General Premier League Thread - 2016/2017

Dirty Dingus McGee

irishman86 wrote: »

What exactly does Lukaku contribute that Pogba doesnt, taking into account the play different positions. So far Ive heard Ali and now Lukaku are better players than him both are well laughable. If Pogba was British they would be falling over them selfs praising his season

Goals.

Top quality strikers are far more valuable than pretty much any other position on the field. Doesn't matter how good the rest of your team is if you don't have a top class striker you won't win anything.

ERG89

eh i dunno wrote:

Who are the plenty of players who've scored that amount of goals in the last 4 seasons? If it was kane I'd say 100m too.

Glad they haven't done it on the international stage or champions league god knows what they'd say he's worth. Plenty of players in Europe who could score against teams in the league.
Morata is half the price of that & Conte would know what he's getting.

emmetkenny wrote:

Jayop if United or Liverpool had Lukaku in their teams (ignoring play style) then they both would have been very close to winning the league in the last two years.

No they wouldn't have been close & I'm a Liverpool fan saying that. Neither even finished in the top 4 those 2 years for fu*k sake.

irishman86

The more I see Traore, the more I understand why Barca were happy to let him go. He's a lad who should be so much more than he is

Harry Palmr

Bad luck Marty

Actually I blame you for Arsenal winning this

eh i dunno

irishman86 wrote: »

What exactly does Lukaku contribute that Pogba doesnt, taking into account the play different positions. So far Ive heard Ali and now Lukaku are better players than him both are well laughable. If Pogba was British they would be falling over them selfs praising his season

24 goals and 6 assists for lukaku with poorer players around him. And I'd take alli ahead of pogba too.

martyos121

Fcuk sake Ozil.

Jayop

Chelsea

martyos121 wrote: »

Fcuk sake Ozil.

Ouch

blueser

Well worked goal (nice chest down by Ramsay), but where was the marking on both Ramsay and Ozil?

irishman86

Jayop wrote: »

As a footballer no, but his fee was as much to do with marketing as anything. I'd probably pay that kind of money for a Hazard in the PL only. Honestly don't think there's anyone else of that tier just below Messi and the boys standard.

If I was to choose between Kane and Lukaku I'd pick Kane as well.

Like you said there isnt a lot of players who can get that money. Ronaldo/Messi/Neymar/Pogba/Hazard for me the only ones.
If Dybala has another amazing season next year he could be worth it.
I actually like Lukaku more than Kane myself, but I wouldnt think either are worth more than 60 million

irishman86

Dirty Dingus McGee wrote: »

Goals.

Top quality strikers are far more valuable than pretty much any other position on the field. Doesn't matter how good the rest of your team is if you don't have a top class striker you won't win anything.

Thats not true, Zidane was the top player on what ever team he played and wasnt a striker. Hazard at Chelsea the top player and contributes more than Costa.

irishman86

eh i dunno wrote: »

24 goals and 6 assists for lukaku with poorer players around him. And I'd take alli ahead of pogba too.

You take Ali over him :pac: ok I guess we have a total different view on talent then. The goals with poorer players makes no sense tbh, Lukaku is a striker he should have more goals, so does Defoe/Benteke are they better players than Pogba a center midfielder
Id take Ibra any day over Lukaku and he has less goals than him for example

TitianGerm

ERG89 wrote: »

No they wouldn't have been close & I'm a Liverpool fan saying that. Neither even finished in the top 4 those 2 years for fu*k sake.

Who have Liverpool struggled to beat this season? The smaller teams, those exact teams that Lukaku scores against.

It is logical to assume that if you have Lukaku goals against those teams then Liverpool would not have struggled against those teams and would have beaten them.

More points = higher up the table.

