Eden Hazard

[Barbara 15,149]

http://www.premierleague.com/en-gb/players/ea-sports-player-performance-index.html?paramSearchTerm=&paramClubId=&paramSeason=2014-2015&paramPosition=&paramEaBreakdownType=ACCUMULATIVE&paramGameWeek=1&paramItemsPerPage=20&paramSelectedPageIndex=1

http://www.squawka.com/football-player-rankings#performance-score#player-stats#english-barclays-premier-league|season-2014/2015#all-teams#all-player-positions#16#44#0#0#90#16/08/2014#19/12/2014#season#1#all-matches#total

http://www.squawka.com/football-player-rankings#performance-score#player-stats#champions-league|season-2014/2015#all-teams#all-player-positions#16#39#0#0#90#16/09/2014#19/12/2014#season#1#all-matches#total#desc#total

http://www.whoscored.com/Regions/252/Tournaments/2/Seasons/4311/Stages/9155/PlayerStatistics/England-Premier-League-2014-2015

http://www.whoscored.com/Regions/250/Tournaments/12/Seasons/4333/Stages/11564/PlayerStatistics/Europe-UEFA-Champions-League-2014-2015

All those rankings have him in the top3. And still there are fans on other boards that claim he isn't in the same bracket as Aguero, Silva, Di Maria and Sanchez or claim he hasn't been anywhere near contention for being Chelsea's best player this season which has been Fabregas or Costa.

Sorry, but I think those links were a disservice to your point - although I do agree with you he's on the same level as some of those players.

Those ratings, scores and whats not these sites have are obnoxious. I laughed at some players and their ratings/scores.

He's on the same level, but not on the same bracket as those guys because we aren't an one-man-team like City is (Aguero) or Arsenal (Sanchez). Eden is way more talented than Sanchez and more talented than Aguero, but he's a team player. Sanchez is a bit more engaged into the team, but Aguero is a separated 'body'. and they're major cunts. Silva and di María are very talented too (and not cunts), but they've been injured for a while this season...

I prefer Eden over any of them, but those rankings are nonsense.

[Greyco 143]

Sorry, but I think those links were a disservice to your point - although I do agree with you he's on the same level as some of those players.

Those ratings, scores and whats not these sites have are obnoxious. I laughed at some players and their ratings/scores.

He's on the same level, but not on the same bracket as those guys because we aren't an one-man-team like City is (Aguero) or Arsenal (Sanchez). Eden is way more talented than Sanchez and more talented than Aguero, but he's a team player. Sanchez is a bit more engaged into the team, but Aguero is a separated 'body'. and they're major cunts. Silva and di María are very talented too (and not cunts), but they've been injured for a while this season...

I prefer Eden over any of them, but those rankings are nonsense.

Don't see why they should be nonsense.

They give a clearer picture than most of the mob just looking at goals and assists which do exactly as you have in your signature.

Most of the players in those list are actually pretty accurate. There are surprises in there, like Downing, but he's been the standout performer in a team that sits in 4th.

They give a pretty good picture as to who has been doing well this season.

[Barbara 15,149]

Don't see why they should be nonsense.

They give a clearer picture than most of the mob just looking at goals and assists which do exactly as you have in your signature.

Most of the players in those list are actually pretty accurate. There are surprises in there, like Downing, but he's been the standout performer in a team that sits in 4th.

They give a pretty good picture as to who has been doing well this season.

Well, most people I know don't take those ratings seriously, and rightfully, because they're data generated by computers inherited by American methods - which works fine for the recreation sports they have there such as 'football' and baseball, that are very simple recreation sports, with few variables that don't show much variation. When you apply the same method to a sport much more complex such football, it loses all credibility. You probably just looked Hazard's ratings, and his aren't that bad (although some of his defensive ratings are laughable too) and overall looked who were there.

But to each their own mate... there's a reason those ratings and scores are rarely brought into any conversation on the forum (if you ever noticed). They're worse than the stats I refer to in my signature imo (whoscored the worst of all).

Also, except with Aguero leading them all, the lists themselves have a lot of contradicting. Yes, Hazard is top 3 in all of them, but if they were any accurate, shouldn't they look a lot more like each other? I mean, the players, the matches they're analyzing are the same, still they have some very different results.

I prefer to base my opinion on what I watch and my perception of this instead of something that doesn't work for football.

[yuvala 2,167]

How's he doing ? I haven't really been able to watch too many games so far..

Is he better than last year?

