Who is better: Sanchez or Hazard

Who is better?

  • Total voters
    767
Hazard is better but its funny when you looks at their qualities, Sanchez comes out better in most of them.

Crossing, finishing, heading, free kicks, passing and goals/assist stats but somehow Hazard is still better.
 
El Jefe said:
Hazard is better but its funny when you looks at their qualities, Sanchez comes out better in most of them.

Crossing, finishing, heading, free kicks, passing and goals/assist stats but somehow Hazard is still better.
Click to expand...

I think it's because Hazard plays within himself; he has a habit of not turning up. But when Hazard turns up he does some ridiculous things.

I think Sanchez is better; but there's a reasonable argument that Hazard reaches a higher level on form.
 
charlenefan said:
It's a bit like that Mata v Silva comparison 3/4 years ago, one has the better output while the other is unquestionably the better player

I'd say Hazard for me though it annoys me he doesn't want to take his ability to the next level[/QUOTE]

That's exactly hazard''s problem. He produces his magic here and there but when you look at Suarez, Messi, Ronaldo, neymar, even sanchez they all took their game to next level. Hazard is still the same. 3-4 years back I expected him to reach another level in goal scoring ability, he has not. Too inconsistent.
Click to expand...
 
Sanchez is a goal scorer, Hazard is a playmaker.

Would prefer Sanchez over Hazard at the moment tho. Although I think overall play and pure ability, Hazard is the slightly better player
 
balaks said:
That's just my opinion - though in all honesty I don't think there are many truely world class players playing in the premiership currently.
Click to expand...

I suggeste the following criteria for Class statements in football:

World Class - the most classy player in the world. Needs to have more class than
Messinaldo, needless to say.

Not exactly world class - Any player who is not as good as Messinaldo, but head and shoulders above anyone else and Neymar.

A bit hyped - Everyone else who is actually very, very, very good, possibly the worlds best in any position bar the one inhabited by Neymessinaldo. Like DDG.

Hugely underrated - Any player that is demmed to be deemed by others to be not so very good, and may infact be just okayish. There are two types: Michael Carrick and Charlie Adam.

Bound to be WBPOAT - Any player under 19 with a youtube featuring a schorcher and a rainbow dribble. Look up Kerlon for WBPOAT Underrated subcategory.

I hold it to be self evident that Sanchez and Hazard both falls in the category A Bit Hyped.
 
Hazard on form is the better player, but Sanchez tends to be on form more consistently than Hazard.

So, yeah, I have no idea.
 
There isn't much between then but I'd say Sanchez. Hazard is an excellent player but I weigh in behind Sanchez because;

1. Sanchez has more goals/assists in a comparable time frame.
2. Sanchez delivers more consistently (compared to Hazard)
3. Sanchez plays in a weaker team, though they compete in the same competitions.

Think of it this way, if Hazard was at Arsenal achieve what Sanchez did? I'm not sure he would.
If Sanchez was at Chelsea would he achieve what Hazard did? I think he'd better it.
 
El Jefe said:
Hazard is better but its funny when you looks at their qualities, Sanchez comes out better in most of them.

Crossing, finishing, heading, free kicks, passing and goals/assist stats but somehow Hazard is still better.
Click to expand...
Hazard’s dribbling is unreal. He’s so dangerous which gives him that slight edge over Alexis, though the latter isn’t exactly a bad dribbler.
 
Hazard when he decides he can be bothered, just doesn't happen often enough.
 
Zlatattack said:
There isn't much between then but I'd say Sanchez. Hazard is an excellent player but I weigh in behind Sanchez because;

1. Sanchez has more goals/assists in a comparable time frame.
2. Sanchez delivers more consistently (compared to Hazard)
3. Sanchez plays in a weaker team, though they compete in the same competitions.

Think of it this way, if Hazard was at Arsenal achieve what Sanchez did? I'm not sure he would.
If Sanchez was at Chelsea would he achieve what Hazard did? I think he'd better it.
Click to expand...
tbf that may be true but when Hazard isn't playing/on form Chelsea look like half the team. He's the reason their attack is better than Arsenal's.
 
