goon wrote:

Your original point was essentially that goals are all that matter and that the other aspects of his game that are weak are just asthetic. As of yet you've not countered a single one of my points, whether it's by dismissing the Giroud question with a one liner (one could argue you were being a Knob), or completely ignoring my point about how his limitations could effect the whole teams effectiveness when attacking. All you keep saying now is he's a good forward who scores goals, a point that no one is arguing with you about.

I suggest you go back and read those posts again. Either you're completely misunderstanding me or purposefully misrepresenting what I've said. My original post was in response to Gazza questioning whether his goals actually helped his team rather than just being 'stat stuffers'. I never said goals are all that matter, but rather that scoring goals is the whole point of football, so therefore I don't see how they can in any way be dismissed as not mattering or being pointless stats.
As for the second boldes part, all players have limitations, and I have never suggested Lukaku is any exception. Rather that his limitations seem to be overly focussed on despite the fact that despite these, he still scores a lot of goals. It's the job of the player to work on improving on aspects of his game which might be described as limitations (hence my response to Qs pointing out the obvious fact that he is much younger than Giroud and therefore has time to work further on these), and the job of the manager to set up a team to play to strengths and minimise impact of limitations (individual and collective). 

Qwiss! wrote:

Lukaku has gotten better and better each season. There is a reason why United and Chelsea are both willing to pay big money for him. The idea that he holds the team back while scoring loads of goals takes a real stretch of the imagination.

All that said though I hope he's a massive flop for United (or Chelsea). I don't think he'll score as many under Mourinho as he did for Everton this year anyway, simply because of the way Mourinho operates, he never really has his strikers scoring loads of goals. If he gets 20 it'll be a very good season for him.

He's never played for a top team though and things like lack of first touch and poor link play will be shown up. Like you say he's massively improved in recent years which is probably why Man Utd are taking a punt on him. His touch and link play in the past season was improved but still needs to get better. Against the weaker teams he will be fine but against top CBs and good defensive teams some questions remain to be answered.

That said they're basically paying top buck on the assumption he will improve on those aspects of his game. They'll justify that by looking at the current market where top quality Strikers are scarce so it is not like they have many alternatives.

goon wrote:

Chelsea are unwilling to pay a massive "commission" fee to Raiola too apparently. If anyone ever wanted evidence of footballers being stupid, look no further than these guys who effectively allow their agent to dictate where they are going to play.

Man Utd have shown they'll pay whatever the agents want. These days players are fiercely loyal to their agent so will take their advice.

He won't improve on those aspects though. He is what he is. He's not going to develop a top class first touch or better close control.

The only thing that will improve from here on out is the mental side of his game: his tactical intelligence, his composure and decision making.

United are spending £100m for him because he's as close to a guaranteed 20 goal a season striker as there is in the Premier League. They're not taking a punt in any way, they know exactly what he is and what he isn't - Chelsea know it too. He'll rattle goals galore for the scumbags, I don't doubt it for a second. Will he be able to score against the best sides in the Premier League and Champions League, consistently make the difference in those games? No, I don't think he will. He's just not that good.

I also personally think he's as good as he'll ever be because he doesn't strike me as in any way intelligent when he plays, or when he talks, and I think that limits what you can improve on as you get older. He's also as fit and as fast as he's ever going to be too. Pretty soon he'll have played at the top long enough where he's nursing a persistent hamstring injury or has a dodgy knee and so on. Never playing fully fit.

All that said, he is a good addition to their team and much needed now that they've lost Ibrahimovic. He's more likely to score 25 League goals than all but one striker in the League next season, perhaps more likely than mouths-a-gaping now that he'll have more walkovers than he got last season at Everton.

He's much more of a sure thing than Lacazette, let's put it that way. Cost aside, he's comfortably the better signing of the two.

Daz wrote:

goon wrote:

Your original point was essentially that goals are all that matter and that the other aspects of his game that are weak are just asthetic. As of yet you've not countered a single one of my points, whether it's by dismissing the Giroud question with a one liner (one could argue you were being a Knob), or completely ignoring my point about how his limitations could effect the whole teams effectiveness when attacking. All you keep saying now is he's a good forward who scores goals, a point that no one is arguing with you about.

I suggest you go back and read those posts again. Either you're completely misunderstanding me or purposefully misrepresenting what I've said. My original post was in response to Gazza questioning whether his goals actually helped his team rather than just being 'stat stuffers'. I never said goals are all that matter, but rather that scoring goals is the whole point of football, so therefore I don't see how they can in any way be dismissed as not mattering or being pointless stats.

