Eden Hazard has today signed a new five-and-a-half-year contract with Chelsea.

The club’s Player of the Year has continued his excellent form this season, scoring 13 times in 36 appearances and helping us to the top of the Barclays Premier League.

'I am very happy to sign a new contract with Chelsea,' Hazard said. 'Since I came here in 2012 I have always felt good and the club has been very supportive to me.

'The manager has helped me improve a lot, the fans have been fantastic and I have an amazing understanding with my team-mates.

'I always try to give pleasure to the supporters with my style of play and it is nice to know they appreciate my work.

'I hope we can repay that support by winning lots of trophies, beginning with the Capital One Cup at Wembley, and after that, we can push hard towards the end of the season.’

Jose Mourinho added: ‘I am very happy that Eden has signed a new contract. It shows he believes in the club’s coaching staff and players to help him become the best player in the world.

'He is already a top player and his evolution has been fantastic. He is still very young and he can become the best.’

Widely regarded as one of the most dangerous attackers in world football, Hazard, 24, has completed more dribbles and suffered more fouls than any other player in the league this season, drawing praise for his sporting manner as well as his technical ability.

The Belgian, pictured above with club director Marina Granovskaia, arrived at Stamford Bridge in 2012 and has since made a total 147 appearances for the Blues, scoring 43 goals.

Hazard was voted Chelsea’s Player of the Year by the club’s supporters for the 2013/14 campaign following an exhilarating second season in west London. He finished as our top goalscorer, netting 17 in all competitions, before representing his country at their first World Cup since 2002. He also lifted the Europa League in his first season as a Chelsea player.

@shpalman

Using a per 90 metric definitely gives the wrong perception of the ranking since the stats of the subs skyrockets. Bendtner number 3 last season and Javi Flores who played 71 minutes that season as number 3. Since the discussion was about trying to rank players no matter position we should do so for the sake of this argument (And yes, I've already stated multiple times that it's a rather stupid thing to do if you have read my posts).

But HEY, let's use the PER GAME METRIC instead as it should provide the AVERAGE STATS PER GAME. The per Game metric is in fact the best to use here. If we do this, then Hazard is ranked as number 5 (Last year 35 with the same metric) which should indicate his progress and thus quiet the doubters who say that he's nowhere near the top. When we use that metric we still have players that only have played 2 games this season ahead of him. Therefore, the most accurate way to do this is putting a MINIMUM AMOUNT OF GAMES (let's say 10) and then Hazard is ranked as number 4 after Messi, Ronaldo and Robben.

If we do the same but with only midfielders then he's the second best in the world according to the stats. Robben would be the best one which I totally can buy. Considering Hazards age and the current market value that should give an indication on his qualities. He's currently valued to £52m on transfermarkt. Again, on the EA sports Index he's ranked as the best player in BPL.

So when you say "i think you'd just be better off enjoying his football without dragging
yourselves into arguments and comparisons which, at the present state of
things, result in being improbable." I'd say that you are wrong. In fact I'd say that's nonsense.

Why wouldn't statistics (Together with some knowledge about the players situation in their team) be a proper way to try to rank players (For the sake of this argument)??. Now, this is a theoretical question. How do you suggest it to be judged otherwise?

And once again, I don't really care about where Hazard or any other player is ranked. I do however care about people that claims some one is in fact better than some one else without backing it up with anything then their personal preferences for the player. Now, wouldn't you agree with this?

If you want, we can bring in market value and age and so forth as well? We could make this to the longest of discussions. Why not make it simple by providing hard facts to back up your arguments with instead?

@shpalman

Using a per 90 metric definitely gives the wrong perception of the ranking since the stats of the subs skyrockets. Bendtner number 3 last season and Javi Flores who played 71 minutes that season as number 3. Since the discussion was about trying to rank players no matter position we should do so for the sake of this argument (And yes, I've already stated multiple times that it's a rather stupid thing to do if you have read my posts).

But HEY, let's use the PER GAME METRIC instead as it should provide the AVERAGE STATS PER GAME. The per Game metric is in fact the best to use here. If we do this, then Hazard is ranked as number 5 (Last year 35 with the same metric) which should indicate his progress and thus quiet the doubters who say that he's nowhere near the top. When we use that metric we still have players that only have played 2 games this season ahead of him. Therefore, the most accurate way to do this is putting a MINIMUM AMOUNT OF GAMES (let's say 10) and then Hazard is ranked as number 4 after Messi, Ronaldo and Robben.

