Hazard, where does he rank among the best in the world

[Balu]

Muller being more decisive in the bigger games proves nothing as he's played for a team significantly better than anything Hazard has ever done. Chelsea have big matches in the Cl where they pretty much give hazard the ball and hope he can drag the team forward. Muller can stand up top, make intelligent runs and then hurt the opposition. Take Hazard out of chelsea and replace him with Muller and I promise you chelsea would be a mess.

Müller has been decisive in big games for teams that certainly weren't better than this Chelsea side. It's a crazy way to compare the two players anyway. It's like saying: "Replace Müller with Hazard for Germany and you have another attacking player who does pretty but ineffective things and lacks the mentality to actually win the biggest trophies." Obviously that wouldn't prove anything regarding Hazard's quality. Both would complement each other wonderfully.

It's sad if you can't appreciate what Müller actually offers and how crucial it is to his teams.

 

[RooneyLegend]

Müller has been decisive in big games for teams that certainly weren't better than this Chelsea side. It's a crazy way to compare the two players anyway. It's like saying: "Replace Müller with Hazard for Germany and you have another attacking player who does pretty but ineffective things and lacks the mentality to actually win the biggest trophies." Obviously that wouldn't prove anything regarding Hazard's quality. Both would complement each other wonderfully.

It's sad if you can't appreciate what Müller actually offers and how crucial it is to his teams.

Replace Muller with Hazard for germany, you can play Reus as the secondary attacker and the team is pretty much good to go.

What are you on about? Bayern and Germany have been significantly better teams than Chelsea or Belgium.

I see what he offers and he's a great player. Don't agree that he's a better player than Hazard though.

 

[Balu]

What are you on about? Bayern and Germany have been significantly better teams than Chelsea or Belgium.

There's no way that Germany 2010 or Bayern 2009/10 were better teams than this Chelsea side. It's not like Hazard plays with a bunch of mugs, he has Fabregas supporting him in midfield, Costa upfront who at times carried Atletico on his own to higher levels than Hazard ever did for Chelsea and while Willian is forced into a supporting role, he's not a shit player either. It's an excellent set-up for Hazard to shine and do a lot more than he did so far, especially in the CL.

Replace Muller with Hazard for germany, you can play Reus as the secondary attacker and the team is pretty much good to go.

If only Reus was ever available to actually play in a tournament. Hazard should start standing out in his own nationalteam and not be clearly overshadowed by one of his teammates before you downplay Müller's importance by talking about the quality of players who weren't even in the squad when we won the World Cup. Belgium would improve significantly with Müller instead of Hazard, because he'd complement de Bruyne perfectly while Hazard looks a bit lost in the side and fails to have an impact. But again, that doesn't tell us a lot about the individual quality of the players besides that they're vastly different.

 

[RedRonaldo]

To be fair I've seen Hazard take on the whole defence on his own that very few could match. He may need to improve on his end products and consistency though but he is getting there. I rate him just behind Neymar, Suraez and Bale (old bale), and maybe same tier as Muller, Robben, Reus and Augero

 

[Treble]

Nope, prime Figo. I'd pay good money for you to tell me what figo did that Hazard doesn't do.

Figo was much more consistent and was magnificent in Europe and for Portugal. Hazard still drifts in and out of games and is a bit average in the CL, let alone for Belgium.

 

[amolbhatia50k]

If you're taking national performances into the equation then Sánchez is at the very least at the same level as Hazard, IMO. Hazard has been better for Belgium recently but still miles behind Sánchez for Chile and there was little between them in the PL or CL last year.

I do think Hazard is very overrated because of the aesthetics of his game. For a great playmaker he spends an awful lot of games - big and small - drifting along on the periphery of matches. That chance created stat is ludicrous...if any stat tells you that Hazard is more creative than Messi then it goes without saying that stat is meaningless.

For someone who's given that much creative responsibility he needs to create more to be close to being one of the best players in the world. If he wasn't part of the PL hype machine it wouldn't even be mentioned.

