Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

The Manchester United Thread X Watch

Announcements
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Louis.)
    There isn't a case for Arsenal's 03-04 side being better than your 04-05 side. Simple as that.

    If anyone wants to argue that your side wasn't the best then you need to bring other competitions into it, so obviously our treble year and in 2008. I just can't see the case for the Invincibles, it's a nice romantic notion and all that but in terms of points and trophies won (what football is judged on) they're no better than that Mourinho side.
    No team will do what Arsenal did in 2003/04 for a 100 years. Nearly every single player was world class, and the only shame is that (somehow ) they missed out on the Champions League.

    That Chelsea team was very efficient and ruthless, but they didn't have the sheer class of Henry, Bergkamp, Pires, Vieira, Ljungberg, Cole, Campbell.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Zürich)
    No team will do what Arsenal did in 2003/04 for a 100 years. Nearly every single player was world class, and the only shame is that (somehow ) they missed out on the Champions League.

    That Chelsea team was very efficient and ruthless, but they didn't have the sheer class of Henry, Bergkamp, Pires, Vieira, Ljungberg, Cole, Campbell.
    Huh, but you did poor in europe and only won one trophy that season am i right? You didn't do a treble or break the point total, the least amount of goals conceded and most wins in a season in the same year. So really there's little to no argument. Might have had a more attractive team on the eye but our team was better in terms of getting results. I'd back the chelsea team to beat the invincibles 9 times out of 10 and if anelka didn't score against us we wouldn't even be having this conversation.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by jam277)
    Huh, but you did poor in europe and only won one trophy that season am i right? You didn't do a treble or break the point total, the least amount of goals conceded and most wins in a season in the same year. So really there's little to no argument. Might have had a more attractive team on the eye but our team was better in terms of getting results. I'd back the chelsea team to beat the invincibles 9 times out of 10 and if anelka didn't score against us we wouldn't even be having this conversation.
    You keep mentioning this, what goal are you referring to? (I have a bad memory). Anyway, in terms of your argument, your pointing out trivial things such as least amount of goals conceeded, most wins in a season etc when the only thing that really matters is the win/loss ratio. No team will ever match the feats of what the Invincibles did. And I don't know how you can say you'd back the Chelsea team to beat the Invincibles, look at our spine in that team. Campbell, Vieira, Henry, Bergkamp and then the flair of Pires and Ljungberg on the wings. The Invincibles would murder any Chelsea team in history.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TheInvincibles14)
    You keep mentioning this, what goal are you referring to? (I have a bad memory). Anyway, in terms of your argument, your pointing out trivial things such as least amount of goals conceeded, most wins in a season etc when the only thing that really matters is the win/loss ratio. No team will ever match the feats of what the Invincibles did. And I don't know how you can say you'd back the Chelsea team to beat the Invincibles, look at our spine in that team. Campbell, Vieira, Henry, Bergkamp and then the flair of Pires and Ljungberg on the wings. The Invincibles would murder any Chelsea team in history.
    You went unbeaten in the league with 12 draws and didn't get to the final of any cup. Impressive? Yes. Means they would beat any team? No.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    For all this 'flair' they didn't score that many and their goals conceded wasn't anything special either and they didn't actually win that much either. The Invincibles were so good because they got results, not because of the actual results they got tbh. We have 9 games left and alrerady 2 wins behind that team. They just got a large amount of draws.

    It will be like United this season if we beat the points record. We aren't some extraordinary United team that hasn't been this good for a long time. It's simply a very consistent well drilled team at getting the results. Good in it's own right, but i wouldn't say it could beat the Chelsea and United teams of the past.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by jam277)
    Huh, but you did poor in europe and only won one trophy that season am i right? You didn't do a treble or break the point total, the least amount of goals conceded and most wins in a season in the same year. So really there's little to no argument. Might have had a more attractive team on the eye but our team was better in terms of getting results. I'd back the chelsea team to beat the invincibles 9 times out of 10 and if anelka didn't score against us we wouldn't even be having this conversation.
    But you're missing the whole significance of an invincible season. Every single championship winning team will look back at games it shouldnt have lost and think we could, should or would have been invincible but one team does it every 100 years. That Chelsea team was brilliant but there are many brilliant teams around. It's why the FA comissioned a gold trophy in recognition. People rave about Barca at the moment but they've never had an invincible season. Real, Bayern, Juve, Utd are all great teams this season but none will come out unbeaten. Its almost impossible to do it.


    In 2005 Arsenal were also unbeaten in both games with Chelsea, and that team wasn't as good as the 2004 side. Just having refreshed my memory of the 2-2 game at Highbury, we played you off the park tbh and as usual Mourinho came out with a point somehow. They should have won the CL in 2004. Bets team in Europe by miles and miles. We absolutely battered Chelsea for 180 minutes in the QF as well. Remember leaving the game after Wayne Bridge's goal in a state of genuine shock.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Zürich)
    But you're missing the whole significance of an invincible season. Every single championship winning team will look back at games it shouldnt have lost and think we could, should or would have been invincible but one team does it every 100 years. That Chelsea team was brilliant but there are many brilliant teams around. It's why the FA comissioned a gold trophy in recognition. People rave about Barca at the moment but they've never had an invincible season. Real, Bayern, Juve, Utd are all great teams this season but none will come out unbeaten. Its almost impossible to do it.

