Eden Hazard | "It's time to enjoy life drinking beers"

[jakko]

That guy actually scored. But it doesn't count as much as dribbles and winning fouls

You can score a goal and have a bad game and you can not score and be the best player on the pitch.
Belgium fans voted Hazard there best player in 2018 not De Bruyne.

 

[Iker Quesadillas]

Injury would have made sense if he was lighting the league pre injury

He began the season injured and then only played 8 league games before getting a more serious injury. C'mon now.

 

[sherrinford]

Creative in what way? Goals or assist or just the ye test dribble backwards to halfway and lay the 5 meter pass to the DM

In the extremely obvious ways. Muller would have been a great compliment to Hazard (or Neymar, Ronaldinho, Messi, Bergkamp or any other attacker who was an inventive player with a ball at their feet).

'The eye test'. I'm always bemused when the idea of having an opinion on a player based on actually watching them play football is met with derision. Think about just how ridiculous that is.

I think his point is that a dribbling is only worth as much as the purpose it serves. In German there is an phrase called "breadless art", meaning something fancy looking, but ultimately without (much) profit and it immediately comes to mind when you for example watch the WC videos that were linked here to show off Hazard's greatness. Countless dribblings, but most of them in no mans land / away from goal / followed by a back pass that reset the tension or taking on one too many and very little in terms of genuinely advancing the attacking move in a crucial way.

And his lacklustre record in the CL and time in Madrid play right into that impression.

This is the thing. Hazard was a very purposeful and rational dribbler. 'Genuinely advancing the attacking move in a crucial way' is something that Hazard does more effectively than all but a few players that I've seen.

 

[TheMagicFoolBus]

He is simply not the type, he prefers to dribble into the net than make that pass. Hazards first instinct is to dribble and not to pass

His passing stats have already been posted earlier in the thread, and spoiler alert, he completed more passes during his prime than Muller did. Despite the latter playing in a far far better team.

Muller has been better than Hazard overall not just at the moment Save for the random off periods in a career of over 14yrs

If you want to argue in terms of career accolades than sure. If we're talking peak level there's no contest. Muller never sniffed the top 5 players in the world, which is where Hazard was during his last few seasons at Chelsea.

What about the performance of the guy who won motm that day?

If you watched that match and think KdB was better than Hazard then I'd like to share in whatever drugs you're using.

Injury would have made sense if he was lighting the league pre injury

If Grealish got injured he can turn around to say "If not for injury.."

He moved to a new country and system and got hurt in pre-season. Came back and got hurt again seriously by Meunier. The extent to which you are grasping at straws to discredit Hazard is genuinely amusing at this point.

 

[kaiser1]

If you want to argue in terms of career accolades than sure. If we're talking peak level there's no contest. Muller never sniffed the top 5 players in the world, which is where Hazard was during his last few seasons at Chelsea.

False!! Muller was 5th Balon dor 2014, 6th Balon dor in 2015. What was Hazard peak ranking at the Balon dor? Hazard never made top 5 Balon dor

His passing stats have already been posted earlier in the thread, and spoiler alert, he completed more passes during his prime than Muller did. Despite the latter playing in a far far better team.

Hazard Chelsea assist numbers: 14, 9, 10, 4, 4, 15. I assume these were Hazards prime. 56 League assists in Chelsea
Muller Bayern assists starting from his rookie season. 11, 13, 13, 13, 11 = 61 league assists(All pre Lewandowski days). . Muller is currently on 19 assists he did 21 assists in the last 2 seasons

For National Team. Hazard 116 matches 33 goals 35 assists. Muller 112 matches 43 goals 40 assists
The above is evidence based output of passes leading to goals not passes to your DM after dribbling 45meters

If you watched that match and think KdB was better than Hazard then I'd like to share in whatever drugs you're using.

KdB won the official man of the match in that game and he got a goal. Those who awarded KdB might be on drugs

He moved to a new country and system and got hurt in pre-season. Came back and got hurt again seriously by Meunier. The extent to which you are grasping at straws to discredit Hazard is genuinely amusing at this point.

