Eden Hazard

[lionsden 4,689]

Based on how important he is to us, how good he is now and how good he can be.

What's hard to get about Hazard being more important to us than PSG would offer in a transfer fee? Bale wasn't worth 85m but he was to Tottenham, they held out and got the fee that they were willing to accept. You think Madrid valued him at 85m? Of course not. Tottenham set the price, the same way Utd set Ronaldo's price.

And that's the crux of the matter. Bale was not only epl player of the year last season but single-handedly carried spurs (I hate using that word as it's a team sport). Has Hazard being any where near as important to us as bale was to spurs last season? why should he be what to us more than what bale was worth to spurs and Ronaldo to man utd is the point I was making which sounds straight forward enough.

[Mufassir08 2,400]

You simply do not sell players like hazard especially after fighting so hard for his signature.For me Hazard on form is the most devastating player in the league some might say Aguero or suarez but for me it is Hazard.

[lionsden 4,689]

I actually do and you clearly don't. Looking at the stats, I say he does. Looking at what he did for the team, I say he does. Based on the first period in which he ripped - then an inconsistent patch - and after february where he was pretty much our best player, he does.

Still, agree to disagree.

Ignoring defenders and midfielders. was Hazard ahead of players like Michu and walcott on the basis of consistency week in week out last season?. which is the criteria any award should be based on anyway.

[Styles 9,790]

And that's the crux of the matter. Bale was not only epl player of the year last season but single-handedly carried spurs (I hate using that word as it's a team sport). Has Hazard being any where near as important to us as bale was to spurs last season? why should he be what to us more than what bale was worth to spurs and Ronaldo to man utd is the point I was making which sounds straight forward enough.

Because Hazard is an important member of a team that has serious hopes of competing for honours for the next decade. That's worth more than 80m to me.

[lionsden 4,689]

Because Hazard is an important member of a team that has serious hopes of competing for honours for the next decade. That's worth more than 80m to me.

my question isn't what Hazard is worth to you but why he should be worth more than Ronaldo was to utd ( won ballon dor and inspired them to 3 epl titles) and Bale to spurs( single handedly carried them to their highest point total in their history which earned him epl poty). you justification is based solely on potential, "an important member of a team that has serious hopes of competing for honours for the next decade" rather than actual result. no one pays £80m plus for potential.

[Stingray 9,441]

I actually do and you clearly don't. Looking at the stats, I say he does. Looking at what he did for the team, I say he does. Based on the first period in which he ripped - then an inconsistent patch - and after february where he was pretty much our best player, he does.

Still, agree to disagree.

Ignoring defenders and midfielders. was Hazard ahead of players like Michu and walcott on the basis of consistency week in week out last season?. which is the criteria any award should be based on anyway.

It is what it is:

Take the stats for example.

Hazard: 9 epl goals (3 european goals as well), 11 assists, 5 mom in a team like Chelsea, 7.3 on whoscored (whatever that means - just to compare)

Michu: 18 epl goals (being a striker), 2 assists, 6 mom in Swansea, 7.13 on whoscored

Walcott: 14 epl goals, 10 assists, 1 mom in Arse, 7.21 on whoscored.

What consistency do you base it on then? Hazard was also younger, his first season, played in a much more demanding team in transition, the trainer stuff, ....

You can debate it, but it is nowhere near as clear cut as you seem to imply.

[Styles 9,790]

my question isn't what Hazard is worth to you but why he should be worth more than Ronaldo was to utd ( won ballon dor and inspired them to 3 epl titles) and Bale to spurs( single handedly carried them to their highest point total in their history which earned him epl poty)

Because he is - and at the age of 23 will continue to be for a very long time - as important to us as those players were to their teams. This a very strange argument and if ultimately what you're getting at is that we overrate our own players then go ahead.

[kellzfresh 7,229]

We won't budge for any fee less than 80mil till we see hazard full potential. That's the point were making

[Belgiannutt 3,201]

firstly everyone has a price and I mean everyone.

as for the boded part. alvaro recoba, deisler, saviola,stan collymore,robinho and many more also had the potential to be "1 of the top 5 players in the world" and were just as talented if not even more than hazard, you see where i'm going with this. potential is nothing more than that until it actually gets fulfilled

Disagree with your first sentence. There are players that are simply invaluable to their club.

Get the feeling that your underestimating Hazard's importance to our team and his potential.

You act like Hazard is your run of the mill top talent and that we can just pick up a new one at K-mart.

He's one of the rare talents that can singlehandedly win games for you.

He's the type of player where you build your team around not a player you sell off just to make a profit.

[lionsden 4,689]

It is what it is:

Take the stats for example.

