Romelu Lukaku image 9

Romelu Lukaku Belgium flag

2017-18 Performances


View full 2017-18 profile

6.1 Season Average Rating
Appearances
51
Goals
27
Assists
10
Yellow cards
3
Status
Not open for further replies.
Our biggest problem last season was not being able to beat the smaller teams in tight games. This season we're in 2nd in large part because we don't have that issue any more. If his goal record was built up by scoring a bunch of hat tricks in 5-0 wins then I would understand your point, but that isn't what's happening. His record is:

Madrid - scored to make it 1-2
West Ham - scored to make it 1-0 and 2-0
Lukaku - scored to make it 2-0
Stoke - scored to make it 2-1
Basel - scored to make it 2-0
Everton - scored to make it 3-0
Southampton - scored to make it 1-0
CSKA - scored to make it 1-0 and 3-0
Crystal Palace - scored to make it 4-0
Newcastle - scored to make it 4-1
Bourenmouth - scored to make it 1-0
CSKA - scored to make it 1-1
West Brom - scored to make it 1-0
Derby - scored to make it 2-0
Stoke - scored to make it 3-0
Yeovil - scored to make it 4-0
Huddersfield - scored to make it 1-0
Huddersfield - scored to make it 1-0 and 2-0

So that's 9 opening, equalising or winning goals, 6 goals to give us some breathing room at 2-0, 5 goals which were inconsequential at 3+ goals up, and 1 consolation goal against Madrid.

Compare that to Kane this season...

Everton - scored to make it 1-0 and 3-0
Dortmund - scored to make it 2-1 and 3-1
West Ham - scored to make it 1-0 and 2-0
Apoel - scored to make it 1-0, 2-0 and 3-0
Huddersfield - scored to make it 1-0 and 3-0
Liverpool - scored to make it 1-0 and 4-1
Dortmund - scored to make it 1-1
West Brom - scored to make it 1-1
Leicester - scored to make it 1-2
Stoke - scored to make it 3-0 and 4-0
Burnley - scored to make it 1-0, 2-0 and 3-0
Southampton - scored to make it 1-0, 2-0 and 5-1
Wimbledon - scored to make it 1-0 and 2-0
Everton - scored to make it 2-0 and 3-0
Southampton - scored to make it 1-1
Newport - scored to make it 1-1
Liverpool - scored to make it 2-2
Arsenal - scored to make it 1-0
Juventus - scored to make it 1-2
Rochdale - scored to make it 2-1

So that's 16 opening, equalising or winning goals, 7 goals to give them some breathing room at 2-0, 8 goals which were inconsequential at 3+ goals up, and 1 consolation goal against Leicester.

And finally compare that to Ronaldo in 07/08, at the same point in the season...

Sporting - scored to make it 1-0
Birmingham - scored to make it 1-0
Wigan - scored to make it 2-0 and 3-0
Dynamo Kyiv - scored to make it 3-1 and 4-1
Arsenal - scored to make it 2-1
Dynamo Kyiv - scored to make it 4-0
Blackburn - scored to make it 1-0 and 2-0
Sporting - scored to make it 2-1
Fulham - scored to make it 1-0 and 2-0
Everton - scored to make it 1-0 and 2-1
Sunderland - scored to make it 3-0
West Ham - scored to make it 1-0
Newcastle - scored to make it 1-0, 3-0 and 5-0
Reading - scored to make it 2-0
Portsmouth - scored to make it 1-0 and 2-0
Newcastle - scored to make it 2-0 and 3-0

So that's 11 opening, equalising or winning goals, 7 goals to give us some breathing room at 2-0 and 7 goals which were inconsequential at 3+ goals up.

So I think it's fair to say that Lukaku isn't quite up to either Kane or Ronaldo's level in terms of output, in terms of being a pure matchwinner, but everything after that is exceedingly high expectations.

When Ronaldo was the best player in the world he had managed just 1 goal in a big game against Arsenal at this stage. In reality scoring goals in big games is hard for every player. Expecting them to excel in these games is just expecting too much, really.

Once you establish that, the idea that he's a flat track bully falls flat on its face. Because Ronaldo wasn't a flat track bully. Yet Lukaku's distribution of goals is actually very similar to Ronaldo's in terms of winning points and the types of teams he scores again. He's just less prolific. Which I think we can accept given this is being compared against the most prolific season in United's history.
Yes lukaku has scored a decent amount of goals and generally, his output against the rest of the league has been good, as you would expect of a striker in the system we play. I'm not saying that part is disappointing, and generally not even the performances against those teams. Its the vast gap in both performances and his output against anyone decent. Of course, as you say, big games are always harder and it's dumb to expect anyone to score in them regularly or even perform in them regularly. Those who do are seen as the best players in the world typically.

The problem with Lukaku is just how bad he tends to play in them. I do think a large part of it is due to the system we play in these games, and as we see with Sanchez as well, Mourinho's style makes it nigh on impossible for anyone to play well sometimes, no matter how good they are. But these players at least show glimpses of their quality. Lukaku doesn't have the talent for me to perform in those games. Balls bounce off of him, he can't ever hold it up, and wanting him to create something out of nothing for himself or somebody elsewould be pretty hopeless as well. Everyone talks about service, but in the biggest games, to be one of the best, you want your striker to be capable of occasionally dragging you out of the mud with a moment of magic. Lukaku can't do that. I've said before he is a decent striker and in a typical Sir Alex side, he would probably just be a squad player or somebody who was used like Berba was. Against most teams, but then dropped in the bigger games to get a more complete all around team that can handle those games, because lukaku is useless in them. And that's my issue with him. He isn't good enough to have the status he has at the club, playing every single minute, never even being considered for rotation, never dropped even when out of form or playing games that doesn't suit him, never subbed out when playing poorly, and that's just because he's "big" so Mourinho uses him.

People might say it's harsh for me to compare him to our great strikers under Sir Alex, but that is what's needed at United to become an undisputed starting striker, especially in a one up top system when hes supposed to be the main man. Hughes, cantona, Yorke, Cole, van nistelrooy, Rooney, saha in 06/07, tevez in 07/08, van Persie... all talented strikers who also performed in the big games and played a large part in them, not only through their goals but also their overall performances. Everyone else was basically droppable based on who we played or if they were out of form. And it's not like we don't have options now... Sanchez showed he can score 30 goals playing as a striker for Arsenal last season, martial has shown his quality there often and potentially that might be his best position anyway, and then obviously Rashford as well who has huge potential there.

Like I said, I accept Lukaku has done well against the bottom half of the league. He's severely lacking against anyone decent though and the same issues come up every single big game. Can't hold up the ball. Can't battle in the air properly despite his size. Doesn't make enough or the right runs. Doesn't do anything special once he does get the ball to relieve some pressure. Is that really what you want from a striker you paid £75m for at 24/25 years of age to be your main striker for the next 5/6 years? Someone who can't perform in big games and becomes a liability in them? It's not just about the goals (which are woeful in those games). Its about how his overall game which is the bigger issue for me and has been since before he signed for United. He's a good player, but just not good enough for the level we want to reach basically. Just like Conte quickly realized Morata isn't good enough to be the main striker and Wenger realized Lacazette isn't good enough for that either. Lukaku has a much better goal record and is better then them, but still not there and it's evident in any big game.
 
RVP isn't. His only memorable contributions was hat trick in Moyes season.

