jibers wrote:

babun1024 wrote:United never played football. They were always about PTB and counter attack against any semi decent side in Europe or EPL
Arsenal actually played football= the best side in EPL
By the way, they didn't learn those tactics from Chelski or Mou, Italian teams had long practised those and won many trophies by sitting back and playing dirty

lol, johg it on Babun, Arsenal played on the counter as well, hell thats how henry scored most of his golas ffs. And so Moudrid don't play football consider Mou has built your team based on countering? A fail ia a fail, and you win.

jibers wrote:

mzamani wrote:

jibers wrote:It';s between chelsea 04/05, United 08 and United 99 tbh. Invincibles? No chance. They won just the prem and couln't even sustain it. Chelsea revolutionised tactics in the prem and I owe Uniteds 08 tactical development and Fergie finally getting it right in Europ on a consistent Basis down to them. They lost once and broke every record in the prem, managed to win other trophies and their cycle didn't end after one season. Invincibles were 1 season wonders. If you can't sustain a cycle your not a great team.

And what else did Chelsea win that season? Carling cup?

You mean go unbeaten for two seasons?

two season? I guess I was dreaming when we ended your run wasn't I. so it was two season eh? Again, I have put out the stas for all to see, chelsea had one more loss and half the draws than the almight invincibles. They managed to win the prem multiple times, they have the best defensive record in EPL history and thye scored 1 more fewr goals for a supposedly defensive team and seeing as people her regard the invincibles as some sort of attacking godly team. Stats don't lie. Having 0 in the loss column doesn't make up for you failing in the goals conceded, pioonts won and draws had department. Stop being biased and accept it.

babun1024 wrote:

jibers wrote:

babun1024 wrote:United never played football. They were always about PTB and counter attack against any semi decent side in Europe or EPL
Arsenal actually played football= the best side in EPL
By the way, they didn't learn those tactics from Chelski or Mou, Italian teams had long practised those and won many trophies by sitting back and playing dirty

lol, johg it on Babun, Arsenal played on the counter as well, hell thats how henry scored most of his golas ffs. And so Moudrid don't play football consider Mou has built your team based on countering? A fail ia a fail, and you win.

You didn't get me. Countering doesn't mean park the bus against any half decent team. That's how United play we don't park the bus, same with Arsenal at that time

jibers wrote:

babun1024 wrote:

jibers wrote:

babun1024 wrote:United never played football. They were always about PTB and counter attack against any semi decent side in Europe or EPL
Arsenal actually played football= the best side in EPL
By the way, they didn't learn those tactics from Chelski or Mou, Italian teams had long practised those and won many trophies by sitting back and playing dirty

lol, johg it on Babun, Arsenal played on the counter as well, hell thats how henry scored most of his golas ffs. And so Moudrid don't play football consider Mou has built your team based on countering? A fail ia a fail, and you win.

You didn't get me. Countering doesn't mean park the bus against any half decent team. That's how United play we don't park the bus, same with Arsenal at that time

How many decent teams have you faced? Barcelona? And you parked the bus in all your games last season. Your only prominent victory is when you parked in the copa.

mzamani wrote:

jibers wrote:

mzamani wrote:

jibers wrote:It';s between chelsea 04/05, United 08 and United 99 tbh. Invincibles? No chance. They won just the prem and couln't even sustain it. Chelsea revolutionised tactics in the prem and I owe Uniteds 08 tactical development and Fergie finally getting it right in Europ on a consistent Basis down to them. They lost once and broke every record in the prem, managed to win other trophies and their cycle didn't end after one season. Invincibles were 1 season wonders. If you can't sustain a cycle your not a great team.

And what else did Chelsea win that season? Carling cup?

