Romelu Lukaku vs Alvaro Morata 2017/18

eat_grass said:
@SlothIsLove, nobody said they aren't "important enough" (whatever "enough" is).
Click to expand...
Enough to be taken into account in your chart.

eat_grass said:
It was a comparison between something more valuable and something less. It does not make the thing of lesser value valueless.
Click to expand...

The fact that you gave these goals 0 point in your chart says otherwise.

Your original point was that Morata's goals and assists have greater impact than Lukaku's ones, and you used your chart to prove that, correct? So if you give 1 point for each high impact goal / assist as you defined, then these kind of goals / assists that double the lead should be given 0.3 - 0.5 point at least. Because they also have impact in the game and sometimes could give you 2 points, as much as a winning goal.

However you didn't take them into account in your chart, which means @roonster09 is right. You ignored Lukaku's contribution just to fit your narrative.
 
  • Like
Reactions: KM
SlothIsLove said:
Enough to be taken into account in your chart.



The fact that you gave these goals 0 point in your chart says otherwise.

Your original point was that Morata's goals and assists have greater impact than Lukaku's ones, and you used your chart to prove that, correct? So if you give 1 point for each high impact goal / assist as you defined, then these kind of goals / assists that double the lead should be given 0.3 - 0.5 point at least. Because they also have impact in the game and sometimes could give you 2 points, as much as a winning goal.

However you didn't take them into account in your chart, which means @roonster09 is right. You ignored Lukaku's contribution just to fit your narrative.
Click to expand...

Thank you, that was put very well.
 
SlothIsLove said:
You ignored Lukaku's contribution just to fit your narrative.
Click to expand...

Patently false. Why would I extend the argument to include lesser contributions when my argument was about high-impact contribution?

You and he are perfectly able to make that argument yourselves. So have at it. Make that argument. But it has nothing to do with what I was addressing in my original post. What you two are instead insisting on is broadening the argument to help make the numbers look more in favor of your point of view. It really is that simple.

You two don't like that the numbers backed my argument, so you want to change the metrics.
 
roonster09 said:
Scoring second goal is very valuable, it should be counted when you consider important contribution by the player. You can put any criteria on that, that doesn't change Lukaku's contribution to the team.

I can give so many examples when team failed to score more goals when they had 1 or 2 goal lead and ended up with no more than a point, in ManUtd case, even lost a league title for not adding more to 2 goal lead.
Click to expand...

Point to a single word I've said to indicate otherwise. Of course those goals are important. Last year United suffered many draws by conceding a one goal lead. Mourinho was even asked in a press conference this pre-season if he thought Lukaku's history of being a "flat-track bully," a player that scores goals to put games out of reach more than game-winning goals, was the perfect fit for United considering last season's results. He said yes. He didn't argue against the premise of the question. He said yes.

I think we're talking past each other now, even though we agree on most points in this discussion, and it's because you don't like how the numbers compare between the two players.
 
eat_grass said:
Point to a single word I've said to indicate otherwise. Of course those goals are important. Last year United suffered many draws by conceding a one goal lead. Mourinho was even asked in a press conference this pre-season if he thought Lukaku's history of being a "flat-track bully," a player that scores goals to put games out of reach more than game-winning goals, was the perfect fit for United considering last season's results. He said yes. He didn't argue against the premise of the question. He said yes.

I think we're talking past each other now, even though we agree on most points in this discussion, and it's because you don't like how the numbers compare between the two players.
Click to expand...

Oh yeah thats it. :wenger:
 
Jesus, give it a rest lads.
 
eat_grass said:
Patently false. Why would I extend the argument to include lesser contributions when my argument was about high-impact contribution?

You and he are perfectly able to make that argument yourselves. So have at it. Make that argument. But it has nothing to do with what I was addressing in my original post. What you two are instead insisting on is broadening the argument to help make the numbers look more in favor of your point of view. It really is that simple.

You two don't like that the numbers backed my argument, so you want to change the metrics.
Click to expand...

I admit that I didn't see the "high-impact goals" text in your chart :D Then the chart has nothing to do with your arguments:

eat_grass said:
Yeah, 2-nills and assists to put the game out of reach. Morata's got equal impact with his assists, but greater impact with his goals:

No matter how you slice it up, Morata's impact exceeds Lukaku's on that front. Either the deciding goal or assist (saving or winning points) in 10 matches. Lukaku's got work to do. ;)
Click to expand...

eat_grass said:
That actually is my point. If it's a striker's job to score goals, then it's fair to judge the value of their goals. Morata comes out on top on that metric.