Before that he missed easy chances against Madrid, and also some easy chances against Milan when Arsenal nearly came back from 3-0 or 4-0 down in first leg.

RVP missed some very easy chances and people remember only good moments from him.
While I disagree that that chance would've been bread and butter for anyone (a volley over your shoulder like that is never that, would be been a fantastic goal if it came off), all strikers can miss chances and whatever else. What is more important in those games are the overall performances. Van Persie showed his class in those big games, not necessarily through his goals but his performances. You say he missed a chance in that Madrid game? He was also probably the best played on the pitch and played tremendously to make so many chances for himself and everyone else, the way he held up the ball to relieve pressure, how he used his body to bring down the occasional long ball, how he used his skill on the ball to make openings and get some momentum for us. Its not all about just being clinical. Get enough chances and finishing will usually average out as expected. Its just the lukaku can't make chances for himself or anyone else in those games, and his lack of ability makes it hard for us to get any sort of momentum in those games to actually get on the ball and turn the opposition so they don't sustain pressure on us so much.
 
Yes lukaku has scored a decent amount of goals and generally, his output against the rest of the league has been good, as you would expect of a striker in the system we play. I'm not saying that part is disappointing, and generally not even the performances against those teams. Its the vast gap in both performances and his output against anyone decent. Of course, as you say, big games are always harder and it's dumb to expect anyone to score in them regularly or even perform in them regularly. Those who do are seen as the best players in the world typically.

The problem with Lukaku is just how bad he tends to play in them. I do think a large part of it is due to the system we play in these games, and as we see with Sanchez as well, Mourinho's style makes it nigh on impossible for anyone to play well sometimes, no matter how good they are. But these players at least show glimpses of their quality. Lukaku doesn't have the talent for me to perform in those games. Balls bounce off of him, he can't ever hold it up, and wanting him to create something out of nothing for himself or somebody elsewould be pretty hopeless as well. Everyone talks about service, but in the biggest games, to be one of the best, you want your striker to be capable of occasionally dragging you out of the mud with a moment of magic. Lukaku can't do that. I've said before he is a decent striker and in a typical Sir Alex side, he would probably just be a squad player or somebody who was used like Berba was. Against most teams, but then dropped in the bigger games to get a more complete all around team that can handle those games, because lukaku is useless in them. And that's my issue with him. He isn't good enough to have the status he has at the club, playing every single minute, never even being considered for rotation, never dropped even when out of form or playing games that doesn't suit him, never subbed out when playing poorly, and that's just because he's "big" so Mourinho uses him.

People might say it's harsh for me to compare him to our great strikers under Sir Alex, but that is what's needed at United to become an undisputed starting striker, especially in a one up top system when hes supposed to be the main man. Hughes, cantona, Yorke, Cole, van nistelrooy, Rooney, saha in 06/07, tevez in 07/08, van Persie... all talented strikers who also performed in the big games and played a large part in them, not only through their goals but also their overall performances. Everyone else was basically droppable based on who we played or if they were out of form. And it's not like we don't have options now... Sanchez showed he can score 30 goals playing as a striker for Arsenal last season, martial has shown his quality there often and potentially that might be his best position anyway, and then obviously Rashford as well who has huge potential there.

Like I said, I accept Lukaku has done well against the bottom half of the league. He's severely lacking against anyone decent though and the same issues come up every single big game. Can't hold up the ball. Can't battle in the air properly despite his size. Doesn't make enough or the right runs. Doesn't do anything special once he does get the ball to relieve some pressure. Is that really what you want from a striker you paid £75m for at 24/25 years of age to be your main striker for the next 5/6 years? Someone who can't perform in big games and becomes a liability in them? It's not just about the goals (which are woeful in those games). Its about how his overall game which is the bigger issue for me and has been since before he signed for United. He's a good player, but just not good enough for the level we want to reach basically. Just like Conte quickly realized Morata isn't good enough to be the main striker and Wenger realized Lacazette isn't good enough for that either. Lukaku has a much better goal record and is better then them, but still not there and it's evident in any big game.

Lukaku doesn't have the talent to perform in in big games, irrespective of goals? Did I imagine his through ball for Lingard's goal against Arsenal? I suppose it just bounced off his head unintentionally against Spurs.

He's only good against the bottom half of the league? Here he is playing Mkhitaryan through on goal against 9th placed Everton, and Martial through on goal against 8th placed Leicester and 7th placed Burnley. Here he is putting Jesse through against Leicester too. So really what you're talking about is his inability to perform in those elite games. Which I think is fair. He hasn't been great in the big games, at United or Everton. The question is whether the other strikers you're comparing him to really where.

Hughes, Cantona, Yorke, Cole, van Nistelrooy, Rooney, Saha, Tevez, Van Persie...that endless list of strikers that always showed up in big games. Let's take a look at how many goals some of them scored in those big games, in their best seasons here.
  • Saha in 06/07 played against AC Milan, Roma, Liverpool (2), Arsenal (2), Spurs (2) and Chelsea. He scored 1 goal.
  • Cole's highest scoring PL season was in 99/00 when the biggest teams he played against Arsenal (2), Leeds (2) and Madrid (2). He scored in just 1 in those 6 games. In his highest scoring overall season, 97/98, the biggest teams he played against were Arsenal (2), Liverpool (2) and Monaco (2). Again he scored in just 1 of those 6 games. Either side of 98/99, he failed to score in our only knockout round European tie. The Andy Cole you're thinking of is in 98/99 when everything came together. There's a reason why comparing him to Lukaku in his first season, in a defensive team, is "unfair".
  • Mark Hughes' highest scoring season was in 93/94, when he scored 22 goals - just one less than Lukaku now. He didn't manage a single goal in his six games against the rest of the top four - Blackburn, Newcastle and Arsenal.
So yes, Lukaku doesn't compare very well to the mythology of United's great strikers. Andy Cole, Mark Hughes, Louis Saha, Carlos Tevez, Dwight Yorke, Robin van Persie...they all had worse seasons than Lukaku this season. Unquestionably. Tevez managed a grand total of 5 league goals in his 2nd season with us!

Let's add up the total number of games all of those players had at United. 99 games for Tevez. 105 for van Persie. 124 for Saha. 147 for Dwight Yorke. 219 for Ruud. 275 for Andy Cole. 352 for Hughes. Lukaku has played 39 games, and almost all of them are fresh in your memory.

Over the course of their careers you can pick and choose times when they were better - Yorke and Cole in 98/99, van Persie in 12/13, Tevez in 07/08, Mark Hughes in Barcelona, Saha...probably never. But over the course of their careers they had peaks and troughs. You've decided in a season when he's set to outscore Andy Cole, Louis Saha, Mark Hughes and Carlos Tevez in their highest scoring seasons, that Lukaku isn't up to that level.

There's a reason that's not a "fair" comparison. Did you even watch Andy Cole in his first 3 seasons, when he managed a grand total of 33 goals? It's a bit of a stretch, but Lukaku might do that in one season. His first season. Yet that version of Cole doesn't factor into your view of him. We were both kids when that was happening, and there wasn't many memorable moments that would fit on a highlight reel...so why would it factor into our views? Andy Cole, the most expensive player in the league at that point, was being described as nervous. At the same time Mark Hughes was on the brink of being shipped out.

