Was that actually the argument I was making? Or was it along the lines of Hazards importance and or contribution to the team being greater than Salah's? Pretty sure it's the latter. You're welcome to dig back and see what exactly I quoted originally because I can't recall exactly.
As an aside, I'm not a fan of arguments and opinions on a football forum being called stupid. I'd appreciate if you used different language.
How is his contribution 'to the team' greater than Salah's was last season? If you're scoring & assisting a lot, you're contributing to the team.
In his most productive season Hazard scored 16 and assisted 5. Salah last season scored 32 and assisted 10, so both scoring and assisting at twice the rate. You can argue Hazard is a better player in the build up, but that doesn't make up for being half as productive. Salah was also far more influential in Europe than Hazard has ever been.
Your post heavily implied that Salah's great season was negated by the fact Liverpool won no trophies, which I'm calling out as a stupid argument, because that's exactly what it is. Anyone with half a brain could see how incredible Salah was last season, it isn't his fault that his side last year simply weren't ready to compete for the title (especially against that City side), or that he got injured in the CL final. Do you think if you put Hazard instead of Salah in Liverpool's side they would have won something?
I really don't know what your argument even is. Hazard has won stuff so he's the better individual? Personal accolades aren't important despite being the only sensible way to judge a player as an individual?