<center>
![images (51).jpeg](https://cdn.steemitimages.com/DQmeRoSgP7HPAt2HgVX48ZzzNzFoFCpQyFrhaVSQSGMmGTh/images%20(51).jpeg)
<sub>*[source](https://www.footballwhispers.com/blog/united-chelsea-giroud-lukaku)*</sub>
</center>

I woke up to an argument on a WhatsApp group this morning. We all know these two strikers aren't consistent, but some still believe one is better than the other. Virtually everyone on the group picked Lukaku over Giroud, but I'm yet to know the reasons. What actually makes a striker great? Number of goal scored or general performance for the team in a season?

Let's start with their age. Giroud is 32, while Lukaku is 26. That's 6 years between them. They shouldn't even be compared together since they aren't mates. Lukaku is still in his prime, while Giroud is gradually fading away. But the bone of contention is, what did Giroud do when he was in his prime? Was he better than Lukaku? That's a question to you all. I've seen a lot of people agreeing to Lukaku being the better player, but I argued otherwise.

Giroud hasn't only won the golden boot two times, he has won the Puskas award, too. Lukaku was also the highest goal scorer when Manchester United won the Europa league. Giroud still has more career goals, but that can be argued because he has played more matches than Lukaku. How about trophies? We all know Giroud stands out in that aspect.

So who do you think is better? Giroud or Lukaku?