Romelu Lukaku | Chelsea

adexkola said:
Scapegoat post honestly. And this isn't a direct response to your post, but more so the general attitude that Lukaku ruined a "perfect thing" at Chelsea.

CL win aside, Chelsea were not this rampaging attacking unit before Lukaku arrived. They didn't outperform Ole significantly after Tuchel arrived, last season. They qualified for 4th place on the last day of the season with iffy form prior, and lost the FA Cup to Leicester.

Most of their goals this season have been from defenders. All their attackers have struggled this season due to lack of form or injuries.

It's telling that all people can point to is "they look better with Lukaku on the pitch"... They didn't look any better against West Ham before Lukaku came on. They didn't look too imperious against United with Lukaku on the bench. Ziyech is struggling for form. Ditto for Havertz. Werner is a joke. Countdown to when Pulisic gets injured again.

Yet Lukaku is the player supposedly holding Chelsea back from sheer attacking greatness, a greatness that they have never displayed on a consistent basis in the Tuchel era? Yeah ok.
Click to expand...

My post is just in reference to Chelsea with and without Lukaku…

Have you watched Chelsea with and without Lukaku this season?

Also regarding your opinions on Tuchel’s attacking - are you aware that Chelsea have scored more goals than City this season…?
 
adexkola said:
Scapegoat post honestly. And this isn't a direct response to your post, but more so the general attitude that Lukaku ruined a "perfect thing" at Chelsea.

CL win aside, Chelsea were not this rampaging attacking unit before Lukaku arrived. They didn't outperform Ole significantly after Tuchel arrived, last season. They qualified for 4th place on the last day of the season with iffy form prior, and lost the FA Cup to Leicester.

Most of their goals this season have been from defenders. All their attackers have struggled this season due to lack of form or injuries.

It's telling that all people can point to is "they look better with Lukaku on the pitch"... They didn't look any better against West Ham before Lukaku came on. They didn't look too imperious against United with Lukaku on the bench. Ziyech is struggling for form. Ditto for Havertz. Werner is a joke. Countdown to when Pulisic gets injured again.

Yet Lukaku is the player supposedly holding Chelsea back from sheer attacking greatness, a greatness that they have never displayed on a consistent basis in the Tuchel era? Yeah ok.
Click to expand...
We actually did. Not amazing granted but we pressed well, created a decent amount of opening and kept the back door firmly shut. When he came on we created one opening all half, the pressing went out of the window and we looked like conceding every time the ball was turned over.

If it was one match I'll give him the benefit of the doubt but there's far too much sample size now. The press is actually the most crucial part of our tactic, not only is it the first line of defense but it's probably our biggest creator, without Rom we are arguably the best in Europe at it, with him (pre his injury) we had similar stats to Spurs on it, yes that lifeless Spurs side under Nuno. Also before we mention our XG with him in 1.5, without him? 2.5.

No one is saying we're the best attack in the world without him, but the way we play when he's not on is a lot more sustainable than the way we play when he does and that's going both ways.
 
He isn't that much different compared to his United days, but lets see how he does in the games coming up, has to regain match-fitness first.
 
Last edited:
WeePat said:
Chelsea did look better before Lukaku came on yesterday. By some distance to be honest.

I also don't think it's that debatable that Chelsea have looked significantly better in his absence than with him. No-one is claiming the team is Brazil 1958 without him.
Click to expand...

Rhyme Animal said:
My post is just in reference to Chelsea with and without Lukaku…

Have you watched Chelsea with and without Lukaku this season?

Also regarding your opinions on Tuchel’s attacking - are you aware that Chelsea have scored more goals than City this season…?
Click to expand...

Yes I have. They have had a significant form dip in the last few games, have they not? Draws against Burnley and us, a loss at West Ham. That happened with Lukaku being sidelined.

Yes, only by 3 goals, with most of their goals coming from defenders. Plus (if you hate xG look away), they are a good distance behind Liverpool and City.