Also was there a need to curse?

pudzey101

Liverpool

Ibra will be a 1-2 season wonder for united lukaku , kane all have years of goals left in them Alli over Pogba all day long too .. judging by this season anyway .

eh i dunno

irishman86 wrote: »

You take Ali over him :pac: ok I guess we have a total different view on talent then. The goals with poorer players makes no sense tbh, Lukaku is a striker he should have more goals, so does Defoe/Benteke are they better players than Pogba a center midfielder
Id take Ibra any day over Lukaku and he has less goals than him for example

You'd take ibra over lukaku? Lukaku has 10 years at the top left. Ibra has 1.

Dirty Dingus McGee

irishman86 wrote: »

Thats not true, Zidane was the top player on what ever team he played and wasnt a striker. Hazard at Chelsea the top player and contributes more than Costa.

The top player is sometimes not the most valuable though. There is a premium to be paid for good strikers because they are worth more than good players in any other position.Look at the ridiculous price Juventus paid for Higuain, if it was a creative midfield player of Higuains level he'd cost half as much.A very good striker would probably cost more than a truly great player in any other position.

irishman86

eh i dunno wrote: »

You'd take ibra over lukaku? Lukaku has 10 years at the top left. Ibra has 1.

Obviously I was talking about current level player. If longevity is a reason for picking Ali over Pogba I dont agree with it either

pudzey101

Liverpool

money has the game fcuked anyway ... imagine the price of some 8 year old "next messi" lad in a top team in a couple of years is going to be . the price payed for pogba will be peanuts to it

The Talking Bread

Gulp............


meh, cant upload! basically need Arsenal to hold on for 483 quid from a 4 euro accy!

irishman86

Dirty Dingus McGee wrote: »

The top player is sometimes not the most valuable though. There is a premium to be paid for good strikers because they are worth more than good players in any other position.Look at the ridiculous price Juventus paid for Higuain, if it was a creative midfield player of Higuains level he'd cost half as much.A very good striker would probably cost more than a truly great player in any other position.

Picking Juve is a terrible example of the point you are trying to make :pac:
They sold Pogba a midfielder of Higuains level for a world record fee
Before that sold Zidane and replaced him with Salas/Buffon/Thuram/etc
Both for less money than the midfielder they sold
I understand what you are saying mind, just terrible example

ERG89

emmetkenny wrote:

Who have Liverpool struggled to beat this season? The smaller teams, those exact teams that Lukaku scores against.

Liverpool concede about 50 goals a season. That's why we don't win leagues. They have no problems scoring(highest in the league atm).
The players clearly raise their game against the best sides & lower it thereafter.
But conceding 6 in two games against Bournemouth & 3 at home to Swansea you won't win no league.
As for cursing who cares :rolleyes:

The Talking Bread

I can't figure out the enigma that is Traore. I think he just lacks that bit of composure and intelligence

Dirty Dingus McGee

The Talking Bread wrote: »

I can't figure out the enigma that is Traore. I think he just lacks that bit of composure and intelligence

His surname is what's holding him back.

The Talking Bread

20170417_213601 (2).jpg



Now straight back to the Bookies to collect it and give it back to them!

Laois_Man

Arsenal

ERG89 wrote: »

Plenty of players out there that can do it vs Bournemouth & Swansea types.

Where are they then and why aren't they the top scorers in the PL?

Jayop wrote: »

Flat track bully doesn't mean physicality. I thought that was a well known expression.

It means he racks up his numbers against crap teams. Lukaku has been absolutely anonymous in lots of their games against big teams.

I'm a bit sick of the fixation from fans and the media about Lukaku's goals record against the top teams

Why not the same analysis of the other top strikers' goals record against the top 4 (or the other teams in the top 4 plus 5th where they play for a top 4 team themselves)

Lukaku 3 goals from 6 games

Costa 2 goals from 7 games

Kane 0 goals from 6 games

Aguero 2 goals from 6 games

Ibrahimovic 2 goals from 5 games

irishman86 wrote: »

I actually like Lukaku more than Kane myself, but I wouldnt think either are worth more than 60 million

Jeez, Chelsea paid nearly that for Torres at a time when they were making less money than Sunderland are making this season for finishing last!


