The Big Belgian Hazard Hurdle

by parnolio

The goalless home draw against Wales last Sunday, has reopened the debate on Eden Hazard’s efficiency for the Belgian national team, if ever it had been closed.

Although elected Man of the Match and by far the most productive player on the pitch (most take ons, most chances created etc.), an ever growing group of Belgium fans is claiming that the Chelsea FC wonder kid is just no good for the “Red Devils”. Sure, he shows great trickery every now and then but it rarely leads to a goal. According to these fans, Hazard is not only inefficient, he’s even counterproductive as he stands in the way from the statistically far more effective playmaker Kevin De Bruyne.

Those arguments do make sense. Kevin De Bruyne was involved in over 50% (!) of Belgium’s goals in the past WC qualifying campaign, leading the lot both in goals & assists. In the current Bundesliga campaign, the blond babyface from Wolfsburg is leading the assists table by a mile (9 so far) & German analysts think he might just crush Franck Ribéry’s record from last year (23 assists).

On the other hand there’s Eden Hazard, whose terrific display for Chelsea so far this season has earned him much praise, but who from a statistical point of view has known a pretty slow start, with hardly any assists on his tally and his occasional goals coming mostly from penalties.

The easy solution would seem to drop Eden Hazard and allow De Bruyne to fully express himself as playmaker. Recent history even affirms the effectiveness of such a measure as Belgium demolished their opponents past October by 6-0 in the only qualifying game so far where Hazard was unavailable and De Bruyne dictated play wonderfully. It needs to be said though that it was “only” against the kindergarten teacher & customs officer of Andorra.

However, throwing overboard one of modern football’s greatest prodigies seems a bit of a drastic measure and one would think that it should be possible to put a player of such enormous talent to good use in any side. Or why is it that Hazard’s magic does work for EPL dominators Chelsea, who also have another clear playmaker on the field in the person of Cesc Fabregas, and not for Belgium? The Belgian Red Devils and the Stamford Bridge Blues even play in the same tactical formation with four defenders in the back, a triangle in midfield, two players cutting inside from the wings and one center forward.

If we put in the typical starters for both sides, you can see that they are perfectly interchangeable:

			Courtois
Ivanovic		Cahill		Terry ©		Azpilicueta
Alderweireld		Kompany ©		Lombaerts		Vertonghen
		Oscar		Matic
		Witsel		Fellaini
			Fabregas
			De Bruyne
Willian						Hazard
Chadli
			Costa
			Origi

So what other difference is there apart from the kit colours? The answer is as easy as it is important: clear role definition. At Chelsea no one doubts, including Eden Hazard, that Cesc Fabregas is the one and only central playmaker. Fabregas dictates play and basically decides when Hazard, Willian, Oscar or Costa are put into play. Hazard is happy and more importantly comfortable with his role as left winger sometimes cutting inside sometimes making the byline.

In Belgium however, the key role of playmaker is up for grabs with two clear contenders Kevin De Bruyne & Eden Hazard, and the head coach Marc Wilmots is unfortunately to blame for that. He deliberately granted his three attacking midfielders Chadli, De Bruyne & Hazard a free role and even stated that he wants to play with two playmakers (De Bruyne & Hazard). It’s difficult enough to manage one player on your team with a free role, let alone three players, let alone in a side that only meets up every couple of months, and the idea of multiple playmakers is simply ridiculous.

Coming to the solution, well defined roles should be set for all attacking midfielders of the Belgian NT, using everyone in their strongest position. Experience has taught us that Kevin De Bruyne is the most logical and effective playmaker for Belgium. His vista, through balls and general football intelligence are world class in the making. Plus, he combines his massive potential with outstanding statistics.

The choice for De Bruyne as playmaker is clear for any Belgium or Bundesliga observer, and probably even to the eye of Marc Wilmots himself. There is however one slight problem. De Bruyne’s status is not publically acknowledged by the coach and consequently neither by Eden Hazard, who dreams to be the absolute star of this golden Belgian generation.

Wilmots confirms Hazard in his aspirations by giving him the number 10 shirt, stating to the media that Hazard is the Big Boy Genius of his generation and giving him special treatment. Both him and Hazard are forgetting however that it’s perfectly possible to be the star of the team in another role than that of playmaker. In fact, for Eden Hazard it will probably be the only way.

It will of course be very difficult to change Hazard’s mindset but it is of vital importance for Belgium to redetermine his role as a left forward who’s allowed to cut inside and drift a little every once and a while. This conversion will be the key task for Marc Wilmots in the current qualifying campaign. If he doesn’t see the necessity of this change or is simply unable to execute it, a new national coach should be appointed. Preferably me.

On a slightly less important note. Chadli should not be the one to occupy the right forward position. Belgium needs a true winger for that position, such as Napoli’s Dries Mertens or Everton’s Kevin Mirallas, because three drifters like Hazard & De Bruyne is simply too much.

Finally, another important difference between Chelsea & Belgium is that of the goalscoring centre forward. Chelsea have Diego Costa to put away any crosses & flicks delivered in the box by Hazard, while Belgium are doubting between Benteke, Lukaku and Origi, who all are decent forwards in their own way, but none of them is the confident goalscorer Diego Costa is. So if Hazard creates about eight chances for Belgium but none of them are diverted into the back of the net, it’s a bit unfair to call Hazard inefficient. After all, an assist requires a goal.