Agree. And yes, the bonded bit is relevant here. Hazard is a quality player. But the huge gulf between him and the previous POTY winner should tell you a lot about where he stands. There are a lot of players around his level in the game. Which doesn't mean he isn't a cracking player, it just means that he has some way to go yet before all these tall claims should be made.

 

[NoLogo]

Imo he still hasn't reached the top tier (not Messi and Ronaldo, they are out of any tier) but he is on a good way. Maybe Chelsea is also holding him back a bit because under Mou he needs to defend a lot and waste a lot of energy on tracking back. I wonder though how his output would look if he played for Madrid or Barca instead and had all the attacking freedom he could wish for?

 

[Balu]

I don't get the whole tracking back thing as an excuse. He's not doing anything close to the defensive work Ribery did under Heynckes as a left sided winger/wide playmaker. Giggs, Figo or Nedved always had great workrate without it holding them back in attack. Even Robben has done easily as much tracking back since 2012 as Hazard has to do now. Some people make it sound as if Mourinho demands something special from him, which isn't the case at all. He's not allowed to be a lazy fecker, that's all.

 

[FC Ronaldo]

Completely agree with @Balu And @Brwned re; Müller unappreciation and PL hype machine points respectively.

Hazard is superb. Probably the best AM in the league but let's not oversell it, it's been a poor league and he, for me, didn't deserve to win the POTY award in it. Felt Aguero and Kane did more. Hazard edges Sanchez, just.

Hazard is in tier 3 for me:
Tier 1 - Ronaldo and Messi
Tier 2 - Robben, Müller, Aguero, Neymar, Bale, Suarez

He lacks a clinical edge to his game and while he's very good on the ball, more often than not the doesn't deliver half as much as he should, let alone could.

Di Maria in a "poor" season had a goal or assist every 127 minutes. In a team that struggled for goals, movement and speed. That's still a better ratio than Hazard (and Cesc) achieved at the champions of England who swatted away most teams without reaching 2nd gear. Let that sink in.

And I'm not knocking Hazard here. He's fecking awesome. I'd swap him for Rooney in a heartbeat. Just viewing it all subjectively without PL hype tint on it and with the ability to appreciate all elite players individually and give my interpretation of who ranks as the better.

 

[Sphaero]

I don't get the whole tracking back thing as an excuse. He's not doing anything close to the defensive work Ribery did under Heynckes as a left sided winger/wide playmaker. Giggs, Figo or Nedved always had great workrate without it holding them back in attack. Even Robben has done easily as much tracking back since 2012 as Hazard has to do now. Some people make it sound as if Mourinho demands something special from him, which isn't the case at all. He's not allowed to be a lazy fecker, that's all.

Agreed. I don´t even get where this argument is coming from. Mourinho prefers a compact and deeper lying tactical setup compared to several other coaches. It is a more defensive setup in general but it does not automatically translate into a higher demand of defensive contribution by the offensive players.

I would even argue in the other direction and that higher positioned formation setups (often in conjunction with high movement based pressing), especially in case of the fullbacks (Heynckes´ Bayern, Klopp´s Dortmund, Simeone´s Atletico, etc.), demand more defensive contribution than Mourinho´s does. In these systems the offensive players are needed to back track and in general move a lot to keep said systems from becoming unstable and too vulnerable to counters.

I´m sorry, but there is a bit too much of a search for excuses in favour of Hazard going on here. Some say his team prevents him from proving greatness (which can be used just as easily against him because standing out would be easier), others argue that his somewhat lackluster end product (compared to the best there is of course) is restricted by his creative duties and compare him to freaking Iniesta while being not even remotely similar in terms of player type. Now he is appearantly used as a workhorse despite being the player with the most freedom in the team.

I dunno, if a player needs so many excuses to be included in a list of the best players in world football, then maybe he is simply not there yet. The other players certainly don´t need these excuses and let their performances both nationally and internationally speak for themselves.

 

[Fortitude]

Is it really, though? There is no doubt that Hazard played three very good league seasons for Chelsea (being the best of the league last season), but we are talking about the absolute elite here and for that top performances in only the league are not enought, no matter how strong the league is.

