Can you please remind me again how Lukaku scored consistently for us against Spurs, City, Chelsea and United? City I can give to you but from that one the "replacement" actually got us a point (should've been three). I mean yes, in a way so far it looks like he hasn't been replaced but the stats from matches we've played compared to the matches we played against those teams with Lukaku... Striker-wise they're pretty much the same. You may have a point if however one of our strikers doesn't start smashing 'em in the upcoming games.
Im struggling as to why im even responding to this, but here goes.
Generally strikers find it harder to score against the better teams as generally they're better, its a fact! Rom had the best strike rate in the premiership last season against the top 6 I believe. However, all of that is irrelevant though as if we did have him, or someone of the equivalent stature and goal scoring record, along with our new additions we would have had a much greater chance of success as we would have actually troubled their defence.
What you appear to be saying is that a 6 million unproven striker, 1.6 million 'one for the future' and Rooney (however much he was) are comparable to Lukaku cause we didnt beat City, Spurs, United and Chelsea with him or or them, which seems a very simplistic approach to analysing a player?