If we do the same but with only midfielders then he's the second best in the world according to the stats. Robben would be the best one which I totally can buy. Considering Hazards age and the current market value that should give an indication on his qualities. He's currently valued to £52m on transfermarkt. Again, on the EA sports Index he's ranked as the best player in BPL.

I still think that the overall Performance Score provides
the best measurement for a ranking for the following reasons: First of
all, the amount of points given don't rise continuously with the amount
of games played. That is not how this work, as it is based on advanced
algorithms to calculate the proper score. Secondly the amount of
minutes played do play a small role here (Meaning that it affects the
ranking points to a certain level). You can compare this with the amount
of faith the manager puts in the player which by itself to a certain
extent shows his qualities. So no offense but I have to disagree with
what you said in your post. However, there should be a certain limit on
the number of games played to account for an accurate ranking. This
don't affect my arguments as it only makes Hazard in this case climb
further up.

Once again, only trying to provide facts instead of
the usual comparison of players without backing it up at all. By asking
me to use the stats "properly" when they in fact were used properly and
instead correcting me with a bad metric, you take the side of the people
who don't base their arguments on anything. Once again, I agree that
players should be compared based on their position as I've previously
mentioned, but that's about it.

So when you say "i think you'd just be better off enjoying his football without dragging
yourselves into arguments and comparisons which, at the present state of
things, result in being improbable." I'd say that you are wrong. In fact I'd say that's nonsense.

Why
wouldn't statistics (Together with some knowledge about the players
situation in their team) be a proper way to try to rank players (For the
sake of this argument)??. Now, this is a theoretical question. How do
you suggest it to be judged otherwise?

And once again, I don't
really care about where Hazard or any other player is ranked. I do
however care about people that claims some one is in fact better than
some one else without backing it up with anything then their personal
preferences for the player. Now, wouldn't you agree with this? Sorry for long (edited) post.

@shpalman

Using a per 90 metric definitely gives the wrong perception of the ranking since the stats of the subs skyrockets. Bendtner number 3 last season and Javi Flores who played 71 minutes that season as number 3. Since the discussion was about trying to rank players no matter position we should do so for the sake of this argument (And yes, I've already stated multiple times that it's a rather stupid thing to do if you have read my posts).

But HEY, let's use the PER GAME METRIC instead as it should provide the AVERAGE STATS PER GAME. The per Game metric is in fact the best to use here. If we do this, then Hazard is ranked as number 5 (Last year 35 with the same metric) which should indicate his progress and thus quiet the doubters who say that he's nowhere near the top. When we use that metric we still have players that only have played 2 games this season ahead of him. Therefore, the most accurate way to do this is putting a MINIMUM AMOUNT OF GAMES (let's say 10) and then Hazard is ranked as number 4 after Messi, Ronaldo and Robben.

If we do the same but with only midfielders then he's the second best in the world according to the stats. Robben would be the best one which I totally can buy. Considering Hazards age and the current market value that should give an indication on his qualities. He's currently valued to £52m on transfermarkt. Again, on the EA sports Index he's ranked as the best player in BPL.

I still think that the overall Performance Score providesthe best measurement for a ranking for the following reasons: First of all, the amount of points given don't rise continuously with the amount of games played. That is not how this work, as it is based on advanced algorithms to calculate the proper score. Secondly the amount of minutes played do play a small role here (Meaning that it affects the ranking points to a certain level). You can compare this with the amountof faith the manager puts in the player which by itself to a certain extent shows his qualities. So no offense but I have to disagree with what you said in your post. However, there should be a certain limit on the number of games played to account for an accurate ranking. This don't affect my arguments as it only makes Hazard in this case climb further up.

Once again, only trying to provide facts instead of the usual comparison of players without backing it up at all. By asking me to use the stats "properly" when they in fact were used properly and instead correcting me with a bad metric, you take the side of the people who don't base their arguments on anything. Once again, I agree that players should be compared based on their position as I've previously mentioned, but that's about it.

