The Student Room Group
Competition - post a photo you've taken of nature >>
Uni students - Complete our survey >>
Competition - post a photo you've taken of nature >>
Uni students - Complete our survey >>

This discussion is now closed.

Check out other Related discussions

The Arsenal Thread XI

Scroll to see replies

Original post by Mastermind`

Top 10 or 20 in the world of all-time or in the Premiership? Arsenal have never had a truly great team in the Wenger era (that would make it into the top 10 or 20) - and I include the Invincibles in that.


How do you compare the 'greatness' of a team across different eras? Is it that clear-cut, especially when we're talking about a team that went the whole league unbeaten?

I doubt it.
Original post by Mastermind`
Top 10 or 20 in the world of all-time or in the Premiership? Arsenal have never had a truly great team in the Wenger era (that would make it into the top 10 or 20) - and I include the Invincibles in that.
I think that's a bit harsh. Not sure you can include a single team in the PL era in that case, as I think the Invincibles were as good as any. You had some world class talent right though the spine of that team, the rest where hardly passenger either. I think that was just as good as either of Fergies great teams or Mourinho's Chelsea in the PL era.
Original post by Kevmeister
Surely a great team should be judged on what it has achieved?


Achieved relatively speaking, it depends on what you are comparing it. Swansea's team this year will be one of their best ever teams but in comparison to the EPL's best teams then...meh

Tbh, that second part is not that much of an achievement given you've won 13 championships. EDIT - I presumed you meant all-time Arsenal teams. [?]


13 is no mean feat, I really don't know what you mean by that. United in their 134 year history have won it 19 times.


Original post by Deshi
You're disgusted by every aspect of our club due to personal experiences which are hardly representative of any Liverpool fans? Each to their own I guess.


Don't take it so harshly, obviously it is just a bit of banter and the "enthusiastic" words used should have indicated that :yy:


Original post by Mastermind`
That really is the Arsenal fan's view, if I've ever seen one :jester:



Top 10 or 20 in the world of all-time or in the Premiership? Arsenal have never had a truly great team in the Wenger era (that would make it into the top 10 or 20) - and I include the Invincibles in that.


Top 10 (or 20) Arsenal teams ever, I should have made that clear :lolwut:


Do you honestly think the Invincibles wouldn't make a top 10 best teams in PL history? :beard:
Reply 7763
Avatar for Deshi
Deshi
19
Original post by In2deep
Don't take it so harshly, obviously it is just a bit of banter and the "enthusiastic" words used should have indicated that :yy:


Yeah I know mate, I just take any slight against Liverpool badly nowadays considering how bad we are, I have become way too defensive :redface:

Sorry for negging you as well btw, I think I just got annoyed :colondollar:
Original post by In2deep
Achieved relatively speaking, it depends on what you are comparing it. Swansea's team this year will be one of their best ever teams but in comparison to the EPL's best teams then...meh


Achieved relative to your recent history, which includes the Invincibles. Or are Arsenal fans buying into Gazidis' rhetoric about the top four being an achievement or Wenger saying it's worth a trophy? If so, that is sad, tbh.


13 is no mean feat, I really don't know what you mean by that. United in their 134 year history have won it 19 times.


I meant if you're talking about an Arsenal only top ten or twenty then it's not that hard to get in to the top ten given you've won a league 13 times and Wenger won 3 of those titles.
Original post by Darth Vader 7
How do you compare the 'greatness' of a team across different eras? Is it that clear-cut, especially when we're talking about a team that went the whole league unbeaten?

I doubt it.


Even if we excuse the comparison of measuring 'greatness' across different eras, the Invicibles weren't even the greatest team of its era. Chelsea a season later only lost 1 game and, more importantly, finished on more points. Which is better; finishing unbeaten, but with lesser points, or losing one game but finishing with more points?

Original post by doggyfizzel
I think that's a bit harsh. Not sure you can include a single team in the PL era in that case, as I think the Invincibles were as good as any. You had some world class talent right though the spine of that team, the rest where hardly passenger either. I think that was just as good as either of Fergies great teams or Mourinho's Chelsea in the PL era.


