Discussion in 'Football Forum' started by Samid, Aug 8, 2019.
Players like Shearer, Raul are not limited, that's the difference.
I think you might be forgetting my initial assertion. I don't believe Lukaku is a talented technical player, I don't believe he is good at dribbling, passing or manipulating a football, I do believe he is a good goalscorer. I don't believe he is a great goalscorer like Ronaldo, Messi, Lewandowski, Aguero or Kane but I do believe he is a good goalscorer.
(and having a good goalscorer in a side which desperately struggles to score goals is helpful)
Yeah and I said he didn't show he was good goal scorer at ManUtd, especially for a limited player. If he was all round player like Rooney then scoring 1 in 2 wouldn't have been a problem but when he is useless when he doesn't score then his goal scoring record isn't good enough to carry a limited player.
He averaged 14 league goals per season at Manutd, that's not good enough record for a pure 9.
Him being better goal scorer than Rashford and Martial doesn't mean much considering they played as wingers for ManUtd, it's their first season where they are given chance to carry the attack. Like you said, not replacing him was a mistake . Selling him was good decision, shame we didn't follow it up with one more good decision.
He's a piggyback goalscorer. Needs his team mates to provide for him. Absolutely useless otherwise
It’s the same old argument again though. The team played terribly in those barren spells. It wasn’t as if we were feeding him chance after chance and he wasn’t following through. He seems like a luxury player in a way. Have fantastic wingers and midfielders who can dribble through and he’ll score many.
Apart from his first 2 seasons, he averaged 1 league goal a month, team wasn't play so badly to average just 1 goal a month.
He played 2 seasons for Man Utd, scored nearly 30 goals in his first season and then spent his second season injured, regaining fitness then being in and out of the side
I can't believe I am having to argue that a player who has scored 25+ goals in 3 of his last 4 seasons and is currently 9 in 13 is a good goalscorer! I am not even saying we should have kept the fecker.
League goals, it was 28 league goals in 2 seasons which is close to his career average.
42 goals in 96 games isn't a good record for a CF imo. That's not even 1 goal in 2 games record. Even if you go by mins per goal, it's closer to 2 games. LIke i said, if it was Rooney we are talking about then it's a good record. For Lukaku it isn't as apart from goals he doesn't offer anything to the team.
I wouldn't argue with this although I would say he would score more than Rashford or Martial over the course of the season regardless of where they played, mostly due to age and experience.
A more interesting question would be do you think we should have kept him if we didn't have any intention of replacing him?
Of course we should have kept him if we didn't have any intention of replacing him, we don't even have proper back up players now. He would have been good squad option.
Not sure if serious, lukaku as squad option > no player available.
He's apparently not a good goalscorer, only scores 1 goal a month or whatever and he doesn't offer anything to the team other than goals. Greenwood has 1 goal a month this season and is clearly better on the ball.
Greenwood is not ready to play as a CF. So it's easy decision. Player who can play as CF > no player.
Not even sure what your point is or what you want but these questions are getting sillier. I didnt say Lukaku is shit player, I said his goal scoring record isnt good enough for a limited player. I don't want him as a starter, doesn't mean I don't rate him at all.
And even then missed plenty of sitters. Not to mention the amount of moves that stopped with his first touch. He obviously did something to get the goals he did but I can't for the life of me figure out what it is. I guess his finishing was good on occasion despite being woeful on others.
My point is that I think a certain section of our fanbase ended up going so strongly anti Lukaku that all perspective has been lost. 25+ goals in 3 of his last 4 seasons (in average teams) and probably this season too, Belgium's all time top goalscorer by 25 and we can apparently not even call him a "good goalscorer", seems ridiculous to me but whatever.
He scored 20 plus league goals once in his career and that’s not good enough for a limited player. His career average is less than a goal every 2 games, that’s not good record for a player who leads the attack and apart from goals barely contributes anything.
@roonster09 said that his record wasn't good enough, he didn't say that he wasn't a good goalscorer. His goalscoring recording isn't good enough in the context of a CL team in the PL, a player that scores 15 league goals per season needs to be creative on top of his goals, he needs to create for his teammates otherwise he is a squad player. For example Chicharito under SAF, he was as good a goalscorer as Lukaku but he wasn't a true starter, if Lukaku was willing to accept that role he would have been an excellent squad player but a every expensive one.
The team was doing poorly enough for Mourinho to lose his job, mate. Just after an extension
This entire debate started with me saying that Lukaku is a good goalscorer and has shown that. If I had said "Lukaku is a world class striker who should be starting for a top team because he scores 40 league goals every season" then he proceeded to disagree with that then you and him would have a point.
