The comparison to Drogba comes about because they both played for Chelsea.
The comparison to Heskey comes about because Heskey was considered technically unsound too.
Not racism.
Factually incorrect. He was called the new Drogba before Chelsea had bought him...for very little reason beyond race and physique. There are undoubtedly other, much smaller factors, mostly driven by an inaccurate assessment of both players' skillsets, but the primary reason is really quite obvious when you look at any number of similar comparisons which would be laughed out of the room if you're talking about a different race.
That was rare back then. Remember that Drogba was very much criticized in his first season particularly when his performances were analyzed within the context of his price tag. He fell short of expectations. He dived when no one touched him, held on to the ball and tried to score himself when passing was better etc. I could go on and on. He was 26 then, remember? His highest goal tally in France with Marseille a year earlier before he moved to England was 19 when he ended the season as the third highest goal scorer. In his first season at Chelsea, he scored only 16 goals in 40 games.
Drogba was great but people need to remember how he evolved. He got better with time. I remember he was clumsy with the ball when attempting to dribble early in his career at Chelsea but he improved d on it significantly. He was also not known as a dangerous free kick specialist until later. He worked hard on it until he became one of the best.
The one thing Drogba always had was his affinity for the big stage. He was tailor made for it. That is what put him in a totally different class from most others. And it's the one thing I wonder of Lukaku can ever match. But Lukaku is still 24. He can improve. We'll see how well he does so.
I agree that Drogba was a bit of a donkey to begin with. You only need to watch his first touch against us - it doesn't get much worse than
this! It's yet more evidence why people's rigid views on the importance of a players' first touch, and the inability to improve it over time, are somewhat misguided. That said, you're talking about something completely different here.
What I was talking about was what has
always, always set Lukaku and Drogba apart. Lukaku is a goalscorer. Drogba, for the most part, wasn't. Regardless of whether you look at his clumsy early years or his prolific peak years, he was always a provider. Lukaku can afford not to be because he has consistently scored goals.
When Drogba wasn't scoring goals, why do you think he was in the team? Sure, he frequently scored important goals in big games, but why bother playing him in the small games if he didn't score? The answer is simple: his all-round contribution. He was a total wimp and a bit of a knob but he was a selfless player from the off. Just look at his vital, if simple, contribution to that
seminal Lampard goal to win the title. It happened throughout the season. He was there
laying the ball off for midfield runners,
playing other forwards in and generally doing lots of selfless, unappreciated work. As for him learning to score free kicks late...I think
he'd disagree.
That simply isn't who Lukaku is. He might start to develop that way and build his all-round game to complement his core qualities, but that's the opposite to what Drogba did. The comparison is just silly.