Man utd looked amazing in preseason in terms of combination play but when the real season started we reverted to type hoofing the ball and making to many mistakes and not hitting a barn door.
utd have better cfs, and #10s, Chelsea have better wide players, cms, CBS and and gks.
utd need a quality cb and cm to be on equal footing. Except rojo and blind prove to be the answer
Hazard's a top player. But Di Maria is comfortably superior.
Does everything Hazard does to a higher degree (bar dribbling).
-------------------------------------------------------
Dont agree with that, Hazard has it all and age on his side, Di Maria has to do it in this league before you can confirm who is far superior, i think he'll struggle a bit with the physicality and speed of our league to be honest.
Personally United's team has more stars in it, players who have achieved much more during their careers. However like others have stated, there are quite a few players lacking fitness right now, and a lot of new players who have just came in to the side and are untested in LVG system and in the premier league.
As for Di Maria vs Hazard - I consider Di Maria superior from what he has achieved in past seasons. However Hazard has already had great success in the premier league, being probably the best winger here for the last two years. Di Maria has just arrived and needs to settle to compare the two. Also those who generalise that Hazard only performs against the smaller teams has no idea what they are talking about. Hazard's best games came against quality opposition - being man of the match in fixtures against Liverpool, Man City and Bayern, scoring in two of those games.
I would much rather have the Chelsea attack than the United attack, as there is much more balance within it, and are much younger too. Salah, Schurrle, Hazard, Oscar and even Diego Costa have years ahead of them
comment by DubbedinEnglish (U19529)
posted 14 minutes ago
"They're both equal for me, di Maria is more creative but Hazard has better close control and a bigger goal threat."
Obviously you'd say that. You are TBK. One of the most deluded Chelsea fans around.
Hazard's a top player. But Di Maria is comfortably superior.
Does everything Hazard does to a higher degree (bar dribbling).
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Why such a hardon for DiMaria ?
He's a very good player but no way is he comfortably superior to Hazard.
Better comparison would be Chelsea and city's squads, they stand out a mile from the rest. Then Arsenal, Liverpool and us in the next tier. For me it'd probably be:
1. City
2. Chelsea
3. Liverpool
4. United
5. Arsenal
Dunno if it'll look like that in May, but I'd be delighted with top 4
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0MTc7CYmi54
It seems we don't play like this in the premierleague as we are to scared of the ball lol.
I suppose preseason no one cares but our combination play was far better.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VpRI84tcLzs
How are LFC'S team better than AFC and Man U?
I would have it as:
1. Man c
2. CFC
3.AFC
4.Man U
5. LFC
"Di Maria has to do it in this league before you can confirm who is far superior, i think he'll struggle a bit with the physicality and speed of our league to be honest."
The arrogance of English never ceases to amaze me. So one disregards a player's history and everything he has done as soon as he joins a club in the Prem?
So if Messi joins we'll have to 'wait and see' and see if he can do it here first before we could really say he is the best in the world or one of the best?
Daft logic.
Di Maria's never done it on a wet Wednesday night at Stoke.
Facht
Liverpool and Man U better squads than ours? Oh dear.
Probably been said but Chelsea's attack is more balanced, settled and proven in the league than ours.
Based on reputation and talent I'd opt for our lads. But the players we have that have played here have been underperforming and we are yet to see how the new lads settle.
As for Hazard and Di Maria. Hazard is more of a match winner. And if he can apply himself consistently he's got it all. Prior to signing for United and rate Di Maria higher, but that's not to say he'll perform better. Which is the most important thing.
It's an opinion. Your best player was United's third choice striker till last Monday.
I prefer Chelsea's players tbh and as previously mentioned they seem to be able to create more balance from the players. If Falcao can stay fit then he'll do well here - it's quit amusing that Utd have replaced RvP quicker than Arsenal have!
But yes Cheslea by a mile for me. Di Maria is a quality player but if he is played through the middle behind a No10 then he'll struggle with the defensive side I feel. Herrera looks, well, functional but no world beater to me.
I can see better balance and potential in the Chelsea players listed and I suspect that if Costa can stay fit he'll outscore all the Utd forwards.
Hazard is probably my favourite player in the league atm.
Wtf is this post man clown on? You Mancs were all downcast and gloomy until you signed Falcao. A player you don't need mind you.
Things still haven't changed. You're still the same old midtable club.
You really do crack me up. You were getting outplayed by Burnley ffs and was lucky to come away with anything.
