Neymar would smash it at any club in world football. period.
Hazard, where does he rank among the best in the world
- Thread starter Someone
- Start date
-
In the latest episode of the United Hour Podcast, Nik (@Rood) is joined by CEO Duncan Drasdo and Financial Director Andy Green from the Manchester United Supporters Trust for a special episode on all things behind the scenes at Old Trafford including a brief history of MUST and their aims today, views on INEOS and Sir Jim Ratcliffe so far, and the Old Trafford regeneration.
Neymar would smash it at any club in world football. period.
I know what you mean and I agree, same reason why I don't rate Neymar or Bale higher if it came to them playing for us.
Great player, but he has a point in terms of tactical fit. Mind you, Hazard wouldn't be as good as Neymar for Barcelona, they already have everything he can offer and more in Messi.
Same.
Disagree Anto, he plays in a very functional Brazil side and a possession based Barca side where he isn't the star yet has excelled in both.
He can generate attacking movements from a standing start of his own accord, dictate his teams tempo and score a variety of goals. He's a very flexible footballer in my opinion, thriving at Barca is a very difficult task and he has curbed his individual instincts to still thrive.
I think he'd be the best player in the premier league and he'd get used to it especially with a guy like Jose as his manager. He's used to being the star man in a dull side and Chelsea are much better than Brazil.
that sums it up. I am a huge Hazard fan, but Neymar is clearly ahead at the moment. Hazard is too invisible in too many important games.
Neither Brazil nor Barca are anything like a Mourinho side IMO. Brazil are absolutely terrible and he is the only source of spark, they need him. Mourinho creates functional sides but with a decent spread of spark sprinkled across the side, rarely concentrated in one single player.
We are arguing different things, clearly. There's no question Neymar is ahead of Hazard in terms of talent, development, accomplishments and performance-levels. It doesn't mean he would be a better fit in any team. I would agree Hazard has to step it up in terms of consistent high performance.
It doesn't matter who you can compare him to the past but he definitely hits the top 10 players in the world right now! He was the best player in a team that won the best and hardest league in world football..He was the difference so we certainly can't ignore that fact! I don't agree with the OP's list or points but I do agree that he is right up the arse of the best players in world football right now!
So you think Costa & Fabregas' form had less of a say in where the league went than Hazard's output?
If you took which of those 3 players, fit and on form, out of Chelsea's team, would they miss the most?
I see where you are coming from yes, but wasn't cesc very consistent in the first half of the season but faded off after xmas very much like his days at Arsenal, Costa was prolific until he was picking up nigiliy injuries, something Atletico became accustomed too..Hazard was consistent throughout the season and a star performer in a league which has crazy demands..I think it's hard to argue he isn't in the top ten list at least!
Cesc did a massive amount of damage whilst in form and was a lot more instrumental than Hazard for half a season. It's more that his level dropped than Hazard's rose as to why he wasn't seen as Chelsea's #1 or #2 attacker over the full campaign, imo.
Costa's goals and the way he enabled Chelsea to play until he went down injured makes him their most influential player for me last season. Put it this way: remove any one of those three from the entire season, and it's Costa's input they would miss the most.
Hazard was given a platform to perform from because of the other two. It was their consistency and output that got Chelsea so far out in front and afforded Hazard all his lulls and ups and downs - popping up and doing something special once in a while is not the same as doing it each and every week/game as the other two were.
I don't know how or why what Hazard's done to date has him so highly ranked by those who have him in top 10 lists, personally. He's a great player to watch, but football is about effectiveness first and foremost. If that comes with an aesthetically pleasing style as the icing on the cake, then great, but the bottom line should be delivering week in and week out with as few dips in performance level as possible and that's what Hazard doesn't have in his locker as of yet.
There are a number of players we can look to in the PL over the years and highlight the difference in what they did to what Hazard has done thus far: Suarez and Aguero are two that come to mind instantly because whether they scored or not, you knew/know that if they were on the pitch, they would be a massive problem for the opposition and would practically guarantee affective performances - it's always been Aguero's injuries that have done him in, not dips in form or indifferent performances and the same cannot be said of Hazard to date, imo.
The players in top 10 lists are usually bona fide performers whose output from week to week isn't in question, by that criteria alone, Hazard falls short before anything else is factored in.
Yeh.. Both have different style and position, but they are players who have proven to be able to lift up their NT to different level.
Guessing you didn't watch him play and are going off some stats. Give it in numbers per season and you'll see he wasn't as effective as someone like becks during the same period. Xavi and iniesta are midfielders and didn't put up huge numbers every season.
You guess wrong, I watched more Barca than I watched United back in the 90s. As I said earlier, I don't really ever talk stats, except when arguing with someone who obviously can't tell the difference between a true great of the game and a very good player.
