Eden Hazard

[MrExcalibur100 7,124]

1 minute ago, The Skipper said:

You don't have to explain that Eden is the better player between the two. I am literally just comparing the individual seasons both players had. You're getting confused. I'm literally just stating that Mbappé had a better season last year because he also had excellent CL performances.

I literally said this:

 

 

Also, you're diminishing the fact that Monaco beat PSG to the title... I know Ligue Un isn't PL level but Monaco's feat last season was impressive.

You didn't read my post Skip. It was all about both players' seasons. You're better than this.Read it carefully. 

[The Skipper 20,609]

1 minute ago, MrExcalibur100 said:

You didn't read my post Skip. It was all about both players' seasons. You're better than this.Read it carefully. 

I'm literally just getting to it now. Give me a few mins to read it and reply.

[manpe 10,861]

1 hour ago, BlueLyon said:

Winning PL is more difficult than winning Ligue 1. Its definately bigger achievement here.

You have to take into consideration that the last time Monaco won it was in 2000 and they had PSG to contend with, a team far more dominant in their league than anybody in the PL has ever been. Their season was a bigger achievement than ours.

[The Skipper 20,609]

1 minute ago, MrExcalibur100 said:

It depends on what the argument is. If you say Mbappe had a more iconic season (in your words) then I'll have to agree. His team reached the semi-finals of the Champions league. Hazard didn't even play the Champions league. So it's a bit of a moot point to bring up in the 1st place. 

However if you're debating if Mbappe had a better season including league football then I'll have to strongly disagree. Mbappe was not even a starter over Germain till January (IIRC) and Monace were still the dominant team in France and topping the table, scoring for fun. Can you imagine what Chelsea will look if Hazard was not a starter will January last season? We would have struggled for top 4 (!) And don't discount what stats based algorithm sites have to say. Insigne and Mertens were superb last season playing for one of Europe's best teams. Mertens had a better season in the league last season than Mbappe. 

It isn't a moot point to bring up at all. We're looking at their overall season, that includes all competitions, so we're counting all performances. You can't just dismiss it because Hazard didn't play in it. 

You don't need to explain how good Hazard was last season either, I'm not saying he didn't have a great year. I'm not downplaying Hazard's season at all. But let's not rewrite history and pretend that Hazard didn't have any support whatsoever last year, come off that. He wasn't a one man band. He didn't carry us as much as he usually does last season in my opinion. Costa was arguably the best striker in the world for the first half of the season for us last year until he went AWOL. Kanté was arguably just as instrumental as Hazard too. Fabregas was superb off the bench too. 

Of course Mbappé wasn't a starter until January - not sure how that's a negative or detracts anything from his performances last season. He was still arguably their best player in the home stretch of securing that league title. Considering Monaco weren't favourites whatsoever for the title, considering the CL performances alongside his games in the league, I genuinely think Mbappé overall had a better season, yes. If we look at both of their league forms solely, you can definitely argue that Eden was better in the league (I agree) but I have to consider his CL performances.  

I understand the value of sites like Squawka and WhoScored but don't religiously accept what they've concluded as fact. Mertens and Insigne were great last year, I love Sarriball, but they didn't win even the title last year, so how can you have them as the third and fourth best players last season for example? My main point regarding that is that we shouldn't conclude stats as facts, that's another debate for another day though.

Maybe I place too much stock into the CL as a global platform on which a player performs, but its his CL performances that make his season better for me. That doesn't mean I rate him higher than Hazard or anything but Chelsea's 16/17 wasn't that impressive for me in general. It's close, but Mbappé edges it for me. For me, the more iconic the season the better. 

I think we'll have to agree to disagree.

[MrExcalibur100 7,124]

13 minutes ago, The Skipper said:

It isn't a moot point to bring up at all. We're looking at their overall season, that includes all competitions, so we're counting all performances. You can't just dismiss it because Hazard didn't play in it. 

You don't need to explain how good Hazard was last season either, I'm not saying he didn't have a great year. I'm not downplaying Hazard's season at all. But let's not rewrite history and pretend that Hazard didn't have any support whatsoever last year, come off that. He wasn't a one man band. He didn't carry us as much as he usually does last season in my opinion. Costa was arguably the best striker in the world for the first half of the season for us last year until he went AWOL. Kanté was arguably just as instrumental as Hazard too. Fabregas was superb off the bench too. 

Of course Mbappé wasn't a starter until January - not sure how that's a negative or detracts anything from his performances last season. He was still arguably their best player in the home stretch of securing that league title. Considering Monaco weren't favourites whatsoever for the title, considering the CL performances alongside his games in the league, I genuinely think Mbappé overall had a better season, yes. If we look at both of their league forms solely, you can definitely argue that Eden was better in the league (I agree) but I have to consider his CL performances.  

I understand the value of sites like Squawka and WhoScored but don't religiously accept what they've concluded as fact. Mertens and Insigne were great last year, I love Sarriball, but they didn't win even the title last year, so how can you have them as the third and fourth best players last season for example? My main point regarding that is that we shouldn't conclude stats as facts, that's another debate for another day though.