Gary Lineker in 1995 said:
So where do Manchester United go from here? Just a week ago I was speculating as to whether Mark Hughes or Andy Cole would be a better foil for Cantona. But a week in football is an awfully long time, and fate has handed Hughes an unexpected lifeline – and maybe even a longer contract. With Hughes currently injured and Cantona suspended, the pressure on Cole to maintain United’s challenge for the championship will become even greater.

Cole has made a slightly nervous start to his Old Trafford career. I have, though, been impressed with his movement, acceleration and ability to get between defenders, which always creates confusion in any back-line. Missing goalscoring opportunities is, I feel, less preoccupying for a striker than not being in the position to miss them in the first place. With all the headlines and speculation now centering on Cantona, Cole will, perhaps, switch quietly if not totally unnoticed into goal-scoring mode.

The following season he managed just 13 goals in 42 games. He didn't switch into goalscoring mode at all. In fact rather than switching quietly into goalscoring mode, he was almost quietly shipped off the following season. The Independent barely passed comment on Andy Cole being linked to 6th placed Everton in the summer of '96.

The Independent in 1996 said:
Shearer's departure is likely to ignite another major round of spending as Blackburn seek to replace him and Manchester United look elsewhere. United completed their signing of Czech international Karel Poborsky from Slavia Prague, in a four-year deal worth pounds 3.5m, and also inquired about the availability of Patrick Kluivert, Ajax's Dutch international forward.

Kluivert is available at the right price, which in an English auction may reach over pounds 7m, as Ajax fear he will go for nothing at the end of next season to Italy when his contract expires.

If Kluivert joins United, Andy Cole is likely to leave. Everton had agreed in principle a pounds 4.5m fee with United if Shearer had signed and sources close to the Goodison club suggested that they will wait for Cole before looking elsewhere

Long story short, your idea of how good our strikers were in a "typical" Sir Alex side doesn't actually fit that well with reality. Many of those strikers had better seasons than Lukaku, playing in better, more free-flowing teams. Many of them also had worse seasons than Lukaku, playing in better, more free-flowing teams. You're just thinking about the best versions of them.
 
Last edited:
Lukaku doesn't have the talent to perform in in big games, irrespective of goals? Did I imagine his through ball for Lingard's goal against Arsenal?

He's only good against the bottom half of the league? Here he is playing Mkhitaryan through on goal against 9th placed Everton, and Martial through on goal against 8th placed Leicester and 7th placed Burnley. Here he is putting Jesse through against Leicester too. So really what you're talking about is his inability to perform in those elite games. Which I think is fair. He hasn't been great in the big games, at United or Everton. The question is whether the other strikers you're comparing him to really where.

Hughes, Cantona, Yorke, Cole, van Nistelrooy, Rooney, Saha, Tevez, Van Persie...that endless list of strikers that always showed up in big games. Let's take a look at how many goals some of them scored in those big games, in their best seasons here.
  • Saha in 06/07 played against AC Milan, Roma, Liverpool (2), Arsenal (2), Spurs (2) and Chelsea. He scored 1 goal.
  • Cole's highest scoring PL season was in 99/00 when the biggest teams he played against Arsenal (2), Leeds (2) and Madrid (2). He scored in just 1 in those 6 games. In his highest scoring overall season, 97/98, the biggest teams he played against were Arsenal (2), Liverpool (2) and Monaco (2). Again he scored in just 1 of those 6 games. Either side of 98/99, he failed to score in our only knockout round European tie. The Andy Cole you're thinking of is in 98/99 when everything came together. There's a reason why comparing him to Lukaku in his first season, in a defensive team, is "unfair".
  • Mark Hughes' highest scoring season was in 93/94, when he scored 22 goals - just one less than Lukaku now. He didn't manage a single goal in his six games against the rest of the top four - Blackburn, Newcastle and Arsenal.
So yes, Lukaku doesn't compare very well to the mythology of United's great strikers. Andy Cole, Mark Hughes, Louis Saha, Carlos Tevez, Dwight Yorke, Robin van Persie...they all had worse seasons than Lukaku this season. Unquestionably. Tevez managed a grand total of 5 league goals in his 2nd season with us!

Let's add up the total number of games all of those players had at United. 99 games for Tevez. 105 for van Persie. 124 for Saha. 147 for Dwight Yorke. 219 for Ruud. 275 for Andy Cole. 352 for Hughes. Lukaku has played 39 games, and almost all of them are fresh in your memory.

Over the course of their careers you can pick and choose times when they were better - Yorke and Cole in 98/99, van Persie in 12/13, Tevez in 07/08, Mark Hughes in Barcelona, Saha...probably never. But over the course of their careers they had peaks and troughs. You've decided in a season when he's set to outscore Andy Cole, Louis Saha, Mark Hughes and Carlos Tevez in their highest scoring seasons, that Lukaku isn't up to that level.

There's a reason that's not a "fair" comparison. Did you even watch Andy Cole in his first 3 seasons, when he managed a grand total of 33 goals? It's a bit of a stretch, but Lukaku might do that in one season. His first season. Yet that version of Cole doesn't factor into your view of him. We were both kids when that was happening, and there wasn't many memorable moments that would fit on a highlight reel...so why would it factor into our views? Andy Cole, the most expensive player in the league at that point, was being described as nervous. At the same time Mark Hughes was on the brink of being shipped out.



The following season he managed just 13 goals in 42 games. He didn't switch into goalscoring mode at all. In fact rather than switching quietly into goalscoring mode, he was almost quietly shipped off the following season. The Independent barely passed comment on Andy Cole being linked to 6th placed Everton in the summer of '96.



Long story short, your idea of how good our strikers were in a "typical" Sir Alex side doesn't actually fit that well with reality. Many of those strikers had better seasons than Lukaku, playing in better, more free-flowing teams. Many of them also had worse seasons than Lukaku, playing in better, more free-flowing teams. You're just thinking about the best versions of them.
A lot of that is fair, but you're focusing too much on how many goals they've scored. When I mention those players, obviously you think of them at their best, and obviously recency bias is a real thing, but I'm not talking about the amount of goals they've scored, and what I'm focusing on is the times we've been satisfied with our strikers and not looking to improve them. So when I say "looking back to our strikers under Sir Alex", what use is it bringing up seasons where we then tried to replace them because they didn't look good enough? You can have a poacher who absorbs most of the chances and will be by far your leading goalscorer, or you can have a striker like Liverpool have in Firmino who is all build up play and will create space for everyone else to score and spread goals all around the attack (and there is obviously a lot of strikers in between which is generally the area that Sir Alex always looked for, strikers that both scored but also could have a big impact on the game). Is it better to have a striker like Rooney who only twice managed over 30 goals and got around 20 or less in pretty much every other season (or maybe 23 one other time), but one who created loads of space and had a huge impact on games and enabled us to spread goals all around the team, or a striker like Mario Gomez who scored in 5 years between 07/08 and 11/12 scored 28, 35, 14 (first season in bayern), 39 and 41 goals, but with all the chances falling to him while he had little impact on the rest of the game that occurred outside of the box. Why is Lewandowski seen as streets ahead of Aubameyang despite them having a similar output over the last few years?

