Harvz

Transfer Talk Topic

34,559 posts in this topic

9 hours ago, zaffo said:

 

The fact he's still only 23 means those weaker areas of his game are things that can be worked on and developed further. 

 

Unfortunately the development option has passed, with a top 4 finish comes the CL and 2 games a week there would not be enough time for the detailed coaching required to develop him further and I cannot see him coming back to a club to bench warm until he ready to play the strikers role.

Also there is Bat's who is the same age as Lukaku and cost 32 million? Was he a conte buy or the cronies and if he's surplus would we get our money back? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, zaffo said:

His touch isn't as awful as some make it sound, it's been dramatised excessively as a knock down on the player himself. That's not to say it's perfect, it needs works and that would be something that can be improved, much like link play. Nnot all strikers that have been successful have come from playing situations that they'd face if at a top clubs. Drogba certainly wasn't playing against packed defences in France before joining us, Cavani wasn't when he was playing for Palermo or Napoli, etc. Players need to adapt with each transfer they make, that's part of developing and growing and playing for elite level clubs. Unlike Lukaku is actually put in such a position, it's all "if's". 

As for struggling against better teams that's not entirely fault of his own either, can't score if his team mates aren't providing him with the service. Even Costa has struggled against the better sides, particularly in the Champions League since he joined us. It happens, and again that's not always been his fault. 

If we're after a younger CF, be that to partner or replace Costa, then Lukaku is going to be up on that list because he's been doing the business each season. That's the reality of it. Whether we realistically try to bring him back, we'll need to wait and see on that.

All fair points.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, McCreadie said:

I take on board your point about goals and his stats are really impressive, but his touch is awful and he has never played against the massed defences that we face much more often than not. Everton play a counter-attack game, where space is plentiful and control is not quite so critical. My concern is that if he hasnt learned to properly control a football delivered to him at pace by 23, I am very dubious whether anybody can ever train that into him. I think it is why he struggles to score against the better teams.

No worse than Costa's, though. There are times when Costa has me tearing my hair out at either his poor first touch or his poor decision making. Would I want to change him for anyone else, though? No.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Bob Singleton said:

No worse than Costa's, though. There are times when Costa has me tearing my hair out at either his poor first touch or his poor decision making. Would I want to change him for anyone else, though? No.

I might be very wrong, but I can't see many agreeing with this bold bit. The truth about Lukaku probably lies somewhere in the cracks between Physical Monster Goal Machine and Square Peg Round Hole No Control. That's what makes the argument so tricky. We could buy him for £70m and he could either be completely brilliant or completely terrible and no-one really has any idea which.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't see us signing a player to partner costa in a 3-5-2 on a regular basis as there is no place for hazard in that formation and he is one of our most effective attacking players

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Lump Of Celery said:

I don't see us signing a player to partner costa in a 3-5-2 on a regular basis as there is no place for hazard in that formation and he is one of our most effective attacking players

Quite right. 

I can't imagine Costa and Lukaku as a pairing either. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It was nice to see Gary Neville highlighting this publicly before the City game last night.

Staggering what we've done in the circumstances. 

Edit: Also makes an absolute mockery of Citeh's fake investments. Seriously, how can they have a net spend of £316m over 3 years and still report a profit? 

20170214_012608.jpg

Edited by Ham

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What Ham's table shows us above is how well Spurs, Liverpool and us have done on modest budgets.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Ham said:

It was nice to see Gary Neville highlighting this publicly before the City game last night....

Interesting, but transfers are a much smaller cost than wages.

Our wages for 15/16 (when we won nothing so few bonuses) was 217m.  A year.  I'd guess that wages for the two Manchester clubs are a lot more. Their revenues if I recall are something around 500m+ a year.  So 100m extra a year spent on transfers does not seem that surprising to me.  It is one part of the whole story (which is as you say enormous revenue at United and fake revenue at City).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now