In the end the most competive and meaningful competition in club football is still the Champions League. The biggest stage where the stakes are the highest.

I would not even disagree that Hazard has ablities/skills on a similar level as the likes of Neymar, Müller or Reus, but all the skills in the world don´t matter that much if you can´t use them well when it matters the most. To this day I wait for a crucial CL game of Chelsea, where he really steps up and makes the difference. A game like Reus had in 2014 in the return fixture vs. Real when he nearly carried a truly mediocre side to a sensation and outclassed everyone on the pitch (he had a few of those games but this was the one which stood out the most) or the many games where Müller was the difference maker for Bayern.

I find it hilarious that people in this thread get laughed at for suggesting that Müller is the better player of the two. Look at the list of his accomplishments at the age of 25 and he was vital in every single one of them for both club and country (and that as more than just as scorer, because his biggest contribution is arguably not even his end product but the space he creates for his teammates). Compared to that Hazard had so far an overall pretty underwhelming career with Belgium and vanished in too many crucial Chelsea games to put him in the same tier.

Hazard is still only 24 and has clearly the potential to become one of the best players of the world, but to be included amongst them he has to prove his worth first on every level.

Cheers! Something that I mentioned many times in my previous posts.

Hazard is great, but to be considered among the best (or be in the same category as Muller; or even Reus), he has to do that in the biggest stage. And he hasn't done it yet. It is the reason why I also think that Aguero isn't in the same level as Neymar/Robben. He is individually as good as them and as talented, but unlike them he hasn't done it in the biggest stage yet.

Hazard's record for Belgium is appalling: 6 goals in 59 games. Compare it to Neymar's record: 44 goals in 65 games. A nice stat for those who think that Neymar is much more productive mainly because he plays with Messi and Suarez. Compare their performances in Brazil '14. The difference is huge.

Neymar's been much more influential in the big games as well: top scorer in the CL with Messi and Ronaldo. Hazard did nothing of notice in the CL.

And that for 3 CL seasons in a row now. You've worded it perfectly IMO, Neymar has outshined Hazard heavily in his international career and also CL campaigns. Not to mention that his club stats also heavily outshine Hazard's club stats for 14/15.

All of these.

Hazard has done nothing of note to be classed in a top 10 list.

His play is aesthetically pleasing and he has done moderately well in a PL that has been poor for a few seasons now, but on the bigger stages for both club and country, he has been a footnote.

He has inherent flaws in his game to this point in time, too, which aren't offset by what he brings to the table i.e. his dribbling isn't at a level where it balances out his poorness in all aspects of shooting (placement, power, control - he has none of these things); his passing is not on par with the specialists in that field nor is his movement. If you actually break Hazard's play down to date, he flatters to deceive and should be capable of a lot more than he delivers.

I think the comparison to Ribery is the most apt in terms of style, but the levels Ribery got to a few years back, where he should have won the BPITW for his impact on that Bayern team, Hazard is absolutely miles away from.

This thread kind of reminds me of all the talk about Yaya when he was on fire in the league. He'd done sweet F.A. for City in the CL at the time and was again dire during the season that thread was created in.

Hazard's a player I like watching, but he's hardly set a poor PL alight ala what Suarez did before leaving, or even been as good as Bale was before he was sold. And it's not just about goals - over 90 minutes, week in, week out, Suarez was a menace and at that time, hadn't done much in the CL, but was very good for his country. Bale's season was massively overrated, imo, but at the same time, he was undeniably clutch when Spurs needed him to be. Hazard has yet to reach even those heights.

Within our own league, Aguero is still the best player, and in an injury-free season, very few would expect anything less of him than tearing up the league. Hazard's not done anything to date to elevate himself above Aguero, who himself is no great shakes in the CL or for his country. Whatever tier it is Aguero is supposedly ranked in, Hazard should be in the same and on a lower rung.