Most of their attackers are struggling to provide significant attacking output for the team. Werner, Havertz, Pulisic, Ziyech, Mount, Hudson-Odoi... Who's actually having a good season so far?

WeePat said:
Chelsea did look better before Lukaku came on yesterday. By some distance to be honest.

I also don't think it's that debatable that Chelsea have looked significantly better in his absence than with him. No-one is claiming the team is Brazil 1958 without him.
Click to expand...

In terms of actual performance? I didn't notice a shift honestly. I thought West Ham were the better side throughout and could have left with more (Silva had a goal line save IIRC?).

If Chelsea look better without him than with him, maybe that is an indictment on Tuchel, not Lukaku? Again, it's not like he's played heavily in your recent dip in form.
 
adexkola said:
Scapegoat post honestly. And this isn't a direct response to your post, but more so the general attitude that Lukaku ruined a "perfect thing" at Chelsea.

CL win aside, Chelsea were not this rampaging attacking unit before Lukaku arrived. They didn't outperform Ole significantly after Tuchel arrived, last season. They qualified for 4th place on the last day of the season with iffy form prior, and lost the FA Cup to Leicester.

Most of their goals this season have been from defenders. All their attackers have struggled this season due to lack of form or injuries.

It's telling that all people can point to is "they look better with Lukaku on the pitch"... They didn't look any better against West Ham before Lukaku came on. They didn't look too imperious against United with Lukaku on the bench. Ziyech is struggling for form. Ditto for Havertz. Werner is a joke. Countdown to when Pulisic gets injured again.

Yet Lukaku is the player supposedly holding Chelsea back from sheer attacking greatness, a greatness that they have never displayed on a consistent basis in the Tuchel era? Yeah ok.
Click to expand...

Their system lifted huge amount of players on another level. Yeah, they weren't great in EPL overall, but in CL they put some brilliant performances barely letting opposition any chances. As Pep admitted the problem when playing this Chelsea side is they are so compact and close with back 3 and 2 central midfielders while being in the possession, but at the same time they stretch you on each side with their wingbacks and Werner who is constantly running behind the defense centrally which is why it's so hard to press them. It is also wrong to say their goals come mostly from defenders as their wingbacks operate almost as wingers in attack. Now, it's not perfect and Pep finally solve the issue last time by marking Jorginho out of the game barely letting them any possession.

In any case, Werner can obviously be upgraded. But, Lukaku was a bad fit for that amount of money imo. He just doesn't press that hard, nor he stretches the defence the way Werner and opens the space for those behind him (Havertz/Mount mostly). What they needed is Luis Suarez type of striker which is well, problem to find, but it is still wrong to spent so much on Lukaku who has so much limitations. I can only assume Haaland said no to them and they went with for him.
 
Jim Beam said:
Their system lifted huge amount of players on another level. Yeah, they weren't great in EPL overall, but in CL they put some brilliant performances barely letting opposition any chances. As Pep admitted the problem when playing this Chelsea side is they are so compact and close with back 3 and 2 central midfielders while being in the possession, but at the same time they stretch you on each side with their wingbacks and Werner who is constantly running behind the defense centrally which is why it's so hard to press them. It is also wrong to say their goals come mostly from defenders as their wingbacks operate almost as wingers in attack. Now, it's not perfect and Pep finally solve the issue last time by marking Jorginho out of the game barely letting them any possession.
Click to expand...

I'm glad we agree with each other. Chelsea last season, post Tuchel arrival, had ok league form. Fair to them, did well in the CL. But it's a cup competition, where variance is more of a factor. Based on that, everyone assumed they were league championship caliber. That's a status that is earned over an entire season, not based on the merits of a successful European FA Cup campaign.

So going into this season, Chelsea had everything to prove in terms of showing they had the ability to put in consistent performances week in week out, as City and Liverpool have demonstrated over the last 4 years.

