The Student Room Group

Scroll to see replies

Reply 60
**** me those Arsenal goals are so overrated.

One longshot, a one man counter attack which I've probably seen Chelsea do this season.

People say defending was better back then but who the **** backs off Henry when he's running at pace like that, hack him down before he gets near the area.

Zurich can't take it.
Arguing for Arsenal 04 > Chelsea 05 is essentially arguing that 4 draws is better than 3 wins and 1 loss, which is clearly ridiculous.
Original post by manchesterunited15
I swear that third one was a long shot


Just an example of variety really.

Have another one on me




and another



and another



Oh the memories

If anyone can show me something exceptional from Chelsea's 2005 then I'll be grateful.
(edited 9 years ago)
Original post by manchesterunited15
I think in Zurich's ideal world, after every game you would get awarded bonus points by a panel of judges, based on how beautifully you played


The league title would be awarded to the team with the fewest defeats instead of the points system.

If teams are level then whoever can come up with the best gimmick name wins the league.

Original post by Zürich
When you try to conjure up memories of the 2005 Chelsea side, what precisely do you think of? I'm genuinely coming up with nothing really. Ruthless and well organised yes, but hardly the stuff of footballing legend.


I struggle to remember many other team's goals beyond about a week ago to be fair.

Have another one on me


:biggrin:
Original post by Zürich
Just an example of variety really.

Have another one on me




and another



Oh the memories

If anyone can show me something exceptional from Chelsea's 2005 then I'll be grateful.


Almost 2x as many goals conceded as Chelsea though. And if all you care about is attacking, **** it let's give it to Liverpool this season
Reply 65
Original post by Zürich
Always the sign of a strong argument when one reverts to technicalities.

Of course the defending was bad, but the defenders were paralysed with terror in all honesty. Henry was always very good at giving defenders enough rope to hang themselves.

Anyway, my original point stands. When you try to conjure up memories of the 2005 Chelsea side, what precisely do you think of? I'm genuinely coming up with nothing really. Ruthless and well organised yes, but hardly the stuff of footballing legend.

I think of 95 points.
I think of best defensive record.

The 09/10 Chelsea side was probably better than the invincibles, talk about attractive football yet we got 30 goals more than you that season, and you got 1 goal more than us. People wanna see goals right? Who wants to watch a 1-0 every week which has a wonder goal in it. They'd rather watch a 3-2 tbh. So then the 09-10 Chelsea side was probably better to watch.

Least you were guaranteed goals, we won the title fair and square too, coulda won the treble if it weren't for Inter. Just like Arsenal coulda won a CL in 04 were it not for Wayne bridge.
Reply 66
Original post by manchesterunited15
Almost 2x as many goals conceded as Chelsea though. And if all you care about is attacking, **** it let's give it to Liverpool this season

The funniest thing about this is that Arsenal got 1 more goal than the ultra defensive 04-05 Chelsea side.


35s onwards.
(edited 9 years ago)
Original post by Wilfred Little
The league title would be awarded to the team with the fewest defeats instead of the points system.

If teams are level then whoever can come up with the best gimmick name wins the league.


Lol that brings up an interesting point. If that was how it was done, then several other teams would've done it. Chelsea 05 and United 08 would've just set up not to lose every single game and most likely succeeded. But that's not how it's won so teams go to win and sometimes that leads to them losing.
Original post by jam278
The funniest thing about this is that Arsenal got 1 more goal than the ultra defensive 04-05 Chelsea side.


Yep, said as much the other day Jam. There must have been a load of spectacular near misses and crossbar hits I didn't see.
Reply 69
Original post by Wilfred Little
Yep, said as much the other day Jam. There must have been a load of spectacular near misses and crossbar hits I didn't see.

:rofl: I guess you're right.
Original post by jam278
The funniest thing about this is that Arsenal got 1 more goal than the ultra defensive 04-05 Chelsea side.


35s onwards.


Yup. 5 more points, 10 better goal difference. Why is it even a debate :lol:
Reply 71
Original post by manchesterunited15
Yup. 5 more points, 10 better goal difference. Why is it even a debate :lol:

This is meant to be a debate?

