Lloyd-Christmas
Player Valuation: £750k
Glue?
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Romelu Lukaku
- Thread starter marsh
- Start date
- Status
Glue?
Guivarche and giroud both played as number 9's for France in both world cup winning sides... and had zero goals all tournament but both were key to their sides success.....
Imagine if Belgium won the world cup and lukaku played well??.. the answer to that is if lukaku could play well in key games then Belgium could and probably would have won the world cup.
I think you have you missed the whole point of lukaku being disliked?
That outside of him relying on his team mates to provide him with chances to score he literally offered us NOTHING. Rarely put in a shift, never pressed, couldn't win headers, lost the ball due to poor passing or control.
A game I did actually praise lukaku for was a derby where he managed to get involved with Sakho... I think he may have scored but it wasn't his goal it was the first time I seen him play and want to win... and challenge.
He's a modern day goal hanger.
Do you mean like how he played brilliantly against Brazil and I gave him every credit for that performance?
But also predicted - correctly - that it was a total one-off and was one of his 'one in ten' decent games?
If he'd had played half as well as he did against Brazil throughout that entire World Cup, and all you had to do for such performance was to sacrifice his pretty pointless goals against Panama and Tunisia, Belgium would have most likely won the tournament.
The 3-0 v Southampton away was a rare occasion when he put a great performance in. He was unplayable. Good goal scorer but a huge waste of ability.
You give him credit now and again yes but also judge him totally different to other strikers.. which is annoying! So Roms the reason Belgium never won the world cup now aswell?
I don't judge him differently - I rate him as he is; a good player for a counter attacking team, around the level of mid-table to 7th/8th in the Premier League.
The irony is others judge him differently - they rate him as borderline world class, which is mind-boggling to me.
Is he the reason they didn't win the World Cup? No, but I have no doubt that if they had a better striker their chances of doing so would have been increased to the point where they'd have been firm favourites. Personally, barring an absolute masterclass from De Bruyne and Hazard, I never thought Belgium had a chance precisely because they wouldn't be able to make the ball stick consistently against better opposition because of the one big flaw they had in attack - and so it proved. Against France they dominated the game with possession but couldn't get it to work in the right areas, and France simply picked them off - so much so that in the second half Belgium barely had a sniff. Lukaku in that game had the least touches of any outfield player because of how limited he is.
Just typing Flat track bulky would've saved a lot of time
So every striker who doesn't score an equaliser or the first goal or a winner you go pointless goals them!
Not at all, but when that's often all that player does and is otherwise a detriment to the general play of his team, then it's worth calling out.
One winner against a City is worth ten goals over the likes of Hull when your team are already 2-0 up.
Would Belgium have beat Tunisia and Panama without Lukaku's goals? Yes, almost certainly they would have done. Therefore, what value do they have? Isn't there intrinsically more value from his performance against Brazil where he didn't score but played very well? Wouldn't more performances like that be more valuable than his stat-padding usual against lesser defences?
But if he had played well vs Brazil and they'd got beat odds on you'd all be on here slating him for not scoring in a big game. So he can't win really unless he plays superb and scores in every single game which isn't realistic..
I love Rom from his time at Everton and i can see your sides to the argument of him being frustrating and rubbish at times but i think it goes over the top/its because its Rom and theres a dislike there that hes judged differently to alot of others
The problem is that even that is disappearing from his game now. The amount of easy chances he fluffs now is borderline embarrassing. I assume that will be remedied by confidence, but as it stands I wouldn't trust him in front of goal.
Sunderland away when he got the hat trick was great as well, especially as he'd had a bit of drought prior to it
Bolasie was actually fantastic in that match as well. He was decent for us until he got injured and worked well with Rom
Simply not true - there's an example on here I cba vaulting from a game he had for United away to Leicester where he didn't score, United didn't win (think it finished 2-2 or 3-3), but I still felt he had his best game in months. I've regularly praised him when he plays well - the problem is that it's just so rare. It is about one game in ten, no exaggeration, on average about five great games a season since his first season here.
I don't even dislike Lukaku - I had no issue with him leaving (aside from actively wanting us to sell him, I mean I had no issues with him having ambition), I don't care about his personality. No, the only problem I have is how his goals completely pull the wool over the eyes of people who are otherwise quite knowledgeable about football. To me it makes as little sense as calling Lee Trundle as a peer to Pele.
He's an OK player in the right system; nothing more, nothing less. He's further away from being called 'world class' than the likes of Callum Wilson, who is a far, far superior player.
That's honestly the reality, and I can say that with confidence as the person who said he'd score goals at United but he'd ultimately flop and be shipped out inside three years because he won't be able to disguise his weaknesses at a higher level through goals alone - I'm one up on Nostradamus in that respect.
- Status