Coming from the Left for both. I think Both are pretty good players. I do not yet want to judge them because Van Persie was a surprise gift from Arsenal to us and i hope Sanchez can do the same.
 
Hazard. He's won titles being the main man in his side. He has more silk in his boots too. Sanchez has it all to prove IMO but internationally he's been more effective by a big margin.
 
Sanchez is the better all round performer but I'd rather have Hazard as strange as that sounds.

When it comes to natural ability and peak performance levels, Hazard is better. His qualities are more 'alien' - he does more things on a football pitch that make you wonder how, which is why I'd prefer him in my team. Not to mention him being younger and naturall having more left in the tank (his peak is probably ahead of him).

However, when going by actual performances and what we see week in week out Sanchez has out performed Hazard. He's got the qualities Hazard has shown i.e that of a top class attacker. But unlike Hazard, he's been a warrior and a leader for his teams. His displays for Chile have been talismanic and he you always get the feeling he's more up for the occaion or at leat more frequently up for the occasion in terms of fight, intensity and focus, than Hazard has.
 
Raees said:
Hazard. He's won titles being the main man in his side. He has more silk in his boots too. Sanchez has it all to prove IMO but internationally he's been more effective by a big margin.
Click to expand...
What, why? Because he hasn't won a title? That's hardly fair, he's been carrying Arsenal for four years now! Does that mean Kane still has it all to prove too?
 
Raees said:
Hazard. He's won titles being the main man in his side. He has more silk in his boots too. Sanchez has it all to prove IMO but internationally he's been more effective by a big margin.
Click to expand...
Which just goes to show that it has nothing to do with them as players but rather the teams they've been in.
 
Raees said:
Hazard. He's won titles being the main man in his side. He has more silk in his boots too. Sanchez has it all to prove IMO but internationally he's been more effective by a big margin.
Click to expand...
Hazard has won titles - but been in far better teams. His troughs have also been abysmal. Sanchez for example, has never been part of a team in 10th despite being in a much weaker team. Sanchez produces more output and is far more consistent. Peak-Hazard is capable of genius, but there's a lot of "when he's arsed" involved. Frankly, while he may be more talented (natural talent), I'd take Sanchez for my team - and I'm not saying that just because we've bought him. I genuinely feel Sanchez will be a win for us.
 
Massive Spanner said:
What, why? Because he hasn't won a title? That's hardly fair, he's been carrying Arsenal for four years now! Does that mean Kane still has it all to prove too?
Click to expand...
Alexis has won titles, in fact bigger titles than Hazard
 
IrishRedDevil said:
Sanchez - he influences and wins games with more goals/assists.
Click to expand...
g/a never tell the whole story. Hazard tends to terrorize oppo defenses for 90 minutes when on form. I'd say most defenders would rather face Sanchez than Hazard, he looks like a fecking nightmare to defend against.
 
Havak said:
Stats for comparison, because everyone loves stats (Premier League only):

Hazard
Appearances: 194
Goals: 65
Assists: 37

Sanchez
Appearances: 122
Goals: 60
Assists: 25

I'd say Hazard is better to be honest, but Sanchez seems to have a better end product.
Click to expand...

How did you end up with that conclusion considering Hazard stats aren't better, considering he has played 72 games more?
 
Massive Spanner said:
What, why? Because he hasn't won a title? That's hardly fair, he's been carrying Arsenal for four years now! Does that mean Kane still has it all to prove too?
Click to expand...

Kane does have it all to prove. He's a class player but what if he moves to Real and can't handle the pressure and isn't scoring as regularly as he was for Spurs etc. It is one thing being a great player in a team which isn't really expected to win trophies and another when you're playing for the big clubs and expected to deliver week after week without fail. The pressure level is different. I'm not saying Sanchez can't handle it, just saying Hazard has definitely proven himself as one of the EPL greats.. not sure that Sanchez has and now he has the chance to prove he is right up there himself.

midnightmare said:
Hazard has won titles - but been in far better teams. His troughs have also been abysmal. Sanchez for example, has never been part of a team in 10th despite being in a much weaker team. Sanchez produces more output and is far more consistent. Peak-Hazard is capable of genius, but there's a lot of "when he's arsed" involved. Frankly, while he may be more talented (natural talent), I'd take Sanchez for my team - and I'm not saying that just because we've bought him. I genuinely feel Sanchez will be a win for us.
Click to expand...

