Prime Hazard or Prime Salah?

tentan

Poor man's poster.
Joined
Oct 5, 2013
Messages
5,234
Better player? Eden Hazard in his prime or the current Salah (2018?-Present )?

Both exceptional players but I probably say Salah has reached another level from Hazard
 
Salah no compétition here, Salah does it every season, even prime hazard would take a season off every other season and Salah looks after himself physically so unfortunately he’ll be good for a few more years
 
I like Hazard better but you can't argue with Salah's numbers. Mentally he's on another level as well.
 
christy87 said:
Salah no compétition here, Salah does it every season, even prime hazard would take a season off every other season and Salah looks after himself physically so unfortunately he’ll be good for a few more years
Click to expand...
Every other season?
 
Even I'd pick Salah, if I'm making a completely emotionless choice.
 
Aesthetically, I would pick Hazard but Salah is better in every way that matters.
 
I'd say prime hazard if were talking about the random month or two he'd have every so often when he was just impossible to play against. But he was pretty shit for long periods in between so I'd want Salah and its a really, really easy decision.
 
Salah's had the better career and has achieved more. Hazard was more talented and had a lot more in his locker - but always felt like he left a lot on the table.

This is in a way a poor man's Messi vs Ronaldo debate. Where the less talented player has achieved more (not so clear in the Messi vs Ronaldo debate though).
 
Hazard was more fun to watch but Salah’s level of effectiveness and his consistency are something else. He’s also a clearly better goalscorer
 
Salah... no doubts on that one and he is getting into best in the world category with the numbers he is knocking out.
 
caid said:
I'd say prime hazard if were talking about the random month or two he'd have every so often when he was just impossible to play against. But he was pretty shit for long periods in between so I'd want Salah and its a really, really easy decision.
Click to expand...

This isn't true at all. He had the one season when he played injured and the team had gone to shit while Mourinho was having meltdown after meltdown. Apart from that, he was excellent mostly on a weekly basis, and went through periods of being the only creative threat in the entire team.
 
Hazard is more aesthetically pleasing to watch, but I think Salah offers too much in a team to be deemed the inferior player.
 
WeePat said:
This isn't true at all. He had the one season when he played injured and the team had gone to shit while Mourinho was having meltdown after meltdown. Apart from that, he was excellent mostly on a weekly basis, and went through periods of being the only creative threat in the entire team.
Click to expand...
Yeah thats fair, its an exaggeration. He had a few different levels and the lower ones weren't that great imo. Exciting to watch but not that effective ultimately. Salah is just one of the more consistent players i've seen so it feels like a pretty distinct difference between the two. I never felt Hazard was the kind of player to pull a goal out of nothing on a bad day.
 
Hardly seems a contest in truth. They might be similar for talent but Salah has turned into a ruthlessly productive player. He could probably play in any system, whether it is relentless pressing or counter attacking football. I don't think you have to cover him, or make allowances, he's simply a brilliant attacker.

Hazard was brilliant to watch and had excellent seasons, and particularly incredible stretches of shorter term form. But what it comes down to is he just wasn't as interested off the ball or when it's not to feet. That's where a manager would probably always pick Salah because the small margins matter for the team. Also you cannot really argue against Salah's output which is way more important than dribbling ability. Hazard might get you 10 goals, Salah will threaten a golden boot and win you a title in the process.
 
christy87 said:
Remember he was good for Jose’s 1st season then average the next, and he repeated that with conte
Click to expand...
Not true he was excellent in both Jose and Contes two full seasons aswell as the Rafa and Sarri ones.

The only one he had "off" was when he playing with a hip injury.
 
Prime Hazard was a better player than Salah. Both technically and aesthetically. His close control dribbling was something else. But Salah has better numbers and is more pacey than Hazard was.
 
Very difficult to say. Hazard at times would be dragging that Chelsea team around while Salah just keeps scoring. People forget that their were times when Chelsea's attack was basically give Hazard the ball near the half way line and hope for the best.
 
Salah for sure

Hazard was nicer on the eye but Salah delivers a lot more and has a much stronger mentality
 
christy87 said:
Remember he was good for Jose’s 1st season then average the next, and he repeated that with conte
Click to expand...
That's the whole point of 'prime in the question
Anyways, this Liverpool attack does not depend on Salah in the way Chelsea attack depended on Hazard
 
The data’s compelling on this.


Salah for Liverpool:
213 Apps
135 Goals
51 Assists
G/A: 186/213 = 87.32%

Hazard for Chelsea:
245 Apps
85 Goals
61 Assists
G/A: 146/245 = 59.59%

Salah has 27.73% higher rate of productivity.
 
Salah, quite comfortably. Aside from being significantly more effective he's also a much better team player. Hazard was a solo Roy of the Rovers type player at his best.
 
Salah's football is more prolific, aesthetic and consistent. No contest for me.
 
Salah

Though there is a caveat

Salah plays under a brilliant attacking manager

Hazard played under pragmatic, less offensive managers
 
Salah by a very large margin. Far more decisive. Hazard is a shit Robben.
 
Prime Hazard was an unbelievable player. Virtually impossible to get the ball off without fouling him. When we played Chelsea back then our whole tactic was based around trying to stop him which was near impossible.
He single handedly dragged chelsea to a premier league title one season.
Salah is also a great player, a much better finisher than Hazard and extremely effective in the final 3rd.

Overall, 2 fantastic players but watching the 2 in their prime, the way Hazard could absolutely dominate a game over 90 mins, his opponents absolutely shitting themselves. I believe he was the superior player.
 
Salah by quite a bit for me. He's great to watch, and ridiculously productive.
 
Interesting divide so far. Salah gets the goals and is far more consistent, but Hazard in his prime was unplayable. He was almost impossible to dispossess and would just walk through defences with his close control and low centre of gravity. He had a higher ceiling but couldn’t stay there for long periods like Salah does.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.