 

[Kentonio]

I don't dislike the stats, I just find them funny. I find it hard to believe anyone can take them seriously as a measure of creativity. If you can watch both Messi and Hazard play and come to the conclusion that you can make a credible argument that Hazard is more creative then I don't really know what to say. Counting the number of times someone plays a pass to someone who shoots is a measure of something, sure, but it's not creativity. Otherwise Kevin Davies was one of the most creative players to play in the Premier League. Knock-downs and shots galore.

Stats aren't my first port of call when looking at players, but they can be an excellent way to shoot down people who make claims about a player based on the half a dozen or so games they've ever seen them play.

As for Messi I've never said Hazard was more creative, that would be stupid. What I said was that at one point his dribbling was around Messi's level, something that was supported by stats showing how much dribbling they were doing. That kind of stat is useful.

 

[amolbhatia50k]

Yeah I don't think there's that much between Aguero, Hazard and Sanchez. Maybe the first two are the two best but there's not a great deal in it right now. Costa is right up there too when he's fit. Has anyone of them had as good an individual season as Costa did in 13/14? I'm not so sure. He was better than hazard of last season for sure. Tore it up in Spain with a team that had less individual class, and tied ronaldo as top scorer.

 

[amolbhatia50k]

Stats aren't my first port of call when looking at players, but they can be an excellent way to shoot down people who make claims about a player based on the half a dozen or so games they've ever seen them play.

As for Messi I've never said Hazard was more creative, that would be stupid. What I said was that at one point his dribbling was around Messi's level, something that was supported by stats showing how much dribbling they were doing. That kind of stat is useful.

Probably when Messi's dribbling was at its worst.

 

[Kentonio]

He has inherent flaws in his game to this point in time, too, which aren't offset by what he brings to the table i.e. his dribbling isn't at a level where it balances out his poorness in all aspects of shooting (placement, power, control - he has none of these things); his passing is not on par with the specialists in that field nor is his movement. If you actually break Hazard's play down to date, he flatters to deceive and should be capable of a lot more than he delivers.

This is frankly bizarre. His dribbling is absolutely world class, his passing range is exquisite and his movement is great. The main criticism against Hazard apart from his end product is that he disappears in games too often, and that's a fair criticism. Although it needs to be remembered that he gets fouled more than any other player in the league and spends half his time double or even triple marked by most opposition.

 

[Kentonio]

Probably when Messi's dribbling was at its worst.

Why is it bizarre to you to think that the best aspect of a great players game might compare to Messi? Obviously Messi can do many other things that no other player can do, but that doesn't mean no-one can ever compare to ANY aspect of his game.

 

[Cina]

Why is it bizarre to you to think that the best aspect of a great players game might compare to Messi? Obviously Messi can do many other things that no other player can do, but that doesn't mean no-one can ever compare to ANY aspect of his game.

Hazard's an exceptional dribbler, I don't think anyone will deny that, but he's nothing close to Messi. It's not a slight on him, it's just that it's practically impossible to be as good as Messi at dribbling.

 

[Moby]

spends half his time double or even triple marked by most opposition.

That happens to more or less every player in that list apart from the Barca ones. Suarez when he was at Liverpool was also heavily marked, it didn't stop him from tearing it up.

 

[theyneverlearn]

If you're using stats as the basis for the argument, it should be % of goals contributed to the team as well, because I bet he would be a lot higher in the list if that was the case

Chelsea under Mourinho are not a free flowing team like the vast majority of the other player's teams on the list. Towards the end of the year they were grinding out results and it was more than likely Hazard getting the decisive goal or assist.

My point being - stick Hazard in place of a Suarez or Muller and he would score and assist on the same, if not a higher level. He's a fantastic player and it still annoys me to this day that we missed out on him.

 

[Fortitude]

This is frankly bizarre. His dribbling is absolutely world class, his passing range is exquisite and his movement is great. The main criticism against Hazard apart from his end product is that he disappears in games too often, and that's a fair criticism. Although it needs to be remembered that he gets fouled more than any other player in the league and spends half his time double or even triple marked by most opposition.

