Both Morata & Torres are among Chelsea's top 5 most expensive signings (all of them costs £50m or above).

They came with big expectations, but couldn't live up to them.

As the title says, who do you think was the worst if you had to chose?
 

Edited January 29, 20197 yr by Aryagorn

Morata. 

Torres scored in a Europa League final and scored that goal in Barca. 

For those two alone he made a more telling contribution than Morata did. 

Torres scored 20 PL goals for us in 110 appearances.

Morata got 16 in 47.

 

 

Torres

1 minute ago, Zeta said:

Torres scored 20 PL goals for us in 110 appearances.

Morata got 16 in 47.

 

 

Torres played with another striker, Morata didn't. 

Torres scored 17 goals in European competitions from 40 apps. 

Morata was a worse signing all day long. Torres worth it alone for his performance in Europa league. 

We played 1 up front with Torres most of the time.

Torres, by some distance.

Full refund on Morata... 

Torres was much more expensive (relative to the market at the time), and what'd Chelsea get in return?

• Morata was basically an 18 month loan that cost Chelsea about 8M

this one seems pretty easy to me.

I really don't see the point of this thread ... sorry !

Torres.

By some distance. Pretty sure all stats will back this up.

He came with bigger expectations, the fee was higher (in relative terms), and we persevered for far longer. All in all much more painful.

Yes Torres had a couple of iconic moments, but romance can't be a factor if we are comparing objectively.

As disappointing as Morata was, Torres still 'wins' this little contest.

His CL/EL heroics IMO don't overshadow his abject failure in the PL. 

Plus heaven knows how much 50 million pounds in 2011 was worth by 2017.

With Torres there was the added humiliation in the fact that it was Liverpool who received the huge fee for a player that was already in decline and they'd had the best of him and we got the absolute worst. At least Real Madrid haven't been rubbing our noses in it for the Morata disaster.

Torres by a distance, as others have put. He had a few moments but he was here longer it's not really a fair comparison. 

The only thing I hate when people compare the two players is when folks make up stuff like Torres tried harder and always gave 100%, an absolute myth. I think people have forgotten how frustrating Torres was in his first two years here, especially his awful 6 months under Carlo and the WhenWillTorresScore.com or something which was a running joke on the internet. 

Just now, Snedger said:

With Torres there was the added humiliation in the fact that it was Liverpool who received the huge fee for a player that was already in decline and they'd had the best of him and we got the absolute worst. At least Real Madrid haven't been rubbing our noses in it for the Morata disaster.

Also now 60 million isn't a massive deal, 50 million then was like over a 100 million now. Wasn't he literally the Premier League's biggest signing at the time? Then City got Aguero for 42 million who we had been rumoured of getting for YEARSSS and we ended up singing Torres... Jesus Christ. 

Morata would have bottled the Barca goal that Torres scored.

You can't knock people for hypotheticals., it's pointless.

Edited January 29, 20197 yr by Stim

Chris Sutton. 

Torres easily.

I prefer Torres to Morata but Morata has scored a fair few goals for us in short time. Torres never went on a scoring run for us.

4 minutes ago, Munkworth said:

Chris Sutton. 

Even more now, the gobsh*te w**ker, how on earth has he got a job at punditry? f**king tosser he is. 

I don't think it's a fair comparison really. Mainly, because I think we had a few different versions of Torres, one that put a shift in, despite the goals, and one that didn't.

I'd put Morata in a blue shirt over early Torres. The latter Torres I'd put above Morata. He bothered more; assists, running down, trying to get in good positions. Morata lost interest far too quick.

For the majority towards the end, Morata looked exactly like an early Torres in a Chelsea shirt.

I liked both, but Torres put us through to Munich and Morata scored a header against United in the premier league. So that's where I'll leave that thought

Plus Morata only had Hazard, Torres had Mata who was an assist king for 2 seasons and Hazard for one season and Torres was still poor.

Edited January 29, 20197 yr by jack_super_class

58 minutes ago, jack_super_class said:

Plus Morata only had Hazard, Torres had Mata who was an assist king for 2 seasons and Hazard for one season and Torres was still poor.

He had Hazard for two seasons actually. 

7 minutes ago, DaRick said:

He had Hazard for two seasons actually. 

You are right, my bad

Morata is THE worse player. It's that simple.