[Greyco 143]

Well, most people I know don't take those ratings seriously, and rightfully, because they're data generated by computers inherited by American methods - which works fine for the recreation sports they have there such as 'football' and baseball, that are very simple recreation sports, with few variables that don't show much variation. When you apply the same method to a sport much more complex such football, it loses all credibility. You probably just looked Hazard's ratings, and his aren't that bad (although some of his defensive ratings are laughable too) and overall looked who were there.

But to each their own mate... there's a reason those ratings and scores are rarely brought into any conversation on the forum (if you ever noticed). They're worse than the stats I refer to in my signature imo (whoscored the worst of all).

Also, except with Aguero leading them all, the lists themselves have a lot of contradicting. Yes, Hazard is top 3 in all of them, but if they were any accurate, shouldn't they look a lot more like each other? I mean, the players, the matches they're analyzing are the same, still they have some very different results.

I prefer to base my opinion on what I watch and my perception of this instead of something that doesn't work for football.

Well you might want to contact every topteam in Europe to explain to them that they could save a load of money because nearly every club has a data-analyst and head of performance analysis on their payroll.

They all use statistics, highlighted by video-evidence, in preparation for the next game.

The difference in the ratings is easily explained tho. And luckily they aren't exactly the same or they'd be a lot less interesting.

Most use the same source material but give different weight of importance to some of the statistics in their calculations. Haven't come across anything contradictory tho.

I guess if you run them through a program like SPSS you'd find a huge correlation.

"But to each their own mate... there's a reason those ratings and scores are rarely brought into any conversation on the forum"

I guess it's the same reason a forum has smileys? A fan-forum is hardly a place you'd find crawling with coaches carrying an UEFA A license giving a thorough analysis.

[sutro 1,026]

How's he doing ? I haven't really been able to watch too many games so far..

Is he better than last year?

the least we can say is that he's much more consistent than last year even if the stats dont back it up

so to me he's better, save to say that Eden is going to the next level.

[iseah100 5,612]

Well, most people I know don't take those ratings seriously, and rightfully, because they're data generated by computers inherited by American methods - which works fine for the recreation sports they have there such as 'football' and baseball, that are very simple recreation sports, with few variables that don't show much variation. When you apply the same method to a sport much more complex such football, it loses all credibility. You probably just looked Hazard's ratings, and his aren't that bad (although some of his defensive ratings are laughable too) and overall looked who were there.

But to each their own mate... there's a reason those ratings and scores are rarely brought into any conversation on the forum (if you ever noticed). They're worse than the stats I refer to in my signature imo (whoscored the worst of all).

Also, except with Aguero leading them all, the lists themselves have a lot of contradicting. Yes, Hazard is top 3 in all of them, but if they were any accurate, shouldn't they look a lot more like each other? I mean, the players, the matches they're analyzing are the same, still they have some very different results.

I prefer to base my opinion on what I watch and my perception of this instead of something that doesn't work for football.

Stats serve a purpose in all sports. Sure, they don't measure intangibles and whatnot, but they can give you an idea of how effective a player is, to completely dismiss stats because football is so "complex" is ridiculous. I know you don't like stats, but they use them in basketball as well, which I think could be classified as "complex". They serve a purpose and are very helpful, and despite what you think, I'm sure clubs pay attention to them.

[Barbara 15,149]

Stats serve a purpose in all sports. Sure, they don't measure intangibles and whatnot, but they can give you an idea of how effective a player is, to completely dismiss stats because football is so "complex" is ridiculous. I know you don't like stats, but they use them in basketball as well, which I think could be classified as "complex". They serve a purpose and are very helpful, and despite what you think, I'm sure clubs pay attention to them.

I'm talking about ratings and scores, do you know that right? I'm not talking about stats purely, but how they rate players in those sites. If that isn't a joke, then I don't know what is. And no, basketball isn't as complex as football, though I do agree it has more variables than baseball and American football.

Let me just give one single laughing stock about those links. For Squawka Hazard, Eden Frigging Hazard has a 100 score for defending. Cesc Fàbregas has nearly -200. In what world does that make sense?

But enjoy giving it any relevance. I never said stats are useless. They need to be contextualized. Around a year ago I even wrote articles for this site with contextualized stats... I love stats when they're used properly, the thing is, the way it's been designed so far, it doesn't tell the whole story. Which is what my signature says. It doesn't tell the whole story. So now I have to believe Hazard is thrice the player Fabregas is defensively because Squawka said so. Sorry, but I'm barely breathing through my laughs.