Which is why I keep on going back to this idea that "Lukaku is disrupting an otherwise great system". We don't know if that system is great honestly, there isn't enough evidence. All I see is their attackers (sans James and Chilwell, I concede that point) misfiring, and their xG behind their other 2 competitors (one of which doesn't have an actual striker) That's not a Lukaku problem, that's a Chelsea problem.

Jim Beam said:
In any case, Werner can obviously be upgraded. But, Lukaku was a bad fit for that amount of money imo. He just doesn't press that hard, nor he stretches the defence the way Werner and opens the space for those behind him (Havertz/Mount mostly). What they needed is Luis Suarez type of striker which is well, problem to find, but it is still wrong to spent so much on Lukaku who has so much limitations. I can only assume Haaland said no to them and they went with for him.
Click to expand...

But we know Lukaku's strengths and weaknesses already. He's shown them for Inter and United. And he's definitely no Werner. So two questions:

1. Did Chelsea expect to slot Lukaku in and expect things would hum along as usual, without rejigging things to suit Lukaku's strengths better (like Conte did at Inter)?

2. Forget Lukaku for a moment. What elevated Chelsea to league favorites above Chelsea and City? Why have they been granted that status (which Lukaku is supposedly holding them back from now)? What is their true level without Lukaku? My contention is that it's behind Liverpool and City until proven otherwise.
 
adexkola said:
In terms of actual performance? I didn't notice a shift honestly. I thought West Ham were the better side throughout and could have left with more (Silva had a goal line save IIRC?).

If Chelsea look better without him than with him, maybe that is an indictment on Tuchel, not Lukaku? Again, it's not like he's played heavily in your recent dip in form.
Click to expand...

Chelsea were pretty significantly better than West Ham in the first half and the first portion of the second half. Don't think they even attempted to cross the halfway line in the first half more than a couple of times.

The dip on form, which isn't really a big dip in form, just a couple of iffy results in the league amongst some pretty fantastic results (Leicester, Juventus) has more to do with the injuries in key positions than anything else. In any case, Mount has 5 goals and 4 assists this season in roughly 10 starts and CHO, once he was given a run of 6-7 starts, chipped in with 2 goals and 2 assists. I'm not claiming we're this unstoppable attacking juggernaut without him but for me, judging by the eye test alone, we create more and score more without Lukaku. I don't deny there are those on here that revel in Lukaku's misery and always rush to overstate or exaggerate his shortcomings. That's not what I'm doing.
 
adexkola said:
I'm glad we agree with each other. Chelsea last season, post Tuchel arrival, had ok league form. Fair to them, did well in the CL. But it's a cup competition, where variance is more of a factor. Based on that, everyone assumed they were league championship caliber. That's a status that is earned over an entire season, not based on the merits of a successful European FA Cup campaign.

So going into this season, Chelsea had everything to prove in terms of showing they had the ability to put in consistent performances week in week out, as City and Liverpool have demonstrated over the last 4 years.

Which is why I keep on going back to this idea that "Lukaku is disrupting an otherwise great system". We don't know if that system is great honestly, there isn't enough evidence. All I see is their attackers (sans James and Chilwell, I concede that point) misfiring, and their xG behind their other 2 competitors (one of which doesn't have an actual striker) That's not a Lukaku problem, that's a Chelsea problem.



But we know Lukaku's strengths and weaknesses already. He's shown them for Inter and United. And he's definitely no Werner. So two questions:

1. Did Chelsea expect to slot Lukaku in and expect things would hum along as usual, without rejigging things to suit Lukaku's strengths better (like Conte did at Inter)?

2. Forget Lukaku for a moment. What elevated Chelsea to league favorites above Chelsea and City? Why have they been granted that status (which Lukaku is supposedly holding them back from now)? What is their true level without Lukaku? My contention is that it's behind Liverpool and City until proven otherwise.
Click to expand...
We were second in the table post Tuchel's arrival, and our XP total was even more comfortable top 2 (and only one behind City, infact we were comfortable top 2 on XP even counting Lampard's half season). We lost some points due to some pretty comical finishing but all the metrics were (and still are) pointing to the fluid false 9 system being sustainable.

https://understat.com/league/EPL/2020

We won pretty much every big game (off the top of my head you lot at home and Real away are the only one's we didn't) barely conceding in any of them either.