The Invicibles didn't retain the title (none of Wenger's teams have), Mourinho's Chelsea did and Fergie's teams often have. As for their European pedigree...well, it's non-existent. They weren't even the best team of its era, aesthetics and the 'unbeaten' tag, aside. I'd put the Man Utd side which won the CL and PL above them as well as Mourinho's Chelsea.
Reply 7766
Avatar for J.Star
J.Star
9
Original post by Kevmeister
Ivan Gazidis loves fans like you.

Taking part is what counts is a motto for junior football, ffs.


I'm not one of those fans, I think Arsenal should be challenging for the top honours every year, but I can't force the board to invest.

I wouldn't say we have had 'countless' great teams under Wenger but others will.

'Great' is a subjective term. 'Great' can mean winning trophies, 'great' can mean playing brilliant football, 'great' can mean having many good players, 'great' could be used to describe a team that one remembers fondly.

When I said 'from an Arsenal fans view' I didn't mean mine, I was just saying that some Arsenal fans may think of a team (that didn't necessarily win a trophy) as 'great', even though fans of other clubs may not.
Original post by Mastermind`
Even if we excuse the comparison of measuring 'greatness' across different eras, the Invicibles weren't even the greatest team of its era. Chelsea a season later only lost 1 game and, more importantly, finished on more points. Which is better; finishing unbeaten, but with lesser points, or losing one game but finishing with more points?



The Invicibles didn't retain the title (none of Wenger's teams have), Mourinho's Chelsea did and Fergie's teams often have. As for their European pedigree...well, it's non-existent. They weren't even the best team of its era, aesthetics and the 'unbeaten' tag, aside. I'd put the Man Utd side which won the CL and PL above them as well as Mourinho's Chelsea.


And this is why it's so hard to compare. Do you remember how much money Mourinho spent? I don't consider a team great solely based on trophies. I base it on their football and how much money the manager had to spend to assemble the team. It's easy to spend £100 million and win a trophy. That's what Mourinho has been doing for the majority of his career. Not disputing he's a great manager btw.
Reply 7768
Avatar for JK.
JK.
I'd have the Invincibles down as the 4th best English club side of the Premiership era, the recent great United bunch being the best, the treble winners second and Mou's Chelsea 3rd. Very tight between our Invincibles and Mou's Chelsea though, ironically had it not been for Chelsea putting us out of the CL in '04 I reckon we'd have gone on to win it and surpassed the Chelsea side that was emerging then - perhaps Mou wouldn't have even gone to on to manage that side.

Nowhere near top 20 all time though.
Original post by Mastermind`
The Invicibles didn't retain the title (none of Wenger's teams have), Mourinho's Chelsea did and Fergie's teams often have. As for their European pedigree...well, it's non-existent. They weren't even the best team of its era, aesthetics and the 'unbeaten' tag, aside. I'd put the Man Utd side which won the CL and PL above them as well as Mourinho's Chelsea.
You have a point. But I would say in terms of points, its easier when you are being chased, Arsenal didn't just win the league, they walked it in the end, if they had been pushed harder, I don't think they would have drawn as many. The following season was derailed by Gilberto Silva being injured for most of it, although the European performance in either is hard to escape. I guess maybe its more a romance than justified reputation.
Original post by Deshi
Yeah I know mate, I just take any slight against Liverpool badly nowadays considering how bad we are, I have become way too defensive :redface:

Sorry for negging you as well btw, I think I just got annoyed :colondollar:


No problem! :lol: I don't even know why I have so much of it anyways :colonhash:

Spoiler






Original post by Kevmeister
Achieved relative to your recent history, which includes the Invincibles. Or are Arsenal fans buying into Gazidis' rhetoric about the top four being an achievement or Wenger saying it's worth a trophy? If so, that is sad, tbh.


I was talking from a perspective that if in a few years we turn out like Liverpool (no title in 20 years) then yes, some of the teams recently that haven't won anything would be great compared to the coming ones..

If when we do win the title again though, these teams which have not won anything will be forgotten..