Those ratings and scores are ridiculous, and I doubt a club pays attention to them. To better stats, maybe, but to scores and ratings? They aren't stupid.

[Greyco 143]

I'm talking about ratings and scores, do you know that right? I'm not talking about stats purely, but how they rate players in those sites. If that isn't a joke, then I don't know what is. And no, basketball isn't as complex as football, though I do agree it has more variables than baseball and American football.

Let me just give one single laughing stock about those links. For Squawka Hazard, Eden Frigging Hazard has a 100 score for defending. Cesc Fàbregas has nearly -200. In what world does that make sense?

But enjoy giving it any relevance. I never said stats are useless. They need to be contextualized. Around a year ago I even wrote articles for this site with contextualized stats... I love stats when they're used properly, the thing is, the way it's been designed so far, it doesn't tell the whole story. Which is what my signature says. It doesn't tell the whole story. So now I have to believe Hazard is thrice the player Fabregas is defensively because Squawka said so. Sorry, but I'm barely breathing through my laughs.

Those ratings and scores are ridiculous, and I doubt a club pays attention to them. To better stats, maybe, but to scores and ratings? They aren't stupid.

Instead of laughing you might want to look deeper into the fact that Fabregas has such a low defensive score. You might have discovered Fabregas is the leading player in the category "dribbled past" in the whole premier league.

I'll add ridiculous, laughing, joke and a couple of ? in for good measure so you won't need them in your next post. Might save you some time typing and me reading next time to get to the point.

[Sheva. 5,373]

Instead of laughing you might want to look deeper into the fact that Fabregas has such a low defensive score. You might have discovered Fabregas is the leading player in the category "dribbled past" in the whole premier league.

I'll add ridiculous, laughing, joke and a couple of ? in for good measure so you won't need them in your next post. Might save you some time typing and me reading next time to get to the point.

Yeah this. Their stats can be misinterpreted when taken out of context, but they do provide good insight.

About Hazard - we all know he's no defensive beast, but when he actually drops back to defend, he does a good job the majority of the time.

This is what the stats will show, compared to Cesc who is always in the thick of the action; missing many tackles and getting dribbled by faster players.

[Barbara 15,149]

Instead of laughing you might want to look deeper into the fact that Fabregas has such a low defensive score. You might have discovered Fabregas is the leading player in the category "dribbled past" in the whole premier league.

I'll add ridiculous, laughing, joke and a couple of ? in for good measure so you won't need them in your next post. Might save you some time typing and me reading next time to get to the point.

Oh, I see. So you, your wonderful and insightful stats just proved me that Hazard is thrice the defender Cesc is.

Let's do this, mate. You stick to such a precious piece of information, I'll stick to watching football matches and dragging my conclusions from that instead of a bunch of numbers that don't tell the whole story (and in this case tell a blatant lie)

And you know what my poor watching experience tells me? That Cesc is thrice the defender Hazard is, not the other way around. I feel like this post just proved my further, but I guess that's the difference between us. I'm born in a country that watches sports - especially football instead of looking for some nice data (although we have plenty of that here, I often use them to write my weekly column about Chelsea).

But thanks, for supporting the idea that according to Squawka and their brilliant data we all now know Hazard is the better defender between him and Cesc. If it wasn't for both of you I'd die without knowing it.

Pardon me, but it seems like between the two of us, you're the one so blinded by what you were reading and typing, and wanting to win a stupid argument, that you didn't realize that writing what you've just wrote proved my point further. You just found some data to prove that Cesc is a worse defender than Hazard is. Brilliant. Except real life tells another story.

So I'll rephrase my signature. Stats GIVE you a GOOD IDEA, but they hide the most important parts. Too bad Hazard being a better defender than Cesc isn't a good idea. You could give me all stats you want in the whole world, you won't convince me otherwise. the big question is, if your pride will allow you to honestly answer between the two of them who is the best defender and therefore who 'should' have a better score at that.

But then you'd have to consider the area of the pitch each of them play at, how our set up using Cesc to be the brain the team exposes him, how he isn't that fast and has that much of stamina. I mean, why analyze what really happens in the pitch and what influences on that if we can just open a website and find out Cesc has the most plays passed by him, right?

So could you answer me, who is the best defender or who's better defensively between Cesc and Hazard? I'd love to read your answer and your arguments to defend it. I'll waiting for it.

edit: btw, Oscar has a -55 score for defending - our best defensive AM without a doubt. And our DM, Matic, has a -3 score. I mean, Hazard is a prowess defensively, we should employ him in the pivot next. He's almost there with some CBs scores. The more I read about those stats, the more football makes sense in my head...