It's quite clear you grossly overrate him. To put his dribbling on any par with Messi for any period of time is absurd - you don't need stats to tell you that, just watch them both for a few games, if that, and the gulf is enormous, which is no knock on Hazard as Messi is one of the best dribblers of all-time.

His passing range is average in this company of player, and his movement, let's compare it to Sanchez or, at the top of the chain Muller, is miles below.

These aren't slights on Hazard, these are reminders of the kind of company that is above him. He's a joy to watch and I'd love him at United, but he has a long, long way to go be par with a number of players as far as attacking goes. Carrying the ball is only one part of the game, his productivity, in this company, just isn't that great, and when those runs don't work, which is all the time in Europe and for his country, he doesn't have the game to simply switch from one aspect to another and not just drift out.

If Hazard's prepared to work at his game, he is going to become a much better player than he is now, but as things stand, there's a reason why he is ineffective so frequently where others come to the fore and are outstanding, which should be the key factor in ranking him, certainly over his aesthetic appeal.

 

[amolbhatia50k]

Why is it bizarre to you to think that the best aspect of a great players game might compare to Messi? Obviously Messi can do many other things that no other player can do, but that doesn't mean no-one can ever compare to ANY aspect of his game.

.
Because it's always been among Messi's best aspects. Dribbling isn't something that simply boils down to a stats. It also depends on the context of it. And IMO that makes the dribbling of someone like robben more effective, let alone Messi. If hazard beat his man when he's one on one allowing him to slot it into the top corner rather than along the half way line beating one and losing the ball to the other, it would make him a better dribbler.

I've never seen Hazard do to a premier league team what Messi did to city, for example. He was nutmegging them, beating their best centre backs for fun. And this is without the speed he had earlier of course, an advantage hazard now has. Same with robben, he beats the defender when it matters consistently to score goals.

 

[amolbhatia50k]

If you're using stats as the basis for the argument, it should be % of goals contributed to the team as well, because I bet he would be a lot higher in the list if that was the case

Chelsea under Mourinho are not a free flowing team like the vast majority of the other player's teams on the list. Towards the end of the year they were grinding out results and it was more than likely Hazard getting the decisive goal or assist.

My point being - stick Hazard in place of a Suarez or Muller and he would score and assist on the same, if not a higher level. He's a fantastic player and it still annoys me to this day that we missed out on him.

There's simply no case for him being as good as Suarez, who is better than Neymar as well. First hazard needs to match what Suarez did in England, which he is far away from.

 

[Fortitude]

Yeah I don't think there's that much between Aguero, Hazard and Sanchez. Maybe the first two are the two best but there's not a great deal in it right now. Costa is right up there too when he's fit. Has anyone of them had as good an individual season as Costa did in 13/14? I'm not so sure. He was better than hazard of last season for sure. Tore it up in Spain with a team that had less individual class, and tied ronaldo as top scorer.

Agree. This is his 'tier' and a case can be made for all of those players to be above him in it as they've all done more either for club or country, or both.

 

[amolbhatia50k]

Agree. This is his 'tier' and a case can be made for all of those players to be above him in it as they've all done more either for club or country, or both.

To be honest, I really rate his natural ability. His dribbling "ability" is terrific and rare to find, but I agree with others that it can cause his achievements to be elevated to a pedestal he doesn't belong on yet. I don't doubt where he can reach because if he improves some aspects of his game there's no reason why he can't be a balon dor winner. But there are many terrific players out there and there always needs to be a balance when rating a player between "influence" and "impact". Not one or the other, with end product not mattering or absolutely deciding everything.

 

[Brwned]

Stats aren't my first port of call when looking at players, but they can be an excellent way to shoot down people who make claims about a player based on the half a dozen or so games they've ever seen them play.

As for Messi I've never said Hazard was more creative, that would be stupid. What I said was that at one point his dribbling was around Messi's level, something that was supported by stats showing how much dribbling they were doing. That kind of stat is useful.