This £100 Million price tag, if Everton are serious, it will be interesting to see how it plays out! If no £100 Million offer comes in, Lukaku will have to either sign his new contract or lose out on over £3.5 Million in additional wages over the next year. Then we'll see if all Lukaku's talk is really about winning trophies and playing in the CL. It will be even more interesting to see what happens if the only acceptable bid were to come from China

Everton won't get much less for him in Summer 2018 than the club would bag if they sell now. The player, if he doesn't move has to continue to score or he'll be more in the market of Chesterfield than Chelsea (It's only a couple of years when it was hard to find anyone who wanted to risk £28 Million on him). He has to perform in World Cup year too. Everton have nothing whatsoever to lose and the club have done the smart thing for the moment.

theoneeyedman

Jayop wrote: »

As a footballer no, but his fee was as much to do with marketing as anything.

This.

Pogba is as much about selling boots, haircuts, tshirts, YouTube hits, as he is about football.
Any time I've seen him, he's played in 15-20 second bursts, then disappears again. If you're in, I dunno, Singapore, watching highlight packages online or something, these little clips can look good, especially if you think he's 'cool' or whatever the kids say these days.
I'm loving the United fans this last week or so pushing a 'fake news' agenda that he's having a great season.

The Talking Bread

theoneeyedman wrote: »

This.

Pogba is as much about selling boots, haircuts, tshirts, YouTube hits, as he is about football.
Any time I've seen him, he's played in 15-20 second bursts, then disappears again. If you're in, I dunno, Singapore, watching highlight packages online or something, these little clips can look good, especially if you think he's 'cool' or whatever the kids say these days.
I'm loving the United fans this last week or so pushing a 'fake news' agenda that he's having a great season.

Most chances created by any league midfielder, most passes by any league midfielder, could easily have had half a dozen more goals but for the woodwork which he has hit about ten times, hasn't made any huge errors in defensive capacity, hasn't been lazy or petulant, has been an ever present in a team that has lost one game (Chelsea in FA Cup) since October.

If United's attack had converted all those hapless draws into a few wins United would look comfortable in the top 4 zone whilst also having a league cup and favourites to win a European trophy.

Pogba has been an ever present in that team. Everyone knew the marketing aspect which increased the price tag. Sometimes I wonder what people expected? 30 yard goals every second game?

He can't claim the young player excuse anymore but there is no doubt ge will only get better and this season has been a good season, not a great season but most definitely not a bad season. Nor even an "average" season.

Jayop

Chelsea

theoneeyedman wrote: »

This.

Pogba is as much about selling boots, haircuts, tshirts, YouTube hits, as he is about football.
Any time I've seen him, he's played in 15-20 second bursts, then disappears again. If you're in, I dunno, Singapore, watching highlight packages online or something, these little clips can look good, especially if you think he's 'cool' or whatever the kids say these days.
I'm loving the United fans this last week or so pushing a 'fake news' agenda that he's having a great season.

Ugh fake news. I hate that pop term.

Pogba isn't having a great season. He's had a good season that was a but underwhelming considering the price tag on his head. The problem is that when he's poor in a game it's hyped out of all proportion but when he has a good game there's barely a mention because it's the least that's expected if him.

Like I said earlier he's created 54 scoring chances in the league and I'm open to correction here but I think that's the most. He's hit the post and crossbar countless times and had he converted a fee if them his scoring and assist record would be fine. Big money or not he's taking a while to settle in and the team has been in Flux this year with Jose coming in and trying to fix the mess of the last three years. Pogba is more than a highlights package player and I'm confident he'll be a great player for many years.

Might not live up to the expectations of oppo fans though as they're the only ones constantly going on about the transfer fee.

ERG89

Laois_Man wrote:

Where are they then and why aren't they the top scorers in the PL?

They are with the 6 teams that are above Everton in the table as they don't play to the strengths of one player.

Laois_Man

Arsenal

ERG89 wrote: »

They are with the 6 teams that are above Everton in the table as they don't play to the strengths of one player.

