I think it's quite difficult to compare. At Chelsea the midfield provides an awful lot of goals, in fact so do the defence. Whereas the clubs Lukaku has been at rely more on the strikers scoring the goals. I can see why Lukaku was loaned out though. There is no denying he will be absolute quality and probably the best striker in the world in a few years but he is still quite raw and he does do things in a game that more experienced players wouldn't. Maybe he would've scored more than Torres has he played the same amount of games us but i just think for him to be getting first team football in this league at two top half teams is a good move for us. It saves him fighting for a place with Ba, Eto'o & Torres whereas loaning him out means he is pretty much guaranteed a start every week.
IMO the best way to learn would be to play first team football, something which wasn't guaranteed at Chelsea. There is only so much you can learn in training.
But it should be, thats the point we are making. If your best striker is fit, you play him. You dont bench him, and you definitely dont loan him out.
He still wouldn't have played every game because we have 3 other strikers to keep happy. He'll play more at Everton than he would've had he stayed with us, even though he may well be our best striker. At least he's playing at a good side who play decent football and who have a decent manager.
I'd rather Lukaku out on loan doing damage to our rivals than seeing him rot on the bench if were going to persist with Torres/Eto'o. I don't mind Torres, I've long thought he's the best all round striker at Chelsea since Didier left, Lukaku is a better goalscorer though I don't think he offers much to all round team play as Torres does.
