It does when you take into account that Conte has very little power over transfers at Chelsea, and that was a major reason why he dragged his feet over signing his new contract. Emenalo and the board wanted Lukaku, he was their first choice. Conte's first choice has always been Morata.
Romelu Lukaku vs Alvaro Morata 2017/18
- Thread starter Paxi
- Start date
You need to compete with Duncan Castles for a place in Jose's anus with those kind of PR skills.Are some Chelsea fans like @antihenry still trying to pretend they didn't want Big Rom?
That's why the club desperately came in and matched United's bid before snaking away for Morata (who United decided not to bother with) when they realised Lukaku wanted to join the biggest club in the country
I never said Chelsea didn't want Lukaku.
I personally never wanted him. I think he's a very good goalscorer and is still quite young. But that's where his strengths end for me.
https://www.redcafe.net/threads/rom...d-personal-terms.412308/page-36#post-20718185
But I'm sure he'll do well for United.
https://www.redcafe.net/threads/rom...-personal-terms.412308/page-199#post-21155238
Morata may never realize his potential at Chelsea but I'm very excited to see what he's capable of. He's got all the attributes to be a world class striker and I hope Conte is the man to help him become one.
And Morata is pretty much saying he had an agreement with united before being told that he is staying put.
Two possible reasons. Either that real real wanted to bleed united as much as possible due to the de gea story or the more likely explanation that they just blinked after losing one of the serious suitors and really wanted to sell.
And why are we suddenly supposed to believe that. If anything, the whole board v. Conte nonsense started to happen the moment they missed out on lukaku. Many reporters also pointed out how frustrated conte was having missed out on his primary target lukaku. The whole morata being bis primary choice doesn't add up as Chelsea never even bid for him or were even remotely linked to him.
Not true at all. Chelsea tried to buy Morata last summer. There were tensions between Conte and the board going back to this past May as well:
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/...f-transfers-before-signing-contract-9w7mbl329
I've always seen him as more of an all-round centre forward who could bring others into the game and also drift out wide. However, I've never really seen him as a goal scorer until last season. So yeah, it'll be interesting to see whether his goals all came because he was playing in a dominant side or is he actually a good finisher when given the chance. I fear the latter, unfortunately.
He's a better all-round player than Lukaku, there's no doubt about that. However, I feel Lukaku will finish some of the piss easy chances that we squandered last season. Had we had more prolific wide options, then maybe someone like Morata would have been a better fit for us. As it stands, I feel we badly need a player of Lukaku's ilk. It's also worth noting that Lukaku got 6 assists last season and set up a decent amount of chances, his game has definitely improved immensely over the past 2/3 years.
You are all over the place here
so it's ok to bring up Vardy's northern premier league, conference north and conference premier records but it's not ok to bring up Morata's Madrid B record? And exactly why are we discounting Forlan's years at United? Could I arbitrarily choose which years to discount from Morata's record too?Fact of the matter is those players exist, you are just wrestling against facts and constantly moving goal posts, see how we went from "some of these players had decent records previously" to "Morata scores against scrubs" to "2 out of the 4", all to lead to your "that list is bullshit" conclusion that doesn't measure up to your initial assertion of "I can't think of a single one". Hell, I just remembered Liedson who if memory serves right didn't even start playing professional football til he was like 24, then there's our very own Van Persie (b-b-but he played wide), so did Morata.
That's a bold statement to make given the fact that Costa scored 20, 36, 21,16 and 22 goals in all competitions(from wiki) in his last 5 seasons and led Chelsea as their main man for two PL titles in three years whereas Morata scored 20 goals in a season once and has never really led the line for an entire season. Personally I think there is a huge difference in their quality.
Lots of myths surrounding Lukaku. Even the flat track bully shit, but didn't he score more than Kane, Sanchez and Aguero against the top 6? They also fail to mention he played for Everton, a team that is clearly inferior and creates less chances and is basically THE goal threat so much easier to be marked out of a game. Instead, that doesn't suit the narrative so it's now "He can't cope with the pressure at a big team".
