Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    This is the way I see it-Player for player the Invincibles probably have the edge, but if these teams were to play each other then the Chelsea of 04/05 imo will have the upper hand on most occasions. Afterall the Invincibles never really beat what was the weakest United team of the Premier League era(even losing to them in a semi final), and I reckon Ferguson could outwit Wenger again with an even stronger side like the one he had in 08 (dont really rate the 1999 team). Mourinho on the other hand had a team that completely fits his philosophy and would be able to engineer victories against both United sides and neutralize the Invincibles.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Zürich)
    Did you even watch Arsenal 2002-04? If you've never seen Henry/Bergkamp/Pires going at it then I suggest you get on youtube because they were undoubtedly the most stylish team in EPL history.
    Yeah I did, they were very good but not compared to the 1999 United team.

    The whole "invincibles" thing is a exaggerated too when they only won 26 games. By the standards of the last 10 years thats on the low end for a title winner.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by IanDangerously)
    Yeah I did, they were very good but not compared to the 1999 United team.

    The whole "invincibles" thing is a exaggerated too when they only won 26 games. By the standards of the last 10 years thats on the low end for a title winner.
    Who else has done it though? Fair enough Arsenal drew a fair number of games but not getting beat when every team in the country wanted to have a go reflects very well on that team.

    But even if you think the 1999 Utd team were better(and they won more so fair enough maybe), they werent as attacking minded or as stylish as Arsenal 2004.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    I don't think the Arsenal 2004 team are overrated, they were a great side. However this "Invincibles" nickname given to the team sums Arsenal fans up to be honest. Embarrassing. That and they weren't "invincible" as the name suggests, they lost 7 games over the course of the season. If you're comparing the other sides and taking their contributions to other competitions into account then there's no way Arsenal's 2004 side is better than 2008 United or 1999 United. Arsenal won the league, United won the league and European Cup. How can Arsenal be the better team?

    The best team of those is the 1999 Manchester United team. They won the most trophies and the football was scripted like a film. None better.
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    Arsenal 03/04.

    However, Gary Neville himself said that the 97/98 Arsenal team was the best domestic side that he's ever played against.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Zürich)
    Who else has done it though?
    Preston actually http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Invincibles_(football)

    Porto did it with AVB in 2011 and Juventus done it last season too.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Wilfred Little)
    Preston actually http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Invincibles_(football)

    Porto did it with AVB in 2011 and Juventus done it last season too.
    Well it happens once every 100 years.

    Thought the discussion was on which team was better but if you just compare silverware then no English team has won more in one season than Utd 1999. Personally, I think Arsenal 2004 would play them off the pitch but I'm very bias. Actually think Utd 2008 was better than 1999 as well.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Zürich)
    Well it happens once every 100 years.

    Thought the discussion was on which team was better but if you just compare silverware then no English team has won more in one season than Utd 1999. Personally, I think Arsenal 2004 would play them off the pitch but I'm very bias. Actually think Utd 2008 was better than 1999 as well.
    1999 team were better.

    Their run in the FA Cup included Liverpool, Chelsea and Arsenal. Their run in the Champions League included Barcelona twice, Bayern Munich three times, Inter Milan twice and Juventus twice and they didn't lose a single game in either of those cups, and if you consider the Arsenal 1998 side and the quality of Juventus back then with Zidane, Davids, Peruzzi, Deschamps etc, that's a magnificent achievement, much more so than completing 38 games unbeaten against cannon fodder like Leicester, Portsmouth, Wolves and Charlton. To top it off they had that freakish habit of scoring late goals in thrilling games. It's a no brainer as to who was the better team.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    Arsenal . It's got to be Arsenal right ?
    No one has even come close to an unbeaten season , Man City last year ? Dont make me laugh .
    That team was class though and through , even Spurs fans will admit that .
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by LondonLad94)
    Arsenal . It's got to be Arsenal right ?
    No one has even come close to an unbeaten season , Man City last year ? Dont make me laugh .
    That team was class though and through , even Spurs fans will admit that .