Lukaku can go ahead and score 40 goals a season. Until his actual play (ignoring the goals) improves and he starts having a positive impact in big games (and yeah, I don't mean Burnley or Everton or Leicester who are marginally ahead of the bottom half and will constantly rotate around because the bottom 14 teams in the league are all pretty tight), then my opinion about him won't change. We can get a striker who might score less individually but would be of much greater help to the team as a whole because they would influence the game more, probably spread more chances to everyone else, help us control games more with better hold up play and just be of greater help to the team overall, despite scoring less individually. That was what many feared before signing him. Few, if anyone, was worried about him scoring close to 30 goals throughout a full season for us. If you're playing as a lone striker, and you play pretty much every game for a top team (injury free) with goalscoring being by far the main aspect of your game (i.e., being mainly a poacher), then it'd be a complete flop of a season not scoring 30 goals IMO. All those strikers we had in the past might not have been as consistent in how many goals they scored, but we did always play with 2 up top and they formed great partnerships with both players impacting the games and not just being all about goalscoring. Rooney only scored 20 or more goals in all competitions twice in seasons that we actually won something of note. 06/07 he scored 23, and 08/09 he scored 20. Ronaldo scored 23 and 26 goals in those 2 seasons. The goals and chances were just evenly spread out throughout the team because they were all better all around players so it didn't matter if the goals weren't all being scored by one striker. The way Mourinho plays, the bulk of the chances will go to the front 3. That's why Lingard, Martial and Rashford all have around 10-15 each, but obviously the main being Lukaku on 20 seeing as he plays most minutes in every competition as the lone striker, and only rarely rotated against lower league opposition.

But basically - if Lukaku doesn't score, he rarely impacts the game. That's just the type of player he is. OK there are certain games here and there where he has played well against the rest of the teams in the league where he hasn't scored, but those games aren't the issue. The issue is him in the big games. Pretty much the only thing he can offer us in those games is goals because of the type of player that he is. In his career until now, he hasn't shown that he can perform well in those games (not including the 5-5 on the last day of the 12/13 season when he scored a hat trick... because that was little more then an exhibition). For us specifically, he has failed to hold up the ball in those games, he has failed to link up with our other players, and he has failed to create chances for himself. People talk about service and he's feeding off scraps... He needs to do better with those long balls. He needs to do better with the passes we play up to him. The ball has to stick to him, not all the time, but a lot more then right now so he can hold it up, bring our other players into play and we can get some counter attacking momentum. Whether it's through him simply controlling the ball better, or being more aware and having better movement to get himself into space to receive the ball more often, you can't deny that the opposition close him down too easily in those games and it just leads to us being penned into our own half.

The Arsenal clip is a good example of the one time he has actually managed to have a good game in a big game, and the one game where we were actually a threat on the counter. Didn't score, but linked up well and held the ball up decently well, created space and openings for lingard and Martial. Didn't get a goal or assist, but still played well. But that was 1 positive game among a series of non existent big game performances (and that's ignoring that Arsenal are a joke defensively this season). All those strikers in the past might not have a terrific goalscoring record in big games, but they all had an impact on occasion, and would score now and then, but generally not be a huge question mark after every big game. They all showed moments of quality, and while we weren't always the best side, Sir Alex generally bought strikers and kept looking to improve that position until he was happy with them and we had a striker that could perform against the best and help us try and become the best. Lukaku is a good player, but he's never going to be the striker that turns a team into one of the best teams in the world. It might be high expectations, but why shouldn't you have high expectations for United, considering the amount of money we can spend and have been spending? I don't think we should settle on simply a "good" striker because he can get 30 goals a season (assuming he reaches it), when he has really big weaknesses to his game and weaknesses that hold us back in the most important games every season. As a stop gap striker, whatever, fine for now, but he really shouldn't be seen as the striker for the next 5 years because in the next 5 years we should always be trying to see how we can get to the top, and that won't be through Lukaku IMO. You need a more talented striker then him to reach the very top. You'll be hard pressed to find other big and successful teams that had a striker who struggled as much as he does in big games when it comes to simply controlling the ball and doing anything positive on the pitch.
 
Just to put this season's stats (so far) in perspective, I've compared them with Rooney's career stats for the club:

Rooney
251 in 552 = 0.45 goals per game
137 in 552 = 0.25 assists per game

Lukaku
21 in 38 = 0.55 goals per game
6 in 38 = 0.16 assists per game

Not bad. Not bad at all.
:lol: There are so many things wrong with this.

The Lukaku defenders are getting hilariously desperate.
 
:lol: There are so many things wrong with this.

The Lukaku defenders are getting hilariously desperate.

If I gave a shite about your opinion I’d ask you to list all the “wrong things” but you’re going on ignore so you can save yourself some typing. You can thank me later. Or don’t. I won’t see it anyway.
 
Lukaku doesn't have the talent to perform in in big games, irrespective of goals? Did I imagine his through ball for Lingard's goal against Arsenal? I suppose it just bounced off his head unintentionally against Spurs.

He's only good against the bottom half of the league? Here he is playing Mkhitaryan through on goal against 9th placed Everton, and Martial through on goal against 8th placed Leicester and 7th placed Burnley. Here he is putting Jesse through against Leicester too. So really what you're talking about is his inability to perform in those elite games. Which I think is fair. He hasn't been great in the big games, at United or Everton. The question is whether the other strikers you're comparing him to really where.

Hughes, Cantona, Yorke, Cole, van Nistelrooy, Rooney, Saha, Tevez, Van Persie...that endless list of strikers that always showed up in big games. Let's take a look at how many goals some of them scored in those big games, in their best seasons here.
  • Saha in 06/07 played against AC Milan, Roma, Liverpool (2), Arsenal (2), Spurs (2) and Chelsea. He scored 1 goal.
  • Cole's highest scoring PL season was in 99/00 when the biggest teams he played against Arsenal (2), Leeds (2) and Madrid (2). He scored in just 1 in those 6 games. In his highest scoring overall season, 97/98, the biggest teams he played against were Arsenal (2), Liverpool (2) and Monaco (2). Again he scored in just 1 of those 6 games. Either side of 98/99, he failed to score in our only knockout round European tie. The Andy Cole you're thinking of is in 98/99 when everything came together. There's a reason why comparing him to Lukaku in his first season, in a defensive team, is "unfair".
  • Mark Hughes' highest scoring season was in 93/94, when he scored 22 goals - just one less than Lukaku now. He didn't manage a single goal in his six games against the rest of the top four - Blackburn, Newcastle and Arsenal.
So yes, Lukaku doesn't compare very well to the mythology of United's great strikers. Andy Cole, Mark Hughes, Louis Saha, Carlos Tevez, Dwight Yorke, Robin van Persie...they all had worse seasons than Lukaku this season. Unquestionably. Tevez managed a grand total of 5 league goals in his 2nd season with us!

Let's add up the total number of games all of those players had at United. 99 games for Tevez. 105 for van Persie. 124 for Saha. 147 for Dwight Yorke. 219 for Ruud. 275 for Andy Cole. 352 for Hughes. Lukaku has played 39 games, and almost all of them are fresh in your memory.

Over the course of their careers you can pick and choose times when they were better - Yorke and Cole in 98/99, van Persie in 12/13, Tevez in 07/08, Mark Hughes in Barcelona, Saha...probably never. But over the course of their careers they had peaks and troughs. You've decided in a season when he's set to outscore Andy Cole, Louis Saha, Mark Hughes and Carlos Tevez in their highest scoring seasons, that Lukaku isn't up to that level.