It's going to be annoying, but I guess like the Pogba stuff best to block out and when the trophies come in just have a laugh and let them move onto the next one. Doesn't score for 2 games, he's a dud, goes 3 without a game "OMG worst signing ever!!", scores for fun and then it's "well for 100m" or "but he didn't score against City or whoever".
Admittedly the wording was a bit clunky but I thought the premise was fairly straightforward. Lukaku is a goalscorer, Morata isn't. Comparing them in terms of goals will only show one side of the story, and it's heavily favoured towards Lukaku. Who has the better season is a much more even contest than who scores the most.
Undoubtedly the form of their teammates will have an impact but I was working odd the assumption that they'd both be top 4 contenders at a similar level. Even if they aren't, I'd have to disagree with you.
A great goalscorer in a weaker team will generally get more of the ball, a higher proportion of the chances and a lot more trust/stability. There's pros and cons on both sides but I don't think it's remotely true to say it's easier to score at better clubs. If Benzema was playing for us I'd expect him to score more than he has for Madrid simply because he wouldn't have to make as many sacrifices - he'd be the focal point of the attack.
In this case I don't see much difference between Chelsea and United in terms of how welcoming it is for a new striker. Similar quality overall, similar levels of creativity, very no other goalscoring to share the limelight with...they're both walking into good places.
Naturally you can't rule out Conte or Mourinho throwing their toys out of the pram and the team throwing in the towel for the season, in which case there's no point in comparing the two. Assuming that doesn't happen, I think my point holds true...
I was talking about style rather than quality. I you're wondering if I'm just saying it now he's been signed, this was from a couple of months ago...
Although if you want to talk about quality...at the age Morata is now, Costa had never scored more than 10 league goals once in his career. I can't imagine you'd have been speaking too highly of him then.
Lukaku does strike me as more of a Mourinho forward, but I think it's reasonable to assume we thought he was Chelsea bound.
I'd have taken either to be honest. I'm of the belief that Morata is the better all round footballer, but Lukaku the better scorer and I'm sure Jose would have been able to fit either into the side to make the player and team a success.
We definately had agreements with both, but decided Lukaku was the best option. I have no doubt real were hoping we'd overpay, but that was probably due to us needing a striker and no one having a clue about us being in for Lukaku.
Either way both teams have got fantastic players and at a decent age as well, but i just think United got the one we both wanted.
It's an important summer for us going forward. We stood firm and refused to pay what Real wanted and since then they have had to accept an apparently lower offer from Chelsea.
What that says to clubs in the future is "we are happy to pay a little more but don't take the piss". It should make Ed's job a little easier in future negotiations as he can show we are capable of walking away and always have other options lined up.
Fair if you think they have similar style. I think Costa is a lot better on the ball, but these are just opinions.
Chelsea are buying Morata for what he can produce right now and in reality he's not shown anything consistently that would suggest he's worth the time and money. They are replacing Costa with Morata and the only fair comparison should be where they stand today, which most likely will be a huge downgrade for them to go from a multiple title winning striker to a bit part player.
The only argument anyone seems to have against Morata is that he hasn't played enough to be proven, but it's not crazy for Madrid to have preferred an experienced option in Benzema who consistently scores 1 in 2 and is generally considered to work well with Cristiano. It's kind of a shit argument.
Mad isn't it. He's now the Spanish Lewandowski.
I think he's a very good player but am not surprised when he was looking likely to sign he was terrible but when he's signed for someone else he's a world beater.
From having the Rooney's, Henry's, Suarez', Torres' Drogba's, van Persie's to creaming ourselves about Lukaku and Morata. The PL has come a long way.
I agree it's a significant downgrade currently. In the long run it might benefit them but in the short-term Chelsea have taken a significant step back.