Literally my only assertion this entire time is that Romelu Lukaku, who by the end of this season will have scored 25+ goals 4 of the last 5 years and is Belgium's all time leading scorer is a "good goalscorer". This is painfully obvious based on what I have said in this paragraph alone.
I also think Jamie Vardy is a good goalscorer for reference. If your standards or the other chaps standards are much higher than that then fair enough.
I have literally no idea why you keep saying he contributes nothing to open play when I never even insinuated otherwise or why you only seem to care about league goals but this is all a tedious waste of time.
It’s obvious why and I repeated plenty of times too why I keep adding that. Gave examples of Rooney, Raul and others.
If he was contributing without scoring then his goal scoring record is good, for a player who doesn’t contribute anything much apart from goals his record is not good enough.
But that's the thing if you use Vardy has a reference then Lukaku at United falls short, one scored 28 goals in the league and the other scored 38 goals. His record is closer to Glenn Murray's(25 goals) than Vardy.
IiRC this entire debate started when you said he showed he was god goal scorer at ManUtd, which isn’t true. He averaged 14 league goals for us, or 21 overall per season which again wasn’t enough for player who didn’t contribute much.
Wrong. In his first season at United he scored 27 in all comps. That's a good record. The second season was very poor though.
league goals. Not what's wrong, he averages 14 league goals per season and 21 goals per season at ManUtd.
Lukaku was the best crosser we had in our front three. That was not his main job, I agree. But, there have been several insinuations that all lukaku could do at United was score tap ins.
Honestly, Lukaku used to create a lot of chances in the final third. I feel he was more of threat when he was coming from the right, than any other player in our team coming from anywhere.
I agree he was a flawed player, touch was inconsistent and in some games he used to fade away. But, he still was our best threat in the final third. That says a lot about the quality players like lingard, martial and rash brought in the final third.
Many are questioning is selling him.
Many are saying that it was good that we sold him, but we dint replace him and that was the issue.
I think the question to ask is, amongst martial rash and lukaku. Should he have been the first to go?
He put in some good crosses last season when he drifted wide from time to time but when he actually played on the right wing we didn't see any sign of him being a dangerous crosser. I remember the season before last that Rashford's crossing being consistently dangerous, since then his crossing has been average to poor - I imagine the same would have happened to Lukaku.
Scoring 20 goals a season is a nothing feat in the grand scheme of things. But doing that with everton and post saf fergie is something.
I feel the caf are too purist these days that anything less than messiesque goalscorer will be rated in here. But somehow if you're young and british it doesnt matter if you cant score in a brothel you're always better.
Not exactly the case. Son at Spurs is a caf favourite and it's as much for his audacious enthusiasm and attacking intent as goals. He's just a more fluid and appealing asset. Lukaku on the other hand is ungainly and a flat tracker.
Preferred is fine. But this thread has gone beyond simple preferences. It's bordering nitpicking
Think it's cause people fall into one of two camps. Those who think we were right to offload him and those who think it was a mistake. I'm in the former and glad to see the back of him. There's other dross who maybe should have gone first. But he wasn't good enough.
We bought Lukaku for 75m and sold him for 75m after 2 years.
Consider the scenario as this instead:
Imagine if we didn't sign Lukaku but loaned him for 2 years. Would you pay the 75m transfer fee for him once his loan expires?
He was unfit pretty much his entire second season and still ended up our top scorer ffs. I believe Lukaku is a good goalscorer, I'm right about that. If you disagree then fine but you are going to have to accept me thinking I am right because I'm not going to keep going around in circles.
Wasn’t Pogba our top goal scorer last season?
Over the last 4 seasons Vardy has scored 81 to Lukaku's 88.
I feel like I'm in the twilight zone.
Pogba was our top goal scorer.
Not sure what you mean by unfit, he played 300 mins less than Rashford and scored 2 more goals, one played as a winger in most games and other is a CF. Martial played 700 mins less and scored only 3 goals less than Lukaku.
Of course you can believe whatever you can, I said it long back that it all depends on what you believe as good goal scoring record.
We have been talking about Lukaku at United in the league. But even if you wanted to compare Vardy and Lukaku in the same competition Vardy scored 75 goals in the last 4 seasons against 71 for Lukaku.
1 in 2 record in the 90s was respectable because players played less games, the disparity between teams in domestic leagues wasn’t as large, and laxer officiating which favored defenders. Since the turn of the millennium, elite forwards have improved their numbers across the board, and even if you exclude the generational freaks like Ronaldo/Messi, most of them are still closer to 0.7 gpg, or 2 in 3. And that’s not even taking into account techniques or performances in big games.
Lukaku’s scoring record is respectable, but it was pretty evident before he came to Utd that he isn’t in that top echelon. His league record at Everton was fairly similar to someone like Benteke (before he went to shit).
Separate names with a comma.