There's a reason that's not a "fair" comparison. Did you even watch Andy Cole in his first 3 seasons, when he managed a grand total of 33 goals? It's a bit of a stretch, but Lukaku might do that in one season. His first season. Yet that version of Cole doesn't factor into your view of him. We were both kids when that was happening, and there wasn't many memorable moments that would fit on a highlight reel...so why would it factor into our views? Andy Cole, the most expensive player in the league at that point, was being described as nervous. At the same time Mark Hughes was on the brink of being shipped out.



The following season he managed just 13 goals in 42 games. He didn't switch into goalscoring mode at all. In fact rather than switching quietly into goalscoring mode, he was almost quietly shipped off the following season. The Independent barely passed comment on Andy Cole being linked to 6th placed Everton in the summer of '96.



Long story short, your idea of how good our strikers were in a "typical" Sir Alex side doesn't actually fit that well with reality. Many of those strikers had better seasons than Lukaku, playing in better, more free-flowing teams. Many of them also had worse seasons than Lukaku, playing in better, more free-flowing teams. You're just thinking about the best versions of them.

That’s a hell of a post. Nice work.
 
If I gave a shite about your opinion I’d ask you to list all the “wrong things” but you’re going on ignore so you can save yourself some typing. You can thank me later. Or don’t. I won’t see it anyway.
You're comparing Rooney to lukaku and purely using the goals and assist they directly contributed and ignoring the fact that Rooney's game was about so much more then goals and that he was never a striker who just scored a lot of goals. How can't you see how flawed of a comparison that is? There are plenty of valid ways to defend Lukaku, comparing just his numbers to Rooney's numbers is definitely not the way to do it.

Edit: if you want to compare goal scoring rates, probably more accurate to compare to Van Nistelrooy as he was a poacher (more talented then Lukaku, but essentially a similar type of player in terms of the style that gets the best out of Lukaku). He's at .685 goals per game over his time here (playing in a front 2, not sure on assists). And that was probably the worst period for United under Six Alex during the premier league era.
 
Are performances like these actually bad though?





I tried looking for others like the Chelsea game this year but they aren't on youtube. I don't see how he could be that much better in most of these isolated situations.
 
You're comparing Rooney to lukaku and purely using the goals and assist they directly contributed and ignoring the fact that Rooney's game was about so much more then goals and that he was never a striker who just scored a lot of goals. How can't you see how flawed of a comparison that is? There are plenty of valid ways to defend Lukaku, comparing just his numbers to Rooney's numbers is definitely not the way to do it.

Edit: if you want to compare goal scoring rates, probably more accurate to compare to Van Nistelrooy as he was a poacher (more talented then Lukaku, but essentially a similar type of player in terms of the style that gets the best out of Lukaku). He's at .685 goals per game over his time here (playing in a front 2, not sure on assists). And that was probably the worst period for United under Six Alex during the premier league era.


Like it or not, goals and assists are a decent metric to judge a striker by. Any striker. If Lukaku can even remain close to Rooney and Ruud (two of the best strikers I’ve ever seen at this club) then I’m happy with my “not bad” appraisal.

It’s also likely he’ll get more productive from here as his best years are ahead of him and he’ll hopefully get to play in teams a lot closer to the dominant, relentlessly attacking teams Rooney and Ruud played in. To rack up the stats he has despite having so few decent chances created for him is not to be sneered at (even though sneering at our players/manager is all redcafe seems to be good for these days).
 
Minus his two goals in this game, is this a bad performance? He had a defender breathing down his neck the whole game as well.

 
Like it or not, goals and assists are a decent metric to judge a striker by. Any striker. If Lukaku can even remain close to Rooney and Ruud (two of the best strikers I’ve ever seen at this club) then I’m happy with my “not bad” appraisal.

It’s also likely he’ll get more productive from here as his best years are ahead of him and he’ll hopefully get to play in teams a lot closer to the dominant, relentlessly attacking teams Rooney and Ruud played in. To rack up the stats he has despite having so few decent chances created for him is not to be sneered at (even though sneering at our players/manager is all redcafe seems to be good for these days).
They are a good metric but some strikers are obviously much different so it's difficult. Rooney played as a second striker most of his career, as part of a front 2, and his all around game is what made him a United legend. Lukaku is an excellent goalscorer and despite some misses, probably finishes more then what is the norm with his chances (can check his xg for the season vs the actual goals he's scored). And while he produces good stats, and obviously it's not bad, I don't think he's quite good enough to be given this unstoppable, play every minute as the lone striker without any option to change that Mourinho has given him for now and probably the near future. Nowhere near that. For that, you have to be one of the best IMO. Since he isn't, then he shouldn't be above being dropped or shifted around depending on opposition and form. I've said before but if we used him like Sir Alex used Berba, I'd have no problem. That's around his level IMO. Not the main man at a big club but has his role. The role he's being used in you have to compare him to the strikers around the world at top clubs that the teams are obviously happy with and everything is working fine, and I'd say he lags behind pretty clearly when compared to them. Still has time, but just because he's not quite in his prime it doesn't mean he'll suddenly improve his touch and hold up play to such an extent that he transforms as a player.
 
Lukaku can go ahead and score 40 goals a season. Until his actual play (ignoring the goals) improves and he starts having a positive impact in big games (and yeah, I don't mean Burnley or Everton or Leicester who are marginally ahead of the bottom half and will constantly rotate around because the bottom 14 teams in the league are all pretty tight), then my opinion about him won't change.

Ok, that's fine. It's also stupid. Van Nistelrooy was the first player to score 40 goals for us in our long illustrious history. The last time a player scored 40 goals for Arsenal was in 1935. In between di Stefano and Ronaldo, the only player to do it for Madrid was Hugo Sánchez. The only player to do it before Messi at Barcelona was Brazilian Ronaldo, as far as I can tell.

Scoring 40 goals is an exceedingly rare thing for a reason. You have to be really, really good at scoring goals to do that. And to be really, really good at scoring goals, you need to be a pretty damn good at a lot of other things. If Lukaku turns out to be that player we'll be very lucky. If people are more interested in his style and his big game performances than his output, the thing that wins teams games, then they might as well be watching a different game.
 
Minus his two goals in this game, is this a bad performance? He had a defender breathing down his neck the whole game as well.


If he showed something like that a lot more often (even ignoring the goals), there would be a lot fewer question marks about him. That type of performance was relatively rare for Everton against big teams, and the only times anything close to that happened for us was against arsenal (which is hard to ignore their defence in that one). But its the type which yeah it does give you hope he can bring more often in big games. People talk about lack of service but it's not too different then that. Difference is the ball stuck to him in that game, while against teams like Seville, his touch wasn't great and movement was poor.
 
Ok, that's fine. It's also stupid. Van Nistelrooy was the first player to score 40 goals for us in our long illustrious history. The last time a player scored 40 goals for Arsenal was in 1935. In between di Stefano and Ronaldo, the only player to do it for Madrid was Hugo Sánchez. The only player to do it before Messi at Barcelona was Brazilian Ronaldo, as far as I can tell.