[Rom2013 446]

The best players of Chelsea this season are by far Costa and Fabregas, and the best player in the League is Aguero. There are players like Di Maria and Sanchez also arguably playing better than Hazard.

Hazard needs to improve a lot. He is really good in doing useless dribbles almost in his own half. In all the rest, he needs to improve to be one of the best players in the world.

[stroey 2,525]

The best players of Chelsea this season are by far Costa and Fabregas, and the best player in the League is Aguero. There are players like Di Maria and Sanchez also arguably playing better than Hazard.

Hazard needs to improve a lot. He is really good in doing useless dribbles almost in his own half. In all the rest, he needs to improve to be one of the best players in the world.

Think Hazard actually improved a lot in terms of consistency. Sometimes he didn't play good but still scored or assisted a goal. Can't remember more than 1-2 games this season where Hazard hasn't been important or decisive.

Cesc-Hazard-Matic-JT-Costa

Think these 5 are currently the most important players in the right order.

[sutro 1,026]

The best players of Chelsea this season are by far Costa and Fabregas, and the best player in the League is Aguero. There are players like Di Maria and Sanchez also arguably playing better than Hazard.

Hazard needs to improve a lot. He is really good in doing useless dribbles almost in his own half. In all the rest, he needs to improve to be one of the best players in the world.

comments like this makes me wonder if people actually watch our games

[Barbara 15,149]

Think Hazard actually improved a lot in terms of consistency. Sometimes he didn't play good but still scored or assisted a goal. Can't remember more than 1-2 games this season where Hazard hasn't been important or decisive.

Cesc-Hazard-Matic-JT-Costa

Think these 5 are currently the most important players in the right order.

which is what our team is. We aren't an one-man team like some teams are. We have key players, and Hazard is one of them.

For me, you're absolutely right, those five are the core of our success.

I do think Hazard and then Cesc have a bit of an edge compared to the other three, but we need Matic and JT as much as we need Hazard, Cesc and Diego.u

And for me a team player like Hazard is way better to have than players such as Aguero and Sanchez.

I can't believe someone said di María is playing better than Eden... I just can't. I do wonder just like @sutro before me, if people watch games or just read articles and check stats. Sanchez has paid off brilliantly for Arsenal in terms of goals (he's contributed directly, scoring or assisting, 50% of their goals so far). It doesn't mean he's as good as Hazard though, because he isn't. Eden is way more talented and the cheater is already 26, on his peak years. We already have Cesc and Costa to provide goals for us... Eden is better, more important even if he directly hasn't contributed as much as Sanchez had. Indirectly he's probably at the same level, if not higher...

[Rom2013 446]

comments like this makes me wonder if people actually watch our games

No they don't. In reality Hazard is comparable to Messi or Ronaldo. Or at least he is as good as Aguero, or Fabregas for example this season.

Let's all of us say how amazing he is. In reality he isn't but we should all say tthat he is amazing.

In a forum where Oscar is "increadible"... yes Hazard is Ballon d'Or. Kalas is our future also.

A player that can't be our best player, and Hazard today is far from it, is not one of the best players in the world in the Ballon d'Or fight. If he wants to be our super star or best player in the world he needs to improve a lot, if he wants to be one more player he is in the right path.

[sutro 1,026]

No they don't. In reality Hazard is comparable to Messi or Ronaldo. Or at least he is as good as Aguero, or Fabregas for example this season.

Let's all of us say how amazing he is. In reality he isn't but we should all say tthat he is amazing.

In a forum where Oscar is "increadible"... yes Hazard is Ballon d'Or. Kalas is our future also.

A player that can't be our best player, and Hazard today is far from it, is not one of the best players in the world in the Ballon d'Or fight. If he wants to be our super star or best player in the world he needs to improve a lot, if he wants to be one more player he is in the right path.

my post was aimed at you rom, Hazard is by no means far from Costa or Fabregas.

For me Eden and Matic are our 2 best players so far this season and thats why i wonder if your watching our games.

Eden has made a big step forward this season

[Rom2013 446]

my post was aimed at you rom, Hazard is by no means far from Costa or Fabregas.

For me Eden and Matic are our 2 best players so far this season and thats why i wonder if your watching our games.

Eden has made a big step forward this season

Eden needs to make 3 or 4 more steps because this is not enough.

ABout Eden being better than Fabregas (and Fabregas is a great player but also far from a Ballon d'Or quality)... well... I think the one that needs to see more games of Chelsea is not me.