So when you say "i think you'd just be better off enjoying his football without dragging yourselves into arguments and comparisons which, at the present state of things, result in being improbable." I'd say that you are wrong. In fact I'd say that's nonsense.

Why wouldn't statistics (Together with some knowledge about the players situation in their team) be a proper way to try to rank players (For the sake of this argument)??. Now, this is a theoretical question. How do you suggest it to be judged otherwise?

And once again, I don't really care about where Hazard or any other player is ranked. I do however care about people that claims some one is in fact better than some one else without backing it up with anything then their personal preferences for the player. Now, wouldn't you agree with this? Sorry for long (edited) post.

@shpalman

Using a per 90 metric definitely gives the wrong perception of the ranking since the stats of the subs skyrockets. Bendtner number 3 last season and Javi Flores who played 71 minutes that season as number 3. Since the discussion was about trying to rank players no matter position we should do so for the sake of this argument (And yes, I've already stated multiple times that it's a rather stupid thing to do if you have read my posts).

But HEY, let's use the PER GAME METRIC instead as it should provide the AVERAGE STATS PER GAME. The per Game metric is in fact the best to use here. If we do this, then Hazard is ranked as number 5 (Last year 35 with the same metric) which should indicate his progress and thus quiet the doubters who say that he's nowhere near the top. When we use that metric we still have players that only have played 2 games this season ahead of him. Therefore, the most accurate way to do this is putting a MINIMUM AMOUNT OF GAMES (let's say 10) and then Hazard is ranked as number 4 after Messi, Ronaldo and Robben.

If we do the same but with only midfielders then he's the second best in the world according to the stats. Robben would be the best one which I totally can buy. Considering Hazards age and the current market value that should give an indication on his qualities. He's currently valued to £52m on transfermarkt. Again, on the EA sports Index he's ranked as the best player in BPL.

I still think that the overall Performance Score provides the best measurement for ranking players for the following reasons: First of all, the amount of points given don't rise continuously with the amount of games played. That is not how this work, as it is based on advanced algorithms to calculate the proper score. Secondly the amount of minutes played do play a small role here (Meaning that it affects the ranking points to a certain level). You can compare this with the amount of faith the manager puts in the player which by itself to a certain extent shows his qualities. So no offense but I have to disagree with what you said in your post. However, there should be a certain limit on the number of games played to account for an accurate ranking. This don't affect my arguments as it only makes Hazard in this case climb further up.

Once again, only trying to provide facts instead of the usual comparison of players without backing it up at all. By asking me to use the stats "properly" when they in fact were used properly and instead correcting me with a bad metric, you take the side of the people who don't base their arguments on anything. Once again, I agree that players should be compared based on their position as I've previously mentioned, but that's about it.

So when you say "i think you'd just be better off enjoying his football without dragging yourselves into arguments and comparisons which, at the present state of things, result in being improbable." I'd say that you are wrong. In fact I'd say that's nonsense.

Why wouldn't statistics (Together with some knowledge about the players situation in their team) be a proper way to try to rank players (For the sake of this argument)??. Now, this is a theoretical question. How do you suggest it to be judged otherwise?

And once again, I don't really care about where Hazard or any other player is ranked. I do however care about people that claims some one is in fact better than some one else without backing it up with anything then their personal preferences for the player. Now, wouldn't you agree with this? Sorry for long (edited) post.

also @shpalman I still think that the overall Performance Score provides the best measurement for a ranking for the following reasons: First of all, the amount of points given don't rise
continuously with the amount of games played. That is not how this work,
as it is based on advanced formulas to calculate this. Secondly the
amount of minutes played do play a small role here (Meaning that it
affects the ranking points to a certain level). You can compare this
with the amount of faith the manager puts in the player which by itself
to a certain extent shows his qualities. So no offense but I have to disagree with what you said in your post. However, there should be a certain limit on the number of games played to account for an accurate ranking. This don't affect my arguments as it only makes Hazard in this case climb further up.

