andiii wrote:i chose arsenal invincibles over mou's chelsea because they were also very entertaining and they didn't really use anything like "fergie time" to help them win. i'm pretty sure mou's chelsea came away with a lot of 1-0 type scorelines... more than arsenal i'd assume, but it's close

The Franchise wrote:Watch the games.

Contrary to popular belief around here, the best teams dont always win.

I watched all those games under a year ago, in every game Man Utd were by far second best.

Choking? Hitting the bar and post numerous times isnt choking, its football, its bad luck.

The question is, best team...not most lucky, or even who won the most.

Zealous wrote:

The Franchise wrote:Watch the games.

Contrary to popular belief around here, the best teams dont always win.

I watched all those games under a year ago, in every game Man Utd were by far second best.

Choking? Hitting the bar and post numerous times isnt choking, its football, its bad luck.

The question is, best team...not most lucky, or even who won the most.

I'm sorry but that makes little sense to me. I saw the games as well.

Juve and Bayern had the games more or less won but that United team had such a potent attack that you couldn't ignore it's girth.

What ever way you paint it Juve and Bayern choked and they choked hard. You don't give up the leads they had unless they were facing a quality side.

The only criticism of the United side I can think of would be that they were too attacking and a bit naive in defence, especially at the start of games. Something that Ferguson would change after Madrid surprisingly beat them 2-3 at Old Trafford in 2000.

United 99 were quality, you can't deny that, I rate them above the other teams on that list because they have the trophies and the results to back it up. Chelsea 04-05 come second for me because of how dominant they were in the league although they could have been first if they had the "X Factor" that that United team clearly had.

Zealous wrote:

Juve and Bayern had the games more or less won but that United team had such a potent attack that you couldn't ignore it's girth.

dnmac4 wrote:I can't believe more people are not using the Champions League as a way to decide who's better.

I mean obviously all of them won the EPL in those years and they all competed in the Champions League.

IMO, the more well rounded a team is the better that makes them and the Champions League makes you play teams with different styles then a lot of the teams you face in your league. In fact some teams can be made to dominate there league and then not perform in the champions league because there only suited to play against teams from there country.

It's just such an obvious way to decide the difference yet no one seems to pay any attention to it.

Especially since most people who root for these teams think the EPL is the best league in the world, you would think the best team from that league in the EPL era was at least the best team in Europe, right?

ali8775 wrote:

dnmac4 wrote:I can't believe more people are not using the Champions League as a way to decide who's better.

I mean obviously all of them won the EPL in those years and they all competed in the Champions League.

IMO, the more well rounded a team is the better that makes them and the Champions League makes you play teams with different styles then a lot of the teams you face in your league. In fact some teams can be made to dominate there league and then not perform in the champions league because there only suited to play against teams from there country.

It's just such an obvious way to decide the difference yet no one seems to pay any attention to it.

Especially since most people who root for these teams think the EPL is the best league in the world, you would think the best team from that league in the EPL era was at least the best team in Europe, right?

if we are judging by the champions league and not the players and flair then Nottingham Forest's squad > Barcelona's squad.

:dance:

Zealous wrote:

The Franchise wrote:Watch the games.

Contrary to popular belief around here, the best teams dont always win.

I watched all those games under a year ago, in every game Man Utd were by far second best.

Choking? Hitting the bar and post numerous times isnt choking, its football, its bad luck.

The question is, best team...not most lucky, or even who won the most.

I'm sorry but that makes little sense to me. I saw the games as well.

Juve and Bayern had the games more or less won but that United team had such a potent attack that you couldn't ignore it's girth.

What ever way you paint it Juve and Bayern choked and they choked hard. You don't give up the leads they had unless they were facing a quality side.

The only criticism of the United side I can think of would be that they were too attacking and a bit naive in defence, especially at the start of games. Something that Ferguson would change after Madrid surprisingly beat them 2-3 at Old Trafford in 2000.

United 99 were quality, you can't deny that, I rate them above the other teams on that list because they have the trophies and the results to back it up. Chelsea 04-05 come second for me because of how dominant they were in the league although they could have been first if they had the "X Factor" that that United team clearly had.

CBarca wrote:Slowly read the poll.

Got to Newcastle 2011.

Decision was easy from there. :dance:

dnmac4 wrote:

ali8775 wrote:

dnmac4 wrote:I can't believe more people are not using the Champions League as a way to decide who's better.

I mean obviously all of them won the EPL in those years and they all competed in the Champions League.

IMO, the more well rounded a team is the better that makes them and the Champions League makes you play teams with different styles then a lot of the teams you face in your league. In fact some teams can be made to dominate there league and then not perform in the champions league because there only suited to play against teams from there country.

It's just such an obvious way to decide the difference yet no one seems to pay any attention to it.

Especially since most people who root for these teams think the EPL is the best league in the world, you would think the best team from that league in the EPL era was at least the best team in Europe, right?

if we are judging by the champions league and not the players and flair then Nottingham Forest's squad > Barcelona's squad.

:dance:

Got it, so "flair" is more important then results on the field. The thread was talking about teams in the Premier League era, so why someone would bring Forrest into the discussion is beyond me, also, please tell me why you think Forrest is better then any of the Barca teams in there Champions League wining years?

This has got to be up there for worst post of the year. It's wrong, it's off topic, it doesn't make any sense, no one said the Champions league was the sole decider but a way to seperate teams that are very close, and really it just shows that this poster cannot have an intelligent discussion on any thing even remotely involving his team or league.

