And, we're off.....2016/17

[Deleted member 16999]

Didn't Liverpool also buy a player called Andy Carroll?

You're not allowed to mention him

 

[Hobbit]

You're not allowed to mention him

Yet another player that didn't play the Liverpool way..... but they were stupid enough to buy him even though they knew his style. Taking a punt on an unknown, fine, but buying a proven striker and then screwing it up, incompetent. Or maybe the dental plan for them wasn't as good as the one they had for Nasher Saurez...???

 

[Deleted member 16999]

Yet another player that didn't play the Liverpool way..... but they were stupid enough to buy him even though they knew his style. Taking a punt on an unknown, fine, but buying a proven striker and then screwing it up, incompetent. Or maybe the dental plan for them wasn't as good as the one they had for Nasher Saurez...???

Behave, if you keep goading them they'll have to mention Istanbul and 5 times and Slippy G and call the Champions League Trophy "Big Ears" and then you'll have no answer :ears:

 

[Hobbit]

Behave, if you keep goading them they'll have to mention Istanbul and 5 times and Slippy G and call the Champions League Trophy "Big Ears" and then you'll have no answer :ears:

Is that Slippy G the MMA fighter?:whoo:

 

[Deleted member 1740]

But Benteke doesn't though mate...very Tory politician of you to make up stats to suit your argument.

Benteke has started 126 PL games and scored 63 PL goals which makes his record as 1 goal every 2 games. Add his sub appearances on and he still has a record of 1 in 2.349.

None of these stats have been made up.

 

[Deleted member 1740]

So Liverpool ruined Benteke, but let's blame the player :rofl:
Lot of googleing going on today :rofl:
So the player is scoring against PL teams playing for one Club, gets bought by LPool and can't score against the same teams, gets sold and starts scoring again against the other teams and it's the players fault or maybe, just maybe, he didn't get the service and LPool didn't have a clue how to play to his strengths.
Same player is scoring against the same teams for all clubs but one and the blame goes on the player. :rofl:

Liverpool never ruined him. Benteke stunk the gaff out at times but you wouldn't see that from the comfort of your armchair

I didn't think benteke was the answer and was very surprised when we signed him as he didn't look the type of player to fit into Rodgers side.

 

[Papas1982]

The comments were not aimed at you, what we tend to forget about Lukaku when discussing Chelsea is is that he was 18/19 and Chelsea had better proven players producing the goods, he's still only 23 and who are you comparing him to when you say a goal every other game isn't as good as a lot of the worlds best, who are these players scoring every game and who in their right mind would compare him to the worlds best.

The better clubs tend to have 4 or 5 players chipping in with goals, City Chelsea Utd etc, so all of them would benefit from a proven goalscorer getting 15-20 a season.

My biggest concern for him is the way he scores his goals. Most seasons he has a game where he gets 4 plus a hatrick to boot. So whilst his totals are good. It's turning 0-0 to 1-0 that's my concern. I agree about him being young previously at Chelsea, can look at it two ways. One he wanted games so choose to take a chance. Other is that he lacks patience or confidence he was good enough to get game time.

As to chelsea or city benefiting from him. Not sure that's true. If city had Aguero fit, would he get enough games to get 15? Or Costa at Chelsea? I doubt it. I agree if he goes to a big club and is number one he will score goals. But he has to play all the games to get them. He strikes me as a streaky striker so needs the games to amass the goals.

Strikers i I think I'd have over him. Aguero, Lacazette, Kane, Cavana, lewandowski, Ronaldo, Suarez, neymar, messi, Costa, higuain.

How many of them are attainable for the top teams in England is debatable. And he may get there. But for me, to be a true game changing striker the ration needs to be closer to 2/3 or 3/4. Not 1/2. That's a good steady striker. But not one that I'd choose first.

btw, I reckon he'd make Liverpool better instantly. Once he displaced origi of course.....

oh id add agyeman to the list too.

 

[Deleted member 1740]

To be fair though, Lukaku has been very succesful for us and we don't want to lose him, it's not Everton fans starting these conversations is it, we're simply defending his record when the jealous red mist descends and other fans put him down.
If we are to lose him then we want the most money we can get, I don't think that's over rating him, just commonsense.
If he stays in the Prem then he'll be playing against the same defences to say he'll struggle is just idiotic.

Jealous red mist :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

 

[Deleted member 1740]

Didn't Liverpool also buy a player called Andy Carroll?

They did, his Derby winner in the semi at Wembley was worth his fee alone :rofl: :whoo:

You're not allowed to mention him

Yes you are but he's irrelevant in this debate.

 

[Deleted member 16999]

My biggest concern for him is the way he scores his goals. Most seasons he has a game where he gets 4 plus a hatrick to boot. So whilst his totals are good. It's turning 0-0 to 1-0 that's my concern. I agree about him being young previously at Chelsea, can look at it two ways. One he wanted games so choose to take a chance. Other is that he lacks patience or confidence he was good enough to get game time.

As to chelsea or city benefiting from him. Not sure that's true. If city had Aguero fit, would he get enough games to get 15? Or Costa at Chelsea? I doubt it. I agree if he goes to a big club and is number one he will score goals. But he has to play all the games to get them. He strikes me as a streaky striker so needs the games to amass the goals.