Once again, only trying to provide facts instead of the usual comparison of players without backing it up at all.

also @shpalman I still think that the overall Performance Score provides the best measurement for a ranking for the following reasons: First of all, the amount of points given don't rise continuously with the amount of games played. That is not how this work, as it is based on advanced formulas to calculate this. Secondly the amount of minutes played do play a small role here (Meaning that it affects the ranking points to a certain level). You can compare this with the amount of faith the manager puts in the player which by itself to a certain extent shows his qualities. So no offense but I have to disagree with what you said in your post. However, there should be a certain limit on the number of games played to account for an accurate ranking. This don't affect my arguments as it only makes Hazard in this case climb further up.

Once again, only trying to provide facts instead of the usual comparison of players without backing it up at all.

also @shpalman I still think that the overall Performance Score provides the best measurement for a ranking for the following reasons: First of all, the amount of points given don't rise continuously with the amount of games played. That is not how this work, as it is based on advanced formulas to calculate this. Secondly the amount of minutes played do play a small role here (Meaning that it affects the ranking points to a certain level). You can compare this with the amount of faith the manager puts in the player which by itself to a certain extent shows his qualities. So no offense but I have to disagree with what you said in your post. However, there should be a certain limit on the number of games played to account for an accurate ranking. This don't affect my arguments as it only makes Hazard in this case climb further up.

Once again, only trying to provide facts instead of the usual comparison of players without backing it up at all. By asking me to use the stats "properly" when they in fact were used properly and instead correcting me with a bad metric, you take the side of the people who don't base their arguments on anything. Once again, I agree that players should be compared based on their position as I've previously mentioned, but that's about it.

also @shpalman I still think that the overall Performance Score provides the best measurement for a ranking for the following reasons: First of all, the amount of points given don't rise continuously with the amount of games played. That is not how this work, as it is based on advanced algorithms to calculate the proper score. Secondly the amount of minutes played do play a small role here (Meaning that it affects the ranking points to a certain level). You can compare this with the amount of faith the manager puts in the player which by itself to a certain extent shows his qualities. So no offense but I have to disagree with what you said in your post. However, there should be a certain limit on the number of games played to account for an accurate ranking. This don't affect my arguments as it only makes Hazard in this case climb further up.

Once again, only trying to provide facts instead of the usual comparison of players without backing it up at all. By asking me to use the stats "properly" when they in fact were used properly and instead correcting me with a bad metric, you take the side of the people who don't base their arguments on anything. Once again, I agree that players should be compared based on their position as I've previously mentioned, but that's about it.

also @shpalman I still think that the overall Performance Score provides the best measurement for a ranking for the following reasons: First of all, the amount of points given don't rise continuously with the amount of games played. That is not how this work, as it is based on advanced algorithms to calculate the proper score. Secondly the amount of minutes played do play a small role here (Meaning that it affects the ranking points to a certain level). You can compare this with the amount of faith the manager puts in the player which by itself to a certain extent shows his qualities. So no offense but I have to disagree with what you said in your post. However, there should be a certain limit on the number of games played to account for an accurate ranking. This don't affect my arguments as it only makes Hazard in this case climb further up.

Once again, only trying to provide facts instead of the usual comparison of players without backing it up at all. By asking me to use the stats "properly" when they in fact were used properly and instead correcting me with a bad metric, you take the side of the people who don't base their arguments on anything. Once again, I agree that players should be compared based on their position as I've previously mentioned, but that's about it.

@everyone There are other Indexes, such as the Castrol Edge Index (the very same Index that was used in the world cup when Kroos was statistically the best player) and the whoscored Index (In which Hazard has been given the 5th highest points of all players this season) if anyone want to compare further. Please feel free to do that and correct me if I'm wrong as I really don't care about any ranking. Clear is that no matter how you twist the stats, Modric isn't ranked above Hazard in any of them. So can we please at least end that debate.. Or well, he passes more and has 2% higher pass-success ratio but still.

