You can't know how we would have played and how City would have played if Lukaku had started. We cannot make the comparison you are making. Lukaku came in at around 60min mark. Game is at different state at that point when fresh Lukaku comes in compared to if he's there from minute 1.
Yeah, I agree. We will never know how it would have played out if Lukaku had started. There's probably a world where Lukaku starts and we lose 70-0 because of his fuck ups, for example. What we do know is that with Dzeko on the pitch we created very little attacking threat, and we dropped a player who was arguably in one of the best forms in Europe as a striker for someone who was in pretty mediocre form at best.
Saying it's a fuckup is quite a statement given before the match we all can agree it would be a great result if we manage to get to half time with 0 goals conceded. Consider that having Dzeko there actually helped achieving that?
Game lasts 90mins and coach needs to plan for the whole time, and in this case actually to even 120mins and pens.
I won't let this one slip that starting Dzeko was some kind of a fuckup. It was a good move which worked well for us.
One of my objections to the point here - which is a point I made even *before* the match, is that Dzeko didnt have it in him. You should not be playing ANYONE in a CL FINAL of all games who you believe will be gassed by 50 minutes in, and Dzeko clearly was.
I dont have the specific stats, but from what I remember, Lukaku in 33 minutes crated more chances than Dzeko did while he played. Yes, he also made a huge fuck up, and yes - despite allegedly being a lukaku fan boy, I completely 100% blame him for missing the header - but at least we were creating chances!
Inzaghi broke up what was then the (??) most prolific strike pairing in Europe in Lautaro-Lukaku, to then play Lautaro-Dzeko. I'd love to see some data on the goals per 90 min for Lautaro-Dzeko vs Lukaku-Lautaro, for example, but as you say... the result speaks for itself. And the result says we didnt score any goals
You're fundamentally correct that its all speculation and uncertainty, but for me personally if I was Inzaghi, i'd question whether benching Lukaku in the best form he'd been in for 2+ years for a striker who can barely walk for 55 minutes let alone run for 55 minutes, and scored 4 goals in the entire calendar year, was a good idea. I think, and will always think, it was a massive fuck up from him.
To stress again, yeah, we could have lost worst without Dzeko. We will never know. But I said a week before the game, before the game, during the game, and after the game, I personally would rather have seen Lukaku start.
Fundamentally, too, I cant get past the fact that we started someone who was barely capable of playing 50 minutes in a CL final. That's just stupid. If it was someone like, say, Lautaro or Barella, I'd be fine with it, but to pull your best performing striker who had 12? goals in the calendar year despite having missed like 50% of it with injury for a guy who has basically played the full calendar year and only scored 4 goals, in a game where we ultimately failed to create enough chances to win, speaks for itself.
10 years of FIF
