Lukaku likely to sit out against Gibraltar

I know we've debated this ad nauseam but the absence of back up for Lukaku is going to be a constant source of anxiety until January (at the earliest).

All of that said, I expect Rom to be fit for next week.

The lad's banging them in, let's make him Lukaku's understudy for a few games, see how he gets on.

Never give an inch!

8 goals in 6 and counting ...

If we play Kone, what do we honestly expect from him that we haven't seen before? Let's give Stones and company something else to think about.

Roll on the next transfer window when hopefully we can sign a striker without the massive mouth and this gobshite can fuck off to where he thinks befits his status, which is way beyond us.

Send RK video so your Granny can play for us seeing as how she is so good and all, right? What position does your Grandpa play so we can see if he would be helpful to the squad also?

I saw this article and thought: "Oh, here we go, TW posters having a dig at Lukaku again...", but then realised that the article was "Lukaku likely to sit out" rather than "Lukaku likely to shit out".

Continue to denigrate and discount all Rom's goals on your own invented criteria ... weak opposition ... goals a panto Long John Silver could score ... the neighbour's dog crapped on your lawn ...

I do giggle how you and your fellow chuckle brother Peter Roberts post almost exclusively on TW, only to deride Lukaku.

"Whatever gets you through the night," as some other scouser once sang ...

They would be a lot more effective than the kitchen sink!

Hopefully Rom will be fit and ready to take on Man City. Regardless of what people think of his comments, he is a quality player who will get better under Koeman and he is our player. To suggest that he should bugger off is nonsense. Who are we going to get who is better?

What we really need is a playmaker around him, players who will create chances for him, then we shall see a proper goals tally from him. We just don't have anybody remotely in that category. Ross has been shoehorned into that position which in my opinion, just doesn't suit him. He only has a fraction of the goals & assists that he should have done.

We need to add to Rom – not replace him.

Why not give Dominic a go, at least on the bench?

Personally I look forward to the day we can have a striker "who wants to play for Everton" – who can also trap a bag of cement and doesn't have to be called Dennis Stracq.

Did anyone praise Rooney for being ambitious when he left Everton? (Despite never talking to the press saying he wanted to move).

Jay, I'm sorry if some Everton fans can't join in with your excessive fanboy support of a player who doesn't give a toss about Everton. The fans who may point out patterns in his play and goalscoring that unveils a player far from this "beast" that is spoken about. Maybe we irritate the crap out of you by stating that he can't control a ball, that many games he is found jogging round in an offside position, moaning, sulking... doing impressions of a player who is devastated that his lack of anticipation has allowed a cross to go unconverted.

Maybe we lack the ability to have our memories erased when he has one of his games where he can look a player. Please forgive us for harping on about the other 7 out of 10 games where he doesn't bother turning up. It must really get on your nerves that we don't join in with your over-indulging of a player who can't wait to leave the club.

I'd love to just look at his 18 Premier League goals and think "he's one of the best" but unfortunately we have seen many average strikers get in amongst that total.

I'd love to just think of his Chelsea goal and think "he earned us a trip to Wembley". But then, just like he did in the Euros, he fluffs his lines spectacularly in the big games with an atrocious display of big-game bottling in the semi-final.

Still, you should be happy with his semi-final and Euros – it meant no-one came in for him so he can continue sitting on his 㿷k a week till someone decides to gamble on him.

Howard and Osman also had many detractors over the years and, even if Everton had won a title, I am sure the detractors would still find plenty to moan about. God knows I do too.

At the moment Everton have no one else who has proven to be better and so they have to hope he continues to score goals at least until January as nothing else will change.

Everton have some decent youngsters but I don't think Big K is quite ready to start chopping and changing just yet. Obviously the players with the big pay packets will get priority selection.

On average, that's pretty much what he does, and still...

He certainly needs quality around him, as do most if not all strikers, and if it's not there he'll no doubt move on sooner rather than later. Then you can be happy with an Evertonian striker who you don't see as a gobshite, but who might be fucking useless at scoring goals.

We could play Mirallas up top. Or how about Barkley. And the shout for Funes Mori could just work. If nothing else Funes Mori could baffle Stones and maybe our misfiring Barkley and Mirallas could take advantage.

Also, check out some of his barren spells in 2014 and 2015...

Is Lukaku a good player? Yes.