Close to Messi and Ronaldo? Top 3? How blinded could some of the Chelsea fans here be? He is nowhere near close to Messi and Ronaldo.On the other hand, the others posting here are really annoying. Out of the top ten? There is no doubt Hazard CAN be compared to the likes of Robben and Neymar. For f*ck's sake, he is arguably the best player in the Premier League this season. Just look at the pictures @Dynastian and @EdenHazard17 posted. Stop looking at real life football like you do FIFA, people. If you ask me, Goetze is below them. People still swoon over him since he was at the always-lovable BVB, having a bromance with the always-lovable Reus. But let's be f*cking honest here, aside from a couple of flashes of absolute brilliance he has been very underwhelming with Bayern. He has definitely not lived up to his 37 million euro price tag? Can he fulfill his potential? Of course he can, but so far, he isn't really that far ahead of the player he was at the age of 19.Neymar and Hazard on the other hand are developing at an incredible rate - mentally, physically and technically. Give them a year or two and they'll be leaps and bounds above declining stars like Ibrahimovic, Robben, Ribery and Iniesta. THEY ARE IN THE TOP 10. Get it in your heads, people.By the way,who the f*ck compares Modric to Hazard?Also, watch Hazard as much as I do (with a fair mind unlike the Chelsea fans here) to really understand how good he is. Here is a quote from a Manchester United fan on reddit that summarizes what people don't get from Hazard:*"He's an absolutely brilliant player. The people who call him overrated due to a lack of goals and assists probably have never seen him play or are too dense to realize what he brings to the game. Modric or Iniesta don't get many either, does that mean they're poor players?He's more of a playmaker rather than an attacking winger like Reus, Bale, etc. and that's why he'll never match their statistics. Those players are often the ones on the end of a through ball and thrive on having space to run into. But they can't do half the things Hazard can do with the ball.I don't understand how you can be a football fan and not rate him. By some distance my favorite player to watch in the Premier League and out of all the signings we have missed out on over the years, this one hurts the most."***Man it feels good to be back. See you guys tomorrow.

Close to Messi and Ronaldo? Top 3? How blinded could some of the Chelsea fans here be? He is nowhere near close to Messi and Ronaldo.On the other hand, the others posting here are really annoying. Out of the top ten? There is no doubt Hazard CAN be compared to the likes of Robben and Neymar. For f*ck's sake, he is arguably the best player in the Premier League this season. Just look at the pictures @Dynastian and @EdenHazard17 posted. Stop looking at real life football like you do FIFA, people. If you ask me, Goetze is below them. People still swoon over him since he was at the always-lovable BVB, having a bromance with the always-lovable Reus. But let's be f*cking honest here, aside from a couple of flashes of absolute brilliance he has been very underwhelming with Bayern. He has definitely not lived up to his 37 million euro price tag? Can he fulfill his potential? Of course he can, but so far, he isn't really that far ahead of the player he was at the age of 19.

Neymar and Hazard on the other hand are developing at an incredible rate - mentally, physically and technically. Give them a year or two and they'll be leaps and bounds above declining stars like Ibrahimovic, Robben, Ribery and Iniesta. THEY ARE IN THE TOP 10. Get it in your heads, people.

By the way,who the f*ck compares Modric to Hazard?

Also, watch Hazard as much as I do (with a fair mind unlike the Chelsea fans here) to really understand how good he is before you open your mouths. Here is a quote from a Manchester United fan on reddit that summarizes what people don't get from Hazard:"

*He's an absolutely brilliant player. The people who call him overrated due to a lack of goals and assists probably have never seen him play or are too dense to realize what he brings to the game. Modric or Iniesta don't get many either, does that mean they're poor players?He's more of a playmaker rather than an attacking winger like Reus, Bale, etc. and that's why he'll never match their statistics. Those players are often the ones on the end of a through ball and thrive on having space to run into. But they can't do half the things Hazard can do with the ball.I don't understand how you can be a football fan and not rate him. By some distance my favorite player to watch in the Premier League and out of all the signings we have missed out on over the years, this one hurts the most."***Man it feels good to be back. See you guys tomorrow.

Close to Messi and Ronaldo? Top 3? How blinded could some of the Chelsea fans here be? He is nowhere near close to Messi and Ronaldo.On the other hand, the others posting here are really annoying. Out of the top ten? There is no doubt Hazard CAN be compared to the likes of Robben and Neymar. For f*ck's sake, he is arguably the best player in the Premier League this season. Just look at the pictures @Dynastian and @EdenHazard17 posted. Stop looking at real life football like you do FIFA, people. If you ask me, Goetze is below them. People still swoon over him since he was at the always-lovable BVB, having a bromance with the always-lovable Reus. But let's be f*cking honest here, aside from a couple of flashes of absolute brilliance he has been very underwhelming with Bayern. He has definitely not lived up to his 37 million euro price tag? Can he fulfill his potential? Of course he can, but so far, he isn't really that far ahead of the player he was at the age of 19.