    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    Man Utd 1999 they were top class, but not dominant. Too many games won in injury time (Did make for excellent entertainment though)
    Chelsea 04/05 Whilst it made a welcome change, they had all the best players so they did what was expected

    Arsenal Invincibles and Man Utd 07/08 deserve the accolades here.

    It is a very close contest mind you.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    Another argument in favour of the 1999 Man. United team is that there was actually no standout player in the team, they were an effective, cohesive and perfectly balanced unit of players, whereas although the others were obviously good teams too, they were reliant on their key players to a greater extent than United were. If I asked you who the key players were in the other teams you'd be able to say so fairly quickly but that's not the case with United's 1999 team.

    Arsenal 2004 - Henry, Pires, Vieira
    United 2008 - Ronaldo
    Chelsea 2004 - Lampard, Robben

    Of course there'll be debate and differences of opinion involving those but you get the point I'm making.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Wilfred Little)
    1999 team were better.

    Their run in the FA Cup included Liverpool, Chelsea and Arsenal. Their run in the Champions League included Barcelona twice, Bayern Munich three times, Inter Milan twice and Juventus twice and they didn't lose a single game in either of those cups, and if you consider the Arsenal 1998 side and the quality of Juventus back then with Zidane, Davids, Peruzzi, Deschamps etc, that's a magnificent achievement, much more so than completing 38 games unbeaten against cannon fodder like Leicester, Portsmouth, Wolves and Charlton. To top it off they had that freakish habit of scoring late goals in thrilling games. It's a no brainer as to who was the better team.
    So how come there isn't an unbeaten team every other year? All you have to do is beat canon fodder? You have to go to Old Trafford, Anfield, White Hart Lane, Stamford Bridge etc etc and leave unbeaten 49 times in a row. And then not lose at home too. Its not a fluke, they were just too good for anyone to beat.

    Utd 99 scraped the league title with 79 points and I remember being at Highbury when we hammered them 3-0. Fair enough they won the treble and that's an unbelievable achievement but when I look through the squad, the world class players I can see are Schmeichel, Stam, Scholes and Keane. Rohnny Jonhsen and Jesper Blomqvist were both starters ffs. Compare that with Henry, Bergkamp, Pires, Vieira, Campbell, Cole etc. That team had no weaknesses and were also very unlucky not to win the CL after they played Chelsea off the park and somehow managed to lose.

    (Original post by Wilfred Little)
    Another argument in favour of the 1999 Man. United team is that there was actually no standout player in the team, they were an effective, cohesive and perfectly balanced unit of players, whereas although the others were obviously good teams too, they were reliant on their key players to a greater extent than United were. If I asked you who the key players were in the other teams you'd be able to say so fairly quickly but that's not the case with United's 1999 team.

    Arsenal 2004 - Henry, Pires, Vieira
    United 2008 - Ronaldo
    Chelsea 2004 - Lampard, Robben

    Of course there'll be debate and differences of opinion involving those but you get the point I'm making.
    I think the 2004 Arsenal team had exceptional players in nearly every position. People rarely even mention Ljungberg, Campbell, Cole or Lehmann but they were all playing out of their skin as well.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Zürich)
    So how come there isn't an unbeaten team every other year?
    Because teams don't play to go the season unbeaten. That is pretty obvious.

    All you have to do is beat canon fodder? You have to go to Old Trafford, Anfield, White Hart Lane, Stamford Bridge etc etc and leave unbeaten 49 times in a row.
    38 actually. I don't care about the games that overlapped into other seasons, we're talking about 2004.

    And I mentioned the European Cup in the way I did and referred to the cannon fodder of the Premier League because the teams in the European Cup are of a higher quality than those in the Premier League.

    Utd 99 scraped the league title with 79 points and I remember being at Highbury when we hammered them 3-0. Fair enough they won the treble and that's an unbelievable achievement but when I look through the squad, the world class players I can see are Schmeichel, Stam, Scholes and Keane. Rohnny Jonhsen and Jesper Blomqvist were both starters ffs.
    Ronny Johnsen was a great squad player and Jesper Blomqvist had a fantastic season that year, particularly in Europe.