    In 2005 Arsenal drew both games with Chelsea, and that team wasn't quite as good as the invincibles. Just having refreshed my memory of the 2-2 game at Highbury, we played you off the park tbh and as usual Mourinho came out with a point somehow. They should have won the CL in 2004. Bets team in Europe by miles and miles. We absolutely battered Chelsea for 180 minutes in the QF as well. Remember leaving the game after Wayne Bridge's goal in a state of genuine shock.
    You can go on about not losing a game as much as you want, but Chelsea only lost one and got 5 points more than you. A league is about getting the most points, so it's clear which team was better really.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by manchesterunited15)
    You can go on about not losing a game as much as you want, but Chelsea only lost one and got 5 points more than you. A league is about getting the most points, so it's clear which team was better really.
    No you're missing the significance of an invincibles season entirely. It happens every 100 years for a reason. Any great team can claim ''but we only lost x'' but a tiny number can say that they lost none.


    Watch this if you have the time,Full Arsenal/Chelsea match in 2005 at Highbury.



    5 minutes should be enough to see which team is legendary.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Zürich)
    But you're missing the whole significance of an invincible season. Every single championship winning team will look back at games it shouldnt have lost and think we could, should or would have been invincible but one team does it every 100 years. That Chelsea team was brilliant but there are many brilliant teams around. It's why the FA comissioned a gold trophy in recognition. People rave about Barca at the moment but they've never had an invincible season. Real, Bayern, Juve, Utd are all great teams this season but none will come out unbeaten. Its almost impossible to do it.


    In 2005 Arsenal were also unbeaten in both games with Chelsea, and that team wasn't as good as the 2004 side. Just having refreshed my memory of the 2-2 game at Highbury, we played you off the park tbh and as usual Mourinho came out with a point somehow. They should have won the CL in 2004. Bets team in Europe by miles and miles. We absolutely battered Chelsea for 180 minutes in the QF as well. Remember leaving the game after Wayne Bridge's goal in a state of genuine shock.

    Didn't Juve have an unbeaten season last year?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Zürich)
    No you're missing the significance of an invincibles season entirely. It happens every 100 years for a reason. Any great team can claim ''but we only lost x'' but a tiny number can say that they lost none.
    And an even tinier number can claim to have the most points ever :dontknow:

    I know it's nice and everything to talk about being unbeaten or invincible, but in terms of sheer results, which in the end decides which team is best, it's Chelsea.

    90 points is really nothing special. Two teams got 89 last year, United got 90 in 09, 89 in 07 and are almost certainly going to beat it this year, Chelsea got 91 in 06 and 95 in 05, etc.

    That team was so solid, with that spine of Cech, Terry, Makelele, Lampard, Drogba.

    Anyway, you lost to United, Chelsea, Middlesborough twice, Inter Milan and Dynamo Kyiv that season, so...
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by manchesterunited15)
    And an even tinier number can claim to have the most points ever :dontknow:

    I know it's nice and everything to talk about being unbeaten or invincible, but in terms of sheer results, which in the end decides which team is best, it's Chelsea.

    90 points is really nothing special. Two teams got 89 last year, United got 90 in 09, 89 in 07 and are almost certainly going to beat it this year, Chelsea got 91 in 06 and 95 in 05, etc.

    That team was so solid, with that spine of Cech, Terry, Makelele, Lampard, Drogba.
    And the spine of Lehmann, Campbell, Vieira, Gilberto, Henry and Bergkamp isn't as good, if not better? Of course 90 points isn't anything special but if football fans were asked which is the best PL team in history more often than not they'll point in the direction of the Invincibles. Going through a season without a single loss is a magnificent achievement, bigger than what any other team has done, regardless of whether they accumulated more points.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TheInvincibles14)
    And the spine of Lehmann, Campbell, Vieira, Gilberto, Henry and Bergkamp isn't as good, if not better? Of course 90 points isn't anything special but if football fans were asked which is the best PL team in history more often than not they'll point in the direction of the Invincibles. Going through a season without a single loss is a magnificent achievement, bigger than what any other team has done, regardless of whether they accumulated more points.
    No, it's not... Cech>Lehmann Terry>Campbell Makelele=Vieira Lampard>Gilberto Henry/Bergkamp>Drogba
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by manchesterunited15)
    No, it's not... Cech>Lehmann Terry>Campbell Makelele=Vieira Lampard>Gilberto Henry/Bergkamp>Drogba
    Cech over Lehmann, alright. Terry over Campbell? Your having a laugh. Campbell was outstanding in the Invincibles season. Vieira was better than Makalele, don't understand how you can rate him as equal, you must be WUMing. Don't think I've ever seen a more complete midfielder. Can't compare Lampard with Gilberto as they do different jobs, should be comparing Gilberto with Makalele and even then it's close. Henry over Drogba any day of the week. So yeah, man for man, the core of the Invincibles > the core of Chelsea.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TheInvincibles14)
    Cech over Lehmann, alright. Terry over Campbell? Your having a laugh. Campbell was outstanding in the Invincibles season. Vieira was better than Makalele, don't understand how you can rate him as equal, you must be WUMing. Don't think I've ever seen a more complete midfielder. Can't compare Lampard with Gilberto as they do different jobs, should be comparing Gilberto with Makalele and even then it's close. Henry over Drogba any day of the week. So yeah, man for man, the core of the Invincibles > the core of Chelsea.
    You're probably right about Vieira, I put him as better first then changed it. Let's not forget I'm the neutral one here though.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TheInvincibles14)
    And the spine of Lehmann, Campbell, Vieira, Gilberto, Henry and Bergkamp isn't as good, if not better? Of course 90 points isn't anything special but if football fans were asked which is the best PL team in history more often than not they'll point in the direction of the Invincibles.
    Not really, some would but I wouldn't say it would be a majority.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by jam277)
    Which would you say was better between your two sides? I think the treble year was great but you had a pretty low points total(79). Similar to mourinho's treble in 2010 while in 08 you narrowly missed out on an even better treble because you lost to portsmouth right?

