable so far, just matter of time.Third highest goal scorer in premier league history. (Without taking penalties) putting Yorke higher than him, and Lukaku on par is laughable.
Have you watched Cole play? It’s night and day. He was a better all round player. No comparison.Lukaku scored 113 premier league goals in 207 games (7 full seasons), Cole scored 187 premier league goals in 407 games (14 full Premier league seasons). Yes its comparable so far, just matter of time.
Yes I watched almost all games he played at United. Most frustrating player to watch in his first few years here, with Cantona carrying him. During that period, I think he is comparable to Lukaku, or maybe worst. But improved alot in his later years when he formed formidable partnership with Yorke, but Lukaku only have 2 years here so let's be fair in judgement.Have you watched Cole play? It’s night and day. He was a better all round player. No comparison.
He doesn’t score against big sides. and his general play is shocking. That’s never going to change.Yes I watched almost all games he played at United. Most frustrating player to watch in his first few years here, with Cantona carrying him. During that period, I think he is comparable to Lukaku, or maybe worst. But improved alot in his later years when he formed formidable partnership with Yorke, but Lukaku only have 2 years here so let's be fair in judgement.
If Lukaka stays in United and keep his "poor" rate, I think he will still break Cole's record.
Its exaggerating for humorous effect.What a load of shite.
That’s because there was no humour.Its exaggerating for humorous effect.
Something that is evidently lost on you and a couple of others.
Thats subjective, so irrelevant.That’s because there was no humour.
I must’ve missed the slew of people rolling in the aisles at that one.Thats subjective, so irrelevant.
The unbelievable depth England had up front during his prime. Shearer, Owen, Sheringham, Fowler, Wright, Ferdinand to name but a few. Hoddle wasn't a fan of him either, and once famously said "he needs 4 chances to score"Unfortunately I can’t attest to ever watching him as I was 6 when he left us, but his stats are remarkable.
He had 68 goals in 84 appearances at Newcastle. 121 in 275 for Manchester United.
How the feck did he only get 15 caps for England?!
The vast majority of the criticism around Lukaku is about his all round play and fitness rather than his goal record, other than against the better teams. His goal record is fine but he could be scoring 10 more a season and it still wouldn't change the fact that his technical level is lower than what is needed.Yes I watched almost all games he played at United. Most frustrating player to watch in his first few years here, with Cantona carrying him. During that period, I think he is comparable to Lukaku, or maybe worst. But improved alot in his later years when he formed formidable partnership with Yorke, but Lukaku only have 2 years here so let's be fair in judgement.
If Lukaka stays in United and keep his "poor" rate, I think he will still break Cole's record.
Yes but we are also comparing players of different era under different setup. Cole has the luxuries of having best midfielders (Scholes, Keane, Giggs, Beckham) and best creative players (Cantona etc) in the league supporting him throughout his career, Lukaku doesn't have it. I don't buy that suddenly Cole becomes a great player just because he's from the past, has a decent scoring record (187 goals in 407 games, avg 13-14 league goals per seasons), and we were successful back then. I grew up watching alot of frustrating performances from Cole too. He wasn't rated as highly as other strikers (Shearer, Sheringham, Collymore and Les Ferdinand etc) for a reason back then.The vast majority of he criticism around Lukaku is about his all round play and fitness rather than his goal record, other than against the better teams. His goal record is fine but he could be scoring 10 more a season and it still wouldn't change the fact that his technical level is lower than what is needed.
Cole was not rated as highly as Collymore? Was Collymore highly rated then?Yes but we are also comparing players of different era under different setup. Cole has the luxuries of having best midfielders (Scholes, Keane, Giggs, Beckham) and best creative players (Cantona etc) in the league supporting him throughout his career, Lukaku doesn't have it. I don't buy that suddenly Cole becomes a great player just because he's from the past, has a good scoring record, and we were successful back then. I grew up watching alot of frustrating performances from Cole too. He wasn't rated as highly as other strikers (Shearer, Sheringham, Collymore and Les Ferdinand etc) for a reason back then.
Very, the English Ronaldo was the hype. Strong, quick, 2 footed, great strike of a ball, lovely balance, a great talent who needed nurturing, going to the Liverpool spice boy club probably did not help him.Cole was not rated as highly as Collymore? Was Collymore highly rated then?
Well not exactly if you look at both over their career, Collymore was more promising and talented but then he did have some off-field problems which hindered his career.Cole was not rated as highly as Collymore? Was Collymore highly rated then?
And in a single post, the thread is validated.One of the most frustrating players ever to watch live, not fit to lace Ruud’s boots
I'm sure he'd have got picked more if he was scoring for EnglandHe was only a failure for England because he wasn’t picked.
Tbh his competition was decent - Wright, Shearer, Sheringham, Ferdinand, Fowler etc... but he probably should have played more than he did.
Carrick and Scholes didn't play that much for England. The NT isn't always indication of how good the player is.I'm sure he'd have got picked more if he was scoring for England
Yeah I know, the main reason Cole didn't play much was ShearerCarrick and Scholes didn't play that much for England. The NT isn't always indication of how good the player is.