Hazard got injured by Munier on November 26. From Sept to November ending he had a total of 1 goal . It wasn't like he was setting the league on fire pre injury

 

[TheMagicFoolBus]

False!! Muller was 5th Balon dor 2014, 6th Balon dor in 2015. What was Hazard peak ranking at the Balon dor? Hazard never made top 5 Balon dor

Hazard Chelsea assist numbers: 14, 9, 10, 4, 4, 15. I assume these were Hazards prime. 56 League assists in Chelsea
Muller Bayern assists starting from his rookie season. 11, 13, 13, 13, 11 = 61 league assists(All pre Lewandowski days). . Muller is currently on 19 assists he did 21 assists in the last 2 seasons

For National Team. Hazard 116 matches 33 goals 35 assists. Muller 112 matches 43 goals 40 assists
The above is evidence based output of passes leading to goals not passes to your DM after dribbling 45meters

KdB won the official man of the match in that game and he got a goal. Those who awarded KdB might be on drugs

Hazard got injured by Munier on November 26. From Sept to November ending he had a total of 1 goal . It wasn't like he was setting the league on fire pre injury

We are citing Ballon d'Or downballot rankings as some sort of definitive arbiter?

You clearly have a simplistic view of football limited to goals + assists = better player automatically. You do realise that any player's assist output depends on more than just their passing quality, right? Using metrics that are more individually focused thus eliminating many of those variables, Hazard was a better and more creative passer. This is not disputable, least of which by citing assist numbers.

The lack of nuance is mind-boggling.

 

[do.ob]

We are citing Ballon d'Or downballot rankings as some sort of definitive arbiter?

You clearly have a simplistic view of football limited to goals + assists = better player automatically. You do realise that any player's assist output depends on more than just their passing quality, right? Using metrics that are more individually focused thus eliminating many of those variables, Hazard was a better and more creative passer. This is not disputable, least of which by citing assist numbers.

The lack of nuance is mind-boggling.

I mean we've now established that you reject goals (except in the cases Hazard has lots of them), reject assists (except in the cases Hazard has lots of them) , think motm votes are done on drugs (except when they are awarded to Hazard), apparently the ballon d'Or ranking, too. It's certainly an entertaining conversation.

 

[WeePat]

The conversation in here around goals and assists has almost exclusively been people pushing back against using them as the definitive measure to decide who is and isn't a great or important player.

 

[TheMagicFoolBus]

I mean we've now established that you reject goals (except in the cases Hazard has lots of them), reject assists (except in the cases Hazard has lots of them) , think motm votes are done on drugs (except when they are awarded to Hazard), apparently the ballon d'Or ranking, too. It's certainly an entertaining conversation.

What are you talking about? I am arguing that simply tallying outcomes is a silly and outdated way to evaluate players, especially when those outcomes are incredibly noisy in terms of variables.

Saying that "X player had more assists than Y and therefore was more creative" is idiotic yet has been put forward in earnest by many in this thread.

 

[kaiser1]

We are citing Ballon d'Or downballot rankings as some sort of definitive arbiter?

You clearly have a simplistic view of football limited to goals + assists = better player automatically. You do realise that any player's assist output depends on more than just their passing quality, right? Using metrics that are more individually focused thus eliminating many of those variables, Hazard was a better and more creative passer. This is not disputable, least of which by citing assist numbers.

The lack of nuance is mind-boggling.

So
Goals don't matter
Assists don't matter
Motm don't matter
Balon dor don't matter

So what actually does that you will hold constant and not shift anytime it doesn't favor Hazard?

What did Hazards creative passing lead to? I gave you Mullers stats when he was passing to Olic Gomez Mandzukic and he floors Hazard

Gave you Mullers goals which floors Hazards
Gave you Mullers balon dor ranking which floors Hazard

So what other metrics besides dribbling 40meters to make a 5meter pass to the DM or just falling to win fouls?

 

[kaiser1]

What are you talking about? I am arguing that simply tallying outcomes is a silly and outdated way to evaluate players, especially when those outcomes are incredibly noisy in terms of variables.

Saying that "X player had more assists than Y and therefore was more creative" is idiotic yet has been put forward in earnest by many in this thread.

If goals assists balon dor are outdated measures for an attacking player,
What's the modern way to evaluate players?

 

[giorno]

You can score a goal and have a bad game and you can not score and be the best player on the pitch.
Belgium fans voted Hazard there best player in 2018 not De Bruyne.

And over the entire WC he was. Against Brazil he wasn't even among their top 5 performers though. De Bruyne, Lukaku, Witsel, Fellaini and Courtois were giants

 

[TheMagicFoolBus]

What's the modern way to evaluate players?