Should we sell good players who score goals? I personally don't see the logic in it, unless he's a detrimental influence in the changing room.

The problem is we don't have enough other quality players. If we sign another striker who scores regularly and we have more quality in midfield, the whole Lukaku issue becomes moot.

Keep him but buy more quality so he has no option but to know he's not the best at the club.

It's an average, mate. Last season, he scored 16 league goals in the first 20 league games. Doesn't mean he is going to score in 4 out of every 5 games.

Every striker goes through good spells and goes through barren spells.

Without checking the facts, I'd say has scored about 65 goals now in about 125 - 130 appearances, which works out at, would you believe, 1 in every 2 games. Pretty good record for any striker, I'd say.

"Deary me, Jay Wood, what are you going to do when the big lump finally gets his move to whichever team has to put up with his big trap?"

Ehrm... do what I've always done for more than 50 years – continue to support Everton and our players.

More to the point, what will YOU do without your go-to-guy no longer at the club for you to vent on?

Don't hold your breath mate. You're in à fantasy world, set around 1957.

I've seen enough spin surrounding this lad to last me a lifetime:

"Goals scored by 22nd birthday" – aka using his 33 goals scored at the top team in a garbage league... so garbage that an overgrown 16-year-old can score for fun.

"Goals every other game" – aka add up all his goals including ones in cup games where he's interested against dross – then divide by total games played and hope that it gives an average that looks like it can cover up the fact that he's notorious for going on spells where he can't be arsed and does the score.

"People forget he's only (choose applicable age)" – this tries to give the impression that he's only played a handful of games and any flaws will be ironed out in good time, when the reality is he's actually played more top flight games than the average 28-year-old yet he still can't control a football adequately to allow hid team mates to trust him.

"He's a beast" – yes, if he was standing with a tuxedo on and asked you for ID you would do as you are asked . the reality is he's often owned by 5ft-10in defenders who let him know they're there.

"He's ambitious what's wrong in wanting to play at a higher level" – aka I'm prepared to apply a different judgement on Lukaku than Rooney, Lescott etc.

"One his day he's unplayable" – aka once in a blue moon he may consider having a go.

Hopefully if Lukaku is injured Koeman has a Plan B to counter Kenwright's cheap and dodgy dealings re strikers.

Put Ross, Kev or Yan in the middle, anything but starting with Kone or the other two.

I would hardly say understanding the fabric of the club and respecting its tradition rank as importantly as being a good player.

There can't be many of our current and past players who meet that "requirement" about understanding and respect. And the players who do match up in that way (the Osmans and Hibberts of this world) are often treated worst by fans. So much for respect.

Just do the job on the pitch. Score the goals against all clubs, in all competitions, including the likes of City, Chelsea, West Ham etc in cup competitions.

I also think it is a good shout to put Calvert-Lewin on the bench; we are now allowed seven to sit on the bench... Why not give two of the young lads the experience to be with the seniors each week?Who knows, we might be three up with 20 minutes to go in one game, just throw the youngsters on then.

Also, Stones won't know what the hell to do!!

Well, what I saw of Enner Valencia on the field was sadly on the level of that farce. Okay, he (somewhat inadvertently) set up one goal but he must have had three glorious opportunities to score himself against a surprisingly poor Chile side — ominously up against Man City's Bravo in goal. (Maybe they were also struggling in the thin Quito air?)

You're wasting your time. They are completely blind to the fella's shortcomings. That they will hold up Lukaku's goals against weakened and lower league teams in cup games as some sort of achievement says it all. They will overlook the fact that his misses in the latter stages have rendered these goals absolutely meaningless. It's all about the stats, don't you know?

A Premier League marksman should be judged by his Premier League record and if there is another player who has missed more sitters in the Premier League, I haven't seen him.

Lukaku has scored 48 Premier League goals in 110 games... nowhere near 1 in 2.

Harry Kane has scored 51 in 88 Premier League games for Spurs. He's braver than Lukaku, better in the air, more of a team player, has a better first touch and misses nowhere near as many chances. He has never once disrespected Spurs they way Lukaku has regularly disrespected our club. That's why one of them is loved and the other one err... isn't.

Lukaku can be decent on his day, no question about that, but top-draw? Only if you have never seen what a top-draw striker looks like.

The fact that fans of a club like Arsenal can slate a player like Giroud who averages a better Premier League rate of return in less game-time means nothing to them. We have our "trophy striker" after years of watching dross cheap-end strikers.

