He didn't even get a fair shout at Chelsea due to Mounrinho's ignorance. And so in his proper 'debut' season, he gets loaned out to a poor West Brom side at the time scoring 17 goals and grabbing 7 assists and featuring in Team of the season and the rest is history at Everton. What do you exactly what from him to become World Class because I bet you cannot find another striker on the same level as him who plays for a mediocre team. Do you remember when De Bruyne, Salah, Cuadrado and Schurrle couldn't do anything Chelsea and look at them now.
As I said, I could be wrong about him, but what I would like to see him do is actually play well more often against top teams. I'm not in any way saying Lukaku is a bad player, but I just don't think he's top drawer and I don't think he's the right player for United for the way we play.
Well statistics mean everything when you are striker and it doesn't take a footballing genius to know. A striker should have one job and that is consistently scoring goals in which Lukaku has done for the past 4 seasons and Man Utd fans complain how they are not consistent and not scoring enough goals then wanting a winger who is injury prone over a younger in form striker who has raw experience in the Premiership is very much bizarre.
No they don't, remember when Berbatov won the golden boot and was United highest scorer for the season in 2010/11? Statistically he had an great season, but he didn't really, he scored 11 of his 20 goals in the PL that season in just 3 games and the one big game he made a proper impact in was against Liverpool. He was a good player, but didn't fit at United and no matter how much as I wanted him to, he just didn't. So no, statiscs aren't the be all and end all, a player that scores the winning goal in 10 games in a season and finishes the season with 10 goals is arguably far more useful than a player that scores 4 hattricks and finishes with 12 goals, even though statistically he's not as good. Once again, Benteke, statistically great, until Liverpool signed him.
By any chance you have watched Bale before? Both are completely different players nor they play in the same position. That will answer why your comparison between both of them players shouldn't be brought up.
Yes, and I'm well aware they're very different, that's kind of the point. Bale plays anywhere across the three attacking positions but usually comes in from wide. I also mentioned Griezmann as well, to get those two would be a dream, but a dream is probably all it is. I think we'll get Griezmann if we win the Europa League though, I certainly hopw we do anyway. Bale and Griezmann are both very mobile, tricky players with a lot of pace and they also know where the back of the net is. They're different to Lukaku, they've both performed well in plenty of big games even if 16/17 hasn't been the best season for either of them.
Saying Lukaku is just a good player is maybe harsh, I'll give you that, but I still don't want him at United. Like I've said in nearly every post in the discussion, he needs to play better more often against the top teams, playing for Everton is not an excuse not to do so, and besides all of that, I don't think he's the right fit for United.
We don't need someone to play upfront alone with his back to goal waiting for the ball to come to his feet, we need someone who will counter attack with blinding pace along with our wide players. We have very a fast attack with Martial, Rashford, Mhikitaryan etc. That brings me to the biggest critcism United fans have had with Zlatan, he slows it all down. That's why Griezmann would be a better fit, because he would just fit into the way we play and can play upfront, wide left, wide right or behind another striker. Griezmann would become interchangable with Rashford and Martial and to a lesser extent Mhikitaryna too, that would be hell to mark. Bale would be more of a luxuy but one I'd love to have. To have him running down the right with Rashford on the left and Griezmann in the middle would be amazing. I doubt that will happen though.