Hazard will also go down as a true great of the game. The question is how great. He's already been in the PFA team of the season every year in english football. He's now the reigning player of the season.
On Figo, no one who saw him regularly considered him devastatingly effective as you put it.
Where on earth do you get that from?
Figo was considered the best winger/right mid in the world and at times the best player in the world - as evidenced by his world record transfer and his two POTY placings. He was devastatingly effective and to suggest otherwise is plain wrong.
Hazard has a long way to go to reach and maintain that level. He drifts in and out too much currently. He has also made the PL team of the year at a time of weakness for English football. Figo was playing at a time when the last 4 in the CL frequently consisted of 2 or 3 Spanish teams.
Saying Hazard is a better player than Neymar is baffling... He's definitely a top 10 player, and if he's nearing his peak I reckon this discussion should be put on hold for a season, so we can see how he does in Europe this year. He'll also have a chance to impress for his NT at the Euros (perhaps).
Top 10 attacking players, can't see it any other way:
- Messi, Ronaldo
- Robben, Suarez, Neymar
- Zlatan, Hazard, Sanchez, Aguero, Bale
Top 10 attacking players, can't see it any other way:
- Messi, Ronaldo
- Robben, Suarez, Neymar
- Zlatan, Hazard, Sanchez, Aguero, Bale
I agree with this, but I'd have Neymar below Robben and Suarez. His game is still much more inconsistent.
'That' goal against Spain was a classic WC moment, and possibly the most memorable from that WC, a bit symbolic in what ended, possibly, the supreme reign of the mighty Spaniards.
Breathtaking!
Again the Totti comparison, it simply makes no sense to me. Totti played for the 4th, 5th best team in his country, maybe a top 20 team in Europe, and was highly influential in them overachieving. Hazard plays for at least a top 8, probably top 5, team in Europe and his performances were part of the problem against PSG this & Atletico last year while he hasn't really set the world alight in the rest of his CL games either. Chelsea had 48% possession at home against Atletico, Hazard 69 touches according to whoscored. Hardly the picture you're trying to paint with that made up 33% number. Chelsea's best knockout CL performance was the 2-0 home win against PSG in 2014, in which Hazard was subbed off injured very early in the game. It didn't seem to hurt the team at all. They turned the 3-1 loss from the first leg around and progressed.
Fair enough, if you haven't seen Hazard play for Belgium. It's still a valid point in judging his standing in the game, especially if a huge part of your argument is based on the hypothetical situation of Hazard playing for a different team in a different set-up and not solely on his actual performances. Totti played a fantastic Euro in 2000 and a very good World Cup in 2006. He was outstanding in the final loss in 2000 against a superior French side. Hazard so far failed to perform at his best level against inferior opponents for Belgium, let alone step up even once against a superior opponent. Early days of course, let's hope he'll do it in 2016 (and then lose the final against Germany similar to Ceulemans in 1980
).Yes, Totti had quiet games, many actually against superior teams, that's of course part of playing for a team so far off the European elite. But he also had many games where he stepped up against superior teams, something that Hazard hasn't done at all on the biggest stage. I'm not even sure Chelsea actually faced a superior team in the CL in the past 3 years. Juve in 2012/13, Atletico in 13/14 and PSG in 14/15 were around their level, just performed better. I'm sure Chelsea fans expected the team to beat those opponents.
Why would none of that matter? It's mind-boggling. How does that make him a true great of the game at the age of 24?
Not really, its anecdotal based on the experiences of a single player who moved clubs. If he can show that there are far less dribbles happening by the top players in La Liga as a whole over the Premier League then it becomes more interesting.
I think that it is very likely, that Neymar would be at least equal in almost every realistic team-setup.
Who is this no one? What were they watching? Inter Figo? Late Madrid Figo? Certainly not Luis Figo 1996-2001.
Again the Totti comparison, it simply makes no sense to me. Totti played for the 4th, 5th best team in his country, maybe a top 20 team in Europe, and was highly influential in them overachieving. Hazard plays for at least a top 8, probably top 5, team in Europe and his performances were part of the problem against PSG this & Atletico last year while he hasn't really set the world alight in the rest of his CL games either. Chelsea had 48% possession at home against Atletico, Hazard 69 touches according to whoscored. Hardly the picture you're trying to paint with that made up 33% number. Chelsea's best knockout CL performance was the 2-0 home win against PSG in 2014, in which Hazard was subbed off injured very early in the game. It didn't seem to hurt the team at all. They turned the 3-1 loss from the first leg around and progressed.