Assuming this is a question made in good faith, your problem is you are focused entirely on counting up extremely rare outcomes that are based on dozens of variables and using that to draw conclusions for not only individuals, but individual characteristics of specific players.

What you need to do instead is look at process-based metrics that a player can control that are at least somewhat independent of teammates. A far better way to look at creativity compared to assists is shot creation. This is by no means perfect as teammates still play a role via their positioning and decision-making, but it is a less noisy catch-all for creativity. Other good metrics to consider are ball progression (especially within the final third), penalty box entries, and expected threat.

 

[TheMagicFoolBus]

And over the entire WC he was. Against Brazil he wasn't even among their top 5 performers though. De Bruyne, Lukaku, Witsel, Fellaini and Courtois were giants

What on earth?? He was more or less the only reason Belgium were able to get themselves into attacking positions at all:

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

 

[giorno]

What on earth?? He was more or less the only reason Belgium were able to get themselves into attacking positions at all:

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

Uh, no. He was important in getting fouls and breaking up Brazil's pressure. Their good attacks, those few, came mostly off Lukaku and De Bruyne. Belgium played an almost entirely defensive game and Witsel and Fellaini were key to shut down the middle, and Courtois pulled off a couple huge saves

Hazard was good against brazil, but that's it

 

[TheMagicFoolBus]

Uh, no. He was important in getting fouls and breaking up Brazil's pressure. Their good attacks, those few, came mostly off Lukaku and De Bruyne. Belgium played an almost entirely defensive game and Witsel and Fellaini were key to shut down the middle, and Courtois pulled off a couple huge saves

Hazard was good against brazil, but that's it

Yes of course they were defensive. As Atleti just proved vs City, you need an attacking outlet. Hazard progressing the ball and winning fouls was Belgium's biggest attacking outlet to relieve pressure on the defense. Are you basing this post off the 2 minute video on YouTube?

 

[giorno]

Yes of course they were defensive. As Atleti just proved vs City, you need an attacking outlet. Hazard progressing the ball and winning fouls was Belgium's biggest attacking outlet to relieve pressure on the defense. Are you basing this post off the 2 minute video on YouTube?

Nope, i remember that game. Their few good attacks came off Lukaku carries and combinations between him and De Bruyne. Hazard's would usually result in a foul. Which was good for Belgium once they had a 2 goal lead, sure, but not exactly "incredible"

 

[kaiser1]

Yes of course they were defensive. As Atleti just proved vs City, you need an attacking outlet. Hazard progressing the ball and winning fouls was Belgium's biggest attacking outlet to relieve pressure on the defense. Are you basing this post off the 2 minute video on YouTube?

We all watched the game including numerous posters on this thread and those who awarded KdB the MOTM. The best Hazard did was winning fouls to slow down the game like he normally does. KdB did more in the actual attack

 

[Righteous Steps]

We all watched the game including numerous posters on this thread and those who awarded KdB the MOTM. The best Hazard did was winning fouls to slow down the game like he normally does. KdB did more in the actual attack

Hazard was the best Belgium player that tournament, Kdb has never had such a series of performances for Belgium at that stage, simple.

 

[TheMagicFoolBus]

Nope, i remember that game. Their few good attacks came off Lukaku carries and combinations between him and De Bruyne. Hazard's would usually result in a foul. Which was good for Belgium once they had a 2 goal lead, sure, but not exactly "incredible"

Right, and his ability to win those fouls meant they could leave him up there on his own and trust that he could retain the ball to relieve pressure.

 

[Righteous Steps]

And I remember the game clearly also Hazard was quite easily the best player against Brazil, but regardless he was the best player or top two in the tournament overall even if some don’t want to concede to the first point.

 

[kaiser1]

Assuming this is a question made in good faith, your problem is you are focused entirely on counting up extremely rare outcomes that are based on dozens of variables and using that to draw conclusions for not only individuals, but individual characteristics of specific players.

What you need to do instead is look at process-based metrics that a player can control that are at least somewhat independent of teammates. A far better way to look at creativity compared to assists is shot creation. This is by no means perfect as teammates still play a role via their positioning and decision-making, but it is a less noisy catch-all for creativity. Other good metrics to consider are ball progression (especially within the final third), penalty box entries, and expected threat.