You mean go unbeaten for two seasons?

two season? I guess I was dreaming when we ended your run wasn't I. so it was two season eh? Again, I have put out the stas for all to see, chelsea had one more loss and half the draws than the almight invincibles. They managed to win the prem multiple times, they have the best defensive record in EPL history and thye scored 1 more fewr goals for a supposedly defensive team and seeing as people her regard the invincibles as some sort of attacking godly team. Stats don't lie. Having 0 in the loss column doesn't make up for you failing in the goals conceded, pioonts won and draws had department. Stop being biased and accept it.

you said we could not maintain our cycle, so i was asking if you meant we should have gone 2 seasons unbeaten to be great. thats your logic right?

and oh, unbeaten>>>>>one loss but more points. ask any one who knows footbal and they would rather win the league unbeaten than win with more points

at the end of the day, people do not care about the scoreline, they care about the result, not amount of goals conceded in the game/season. anyway you look at 4 more draws is still >>> one more loss
and ffs, stop saying more points as if it is a 20 point difference.

babun1024 wrote:

jibers wrote:

babun1024 wrote:

jibers wrote:

babun1024 wrote:United never played football. They were always about PTB and counter attack against any semi decent side in Europe or EPL
Arsenal actually played football= the best side in EPL
By the way, they didn't learn those tactics from Chelski or Mou, Italian teams had long practised those and won many trophies by sitting back and playing dirty

lol, johg it on Babun, Arsenal played on the counter as well, hell thats how henry scored most of his golas ffs. And so Moudrid don't play football consider Mou has built your team based on countering? A fail ia a fail, and you win.

You didn't get me. Countering doesn't mean park the bus against any half decent team. That's how United play we don't park the bus, same with Arsenal at that time

How many decent teams have you faced? Barcelona? And you parked the bus in all your games last season. Your only prominent victory is when you parked in the copa.

United never dominated a top side That's the point Arsenal played better against Farca in the final than Manu ever in all of their matchups

jibers wrote:

mzamani wrote:

jibers wrote:

mzamani wrote:For starters, that Chelsea team of 04-05 is vastly overrated. people forget that we were leading the league for at least 40% of that season, so i dont know how that translate to dominating. and the same Chelsea could not beat us. so if you think there were better, you are basing it on what? Carling cup?

The same as United 08 team. again people seem to forget that we were on top for 70% of that season. United were not even the best team for 70% of that season ffs.

compare that to the Invincibles, and were basically the best team for the whole season. also, just like Chelsea in 05, we won the league with a lot of points. you mention the 5 point difference as if it is 20

End ot the day statistically they were the bbetter team. End of. The prem is a marathon not a sprint. Whose fault is it that Arsenal can't hold it together? United 08 won the prem and were the reigning champs and for added bonus we won something you invincibles never won, a cl. Chelsea had more points, hand conceded less and scored one more less goal, of course they were better. Your team had 12 draws. 12...Calling arsenal the best team in the prem era is like calling United 08 the best team in the UCL era because we went unbeaten as well. Hog wash. Using one stat to judge teams. Chelsea 5 were superior, united 08 won more. Invincibles where found out and Arsenal have failed conssistently at the highest level ever since.

So would you say that a team that dominates a game with 70 percent possion and lose in the last 10 minutes was not the better team? just because they won more does not mean they were better.


so now you want to compare a knockout competition of 13 games with 38 PL games?

lol 70% possession? Now I kow you didn't watch any arsenal games that season. So what makes you better? 0 in the loss column? LOL.

jibers wrote:

babun1024 wrote:

jibers wrote:

babun1024 wrote:United never played football. They were always about PTB and counter attack against any semi decent side in Europe or EPL
Arsenal actually played football= the best side in EPL
By the way, they didn't learn those tactics from Chelski or Mou, Italian teams had long practised those and won many trophies by sitting back and playing dirty

lol, johg it on Babun, Arsenal played on the counter as well, hell thats how henry scored most of his golas ffs. And so Moudrid don't play football consider Mou has built your team based on countering? A fail ia a fail, and you win.

