He certainly was poor for Belgium .Thing is mate, Barkley looked similar to Lukaku for the last couple of months of last season as well, both looked 'lazy' or IMO looked basically worn down by overplaying, maybe the mess the club had gotten into had a hige part of that as well, and maybe they are excuses, but to dismiss them is too black and white.
As i said earleir, Lukaku for Belgium looked no better than he had done for us in the period your saying he couldnt be bothered, so quation remains - why was he similarly not botherd for Belgium given the way he performed?
I think that part of his problem is that he thinks he is a better player than he is.
Listening to both himself and his father leading up to the Euros they certainly believed that the top European clubs would all be fighting over his signature. They even went so far as to dismiss the Italian league as it didn't suit his game.
If he stays, and I think he will, I think it is vital that we have a second striker signed that will give him competition and a breather at the same time.
Last season, he was the main striker, because the alternatives were poor to be honest. At the moment we still are stuck with the same alternatives.
I think Lukaku being "rested" for games would do him no harm at all.
People talk about a poor defence, but to my mind the first line of defence is in the attack. Not just for chasing back, but, a striker like Lukaku on the very top of his game can terrorise a team and practically keeps the whole team pinned back. Equally, when that striker is out of sorts as Lukaku often is we might as well have a kid from the academy playing, and that I suppose is the challenge for RK.