Everton don't play to the strengths of Lukaku any more than Spurs play to the strengths of Kane or Man City to Aguero etc. If they did, Everton would play with another striker for him to play off (which is extremely rare for Everton to do) and they'd never expect him to hold up the ball on his own with his back to goal - which he has to do every game and which is by far the weakest part of his game.

Jayop

Chelsea

Premier league this season

Lukaku
mins 2817
games 31
goals 24
assists 6
total goals/assists 30
goals/assist per game 0.97
minutes per goal/assist 93.9
goals per game 0.77
minutes per goal 117.38

Kane
mins 2007
games 23
goals 20
assists 5
total goals/assists 25
goals/assist per game 1.09
minutes per goal/assist 80.28
goals per game 0.8
minutes per goal 100.35

There's very little between them and both are having excellent seasons. Both would be great players to have in your team. Kane has been out a while injured so has played less but his goals and assists rate is better both per game and even more-so per minute. In fact it takes Lukaku 17 more minutes for each goal scored.

For me I think Lukaku would suit Chelsea while Kane would be my first choice for United. I just think the style of play we have would suit Kane more and he would be better able to play alongside the likes of Rashford.

Utopia Parkway

Jayop wrote: »

Premier league this season

Lukaku
mins 2817
games 31
goals 24
assists 6
total goals/assists 30
goals/assist per game 0.97
minutes per goal/assist 93.9
goals per game 0.77
minutes per goal 117.38

Kane
mins 2007
games 23
goals 20
assists 5
total goals/assists 25
goals/assist per game 1.09
minutes per goal/assist 80.28
goals per game 0.8
minutes per goal 100.35

There's very little between them and both are having excellent seasons. Both would be great players to have in your team. Kane has been out a while injured so has played less but his goals and assists rate is better both per game and even more-so per minute. In fact it takes Lukaku 17 more minutes for each goal scored.

For me I think Lukaku would suit Chelsea while Kane would be my first choice for United. I just think the style of play we have would suit Kane more and he would be better able to play alongside the likes of Rashford.

Lukaku wants out though so should be gettable albeit at a big price. Why would Kane leave Spurs for United? No reason to unless he was motivated purely by money. Can't see Kane leaving there anytime soon. Unless Poch was to leave and things fell apart there a bit after.

Laois_Man

Arsenal

Jayop wrote: »

Premier league this season

Lukaku
mins 2817
games 31
goals 24
assists 6
total goals/assists 30
goals/assist per game 0.97
minutes per goal/assist 93.9
goals per game 0.77
minutes per goal 117.38

Kane
mins 2007
games 23
goals 20
assists 5
total goals/assists 25
goals/assist per game 1.09
minutes per goal/assist 80.28
goals per game 0.8
minutes per goal 100.35

There's very little between them and both are having excellent seasons. Both would be great players to have in your team. Kane has been out a while injured so has played less but his goals and assists rate is better both per game and even more-so per minute. In fact it takes Lukaku 17 more minutes for each goal scored.

For me I think Lukaku would suit Chelsea while Kane would be my first choice for United. I just think the style of play we have would suit Kane more and he would be better able to play alongside the likes of Rashford.

Stats like this are misleading tho. About one-third of Kane's goals are penaltys. Lukaku hasn't taken any this season as I believe Leighton Baines has the most impressive penalty conversion record in the PL over many years.

Jayop

Chelsea

Laois_Man wrote: »

Stats like this are misleading tho. About one-third of Kane's goals are penaltys. Lukaku hasn't taken any this season as I believe Leighton Baines has the most impressive penalty conversion record in the PL over many years.

Are penalties not goals now or something? Why should they not count?

What about free kicks or headers from corners?

Edit: Also for the record he has 4 pens this season in 20 goals so that's 20% not 33%.