Realize this, this posters team was not brought up in any way, and this post also affects almost all of the other teams in this pole but of course you have this guy spewing nonsense that has no relation to the topic or post it's self.

ali8775 wrote:

dnmac4 wrote:

ali8775 wrote:

dnmac4 wrote:I can't believe more people are not using the Champions League as a way to decide who's better.

I mean obviously all of them won the EPL in those years and they all competed in the Champions League.

IMO, the more well rounded a team is the better that makes them and the Champions League makes you play teams with different styles then a lot of the teams you face in your league. In fact some teams can be made to dominate there league and then not perform in the champions league because there only suited to play against teams from there country.

It's just such an obvious way to decide the difference yet no one seems to pay any attention to it.

Especially since most people who root for these teams think the EPL is the best league in the world, you would think the best team from that league in the EPL era was at least the best team in Europe, right?

if we are judging by the champions league and not the players and flair then Nottingham Forest's squad > Barcelona's squad.

:dance:

Got it, so "flair" is more important then results on the field. The thread was talking about teams in the Premier League era, so why someone would bring Forrest into the discussion is beyond me, also, please tell me why you think Forrest is better then any of the Barca teams in there Champions League wining years?

This has got to be up there for worst post of the year. It's wrong, it's off topic, it doesn't make any sense, no one said the Champions league was the sole decider but a way to seperate teams that are very close, and really it just shows that this poster cannot have an intelligent discussion on any thing even remotely involving his team or league.

Realize this, this posters team was not brought up in any way, and this post also affects almost all of the other teams in this pole but of course you have this guy spewing nonsense that has no relation to the topic or post it's self.

Forest won 2 CL in a row. I didn't bring Barca up because I don't like Barca, I brought Barca up because they are being hailed as one of the best squads of all time.

I highlighted to show you what I answered to,

kis emak

Nothing should detract from the Arsenal team
that won the championship that year, the best domestic
opponents I faced. The best of the bunch, better than
Chelsea under Mourinho and Arsenal’s Invincibles.
Arsène Wenger had been appointed the previous
season. We hadn’t known much about him then, but we’d
witnessed the coming together of a formidable opponent.
That Arsenal team had so many gifts. They were
experienced and strong, both mentally and physically. They
were tough. They didn’t have the touch of arrogance that
would come in the Henry years when their attitude was ‘you
can’t touch us, we’re French and we’re brilliant’.
From back to front, it was hard to detect a weakness.
Modern football is a squad game but you know a team is
really strong when you can rattle off their first XI without
pausing: Seaman, Dixon, Winterburn, Adams, Keown,
Vieira, Petit, Parlour, Overmars, Anelka and Bergkamp. If
they were fit, they played.
I’ve rarely come across a physically stronger team –
perhaps only Juventus. Arsenal had a top goalkeeper, a
fantastic back four, a central midfield pair that could pass,
move and never be intimidated, and a hard-working rightmidfield
player in Parlour who could tuck in complemented
by an out-and-out flyer in Overmars on the other flank.
Of all my regular left-wing opponents, Overmars must
go down as the toughest I faced.
Ginola was another tricky one, not least because of
his physical stature. For a winger he was a big man. But he
was never going to run in behind you. He was a lazy winger.
He wanted the ball to his feet so he could turn and run. If he
did that, if he got his tail up in the first twenty minutes, he
could make life a nightmare. That happened one time at
White Hart Lane and I was sent off by half-time. But if you
nailed him with a few early tackles, if you snapped at him
like a terrier, he’d think, ‘I’m not having much joy here, I’ll go
drift inside or see what it’s like on the other wing.’
Overmars, and Arsenal, would keep at you. The
Dutchman’s scorching pace gave any defender a problem.
Petit, with that wand of a left foot, would constantly flick the
ball over my head for Overmars to run on to. Get tight and
he’d beat you in a sprint. Drop off and he had room to build
up a head of steam.
And then there was Bergkamp, one of the great
number 10s, who would play in the hole and feed the ball
through to Anelka, a finisher who had an eye for goal and
searing pace.
In terms of fitting the pieces together for 4–4–2, you
could not have hand-picked a team with better balance.
Mourinho’s Chelsea were an unstoppable force for a
couple of seasons. And I know the Arsenal Invincibles of
2003/04 can claim their own unique place in the record
books, and they were mesmerising to watch. In Henry they
had a forward so elusive that he was almost unplayable at
his peak. But, if it’s not perverse to say this of a team that
went a whole season unbeaten, you always felt you had a
chance against that later Arsenal side because you could
get about them, bully them. I couldn’t say that about
Wenger’s first champions, and I don’t think it’s a
coincidence that we drew twice against the Invincibles but
lost twice to Arsenal in 1997/98. They were the best
domestic team we came up against in my time at United.
We were top of the league when they came to Old
Trafford in March but it was a sign of our injury problems
that I was at centre-half with young John Curtis at rightback.
Anelka flicked the ball over the top and Overmars
used his speed to spring through and slide the ball through
Schmeichel’s legs. When big Peter pulled his hamstring
going up for a corner it seemed to sum up our problems.
Arsenal had won at Old Trafford for the first time in eight
seasons.
By the end of the season we weren’t far off Arsenal –
only a point as it turned out, which wasn’t bad considering
our injuries – but we couldn’t complain when we finished
empty-handed. Arsenal were truly impressive.