Jump to content
Join Talk Chelsea and join in with the discussions! Click Here

Eden Hazard


DavidEU
 Share
Followers 9

Recommended Posts

His finishing is absolutely crazy for his age!

I can't imagine how good this kid is going to be at say 25/26!

Interesting signings... Chelsea could become a dominant team in just a couple of years if all (or most of) our youngsters pan out.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 26.2k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

My son with Eden today [emoji7]

I hate Eden Hazard because he hasn't already scored 200 goals for Chelsea and he because was bought for £32 million and because other people like him and because other people hate him and because he h

Posted Images

His finishing is absolutely crazy for his age!

I can't imagine how good this kid is going to be at say 25/26!

Interesting signings... Chelsea could become a dominant team in just a couple of years if all (or most of) our youngsters pan out.

What are you talking about, his finishing has been rather shit during his time at Chelsea. At Lille it was much better, but then again you do get a lot more time to make your decision in the French league, just watch how Gervinho used to destroy the opponents there and we all know he can do fuck all in the PL. Obviously he will improve and he's already among our best players but his finishing is one of the last attributes I'd give him praise for.

Link to post
Share on other sites
What are you talking about, his finishing has been rather shit during his time at Chelsea. At Lille it was much better, but then again you do get a lot more time to make your decision in the French league, just watch how Gervinho used to destroy the opponents there and we all know he can do fuck all in the PL. Obviously he will improve and he's already among our best players but his finishing is one of the last attributes I'd give him praise for.

I've watched a lot of Lille games (because of Hazard) so I've seen Gervinho a lot and, believe me, his finishing there wasn't impressive. In fact, rather bad. So I think your comparison is a bit off. About Hazard, I wouldn't say his finishing was shit, but it could've been much better for sure.

Link to post
Share on other sites
What are you talking about, his finishing has been rather shit during his time at Chelsea. At Lille it was much better, but then again you do get a lot more time to make your decision in the French league, just watch how Gervinho used to destroy the opponents there and we all know he can do fuck all in the PL. Obviously he will improve and he's already among our best players but his finishing is one of the last attributes I'd give him praise for.

You missed the "for his age" in conjunction with the league where he now plays.

Some players have a much easier time against weaker opponents (more time on the ball and space behind defenders), others don't. So, what Gervinho (or Hazard) did in a different league does not really matter. Gervinho finishing has been crap and his final touch has not been any better. Hazard on the other hand shows finishing that belong to very special class of player. I think he can improve other aspects of his game, some of them drastically, but his finishing is already there IMO of course.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hazard's finishing has always been mediocre. He is not the clinical finisher that Lampard is, nor even near as good as someone like Mata or Ramires, actually. He is often afraid to shoot and very, very rarely shoots from distance even when there is an opening. It relates back to his early time at Lille when he was heavily criticised for his selfishness.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Hazard's finishing has always been mediocre. He is not the clinical finisher that Lampard is, nor even near as good as someone like Mata or Ramires, actually. He is often afraid to shoot and very, very rarely shoots from distance even when there is an opening. It relates back to his early time at Lille when he was heavily criticised for his selfishness.

I really don"t see what you're talking about dude. I've been a Lille fan since 1998, I followed Hazard since his 16th birthday, he had then (and still has) some lacks in his game but he has never been selfish. And never been criticised fort it, except by some Marseille or PSG scumbags that were jealous such a class player was in our team. But even they were compelled to admit his great talent and unselfishness at some point.

Except for last season (20 goals, 15 assists), Hazard always finished the league with more assists than goals. And even more "last but one passes" (not sure it's the right terms).

The year he won the french league with Lille, I watched again each and every one of our 68 Ligue 1 goals. Hazard was involved in 57 of them (almost 85% of the team's goals!!), although he had scored only 8 goals (and had 10 assists). I don't think we can call that selfishness ;)

For me Hazard is quite like an Iniesta, with more pace and acceleration, but less smart in his game (but it'll improve in the years to come).

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
I really don"t see what you're talking about dude. I've been a Lille fan since 1998, I followed Hazard since his 16th birthday, he had then (and still has) some lacks in his game but he has never been selfish. And never been criticised fort it, except by some Marseille or PSG scumbags that were jealous such a class player was in our team. But even they were compelled to admit his great talent and unselfishness at some point.

Except for last season (20 goals, 15 assists), Hazard always finished the league with more assists than goals. And even more "last but one passes" (not sure it's the right terms).

The year he won the french league with Lille, I watched again each and every one of our 68 Ligue 1 goals. Hazard was involved in 57 of them (almost 85% of the team's goals!!), although he had scored only 8 goals (and had 10 assists). I don't think we can call that selfishness ;)

For me Hazard is quite like an Iniesta, with more pace and acceleration, but less smart in his game (but it'll improve in the years to come).

That's why I would have prefered that he had Puel as a coach, at least during a year when he was 18-19 than Garcia.

The positional play of the team under Garcia has never been very good for me, an imbalanced team.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think that hazard nature would suit Spain more, but he could still be superstar in PL, just needs some more time. He is young and has plenty to offer. Im pretty sure in two years time, he will be best individual of PL.

