> Hazard joined a Chelsea side which has finished top3 in all but 1 of his 5 full years there and won 2 EPL titles in that span. Mahrez joined a Leicester side that'd just been promoted to the EPL in his first full year, establishing themselves finishing 14th and winning the league the next. Then falling off a cliff as Leicester lost key players last year and the team fell apart with the sacking of Ranieri and partially gave up on the league saving up for the CL. So that's 2 out of 3 full seasons where Leicester finished out of the top10. Wouldn't it be fair to say Hazard has had more than one great season because majority of his years on Chelsea he's been on far greater Chelsea teams? Mahrez had only 1 year with such a team and everyone knows what he was capable of and showcased then. If you swapped Mahrez's and Hazard's EPL careers around, it wouldn't be far fetched to say Hazard would be the one with "one great season" on Leicester while Mahrez would have "more than that" and be the one who's "kept improving" on a much much stronger Chelsea side over the years ...it's almost as if you're not taking into account the level of quality of teams both players have played on or something? Not hard to imagine Mahrez would have more of those one great seasons if he joined a rising, quality side like United to compliment his talents similar to what Hazard has been a part of his entire Chelsea career...
And as for the he's only had 1 great season, Mahrez has been pretty damn consistent in his tenure in the EPL. It's obvious he's an exceptional creator more than a scorer who for the most part just didn't have a clinical forward except for the league winning year where Vardy and seemingly everyone went off and had the seasons of a lifetime.
> It's a similar situation is what I'm saying. Doesn't matter if Matic was bought whilst Mahrez hasn't yet, that's for other teams to decide on and doesn't make them correct if they decide not to. You'll never know until you pull the trigger to see if said player works out or not. Until then, you're just taking a hypothetical and assuming it to be fact as to why he's not of much quality or rated highly when he's shown otherwise.
> as you say, he'd be a better fit "probably yes", and a clear cut one at that. Even during the "bad season" he had last year he put up similar numbers to Mata and being a natural RWer, he'd obviously be better suited there even if he kept that ratio which I'm certain he wouldn't (benefit of the doubt) which was due to the hangover and the falling apart of Leicester in general.
> again, still not disproving anything of which I described him as ("over egging the pudding") and saying things such as that doesn't help prove it either.