Strikers i I think I'd have over him. Aguero, Lacazette, Kane, Cavana, lewandowski, Ronaldo, Suarez, neymar, messi, Costa, higuain.

How many of them are attainable for the top teams in England is debatable. And he may get there. But for me, to be a true game changing striker the ration needs to be closer to 2/3 or 3/4. Not 1/2. That's a good steady striker. But not one that I'd choose first.

btw, I reckon he'd make Liverpool better instantly. Once he displaced origi of course.....

oh id add agyeman to the list too.

Seriously, look at who you're comparing him against, apart from Kane, (who he's out scoring) they are the worlds best, it's a compliment to him even putting him with that lot.
As for needing a lot of games and a streaky goalscorer, he's one of the fastest to reach 100 PL goals.

All of this apparently while playing for a small club, in the better sides he'll get the service, there's very few 0-0 games Everton dominate and create 15-20 chances in.

Look at yesterday, Koeman basically said the team was rubbish, but the focus is on Lukaku, not the other 13 who took part.

Which strikers have a 3/4 or even 2/3 strike rate? Most have a purple patch, but I'd doubt very few have that rate over a career.

 

[Deleted member 16999]

They did, his Derby winner in the semi at Wembley was worth his fee alone :rofl: :whoo:



Yes you are but he's irrelevant in this debate.

Apart from Suarez you haven't had a striker that's come anywhere near Lukaku's goals in a season for nearly 20 years or more.

What you do have is a long list of bad buys that weren't the clubs fault :rofl:

 

[Papas1982]

Seriously, look at who you're comparing him against, apart from Kane, (who he's out scoring) they are the worlds best, it's a compliment to him even putting him with that lot.
As for needing a lot of games and a streaky goalscorer, he's one of the fastest to reach 100 PL goals.

All of this apparently while playing for a small club, in the better sides he'll get the service, there's very few 0-0 games Everton dominate and create 15-20 chances in.

Look at yesterday, Koeman basically said the team was rubbish, but the focus is on Lukaku, not the other 13 who took part.

Which strikers have a 3/4 or even 2/3 strike rate? Most have a purple patch, but I'd doubt very few have that rate over a career.

If you want him to go for the100m touted in the papers then that's who he should be compared to. Should I use hesky n Carroll so it makes him look better?

scoring 100 quickly is irrelevant in regards to him being streaky. I stated that as the games accumulate he amasses good figures. But most big teams would benefit from strikers scoring 8 individual goals in 10/12 games instead of scoring them all in 3 games and being None in the rest.

Hes only outscoring Kane due to games played. In Kane's 3 years as a prem striker he's had a better goals ratio each time. But we've had this convo before.....

I'm not saying that all strikers have that ratio start to finish. But the best will do for 3/4 seasons. The trick is to get them when they do and I'm not convinced he has that in his locker.

Pretty sure all the players I mentioned have rations for last few seasons at 2/3 or better. Hence them being mentioned as, as above. That's what you want from a 100m fee.

 

[Pin-seeker]

🎣🎣🎣 you've got him here Stu La

 

[Deleted member 1740]

Didn't Liverpool also buy a player called Andy Carroll?

You're not allowed to mention him

Apart from Suarez you haven't had a striker that's come anywhere near Lukaku's goals in a season for nearly 20 years or more.

What you do have is a long list of bad buys that weren't the clubs fault :rofl:

Torres scored 65 in about 110.......

 

[Papas1982]

Apart from Suarez you haven't had a striker that's come anywhere near Lukaku's goals in a season for nearly 20 years or more.

What you do have is a long list of bad buys that weren't the clubs fault :rofl:

Torres?
owen fits timescales too.

 

[Pin-seeker]

Torres scored 65 in about 110.......

Sturridge?

 

[Pin-seeker]

Thing is with Torres he then struggled when he moved to a big club.
Big fish 😬

 

[Papas1982]

Thing is with Torres he then struggled when he moved to a big club.
Big fish 

Boom!

 

[Deleted member 16999]

If you want him to go for the100m touted in the papers then that's who he should be compared to. Should I use hesky n Carroll so it makes him look better?

scoring 100 quickly is irrelevant in regards to him being streaky. I stated that as the games accumulate he amasses good figures. But most big teams would benefit from strikers scoring 8 individual goals in 10/12 games instead of scoring them all in 3 games and being None in the rest.

Hes only outscoring Kane due to games played. In Kane's 3 years as a prem striker he's had a better goals ratio each time. But we've had this convo before.....

I'm not saying that all strikers have that ratio start to finish. But the best will do for 3/4 seasons. The trick is to get them when they do and I'm not convinced he has that in his locker.

Pretty sure all the players I mentioned have rations for last few seasons at 2/3 or better. Hence them being mentioned as, as above. That's what you want from a 100m fee.

You need to stop believing the papers, they're the only ones mentioning £100mil.
Koeman and the Club have said nothing but wanting him to stay.

We can play stats both ways, now Lukaku is weaker because he stays fit and scores goals all season rather than playing less and scoring fewer as that's a better ratio

 

[Pin-seeker]

Boom!

True tho.
Sturridge couldn't cut it at a big club,moved to Liverpool and found his level. Big fish.

Maybe Phil was right about Benteke 😂