Neymar and Hazard on the other hand are developing at an incredible rate - mentally, physically and technically. Give them a year or two and they'll be leaps and bounds above declining stars like Ibrahimovic, Robben, Ribery and Iniesta. THEY ARE IN THE TOP 10. Get it in your heads, people.

By the way,who the f*ck compares Modric to Hazard?

Also, watch Hazard as much as I do (with a fair mind unlike the Chelsea fans here) to really understand how good he is before you open your mouths. Here is a quote from a Manchester United fan on reddit that summarizes what people don't get from Hazard:"

*He's an absolutely brilliant player. The people who call him overrated due to a lack of goals and assists probably have never seen him play or are too dense to realize what he brings to the game. Modric or Iniesta don't get many either, does that mean they're poor players?He's more of a playmaker rather than an attacking winger like Reus, Bale, etc. and that's why he'll never match their statistics. Those players are often the ones on the end of a through ball and thrive on having space to run into. But they can't do half the things Hazard can do with the ball.I don't understand how you can be a football fan and not rate him. By some distance my favorite player to watch in the Premier League and out of all the signings we have missed out on over the years, this one hurts the most."***Man it feels good to be back. See you guys tomorrow.

Close to Messi and Ronaldo? Top 3? How blinded could some of the Chelsea fans here be? He is nowhere near close to Messi and Ronaldo.On the other hand, the others posting here are really annoying. Out of the top ten? There is no doubt Hazard CAN be compared to the likes of Robben and Neymar. For f*ck's sake, he is arguably the best player in the Premier League this season. Just look at the pictures @Dynastian and @EdenHazard17 posted. Stop looking at real life football like you do FIFA, people. If you ask me, Goetze is below them. People still swoon over him since he was at the always-lovable BVB, having a bromance with the always-lovable Reus. But let's be f*cking honest here, aside from a couple of flashes of absolute brilliance he has been very underwhelming with Bayern. He has definitely not lived up to his 37 million euro price tag? Can he fulfill his potential? Of course he can, but so far, he isn't really that far ahead of the player he was at the age of 19.

Neymar and Hazard on the other hand are developing at an incredible rate - mentally, physically and technically. Give them a year or two and they'll be leaps and bounds above declining stars like Ibrahimovic, Robben, Ribery and Iniesta. THEY ARE IN THE TOP 10. Get it in your heads, people.

By the way,who the f*ck compares Modric to Hazard?

Also, watch Hazard as much as I do (with a fair mind unlike the Chelsea fans here) to really understand how good he is before you open your mouths. Here is a quote from a Manchester United fan on reddit that summarizes what people don't get from Hazard:

*"He's an absolutely brilliant player. The people who call him overrated due to a lack of goals and assists probably have never seen him play or are too dense to realize what he brings to the game. Modric or Iniesta don't get many either, does that mean they're poor players?He's more of a playmaker rather than an attacking winger like Reus, Bale, etc. and that's why he'll never match their statistics. Those players are often the ones on the end of a through ball and thrive on having space to run into. But they can't do half the things Hazard can do with the ball.I don't understand how you can be a football fan and not rate him. By some distance my favorite player to watch in the Premier League and out of all the signings we have missed out on over the years, this one hurts the most."*

**Man it feels good to be back. See you guys tomorrow.

@FF0Dessip
Vendetta, bravo man +1, glad to see you back ;D (plz bring the V back)
@KTBFFHSWE
i've read your post, but it looks like you didn't fully understand mine. now, i just want to clear out some little details before closing;

choosing per 90min provides a more fair display, because it takes into account 90 mins for every player. "per game" instead, can be 20 minutes into a game, 45, or the whole 90. that clearly doesn't provide a player's common base for neutral statistical evaluations. about the cross-league comparisons, they can be based on the most advanced algorithms ever, fact is that in real life Hazard faces EPL defenders, Robben BuLi defenders and Neymar La Liga defenders, so you can throw at it all the algorithms you want, it still won't give you a common and solid ground for comparison. also, why do you keep comparing Hazard to forwards and defensive midfielders solely using stats? you say it's stupid, but you keep doing it.