Maybe I place too much stock into the CL as a global platform on which a player performs, but its his CL performances that make his season better for me. That doesn't mean I rate him higher than Hazard or anything but Chelsea's 16/17 wasn't that impressive for me in general. It's close, but Mbappé edges it for me. For me, the more iconic the season the better. 

I think we'll have to agree to disagree.

If you're going to include CL performances in this then it's no longer a fair or even a reasonable debate. It becomes all the more tedious to make a comparison. According to my above post Hazard was the most creative and best dribbling winger in Europe last season on league performances. According to yours Mbappe was one of the best players in the UCL last season. 

[The Skipper 20,609]

35 minutes ago, MrExcalibur100 said:

If you're going to include CL performances in this then it's no longer a fair or even a reasonable debate. It becomes all the more tedious to make a comparison. According to my above post Hazard was the most creative and best dribbling winger in Europe last season on league performances. According to yours Mbappe was one of the best players in the UCL last season. 

Funny thing is, neither argument is really incorrect. Last thing I'll say - Mbappé was one of the best players in the CL - and in his league (Finished YPOTY + Golden Boy and in TOTS). But like you said, at this point it's just become a tedious argument.

[BlueLion. 21,491]

Don't like him as the false 9 in a 3-4-3, I have to say. Doesn't bring anything close to the best out of him, he just becomes a deep-lying backheel merchant. Far more effective wider, or as one of the two in a 3-5-2.

 

[The Skipper 20,609]

5 hours ago, BlueLion. said:

Don't like him as the false 9 in a 3-4-3, I have to say. Doesn't bring anything close to the best out of him, he just becomes a deep-lying backheel merchant. Far more effective wider, or as one of the two in a 3-5-2.

 

“Deep lying back heel merchant” come back bro.  

Either way, I do agree. F9 Hazard is way too isolated. He isn’t as devistating as Messi in the box and he doesn’t have the right quality around him for it to work properly imo. We looked better with Morata as the focal point.

[DDA 9,928]

I honestly think Eden was pretty poor yesterday. He has picked up a bad habbit of persisting with a back heel flick every time he has his back to goal. He needs to trap the ball and hold it up or spin his man. He has the ability to do back heels but every 5 minutes and it just becomes frustrating. 

[FabHazard 655]

Though this is not related to the last game he should be more direct with passing ....He has the ability to play through balls but always seems to opt for safe pass ( to moses or azpi)......His off the ball work rate is always an issue with false 9 formation...Opposition can easily pass without any pressure at the back....May be that is why conte substitutes him

[communicate 2,703]

I actually like playing 3 small skillful player up top because they can combine very well, but Hazard doesn't look right playing as false 9.He need to get more involved.  

He needs to drop deep,  take on player, pass to wide winger/wingback who will be open because defense has to collapse on Hazard and then attack the box for a cut back kinda like Messi. 

People say that Hazard need to be score more, I disagree. I want him to be more involved and have more influence in the game. It doesn't have to be goals, he can take on player to create openings or deliver good pass.   Demand the ball and create. 

[Beigl 1,387]

In my opinion Pedro is more suited to play as a false 9. His movement is exceptional, he has a good shot in him and Hazard is better when he comes from deep. 

[communicate 2,703]

1 minute ago, Beigl said:

In my opinion Pedro is more suited to play as a false 9. His movement is exceptional, he has a good shot in him and Hazard is better when he comes from deep. 

It is hard to consider Pedro playing that striker position as false 9 because I always see false 9 as position where the player will vacate that striker position and drop deep. Pedro will play it more like a striker. Having said that, I am not sure Conte system is designed for a false 9. Conte said he want the striker to be points of a reference for the team which why a classic no 9 like michy will better but Conte has 0 trust in him. 

[cfcs most wanted 657]

On 12/17/2017 at 0:22 AM, manpe said:

You have to take into consideration that the last time Monaco won it was in 2000 and they had PSG to contend with, a team far more dominant in their league than anybody in the PL has ever been. Their season was a bigger achievement than ours.

And that is the perfect reason why Chelsea winning it should be considered a bigger achievement. Because if PSG have a poor run in, in the league, Monaco have a clear cut chance of winning the title, which can't be said for premier league teams, because you have to be always at your best to win it.

[manpe 10,861]

9 minutes ago, cfcs most wanted said:

And that is the perfect reason why Chelsea winning it should be considered a bigger achievement. Because if PSG have a poor run in, in the league, Monaco have a clear cut chance of winning the title, which can't be said for premier league teams, because you have to be always at your best to win it.

What you're saying is that winning the league in England in general is a bigger achievement, in this way of looking nothing a French club ever does domestically can be considered a bigger achievement. Quite an elitist view, but okay. What I mean is you have to look at the context of both clubs, their seasons, history etc. Monaco winning the league after 17 years and progressing to UCL semis after 13 years is bigger than what we did.