In a 433 which is what most top teams have been playing for the past 15yrs or a variation of it in 4231
The midfield 3 are not expected to score in bucketloads. They are to control possession
How many goals does Casemiro-modric-kroos, Fabinho-Henderson-Wijnaldum/Thiago
Kante Jorginho Kovacic etc have? They are not judged by their goals but anyone of the top 3 will be expected to deliver goals and assists.
I used Xavi and Iniesta just because they're an easy example of how players can indirectly contribute to a team's ability to score goals through channels other than just scoring. You're not wrong that often times the responsibilities will differ depending on position, but neither is it an absolute where this is the only metric to judge a player, and I think this is even more pronounced when it comes to someone like Hazard who shouldered the majority of the responsibility when it came to initiating attacks, especially in relation to the people he gets compared to. He might have shared a similarly advanced position to them, but his responsibilities in relation to the ball were very different, and this is reflected in the stats above where he makes far more passes, key passes dribbles long passes etc but less shots, because he was far more a playmaker than the others were. Whereas a fully fledged inside forward might spend more time trying to beat the trap and get through on goal to have a shot, Hazard would be more involved in the initiation of the attack. By Conte's time he wasn't even a winger, but a 10.
I also disagree that players in the front three can only be judged on output. I can see from your comments in this thread that you don't rate Firmino, but he's been massively vital in balancing the Liverpool front line. Having a CF with that kind of positional game is a massive reason you can get so many goals from your flanks, if he approached the game in a more goal oriented fashion balancing that front line would be a nightmare, and this isn't something lost on Klopp.
"Mo [Salah] gets a lot of attention and rightly so but Firmino was outstanding. For people with football knowledge, people will write books about how he interprets the false 9.
"We don't say he invented it but it looks like that at times. It was insane." said Klopp.
The stuff about the role creation is totally hyperbolic, but the sentiment is absolutely fair, Klopp could have gone out and purchased a more prolific striker at any point, but he didn't and that's because he's obviously not judging him on goals alone. So at the least Klopp himself doesn't view his forwards contribution solely in terms of goals.
Righteous steps mentions City, and Guardiola is another who doesn't think of goals in absolute terms when picking his front line. Despite being one of the best premier league goalscorers ever Aguero had to adapt his game, as Guardiola emphasises the collective over individual stats. Mario Gomez had been a very consistent goalscorer for BM but I don't think anyone was under the illusion that he was someone who would be his main striker. He definitely judges his front line in a holistic manner and is happy to pick someone who will score less if it benefits the side as a whole.
Two of the greatest modern era forwards for Chelsea in Drogba and Zola were completely different players, but they both shared the fact that they contributed a lot outside of just goals. Drogba had a couple of very prolific seasons, but his overall goal record doesn't fully reflect how integral he was to Chelsea's success. Zola had that brilliant swansong goals wise in his last Chelsea season, but his overall tenure wasn't super prolific. At no point during his time at Chelsea though was there any doubt that he wasn't their best player, despite often being outscored.
Bergkamp was far more prolific earlier in his career, but for the majority of his Arsenal career he had a very tepid goal return. If you didn't watch him during his time at Arsenal and looked solely at his goal return you would probably wonder why this player is so beloved. Yet had you watched him it would quickly become clear what this player offered and why he was a perfect support striker. Someone like Giroud (underrated but nvm) had a far better goal ratio than Bergkamp, but it's obvious who the better player was.
Cantona is one the greatest forwards this league has ever seen, and while he was an excellent goalscorer, no one would argue that his contribution to United could be measured solely through the lens of goal scored. There's an understanding that what he contributed on the pitch can't only be quantified by goals. RVN is arguably the greatest goal scorer the league has seen, and while he had many qualities it's much easier to quantify his contribution by the amount of times he put the ball in the net. If you were to compare these two players and use goals as the only metric then the Dutchman would be the clear winner, but you would only have to watch a few games of each to realise why this comparison is flawed, not just in terms of their skillset but in how both acted on the pitch and the roles in which they functioned. Everything about RVN's game was designed around scoring goals, whereas Cantona was much more of a striker 10 hybrid and would do a lot more with the ball in terms of creation and passing. Someone could argue that RVN was a better player and that's fine, but if they were to argue it due to the amount of goals scored then it'd be a flawed argument.
There's a thread on here atm about Kane vs Rooney, and the vast majority have picked Rooney. In terms of goals scored Kane has about the same amount for Tottenham as Rooney did for United, in almost 200 less games. Again this is due to the understanding that Rooney offered a lot outside of goals, and that for the majority of his career at United he functioned in a different role on the pitch compared to Kane at spurs. They're both forwards, but often times their responsibilities were very different so they can't be evaluated in the same way.
This was just a fairly quick selection of random players, but I think it illustrates why evaluating forwards has to be more nuanced than simply looking at numbers.
Hazard doesn't do enough of this to be considered as one of those top class and besides the injury that difference is why he struggled in Madrid
A top team does not need an attacker who hugs the ball look to draw fouls and doesn't score enough.
His type of football was why Chelsea was not doing well in Europe in his time. It's the type of thing Zaha does for Crystal Palace where he just dribbles around and expect everything to go through him. If you are playing top opposition they will figure that out easily
I think it's hard to deduce much from his time at Madrid. He's been injured virtually his entire time there.
I think he offered a lot more than simply being fouled, but even then being fouled a lot isn't really an indictment. Neymar and Messi are often amongst the most fouled players. Maybe even if he didn't get injured he would never have been prolific enough for Madrid, but then I'd question why they even went in for him. Plus while this season Vinicius has been productive, other than Benzema no other Madrid player has been for the past few years. So it's not like he'd have been competing with a squad full of seasoned goalscorers.
I think there's a big difference between Zaha and Hazard. You point out that this gets figured out easily, but both Mourinho and Conte shaped their attacks entirely around Hazard and he led them both to league titles. He was the main figure in both campaigns, and I think as this led to tangible success it's hard to equate it to Zaha and Palace. The side was heavily over reliant on him, and while two Europas isn't bad I think it's a big part of the reason why they didn't do more in the CL, but I don't think it's necessarily something that can be held against him. They were never the best side in Europe and most sides who go on to win won't have one player shouldering so much.