ERG89

Laois_Man wrote: »

Everton don't play to the strengths of Lukaku any more than Spurs play to the strengths of Kane or Man City to Aguero etc. If they did, Everton would play with another striker for him to play off (which is extremely rare for Everton to do) and they'd never expect him to hold up the ball on his own with his back to goal - which he has to do every game and which is by far the weakest part of his game.

Of course they play through him more than anyone else, where elee are there goals coming from?
Why do Eriksen, Son and Alli have a lot of goals scored? Not cause they over rely on Kane for gowls
City have Sterling, Silva, Sane & others scoring, heck Aguero was dropped too so it's not like he's been played to his maximum potential

Laois_Man

Arsenal

ERG89 wrote: »

Of course they play through him more than anyone else, where elee are there goals coming from?
Why do Eriksen, Son and Alli have a lot of goals scored? Not cause they over rely on Kane for gowls
City have Sterling, Silva, Sane & others scoring, heck Aguero was dropped too so it's not like he's been played to his maximum potential

Playing thru Lukaku more than anyone else is entirely different than saying they play to his strengths. Spurs also play thru Kane more than they do anyone else. The fact that Spurs' or Man City's other players are better than Everton's other players is a completely different point altogether.

Aguero has played almost every minute of almost every game he has been fit and not suspended for so I don't know where that's coming from either.

Crash Bang Wall

Laois_Man wrote: »

Playing thru Lukaku more than anyone else is entirely different than saying they play to his strengths. Spurs also play thru Kane more than they do anyone else. The fact that Spurs' or Man City's other players are better than Everton's other players is a completely different point altogether.

Aguero has played almost every minute of almost every game he has been fit and not suspended for so I don't know where that's coming from either.

Aguero was dropped for Jesus, and is only playing because Jesus is injured

Gavlor

Jesus lads some of you have waaaaay to much time on your hands!

Could lukaku score more in a better team? Yes
Is he worth £100m? No
Is any other footballer worth £100m in terms of what they add on the playing field even in today's environment? No

irishman86

Laois_Man wrote: »

Jeez, Chelsea paid nearly that for Torres at a time when they were making less money than Sunderland are making this season for finishing last!


This £100 Million price tag, if Everton are serious, it will be interesting to see how it plays out! If no £100 Million offer comes in, Lukaku will have to either sign his new contract or lose out on over £3.5 Million in additional wages over the next year. Then we'll see if all Lukaku's talk is really about winning trophies and playing in the CL. It will be even more interesting to see what happens if the only acceptable bid were to come from China

Everton won't get much less for him in Summer 2018 than the club would bag if they sell now. The player, if he doesn't move has to continue to score or he'll be more in the market of Chesterfield than Chelsea (It's only a couple of years when it was hard to find anyone who wanted to risk £28 Million on him). He has to perform in World Cup year too. Everton have nothing whatsoever to lose and the club have done the smart thing for the moment.

Torres at his peak was a far better player than Kane/Lukaku. He was bought on name just a lone when signed.
I said personally I wouldnt sign them for me, they are certainly not in the 100 million bracket. They arent bonafide superstars

irishman86

Laois_Man wrote: »

Everton don't play to the strengths of Lukaku any more than Spurs play to the strengths of Kane or Man City to Aguero etc. If they did, Everton would play with another striker for him to play off (which is extremely rare for Everton to do) and they'd never expect him to hold up the ball on his own with his back to goal - which he has to do every game and which is by far the weakest part of his game.

City dont play to Agueros strengths, why do you think he was dropped by Pep because he wasnt adapting to Peps style

GavRedKing

Chelsea

Lukaku was always going to use Everton as a spring board to a bigger club.

I did expect him to sign a new deal around christmas and then leave in the summer, getting Everton a much higher offer for him but as it stands, with 2 years left on his deal in June and him not signing an extension, I'd expect him to go for about 60/65million and giving who his agent is, he'll have already contacted interested parties and turned Lukakus head, IMO.

Dirty Dingus McGee

Jayop wrote: »

Are penalties not goals now or something? Why should they not count?

What about free kicks or headers from corners?