The fact is our general play is centred on making him look good – it's also true that his general play makes us look bad. For every goal he scores, there are at least 10 occasions where he has given the ball away cheaply, miscontrolled it etc – but there isn't big glossy tables showing this.

I have a word for those who'd denigrate our players like Ross and Rom but I'd get banned for using it.

Which bit of "Lukaku can be decent on his day, no question about that" reads "Lukaku is shite" in your delusional world?

And which statistic did I get wrong? If the Kane stats are wrong, have the moral courage to say so, so we can blow your argument away? Likewise with Lukaku's Premier League stats. Go ahead... say they are wrong.

The strawman argument you tried to put up may have rattled Mason's cage, but only enough for him to embarrass himself by plumbing new depths of hypocrisy. It would appear in his world, that those who offer legitimate criticism of a player have a "name"... but it's okay for him to wish defeat on our team because he doesn't like the manager. Funny.

And what about this little gem: "The reason he is limited is because top level coaches are typically as thick as pig shit" – is that the dumbest thing ever posted on this site? ... On any site??? Every top coach in the world must be as thick as pig shit, because Lukaku has had his arse in the shop window all summer and not one of them batted a fucking eyelid.

I'm racking my brains to understand why these fraudsters get contracts worth tens of millions while a visionary like Mason gets about 3% of fuck all. Where's the justice?

I've never said Lukaku is a world class striker. If he was, he wouldn't be here. Have you got the stats for how many chances all strikers miss? Or are we working on the basis that his goals are meaningless and his misses are meaningful?

He scores goals. More than most strikers in the Premier League. That's not good enough for you, or the clubs above us, but we clearly tried and failed to buy a decent striker last summer, which says to me there aren't many better out there who are willing to come to us.

I'd like nothing better than for us to buy two strikers better than Lukaku. Thing is I like breathing too much to hold it as long as I'd need to.

Please, let's see some stats for Premier League goals over the last three seasons and see how he figures. And if anyone has missed chance stats for all strikers, let's have a meaningful comparison.

Actually you kinda expose the black-and-white nature of these threads. Say he isn't top draw and the fan boys will get hysterical and accuse you of calling him shite. There are many levels between world class and shite and Lukaku will be above half way

You a right in saying he is the best we can do at the moment but that doesn't mean we should be falling over ourselves with gratitude because he is here, or turning a blind eye to his missed sitters and lack of effort.... and I'm not sure who you were talking about when you said we tried and failed to sign a decent striker last summer.

I think we're going to have to unearth one from somewhere... and get Lukaku fired up before every game.

Regarding stats, all I'm saying is get some genuine comparisons and we know where we are. Selective stats get on my nerves, just confirmation bias for the zealots on both sides.

Kane more able than Lukaku? – I don't Adam and Eve it!

I don't think we tried very hard to sign a striker; I think you have made that up to strengthen your argument.

Regarding stats, I think the bias is all on the side of those trying to make Lukaku out to be better than he is. I laughed out loud when somebody tried to take Lukaku's appearances as a substitute out of the equation... yet they want to leave the goals he scored on the 11 occasions he appeared from the bench in it. Are they really that stupid?

I don't think confining stats to the premiership is being selective. its the only real way of judging a striker against his peers. same opposition where every goal counts. History is littered with strikers whose goals against lesser opposition in domestic cups have made them look better than what they are. A bagful of goals in the early stages of a cup competition are rendered absolutely meaningless if you don't go on to win the trophy. (If you think you can offer an alternative argument, I'm all ears.)

Aguero and Vardy are miles ahead of lukaku and despite Stans finger in the ears lalala approach, Kane literally murders him on all fronts. All three players work tirelessly and their workrate and hunger often make aimless forward look like slide rule passes. They often score goals out of nothing – you can count on one hand the number of times our boy does that.

Look Paul. I genuinely hope you win your bet, It will mean we as a team will be more successful – it will also mean you have to get the ale in.

Anyway, I'm taking a leaf out of Mockers book here, I'm going to try to give these Lukaku debates a wide berth. When people want to treat him differently to every other player and leave out his substitute appearances (whilst accepting the goals) you have to concede that reasoned debate has given way to mindless desperation. We've got better EFC related issues to discuss.