I think it's safe to say most people in this thread have seen Hazard enough times to make a fair judgement.

What those stats tell you is that Hazard is almost as prolific a dribbler as Messi and I think that's a useful stat, as long as you don't conflate quality with volume. I'm not even sure what a completed dribble is counted as - if you beat three men in a row before passing the ball on does that count as three successful dribbles, or one? Regardless, even if Hazard completed more dribbles than Messi it would not in any way be evidence of him being a better dribbler. Messi dribbles right at the heart of the defence almost every time. Hazard does that sometimes but a lot less often, and a lot of his dribbles are pretty but ultimately pointless.

 

[sun_tzu]

well messi (28) and ronaldo (30) are in a class of their own

if I was to think of the player who will first win a ballon dor who is not one of those two I tend to think of neymar (23), muller (25) and hazard (24)

so essentially once ronaldo / messi starts to fade I think he can be a top three in the world player! - gutted we missed out on him. Of course injuries can change things and there may be a new messi who pops up in a years time who owns the ballon dor for a decade - but as things stand hazard is right up there for me and at 24 has time to improve further.

 

[theyneverlearn]

There's simply no case for him being as good as Suarez, who is better than Neymar as well. First hazard needs to match what Suarez did in England, which he is far away from.

Suarez played in a system whereby Liverpool were scoring 3+ goals with ease.

Hazard is playing in a system that is happy defending a 1 goal lead.

What I mean is, put him in a fluid goal scoring system, aka, Bayern, aka Barcelona and IMO he would score and create just as many.

 

[Kentonio]

If Hazard's prepared to work at his game, he is going to become a much better player than he is now, but as things stand, there's a reason why he is ineffective so frequently where others come to the fore and are outstanding, which should be the key factor in ranking him, certainly over his aesthetic appeal.

He isn't 'frequently ineffective', that's the argument that was being thrown around before last season, and at the time there was some truth to it. Last season his consistency rose dramatically. He can still disappear for long periods of games, but its a very rare game now where he doesn't at least create a few good chances.

.
I've never seen Hazard do to a premier league team what Messi did to city, for example. He was nutmegging them, beating their best centre backs for fun. And this is without the speed he had earlier of course, an advantage hazard now has. Same with robben, he beats the defender when it matters consistently to score goals.

The first time I saw Hazard do it was away at Sunderland a couple of seasons ago and I was lucky enough to be there to watch it. He destroyed them. It was a bizarre game that ended something like 4-3, but every time he got the ball he just ripped them to pieces over and over. It was one of the most dominant individual performances I've ever seen in the PL, and that was when I understood the level of talent the guy has.

By the way I'm not trying (and have never been trying) to do some Messi comparison, because I don't think any player living or dead has reached (or will reach for the foreseeable future) Messi's unique level, but Hazard is very, very special and he's improving every year.

It'll be interesting to see how this thread goes after the next season.

 

[Fortitude]

He isn't 'frequently ineffective', that's the argument that was being thrown around before last season, and at the time there was some truth to it. Last season his consistency rose dramatically. He can still disappear for long periods of games, but its a very rare game now where he doesn't at least create a few good chances.

In Europe, and for his country? Yes, he is frequently ineffective - he often has no impact in games, can be subbed out and nobody would notice, and is outshone by compatriots.

We, as football fans, always want to see the star players transfer their best form to the biggest stages, and when they don't do it, they're scrutinised heavily. Suarez was in the same boat (to a lesser degree because he delivers for his country) before he went to Barcelona and had a fantastic CL campaign that removed any doubt, and Aguero is always denigrated for his NT performances.

Hazard has it all to do on both stages to get anywhere near the best of the best out there. I doubt many would bet against him doing so eventually, as he has the potential to be a star, but he's not there yet.

 

[amolbhatia50k]

Suarez played in a system whereby Liverpool were scoring 3+ goals with ease.

Hazard is playing in a system that is happy defending a 1 goal lead.

What I mean is, put him in a fluid goal scoring system, aka, Bayern, aka Barcelona and IMO he would score and create just as many.