Goals are obviously not pointless stats but we're not discussing how goals win games but how goals are supposed to be the be all and end all for a striker. The comparison has been used several times now but just look at Bayern in 11/12 and 12/13. Before they had Gomez who back then was as lethal a striker as you could find, much more prolific than Lukaku in fact. They replaced him with Mandzukic who scored more than 15 league goals just once in his career but made Bayern a much better team as he served as a catalyst for the rest of their team (namely their wingers), who before were focussed on channelling their game through Gomez as the team's sole focal point in attack

Point being, goals matter but you need more than one source of goals. Lukaku's shit passing and carcrash of a first touch will always inhibit his ability to bring others into play. As Ricky says he's 24 already and won't improve on those fundamentals, there are exceptions (like Icardi last season) but those are guys who ironed out flaws ie inconsistencies in their game while Lukaku's first touch is consistently shit

Ricky1985 wrote:

He won't improve on those aspects though. He is what he is. He's not going to develop a top class first touch or better close control.

The only thing that will improve from here on out is the mental side of his game: his tactical intelligence, his composure and decision making.

United are spending £100m for him because he's as close to a guaranteed 20 goal a season striker as there is in the Premier League. They're not taking a punt in any way, they know exactly what he is and what he isn't - Chelsea know it too. He'll rattle goals galore for the scumbags, I don't doubt it for a second. Will he be able to score against the best sides in the Premier League and Champions League, consistently make the difference in those games? No, I don't think he will. He's just not that good.

I also personally think he's as good as he'll ever be because he doesn't strike me as in any way intelligent when he plays, or when he talks, and I think that limits what you can improve on as you get older. He's also as fit and as fast as he's ever going to be too. Pretty soon he'll have played at the top long enough where he's nursing a persistent hamstring injury or has a dodgy knee and so on. Never playing fully fit.

All that said, he is a good addition to their team and much needed now that they've lost Ibrahimovic. He's more likely to score 25 League goals than all but one striker in the League next season, perhaps more likely than mouths-a-gaping now that he'll have more walkovers than he got last season at Everton.

He's much more of a sure thing than Lacazette, let's put it that way. Cost aside, he's comfortably the better signing of the two.

Not sure about your last sentence. Even before we signed Lacazette I would've thought he has a higher ceiling than Lukaku, especially when playing for a top team. The latter is very fast once he gets going but he lacks the nimble feet and agility that you need to constantly get shots away while being marked by more than one defender. Remains to be seen whether Lacazette can get his game to the next level but I've more confidence in that than Lukaku - who built his career on his physical attributes - magically learning how to trap a ball

http://www.marca.com/futbol/real-madrid/2017/07/08/5960aca022601d5a1e8b45bd.html

Real are amassing all of the talented Spanish youngsters....Ceballos for 18m euros is a steal.

Ricky1985 wrote:

He won't improve on those aspects though. He is what he is. He's not going to develop a top class first touch or better close control.

The only thing that will improve from here on out is the mental side of his game: his tactical intelligence, his composure and decision making.

United are spending £100m for him because he's as close to a guaranteed 20 goal a season striker as there is in the Premier League. They're not taking a punt in any way, they know exactly what he is and what he isn't - Chelsea know it too. He'll rattle goals galore for the scumbags, I don't doubt it for a second. Will he be able to score against the best sides in the Premier League and Champions League, consistently make the difference in those games? No, I don't think he will. He's just not that good.

I also personally think he's as good as he'll ever be because he doesn't strike me as in any way intelligent when he plays, or when he talks, and I think that limits what you can improve on as you get older. He's also as fit and as fast as he's ever going to be too. Pretty soon he'll have played at the top long enough where he's nursing a persistent hamstring injury or has a dodgy knee and so on. Never playing fully fit.

All that said, he is a good addition to their team and much needed now that they've lost Ibrahimovic. He's more likely to score 25 League goals than all but one striker in the League next season, perhaps more likely than mouths-a-gaping now that he'll have more walkovers than he got last season at Everton.

He's much more of a sure thing than Lacazette, let's put it that way. Cost aside, he's comfortably the better signing of the two.

I'd have to agree with most of that. I think he's more or less the finished article. The main area he can improve IMO is work rate. Totally agree about him burning out early due to playing so much football at the top level young too. Reckon he has 3-4 years before thats a problem (barring a bad injury) though. Whether he maintains his scoring for United will be down to supply and style IMO, with the right players supplying him he'd score against top teams. If he is left on his own up top, as I suspect he will be, especially against big sides, then he will struggle a bit. Though he's always capable of nicking a goal too.

Interesting you mention Lukaku's work rate, I saw a stat earlier which compared Lukaku with Ibrahimovic this season and, very surprisingly, the Swede ran more kilometers per match and made more sprints per match too. That shouldn't be because Zlatan just does not run.

jones wrote:

Ricky1985 wrote:

He won't improve on those aspects though. He is what he is. He's not going to develop a top class first touch or better close control.

