Eden Hazard

ak93city said:
I'm fine if we can't sign Hazard for contractual and other issues that come with a big transfer.

But if one's the type to claim that Mahrez > Hazard when the latter is possible to get, then I'm afraid one is nothing but a quintessential idiot.

Again, fortunately Mr. Pep and the actual decision makers aren't so thick enough so obviously tried for Hazard first, until finding out it can't happen and hence moving on to Mahrez AFTER that. There is a God.
Click to expand...

Nobody said Mahrez is better than Hazard. He might be, if he gets a move to City or he might not fit in, just like Hazard might not. Or Hazard might be even better for Chelsea or whoever, than Mahrez is for City, even if Mahrez is brilliant for City, Hazard is brilliant & might still be better at his club.


And nobody said we tried to sign Hazard, apart from a few very very weak links.

We did however try to sign Mahrez. In the last transfer window. It appears we my be doing so again. On a whim perhaps.

I personally don't want Hazard, just as I didn't want Sanchez. But I did want Pogba, so I got probably one right one wrong, therefore, like you, I know FUCK ALL.

I think Hazard might be great for City, I think Mahrez might be great for City. I will be happy enough if we sign either, but I would prefer Mahrez, because I rate Sane, Sterling etc very highly & think a superstar would hinder their progress, so i don't want Hazard, as I didn't want Sanchez, but am totally comfortable with Hazard signing, as I would have been with Sanchez signing. It is my preference, that's all.

Why would I accept either ?

Because of Pep. If he wants Hazard, or Sanchez he can jolly well have them.

And I wouldn't be so up my own arse as to assume I knew for sure Pep's thinking on it or that everyone who had a different opinion to me, was an idiot, because I am so fucking clever, that Pep must of course agree with my thinking .

You on the other hand, appear to be a supreme being, who can actually read Pep's mind. Congratulations & all hail.

I don't think Pep wants Hazard, not because I'm stupid, but because if he did, we would be going balls out to sign him & it would potentially be the biggest deal in the whole of the football world this summer & yet all we have are a few innuendos that it might have been a possibility.

I think Pep fancies Mahrez, as he fits the role we have, better.

I might be wrong, but if I am right, it doesn't mean that everyone who wanted Hazard, is an idiot, nor would it make me an idiot, if I am wrong, because I have solid reasons for my opinion, right or wrong.
 
Neville Kneville said:
Nobody said Mahrez is better than Hazard. He might be, if he gets a move to City or he might not fit in, just like Hazard might not. Or Hazard might be even better for Chelsea or whoever, than Mahrez is for City, even if Mahrez is brilliant for City, Hazard is brilliant & might still be better at his club.


And nobody said we tried to sign Hazard, apart from a few very very weak links.

We did however try to sign Mahrez. In the last transfer window. It appears we my be doing so again. On a whim perhaps.

I personally don't want Hazard, just as I didn't want Sanchez. But I did want Pogba, so I got probably one right one wrong, therefore, like you, I know FUCK ALL.

I think Hazard might be great for City, I think Mahrez might be great for City. I will be happy enough if we sign either, but I would prefer Mahrez, because I rate Sane, Sterling etc very highly & think a superstar would hinder their progress, so i don't want Hazard, as I didn't want Sanchez, but am totally comfortable with Hazard signing, as I would have been with Sanchez signing. It is my preference, that's all.

Why would I accept either ?

Because of Pep. If he wants Hazard, or Sanchez he can jolly well have them.

And I wouldn't be so up my own arse as to assume I knew for sure Pep's thinking on it or that everyone who had a different opinion to me, was an idiot, because I am so fucking clever, that Pep must of course agree with my thinking .

You on the other hand, appear to be a supreme being, who can actually read Pep's mind. Congratulations & all hail.

I don't think Pep wants Hazard, not because I'm stupid, but because if he did, we would be going balls out to sign him & it would potentially be the biggest deal in the whole of the football world this summer & yet all we have are a few innuendos that it might have been a possibility.

I think Pep fancies Mahrez, as he fits the role we have, better.

I might be wrong, but if I am right, it doesn't mean that everyone who wanted Hazard, is an idiot, nor would it make me an idiot, if I am wrong, because I have solid reasons for my opinion, right or wrong.
Click to expand...
You'll have to excuse me for skipping all this. This discussion was getting a little monotonous and if you're going to throw an essay at me on top of that then you're pushing your luck a tad bit much.
 
ak93city said:
I'm fine if we can't sign Hazard for contractual and other issues that come with a big transfer.