You signed another striker, even though you didn't need one. And all of a sudden you're on par with City and Chelsea? Give over.
Not sure he'll struggle with the defensive side, that's one of the good sides to his game.
We might not get as much out of Di Maria than we could, however.
Time will tell. Many of these players haven't kicked a ball for United nor played together enough. On that basis you'd take Chelsea's. There's a lot of potential in this United side, however, if the balance is right.
We did need a striker. We'd only had two and Wilson.
Who's said that?
I said we're battling it out with Arsenal and Liverpool for the fourth place cup. Arsenal's history of winning this means it wont be easy for us.
Oh he's a grafter but I don't think him having to track runners through the middle of an end to end prem game will be his strength myself.
I know people don't think the prem is the greatest quality compared to say La Liga but what you do get here, and the reason why I do think it's a harder league, is a greater variety of styles from teams.
You have your tippy tappy teams (Arsenal, Swansea) your counter attacking teams (LFC and City) your control teams (Cheslea and Spurs) and your hoofball teams (West Ham and Utd).
Seems to me in Spain the all play a similar brand of football but some have better players.
Not really there's different style of teams in Spain as well.
You only have to look at the top three, they play nothing alike.
It may not be his strength as he's an attacker. But he's good defensively. Depends how we set up anyway and who with.
Too early to judge because we are all in the dark at the moment.
There is much greater protection from the refs in Spain. I dont think anyone could doubtthat who watches both, it has also been confirmed by both players and managers who have worked in both leagues
Probably more a case of Barca and Madrid getting away with their cheating, diving antics more than they would here rather than protection.
I expect Di Maria and Sanchez to not get as many decisions and pick up more bookings here than in Spain.
United's squad does look slightly stronger.
People have been comparing Hazard to Di Maria but isn't Di Maria gonna be playing the same sort of role Fabregas will be playing for Chelsea? In the middle of the park being your playmaker?
Sign in if you want to comment
Who Would You Rather Have?
Page 3 of 4
posted on 3/9/14
Man utd looked amazing in preseason in terms of combination play but when the real season started we reverted to type hoofing the ball and making to many mistakes and not hitting a barn door.
posted on 3/9/14
utd have better cfs, and #10s, Chelsea have better wide players, cms, CBS and and gks.
utd need a quality cb and cm to be on equal footing. Except rojo and blind prove to be the answer
posted on 3/9/14
Hazard's a top player. But Di Maria is comfortably superior.
Does everything Hazard does to a higher degree (bar dribbling).
-------------------------------------------------------
Dont agree with that, Hazard has it all and age on his side, Di Maria has to do it in this league before you can confirm who is far superior, i think he'll struggle a bit with the physicality and speed of our league to be honest.
posted on 3/9/14
Personally United's team has more stars in it, players who have achieved much more during their careers. However like others have stated, there are quite a few players lacking fitness right now, and a lot of new players who have just came in to the side and are untested in LVG system and in the premier league.
As for Di Maria vs Hazard - I consider Di Maria superior from what he has achieved in past seasons. However Hazard has already had great success in the premier league, being probably the best winger here for the last two years. Di Maria has just arrived and needs to settle to compare the two. Also those who generalise that Hazard only performs against the smaller teams has no idea what they are talking about. Hazard's best games came against quality opposition - being man of the match in fixtures against Liverpool, Man City and Bayern, scoring in two of those games.
I would much rather have the Chelsea attack than the United attack, as there is much more balance within it, and are much younger too. Salah, Schurrle, Hazard, Oscar and even Diego Costa have years ahead of them
posted on 3/9/14
comment by DubbedinEnglish (U19529)
posted 14 minutes ago
"They're both equal for me, di Maria is more creative but Hazard has better close control and a bigger goal threat."
Obviously you'd say that. You are TBK. One of the most deluded Chelsea fans around.
Hazard's a top player. But Di Maria is comfortably superior.
Does everything Hazard does to a higher degree (bar dribbling).
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Why such a hardon for DiMaria ?
He's a very good player but no way is he comfortably superior to Hazard.
posted on 3/9/14
Better comparison would be Chelsea and city's squads, they stand out a mile from the rest. Then Arsenal, Liverpool and us in the next tier. For me it'd probably be:
1. City
2. Chelsea
3. Liverpool
4. United
5. Arsenal
Dunno if it'll look like that in May, but I'd be delighted with top 4
posted on 3/9/14
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0MTc7CYmi54
It seems we don't play like this in the premierleague as we are to scared of the ball lol.