    I'd say that you guys might trump it in 08 but not 99 against our team. Just annoys me when arsenal fans say their team was better than ours at the time lol.
    08 was probably better in terms of pure quality. It's easier to be consistent playing functional defensive football (which we did in Europe at least), the VDS/Rio/Vidic base was just incredible and Ronaldo's brilliance allowed us to pack the midfield too. Yeah we lost a home tie to Portsmouth, Ronaldo was denied a pen but then we left Anderson and Rooney back when we had a corner, Rooney had a brainfart which led to Kuszczak's red and Rio in goal. Don't like saying it cost us a treble because we'd still have 2 games to win and the extra games might have impacted other results, but yeah definitely a competition we should have won.

    Nothing like as fond memories as from the 99 team though, the midfield, the strikers, Stam, Schmeichel, Barca 3-3's, the goal in my sig, Keane against Juve, Giggs' goal, that whole semi final...the way we went and attacked teams made for a fantastic season. That same philosophy probably cost us in the years after 99 but christ I still think it was worth it. Only regret is that I wasn't a few years older to appreciate it fully.

    (Original post by samiz20891)
    Didn't Juve have an unbeaten season last year?
    Porto under AVB too I think, although not in an elite league. I can see how the Invincibles was an absolutely incredible achievement but I just haven't seen a convincing argument as to why it's better than setting a points record.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Idle)
    Not really, some would but I wouldn't say it would be a majority.
    The FA held awards last year to commemorate 20 years of the EPL and the Invincibles won the public vote for 'Best Team'...
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TheInvincibles14)
    You keep mentioning this, what goal are you referring to? (I have a bad memory). Anyway, in terms of your argument, your pointing out trivial things such as least amount of goals conceeded, most wins in a season etc when the only thing that really matters is the win/loss ratio. No team will ever match the feats of what the Invincibles did. And I don't know how you can say you'd back the Chelsea team to beat the Invincibles, look at our spine in that team. Campbell, Vieira, Henry, Bergkamp and then the flair of Pires and Ljungberg on the wings. The Invincibles would murder any Chelsea team in history.
    We lost 1-0 to manchester city. Nicolas anelka scored the goal. We wouldn't be having this conversation as we'd be invincibles had he not scored that goal. We got more points than you, won the league cup and got knocked out controversially in the CL semi final. You guys on the other hand never got to a final of any cup, don't have the record points total, don't have the most clean sheets in a season, don't have the best defensive record in a season. your only trump card is that you were unbeaten.

    Also who gives a **** about flair or style of play. Results count first and foremost and we got better results than you the whole season and was able to show our form in more than one competition. Were it not for a ghost goal we could have made the final of the CL. You guys don't compare tbh. Great team but not the best.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    Leagues are won on points. Team with the most points did best simple as. If the Invincibles had drawn every game all season, no one would claim it was a legendary feat yet it is the same feat.

    Best United team of recent years for me is either 07/08 or 08/09. Depending on whether you are defensive or attacking kind of guy. As with Loius, I wasn't really old enough to properly appreciate the style of 99 team.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Zürich)
    The FA held awards last year to commemorate 20 years of the EPL and the Invincibles won the public vote for 'Best Team'...
    Tbh public vote doesn't mean ****. Alves is a better right back than lahm and chiellini isn't as good as pique despite having the best defensive record in all the leagues. Oh and marcelo is the best left back in the world. You see my drift.

    The public will just think "arsenal went unbeaten therefore are the best team" but really they weren't, bottled it in europe to a chelsea team who had 11 points less than them in the league and only won one trophy that season. I guess mancini's inter is the best italian team as well because they got 97 points under him although mourinho got a treble unbeaten at home a couple seasons later. Or juve are the best ever team in serie A because of last season.
 
 
 
  • 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
    Will you be richer or poorer than your parents?
  • 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

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