At the beginning of the season almost 60% of teams featured Eden Hazard. With the season not even three weeks old the Belgian is currently third on Fantasy Premier League (FPL)’s list of players with the most transfers out, behind the injured Leighton Baines and Thibaut Courtois, who was suspended for Gameweek 2. While still owned by roughly 48% of managers, this 10% drop in ownership is not insignificant, and it now means that more than half the teams in FPL are Hazard-less.
Those who went without Hazard from the beginning no doubt feel vindicated. The decision to do so was not a wishful punt taken to free up more money, but a calculated risk. Hazard was highlighted to be a slow starter, and Chelsea’s opening schedule was not the kindest. In short, there were good reasons to go without him. But for those who couldn’t bear the thought of not benefiting from the Belgian slotting a 74th-minute penalty against Swansea to give Chelsea a 1-0 win, Hazard now represents perhaps the biggest conundrum of the season so far: do you keep him or do you ditch him?
Ditching Hazard: The Case For and Against
The case for ditching him is quite simple to make. First, he has not done anything in the two games played. Second, Chelsea as a unit have looked uninspired and lethargic. Third, there are alternative midfield heavy-hitters like Sanchez and Silva, who have both started the season brightly. Finally, there is the Aguero factor. An underperforming Hazard can be easily sacrificed in order to free up funds for the Argentine marksman.
But what about the case for keeping Hazard? One can of course appeal to both his history and his ability. Hazard has not become a bad player over the summer. Also, the very reason managers refused to buy him at the beginning of the season – he is a slow starter – may now be a reason to keep hold of him: he has had his bad start, and the points may be just around the corner. Also, his ownership is still the highest in the game by some 8%. The opportunity cost of not having Hazard is still far greater than it is for not having Aguero, Silva, and Sanchez, whose ownership percentages – 21%, 13% and 10% respectively – are significantly lower than Hazard’s.
Can a case for sticking by Hazard also be made based on his statistics? Here we get somewhat mixed messages. Out of all midfielders he is fourth for both touches in the final third and passes received in the final third, and joint second for successful dribbles. Furthermore, he is third for successful passes in the final third. These are decent indicators that he remains heavily involved in the majority of Chelsea’s attacks, which is hardly surprising. Yet when it comes to actual goal threat, Hazard is some way behind both his fellow heavy-hitters and his much cheaper counterparts. Eight other midfielders have had more touches in the penalty box than last season’s top points scorer, and he has registered a disappointing total of two shots (though it must be said that both of these could and perhaps should have ended in goals). As for assist potential, he has created only four chances, a figure just below Sunderland’s Adam Johnson and just above Mediocrity’s Etienne Capoue. In summary, Chelsea’s Hazard-led attack have looked extremely goal shy, with their only two goals coming via a cross/shot and a heavy deflection.
Conclusion
Hazard’s high ownership makes selling him risky. But then it was risky to go without him in the first place, yet those who did so have been vindicated. The question, of course, is whether that aforementioned slow start is over and the points are around the corner? From the evidence accrued thus far, Chelsea’s woes show no sign of relenting. Diego Costa remains a shadow of his former self, and as we saw last season, a Chelsea side without him in full flow is bound to struggle for goals. Hazard bailed them out last season, but we (and Jose Mourinho) may just be expecting too much of him if we think he will do so again.
One final consideration is the price. With Hazard set to fall in price and Manchester City’s Sergio Aguero and David Silva, as well as Arsenal’s Alexis Sanchez, set to rise, getting rid of the Belgian may have a net value of +0.2/0.3. Indeed, as one of those managers who couldn’t bear the thought of not benefiting from a Hazard penalty in the 74th minute against Swansea, it was the financial aspect which convinced me to become one of the 152,109 to sell Chelsea’s star man this week. Is this the right decision? It may backfire when Chelsea play West Brom at the weekend, but it is a decision which can be justified. And in a game of chance like Fantasy Football, that’s the best you can hope for.