In terms of playing style (also @KM), they're both very selfless runners, good targetmen, not overly quick or strong, not particularly skilled dribblers or explosive finishers - very economical players. Costa can get overly aggressive and cost his team, while Morata can be a bit timid. Other than that they just do a lot of the basics very well. Both are at either end of their peaks and it wouldn't surprise me if this time next year Morata's gone on to be the better player.
I largely agree with your assessment. Just not sure if Morata at his peak will be anything special but then again I thought the same thing about Diego Costa to be honest.
Sums up my thoughts on Lukaku. I think he is going to have to improve significantly to be a success.
And you know this how?
This is true to an extent but Lukaku is also good with the ball himself and a better all round player than most give him credit for.
In a similar vein Morata is going to have to improve alot a) to get used to being a regular starter b) to get used to being in the PL as c) to start becoming a regular goal scorer.
His record is very very average for a 70m pound player.
Ok cool. They got a little Spanish contingent going
Yep. I feel Lukaku would be successful at Chelsea too. He can hold up the ball when he wants to and have Pedro and Hazard run off him. Obviously he would give the ball away more than Costa but then Lukaku will score more. Morata would probably do better at Chelsea. We don't have the creative attacking finesse of Madrid. Towards the 2nd half of the season we were just playing it out wide and crossing it in. Strikers were relying on half chances. I feel Lukaku, having scored loads at Everton (they don't have much in the creative department) should be able to make the most of our limited attacking play.
Lol. Not sure why you're so angry but hey ho. And tbf my post was nothing to do with United, just Chelsea. Emenalo, who's very influential, wanted Lukaku and Conte's preference was Morata. Battle of wills and difference of opinion between manager and hierarchy is pretty standard at a club run the way Chelsea are. Not something to get worked up about.
Juve signed Morata in July 2014 when Conte was still in charge but Conte took over as Italy manager a month later.
So how do you know this about Conte's first choice or is it just speculation?
Any quotes?
What we do know is Chelsea were that desperate to get Lukaku they matched our bid once it was accepted. We also know United, by choice, ditched the Morata deal.
I dont think chelsea have spent 70 mil to play morata as a 10 or on the wing. Theyve brought him in to replace Costa who scores 20+ goals a season.
Morata is a no. 9 and Conte likes his no. 9s to score goals. Since this is a big step up in Morata's career and he's expected to replace a 20+ goals/season striker which hes never done before, spending 70 miliion on him is a risk.
Last edited:
My bad if my post came across as rude. My whole point was I don't agree with people buying into ballague who suddenly comes and say conte never wanted lukaku. It was clear Chelsea wanted lukaku and never there were any groans from conte of not wanting him. If anything many reporters said conte was pissed after losing out on lukaku. Again nothing against morata who I believe is a very good footballer but just can't plainly trust the media.
Couldn't make it up
I'm bored of this comparison already. One played for a mid table PL team while the other mostly warmed the bench for European Champions. Let's compare at the end of next season after both have played for two teams in the same league with arguably more parity amongst each other.
Morata would not score a goal like that. Also Lukaku warms my heart. He’s cool and dreamy.
Conte resigned on 15th July, Morata was signed on 19th July. Apparently Conte wanted him at Juventus but he wasn't there when he signed.
Yes of course. My bad. I checked date he got Italy job rather than day he actually left Juve.
Morata may have filled a gap, or not. Lukaku will take us to the top of the league. Of course we made the right choice.
Chelsea wanting Lukaku and Conte wanting him are two different things. Most reporters with closer ties to CFC have always said that Conte's number 1 option was Morata. Conte confirmed that today as well. The club though were clearly sounding out a few options including Lukaku. Either way, both clubs have got good players and personally, I'm happier with Morata, but would have been happy with either player.
to be fair, Conte was never going tpo say " I wanted Lukaku and the guy siting next me was my second choice..."
I really hope we don't end up with regrets...