|
|
On October 11 2023 00:16 FlaShFTW wrote:Show nested quote +On October 10 2023 07:32 KobraKay wrote:On October 10 2023 01:15 Bacillus wrote:On October 09 2023 06:13 Liquid`Drone wrote:
why would city be favored by the refs? FA wants City to win? All the refs are bought and paid for by city? Tbh pretty much every neutral is cheering against City at this point.
Apparently some of the PL refs currently do a midweek side gig in UAE. I don't know about the details, but it seems like a potential conflict of interest that should be clarified at the very least. I'm not sure what's the most reliable source, but the Athletic seems to have something behind the paywall for example, so I guess there's at least something going on there. Google finds you a lot of reddit threads and such, not sure how reliable those are as a source. Arsenal stadium is called the Emirates so if anything, it is not all about city. An airline sponsoring for the rights to the stadium's name and the club itself being literally owned by a country are two completely different things.
I understand the difference, just dont see it as completely different things. But respect and understand your view point. I'm not close enough to EPL to be able to judge on the impact of city's ownership on the refs, was just wanting to point out that the money coming from that side of the world is going to more than one club.
On another note, Hazard in his peak was not close to Messi or Cronaldo. That is probably one of the lowest value baits i've seen in a while Sharkie.
|
Pandemona
Charlie Sheens House51490 Posts
He was clear 3rd best in world at one point though thats for sure, he didn't have the hunger to be as good as them though, defo had the talent to be. But so many funny interviews with him, he lives his fucking best life and i cant be mad at him. He literally never went into the gym in the training ground ever haha.
|
United States10168 Posts
On October 11 2023 05:25 KobraKay wrote:Show nested quote +On October 11 2023 00:16 FlaShFTW wrote:On October 10 2023 07:32 KobraKay wrote:On October 10 2023 01:15 Bacillus wrote:On October 09 2023 06:13 Liquid`Drone wrote:
why would city be favored by the refs? FA wants City to win? All the refs are bought and paid for by city? Tbh pretty much every neutral is cheering against City at this point.
Apparently some of the PL refs currently do a midweek side gig in UAE. I don't know about the details, but it seems like a potential conflict of interest that should be clarified at the very least. I'm not sure what's the most reliable source, but the Athletic seems to have something behind the paywall for example, so I guess there's at least something going on there. Google finds you a lot of reddit threads and such, not sure how reliable those are as a source. Arsenal stadium is called the Emirates so if anything, it is not all about city. An airline sponsoring for the rights to the stadium's name and the club itself being literally owned by a country are two completely different things. I understand the difference, just dont see it as completely different things. But respect and understand your view point. I'm not close enough to EPL to be able to judge on the impact of city's ownership on the refs, was just wanting to point out that the money coming from that side of the world is going to more than one club. On another note, Hazard in his peak was not close to Messi or Cronaldo. That is probably one of the lowest value baits i've seen in a while Sharkie.
I was a little harsh there, mb. I agree that I can see your view point that Arsenal may have some conflict of interest because the airline itself is owned by the UAE government as well. I just don't think there's enough of a link because again, the sponsorship is for the stadium naming rights, not the club itself. But I can understand why you'd point it out.
In other news, what is this bullshit defense of the ref? Negative impact on the game? As if sending Curtis Jones off (and Jota later) didn't totally negatively impact the game of the week. Just apply the rules consistently man, how hard can it be? Man had two tackles borth worthy of a red card and were both worse challenges than Jones' but somehow he gets away with not even a double yellow sending off.
|
For me Hazard has such high value because he carried chelsea to multiple titles. Do you think barca or real wouldnt have won the titles without messi and ronaldo? I am sure they still would have won them.
Chelsea on the other hand without hazard? No way
|
Also why is saying that hazard was at one point as good as them being bait?
Do only your opinions count and mine doesnt?
|
On October 11 2023 06:00 sharkie wrote:
For me Hazard has such high value because he carried chelsea to multiple titles. Do you think barca or real wouldnt have won the titles without messi and ronaldo? I am sure they still would have won them.
Chelsea on the other hand without hazard? No way
is that a legit question? would barca/rm have had the same amount of titles if they didnt have messi/cr7? what kind of stupid question is that? look what happened to barca immediately after messi left
they said your take was bait because your take was horrible. youre entitled to your opinion as much as everyone else but claiming hazard was as good as messi/cr7 devalues your opinion to the point its not even worth discussing
|
Hazard definitely had his moments of brilliance. Just not as often and not over the same period of time as Messi/ CR.
That's why he can be rated in the tier just below those two
|
On October 11 2023 14:56 evilfatsh1t wrote:Show nested quote +On October 11 2023 06:00 sharkie wrote:
For me Hazard has such high value because he carried chelsea to multiple titles. Do you think barca or real wouldnt have won the titles without messi and ronaldo? I am sure they still would have won them.