All what goes into this cannot be more important than the outcome which is goals and assists, Football is still a very result based sport, not by the process. We have seen countless games where a team does all these but failed to put the ball in the net and that was it.

I intentionally chose Mullers assists stats before he played with Lewandowski, Muller was playing with Olic, Gomez and Mandzukic, None of these is an all timer striker and Muller delivered.

 

[kaiser1]

Hazard was the best Belgium player that tournament, Kdb has never had such a series of performances for Belgium at that stage, simple.

Hazard being the best Belgian is debatable, Against Brazil He wasn't the best player

 

[Righteous Steps]

All what goes into this cannot be more important than the outcome, Football is still a very result based sport, not by the process. We have seen countless games where a team does all these but failed to put the ball in the net and that was it.

I intentionally chose Mullers assists stats before he played with Lewandowski, Muller was playing with Olic, Gomez and Mandzukic, None of these is an all timer striker and Muller delivered.

Why bring up Muller at all? Muller is a top player but won’t be remembered as one of the handful of very great players in his generation when all said and done, there will be a number of players considered greater than him in the last 5-10 years.

 

[Righteous Steps]

Hazard being the best Belgian is debatable, Against Brazil He wasn't the best player

Detable wirh who? You’re doing your best to rewrite history only problem for you is the World Cup was only a few years ago, Hazard was the best Belgian player, he was awarded second best player in the whole tournament in that same tournament, not De Bruyne not Lukaku or whoever you want to mention

 

[TheMagicFoolBus]

All what goes into this cannot be more important than the outcome, Football is still a very result based sport, not by the process. We have seen countless games where a team does all these but failed to put the ball in the net and that was it.

I intentionally chose Mullers assists stats before he played with Lewandowski, Muller was playing with Olic, Gomez and Mandzukic, None of these is an all timer striker and Muller delivered.

Of course football is outcomes-based - it is a sport after all.

The point is you are penalising a player for factors out of his control. You have no way of knowing the extent to which Muller has benefitted from playing in vastly superior sides to Hazard both domestically and internationally for his entire career and to what extent that has contributed to his assist totals. Just tallying it up and saying "therefore he is better" is a very flawed conclusion.

You are perfectly right to say that "Muller did X, Y, and Z and racked up a million bajillion goals and assists, therefore he had a greater career than Hazard" - and I wouldn't disagree with you. The issue is you are using team-based stats to then declare that one player was better at a specific skill that is more often than not correlative with teammate quality as opposed to that player's.

 

[kaiser1]

Why bring up Muller at all? Muller is a top player but won’t be remembered as one of the handful of very great players in his generation when all said and done, there will be a number of players considered greater than him in the last 5-10 years.

Is Hazard one of these players who would be remembered? You think Hazard would be remembered? Hazard is still not retired and barely remembered. For the past 3years he has been unwanted by everyone

 

[TheMagicFoolBus]

Is Hazard one of these players who would be remembered? You think Hazard would be remembered? Hazard is still not retired and barely remembered. For the past 3years he has been unwanted by everyone

Well, ironically enough this is where playing for a smaller side benefits Hazard as he's in our all time best XI whereas Muller has far stiffer competition.

 

[kaiser1]

Of course football is outcomes-based - it is a sport after all.

The point is you are penalising a player for factors out of his control. You have no way of knowing the extent to which Muller has benefitted from playing in vastly superior sides to Hazard both domestically and internationally for his entire career and to what extent that has contributed to his assist totals. Just tallying it up and saying "therefore he is better" is a very flawed conclusion.

You are perfectly right to say that "Muller did X, Y, and Z and racked up a million bajillion goals and assists, therefore he had a greater career than Hazard" - and I wouldn't disagree with you. The issue is you are using team-based stats to then declare that one player was better at a specific skill that is more often than not correlative with teammate quality as opposed to that player's.

Players contribute to make the team win. A team winning is a combination of 11 players input, Yet we can see stand out players in these teams. What exactly does Messi, Ronaldo have that is not team based? Yet why are they the best players of their generation

If Hazard had lifted his game beyond the regular shopping for fouls and dribble to midfield, possibly his team might have been better in Europe. Chelsea won the CL on either side of Hazards tenure at the team

 

[kaiser1]

Well, ironically enough this is where playing for a smaller side benefits Hazard as he's in our all time best XI whereas Muller has far stiffer competition.

