[fosterwho]

Who you think are the greatest? In terms of things like fans, history, success, passion for the sport, etc.

I've included the big four as I don't think City are quite up there with the legendary clubs (one league win in 44 years doesn't automatically put you up there).

[Tommyjw]

Dam, came here expecting it to be about specific teams i.e. Uniteds99 team, Invincibles, Liverpools 84 team etc

Gotta be either United or Liverpool hasnt it?

[chickenonsteroids]

(Original post by Tommyjw)
Dam, came here expecting it to be about specific teams i.e. Uniteds99 team, Invincibles, Liverpools 84 team etc

I think you might as well talk about that too

[fosterwho]

I wonder why Arsenal get joint highest votes? Let's face it, their history just cannot compete with Liverpool's 18 titles.

[Tommyjw]

(Original post by fosterwho)
I wonder why Arsenal get joint highest votes? Let's face it, their history just cannot compete with Liverpool's 18 titles.

Too many up-their-own-arse Arsenal fans on this forum. As proven by the +1/-1 league thread thingy.

[LuisSuarez7]

If you go for the premier league era then it has to be Manchester United. Before that then Liverpool. The best league team ever is a tough one to say to be honest. Its one from Arsenal 04-05 along with Liverpool 1988-1989 and United 1998-1999.

[little_wizard123]

[anonstudent1]

I think the best united best team was the 2008 one, with Rooney Teves and Ronaldo just before they bought berbatov.

[fosterwho]

(Original post by LuisSuarez7)
If you go for the premier league era then it has to be Manchester United. Before that then Liverpool. The best league team ever is a tough one to say to be honest. Its one from Arsenal 04-05 along with Liverpool 1988-1989 and United 1998-1999.

I just meant in general. Like Liverpool as a collective whole, not just the premier league era.

[Stripe]

It's definatly not Arsenal or Chelsea.

Arguably Liverpool or Manchester United.

[Kevmeister]

People are just gonna vote for the team they support, hence Arsenal getting votes despite trailing Liverpool by 5 and Utd by 6.

Logic says Utd, but nobody on this forum can really say Liverpool due to the fact they haven't won a league since 89 or so, and most/all on here were born in the late 80s/early 90s, if not later.

As for Chelsea being given a token slot in the poll.

[Augmented hippo]

Chelsea should not be on that shortlist. Before Abromovich came along they had only won 1 top division titles so if we are talking about greatest club over the whole of the history of the english game it has to be either united or liverpool. None of the other teams on that list have won the champions league. I suppose you could argue a case for arsenal when you factor in the invincible season but definitely not chelsea.

[River85]

(Original post by fosterwho)
Who you think are the greatest? In terms of things like fans, history, success, passion for the sport, etc.

I've included the big four as I don't think City are quite up there with the legendary clubs (one league win in 44 years doesn't automatically put you up there).

So all those four options are legendary? Interesting.

I defend Chelsea a lot and I'm not going to suggest they bought their success as that's bull. But what's this "big four"? Football did exist before 2000, y'know. There hasn't been this "big four" since the beginning of 2000, let alone the history of league football. Newcastle, Sunderland, Villa, Everton, Tottenham...they were all more successful than Chelsea, I think, and some not that far behind Arsenal.

Preston North End. First double winners and played more league games than any team but one, I think.

(Original post by anonstudent1)
I think the best united best team was the 2008 one, with Rooney Teves and Ronaldo just before they bought berbatov.

1994, 1996 and the treble winning 1999 would spank them.

[Xotol]

(Original post by LuisSuarez7)
If you go for the premier league era then it has to be Manchester United. Before that then Liverpool. The best league team ever is a tough one to say to be honest. Its one from Arsenal 04-05 along with Liverpool 1988-1989 and United 1998-1999.

The invincibles was 03-04. I remember 04-05 well... we lost to Utd to break our 49 match unbeaten run and then proceeded to collapse.

[anonstudent1]

(Original post by River85)
1994, 1996 and the treble winning 1999 would spank them.

Meh different eras I think. I think the premierships improved massively since then, just look at champions league results by the premiership and just have a look at the players from replays now and then. You'll notice one big difference, players today are massive compared to players back then. Players are bigger faster and stronger then they were 10 years ago, so generally better. And I even remember an interview where Ferguson in around 2009 said this was technically his best team, although 1999 had an amazing spirit.

[killer whale]

(Original post by River85)
So all those four options are legendary? Interesting.

I defend Chelsea a lot and I'm not going to suggest they bought their success as that's bull. But what's this "big four"? Football did exist before 2000, y'know. There hasn't been this "big four" since the beginning of 2000, let alone the history of league football. Newcastle, Sunderland, Villa, Everton, Tottenham...they were all more successful than Chelsea, I think, and some not that far behind Arsenal.

Preston North End. First double winners and played more league games than any team but one, I think.



1994, 1996 and the treble winning 1999 would spank them.

It isn't bull. As you yourself say football existed before the twenty first century. Throughout the twentieth Chelsea were a piddling club. They won the league once. Huddersfield Town supporters could rightly laugh at their lack of history, pedigree and success. There were a score or more clubs with better league records.

Their fan base was pretty much on a par with a club like West Ham.

The only reason they have become a footballing powerhouse is because of the hundreds of millions poured into them by their billionaire owner. THAT is a fact.

You'll be saying Citeh didn't buy this year's Premier League title next. Of course they did. They are actually a great club, and have done their time in the lower leagues, so I don't begrudge them this success one bit.

But without the middle eastern money they wouldn't be competitive either. They wouldn't have a chance of finishing top. It didn't used to be like that. Small town clubs (Forest, Derby for example) could win the league with relatively small fanbases and not much money.

Now success is bought. End of.

[River85]

(Original post by killer whale)
It isn't bull. As you yourself say football existed before the twenty first century. Throughout the twentieth Chelsea were a piddling club. They won the league once. Huddersfield Town supporters could rightly laugh at their lack of history, pedigree and success. There were a score or more clubs with better league records.

That's the point I was making.

However, at the end of the 1990s and beginning of the 00s they won two FA Cups and the Cup Winners Cup, as well as Champions League football. As I've said about 20 times these last few days, this places them as probably the third most successful English club of the period. This provided a foundation for Abromovich to then build on.

So whilst Chelsea had success before RA, it was relatively modest. But they had recent success which they built on. It's not like they were a mid-table or recently promoted club with no recent history of winning anything, then along comes a billionniare owner.

[sr90]

United and Liverpool. Nobody else comes close.

[Stu Laverty]

I consider Liverpool and Man Utd about on par. Man Utd, in terms of recent history, have been much better, they also have one more league title. Liverpool have more CL trophies though.

The other two don't come close.

[DaveSmith99]

United, then liverpool, then everyone else.