Usually when you debate people on both sides are meant to have valid, well thought out points that are used in their reasoning? I wouldn't call this a debate.
Original post by manchesterunited15
Almost 2x as many goals conceded as Chelsea though. And if all you care about is attacking, **** it let's give it to Liverpool this season


Well Arsenal were very far from being defensively weak either of course. Ashley Cole, Campbell, Lauren, Gilberto were all brilliant players. Jens Lehmann was ahead of Kahn for Germany too. The same team went without conceding a goal for nearly 600 minutes of knock-out football vs Barca, Real, Juve etc not long after.

The difference was that Chelsea played for clean sheets and killed games dead, whereas Arsenal played for flair and goals and were prepared to take a few goals the other way. Could we have conceded less with a less offensive style? Yes. Could Chelsea have played with more flair? I dont think the team had the offensive ability to do that. We're talking about a team in which Frank Lampard was the main offensive threat here.

Even when Arsenal played at Stamford Bridge in that era, Mourinho set up for a draw and we would try to win it. I cant see a team doing that at home as exceptional, sorry.
(edited 9 years ago)
Original post by Khallil
That is your opinion but you are wrong.

The nerve! Zürich has already mentioned everything I wanted to. Chelsea and Manchester United have never exemplified the brilliance that Arsenal did, week after week, especially in that unbeaten season. Arsenal went unbeaten and to say that Chelsea were effectively unbeaten for most of the season is bull. They lost and that broke the run. That'd be like me justifying Arsenal's trophy-less stint by saying that we got to the final of this cup and that cup.


It's nothing like that at all.
Original post by Khallil
What about Arsenal 2004?


Didn't win the Champions League. They also lost the league the previous season to United from a Dominant position.

Great team but if we are talking about underachieving sides then I would place Arsenal 2004 in there.
Original post by jam278
This is meant to be a debate?

Usually when you debate people on both sides are meant to have valid, well thought out points that are used in their reasoning? I wouldn't call this a debate.


The best example of that being this:

Original post by Khallil
That is your opinion but you are wrong.

The nerve! Zürich has already mentioned everything I wanted to. Chelsea and Manchester United have never exemplified the brilliance that Arsenal did, week after week, especially in that unbeaten season. Arsenal went unbeaten and to say that Chelsea were effectively unbeaten for most of the season is bull. They lost and that broke the run. That'd be like me justifying Arsenal's trophy-less stint by saying that we got to the final of this cup and that cup.
Reply 76
Original post by Khallil
That is your opinion but you are wrong.

The nerve! Zürich has already mentioned everything I wanted to. Chelsea and Manchester United have never exemplified the brilliance that Arsenal did, week after week, especially in that unbeaten season. Arsenal went unbeaten and to say that Chelsea were effectively unbeaten for most of the season is bull. They lost and that broke the run. That'd be like me justifying Arsenal's trophy-less stint by saying that we got to the final of this cup and that cup.


:rofl:

The paralogism here is outstanding.

I said we went the length of a season unbeaten, this is fact. Anyway Zurich didn't answer the question so I'll ask you.

Bayern got 91 points out of a possible 102 and lost one game the whole season, breaking every single record in the process, best attack, best defensive record etc. Who had the better season, them or Arsenal?

Furthermore, Juve should be in this discussion if Arsenal 04 are in this discussion. Agree or disagree? It's not like you won the CL and Juve actually did well in the cups.
Original post by Zürich
Well Arsenal were very far from being defensively weak either of course. Ashley Cole, Campbell, Lauren, Gilberto were all brilliant players. Jens Lehmann was ahead of Kahn for Germany too. The same team went without conceding a goal for nearly 600 minutes of knock-out football vs Barca, Real, Juve etc not long after.

The difference was that Chelsea played for clean sheets and killed games dead, whereas Arsenal played for flair and goals and were prepared to take a few goals the other way. Could we have conceded less with a less offensive style? Yes. Could Chelsea have played with more flair? I dont think the team had the offensive ability to do that. We're talking about a team in which Frank Lampard was the main offensive threat here.

Even when Arsenal played at Stamford Bridge in that era, Mourinho set up for a draw and we would try to win it. I cant see a team doing that at home as exceptional, sorry.


Arsenal played for goals and Chelsea didn't, yet they scored a single goal more? Chelsea played to kill games dead yet Arsenal drew more games?
Reply 78
My man Wenger looks like a ****ing paedo.
Reply 79
Original post by manchesterunited15
Arsenal played for goals and Chelsea didn't, yet they scored a single goal more? Chelsea played to kill games dead yet Arsenal drew more games?

You're trying to get more quotes out of Zurich, I see your game.

Latest