Scoring 40 goals is an exceedingly rare thing for a reason. You have to be really, really good at scoring goals to do that. And to be really, really good at scoring goals, you need to be a pretty damn good at a lot of other things. If Lukaku turns out to be that player we'll be very lucky. If people are more interested in his style and his big game performances than his output, the thing that wins teams games, then they might as well be watching a different game.
My point by saying that is I don't want somebody like Mario Gomez up top who did score around 40 goals twice in a row, but did next to nothing outside of that. There's not much indication that lukaku will copy that anyway, but it's just the point that he won't be seen as "quite good enough" if he racks up goals against the mediocre teams but then shits the bed against good opposition, because that impacts the team a lot more. Obviously it helps getting goals against those teams. But we'll never be successful on the biggest stage until his big game performances improve.
 
If he showed something like that a lot more often (even ignoring the goals), there would be a lot fewer question marks about him. That type of performance was relatively rare for Everton against big teams, and the only times anything close to that happened for us was against arsenal (which is hard to ignore their defence in that one). But its the type which yeah it does give you hope he can bring more often in big games. People talk about lack of service but it's not too different then that. Difference is the ball stuck to him in that game, while against teams like Seville, his touch wasn't great and movement was poor.

I mean the performance is not that much different to the ones I posted on the last page.
 
I don't understand Mourinho, not that it's a requirement.

People are happy to pick out one or two golden moments where a flick came off, or where he was able to hold up the ball before delivering a key pass / assist / whatever, as proof that Lukaku isn't the problem. The problem is how rarely it happens, how he generally struggles to hold up the ball and how his flicks (if he wins the header) are usually meaningless because of the distance between Lukaku and midfield (which isn't Lukakus fault, by all means). There's extremely little, apart from his physical size which he rarely manages to utilize, that makes him suited to the role he's currently playing. His top speed isn't bad at all, but he's not quick enough those first few meters so defenders take advantage, not to mention his first touch and general passing. The few times he's drifted out wide, picked up the ball and ran towards goal, he looks like a different player.

He's scored 12 goals in the Premier League, thats 2 more than Wayne Rooney at Everton...It's hardly impressive, but it's not a major problem either. The problem is his all round play, which is both down to himself and Mourinhos tactics. Take Firminio out of the Liverpool lineup and replace him with Lukaku, he'd outscore the Brazilian but the team as a whole would most likely suffer.

IMO Mourinho needs to focus on having the team higher up the pitch so that Lukaku won't be so isolated for the majority of the matches

Stats wise he's enjoying a good season. Stats wise, Mkhi is enjoying a good season as well (still 4th most assists in the league). Stats.
 
My point by saying that is I don't want somebody like Mario Gomez up top who did score around 40 goals twice in a row, but did next to nothing outside of that. There's not much indication that lukaku will copy that anyway, but it's just the point that he won't be seen as "quite good enough" if he racks up goals against the mediocre teams but then shits the bed against good opposition, because that impacts the team a lot more. Obviously it helps getting goals against those teams. But we'll never be successful on the biggest stage until his big game performances improve.

I think he probably is a lot like Mario Gomez and I'm not a particularly big fan of that kind of player either. But it's worth bearing in mind that in the one season he scored over 40 goals, Bayern Munich were incredibly unlucky not to win the Champions League. And he's hardly the first poacher that has played for a team in a CL final. I'd say your preferences are making you twist the facts to fit a common narrative on here. You don't want a poacher but it isn't true to say you can't be successful with one.
 
I mean the performance is not that much different to the ones I posted on the last page.
I'd say there s a pretty big difference from the spurs one where only 2 or 3 flicks actually came off and he had more that went right to the opposition. Didn't watch the first video, but the one vs Chelsea there has him holding off defenders with his body better then he normally does here, he's showing some nice turns on the ball, some decent link up play, not getting shrugged off easily and then of course had some great play for the goals. Little movements here and there make a big difference. In the spurs game he was caught offside loads and also got dispossesed plenty of times when he tried turning and a few failed passes that should've been relatively easy. Those things really need to get ironed out, and it's not impossible, but why the reason I doubt him is because I just think that's just how he is and that touch and movement to get open to receive those passes to hold up the ball won't change quite enough.
 
I think he probably is a lot like Mario Gomez and I'm not a particularly big fan of that kind of player either. But it's worth bearing in mind that in the one season he scored over 40 goals, Bayern Munich were incredibly unlucky not to win the Champions League. And he's hardly the first poacher that has played for a team in a CL final. I'd say your preferences are making you twist the facts to fit a common narrative on here. You don't want a poacher but it isn't true to say you can't be successful with one.
That's fair. Maybe a big part of it is to do with me not really agreeing with Mourinhos direction for the club. I look at United like this - we're a team that very few can match in terms of resources and size and history. We basically had the opportunity to build our team up from scratch with not unlimited, but as much as anyone would want in terms of resources. Pretty much everyone with that amount of money will choose to build a team that dominates opposition and attacking teams with players that can be the best around. We neeed to bring in a striker, and we brought in one with some very clear and obvious weaknesses, and one who I don't feel is that suited to what Mourinho ideally wants from his strikers anyway. Physically he is, but not how he plays. So that's one thing.

Like you say, I'm not a fan of that type of player and while it is possible to be successful with it, I think it definitely limits how far as a team you can progress. In 09/10 I'd say Bayern was behind Barca, Madrid, United and Inter but made it to the final beating United along the way (a game I'll forever feel like we threw away more then they won). They improved since that time though, probably due to Heynckes being a great manager, but also because they brought in the most complete striker in world football in Lewandowski. They had Gomez score 80 goals in 2 seasons but it never felt like he was the last piece of the puzzle for them, if you know what I mean. Always was space for improvement. So I see lukaku in the same way. He can be good, he can score a good amount of goals, but I'll never feel like he's the set in stone long term option because he has his weaknesses, and the type of player he is, better all around players can come along that can get close to the same amount of goals, but offer a lot more to the rest of the play.
 
I'd say there s a pretty big difference from the spurs one where only 2 or 3 flicks actually came off and he had more that went right to the opposition. Didn't watch the first video, but the one vs Chelsea there has him holding off defenders with his body better then he normally does here, he's showing some nice turns on the ball, some decent link up play, not getting shrugged off easily and then of course had some great play for the goals. Little movements here and there make a big difference. In the spurs game he was caught offside loads and also got dispossesed plenty of times when he tried turning and a few failed passes that should've been relatively easy. Those things really need to get ironed out, and it's not impossible, but why the reason I doubt him is because I just think that's just how he is and that touch and movement to get open to receive those passes to hold up the ball won't change quite enough.

The flicks with the head are difficult to get accurate in the first place. I just watched the video again. He barely really had a chance to do anything in the Spurs game. Most of it was lumped up to him and all he could do was head it on.

Watch the game against Liverpool.
 
I mean the performance is not that much different to the ones I posted on the last page.

It actually is, but not because of him. Look at the number of high balls he got in Spurs match, I think he got 3 balls at his feet in the whole first half. It's ridiculous if you watch it again.

Anyway, "flat track bully" or scoring against lesser teams is one of the stupidest argument when you try to put down striker performance. It's not only the fact that it's much difficult to score in such matches but also you're basically criticising a player for scoring. @Brwned already had a great post on a previous page, but if anyone is interested, here is another good article about it which directly compares Lukaku to other top strikers in the league and it's from the end of the last season.

http://www.football365.com/news/the-nonsense-of-the-flat-track-bully-criticism
 
It actually is, but not because of him. Look at the number of high balls he got in Spurs match, I think he got 3 balls at his feet in the whole first half. It's ridiculous if you watch it again.