Chelsea on the other hand without hazard? No way is that a legit question? would barca/rm have had the same amount of titles if they didnt have messi/cr7? what kind of stupid question is that? look what happened to barca immediately after messi left they said your take was bait because your take was horrible. youre entitled to your opinion as much as everyone else but claiming hazard was as good as messi/cr7 devalues your opinion to the point its not even worth discussing
Barca had already been dropping before Messi left... The team just got old and invested a lot of money in the wrong players. Messi leaving just gave them the final nail in the coffin...
I said Hazard at his best was as good as Messi and Ronaldo at their best. What is so bad about saying that? Yes, Messi and Ronaldo did it for much longer but I never claimed Hazard did it as long as they did.
Hazard was a game changer on his own for a whole season. And of course Real and Barca would have won those titles without them too. That doesnt devalue Messi and Ronaldo. They were vital but they were filled with world class players.
|
United States10168 Posts
On October 12 2023 00:03 sharkie wrote:Show nested quote +On October 11 2023 14:56 evilfatsh1t wrote:On October 11 2023 06:00 sharkie wrote:
For me Hazard has such high value because he carried chelsea to multiple titles. Do you think barca or real wouldnt have won the titles without messi and ronaldo? I am sure they still would have won them.
Chelsea on the other hand without hazard? No way is that a legit question? would barca/rm have had the same amount of titles if they didnt have messi/cr7? what kind of stupid question is that? look what happened to barca immediately after messi left they said your take was bait because your take was horrible. youre entitled to your opinion as much as everyone else but claiming hazard was as good as messi/cr7 devalues your opinion to the point its not even worth discussing Barca had already been dropping before Messi left... The team just got old and invested a lot of money in the wrong players. Messi leaving just gave them the final nail in the coffin... I said Hazard at his best was as good as Messi and Ronaldo at their best. What is so bad about saying that? Yes, Messi and Ronaldo did it for much longer but I never claimed Hazard did it as long as they did. Hazard was a game changer on his own for a whole season. And of course Real and Barca would have won those titles without them too. That doesnt devalue Messi and Ronaldo. They were vital but they were filled with world class players.
Huh. They'll still win SOME titles but there's no way they're winning as many titles without them.
|
Northern Ireland25468 Posts
On October 11 2023 20:10 Harris1st wrote:
Hazard definitely had his moments of brilliance. Just not as often and not over the same period of time as Messi/ CR.
That's why he can be rated in the tier just below those two
The tier that basically every great player before them sat.
Be it in pure ruthless numbers, or doing it for such a long period honestly nobody in my lifetime comes close. Really remotely close. To the degree I think it has unrealistically distorted the standards some expect of a player to be truly great. Messi and Ronaldo are just outlying freaks
As brilliant as Zidane was, he had his quiet games quiet seasons indeed. Ronaldinho is a classic ‘the light that burns twice as bright burns half as long’ case, his compatriot Kaka the same although a bit less extreme a case. To pick just a few
If you push Hazard’s best season into the 90s/2000s you’re talking a Ballon D’Or winner, or at least making a podium. Luis Suarez would definitely have won it, which would have been a delicious quiz question as two different players with the same name would have pulled it off.
On the flip side I think some of the pure numbers we’re seeing are partly due to tactical shifts, partly down to gaps growing and super clubs getting ever more dominant. Even the very best weren’t coming close to a goal a game ratio for decades and decades before this current ratio. Now a few are doing that kind of work
|
On October 12 2023 01:07 FlaShFTW wrote:Show nested quote +On October 12 2023 00:03 sharkie wrote:On October 11 2023 14:56 evilfatsh1t wrote:On October 11 2023 06:00 sharkie wrote:
For me Hazard has such high value because he carried chelsea to multiple titles. Do you think barca or real wouldnt have won the titles without messi and ronaldo? I am sure they still would have won them.
Chelsea on the other hand without hazard? No way is that a legit question? would barca/rm have had the same amount of titles if they didnt have messi/cr7? what kind of stupid question is that? look what happened to barca immediately after messi left they said your take was bait because your take was horrible. youre entitled to your opinion as much as everyone else but claiming hazard was as good as messi/cr7 devalues your opinion to the point its not even worth discussing Barca had already been dropping before Messi left... The team just got old and invested a lot of money in the wrong players. Messi leaving just gave them the final nail in the coffin... I said Hazard at his best was as good as Messi and Ronaldo at their best. What is so bad about saying that? Yes, Messi and Ronaldo did it for much longer but I never claimed Hazard did it as long as they did. Hazard was a game changer on his own for a whole season. And of course Real and Barca would have won those titles without them too. That doesnt devalue Messi and Ronaldo. They were vital but they were filled with world class players. Huh. They'll still win SOME titles but there's no way they're winning as many titles without them.
Really? I think Barca and Real both won many many titles before the duo and have already won titles without them...
Again, I am not saying those 2 are not the greatest players of all time. They definitely are and the numbers prove it. But imo the teams they were part in would have still won the titles. Just not as easy as with them...
Chelsea without Hazard on the other hand? No way
|
On October 12 2023 00:03 sharkie wrote:Show nested quote +On October 11 2023 14:56 evilfatsh1t wrote:On October 11 2023 06:00 sharkie wrote:
For me Hazard has such high value because he carried chelsea to multiple titles. Do you think barca or real wouldnt have won the titles without messi and ronaldo? I am sure they still would have won them.