If the question is who would I rather United buy? the answer is Sanchez. His mentality, his endeavour and tactically he's a better fit for us. Question is who is a better player and for me..

If you put Sanchez in those Chelsea sides, I genuinely don't think they'd be as good as they were with Hazard in the side in full flow and at his best. They'd still be title contenders but not as dominant as they were with Hazard in the side. Hazard has lower bottom levels, but he has that lazy genius mentality but at his best.. he's been different gravy to anyone in the league. Internationally he hasn't been able to cut it, but Belgium as a whole haven't and lack of a good coach/mentality has been an issue, whereas Chileans are fierce as feck, with a great football philosophy to back them up.

I don't think its impossible for Sanchez to prove he's the better player. Just saying right now, I'd give it to Hazard based on what I've seen from them playing week in week out in this league.
 
Raees said:
Kane does have it all to prove. He's a class player but what if he moves to Real and can't handle the pressure and isn't scoring as regularly as he was for Spurs etc. It is one thing being a great player in a team which isn't really expected to win trophies and another when you're playing for the big clubs and expected to deliver week after week without fail. The pressure level is different. I'm not saying Sanchez can't handle it, just saying Hazard has definitely proven himself as one of the EPL greats.. not sure that Sanchez has and now he has the chance to prove he is right up there himself.



If the question is who would I rather United buy? the answer is Sanchez. His mentality, his endeavour and tactically he's a better fit for us. Question is who is a better player and for me..

If you put Sanchez in those Chelsea sides, I genuinely don't think they'd be as good as they were with Hazard in the side in full flow and at his best. They'd still be title contenders but not as dominant as they were with Hazard in the side. Hazard has lower bottom levels, but he has that lazy genius mentality but at his best.. he's been different gravy to anyone in the league. Internationally he hasn't been able to cut it, but Belgium as a whole haven't and lack of a good coach/mentality has been an issue, whereas Chileans are fierce as feck, with a great football philosophy to back them up.

I don't think its impossible for Sanchez to prove he's the better player. Just saying right now, I'd give it to Hazard based on what I've seen from them playing week in week out in this league.
Click to expand...
But you said Sanchez has it all to prove, I'm sorry but that just seems ridiculous, Sanchez has proven it a lot for Arsenal in his time there. It seems your only barometer for "proving it" is winning a PL medal, in which case I guess Shearer never proved it at Newcastle either, or Gerrard or Suarez at Pool?

Has Sanchez "proven" it as much as Hazard, probably not, but he's certainly proven himself to be a great PL player.
 
Raees said:
If the question is who would I rather United buy? the answer is Sanchez. His mentality, his endeavour and tactically he's a better fit for us. Question is who is a better player and for me..

If you put Sanchez in those Chelsea sides, I genuinely don't think they'd be as good as they were with Hazard in the side in full flow and at his best. They'd still be title contenders but not as dominant as they were with Hazard in the side. Hazard has lower bottom levels, but he has that lazy genius mentality but at his best.. he's been different gravy to anyone in the league. Internationally he hasn't been able to cut it, but Belgium as a whole haven't and lack of a good coach/mentality has been an issue, whereas Chileans are fierce as feck, with a great football philosophy to back them up.

I don't think its impossible for Sanchez to prove he's the better player. Just saying right now, I'd give it to Hazard based on what I've seen from them playing week in week out in this league.
Click to expand...

Considering I always find you a bit anti-united but that is a fair fair reasoning.
 
Hazard is a better dribbler and playmaker. I'd take him, just about. And he's younger. :p
 
Feels like it's been a case of waiting for Hazard to become truly world class for several seasons now....
 
You must log in or register to reply here.