As many as Suarez? In his dreams. Decent goalscorers don't randomly start scoring 40 goals a season at bayern. And they don't at Liverpool either.

Suarez has been comfortably the superior player over the last few years. Hazard has a long way to match the 3rd best player around, no matter how much some hide him behind his team mates.

 

[VorZakone]

Hazard is dribbling too long with the ball, plenty of moments I've seen in his matches where Costa was making a good run with space but Hazard just kept on dribbling. Not to mention his goal threat is inferior to the likes of Suarez and Neymar.

 

[theyneverlearn]

As many as Suarez? In his dreams. Decent goalscorers don't randomly start scoring 40 goals a season at bayern. And they don't at Liverpool either.

Suarez has been comfortably the superior player over the last few years. Hazard has a long way to match the 3rd best player around, no matter how much some hide him behind his team mates.

This isn't Suarez v Hazard, I was just saying he would be higher on the list if he played in a different system. Him and Suarez are totally different players, it's not a comparison.

 

[IwatUwat]

Completely agree with @Balu And @Brwned re; Müller unappreciation and PL hype machine points respectively.

Hazard is superb. Probably the best AM in the league but let's not oversell it, it's been a poor league and he, for me, didn't deserve to win the POTY award in it. Felt Aguero and Kane did more. Hazard edges Sanchez, just.

Hazard is in tier 3 for me:
Tier 1 - Ronaldo and Messi
Tier 2 - Robben, Müller, Aguero, Neymar, Bale, Suarez

He lacks a clinical edge to his game and while he's very good on the ball, more often than not the doesn't deliver half as much as he should, let alone could.

Di Maria in a "poor" season had a goal or assist every 127 minutes. In a team that struggled for goals, movement and speed. That's still a better ratio than Hazard (and Cesc) achieved at the champions of England who swatted away most teams without reaching 2nd gear. Let that sink in.

And I'm not knocking Hazard here. He's fecking awesome. I'd swap him for Rooney in a heartbeat. Just viewing it all subjectively without PL hype tint on it and with the ability to appreciate all elite players individually and give my interpretation of who ranks as the better.

I agree. Not sure I'd put Augero in tier 2. But I'd put those players you've named above him. Few others I may put in tier 2 however.

 

[RooneyLegend]

There's no way that Germany 2010 or Bayern 2009/10 were better teams than this Chelsea side. It's not like Hazard plays with a bunch of mugs, he has Fabregas supporting him in midfield, Costa upfront who at times carried Atletico on his own to higher levels than Hazard ever did for Chelsea and while Willian is forced into a supporting role, he's not a shit player either. It's an excellent set-up for Hazard to shine and do a lot more than he did so far, especially in the CL.


If only Reus was ever available to actually play in a tournament. Hazard should start standing out in his own nationalteam and not be clearly overshadowed by one of his teammates before you downplay Müller's importance by talking about the quality of players who weren't even in the squad when we won the World Cup. Belgium would improve significantly with Müller instead of Hazard, because he'd complement de Bruyne perfectly while Hazard looks a bit lost in the side and fails to have an impact. But again, that doesn't tell us a lot about the individual quality of the players besides that they're vastly different.

Fabregas hasn't had a good big game in how long now? Costa is basically injured the whole time.

Let's put it like this, vs PSG in paris chelsea had 3 shots at goal while PSG had 16. In the second leg they got dominated in midfield even when PSG were short on numbers. When has Muller played in a team that doesn't get even double digits at goal?

Vs Atl Madrid Chelsea were dire, couldn't get over into the opposition half. So bad that Hazard himself complained that in such matches it feels like its all on him to be a one man attack(people even thought him and Mou would fall out cause of it). How many attackers you know that can affect games when the team plays that badly? You need to watch chelsea matches to fully appreciate what sort of offensive mess they are.

 

[Gio]

Figo was much more consistent and was magnificent in Europe and for Portugal. Hazard still drifts in and out of games and is a bit average in the CL, let alone for Belgium.