It's the "extending leads" that makes them less valuable -- not value-less, but simply not as impactful as Morata's contributions.

You're not looking closely enough: in how many games did Morata get points-winning or points-saving goals? 8. He assisted the points-winning goal in one other game, and his other assists (in your words) "extended leads."

Morata still comes out on top.
Click to expand...

The original point was clearly about all of their goals and assists. You are either confusing yourself, or are moving the goalposts.
 
I think particularly in the premiership, going 2 goals up is a fairly critical stage of the match. for most top teams (not us), that means cruise mode till the final whistle. Being 1 up basically means the complete opposite as teams tend to chase equalizers viciously in this league.
 
B20 said:
I think particularly in the premiership, going 2 goals up is a fairly critical stage of the match. for most top teams (not us), that means cruise mode till the final whistle. Being 1 up basically means the complete opposite as teams tend to chase equalizers viciously in this league.
Click to expand...

Exactly. 1 goal lead means 1 shot away or 1 moment of madness away from dropping points.
 
SlothIsLove said:
I admit that I didn't see the "high-impact goals" text in your chart :D Then the chart has nothing to do with your arguments:

The original point was clearly about all of their goals and assists. You are either confusing yourself, or are moving the goalposts.
Click to expand...

No, that was just me trying to keep up with @roonster09 demanding I move the goalposts to make the numbers look better for Lukaku. :D

My original post in this thread was born from this:

It seemed like every week I was seeing Chelsea highlights of Morata scoring lead-taking or game-tying goals, and some of them where against top teams (United, Atletico). And Lukaku, for a long spell, clearly wasn't (and still hasn't against top-6 teams). Then I saw the numbers: 14 goals and 4 assists, 10 goals and 4 assists. So that lone set of numbers clearly wasn't telling the whole story. Which is why I started looking into both of their goals (and eventually assists to placate roonster09 :rolleyes:). Almost all of Morata's goals and assists where of the high-impact quality: lead-taking or game-tying. Compared them to Lukaku's numbers, and my initial impression was proved correct, but the difference turned out to be much slimmer than I anticipated.

My other impression was that many of Lukaku's were of the lesser quality, "putting games out of reach or to bed" type. The numbers bore that out as well.

But that just set you lot off into a hissy fit because God forbid I say some goals are more impactful, of higher quality, than others. He's saying all other goals and assists are worthless, is what you lot keep screaming, which is completely false. And since you don't like how the numbers look when focused solely on the metrics I used, you keep insisting I include others to make the numbers look better for your argument. But that's not what I set out to discover, so I won't do that. :p :devil:

Conclusion: Morata - 10 high-impact goals+assists in 26 games. Lukaku - 8 high-impact goals+assists in 29 games.

Now feel free to scrap the "high-impact" requirement and argue for "total impact." Because that's the argument you keep trying to get me to make for you. ;)
 
Last edited:
eat_grass said:
No, that was just me trying to keep up with @roonster09 demanding I move the goalposts to make the numbers look better for Lukaku. :D

My original post in this thread was born from this:

It seemed like every week I was seeing Chelsea highlights of Morata scoring lead-taking or game-tying goals, and some of them where against top teams (United, Atletico). And Lukaku, for a long spell, clearly wasn't (and still hasn't against top-6 teams). Then I saw the numbers: 14 goals and 4 assists, 10 goals and 4 assists. So that lone set of numbers clearly wasn't telling the whole story. Which is why I started looking into both of their goals (and eventually assists to placate roonster09 :rolleyes:). Almost all of Morata's goals and assists where of the high-impact quality: lead-taking or game-tying. Compared them to Lukaku's numbers, and my initial impression was proved correct, but the difference turned out to be much slimmer than I anticipated.

My other impression was that many of Lukaku's were of the lesser quality, "putting games out of reach or to bed" type. The numbers bore that out as well.

But that just set you lot off into a hissy fit because God forbid I say some goals are more impactful, of higher quality, than others. He's saying all other goals and assists are worthless, is what you lot keep screaming, which is completely false. And since you don't like how the numbers look when focused solely on the metrics I used, you keep insisting I include others to make the numbers look better for your argument. But that's not what I set out to discover, so I won't do that. :p :devil:

Conclusion: Morata - 10 high-impact goals+assists in 26 games. Lukaku - 8 high-impact goals+assists in 29 games.

Now feel free to scrap the "high-impact" requirement and argue for "total impact." Because that's the argument you keep trying to get me to make for you. ;)
Click to expand...
Well I'm too lazy to find the post you mentioned above so I will begin with the first post of your argument, which was about Morata had scored more winning goals in big matches. This was correct, but it doesn't clearly say Morata's performance is better since Lukaku also has 1 assist, so you moved on to say Morata goals and assists have higher impact in the 2 quotes in my previous post. Finally you created your chart to prove that Morata have more high-impact goals and assists.

