Now it looks like we are about to get Gervinho in. But it looks like most people around here don't really rate him, and would prefer Hazard. Someone even said that Gervinho would be a good squad player while Hazard would win games on his own! Sorry, but their records don't agree with this. Gervinho got 14 goals and 10 assists in the league last season. Hazard got 7 goals and 8 assists in the league. Looks to me like it's Gervinho who'd win the games on his own! One might argue that Hazard is younger and therefore has more room for improvement. Maybe, but the other side of it is that Gervinho's got more experience, and i thought we wanted someone who'd make an instant impact. And Hazard's improvement is by no means guaranteed as his attitude isn't too good. And for those who say Gervinho isn't good looking enough- please! I didn't realise this was a beauty contest. Conclusion- Gervinho would make a much better signing than Hazard! Plus, being the very first gunner, i'm much wiser than y'all so you know i'm right! Thoughts?
posted on 14/6/11
I think the fact that Hazard would cost at least double what Gervinho will disproves your argument.
posted on 14/6/11
No, it doesn't. Prices in today's market have almost nothing to do with the player's real value or ability to win football matches. Torres cost 50 million, Carroll cost 35 million, while Hernandez cost 7 million. Kaka cost 56 million, Ozil cost 18 million ( i think? ) and lastly Henderson costs 20 million. Need i go on? The point is Hazard is expensive cos he's younger and has got a few recommendations and a few club suitors. He may be better technically, but Gervinho is better to have around cos he's more efficient. I already explained that. On the other hand- Gervinho's forehead... !!
posted on 14/6/11
Gervinho has my backing over Hazard because he is bigger stronger and has a massive spam. Hazard is only 5'7", we have enough midgets don't we?
posted on 14/6/11
The First Gooon- From what position did Hazard get his goals vs Gervinho? One is striker the other is a midfielder. What winning teams need are scoring mid fielders. 14 goals for a striker isnt really a sign of efficiency. Moussa Sow his teammate with 25 goals last season is more like it
posted on 14/6/11
Kenyangunnesourous-I baptized the boy Super Nasri (U5445)
To be fair they both played on either wing last year for Lille. What I said about transfers is right because Lille are the selling club in both instances.
I'm not saying Gervinho won't be good, just that Hazard is clearly the better talent.
posted on 14/6/11
We shouldn't be signing either. We already have Arshavin, Nasri, Rosicky, Walcott even Bendtner who can play on either flanks for us. Gervinho and Hazard are not even naturally wide me. If we are going to sign a wide player then lets sign an actual winger like Albrighton for example. I don't see the point in signing players like Hazard and Gervinho when they will only be shifted out wide in a 4-3-3 when it isn't their favored position. If he is coming as a replacement for Rosicky or Bendtner then that is fine by me but if he is coming as a replacement for Arshavin or Nasri I will be incredibly disappointed.
posted on 14/6/11
I would prefer Hazard but ill happily take Gervinho, a very good player who could well in Prem. Both are good and i'd take btoh.
posted on 14/6/11
@ shadow, Hazard may be the greater talent but the stats show that right now, Gervinho is the more efficient player. The fact that the same club wants more money for Hazard is simply because Hazard is younger and perhaps, better technically. But Gervinho would be more useful to arsenal cos we already have lots of brilliant technical players, like i already said. So based on that, Gervinho's low price tag is simply another plus!
posted on 14/6/11
Ok, somebody rate my article, please?! Five stars preferably- you know you want to...
posted on 14/6/11
Thanks!