Being the best player in Porto does not carry the same weight as being the best player in Barcelona. Grealish was the best player in Aston Villa barely getting games at City.
Hazards chance to prove himself at a bigger club is a disaster so far. He would be remembered as the player who crumbled when he left his comfort zone of roundabout dribbles

 

[do.ob]

Well, ironically enough this is where playing for a smaller side benefits Hazard as he's in our all time best XI whereas Muller has far stiffer competition.

I have a feeling people will remember the World Cup winning record player from Bayern. Having scored 10 WC goals, with another tournament to come, probably doesn't hurt him in that regard either. But who knows, maybe 10 dribbles against Brazil will trump that some day.

 

[TheMagicFoolBus]

Players contribute to make the team win. A team winning is a combination of 11 players input, Yet we can see stand out players in these teams. What exactly does Messi, Ronaldo have that is not team based? Yet why are they the best players of their generation

If Hazard had lifted his game beyond the regular shopping for fouls and dribble to midfield, possibly his team might have been better in Europe. Chelsea won the CL on either side of Hazards tenure at the team

...because they're the best at football on an individual level and played for the two biggest clubs in the world, both of whom spent billions of euros to consistently surround them with world-class talent?

Being the best player in Porto does not carry the same weight as being the best player in Barcelona. Grealish was the best player in Aston Villa barely getting games at City.
Hazards chance to prove himself at a bigger club is a disaster so far. He would be remembered as the player who crumbled when he left his comfort zone of roundabout dribbles

Oh of course not, that's my point. It's a lower bar for him to be remembered.

 

[TheMagicFoolBus]

I have a feeling people will remember the World Cup winning record player from Bayern. Having scored 10 WC goals, with another tournament to come, probably doesn't hurt him in that regard either. But who knows, maybe 10 dribbles against Brazil will trump that some day.

Yeah probably. Just hurts him that he's never been the best player in any side he's been in.

 

[Righteous Steps]

I have a feeling people will remember the World Cup winning record player from Bayern. Having scored 10 WC goals, with another tournament to come, probably doesn't hurt him in that regard either. But who knows, maybe 10 dribbles against Brazil will trump that some day.

People will remember both unless it’s the two of you posting in here, Hazard got voted as the 2nd best player in the World Cup, not sure if Muller was? But both are good feats.

 

[kaiser1]

I have a feeling people will remember the World Cup winning record player from Bayern. Having scored 10 WC goals, with another tournament to come, probably doesn't hurt him in that regard either. But who knows, maybe 10 dribbles against Brazil will trump that some day.

In the world where football becomes ballet and you are rewarded for dancing around than actually scoring goals

 

[kaiser1]

People will remember both unless it’s the two of you posting in here, Hazard got voted as the 2nd best player in the World Cup, not sure if Muller was? But both are good feats.

Muller was voted 2nd best player of 2014 world cup which Germany won
Muller was voted best young player of 2010 world cup
Muller was top scorer in 2010 world cup

But.. People will remember the player who dribbled more vs Brazil not the one who actually won golden boot and won the trophy

I am expecting to read next that those Golden boot and Silver ball of 2010 and 2014 doesnt matter only the 2018 one does

 

[kaiser1]

Yeah probably. Just hurts him that he's never been the best player in any side he's been in.

Muller was best player in the German side that was 3rd in 2010 and won in 2014.

 

[Righteous Steps]

Muller was voted 2nd best player of 2014 world cup which Germany won
Muller was voted best young player of 2010 world cup
Muller was top scorer in 2010 world cup

But.. People will remember the player who dribbled more vs Brazil not the one who actually won golden boot and won the trophy

I am expecting to read next that those Golden boot and Silver ball of 2010 and 2014 doesnt matter only the 2018 one does

Hazard not winning is nothing to do with him, he didn’t have the fortune of being born German after all, not as if Belgium have a history of winning the World Cup either and for good reason, the moment they had a team good enough their neighbours in France pop up with a team consisting of Mbappe Pogba Kante Varane etc.

 

[duffer]

For the past 3years he has been unwanted by everyone

Madrid wanted him so much that they paid over 100 million, less than three years ago so that's kinda bollocks.



.

 

[kaiser1]

Madrid wanted him so much that they paid over 100 million, less than three years ago so that's kinda bollocks.

Madrid has been trying to ship him out since. He is likely the the worst transfer ever in Madrid history. Go to any Madrid forum and see what they think of him