Lukaku has also plenty to prove. He needs to prove he can be a first choice striker in a top PL side fighting for trophies and show his worth in the CL where he's yet to play. He scored regularly at Everton and West Brom but it's nothing like the kind of pressure he's going to face now.
Romelu Lukaku vs Alvaro Morata 2017/18
- Thread starter Paxi
- Start date
Lukaku has also plenty to prove. He needs to prove he can be a first choice striker in a top PL side fighting for trophies and show his worth in the CL where he's yet to play. He scored regularly at Everton and West Brom but it's nothing like the kind of pressure he's going to face now.
We are talking about you saying you can't think of one player that became a goalscorer til their mid 20s and me providing a list of said players.
Contesting that some of the players in said list had decent goal scoring records prior to their prime doesn't add credence to your assertion or discredits the fact that said players exist, especially when you mention Vardy's pre-premier league record, Forlan's 1 in 2 or that Ian Wright had 90 goals for Palace but ommit that that was in 225 appearances. because Morata's pre la liga record is 45 in 83, better than your 1 in 2 argument, and currently he's at 85 in 209, better than 90 in 225, and that's just league goals, and this is despite not being a starter for Real and often playing wide at Juve. So I ask you, what the feck are we taking about?
What does Chelsea paying the most to agents last season have to do with Raiola's fee on Lukaku deal?
They don't have many Spanish players do they?
You claimed that Chelsea wouldn't have paid Raiola's fees as if they are averse to paying agent fees where infact history has shown that you've no problems in shelling out for agents whenever you wanted a player.
Therefore, I find it hard to believe that you wouldn't have shelled out agent fees for your main striker target.
They have. Pedro, Azpi, Fabregas, Alonso.
When one player played twice the amounts of minutes the other did, your stat loses all its weight. And before that point comes back, one played far less because he was employed by Real Madrid and Juventus while the other was employed by West Bromwich and Everton.
Both scenarios can be true simply because what Real Madrid fans want from Benzema is more goals while what he provides his elite link up play, Morata is good at linking up but far from Benzema's level, he is more like Giroud(people might not like that comparison).
Even if Morata played less it was for 2 dominating sides when he played.Everton and West Brom not dominating sides. Lukaku is the more clinical one in my view and he is proven. Morata is a good player but i think we have got the right player of the two and after this season it will become clear who is the better striker.
The minutes to goal ratio is easily arguable both ways, look at the games he comes on in and goes off in. He was playing lots of 60-70 minute games and taken off, or he was coming on a lot with 15-20 to go and scoring when Real were 2 or 3 up.
I mentioned earlier about this 584 stat, I would love to see the dataset it comes from, Ibra is an unusual case, simply go to squawka and compare Ibra to any top striker for "possession" stats. Most strikers are more akin to Lukaku than they are Ibra. I would want to see how that figure compares for example with Kane, Giroud, Costa, I suspect the figures would be much closer. The only reference to that figure I could find was on planetfootball, and they don't state the dataset used. Those figures also include misplaced header passes, you know the kind of ones that are more likely to fail if you bang them up to him? The only disingenuous thing about the touch comment is those figures as they compare two completely different players, one who is well known for his control, and posts good figures for that, using that as a stick to beat Lukaku is wildly unfair to him.
Do I think Lukaku is the technically most gifted player, no, but that also doesn't mean much about his first touch, I honestly think it looks worse because of the kind of player he is.
It's pathetic the "Lukaku is not intelligent" discourse amongst the media and rivals. Seriously, I wonder if they would be saying that if he had different physical attributes. Or didn't play for us.
So are we seriously buying this crap. Lukaku was always their first choice. They have been linked with him since February and now suddenly conte wanted morata. It's just to save conte's a*s. I bet had Chelsea got morata first and we had got lukaku later, whole media would have reminded us everytime how he is our second choice but because it's not Manchester united or jose , let us twist everything.
This gotta be the most bullshit thing I've heard in awhile.
I would've loved to give Chelsea 5m just to take Rooney away.
Last edited:
Playing for dominating sides means nothing, strikers don't score more for better teams. Not only opponents don't play the same way against top teams, they often up their game but generally the team doesn't play for them, they play for the team which isn't the case for a good player in a smaller team.
It also ignores a lot of the stats in their article:
"Both were useful, though, in assisting others, with the Everton forward contributing six assists – one every 545 minutes – and Zlatan weighing in with an assist every 487 minutes, five in total." (so a 10-12% difference)
"Ibrahimovic created 48 opportunities for team-mates with Lukaku only one behind. Both created eight big chances."
"Lukaku has been accused of being a flat-track bully. Though by scoring 10 against teams in the top half of the table, he managed one more than Ibrahimovic. Both netted four against the other sides in the top seven."
"Mourinho was consistently frustrated by his side’s wastefulness in front of goal, and Ibrahimovic was often as guilty as any of his team-mates. The Swede wasted 18 big chances and his shot conversion rate of 20 per cent is eight per cent poorer than Lukaku’s."
