I think it is unfair that you're judging the rates without Hazard with just 11 matches, the rate would have dropped drastically if games without Hazard continued to 52 as well, Have a doubt ? Then let's make a small bet of $20 to $30, I say Chelsea's next 52 games (starting from the post) would not better that of playing with Hazard ?
Not just that. That statistics doesn't take into consideration level of opponents and minutes played. I was playing Fantasy last season and had Hazard in my team and ended disappointed a couple of time because Hazard was kept on bench against weaker opponents around Champions league matches. If Chelsea plays well and wining he stays on the bench but if Chelsea plays lousy he enters last 20 minutes to try change the results. Sometimes he managed and sometimes not. My point is that it heavily influences above stats.
I decided to read the article and my point was justified, majority of the matches he missed was from the Europa league, I suppose that explains it all.
Quote
What these figures don't show, in fairness, is the standard of opposition Chelsea faced in all those games.
Of the eleven he was missing, seven of them were Europa League matches where Sarri's side scored 21 goals and only conceding three times.
Of the eleven he was missing, seven of them were Europa League matches where Sarri's side scored 21 goals and only conceding three times.