How many top strikers miss a penalty and 4 one-on-one opportunities in an FA Cup semi-final?

How many top strikers "don't like heading a ball cos they banged their head when they were a kid"

How many top strikers have the touch of an elephant?

How many top strikers stroll around moaning – and when things aren't going well, blame the "style of play"?

No – top strikers don't do that... so all the Romelu fanboys can continue spinning stats like "goals scored by the age of 21" etc, they can continue to compare him to an era of Everton strikers where 90% would struggle to get in another top-half-of-the-table side. But I will not be kidded.

I'll continue to watch the lad with my eyes wide open. Try it – don't just look for him to convert a chance that falls to him in the box that most half-decent finishers would score. Watch him "play" – watch the number of times play breaks down because of his lack of technique... and "watch" what unfold afterwards.

You will be quite shocked to see what happens a lot of the time when Lukaku loses the ball. You see – the team are centred around the lad, they commit forward. They play a ball to him and expect him to look after it – he loses it. The other team counter and we are exposed. More often than not, it takes a good tackle from a defensive midfielder or defender to win possession back – that's if we do.

But it's okay... you can choose to ignore all that and just focus on his average of 14 Premier League goals a season. I'll continue to watch the likes of Kane, Vardy, Aguero, Suarez & Deeney press from the front – offer their team mates a "non-offside" option, and look after the ball whilst the team are able to advance up the field. Oh yeah... and they score goals too.

I didn't say in #58 that we should take out of the equation any games when Rom came on as a sub while leaving in any goals he scored in those games (that would be dishonest). Or "are you really that stupid".

For example, the absence of goals in 13 games must be accompanied by the 'statistical confounding factor' of the background of management issues last season affecting the entire team. Without taking taking account of such confounding factors, your use of figures is simply pseudo-statistical analysis, or as I said earlier, stirtistics. A kind of numerical shit raking.

All-in-all, such anti-Lukaku rants just look like a party political broadcast on behalf of the Romexit campaign.

Who were amongst the opposition when on a hot streak? How was the form of his teammates during that same period? And might any player in particular have swung the 'feast or fucking famine' balance in his favour (eg, Deulofeu at the start of last season)?

Was he being heavily linked with a move to a club his arl fella considers absolutely massive when he cranked his 'more effort' mojo up to maximum and could it have been a conscious decision to do so? Was he getting his hole more than usual or was he having to whack lippy and fake eyelashes on his wank hand when the goals were flowing?

As for "stirtistics"? Shit name, but I won't let that stop me from having a go:

Lukaku actually enjoyed his most successful last 6 months to a Premier League season in an Everton shirt last time out.

From the 1st of December to the last game in May, he got his name on the score sheet a whopping eight times in the league. During the same time period the season before, he only managed five (two of which were pens). In his first season, seven league goals notched in that same six-month period.

If his dodgy form during the second half of last season was due to upheaval at the club, what the hell was going on behind closed doors the previous two years when he was similarly shite throughout the same period?

If we want to fuck about with numbers, I'm content with the (I seem to recall) 65 goals in about 130 or so games, which is aboit 1 goal every two games. That'll do for me, don't need any pseudo-statistical bullshit.

Obviously, my 'Rom is regularly a dud from December on' bit wasn't a serious attempt at putting forward a case that Lukaku turns to crap as soon as he claps eyes on an advent calender, but rather just some cobbled together shite that could fit within your definition of "stirtistics": hand plucked time period to suit, the recognition of certain goals but the rejection of others, all selectively pieced together to back up a claim clearly brimming with bollocks (ie, the second half of last season was actually Lukaku's best ever in an Everton shirt).

Something entirely different to a simple statement of fact that he went 13 games without scoring. There's no manipulation there, no fudging of figures and no attempt to portray a barren spell as anything more than it was: a lengthy run of consecutive games in which Lukaku failed to score a single goal. There's no 'confounding factor' that could explain away, conceal or cast doubt on the fact he was crap throughout that period and played like he couldn't even be arsed.

My point is dead simple: It seems that some folks just don't like Lukaku, and will go to great strains, including analysing numbers and citing certain 'lucky' goals, to support a case to get rid. TW is full of this. But no case is really made. Because the facts like you've cited look simply like cherry-picking to criticise Lukaku.