But if one's the type to claim that Mahrez > Hazard when the latter is possible to get, then I'm afraid one is nothing but a quintessential idiot.

Again, fortunately Mr. Pep and the actual decision makers aren't so thick enough so obviously tried for Hazard first, until finding out it can't happen and hence moving on to Mahrez AFTER that. There is a God.
Click to expand...
Just checking but did you vote Remain?
 
Bewar3them00n said:
We don’t need Hazard, we have Sané! Younger, faster, getting better all the time, one assist behind KDB FFS!
Click to expand...
But we clearly do need an attacker. Currently we have Sterling/Bernardo RW (and I don't particularly like Bernardo as a winger as is, most of us expected he'd be a Silva/KDB rotator), and Sane/..... on the LW. I.e. 2 natural wide men in the squad, that simply isn't enough and we've been "lucky" to get no real injury issues with them this season.

The options are someone who'll be an understudy to Sane/Sterling, which seems highly unlikely given their ages. And we've seen what Pep/Khaldoon have said, we're looking at 1-2 transfers, players who'll improve the team - not squad fillers. Or get someone of a very high level to compete with the guys we currently have.

Not saying we need Hazard in particular, but saying the argument that we don't need him because we have Sane is a flawed one.
 
"As investigated by an episode of Three Minute Myths earlier in the season, Hazard’s production has been consistent in both 2016/17 and 2017/18."

"Hazard’s expected goal contribution is actually higher this season than last. His xG90 has increased to 0.25 from 0.21 and his xG90 assisted is now 0.29 compared to 0.22 during the title-winning campaign.
Despite having started matches in slightly different positions to 2016/17, his output – what he actually does – is extraordinarily similar stylistically."

"In 2016/17 Hazard’s xG90 and xG90 assisted accounted for around 28 per cent of Chelsea’s overall xG. In the first half of 2017/18, this was following a similar pattern, only a little higher at 30 per cent.

After the New Year, this shot up. Driven mainly by an increase in his xG assisted, he was contributing nearly 43 per cent of Chelsea’s xG90 from January onwards.
Because of this increase in xG assisted – it almost doubled – Hazard’s personal emphasis also changed.
Almost as soon as the Big Ben gongs brought in 2018, he moved from a player characterised by their personal shot quality to someone characterised by the chance quality they’re setting up for others."

"Forty-three per cent of a team’s xG output is an awful lot for one single player to be contributing. It plays into the perception that an opposing side only needs to stop Hazard in order to stop Chelsea."

https://www.footballwhispers.com/blog/have-chelsea-become-too-reliant-on-hazard
 
Andrew___K said:
"As investigated by an episode of Three Minute Myths earlier in the season, Hazard’s production has been consistent in both 2016/17 and 2017/18."

"Hazard’s expected goal contribution is actually higher this season than last. His xG90 has increased to 0.25 from 0.21 and his xG90 assisted is now 0.29 compared to 0.22 during the title-winning campaign.
Despite having started matches in slightly different positions to 2016/17, his output – what he actually does – is extraordinarily similar stylistically."

"In 2016/17 Hazard’s xG90 and xG90 assisted accounted for around 28 per cent of Chelsea’s overall xG. In the first half of 2017/18, this was following a similar pattern, only a little higher at 30 per cent.

After the New Year, this shot up. Driven mainly by an increase in his xG assisted, he was contributing nearly 43 per cent of Chelsea’s xG90 from January onwards.
Because of this increase in xG assisted – it almost doubled – Hazard’s personal emphasis also changed.
Almost as soon as the Big Ben gongs brought in 2018, he moved from a player characterised by their personal shot quality to someone characterised by the chance quality they’re setting up for others."

"Forty-three per cent of a team’s xG output is an awful lot for one single player to be contributing. It plays into the perception that an opposing side only needs to stop Hazard in order to stop Chelsea."

https://www.footballwhispers.com/blog/have-chelsea-become-too-reliant-on-hazard
Click to expand...
At times last year watching Chelsea, it seemed as if their plan was to shore up defense, pass it to Hazard and let him do whatever he wants on the pitch. Worked out OK a lot of the time.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Unread Posts

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top