I meant if you're talking about an Arsenal only top ten or twenty then it's not that hard to get in to the top ten given you've won a league 13 times and Wenger won 3 of those titles.


I mean, several of his teams which didn't win the League could also possibly make the top ten ahead of others which did. It is all subjective though, how could we possibly compare them.
Original post by Mastermind`
Even if we excuse the comparison of measuring 'greatness' across different eras, the Invicibles weren't even the greatest team of its era. Chelsea a season later only lost 1 game and, more importantly, finished on more points. Which is better; finishing unbeaten, but with lesser points, or losing one game but finishing with more points?



The Invicibles didn't retain the title (none of Wenger's teams have), Mourinho's Chelsea did and Fergie's teams often have. As for their European pedigree...well, it's non-existent. They weren't even the best team of its era, aesthetics and the 'unbeaten' tag, aside. I'd put the Man Utd side which won the CL and PL above them as well as Mourinho's Chelsea.


I thought teams are measure on a season by season basis, not taking into account what they did in the following year where players come and go, espicially as well since we're talking about the top 10 in the PL which has only been around for ~ 20 years. I still think the 'invincibles' is up there somewhere in the top 3-4 teams of PL history, the only major weak link in that team IMO was our goalie, I remember that was Lehmann's first season with Arsenal and he was very average back then, but he grew much stronger since.

Arsenal should've really won the title in the season before the 'invicibles', but they collapsed away from being at the top by quite some margin. Had they won in then, it would've been 3 in a row for Wenger. Such a shame.

EDIT: can I add as well, its quite interesting that you raised the point about our lack of european success back in the wenger's successful era (up to 2005), because the arsenal teams since then have actually done better by progressing further and arguably having a better CL record than their trophy-winning predecessors. Weird.
(edited 12 years ago)
Original post by In2deep

I mean, several of his teams which didn't win the League could also possibly make the top ten ahead of others which did. It is all subjective though, how could we possibly compare them.


I doubt that, tbh. Some of the players from this era will be remembered as greats, like Cesc and a few more, but the teams themselves won't - the collapses will be remembered more than the football played and whatever other measure you care to use to define greatness.

Original post by internet tough guy


Arsenal should've really won the title in the season before the 'invicibles', but they collapsed away from being at the top by quite some margin. Had they won in then, it would've been 3 in a row for Wenger. Such a shame.


This doesn't make sense? Arsene never retained the trophy so how could it be 3 in a row?
Reply 7773
Avatar for JK.
JK.
Won Lost Won -> Won Won Won
Original post by Kevmeister




This doesn't make sense? Arsene never retained the trophy so how could it be 3 in a row?


arsenal won the PL in the 01/02 and 03/04 season, I was saying if they had won it in the 02/03 season as well, it would be 3 in a row
Reply 7775
Avatar for alexsong
alexsong
Original post by internet tough guy
I thought teams are measure on a season by season basis, not taking into account what they did in the following year where players come and go, espicially as well since we're talking about the top 10 in the PL which has only been around for ~ 20 years. I still think the 'invincibles' is up there somewhere in the top 3-4 teams of PL history, the only major weak link in that team IMO was our goalie, I remember that was Lehmann's first season with Arsenal and he was very average back then, but he grew much stronger since.

Arsenal should've really won the title in the season before the 'invicibles', but they collapsed away from being at the top by quite some margin. Had they won in then, it would've been 3 in a row for Wenger. Such a shame.

EDIT: can I add as well, its quite interesting that you raised the point about our lack of european success back in the wenger's successful era (up to 2005), because the arsenal teams since then have actually done better by progressing further and arguably having a better CL record than their trophy-winning predecessors. Weird.


For me the most glaring misses are the year after the invincibles when we took far too long to recover from losing to man u and pizzagate etc and Chelsea came in and took it and we ended up 3rd and the season 2007-08 I think it was when we were 5pts clear in February but Edy did his leg and Gallas went bonkers and it all blew it up, last year if you think we were top in December and had it in our own hands in April and although it never really felt that close it was still a missed opportunity, our form in early 2011 was nothing short of apalling
Reply 7776
Avatar for J.Star
J.Star
9
Original post by Kevmeister
I doubt that, tbh. Some of the players from this era will be remembered as greats, like Cesc and a few more, but the teams themselves won't - the collapses will be remembered more than the football played and whatever other measure you care to use to define greatness.