Edit: Also for the record he has 4 pens this season in 20 goals so that's 20% not 33%.

Penalties shouldn't really count when properly assessing goal scoring.They're not that difficult to score and are no indication of a strikers goal scoring prowess.

Jayop

Chelsea

Dirty Dingus McGee wrote: »

Penalties shouldn't really count when properly assessing goal scoring.They're not that difficult to score and are no indication of a strikers goal scoring prowess.

And what about tap in goals where they've been put on a plate for you? They're easier than a penalty to score.

The Talking Bread

Dirty Dingus McGee wrote: »

Jayop wrote: »

Are penalties not goals now or something? Why should they not count?

What about free kicks or headers from corners?

Edit: Also for the record he has 4 pens this season in 20 goals so that's 20% not 33%.

Penalties shouldn't really count when properly assessing goal scoring.They're not that difficult to score and are no indication of a strikers goal scoring prowess.

What about a tap in after a scramble in the box or a free header from a corner when you are expected to be in the area anyway or a free kick when the wall breaks up or the keeper makes a complete hash of it. Or a weak shot that deflects off a defender.

A goal is a goal. There is a reason certain players are handed penalty responsibility. Yes a penalty isnt as creative as a dribble into the box leaving 3 defenders in your wake but it counts the same.

Dirty Dingus McGee

The Talking Bread wrote: »

What about a tap in after a scramble in the box or a free header from a corner when you are expected to be in the area anyway or a free kick when the wall breaks up or the keeper makes a complete hash of it. Or a weak shot that deflects off a defender.

A goal is a goal. There is a reason certain players are handed penalty responsibility. Yes a penalty isnt as creative as a dribble into the box leaving 3 defenders in your wake but it counts the same.

Tap in goals are as a result of getting yourself into a good position .Thats a reward for good play by the player himself.

Penalties could be taken by anyone on the field they are not that difficult to score. Leigton Baines has scored a ****load of them but no-one would argue he's a good goalscorer.

Dirty Dingus McGee

The Talking Bread wrote: »

What about a tap in after a scramble in the box or a free header from a corner when you are expected to be in the area anyway or a free kick when the wall breaks up or the keeper makes a complete hash of it. Or a weak shot that deflects off a defender.

A goal is a goal. There is a reason certain players are handed penalty responsibility. Yes a penalty isnt as creative as a dribble into the box leaving 3 defenders in your wake but it counts the same.

Tap in goals are as a result of getting yourself into a good position .Thats a reward for good play by the player himself.

Penalties could be taken by anyone on the field they are not that difficult to score. Leigton Baines has scored a ****load of them but no-one would argue he's a good goalscorer.

Dirty Dingus McGee

Jayop wrote: »

And what about tap in goals where they've been put on a plate for you? They're easier than a penalty to score.

Tap in goals are as a result of getting yourself into a good position .Thats a reward for good play by the player himself.

Penalties could be taken by anyone on the field they are not that difficult to score. Leigton Baines has scored a ****load of them but no-one would argue he's a good goalscorer.

Iused2likebusts

A striker scoring 25 goals from open play is more impressive than a player scoring 30 goals if ten are penos.

elefant

Arsenal

The Talking Bread wrote: »

A goal is a goal. There is a reason certain players are handed penalty responsibility. Yes a penalty isnt as creative as a dribble into the box leaving 3 defenders in your wake but it counts the same.

I'd say the point should be less about Kane's penalties not counting, but rather that Lukaku could have another 2 or 3 goals there easily if he was on Everton's penalties. I think that would be a fair enough point.

Iused2likebusts

Of course you have to consider pens when assessing a strikers goalscoring ability.If 2 players off the same team both score 20 goals yet one of them takes the pens and has 5 of them the player without the pens will have done better.

Jayop

Chelsea

You'd have to ask why is Lukaku not taking them if he's the best goal scorer. Lack of bottle maybe? Baines has a great record but if I was Lukaku I'd be looking to take these easy goals that apparently requires no skill to take to boost my numbers.