Chelsea on the other hand without hazard? No way is that a legit question? would barca/rm have had the same amount of titles if they didnt have messi/cr7? what kind of stupid question is that? look what happened to barca immediately after messi left they said your take was bait because your take was horrible. youre entitled to your opinion as much as everyone else but claiming hazard was as good as messi/cr7 devalues your opinion to the point its not even worth discussing Barca had already been dropping before Messi left... The team just got old and invested a lot of money in the wrong players. Messi leaving just gave them the final nail in the coffin... I said Hazard at his best was as good as Messi and Ronaldo at their best. What is so bad about saying that? Yes, Messi and Ronaldo did it for much longer but I never claimed Hazard did it as long as they did. Hazard was a game changer on his own for a whole season. And of course Real and Barca would have won those titles without them too. That doesnt devalue Messi and Ronaldo. They were vital but they were filled with world class players.
Being a game-changer for a season is great. So were dozens of other players. They are all amazing players.
Messi and Ronaldo were game-changers for a decade. It just isn't a comparison.
|
Hazard was a game changer for multiple seasons...
Also I am NOT COMPARING careers between them, sheesh.
|
Norway28674 Posts
Ya, but sharkie isn't saying hazard is Messi/Ronaldo level, just that his peak was at that level. There's no conflict between that, and saying what made messi/Ronaldo truly special is their consistency/longevity. Now i don't fully agree with it either way, I think more precise would be 'prolly would've deserved a ballondor if there was no messi/ronaldo', alternatively, that his peak was comparable to messi/ronaldos least impressive seasons (not even their average).
Also both RM and Barcelona had seasons where they won with 3 or fewer points. I think it is kind of hard to argue that mesdi/Ronaldo did not contribute by at least 3 points across a season.
|
On October 12 2023 01:52 Liquid`Drone wrote:
Ya, but sharkie isn't saying hazard is Messi/Ronaldo level, just that his peak was at that level. There's no conflict between that, and saying what made messi/Ronaldo truly special is their consistency/longevity. Now i don't fully agree with it either way, I think more precise would be 'prolly would've deserved a ballondor if there was no messi/ronaldo', alternatively, that his peak was comparable to messi/ronaldos least impressive seasons (not even their average).
Also both RM and Barcelona had seasons where they won with 3 or fewer points. I think it is kind of hard to argue that mesdi/Ronaldo did not contribute by at least 3 points across a season.
Maybe I need to be clearer. In the world where neither Ronaldo nor Messi had existed then both Real and Barca would have won those titles. Obv. if only one of them was missing the other one would have totally dominated La Liga and CL.
|
Pandemona
Charlie Sheens House51490 Posts
Peak Neymar for me was also close to Messi and Ronaldo level, but the guy just doesn't stay fit long enough for people to remember his hot streaks. Hazard in same category.
But lets not be silly, Messi and CR7 are just utter FREAKS, for what they did for as long as they did, just crazy, what Hazard and Neymar are, are normal, these two, they just broken.
|
On October 12 2023 02:38 sharkie wrote:Show nested quote +On October 12 2023 01:52 Liquid`Drone wrote:
Ya, but sharkie isn't saying hazard is Messi/Ronaldo level, just that his peak was at that level. There's no conflict between that, and saying what made messi/Ronaldo truly special is their consistency/longevity. Now i don't fully agree with it either way, I think more precise would be 'prolly would've deserved a ballondor if there was no messi/ronaldo', alternatively, that his peak was comparable to messi/ronaldos least impressive seasons (not even their average).
Also both RM and Barcelona had seasons where they won with 3 or fewer points. I think it is kind of hard to argue that mesdi/Ronaldo did not contribute by at least 3 points across a season.
Maybe I need to be clearer. In the world where neither Ronaldo nor Messi had existed then both Real and Barca would have won those titles. Obv. if only one of them was missing the other one would have totally dominated La Liga and CL.
The spectacular output of Messi and Ronaldo was irreplaceable. Stats don't mean everything but when you're so far ahead of everyone else I don't see how it's possible to argue that they were not vital in at least some of their title wins. Additionally it does not acknowledge the fact that Ronaldo and Messi helped win their respective countries a tournament. Something where they were vital without a doubt.
|
But neither Ronaldo nor Messi were at their peak when they won it with their countries. I dont know how that matters at all when I say peak Hazard (solo game changer) was as good as peak Messi/Ronaldo (solo game changers also, just over a much longer period of time)...
|
Your argument is that Hazard at his peak was as good as Ronaldo and Messi at their peak because Barca and Real would win even without them. While Hazard carried Chelsea. Them being vital in winning a prize, in relatively worse teams, when they were not even at their peak is an example disproving that.
|
Sad but understandable, loved to watch Hazard play. Such a talented guy and I have heard in some interviews that Hazards skill was acknowleged to be actual top tier material even from great players.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
