Cornish Steve

Raw numbers for Romelu Lukaku, Arjen Robben, and Luca Toni. The three quoted numbers are games started, games as a sub, goals scored. Lukaku Everton 41(7)20 Everton (loan) 31(2)16 WBA (loan) 23(15)17 Chelsea 4(11)0 Anderlecht 8(2)3 Robben Bayern Munich 128(35)94 Real Madrid 44(17)12 Chelsea 74(32)19 FC Groningen (loan) 27(1)6 PSV Eindhoven 59(7)20 FC Groningen 13(4)2 Toni Verona 70(2)42 Fiorentina 15(12)8 Juventus 5(9)2 Genoa 16(0)3 Roma 6(3)1 Bayern Munich 12(1)3 Brescia 32(2)13 Counting all games equally (start or sub), their goals per game are Lukaku (0.39), Robben (0.35), and Toni (0.39). (Note: I was wrong on van Persie. His number is higher at 0.51.) So, Rom can genuinely count himself in the same company as Robben and Toni, two of the greatest goalscorers of our time. Any questions?

The site I referenced for stats includes only 3 goals total for Ajax, so they are clearly adjusted. That's fewer goals than van Persie scored for Feyenoord. In other words, Rom's record comes very largely from his time in the Premier League.

There are certainly rumours that he'll be the next signing of the summer. Not unexpected, though.

Two quotes from a couple of years ago.

Looks like we're on the home stretch.

Just for interest's sake, I thought I'd compare Lukaku's lifetime average for goals per game with some well-known strikers. His average is obviously less than players such as Messi, Ronaldo, Suarez, and Ibrahimovic. However, he's on a par with Robben, Van Persie, Costa, and Toni. In fact, he's not that far behind Rooney and Tevez. While Rom can certainly improve, that's really not too shabby. Stats, I know, but why not throw them around?

What is this with Bournemouth? Distin, Garbutt,... I wonder what we'll get in return.

I should do the calculation to answer my own question here: How much does the club make from the TV deal versus how much (less expenses) does it make from fans attending games? My guess is that far more comes from the TV deals, since costs are practically zero. That means that, from a financial perspective, clubs have less and less reason to worry about fan disenchantment. That's a sad state of affairs, but it's what happens when money takes over.

My point is that most football supporters in the Prem had a soft spot for Blackpool when they were there. They payed attractive, aggressive football - and were relegated. The same might happen this year with Bournemouth. Fans wish how their teams would play such attractive football, and then wave goodbye at the end of the season. Style has to come second to winning. That's not to say boring football is acceptable; it's simply pointing out the priorities.

So you win either way: a pet or a year's supply of bacon.

Blackpool should have been in the money then. For some odd reason, they're now in League 1. It's a balance, right? Obviously, teams want to win (and personally I'd prefer doing that without buying our way there). Obviously, fans want to win in an entertaining manner. Let me ask you: Would you enjoy yourself more as a fan when finishing in the top four by playing a dour style or finishing 16th by playing bold, aggressive football?

But they can prepare while singing Aussie Christmas carols: In the bleak midsummer...

Would it count if 8 of them were on the road to winning the FA Cup? That would be only 12 league goals.

Not so impressed. Unduly negative piece. First of all, it's not the case that there's no hope of replacing aging players with good alternatives. Just look at the names we're associated with right now. They are exciting names, not the dross I saw us linked with this time last year. Second, there's no mention of the young spine we're building for the team. Players like Stones, McCarthy, Barkley, and Lukaku could be playing for Everton for a decade. Add to them Robles, Deulofeu (hopefully), Galloway, Garbutt, Besic, and Henin (hopefully). This could be a team to reckon with for several years. Third, there's no doubt that we're living in a different footballing world today, with megamillionaires buying teams like others buy chocolate bars. It's sad, but so be it. Does that mean such teams always win? Not at all! I'd choose a stable, young team any day over a bunch of whining prima donnas. Fourth, Brits always root for the underdog. For sure, I do. Underneath it all, we just don't like to see big money buying first place. We follow teams that go about things the right way, that earn their way to victory. Football is about winning, but it's not about winning at any price. Fifth, it's rather unwise to draw conclusions from one or two seasons. Admittedly, the writer looks back at prior regimes, but he still believes 2-1/2 years (one of them being our best ever finish in the Prem) is long enough to determine whether a manager can cut it. Just look at Arsenal. Wenger has been in charge for many years, and they consistently finish in the top four. Other teams fire managers and struggle, because you can't build a new strategy and way of playing overnight, with players who struggle to adapt. Personally, I'm much more optimistic than the writer of that article. Let's see who's right at the end of the coming season.

Here you go.

This is quite extraordinary. These two teams are very well matched.

We have an experienced young keeper: He's called Joel Robles. As backup, don't we need an older, more experienced keeper?

So much for all the news headlines about England's batting resurgence. One swallow does not a summer make.

What a ridiculous decision by the Kiwi captain - to give the new ball to a spinner!

Not at all. Just makes it a little more exciting.

You're married to Hope Solo?

I rather agree with this. How many times has a gem of a player emerged when given the opportunity to prove themselves after always playing the understudy to big name stars?

Easily remedied. Just convince him we're playing towards the other goal.

Interesting that the web address states 3m whereas the article itself quotes 5m. Clearly, no one at the Mail knows.

MC?