This doesn't make sense? Arsene never retained the trophy so how could it be 3 in a row?


We won the league in 01/02 and 03/04 so if we had of won it in 02/03 it would be 3 years in a row.
Original post by Darth Vader 7
And this is why it's so hard to compare. Do you remember how much money Mourinho spent? I don't consider a team great solely based on trophies. I base it on their football and how much money the manager had to spend to assemble the team. It's easy to spend £100 million and win a trophy. That's what Mourinho has been doing for the majority of his career. Not disputing he's a great manager btw.


Money doesn't always guarantee you trophies, though (the really major ones at least) - countless examples of clubs who spend big but have little to show for it. Careful planning has to go into the players you buy and Chelsea did that - money on Essien, Drogba and Carvalho was very well-spent by Mourinho. Chelsea needed a catch injection at the time to transform from also-rans to a genuine title contenders. I base the greatness of teams on the period of their dominance, their European form (although if they don't win their domestic league and win the CL, it's not so impressive), the style is an added bonus (but if they can't replicate that successfully on the European stage then there is a problem, probably with the quality of the league). I'd say trophies is what I mostly measure it on, there are financial disparities of courses, but, hey, it's football. David Moyes and his Everton team won't go down as the greatest team of all-time because they have little money and keep finishing 8th-ish, as impressive as it is. If you seriously want to be considered a great team then you have to win trophies, retain them (Arsenal didn't even under Wenger even before Chelsea), etc.

Original post by internet tough guy
I thought teams are measure on a season by season basis, not taking into account what they did in the following year where players come and go, espicially as well since we're talking about the top 10 in the PL which has only been around for ~ 20 years. I still think the 'invincibles' is up there somewhere in the top 3-4 teams of PL history, the only major weak link in that team IMO was our goalie, I remember that was Lehmann's first season with Arsenal and he was very average back then, but he grew much stronger since.

Arsenal should've really won the title in the season before the 'invicibles', but they collapsed away from being at the top by quite some margin. Had they won in then, it would've been 3 in a row for Wenger. Such a shame.

EDIT: can I add as well, its quite interesting that you raised the point about our lack of european success back in the wenger's successful era (up to 2005), because the arsenal teams since then have actually done better by progressing further and arguably having a better CL record than their trophy-winning predecessors. Weird.


Teams usually go in cycles of 4-5 years, as the managers say, and then a slight change-over begins ('transition') and another team comes along. So the Arsenal Invincibles would have been 2001-2005/2006ish, Man Utd's team with Ronaldo 2006-2009 (as Ronaldo left and they had to alter their tactics slightly). Probably the best way to judge them as a team as in a single season a lot can happen, with cup competitions you need a slice of luck at times, over the course of 4-5 years you're better abled to show your pedigree. Of course, the team doesn't stay the same throughout, there are a few comings and goings, but there is a core group of players during that time (Henry, Vieira, Campbell, Cashley, Pires) that you associate with the club, the ones who go are usually fringe-ish players. Oh, yeah, I'd put the Invincibles comfortably in the top 10, I thought he meant all-time in the world. :colondollar: As single-season teams I'd still rank both Man Utd 07-08 higher and Chelsea 04-05 slightly higher.

Original post by In2deep


Top 10 (or 20) Arsenal teams ever, I should have made that clear :lolwut:


Do you honestly think the Invincibles wouldn't make a top 10 best teams in PL history? :beard:


:colondollar: Comfortably in the top 10, hard to believe they wouldn't be.
Carlos Vela - reckon he'll be in the Arsenal squad next season?

Original post by Stalin
Carlos Vela - reckon he'll be in the Arsenal squad next season?



I think that he will be going in the summer. Vela can bring out tricks and great shots when he wants to, but is far to inconsistant for me. He needs regular games to improve his confidence and overall play, and he just isn't going to get that at arsenal.

Related discussions

Latest

Trending

Trending

Articles for you