Anyway, "flat track bully" or scoring against lesser teams is one of the stupidest argument when you try to put down striker performance. It's not only the fact that it's much difficult to score in such matches but also you're basically criticising a player for scoring. @Brewned already had a great post on a previous page, but if anyone is interested, here is another good article about it which directly compares Lukaku to other top strikers in the league and it's from the end of the last season.

http://www.football365.com/news/the-nonsense-of-the-flat-track-bully-criticism

Yes that's what I mean. But what more can he really do with these flick ons. It's not fair to judge his performance off lumped up balls he has to try flick on. When the ball gets played to his feet he is linking play.
 
I think he probably is a lot like Mario Gomez and I'm not a particularly big fan of that kind of player either. But it's worth bearing in mind that in the one season he scored over 40 goals, Bayern Munich were incredibly unlucky not to win the Champions League. And he's hardly the first poacher that has played for a team in a CL final. I'd say your preferences are making you twist the facts to fit a common narrative on here. You don't want a poacher but it isn't true to say you can't be successful with one.

Is Lukaku really just a poacher?

Even if you ignore the stats re assists this season (which people seem determined to do) he’s arguably been our best player when it comes to releasing team-mates with delicate through balls and putting in quality crosses from wide area. Ironically, providing the sort of service he’d thrive on but rarely gets.

If his team-mates were closer to his conversion rate then his assists would be right up there with the most creative strikers in the league (and Wayne Rooney’s career totals).
 
The flicks with the head are difficult to get accurate in the first place. I just watched the video again. He barely really had a chance to do anything in the Spurs game. Most of it was lumped up to him and all he could do was head it on.

Watch the game against Liverpool.
Little bits of play from that video like at: 0:47, 1:07, 1:27 (chest control) and 1:33 (holding off the defender) is what he needs to do more of here in big games and makes all the difference to a team that is set up defensively so they can counter. The rest of that video is pretty standard, nothing specifically good or bad,

From that Spurs game, things like: 1:33 and 1:43 (doesn't read the long ball properly and can only flick it on instead of reading it better and controlling it on his chest), 2:18 (simple pass to the wing misplaced). Things like that just happen far too often IMO, especially with the long balls. Of course they aren't the easiest to deal with, and when they're overhit there's not much you can do. But even when they're hit short he seems to sprint towards them and runs under it every time so that he can't control it and instead can only do a flick on to nobody. That's one thing that I've noticed this season more then anything and why I don't think he's great with long balls. He just doesn't read them properly. And it's OK to lose the ball or misplace passes when you're trying things, but way too often his touch is loose and leaves a gap for the defenders to sneak in and poke it away, or at least really slow down the attack and basically kill the momentum.
 
Yes that's what I mean. But what more can he really do with these flick ons. It's not fair to judge his performance off lumped up balls he has to try flick on. When the ball gets played to his feet he is linking play.

He has difficulties sometimes keeping the ball tbh, but the reality is that more often than not he has to deal with those kinds of high balls, especially in big matches. And with all that, being pretty much isolated.
On the other hand, he had his share of very good games even if we put goals aside.

I can understand some of the criticism, a striker in United will always be under scrutiny, but most of it is way over the top.
 
Is Lukaku really just a poacher?

Even if you ignore the stats re assists this season (which people seem determined to do) he’s arguably been our best player when it comes to releasing team-mates with delicate through balls and putting in quality crosses from wide area. Ironically, providing the sort of service he’d thrive on but rarely gets.

If his team-mates were closer to his conversion rate then his assists would be right up there with the most creative strikers in the league (and Wayne Rooney’s career totals).

Lukaku has 5 assists this season. That's more than Kane and Lacazette, equal to Morata and one less than Aguero. Add to this that when watching the game he is quite often our most creative player going forward. He isn't a poacher to anyone being reasonable.
 
Is Lukaku really just a poacher?

Even if you ignore the stats re assists this season (which people seem determined to do) he’s arguably been our best player when it comes to releasing team-mates with delicate through balls and putting in quality crosses from wide area. Ironically, providing the sort of service he’d thrive on but rarely gets.

If his team-mates were closer to his conversion rate then his assists would be right up there with the most creative strikers in the league (and Wayne Rooney’s career totals).
He's a surprisingly good crosser of the ball and can play those incisive passes at times but it's like a weird part of his game that doesn't really fit him as a player. Like he really isn't suited to being a winger or as a 10 and he doesn't have the close control, agility or movement to play that role where he can make full use of the crossing/through passes like the bit of play to Martial vs Burnley or vs Arsenal. It's just little bonus on what he can do, but I would say he is essentially a poacher. Mourinho treats him like a target man but I don't think he deals well with long balls at all, and he can't hold up the play like what you'd want target men to ideally do. He's big, but more often then not doesn't use his body properly (because he really should be outmuscling defenders way more then he does), and his touch under pressure is normally not great. What he thrives upon is bits of play like United vs West Ham on the opening day of the season, a quick counter where Rashford released him in behind to finish instinctively. Balls in behind with a team counter attacking quickly (also just last weekend against Huddersfield). Definitely a poacher by those definitions. Just one who can play some great crosses (actually something I've often noticed, strikers seem to be more consistent at delivering great crosses then most other players. See RvP, Rooney, and Lukaku now).

But anyway just because he's a poacher doesn't mean he won't get assists. It's more just characterizing him as somebody who doesn't deal well with hold up play and traditional play outside of the final third.
 
Is Lukaku really just a poacher?

Even if you ignore the stats re assists this season (which people seem determined to do) he’s arguably been our best player when it comes to releasing team-mates with delicate through balls and putting in quality crosses from wide area. Ironically, providing the sort of service he’d thrive on but rarely gets.

If his team-mates were closer to his conversion rate then his assists would be right up there with the most creative strikers in the league (and Wayne Rooney’s career totals).

He does have quite a good through ball in him. I don't place much value in crosses personally, and I think it's pretty typical for a poacher to be a surprisingly good crosser - they just know where to put it.

I don't think assists capture creativity all that well myself, although they can be indicative of how dangerous a player is in and around the box. If you rank people based on key passes vs. people on assists, you get a slightly more nuanced picture on creativity in my view. e.g. Ramsey, Salah and Azpilicueta squeeze into the top 10 for assists, but get replaced by Eriksen, Sánchez and Fabregas when it's ranked on key passes. (here)

Intuitively the latter feels like a better measure of creativity, even if it's still a very blunt measure. The biggest discrepancy can be seen with someone like Kane, who apparently plays 1 key pass per game but only has 1 assist, while Lukaku plays the same number of key passes but has 5 assists.

Regardless, I think what defines someone as a poacher is more about their ability to bring others into play, create something out of nothing etc. Aguero is definitely less threatening than Lukaku in terms of playing people through on goal, but he's a much more rounded threat. Kane is just much, much better at being a focal point of the attack and bringing others into play. Lukaku is more of a rounded threat than Gomez because he can run with the ball, and he is better than playing people in on goal, but he's still very limited. I'd say he's arguably a poacher, not definitely one.
 