    Compare that with Henry, Bergkamp, Pires, Vieira, Campbell, Cole etc. That team had no weaknesses and were also very unlucky not to win the CL after they played Chelsea off the park and somehow managed to lose.
    So they had better players than United yet United managed to win two trophies more in the same space of time. What does that tell you?

    They were the better team.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Zürich)
    I think the 2004 Arsenal team had exceptional players in nearly every position. People rarely even mention Ljungberg, Campbell, Cole or Lehmann but they were all playing out of their skin as well.
    I know they did, but they did rely on the likes of Henry and Vieira to a greater extent than United relied on any single players in their team. United were a better team. The fact any one of their four strikers could be called upon and do the job and they won the European Cup with a central midfield consisting of Nicky Butt and David Beckham is testament to this. Ryan Giggs was even played on the right wing!
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Wilfred Little)
    I know they did, but they did rely on the likes of Henry and Vieira to a greater extent than United relied on any single players in their team. United were a better team. The fact any one of their four strikers could be called upon and do the job and they won the European Cup with a central midfield consisting of Nicky Butt and David Beckham is testament to this. Ryan Giggs was even played on the right wing!
    Would say Roy Keane was pretty handy in Turin myself.

    Utd finished 1 point above Arsenal in 1999. What does that make Arsenal 1999 then, the 2nd best EPL team ever?

    Utd 1999 were a team who got results certainly, they werent a team particularly high on quality. Player for player, Arsenal 2004 were much better as you've pretty much acknowledged and as a team went an entire season unbeaten.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Zürich)
    Utd finished 1 point above Arsenal in 1999. What does that make Arsenal 1999 then, the 2nd best EPL team ever?
    I'm not sure why we're using 1992 as the cut off point for "best ever". There was football played before then.

    Utd 1999 were a team who got results certainly, they werent a team particularly high on quality. Player for player, Arsenal 2004 were much better as you've pretty much acknowledged and as a team went an entire season unbeaten.
    No, I didn't acknowledge Arsenal were better player for player. I said United were a more balanced team with no single standout players, which is true. There was no Thierry Henry or Cristiano Ronaldo figure in that team. Just a group of very effective, talented footballers doing their jobs for the team.

    Also Arsenal did not go an entire season unbeaten, they lost seven times.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Wilfred Little)
    I'm not sure why we're using 1992 as the cut off point for "best ever". There was football played before then.



    No, I didn't acknowledge Arsenal were better player for player. I said United were a more balanced team with no single standout players, which is true. There was no Thierry Henry or Cristiano Ronaldo figure in that team. Just a group of very effective, talented footballers doing their jobs for the team.

    Also Arsenal did not go an entire season unbeaten, they lost seven times.
    Again, Arsenal finished 1 point behind utd in 1999. What does that imply about that Arsenal team if Utd are the best of the last 20 years?

    And Arsenal 2004 were a team packed full of exceptional footballers who also did a very effective job for their team.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Zürich)
    Again, Arsenal finished 1 point behind utd in 1999. What does that imply about that Arsenal team if Utd are the best of the last 20 years?
    It implies they were second rate, as is evident when they lost again in the FA Cup.

    And Arsenal 2004 were a team packed full of exceptional footballers who also did a very effective job for their team.
    I agree, but I didn't say otherwise so you're not really proving me wrong here.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Wilfred Little)
    It implies they were second rate, as is evident when they lost again in the FA Cup.
    Thought that Arsenal team was very decent, but nothing exceptional in the grand scheme of things. Yet they finished one point behind the 'best ever EPL team' and did them 3-0 at Highbury? At least Utd 2008, Arsenal 2004 and Chelsea 2005 won their titles convincingly.
 
 
 
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Would you rather give up salt or pepper?
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Write a reply...
    Reply
    Hide
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.