Real Madrid

Wolfe said:

Too early to say anything about being worth anything since he doesn't play.
Obviously hasn't delivered as has barely had the chance to. Had like 2 uninterrupted stints with 3 or more starts in a row.

Flop is an easy thing to shout as it can mean anything and you hope nobody will question you. Equally means nothing specific and is a waste of time.

Click to expand...

youre too smart to be so apologetic about what is clearly a failed transfer, injuries notwithstanding. hes been at real for 2.5 years, is now 30 years old, and has little to show for it. 'its too early' is too lenient on a 30 year old. likely we have already seen the best of Hazard, at chelsea.

1.5 years
Less than half a league season on the pitch.

Far too early to rate any of his football

Wolfe said:

1.5 years
Less than half a league season on the pitch.

Far too early to rate any of his football

Click to expand...

you must be trolling so ill leave it at that!

Nope, dead serious. Said it time and again

well, we'll just have to disagree about this one (ill add it to the list which includes xg) but i dont think thats really a tenable position. oh well

I like Wolfe and he is a quality poster but sometimes his opinions are really weird

It's a good thing you lads can articulate where the weirdness is in thinking a player who played less than half a league season doesn't really warrant being called a flop given he literally didn't play enough.

considering his well known diet habits and poor training ethic its not at all surprising he got injured. if i buy a second hand laptop and it breaksdown repeatedly im not going to give it the benefit of the doubt, especially if its old. and especially if i paid a lot of money for it.

injuries are part of football whether we like it or not and at the end of the day hazard has failed to be real's star. even in the games hes played against weak opposition hes been less than spectacular. if he had been a free transfer or very cheap and if he were a young lad then yeah whatever but when you put 100 million on the table for a 28 year old you arent paying for someone to sit out and score 2-3 goals in 2.5 years

again: dembele is a good example. hes been injured almost constantly and even though he has more goals and assists than hazard i dont think anyone is making the case that the transfer has been successful

Yes. His poor work ethic and training made him get injured so often in Chelsea.

As Jammy says - I'm oot on this one

he was younger then, and bad habits eventually catch up. david luiz has publicly said how unfocused hazard was at chelsea.

wolfe i am starting to detect a pattern whereby you fail to acknowledge clear cases of unsuccessful transfers: first jovic, now hazard. the first with 3 goals and a loan back to germany and the latter overweight and permanently injured--yet they somehow do not count as unsuccessful transfers. let me turn the tables, then, and ask you: what are your standards for 1) a good transfer and 2) a failed transfer?

BarcaOG said:

bad habits eventually catch up.

Click to expand...

You love nebulous statements that mean who knows what sometimes don't you mate lol

Also David Luiz said nothing of the sort. What he did say though is that 'Hazard will be missed'. Was sure very sad about losing that 'unfocused' player with poor work ethic.

Plenty of players who bad habits never caught up. Explain that.

wolfe i am starting to detect a pattern whereby you fail to acknowledge clear cases of unsuccessful transfers

Click to expand...

You're on your own about the 'clarity' of this mate I'm afraid. Maybe Fati lad will join you.

what are your standards for 1) a good transfer and 2) a failed transfer?

Click to expand...

Don't know what that means. Sports? Business? At the start? End? Middle?

Not really sure I should have replied. Not gonna go anywhere this

BarcaOG said:

2) a failed transfer?

Click to expand...

It's up to each person to direct the blame: the scout/DoF, the coaching staff or the player himself.

1. The player simply isn't good enough after getting many chances: Andre Gomes, Coutinho
2. The player can't stay fit enough to make an impact. Whether it's bad luck or if the player isn't professional the conclusion is the same: you pay money for something you can't use - a failed transfer. Hazard
3. The player is fit but can't get enough playing time. Can depend on the player, can depend on the coach. Paco, Malcom & Jovic. Same as #2, money paid for something you don't use - a fail.

I have a feeling Wolfe doesn't want to put blame on the player i.e label them as flops in this case, probably because of circumstances beyond their control.
But all things considered, the Jovic and Hazard transfers have been failures.

The thing is any transfer with even the worst motivations can work. If things fail it's just a personal failure of someone in the chain of command. 'Failed transfer' is just a broad escape gate term when something goes wrong tied specifically to a stint in one club, but transfer almost always applies to the operation rather than the player, which is nonsense as in many cases the buy will make every bit of sense. For a long time I suggested it's just about finding the person to call out over lack of success with a player, who at top level almost always has talent or in its absence other redeeming qualities which made the sporting directorate go for him. Shouting flop doesn't impress anybody. By applying flat criteria Griezmann and Coutinho have started as failures as both signed with poor motivations, after a lengthy bad PR saga, for positions that are occupied/unsuited for them/don't exist. Except it's not even close to fair to players themselves who were both great in previous teams, club or NT. Had nothing to do with their football.

Hazard doesn't carry even 10% of the blame and if any, it's only for that period of "oh yea, I'm finally in Madrid, let's have a beer bash" after which he was a model professional for all anyone outside the club knows.

There's also the problem of people tendency to judge prematurely. Most reasonable people will be happy to call it a day when a player you've invested in for the long-term is average/patchy/inconsistent etc after ~7000 mins on the pitch (roughly 2 seasons). It's what getting a chance really means for a younger player.
And then you still have those arguing appearance numbers are worth anything without consideration of minutes played and players must perform in their 5-15 minute episode irrespective of whether the coach puts him in a position to succeed, familiarity with the team, the country, all the rest of it. Just impose yourself on the game. What bollocks. Utter lunacy.
First criterion is that player takes things seriously in a new place. Second is that manager has to play them. If not, either coaches lose confidence in you doing the job, or you lose confidence in them for noticing your job. And then dude will try to climb walls and go back to where he knew he felt comfortable to regain the lost confidence. Normal course of events.

you say im wrong but you completely fail to explain how you even define what 'wrong' means--ie. making a case for why hazard is not a failed transfer or explaining what makes a transfer a success at all.

you cant accuse me of being vague if you arent willing to explain how you make your own judgements

Andresito said:

It's up to each person to direct the blame: the scout/DoF, the coaching staff or the player himself.

1. The player simply isn't good enough after getting many chances: Andre Gomes, Coutinho
2. The player can't stay fit enough to make an impact. Whether it's bad luck or if the player isn't professional the conclusion is the same: you pay money for something you can't use - a failed transfer. Hazard
3. The player is fit but can't get enough playing time. Can depend on the player, can depend on the coach. Paco, Malcom & Jovic. Same as #2, money paid for something you don't use - a fail.

I have a feeling Wolfe doesn't want to put blame on the player i.e label them as flops in this case, probably because of circumstances beyond their control.
But all things considered, the Jovic and Hazard transfers have been failures.

Click to expand...

I agree, basically. the problem is that wolfe wants to have his cake and eat it too: he refuses to explain how hazard's transfer has been a success, in his view, but categorically rules our own views to the contrary false.

you couldnt even call it moving the goal posts because he refuses to enter the field at all!