These 2 points are completely different, I were trying to argue about your 2nd point, so I wanted a fairer comparision, with the lesser important goals are taken into account, not just the ones you shown which only favor your point of view. However you've already changed the goalposts again so there's no point to argue anymore.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
SlothIsLove said:
Well I'm too lazy to [...].
Click to expand...

Yeah, your argument seems very lazy indeed, because you're asking me to believe you can't see the direct relationship between the two lines you bolded. If claiming goalposts were moved is your way of conceding in the debate, then I won't challenge the claim (as ridiculous as it is).

Updated numbers: Morata - 10 HI goals and assists in 26 games, Lukaku - 9 HI goals and assists in 30 games.

Plus another non-HI goal. He's at 8 non-HI and 9 HI now.

There were a few nervy moments when he first came on and the team started resorting to whipping in crosses again, but when they finally decided include him in the link-up play, he set up Lingard's fabulous strike. Had a nice cross into the box himself which just barely missed Mata (?).
 
eat_grass said:
Yeah, your argument seems very lazy indeed, because you're asking me to believe you can't see the direct relationship between the two lines you bolded. If claiming goalposts were moved is your way of conceding in the debate, then I won't challenge the claim (as ridiculous as it is).
Click to expand...

Morata goals and assists have higher impact: means the total impact of all of his goals & assists is higher than the impact of all of Lukaku's ones.
Morata has more high-impact goals and assists: means Morata has made more high-impact goals and assists than Lukaku has. The lesser impact goals & assists are not related here.

These are clearly 2 different things. If you think it's not moving the goalposts then of course I can't do anything but concede my "defeat". Be happy with your "victory".
 
SlothIsLove said:
Morata goals and assists have higher impact: means the total impact of all of his goals & assists is higher than the impact of all of Lukaku's ones.
Morata has more high-impact goals and assists: means Morata has made more high-impact goals and assists than Lukaku has. The lesser impact goals & assists are not related here.

These are clearly 2 different things. If you think it's not moving the goalposts then of course I can't do anything but concede my "defeat". Be happy with your "victory".
Click to expand...

If the individual goals and assists he's made are of higher impact, then how on earth would their sum not qualify to be more impactful?

We're going in circles now (or again) and it's getting tedious.

I graciously accept your concession, SlothIsLove. :)
 
Attach a useless criteria and then ask question "how come their sum not qualify to be more impactfully" :lol:

@B20 made a good point and it answers why second goal is very important and shouldn't be ignored for some fancy graphs.
 
eat_grass said:
If the individual goals and assists he's made are of higher impact, then how on earth would their sum not qualify to be more impactful?

We're going in circles now (or again) and it's getting tedious.

I graciously accept your concession, SlothIsLove. :)
Click to expand...

:lol: OK now I'm convinced that you were not trying to move the goalposts, you just didn't understand what you were saying.
 

Good grief. :annoyed:

I've very patiently tried to hammer some hard facts into your reluctant minds but you prefer to run around asking people to pull your finger. :boring:
 
IrishRedDevil said:
Things Morata is better at:

- Falling over from slight contact
- Bitching
Click to expand...

And the worst part is instead of trying to win the ball back after being dispossessed he just lays on the pitch. Pathetic attitude. He does show a bit of class here and there but nothing suggests he will be a top number 9 for a top club. Could see him going to Italy and Spain soon.
 
He has now played more league minutes this year for any club in his professional career.
There has to be mental and physical fatigue involved here, he can't sit back and let Ronaldo do the business while Morata can retreat pressure free to the shadows and run his ass off for a 20 min sub appearance next time around.
 
I don't mind strikers going out of form, all top forwards go on a barren run but it's the attitude that determines you and seeing how Morata has been playing, his attitude is questionable. People bash Lukaku a lot but he tries his best even when things are not working for him. Even Lacazatte I would say has a good attitude and tries to get himself into the play, morata just bitches. He is nothing like Costa and chelsea fans can all delude themselves by saying they do not miss costa as they have Morata but as a spectator and a rival fan, Costa was much much better than Morata.
 
cyberman said:
He has now played more league minutes this year for any club in his professional career.
There has to be mental and physical fatigue involved here, he can't sit back and let Ronaldo do the business while Morata can retreat pressure free to the shadows and run his ass off for a 20 min sub appearance next time around.
Click to expand...