Link to post
Share on other sites
To me it's like he tries too hard to be a Mata/Silva type player when in reality he's more of a Ronaldo type, who's confident and can take 3/4 players on.

I disagree.

Ronaldo is a beast, he's taller and has more top speed.

Hazard pace is more on the first 10 meters not his top speed.

Bale is more like a Ronaldo with less quality.

Link to post
Share on other sites
I disagree.

Ronaldo is a beast, he's taller and has more top speed.

Hazard pace is more on the first 10 meters not his top speed.

Bale is more like a Ronaldo with less quality.

What i mean is that he seems more comfortable when he's taking on other players, i also think he likes it when he's the main player, that's why i compare him to Ronaldo, he has similar confidence and swagger.

Personally for me, he's not a creative n.10 player, he doesn't have that great eye for a pass like Mata or Silva, don't get me wrong he can put player through on goal (like that wonderful pass against Spurs to put Mata through on goal) but he's not that type of player. It seems like once he feels like he's the main man he will start taking on more players and scoring more goals (like he's starting to do now).

Link to post
Share on other sites
That's why I would have prefered that he had Puel as a coach, at least during a year when he was 18-19 than Garcia.

The positional play of the team under Garcia has never been very good for me, an imbalanced team.

Under Puel, Hazard was used exclusively on the wings. He was still very young then and giving his pace and dribbling abilities it was the logical decision. When Garcia arrived at Lille, Hazard was used to play on the wings and nobody ever thought of placing him at the heart of the game, because he was doing so well on the left wing.

I'm pretty confident Hazard wouldn't have become the player he is today with only puel as a coach, for several reasons. First, Puel doesn't play with a playmaker, for the good reason that he doesn't relay on the possession of the ball to win matches. Puel's tactic is based on counter attacks and velocity. Very direct game.

Garcia changed the philosophy of the club. The main idea was to confiscate the ball, and have the offensive players switch positions constantly. In a matter of weeks, Lille went from a United type of play to a Barça like tactic.

Hence Hazard was compelled to get more involved in the construction of the actions, and to wander freely on the field. Under Puel, his most useful skills were his dribbling and pace (Ronaldo like) whereas under Garcia it was his passing and his ability to lead the attack (Iniesta like).

IMO, being coached by Garcia made him a more complete player, able to adapt to many championships and tactics.

Link to post
Share on other sites

If he develops his body balance to be stronger on the ball, he would be even more deadly.

Watch messi, and compare with iniesta. Iniesta is also a good dribbler like hazard but falls with any slight contact and it reduces the amount of pple he can dribble. But messi's strength takes him the extra people to dribble.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Under Puel, Hazard was used exclusively on the wings. He was still very young then and giving his pace and dribbling abilities it was the logical decision. When Garcia arrived at Lille, Hazard was used to play on the wings and nobody ever thought of placing him at the heart of the game, because he was doing so well on the left wing.

I'm pretty confident Hazard wouldn't have become the player he is today with only puel as a coach, for several reasons. First, Puel doesn't play with a playmaker, for the good reason that he doesn't relay on the possession of the ball to win matches. Puel's tactic is based on counter attacks and velocity. Very direct game.

Garcia changed the philosophy of the club. The main idea was to confiscate the ball, and have the offensive players switch positions constantly. In a matter of weeks, Lille went from a United type of play to a Barça like tactic.

Hence Hazard was compelled to get more involved in the construction of the actions, and to wander freely on the field. Under Puel, his most useful skills were his dribbling and pace (Ronaldo like) whereas under Garcia it was his passing and his ability to lead the attack (Iniesta like).

IMO, being coached by Garcia made him a more complete player, able to adapt to many championships and tactics.

I'm not sure.

In the youth category and in the eurou17, he was used as a trequartista. Under Puel, he was only 17 in januari and when he came as a substitue, he was often used as a forward or just behind it.

It's in the first year with Garcia that he was used in the wing, quite high in the pitch and that he would dribble a lot.

It's only the year of the title, that he was used a lot more in the build-up like I wanted, he was playing behind Sow and Gervinho.

If you look at Garcia's team, it's often imbalanced and he relies a lot on individuality for his goals, Bastos and his shots from distance, letting Gervinho run a lot with the ball while he was better without it.

For me there would have been more one touch passing under Puel than Garcia, I don't remember Lille playing good passing move from the back under pressure, two three fast passes to move the ball away from a pressing zone.

For me Garcia is like Mancini, not a good coach but City and Inter were champions because of the quality of their attacking players but in Europe the team play was not good.

Link to post
Share on other sites

If you watched him with Lille and now with Chelsea, the biggest difference is TEMPO! I think we should try Hazard + Moses close to each other cause they can link up to create a very direct attack similar to what he used to do at Lille and then have Mata on the right allowing Hazard to still link up with him.

Mata - Hazard - Moses

Ba

The only problem with this though is that if our pivot can't get the ball to Hazard further up the pitch then he can't link up with others and run behind the back 4. Right now our attacking mids have to drop so deep that they are facing two lines of defence, you get by one and the second thwarts the forward momentum.

The amount of times I've seen Mata drop so deep to start our attacks from the half way line disgusts me.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...