you're still continuing to say the phrase 'benchwarmer', and then you wonder why people call you stupid. Benchwarmer means someone who sits on the bench and never plays, Lukaku has played 3 games less than Welbeck. You still didn't answer my question; how many has welbeck started? Because I'm more than sure he's been on the bench as much as Lukaku if not more.
I'll answer it. Welbeck has played in 19 league games. He started in 10 games, was named as a sub in 14 and was brought on in 9 of them. He has scored 1 league goal. Lukaku has played in 24 league games. He started in 11 games, was named as a sub in 13 and was brought on in all 13 of them. He has scored 10 league goals.
are we comparing MAN UTD to WBA ? seriously? and why ignoring natioanl teams stats? who is starting more ?
I compared Lukaku's stats to Welbeck's stats not Manchester United to WBA you monumental cock jockey. Read what I wrote you ******ed twat. As for not knowing any other United fans who rate Lukaku higher than Welbeck, I suggest you actually read what other people have posted in this thread instead of spewing out the nonsensical ****e that is increasingly enhancing your reputation as the dimmest, most ill informed cretin posting on this forum. facepalm facepalm poshwank. EDIT: one thing I should add seeing as you're desperate to ridicule WBA like you do every other club you consider to be beneath United, don't you think that it's harder to score goals playing for a mid table team than the runaway leaders or is that beyond your very limited comprehension and grasp of the game? Is this where you start wittering about Welbeck servicing the forwards and covering for the full backs hence his limited involvement in goals this season?
agree, i rushed into it, this is why i erased straightway after reading your post again.. my bad but is your attitude towards everything I say is what irritate me tbh i find it outrageous that you indicated that am a blinded UTD supporter who will defend all our players blindly, while a chelsea fan had just said here that Lukaku is better, and you said nothing, guess he is not bias then, it is just me?.. why you didn't addressed him too? why is just me? going back to the stats , why you ignored the international stats? how many times both started in last 2012 and 2013? people should never forget that wlebeck is competing with Rooney, RVP, Chicha, and he is ahead of Chicha now while Lukaku is competing with Long, Odemwingie and Fortune, and he is ahead of Fortune now let us cut the crap, I want to know exactly, who you think is better? welbeck or Lukaku?
....but he's not. You called him a benchwarmer when the fact of the matter is he isn't. Welbeck is actually more of a benchwarmer. Regardless of who they both play for.
As a centre-half, you'd certainly fear Lukaku more. Would Welbeck honestly have played anything like 15 times for England if he played for a mid-table side? I don't see what his threat is- reasonable finisher but not particularly strong, quick, good in the air etc.
Lukaku is better as a stand alone player but if he had come here wouldn't be up top as the target man, we have Rooney, RVP and Hernandez and can't imagine he would have any impact pushed out wide like Wellbeck often is. Lukaku has lots of potential but he doesn't suit us i don't think, could become a good player for Chelsea if he makes the grade.
That's a different debate and you're right, he's benefitted from a lack of competition, but there's still Rooney, Defoe and Walcott who are undoubtedly better and then players like Hooper, Holt, Carroll or Graham who you could make arguments for getting in over Welbeck.
Rooney tends to play deeper though, Walcott out wide due to lack of those kind of players. I'd rather Hooper got a shot though as a proper goal scorer! Agree with what you said initially though, has a lot to do with it.
ok he is a bench warmer in an average side, while Welbeck is a bench warmer in UTD Wlebeck is a starter for England, while Lukaku is still a bench warmer in his national side