Aye, Figo was a cut above what Hazard has shown so far. He could get there by the end of his career in fairness, but he's not shown the relative consistency that Figo had against the best opposition across the board.

 

[Kentonio]

You need to watch chelsea matches to fully appreciate what sort of offensive mess they are.

You however need to watch more than a couple of CL games. Chelsea aren't an 'offensive mess' we just had a couple of poor CL games. The first half of last season the combination of Hazard, Fab, Costa, Oscar and Willian was breathtaking.

 

[RooneyLegend]

You however need to watch more than a couple of CL games. Chelsea aren't an 'offensive mess' we just had a couple of poor CL games. The first half of last season the combination of Hazard, Fab, Costa, Oscar and Willian was breathtaking.

That football that you talk about didn't stand up to some scrutiny. Even when chelsea was playing some great stuff, when City played them they looked as impotent as can be. Barely touching the ball and getting over the half way line. Its all good and well spanking the smaller teams by big margins, but when the side looks disjointed playing the bigger sides then you know that the team is an offensive mess.

 

[VorZakone]

It's not just this season. Since 12/13 Hazard has never lit up the CL, it doesn't matter that much how bad Chelsea was because Hazard's performances contributed to Chelsea sucking in the CL. He wasn't doing anything of note at all. Add to that his international career which is still quite underwhelming when you compare it to Neymar for example. Add to that the club stats for 14/15 and overall the only conclusion I come to is that Hazard is still a level below Neymar.

 

[Balu]

Fabregas hasn't had a good big game in how long now? Costa is basically injured the whole time.

Let's put it like this, vs PSG in paris chelsea had 3 shots at goal while PSG had 16. In the second leg they got dominated in midfield even when PSG were short on numbers. When has Muller played in a team that doesn't get even double digits at goal?

Vs Atl Madrid Chelsea were dire, couldn't get over into the opposition half. So bad that Hazard himself complained that in such matches it feels like its all on him to be a one man attack(people even thought him and Mou would fall out cause of it). How many attackers you know that can affect games when the team plays that badly? You need to watch chelsea matches to fully appreciate what sort of offensive mess they are.

I'm not sure what you're trying to say? Yes, Chelsea were bad in these games and yes Hazard failed to lift them to a somewhat decent level. So? Isn't that the point? How does that prove anything in a comparison to Müller? Would Müller make that Chelsea attack play better if he was in the team instead of Hazard? Most likely not, because every top team needs a creative player and Müller isn't that kind of player, he's a very different one. But again that doesn't tell us anything about their individual quality in comparison to each other and sure as hell doesn't prove that Hazard already has a bigger impact on his sides.

For what it's worth, I could see Müller deciding a game like that with a weird looking, kinda flukey goal, that Hazard would never score. Müller doesn't need his team to dominate to decide games like you seem to believe. It might not look pretty and elegant, but it sure as hell is effective. The number of first goals in important games Müller scored or assisted is incredibly high, even more so in comparison to his overall scoring record. And many of them opened up the game for Bayern/Germany to dominate while we looked toothless before. Hazard so far totally failed to have that kind of impact on the biggest stage.

I actually enjoy watching Hazard play and hope he steps it up, especially for Belgium because I have a soft spot for them ever since the 1980 Euros. He clearly has the talent. He hasn't so far though and the excuses you make just so that you can put him already on the same level as someone like Figo are ridiculous.

 

[Moby]

It's funny how these ranking/ratings apart from the big two keep on changing every year, specially the "third best player in the world" which changes as frequently as the women's number 1 in tennis. Wasn't long ago when Neymar's transfer to Barca was altogether in question and often the question whether he's good enough for europe/fits with messi etc were everywhere, while someone like Di Maria who was having a great season was high up in the rankings, one year later and the tables have turned. Before that it was Robben and before that Ribery etc etc. Now Suarez is 'without doubt' the third best in the world, while half the audience here has forgotten Robben exists, who in terms of ability is way beyond anyone but the two at the top. Nothing like a classic short term redcafe memory syndrome, is it.