Regarding Rom's stylistic fit, it's not just about on the ball, it's off it aswell. The press is crucial to the way Tuchel wants to play, Lukaku can't/won't press and it basically wipes out not only our first line of defense but a way to create chances.

If we really wanted to go down the route of a near safe bet scorer we should have tried to get a wide forward type player and if we couldn't wait, and just like magic Adeyemi will probably be avaliable next summer and even Chiesa might be too.
 
adexkola said:
Which is why I keep on going back to this idea that "Lukaku is disrupting an otherwise great system". We don't know if that system is great honestly, there isn't enough evidence. All I see is their attackers (sans James and Chilwell, I concede that point) misfiring, and their xG behind their other 2 competitors (one of which doesn't have an actual striker) That's not a Lukaku problem, that's a Chelsea problem.
Click to expand...

Think that system is really good as obviously it lifted so many players. That was not Di Matteo CL kind of win, they really looked formidable force. I do think that they might find it tougher as this season goes and need more variety in their game. But, as for the system as Rangnick said in his press conference you want to minimaze the coincidence factor and have control of the game. That's pretty much Chelsea team.

Their problem is they are against two juggernauts and they are not on that level yet... and probably never will be as I think Tuchel is not on the level of Guardiola/Klopp. Which is nothing to be ashamed about, those two are the best in the world.

adexkola said:
1. Did Chelsea expect to slot Lukaku in and expect things would hum along as usual, without rejigging things to suit Lukaku's strengths better (like Conte did at Inter)?
Click to expand...

I wouldn't change the system for Lukaku. He just isn't worth it. Conte did make a better use of Lukaku, but still looked very average in Europe. I do feel they expected something that Lukaku isn't.

adexkola said:
2. Forget Lukaku for a moment. What elevated Chelsea to league favorites above Chelsea and City? Why have they been granted that status (which Lukaku is supposedly holding them back from now)? What is their true level without Lukaku? My contention is that it's behind Liverpool and City until proven otherwise.
Click to expand...

Definitely behind both of them. They are an excellent team, but no way they have that fear factor... But I do think that a different, world class striker would bridge the gap.
 
Looks overweight.
 
He's finally back after injury and covid what feels like he missed 50 matches. I think if we had him for the Everton, Burnley, Man Utd and Wolves draws i think he would be closer to Man City
 
Absolutely criminal that targett didn't just foul him, but came on and made Mings look like the average defender he is.
 
Looking forward to seeing how he does second half of the season. I’ve been someone who was unsure about the transfer and how he’d fit in. Chelsea need goals though and seeing the focal point he gave them today, he could be very important.
 
Doesn't suit them well at all what a bizarre transfer all around, I know this is in hindsight but they might as well had gone for someone like vlahovic

Conte probably won't mind a straight swap with kane
 
I don’t get why Andy Townsend was saying he’d been so good. He wasn’t bad but he got a lot of ball in good positions and I feel he could have been more clinical. Didn’t help that CHO was terrible mind.
 


Weird guy. People who blamed Ole and United for selling him, always forget he wanted to leave.
 
What's gone on with him recently at Chelsea?
 
A trend starting to develop with Big Rom, perhaps. It's always greener on the other side and there's always somebody else to blame for his situation. He's talked a lot in the past about importance of mental toughness and being a winner etc., but he seems to have a low threshold for when things are not going all his own way. Maybe I'm being harsh though?
 
Have Chelsea even changed their system since he joined? Looks the same to me. He just has to fight for his place.
 
We spent damn near 100 million British pounds for this guy.
 
One of the players I dislike the most in football right now. He thinks he is prime R9. I was over the moon when we signed him but god I am happy that he is gone.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.