Fair enough, if you haven't seen Hazard play for Belgium. It's still a valid point in judging his standing in the game, especially if a huge part of your argument is based on the hypothetical situation of Hazard playing for a different team in a different set-up and not solely on his actual performances. Totti played a fantastic Euro in 2000 and a very good World Cup in 2006. He was outstanding in the final loss in 2000 against a superior French side. Hazard so far failed to perform at his best level against inferior opponents for Belgium, let alone step up even once against a superior opponent. Early days of course, let's hope he'll do it in 2016 (and then lose the final against Germany similar to Ceulemans in 1980
Yes, Totti had quiet games, many actually against superior teams, that's of course part of playing for a team so far off the European elite. But he also had many games where he stepped up against superior teams, something that Hazard hasn't done at all on the biggest stage. I'm not even sure Chelsea actually faced a superior team in the CL in the past 3 years. Juve in 2012/13, Atletico in 13/14 and PSG in 14/15 were around their level, just performed better. I'm sure Chelsea fans expected the team to beat those opponents.
Why would none of that matter? It's mind-boggling. How does that make him a true great of the game at the age of 24?
Well, they had 31% of the ball in the first leg of the tie vs Atletico. This is against a team that doesn't even play possession football. In the second leg, they held it tight until conceding and proceeded to predictably fall apart. Ditto vs PSG last season where in the first leg they looked hopeless, got some rest bite due to the red, but still somehow Verratti and Motta controlled the match with less men on the pitch. The team carries a big name and a big time coach but are everything from a big time team. As I've said many times on here, them winning the Prem just means they're the best of a mediocre bunch.
The gap of the teams at the top of the game is significantly bigger today than it was ever in the past. Teams like chelsea don't get away with putting out mediocre players on the pitch anymore. They end up not really being able to play. This is something that even the likes of City have suffered in recent years and predictably their best attackers(Silva and Aguero) who like Hazard continuously get questioned for their impact in the CL.
While you might say these teams are equal to chelsea and what not you're not taking into consideration what's taking place in front of your eyes. Chelsea have proved beyond reasonable doubt that this group is nowhere close to the essien, lampard, Makelele generation where they'd seemingly have a chance vs anyone. These lads don't and forget what the fans believe and what the football scribes think, that's everything but the case. As someone here says in the first half of last season chelsea played some sparkling stuff, but then city rolled into town and then they couldn't even string 3 passes together untill city got a red.
From watching him play obviously. He was considered one of the best wingers and players in the world but he was never considered devastating effective as someone put it. Devastatingly effective is someone like Ronaldinho who seems to make something happen with minimum fuss match after match, that wasn't Figo. Despite how good he was, he'd have his fair share of frustrating games. Loved world over due to him being a dribbling wizard and being able to seemingly make the ball disappear. In an era where we loved our football pure and didn't spend much time focusing on stats and the likes, Figo was a superstar. Hazard would've been seen that way too had he been there.
That whole last 4 consisted of 2 or 3 spanish teams is made up. The italian league was still pretty much the standard.
Btw how's hazard supposed spending to much time in and out of matches when he's the player on the ball most of the time in the prem and wipes the floor with everyone else in terms of dribbles?
I cannot believe you watched him often if you don't think he was devastatingly effective. You don't win World POTY being anything else, and this was at a time when the likes of Zidane, Rivaldo and Ronaldo were kicking about. Hazard is yet to prove himself capable of performing to that level at all, let alone consistently.
From 1999 to 2002 there were 2 or 3 Spanish teams in every last 4. From 2000 (when he joined Madrid) La Liga was the top ranked league in Europe, and remained so until long after he left.
Will be interesting to see if Mourinho will allow Chelsea to attack more in this CL campaign. That should provide Hazard better opportunities to truely shine in the CL because he's done nothing of note in 3 CL seasons in a row now.
Another big game, another no-show from Hazard so far. For all the superlatives about his playmaking skills he has just two assists against City, United, Arsenal and Liverpool in three seasons in the PL.
Up there with Bale 10/11 for least impressive PFA winner.
Watch him score a hattrick now.
MIA today so far.
Bale's season was significantly more impressive.
In 10/11? He scored 4 goals. The only thing he did of significance was a hat trick against a Inter team in turmoil, and that was in europe.
Oops. I was thinking of the wrong season. Hazard won all of the individual awards last season, didn't he?
Whereas Bale only one the Pfa main award in 10/11?
The season when Bale won all the awards, he was much more stand out than Hazard.
Bit of an exaggeration. Hazard was mostly excellent last season, and was the key player for a title winning side. Ability wise, he's far better than Bale was back in 2010/2011 as well, since Bale was talented back then but vastly overhyped. Albeit Hazard's been poor today.
Brushed off the ball too easily by David Silva which led to their third goal.
I think he has a way to go to be considered on the same level as Messi, Ronaldo or Neymar.