Stats don't mean anything.

Lampard is statistically better than Zidane was, but in reality we all know Zidane was better.

Actually stats mean quite a lot. In the example you gave, i guess the stats mean Zidane was better technically, but Lampard is more efficient/ effective! We've got a lot of technical brilliance already- we need more efficient players! Also forgot to mention- Gervinho's taller, stronger, more hard working and would cost less! Gervinho wins hands down!!

Lampard is better than Zidane hands down,

Zidane doesn't even play anymore ! + Lampard has best hands

Well, Lampard may have 'best hands' but Gervinho's got the most incredible forehead! He's just GOT to be good in the air- Van Persie's got no excuse to waste a cross with that to aim for!

I think the fact that Hazard would cost at least double what Gervinho will disproves your argument.

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... !!

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?

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

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.

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.

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.

@ 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!

Ok, somebody rate my article, please?! Five stars preferably- you know you want to...

Thanks!