Lukaku

Status
Not open for further replies.
If Bony is this good, why don't Chelsea sell this useless heap of footballer Lukaku and buy the ready made version?

Well they are trying to do the "selling Lukaku" part. Probably because his inability to control, hold up the ball, and pass to a team mate isn't very good.

In the words of Mourinho about his strikers:-
"Our strikers are good strikers, but they are players with some specific qualities," Mourinho said.
"They are not the kind of players who in five square metres - with three or four players around - can get the ball, dribble on, see the space and shoot.
"So when the team is in a difficult situation they are not able to, normally, resolve the situation for us."


He could very well be describing Lukaku there, when marked tightly or against a deep set defence like he was the other night, like he was against Crytsal Palace - he is unable to do what he wants.
 

I know full well what you were replying to. Excuse me for thinking of Everton over Chelsea. You're back-handedly implying that if Rom is not good enough for Jose and Chelsea, then he's not good enough for us.

Excuse me if I'm wrong. I'm on a day off, and might have drank 6 or 7 cans of Holstein Pils.

Not that at all. It was simply this - the question was why aren't Chelsea signing Bony if he's better than Lukaku, and my answer was they're signing Diego Costa instead.

I wasn't talking about Lukaku's quality, just his perceived importance to Chelsea.
 
Were are you going with this? Unless I've missed something recently Torres and Ba along with Lukaku are all still registered to Chelsea. The only forward who's left is Eto and the one they've brought in to replace that him is Costa, Chelsea are a club that requires 4 strikers because of the amount of games they play in.

Like I said if they are to sell this seemingly waste of space Lukaku why don't they buy this world beater called Bony apparently he's almost the prefect footballer.

Haven't you heard mate? Chelski are skint. They can't afford a Swansea player.
 
Were are you going with this? Unless I've missed something recently Torres and Ba along with Lukaku are all still registered to Chelsea. The only forward who's left is Eto and the one they've brought in to replace that him is Costa, Chelsea are a club that requires 4 strikers because of the amount of games they play in.

Like I said if they are to sell this seemingly waste of space Lukaku why don't they buy this world beater called Bony apparently he's almost the prefect footballer.

They wouldn't, they bought Costa instead. They play one striker, that's why Lukaku has been farmed out on loan. They only need three strikers on the books max - that'd be Costa, Torres and Ba at present. If they sell Torres or Ba, they'll replace them, but it's three first team squad strikers max.
 

Were are you going with this? Unless I've missed something recently Torres and Ba along with Lukaku are all still registered to Chelsea. The only forward who's left is Eto and the one they've brought in to replace that him is Costa, Chelsea are a club that requires 4 strikers because of the amount of games they play in.

Like I said if they are to sell this seemingly waste of space Lukaku why don't they buy this world beater called Bony apparently he's almost the prefect footballer.
Not even almost.
 
Not that at all. It was simply this - the question was why aren't Chelsea signing Bony if he's better than Lukaku, and my answer was they're signing Diego Costa instead.

I wasn't talking about Lukaku's quality, just his perceived importance to Chelsea.

But Lukaku never played for Chelski last season. Costa is gonna be their numero uno, I presume, and therefore replacing E'too/Torres. What I believe you were replying to is; why haven't Chelski binned Rom off for Bony?
 
Well they are trying to do the "selling Lukaku" part. Probably because his inability to control, hold up the ball, and pass to a team mate isn't very good.

In the words of Mourinho about his strikers:-
"Our strikers are good strikers, but they are players with some specific qualities," Mourinho said.
"They are not the kind of players who in five square metres - with three or four players around - can get the ball, dribble on, see the space and shoot.
"So when the team is in a difficult situation they are not able to, normally, resolve the situation for us."


He could very well be describing Lukaku there, when marked tightly or against a deep set defence like he was the other night, like he was against Crytsal Palace - he is unable to do what he wants.

What are you talking about now? Mourinho was aiming those comments at his squad of last year, Lukaku wasn't in their squad last year. Try and stay on track and don't attribute a description Mourinho made about his strikers last year to Lukaku. You're grasping at straws.
 
They wouldn't, they bought Costa instead. They play one striker, that's why Lukaku has been farmed out on loan. They only need three strikers on the books max - that'd be Costa, Torres and Ba at present. If they sell Torres or Ba, they'll replace them, but it's three first team squad strikers max.

They may play one striker but they rotate and players come on from the bench, a number of times last year they ended up with all 3 on the pitch at the same time. Even though they had 3 strikers Mourinho was constantly saying how they were short of a strikers up front, a club with Chelsea's commitments and financies always have 4 recognised strikers.
 
But Lukaku never played for Chelski last season. Costa is gonna be their numero uno, I presume, and therefore replacing E'too/Torres. What I believe you were replying to is; why haven't Chelski binned Rom off for Bony?

Nope - they're binning off Eto'o and Lukaku for Costa as they only need three strikers, which is the reason Lukaku was allowed out on loan in the first place. So I replied with "Diego Costa" to highlight the overall point that they ARE replacing Lukaku with a player, just not Bony, because Lukaku is fairly obviously not part of their long term plans.

If Lukaku starts the season at Chelsea I'll be prepared to be corrected but I'd be amazed.
 

With all respect mate, you're making a tit out of yourself now.

really??? you playing on fifa and footy manager - how is Lukaku's rating in season 2018 does his first touch improve?

Tell ya what, start watching footballers, use your own judgement, not stats - its amazing the players you may have a differing opinion on to others who just read forums or watch MOTD.

Its been enoyable for me spotting Gudjohnsen playing for Bolton and calling him a class act who will go to the top, I particularly enjoyed telling people that James McCarthy was a class player who would be better than Felllaini a year or so back.
 
They may play one striker but they rotate and players come on from the bench, a number of times last year they ended up with all 3 on the pitch at the same time. Even though they had 3 strikers Mourinho as constantly saying how they were short of a strikers up front, a club with Chelsea's commitments and financies always have 4 recognised strikers.

They had Ba, Eto'o and Torres for the entire 2013/14 campaign - three strikers. Lukaku quite simply would not have been allowed out on loan with no option to recall if they wanted to have four first team strikers.
 
Nope - they're binning off Eto'o and Lukaku for Costa as they only need three strikers, which is the reason Lukaku was allowed out on loan in the first place. So I replied with "Diego Costa" to highlight the overall point that they ARE replacing Lukaku with a player, just not Bony, because Lukaku is fairly obviously not part of their long term plans.

If Lukaku starts the season at Chelsea I'll be prepared to be corrected but I'd be amazed.

Oh, so Costa is replacing a player who's never started a game for them, and not the massively paid striker they've just let go? How convenient....
 
Oh, so Costa is replacing a player who's never started a game for them, and not the massively paid striker they've just let go? How convenient....

He's replacing both! Eto'o is gone, Lukaku comes back but isn't in their plans and will be moved out, so when Costa comes in they're back to three strikers - this isn't difficult maths, the only difference is they won't have a player out on loan for a season this year.
 
They had Ba, Eto'o and Torres for the entire 2013/14 campaign - three strikers. Lukaku quite simply would not have been allowed out on loan with no option to recall if they wanted to have four first team strikers.

Mourinho believed they were bring in another striker at Christmas, he thought they'd done a deal to get Rooney. In the meantime Rooney had a change of heart as Utd dug in and handed him a bumper deal to stay. It's common knowledge.
 

Status
Not open for further replies.

Welcome

Join Grand Old Team to get involved in the Everton discussion. Signing up is quick, easy, and completely free.

Shop

Back
Top