the substance of my post was that you can use all the stats and kind of metrics you want, it still will be a not appropriate and sufficient to evaluate the quality of a player, the quality of his football. you asked me "how do we do it then?", and i would add "is it absolutely not possible for us to compare players like Ronaldo, Modric and Hazard then?". of course it is, you can discuss and compare the abilities of those players using real life football knowledge, so with that base, which can vary by person/bias/etc, you can discuss and compare how the two players treat the ball, the individual technique etc.

but, the moment you throw in a stat as absolute base for the final point of your evaluation, (like "Robben had n% less successful passes, therefore Hazard is better in that regard"), it makes it all pointless and trivial. because again, Robben deals with different teammates, opponents, and league.

closing:
"So when you say "i think you'd just be better off enjoying his football without dragging yourselves into arguments and comparisons which, at the present state of things, result in being improbable." I'd say that you are wrong. In fact I'd say that's nonsense."

thing is, no one here is denying Hazard's brilliance and great prospect, and my invite to enjoy it can't be certainly nonsensical, especially when it's directed to those who are stating that he's among the 3 best players in the world. there is the possibility he might become, meanwhile, i still suggest you to just enjoy this guy's football in peace ;)

@FF0Dessip
Vendetta, bravo man +1, glad to see you back ;D (plz bring the V back)

@KTBFFHSWE
i've read your post, but it looks like you didn't fully understand mine. now, i just want to clear out some little details before closing;

choosing per 90min provides a more fair display, because it takes into account 90 mins for every player. "per game" instead, can be 20 minutes into a game, 45, or the whole 90. that clearly doesn't provide a player's common base for neutral statistical evaluations. about the cross-league comparisons, they can be based on the most advanced algorithms ever, fact is that in real life Hazard faces EPL defenders, Robben BuLi defenders and Neymar La Liga defenders, so you can throw at it all the algorithms you want, it still won't give you a common and solid ground for comparison. also, why do you keep comparing Hazard to forwards and defensive midfielders solely using stats? you say it's stupid, but you keep doing it.

the substance of my post was that you can use all the stats and kind of metrics you want, it still will be a not appropriate and sufficient to evaluate the quality of a player, the quality of his football. you asked me "how do we do it then?", and i would add "is it absolutely not possible for us to compare players like Ronaldo, Modric and Hazard then?". of course it is, you can discuss and compare the abilities of those players using real life football knowledge, so with that base, which can vary by person/bias/etc, you can discuss and compare how the two players treat the ball, the individual technique etc.

but, the moment you throw in a stat as absolute base for the final point of your evaluation, (like "Robben had n% less successful passes, therefore Hazard is better in that regard"), it makes it all pointless and trivial. because again, Robben deals with different teammates, opponents, and league.

closing:
"So when you say "i think you'd just be better off enjoying his football without dragging yourselves into arguments and comparisons which, at the present state of things, result in being improbable." I'd say that you are wrong. In fact I'd say that's nonsense."

thing is, no one here is denying Hazard's brilliance and great prospect, and my invite to enjoy it can't be certainly nonsensical, especially when it's directed to those who are stating that he's among the 3 best players in the world. there is the possibility he might become, meanwhile, i still suggest you to just enjoy this guy's football in peace ;)

@KTBFFHSWE Dude calm down, I didn't offend you in any case, if I did than u have my sincerest apology, But I have an opinion and Believe that Modric is better, Here's why-

Attacking Midfield: Hazard- They both are amazing dribblers, even though luka left/right footed, Hazard is more agile and faster

Central midfield: Luka- He has better Vision, passing, long passes, crosses and creativity in the midfield like a maestro.

Defensive midfield: Luka- Even though Hazard can defend and interception balls, Luka is still a better tackler, ball-protecting and interceptions

Overall: Luka is the complete package in the Midfield, I'm not denying hazards amazing potential and talent, but he still ways to go to be in the top 3, but maybe in the top 15, YES. :)