You didn't get me. Countering doesn't mean park the bus against any half decent team. That's how United play we don't park the bus, same with Arsenal at that time

How many decent teams have you faced? Barcelona? And you parked the bus in all your games last season. Your only prominent victory is when you parked in the copa.

jibers wrote:

mzamani wrote:

jibers wrote:

mzamani wrote:

jibers wrote:It';s between chelsea 04/05, United 08 and United 99 tbh. Invincibles? No chance. They won just the prem and couln't even sustain it. Chelsea revolutionised tactics in the prem and I owe Uniteds 08 tactical development and Fergie finally getting it right in Europ on a consistent Basis down to them. They lost once and broke every record in the prem, managed to win other trophies and their cycle didn't end after one season. Invincibles were 1 season wonders. If you can't sustain a cycle your not a great team.

And what else did Chelsea win that season? Carling cup?

You mean go unbeaten for two seasons?

two season? I guess I was dreaming when we ended your run wasn't I. so it was two season eh? Again, I have put out the stas for all to see, chelsea had one more loss and half the draws than the almight invincibles. They managed to win the prem multiple times, they have the best defensive record in EPL history and thye scored 1 more fewr goals for a supposedly defensive team and seeing as people her regard the invincibles as some sort of attacking godly team. Stats don't lie. Having 0 in the loss column doesn't make up for you failing in the goals conceded, pioonts won and draws had department. Stop being biased and accept it.

you said we could not maintain our cycle, so i was asking if you meant we should have gone 2 seasons unbeaten to be great. thats your logic right?

and oh, unbeaten>>>>>one loss but more points. ask any one who knows footbal and they would rather win the league unbeaten than win with more points

at the end of the day, people do not care about the scoreline, they care about the result, not amount of goals conceded in the game/season. anyway you look at 4 more draws is still >>> one more loss
and ffs, stop saying more points as if it is a 20 point difference.

How manmy trophies have Arsenal won since that season? At the end of the day statistically chelsea where better, they concede less goals, won more, dre less and had more points and played pretty much the exact team and exact manager the following season, how you can call Arsenal the best is beyond belief.

ragbirjosh wrote:

jibers wrote:

babun1024 wrote:

jibers wrote:

babun1024 wrote:United never played football. They were always about PTB and counter attack against any semi decent side in Europe or EPL
Arsenal actually played football= the best side in EPL
By the way, they didn't learn those tactics from Chelski or Mou, Italian teams had long practised those and won many trophies by sitting back and playing dirty

lol, johg it on Babun, Arsenal played on the counter as well, hell thats how henry scored most of his golas ffs. And so Moudrid don't play football consider Mou has built your team based on countering? A fail ia a fail, and you win.

You didn't get me. Countering doesn't mean park the bus against any half decent team. That's how United play we don't park the bus, same with Arsenal at that time

How many decent teams have you faced? Barcelona? And you parked the bus in all your games last season. Your only prominent victory is when you parked in the copa.

You know, the way you guys talk....

Valencia,Sevilla,Athletic,Villareal,AC Millan,Tottenham,Lyon,et al.. might as well be Sunday leauge teams............

mzamani wrote:

ragbirjosh wrote:

jibers wrote:

babun1024 wrote:

jibers wrote:

babun1024 wrote:United never played football. They were always about PTB and counter attack against any semi decent side in Europe or EPL
Arsenal actually played football= the best side in EPL
By the way, they didn't learn those tactics from Chelski or Mou, Italian teams had long practised those and won many trophies by sitting back and playing dirty

lol, johg it on Babun, Arsenal played on the counter as well, hell thats how henry scored most of his golas ffs. And so Moudrid don't play football consider Mou has built your team based on countering? A fail ia a fail, and you win.

You didn't get me. Countering doesn't mean park the bus against any half decent team. That's how United play we don't park the bus, same with Arsenal at that time

How many decent teams have you faced? Barcelona? And you parked the bus in all your games last season. Your only prominent victory is when you parked in the copa.