The only thing that will improve from here on out is the mental side of his game: his tactical intelligence, his composure and decision making.

United are spending £100m for him because he's as close to a guaranteed 20 goal a season striker as there is in the Premier League. They're not taking a punt in any way, they know exactly what he is and what he isn't - Chelsea know it too. He'll rattle goals galore for the scumbags, I don't doubt it for a second. Will he be able to score against the best sides in the Premier League and Champions League, consistently make the difference in those games? No, I don't think he will. He's just not that good.

I also personally think he's as good as he'll ever be because he doesn't strike me as in any way intelligent when he plays, or when he talks, and I think that limits what you can improve on as you get older. He's also as fit and as fast as he's ever going to be too. Pretty soon he'll have played at the top long enough where he's nursing a persistent hamstring injury or has a dodgy knee and so on. Never playing fully fit.

All that said, he is a good addition to their team and much needed now that they've lost Ibrahimovic. He's more likely to score 25 League goals than all but one striker in the League next season, perhaps more likely than mouths-a-gaping now that he'll have more walkovers than he got last season at Everton.

He's much more of a sure thing than Lacazette, let's put it that way. Cost aside, he's comfortably the better signing of the two.

Not sure about your last sentence. Even before we signed Lacazette I would've thought he has a higher ceiling than Lukaku, especially when playing for a top team. The latter is very fast once he gets going but he lacks the nimble feet and agility that you need to constantly get shots away while being marked by more than one defender. Remains to be seen whether Lacazette can get his game to the next level but I've more confidence in that than Lukaku - who built his career on his physical attributes - magically learning how to trap a ball

I'm not saying Lukaku is the better player - I prefer what Lacazette brings to the table in terms of his intelligence in and around the box, also his close control and the power he can generate with little back lift. He looks a proper goalscorer. Much more controlled than a battering ram like Lukaku.

It still can't be argued that he's as much of a sure thing as Lukaku though: Lukaku will score 20+ next season without question, with Lacazette we just can't say at this point because we don't know how he'll cope with a better quality League and a different team and a style of play. That's without factoring in changing country and cultures.

I hope we sit here in 12 months and crow over the great deal we got on Lacazette, after he's banged 25 League goals in, but we're going have to wait and see. Lukaku we know, the good and the bad, what's coming already

Chelsea bidding for Morata now. Interesting that 3 of the top 6 clubs will have a new striker leading the line next season.

If United couldn't get Morata and had to switch to Lukaku then I don't think Chelsea will get him either. Can't see Madrid letting him go.

Basically United are not willing to pay Madrid's valuation of Morata. Chelsea are desperate now, they probably would bend over for them.

Swansea rejects Leicester's 40m bid for Sigurdsson, wants 50m for him. Everton wants 50m for Barkley as well. Game's gone.

Especially as they've sacked Costa by email/text/letter.
https://fujiipop.wordpress.com/2017/06/09/reasons-chelsea-sacked-diego-costa-revealed/
He can read?
Who'd have thunk?

I don't think money was the issue for Morata personally. I mean United just effectively paid £100m for Lukaku. I think Madrid just don't want to sell and that's why it didn't happen.

Maybe Mbappé was a factor? Perhaps they thought they could sell Morata and offer his squad place to the Frenchman. It definitely seems like there was a change in stance by Madrid in recent weeks on Morata.

I get the impression it's Lukaku who changed his mind rather than United giving up on Morata. They were probably just stringing the latter along.

Clrnc wrote:

Swansea rejects Leicester's 40m bid for Sigurdsson, wants 50m for him. Everton wants 50m for Barkley as well. Game's gone.

Its a joke, they'd be better off spending that money on the academy/youth. What the hell do they expect Sigurdsson is going to do for them?

Can't see why they'd want him when they've just bought Rooney? He'll be there Number 10 and that's the only position Sigurdsson can play.

I think Sigurdsson is good enough to play virtually anywhere on the field. It's Leicester who want him though, not Everton.

If Chelsea want Morata I think they'll get him, simply because they have no issues paying for him. Real will milk them for an additional £15-20 million to close the deal.

Sigurdsson is good but he's not worth £40m. These clubs just have too much money and can't attract top players worth the amount they have. Its crazy.

I dunno, Sterling was worth £47 million a few seasons ago. Chambers cost us £18 million with like 10 starts for Southampton under his belt. Chamberlain who has done nothing for us yet will probably move for around £30 million.

I wouldn't sell Sigurdsson for £40 million in this market reality either, because there's no way I'd be able to use that money to replace him.