Romelu Lukaku

[Deleted member 87819]

Kane on the other hand getting roughly 2 goals for every 3 appearances every year. With loads of assists now.

If he was so good with the rags why did they unload him at the first opportunity?

At Everton he was playing roughly a Jamie Vardy-type role if I remember correctly. Doesn't necessarily translate to our setup.

Is it too hard looking at a player for what he is now? Watch his game, see how he has evolved on every level, instead of talking about stats from years ago as if they mean more than what the eye can see?

 

[samuelyeboah]

Two great years in an abysmal league. Prior to this a large body of work in the PL.

Granted most recently over at the Kaleidoscope of Fuckery, but nevertheless it is not as if they were relegation strugglers. He was dreadful and too many here seem to be waving that issue away.

Not a big fan of signing Kane myself either but at least his performance at a CL-standard PL club is pretty well-established.

is any argument more tired than "Oh, it's just Serie A, abysmal league"

 

[Deleted member 87819]

is any argument more tired than "Oh, it's just Serie A, abysmal league"

Yes. “Because at Everton”, “but Raiola” and “because Southgate”

 

[jimharri]

Nonsense, 28 in 66 for the rags and 53 in 110 for Everton, 17 in 35 for West Brom on loan and 15 in 31 for Everton on loan. Those are pretty good for being in shite teams.

Oi. West Brom aren't shite.

Okay; they got relegated, but that's because he isn't there any longer.


"TAXI!!!!!!"

 

[Deleted member 87819]

Oi. West Brom aren't shite.

Okay; they got relegated, but that's because he isn't there any longer.


"TAXI!!!!!!"

There's a few posters on here who'd want to take a long, HARD look at themselves.

Hehe

 

[nmc]

Is it too hard looking at a player for what he is now? Watch his game, see how he has evolved on every level, instead of talking about stats from years ago as if they mean more than what the eye can see?

He looked good again tonight…

 

[I'm With Stupid]

Nobody wanted him, but now he's scored against not only Russia but the mighty Finland as well, people think he's the answer.

He's obviously a top striker and has been for a long time, but I think you're crazy to want him over Kane. The only thing for me is that he seems to have a good understanding with De Bruyne. His finishing is fantastic, but for me, Kane and Haaland both offer more in the build up.

 

[Javi Garcia's Hairstylist]

is any argument more tired than "Oh, it's just Serie A, abysmal league"

Tired as it may be, it is in fact an abysmal league.

We let Aguero walk away/drove him out the door. And replaced him with 28-year old Romelu Lukaku. Really?

Hell to the no. Get Kane or keep your powder dry.

Aguero's "replacement" replaces his wages. You'd almost certainly need to put this guy on a fresh 5-year deal as well. So this becomes your "guy" - at least for the 2-3 years before you loan him back to Inter.

If you could get him on his Inter deal with 3 years left which would surely be affordable? Perhaps a worthwhile experiment.

 

[Deleted member 87819]

Nobody wanted him, but now he's scored against not only Russia but the mighty Finland as well, people think he's the answer.

Go back on this thread and you will see this isn’t true. Some of us have been beating the drum for months

 

[mac]

On form and familiarity you have a good case.

However, England don't really have the creative central midfielder to allow Kane to shine.

That's because kane thinks hes the dogs bollocks midfielder in the England setup. Or there must be someone in the English management that also said Kane should take corners a few years back.