Hazard: 9 epl goals (3 european goals as well), 11 assists, 5 mom in a team like Chelsea, 7.3 on whoscored (whatever that means - just to compare)

Michu: 18 epl goals (being a striker), 2 assists, 6 mom in Swansea, 7.13 on whoscored

Walcott: 14 epl goals, 10 assists, 1 mom in Arse, 7.21 on whoscored.

What consistency do you base it on then? Hazard was also younger, his first season, played in a much more demanding team in transition, the trainer stuff, ....

You can debate it, but it is nowhere near as clear cut as you seem to imply.

You are missing one very key information and factor here, appearances. Chelsea played more competeive games than Swansea and arsenal lasts season which skews the figure considerably given Hazard featured in more games.

and moreover stats doesn't always tell the whole story. for example willian in that carling cup game against arsenal was brilliant and did everything perfectly well other than score or assist a goal. does that mean he has had an inferior performance to someone who has an underwhelming game but pops up with a goal or assist? as it very often happens in football. There was no way on the evidence of last season that hazard deserved that award.

[Stingray 9,441]

It is what it is:

Take the stats for example.

Hazard: 9 epl goals (3 european goals as well), 11 assists, 5 mom in a team like Chelsea, 7.3 on whoscored (whatever that means - just to compare)

Michu: 18 epl goals (being a striker), 2 assists, 6 mom in Swansea, 7.13 on whoscored

Walcott: 14 epl goals, 10 assists, 1 mom in Arse, 7.21 on whoscored.

What consistency do you base it on then? Hazard was also younger, his first season, played in a much more demanding team in transition, the trainer stuff, ....

You can debate it, but it is nowhere near as clear cut as you seem to imply.

You are missing one very key information and factor here, appearances. Chelsea played more competeive games than Swansea and arsenal lasts season which skews the figure considerably given Hazard featured in more games.

and moreover stats doesn't always tell the whole story. for example willian in that carling cup game against arsenal was brilliant and did everything perfectly well other than score or assist a goal. does that mean he has had an inferior performance to someone who has an underwhelming game but pops up with a goal or assist? as it very often happens in football. There was no way on the evidence of last season that hazard deserved that award.

I only used the epl stats + you cannot deduce he is only potential. That was my argument.

[lionsden 4,689]

Disagree with your first sentence. There are players that are simply invaluable to their club.

Get the feeling that your underestimating Hazard's importance to our team and his potential.

You act like Hazard is your run of the mill top talent and that we can just pick up a new one at K-mart.

He's one of the rare talents that can singlehandedly win games for you.

He's the type of player where you build your team around not a player you sell off just to make a profit.

This discussion has nothing to do with hazards talent which is undeniable. it is about whether people are overrating his importance and contribution to chelsea a tad and making bold judgement based on potential i,e what could be rather than what is hence the Ronaldo (man utd) and Bale (spurs) comparison. when I read statements to the effect of he's worth more than those 2 players transfer fee, then question has to be raised.

[lionsden 4,689]

I only used the epl stats + you cannot deduce he is only potential. That was my argument.

Perhaps I should have clarified my statement better. "potential" was used in this case to mean that hazard hasn't reached his prime yet and I argued that there's no guarantee his prime would be significantly better than the current. potential could mean a raw and unproven talent or someone/something that hasn't yet reached full maturity. it depends on which definition you apply.

[sutro 1,026]

So you think he's already worth £110m which would not only make him cost more than ronaldo and bale but also make him worlds most expensive player ever?.

No he's not worth 110m but he's not for sale and thats the big issue in this case.

Chelsea does not want/need to sell Hazard, so the only chance to get him is to offer a insane ammount of money to his club and also insane wages to the player but even then Chelsea will most likely not sell him since we simply dont need the money

[Belgiannutt 3,201]

This discussion has nothing to do with hazards talent which is undeniable. it is about whether people are overrating his importance and contribution to chelsea a tad and making bold judgement based on potential i,e what could be rather than what is hence the Ronaldo (man utd) and Bale (spurs) comparison. when I read statements to the effect of he's worth more than those 2 players transfer fee, then question has to be raised.

Think your going about this wrong. Hazard is as invaluable to us as Ronaldo was to man utd or Bale was to Tottenham maybe not stats wise but status wise.

man utd and tottenham were both in a weaker bargaining position due to Ronaldo and Bale's desire to leave their clubs.

If they didn't wanna leave then both man utd and tottenham wouldn't have sold them.

The situation with Hazard is different. He has expressed no desire to leave so as a club we are in a much stronger position and can tell any club to go fuck off no matter what money they throw at us.

That's why people are valuing Hazard higher then Bale and Ronaldo.