But...the expert statisticians said that minutes per goal in a sub role is the same as starting every game. Give Morata more game time and he'll score a goal a game :wenger:
 
AshRK said:
I don't mind strikers going out of form, all top forwards go on a barren run but it's the attitude that determines you and seeing how Morata has been playing, his attitude is questionable. People bash Lukaku a lot but he tries his best even when things are not working for him. Even Lacazatte I would say has a good attitude and tries to get himself into the play, morata just bitches. He is nothing like Costa and chelsea fans can all delude themselves by saying they do not miss costa as they have Morata but as a spectator and a rival fan, Costa was much much better than Morata.
Click to expand...
Spot on.
 
Swapping Costa for Morata looks like a shocker of a decision. Wouldn't be shocked to see him turn it around, but he's miles away from Costa's ability to impact matches so far.
 
once again i'm reminded why morata was never the featured striker for juventus, real madrid, or spanish national team or why he's never scored more than 15 goals in a season

and to think ppl on here were saying morata would have been the better buy lol!

this guy is NOT a true center forward. he's a mueller type player who needs a bigger/stronger presence to keep attention away from him so he can score that goal every 5 or so games.

ThierryHenry said:
Swapping Costa for Morata looks like a shocker of a decision. Wouldn't be shocked to see him turn it around, but he's miles away from Costa's ability to impact matches so far.
Click to expand...

there's a reason why he was costa's back up in the spanish set up (hint: he's inferior to costa).
 
RedB4ndiT said:
once again i'm reminded why morata was never the featured striker for juventus, real madrid, or spanish national team or why he's never scored more than 15 goals in a season

and to think ppl on here were saying morata would have been the better buy lol!

this guy is NOT a true center forward. he's a mueller type player who needs a bigger/stronger presence to keep attention away from him so he can score that goal every 5 or so games.

there's a reason why he was costa's back up in the spanish set up (hint: he's inferior to costa).
Click to expand...

I don't understand how anyone watching him could have gotten any other impression. He is not a lone striker; he is at his best when he has someone else harassing the defenders so he can attack the space.

Morata without Hazard is bad in this Chelsea setup; he mainly came off the bench at Madrid; at Juventus he almost always played with a partner
 
I thought the consensus in the caf was that we wet the bed going for lukaku instead of Morata. I guess we know feck all after all
 
He is a decent player but to me this signing seemed almost like Chelsea thinking that if you pay a huge sum and pretend like he is an elite number 9 that he will magically become one. All prior evidence indicated that he wasn't that player, possibly has the talent but not there yet.
 
Slimcharles69 said:
I thought the consensus in the caf was that we wet the bed going for lukaku instead of Morata. I guess we know feck all after all
Click to expand...

I am surprised more people don't find it blatantly obvious that it is totally disrespectful as a comparison to Lukaku who has actually been doing the things Morata hopes to do for the last few seasons.
 
OverratedOpinion said:
He is a decent player but to me this signing seemed almost like Chelsea thinking that if you pay a huge sum and pretend like he is an elite number 9 that he will magically become one. All prior evidence indicated that he wasn't that player, possibly has the talent but not there yet.
Click to expand...

This signing was United beating Chelsea to Lukaku; so Chelsea went for any decent replacement for Costa. Morata is better than no striker. Chelsea wanted Lukaku over Morata just like United.
 
I think we should wait until the end of the season before discussing who's better. Personally,
I'd like to have them both but by the end of the season , barring injuries, Lukaku will be on top.
Lukaku has had a lean spell more to the fact he wasn't being fed with the right pass but now Chelsea are hitting bad form
so lets see how Morata performs now going forward.
 
Morata's confidence is shot. Got to see him over a longer period of time before deciding he is a bust.

I do take the point about bitching and whinging and that kind of attitude not helping. He does have the fundamental tools to be a good goalscorer in my opinion. We shall see.

And of course doesn't help when his service is so lacking with the team devoid of any creativity other than hazard.
 
AshRK said:
I don't mind strikers going out of form, all top forwards go on a barren run but it's the attitude that determines you and seeing how Morata has been playing, his attitude is questionable. People bash Lukaku a lot but he tries his best even when things are not working for him. Even Lacazatte I would say has a good attitude and tries to get himself into the play, morata just bitches. He is nothing like Costa and chelsea fans can all delude themselves by saying they do not miss costa as they have Morata but as a spectator and a rival fan, Costa was much much better than Morata.
Click to expand...
Came here to write the exact same thing.
 
Scary thing is what we were going to spend on Morata. Scouting department needs a proper revamp
 
You must log in or register to reply here.