I suppose preseason no one cares but our combination play was far better.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VpRI84tcLzs
posted on 3/9/14
How are LFC'S team better than AFC and Man U?
I would have it as:
1. Man c
2. CFC
3.AFC
4.Man U
5. LFC
posted on 3/9/14
"Di Maria has to do it in this league before you can confirm who is far superior, i think he'll struggle a bit with the physicality and speed of our league to be honest."
The arrogance of English never ceases to amaze me. So one disregards a player's history and everything he has done as soon as he joins a club in the Prem?
So if Messi joins we'll have to 'wait and see' and see if he can do it here first before we could really say he is the best in the world or one of the best?
Daft logic.
posted on 3/9/14
Di Maria's never done it on a wet Wednesday night at Stoke.
Facht
posted on 3/9/14
Liverpool and Man U better squads than ours? Oh dear.
posted on 3/9/14
Probably been said but Chelsea's attack is more balanced, settled and proven in the league than ours.
Based on reputation and talent I'd opt for our lads. But the players we have that have played here have been underperforming and we are yet to see how the new lads settle.
As for Hazard and Di Maria. Hazard is more of a match winner. And if he can apply himself consistently he's got it all. Prior to signing for United and rate Di Maria higher, but that's not to say he'll perform better. Which is the most important thing.
posted on 3/9/14
It's an opinion. Your best player was United's third choice striker till last Monday.
posted on 3/9/14
I prefer Chelsea's players tbh and as previously mentioned they seem to be able to create more balance from the players. If Falcao can stay fit then he'll do well here - it's quit amusing that Utd have replaced RvP quicker than Arsenal have!
But yes Cheslea by a mile for me. Di Maria is a quality player but if he is played through the middle behind a No10 then he'll struggle with the defensive side I feel. Herrera looks, well, functional but no world beater to me.
I can see better balance and potential in the Chelsea players listed and I suspect that if Costa can stay fit he'll outscore all the Utd forwards.
Hazard is probably my favourite player in the league atm.
posted on 3/9/14
Wtf is this post man clown on? You Mancs were all downcast and gloomy until you signed Falcao. A player you don't need mind you.
Things still haven't changed. You're still the same old midtable club.
posted on 3/9/14
Dubbed
posted on 3/9/14
You really do crack me up. You were getting outplayed by Burnley ffs and was lucky to come away with anything.
You signed another striker, even though you didn't need one. And all of a sudden you're on par with City and Chelsea? Give over.
posted on 3/9/14
Not sure he'll struggle with the defensive side, that's one of the good sides to his game.
We might not get as much out of Di Maria than we could, however.
Time will tell. Many of these players haven't kicked a ball for United nor played together enough. On that basis you'd take Chelsea's. There's a lot of potential in this United side, however, if the balance is right.
posted on 3/9/14
We did need a striker. We'd only had two and Wilson.
posted on 3/9/14
Who's said that?
I said we're battling it out with Arsenal and Liverpool for the fourth place cup. Arsenal's history of winning this means it wont be easy for us.
posted on 3/9/14
Oh he's a grafter but I don't think him having to track runners through the middle of an end to end prem game will be his strength myself.
I know people don't think the prem is the greatest quality compared to say La Liga but what you do get here, and the reason why I do think it's a harder league, is a greater variety of styles from teams.
You have your tippy tappy teams (Arsenal, Swansea) your counter attacking teams (LFC and City) your control teams (Cheslea and Spurs) and your hoofball teams (West Ham and Utd).
Seems to me in Spain the all play a similar brand of football but some have better players.
posted on 3/9/14
Not really there's different style of teams in Spain as well.
You only have to look at the top three, they play nothing alike.
It may not be his strength as he's an attacker. But he's good defensively. Depends how we set up anyway and who with.
Too early to judge because we are all in the dark at the moment.
posted on 3/9/14
There is much greater protection from the refs in Spain. I dont think anyone could doubtthat who watches both, it has also been confirmed by both players and managers who have worked in both leagues
posted on 3/9/14
Probably more a case of Barca and Madrid getting away with their cheating, diving antics more than they would here rather than protection.
I expect Di Maria and Sanchez to not get as many decisions and pick up more bookings here than in Spain.
posted on 3/9/14
United's squad does look slightly stronger.
People have been comparing Hazard to Di Maria but isn't Di Maria gonna be playing the same sort of role Fabregas will be playing for Chelsea? In the middle of the park being your playmaker?
Page 3 of 4