You know, the way you guys talk....

Valencia,Sevilla,Athletic,Villareal,AC Millan,Tottenham,Lyon,et al.. might as well be Sunday leauge teams............

Apparently, Barca is the only decent team lol

mzamani wrote:

jibers wrote:

mzamani wrote:

jibers wrote:

mzamani wrote:

jibers wrote:It';s between chelsea 04/05, United 08 and United 99 tbh. Invincibles? No chance. They won just the prem and couln't even sustain it. Chelsea revolutionised tactics in the prem and I owe Uniteds 08 tactical development and Fergie finally getting it right in Europ on a consistent Basis down to them. They lost once and broke every record in the prem, managed to win other trophies and their cycle didn't end after one season. Invincibles were 1 season wonders. If you can't sustain a cycle your not a great team.

And what else did Chelsea win that season? Carling cup?

You mean go unbeaten for two seasons?

two season? I guess I was dreaming when we ended your run wasn't I. so it was two season eh? Again, I have put out the stas for all to see, chelsea had one more loss and half the draws than the almight invincibles. They managed to win the prem multiple times, they have the best defensive record in EPL history and thye scored 1 more fewr goals for a supposedly defensive team and seeing as people her regard the invincibles as some sort of attacking godly team. Stats don't lie. Having 0 in the loss column doesn't make up for you failing in the goals conceded, pioonts won and draws had department. Stop being biased and accept it.

you said we could not maintain our cycle, so i was asking if you meant we should have gone 2 seasons unbeaten to be great. thats your logic right?

and oh, unbeaten>>>>>one loss but more points. ask any one who knows footbal and they would rather win the league unbeaten than win with more points

at the end of the day, people do not care about the scoreline, they care about the result, not amount of goals conceded in the game/season. anyway you look at 4 more draws is still >>> one more loss
and ffs, stop saying more points as if it is a 20 point difference.

How manmy trophies have Arsenal won since that season? At the end of the day statistically chelsea where better, they concede less goals, won more, dre less and had more points and played pretty much the exact team and exact manager the following season, how you can call Arsenal the best is beyond belief.

i suggest you look at the poll again

mzamani wrote:So how many decent teams are there ? Barca, Madrid, Chelsea, Man United???? asuming Milan are not a decent team...

anyway, i am pretty much sure Madrid would only park the bus against Barca.

highburied wrote:I regret for joining this thread.

Jibers

jibers wrote:

mzamani wrote:

jibers wrote:

mzamani wrote:

jibers wrote:

mzamani wrote:

jibers wrote:It';s between chelsea 04/05, United 08 and United 99 tbh. Invincibles? No chance. They won just the prem and couln't even sustain it. Chelsea revolutionised tactics in the prem and I owe Uniteds 08 tactical development and Fergie finally getting it right in Europ on a consistent Basis down to them. They lost once and broke every record in the prem, managed to win other trophies and their cycle didn't end after one season. Invincibles were 1 season wonders. If you can't sustain a cycle your not a great team.

And what else did Chelsea win that season? Carling cup?

You mean go unbeaten for two seasons?

two season? I guess I was dreaming when we ended your run wasn't I. so it was two season eh? Again, I have put out the stas for all to see, chelsea had one more loss and half the draws than the almight invincibles. They managed to win the prem multiple times, they have the best defensive record in EPL history and thye scored 1 more fewr goals for a supposedly defensive team and seeing as people her regard the invincibles as some sort of attacking godly team. Stats don't lie. Having 0 in the loss column doesn't make up for you failing in the goals conceded, pioonts won and draws had department. Stop being biased and accept it.

you said we could not maintain our cycle, so i was asking if you meant we should have gone 2 seasons unbeaten to be great. thats your logic right?

and oh, unbeaten>>>>>one loss but more points. ask any one who knows footbal and they would rather win the league unbeaten than win with more points

at the end of the day, people do not care about the scoreline, they care about the result, not amount of goals conceded in the game/season. anyway you look at 4 more draws is still >>> one more loss
and ffs, stop saying more points as if it is a 20 point difference.