But, at the end of the day, whether it's skill or luck or combination of both, the guy scores lots of goals for Everton. Not a common ability. And not changed one iota by folks (and I'm not necessarily including yourself, because I haven't read all your posts) calling him a gobshite, a lazy bastard, a lump who can't trap a bag of cement, etc.

Stan,

I wonder if you count the goal stolen from Bolasie as "lucky" – is he not lucky that so many are prepared to believe his claim that he actually got a touch? ... I mean, nobody saw it!

But quite honestly I can't think of many, if any, other goals attributed to Lukaku that would elicit a similar conclusion to that one. Surely a point here is about being in the 'right place at the right time', that old football phrase applied to quality strikers. Lukaku seems to have that knack of being in the right place at the right time.

You could attempt to examine each goal and explain away its significance in a way analogous to looking at the Bolasie strike, but I would very much doubt that this would, when applied to each of the goals he's scored for us, in many instances lead to a conclusion that his presence (place and time) was not significant for the goal. I could be wrong, but I wouldn't bet my shirt on it.

The boy was born to score goals and yes, he plays for Everton Football Club.

Mike (#78). Only 23? He's a man at that age, not a boy. Have a look through any broadsheet newspaper to see what other 23-year-olds are doing, suffering, and contending with. Don't want to row, Mike, but 23 is no longer a kid.

Whether this was due to him only coming on loan initially – but lesser talents have had bigger welcomes, so that can't be it; or it may be due to his many words indicating that he wanted to leave for a bigger club, quite soon after signing his contract.

Rom should and could be a Goodison legend but, for some unfathomable reason, I can't see it ever happening. I'm still not sure if it's our fault as supporters for being too mean and cynical towards the player and the team in general or whether it is Rom's fault for not embracing all things Everton, as the likes of Tim Cahill and Andy Gray did during their time as Everton players.

It's a crying shame because for years we have wanted and needed a regular goalscorer and a hero; it would seem that Rom has got the first part in his locker but won't achieve the second part at Everton.

Ah yep... 3 years down the line we are still talking about those very same weaknesses. Are we to believe that they will be addressed in this next year? Will he suddenly start controlling a football, make precision-timed runs that don't see him the most offside person in the league... will he start working hard???

Somehow, I don't think so.

Lukaku came to Everton like someone comes to your house party and keeps their coat on... sat there looking at their watch...

Just do me a favour and get gone.

He scores goals. I'll leave this one alone from now as well.

We are set up to provide him goals at the expense of other elements of play. Does that make Everton score more goals? No.

Despite Martinez's gung-ho approach and Lukaku's supposedly superior "born to score" talent, we averaged just 2 Premier League goals more in Rom's 3 seasons than we did in Moyes's drab final 4 seasons.

Says a lot... doesn't it Mr Goalscorer really doesn't make that much of a difference, does he?

Give me a striker who offers more than just glorified personal stats and instead give me a striker that benefits the team.

It just seems you don't like the stats that suggest Lukaku doesn't equal goals for Everton.

Maybe because we are now able to sign players that cost in excess of 㿅m... Thing is... I'm a bit funny – I like players that cost a shed load of money to be worth it. I like them to commit to the team, to be able to control a football.

I neither like nor dislike your argument, I'm just looking at it as objectively as I can. You have to be very careful in taking facts – in this case, data – and interpreting them. Your analysis isn't a good one, so far as I can see, because your interpretation of facts is not convincing. It is perhaps distorted by an apparent dislike of Lukaku.

I also like players to control a football (School of Science, brought up seeing Colin Harvey, and all that), but I also like to see strikers scoring goals. Lukaku is a striker, and scores goals in abundance. Objectively, I have no reason to wish him to leave Everton. Simple as that.

Rest assured, Stan, Martinez was sacked because we have a new majority shareholder who doesn't suffer mediocrity.

The fact is, under both managers where Everton failed to win a trophy – Lukaku's impact in overall goals scored in negligible. I'd go as far to say he's been accountable for a fair few scored against us too.

Martinez was dismantling the club towards inevitable relegation and was taking us down the league as well as having been backed to the hilt with funds as well. His predecessor, whilst failing ultimately in the way you describe, showed progress in the way the team he inherited improved over time. Whereas Martinez was a disaster who was sacked, as Stan says, because was crap. Full Stop.