Things that Lukaku has been slated for here.
"Both were useful, though, in assisting others, with the Everton forward contributing six assists – one every 545 minutes – and Zlatan weighing in with an assist every 487 minutes, five in total." (so a 10-12% difference)
"Ibrahimovic created 48 opportunities for team-mates with Lukaku only one behind. Both created eight big chances."
"Lukaku has been accused of being a flat-track bully. Though by scoring 10 against teams in the top half of the table, he managed one more than Ibrahimovic. Both netted four against the other sides in the top seven."
"Mourinho was consistently frustrated by his side’s wastefulness in front of goal, and Ibrahimovic was often as guilty as any of his team-mates. The Swede wasted 18 big chances and his shot conversion rate of 20 per cent is eight per cent poorer than Lukaku’s."
Things that Lukaku has been slated for here.
Please, just reply what was posted, not what you think was implied. I only mentioned Lukaku deal and Raiola fee for brokering it. Nothing else.
You're all over the place here. When Arsenal signed Wright, when Leicester signed Vardy and we signed Forlan, we signed proven and consistent goal scorers. If they could bring that through to a higher level is a different argument but they scored goals. They scored goals before their mid twenties and carried it on. They weren't struggling for goals and suddenly developed it as they got older as you seem to be saying Morata would.
Morata isn't in that mold. You're talking about a player who has a worse tgoal scoring record that Mata had at his age.
The players you mentioned carried their goalscoring record through their careers, Morata hasn't. He stopped scoring goals when he broke into first team football and its only goals last season v literal scrubs that makes his record look somewhat passable.
Last edited:
Here you go then. I've bolded it so that you can read it again, and perhaps tell me what did you meant by saying that Chelsea wouldn't pay Raiola fee. Is your memory okay?
Is Raiola Morata's agent? We refused to pay Raiola's fee to buy Lukaku. United paid it and got him. What's not clear to you?
Conte bought Morata at Juventus and tried to buy him last summer as well. I think it's safe to say he's a big fan of Morata. Not sure why you wouldn't believe this when it's the third time he's been in for the lad...
So how does this logic works? Raiola shits on clubs and makes so much money, we signed 3 of his clients lasts season but ended up paying less than Chelsea in agent fee.
Presumably because the world and his wife knew that Lukaku was Chelsea's first choice. Literally every football journalist in the country made that crystal clear. Up until the more recent face-saving briefings coming out of the Chelsea camp anyway.
This thread is an absolute shit show and neither have even kicked a ball in a competitive match yet. Can only imagine it when one of them scores on a given weekend and the other doesn't.
Didn't he make €27m on Pogba deal alone last summer? It's just came from Juve.
In any case, it doesn't matter. We keep going in circles.
Of course they do. Which is why the golden boot awards are dominated by strikers from the strongest teams in each league.
That's not agent fee. That's third party fee paid by Juventus.
Why did you try to sign Lukaku then? Did you only discovered that he was Lukaku's agent after your last minute offer?
That's because they have the best strikers.
Well, whatever it's called, he did pocket it, didn't he?
The revisionism by Chelsea fans in this thread
Just like Juventus 'pocketed' the rest of the fees? He got it because he partly owned Pogba's playing rights, which were given away by Juventus initially. Wow.
Really?? Dominating sides produce way more chances for the attacking players wich means more chances to score.
The revisionism by Chelsea fans in this thread
It's fabulously deluded.
Sorry but that's rubbish. If you play for a better team you get more chances. More chances means more goals!
Yes a striker can only score what he's given, but top goal scorers always play at the best teams.
Ok, put it another way. At which clubs do you expect to find the strikers with the most chances/90 minutes?
I'd have preferred Morata but if Lukaku didn't outscore him it would have to mean thar Lukaku's had a terrible season or Morata's had an incredible one. All things being equal, Lukaku will always outscore Morata.
I think they've probably ended up at the right clubs too. Morata is the closest thing to a direct replacement for Costa as you'll find. He doesn't have the same aggression but everything else is very similar.
I think they've probably ended up at the right clubs too. Morata is the closest thing to a direct replacement for Costa as you'll find. He doesn't have the same aggression but everything else is very similar.
What? At least know what you are arguing.
Why do you say that? Genuinely asking.
Oh I'm not disputing that. There was palpable discord within Chelsea's hierarchy this summer; it's not a coincidence that Conte signed his new contract within 48 hours of the Morata signing. Emenalo and the board definitely pushed for Lukaku and had to convince Conte he would fit but Conte's first choice has always been Morata dating back to his time at Juventus.
In the best clubs, because they have the best finishers.
No, more chances means more chances. The best strikers have the tools and the consistency to transform those chances into goals which is why they play for the best teams.
Huh? That makes no sense.
If anything, what will make the biggest difference in their tallies will be how good a season Chelsea have vs United. You'd have to imagine that a striker who signed for the reigning champions will have a slightly easier time of it than one who signed for a team that finished 6th.