Little bits of play from that video like at: 0:47, 1:07, 1:27 (chest control) and 1:33 (holding off the defender) is what he needs to do more of here in big games and makes all the difference to a team that is set up defensively so they can counter. The rest of that video is pretty standard, nothing specifically good or bad,

From that Spurs game, things like: 1:33 and 1:43 (doesn't read the long ball properly and can only flick it on instead of reading it better and controlling it on his chest), 2:18 (simple pass to the wing misplaced). Things like that just happen far too often IMO, especially with the long balls. Of course they aren't the easiest to deal with, and when they're overhit there's not much you can do. But even when they're hit short he seems to sprint towards them and runs under it every time so that he can't control it and instead can only do a flick on to nobody. That's one thing that I've noticed this season more then anything and why I don't think he's great with long balls. He just doesn't read them properly. And it's OK to lose the ball or misplace passes when you're trying things, but way too often his touch is loose and leaves a gap for the defenders to sneak in and poke it away, or at least really slow down the attack and basically kill the momentum.

You're just nitpicking. Bar the flicks which are lumped up to him his game in all three games are pretty similar. Yeah he isn't perfect and doesn't control every ball but when it's played along the ground he links play well. The midfield need to control the game better, because if they can hold the ball and get it to him he will link play and make runs.

He has difficulties sometimes keeping the ball tbh, but the reality is that more often than not he has to deal with those kinds of high balls, especially in big matches. And with all that, being pretty much isolated.
On the other hand, he had his share of very good games even if we put goals aside.

I can understand some of the criticism, a striker in United will always be under scrutiny, but most of it is way over the top.

Exactly. There's only so much he can actually do with this lumped balls when he is isolated.
 
He's a surprisingly good crosser of the ball and can play those incisive passes at times but it's like a weird part of his game that doesn't really fit him as a player. Like he really isn't suited to being a winger or as a 10 and he doesn't have the close control, agility or movement to play that role where he can make full use of the crossing/through passes like the bit of play to Martial vs Burnley or vs Arsenal. It's just little bonus on what he can do, but I would say he is essentially a poacher. Mourinho treats him like a target man but I don't think he deals well with long balls at all, and he can't hold up the play like what you'd want target men to ideally do. He's big, but more often then not doesn't use his body properly (because he really should be outmuscling defenders way more then he does), and his touch under pressure is normally not great. What he thrives upon is bits of play like United vs West Ham on the opening day of the season, a quick counter where Rashford released him in behind to finish instinctively. Balls in behind with a team counter attacking quickly (also just last weekend against Huddersfield). Definitely a poacher by those definitions. Just one who can play some great crosses (actually something I've often noticed, strikers seem to be more consistent at delivering great crosses then most other players. See RvP, Rooney, and Lukaku now).

But anyway just because he's a poacher doesn't mean he won't get assists. It's more just characterizing him as somebody who doesn't deal well with hold up play and traditional play outside of the final third.

So his link play, passes and crossing is good but he's just a poacher? He can help in the build up of attacks as well so he isn't just a poacher. If you want to say his hold up play isn't good just say that.
 
You're just nitpicking. Bar the flicks which are lumped up to him his game in all three games are pretty similar. Yeah he isn't perfect and doesn't control every ball but when it's played along the ground he links play well. The midfield need to control the game better, because if they can hold the ball and get it to him he will link play and make runs.



Exactly. There's only so much he can actually do with this lumped balls when he is isolated.
Nit picking from those 2-3 minute clips yes but it's the moments from those games that capture what he fails to do often enough for us and needs to do a lot more IMO. Also I would say that there's a pretty big gap between his performance vs Spurs and vs Chelsea in those videos, wouldn't say they are similar at all.
 
Nit picking from those 2-3 minute clips yes but it's the moments from those games that capture what he fails to do often enough for us and needs to do a lot more IMO. Also I would say that there's a pretty big gap between his performance vs Spurs and vs Chelsea in those videos, wouldn't say they are similar at all.

The difference is he just saw more of the ball against Chelsea along the ground. Half of the Spurs video is him trying to flick a lumped ball on.
 
So his link play, passes and crossing is good but he's just a poacher? He can help in the build up of attacks as well so he isn't just a poacher. If you want to say his hold up play isn't good just say that.
His link up play isn't anything special. He has moments where it's good, moments where it's bad. Crossing, as brwnd said, you often see strikers/poachers be good at crossing as well. His passing most of the time is pretty average, but he is good at playing those incisive through passes which doesn't really fit the rest of his skill set in terms of typical players like him, but it doesn't suddenly make him an all around creative striker. Also he doesn't really help in the build up too much. At least not to a high level. He tries at times, but doesn't really do much. Just because somebody is a "poacher" doesn't mean they literally only run onto through balls and don't ever touch the ball a single time outside the box. He'll have little touches and flicks here and there, some come off, some don't, but his strength lies in running onto balls in behind and his weakness is when the ball is played into him anywhere outside of the final third, whether it's in the air or on the ground, with his back to goal and a defender there pressuring him. And that's a pretty big part in not being classed as a poacher, the ability to actually deal with those types of passes.
 
His link up play isn't anything special. He has moments where it's good, moments where it's bad. Crossing, as brwnd said, you often see strikers/poachers be good at crossing as well. His passing most of the time is pretty average, but he is good at playing those incisive through passes which doesn't really fit the rest of his skill set in terms of typical players like him, but it doesn't suddenly make him an all around creative striker. Also he doesn't really help in the build up too much. At least not to a high level. He tries at times, but doesn't really do much. Just because somebody is a "poacher" doesn't mean they literally only run onto through balls and don't ever touch the ball a single time outside the box. He'll have little touches and flicks here and there, some come off, some don't, but his strength lies in running onto balls in behind and his weakness is when the ball is played into him anywhere outside of the final third, whether it's in the air or on the ground, with his back to goal and a defender there pressuring him. And that's a pretty big part in not being classed as a poacher, the ability to actually deal with those types of passes.

His link up play is good, his crossing is good, his passing is good. He isn't just a poacher. He has the link up play to get involved in the build up and the movement to finish it off.
 
If I gave a shite about your opinion I’d ask you to list all the “wrong things” but you’re going on ignore so you can save yourself some typing. You can thank me later. Or don’t. I won’t see it anyway.
What a baby :lol:
 
Chelsea coming up. A big test against a tough defensive line. Can he handle it?
 
But how can he contribute more when most of the time we are hoofing it long to him? What is he meant to do from that? His hold up play does need work, but it has certainly improved since earlier in the season and at his age it will get better in time.

Martial and Rashford upfront aren't better though. Both of been given chances upfront and neither has really took the bull by the horns if you will. Rashford had a tendency to go missing up there and Martial's finishing is very hit and miss.

Just baffles me why we signing Lukaku if we aren't going to play to his strengths. Would of made more sense to sign a striker who breaks the line and makes runs if we are insistent on playing with no set game plan.

Yes, the hoofing is a problem, but not all of those passes towards him are hoofballs. Our attack has been dire for quite some while now and while i'm not in any way claiming hes the problem, he sure is part of it. Inside the box hes fine, its outside the box he needs to do more
 
Problem with playing long balls with Lukaku is his timing in jumping is terrible and also his persistence on heading it in any direction. That's difference between him and Fellaini. When Fellaini receive a long ball he tries to chest it, bring it to the ground and search for other incoming players to build the attack, while Lukaku jumps in a terrible timing, so either he loses the ball or heads it in any direction. I have never seen him trying to chest a ball like Fellaini or even Zlatan last season tried to.

That makes him not so good target man. I agree he's better in running channels and trying to move behind defenders than using him as a target for long balls. That doesn't mean long balls themselves are bad though.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.