You may also assert that "I'd go as far to say he's been accountable for a fair few scored against us too", but I'd go so far as to say that you're talking complete crap until you back that up with something tangible, at which time I may then agree or disagree with you on the balance of probability of any evidence you present.

Leading scorer equals negligible impact?! By "negligible" you actually mean "Let's ignore it"! Bizarre in the extreme!

The reality is (pay attention, Brent!): Everton (the team)... not Romelu FC – have only averaged 2 goals more Premier Leagie goals per season in Lukaku's time here than we did in Moyes's "tired" last 4 seasons.

I make the case that, whilst you fanboys get awfully giddy about Rom, the reality is that the impact on total team goals scored isn't a great deal.

But hey! What does that matter??? We have the kudos of someone who scores goals at the rate of Olivier Giroud.

Fecking crazy. Top scorer and his impact on "total team goals scored isn't a great deal". Do you really think before you post, Peter? Darren Hind must be pissing himself.

It's quite simple logic really. But from your @101, I could get the impression that you're in training for the World Non-Sequitor Championships.

The point was that Martinez's style was that of having a go for the full 90 minutes of a game – vs Moyes's safety "circle the wagons" approach.

Again, for those of you who are watching in black and white: "Does Lukaku equal more goals for Everton?" ... NO! The stats support that, despite having a so-called goal machine, the difference in average goals scored in his time here vs his preceding years is pretty much the same. There is no doctoring of those stats – nothing that makes them misleading other than some of you now trying to make out that under Moyes we were an adventurous attacking team and under Martinez we were abysmal and never provided the striker with opportunities... oh, the irony, eh?

If you all manage to stop looking at Boy Wonder's goals stats, and actually focus on the team he plays for, you may actually identify with the fact that his inclusion in the team is only beneficial in the fact that he is a "Johnny on the spot" striker with absolutely no desire to do any of the less glamourous stuff that may actually help his teammates out.

Part of me feels cruel for saying it like this – it's like when I was 12 and people told me that Tony Cottee wasn't a good player, and I wanted to have a top striker at our club; it took a few years before the likes of Graham Sharp highlighted why. Then you look at his stats and see that almost half his Everton goals came in cup games.

Trust me – when we get in a striker that can do a bit of everything, rather than just be there to wait for his teammates to serve him, you will see an uplift in "team" performance. The ball retention will be better, there will be a harmonious work ethic, there will be player pressing in uniform...

It may mean that you can't boast about having a striker at the top end of the top goalscorer table but you may just need to look at the league table instead for satisfaction.

It's Everton FC – not Romelu FC, after all.

Statement:- "Lukaku does not mean more goals for EVERTON"

Fact to support this:- "Everton's average goals scored per season in Lukaku's time at the club is only 2 goals more than the average of the seasons preceding his arrival."

How can I put this another way?

Okay... in 1985, when we won the league, we had 5 players achieve double figures in the league – Sharp was top scorer with 21. We had strikers who played as part of a "team". The next year we didn't win the league – we were runners up – we had Lineker who scored 30 goals and only 2 more scored double figures.

1987 – Champions... guess how many goals our top scorer notched? 14.

Am I making sense yet?

All depends on what you get your kicks from; I like seeing Everton do well. Not bothered who scores the goals. Having "team players" – not just goalscorers – is key to success... Lukaku isn't a team player.

Because, for me – aside from being the person who finishes moves – he offers very little else.

It's ironic – listen to the groans and stick Barkley gets when he loses the ball due to an unsuccessful dribble or a through-ball gets cut out... yet we have a striker who actually struggles to control the ball and it's okay cos he gets some goals?

I'm bewildered, I truly am. Let alone the fact that the lad thinks he's too good for us and has spent more time disrespecting us than he ever has stating his appreciation for us...

Like him or not, right now we need him fit and playing. With the current squad, who would you play up front instead of Lukaku?

So we're reliant on him. It would be nice if we weren't so reliant, but we are. The future might be different, but that's where we are now. So I can't see the point of criticising him to the point of wanting to get rid of him. Surely Koeman's job is to improve and exploit him to maximum effect, and get an improved team performance (with new signings where we can) so we're less reliant on him.

I hate to use this example: Look at Suarez in his last season at Liverpool. Did he rely on being fed? No. He actually contributed to the team ethos more so than just scoring goals.

What would your team and formation be with him not in it?

Does it mean Stek is one of the best around? – not really. Just that we haven't invested in the position properly.