How manmy trophies have Arsenal won since that season? At the end of the day statistically chelsea where better, they concede less goals, won more, dre less and had more points and played pretty much the exact team and exact manager the following season, how you can call Arsenal the best is beyond belief.

i suggest you look at the poll again

So because the masses of the very knowledgeable fans of Goal legacy vote Arsenal i should follwo suit. I have laid out may arguements or why I think it'sa chelsea. Ends of the day Chelsea have the most points, Arsenal were unbeaten, FACT is the same Arsenal team were dethroned the following season by a chelsea that conced less socred one more less and had more points and fewr draws. Chelsea wins.

jibers wrote:

mzamani wrote:So how many decent teams are there ? Barca, Madrid, Chelsea, Man United???? asuming Milan are not a decent team...

anyway, i am pretty much sure Madrid would only park the bus against Barca.

What? I was talking about La liga and the competition RM and Barcelona face. Even when Madrid where getting knocked out in the last 16, they were cruisng la liga. They couldnt hack it in Europe yet they battered all the teams in La liga bar Barca. No competition. You know who the usual suspects are dude, you're not brain dead.

mzamani wrote:

jibers wrote:

mzamani wrote:

jibers wrote:

mzamani wrote:

jibers wrote:

mzamani wrote:

jibers wrote:It';s between chelsea 04/05, United 08 and United 99 tbh. Invincibles? No chance. They won just the prem and couln't even sustain it. Chelsea revolutionised tactics in the prem and I owe Uniteds 08 tactical development and Fergie finally getting it right in Europ on a consistent Basis down to them. They lost once and broke every record in the prem, managed to win other trophies and their cycle didn't end after one season. Invincibles were 1 season wonders. If you can't sustain a cycle your not a great team.

And what else did Chelsea win that season? Carling cup?

You mean go unbeaten for two seasons?

two season? I guess I was dreaming when we ended your run wasn't I. so it was two season eh? Again, I have put out the stas for all to see, chelsea had one more loss and half the draws than the almight invincibles. They managed to win the prem multiple times, they have the best defensive record in EPL history and thye scored 1 more fewr goals for a supposedly defensive team and seeing as people her regard the invincibles as some sort of attacking godly team. Stats don't lie. Having 0 in the loss column doesn't make up for you failing in the goals conceded, pioonts won and draws had department. Stop being biased and accept it.

you said we could not maintain our cycle, so i was asking if you meant we should have gone 2 seasons unbeaten to be great. thats your logic right?

and oh, unbeaten>>>>>one loss but more points. ask any one who knows footbal and they would rather win the league unbeaten than win with more points

at the end of the day, people do not care about the scoreline, they care about the result, not amount of goals conceded in the game/season. anyway you look at 4 more draws is still >>> one more loss
and ffs, stop saying more points as if it is a 20 point difference.

How manmy trophies have Arsenal won since that season? At the end of the day statistically chelsea where better, they concede less goals, won more, dre less and had more points and played pretty much the exact team and exact manager the following season, how you can call Arsenal the best is beyond belief.

i suggest you look at the poll again

So because the masses of the very knowledgeable fans of Goal legacy vote Arsenal i should follwo suit. I have laid out may arguements or why I think it'sa chelsea. Ends of the day Chelsea have the most points, Arsenal were unbeaten, FACT is the same Arsenal team were dethroned the following season by a chelsea that conced less socred one more less and had more points and fewr draws. Chelsea wins.

by look at the poll, i meant look at what the pool is asking...

you forgot one more loss

btw, are you saying just because the won the league off us meant they were better than our team the season before? thats a terrible logic there. again, compare the chelsea team with the 03\04 Arsenal side, not the 04/05 one.

mzamani wrote:

jibers wrote:

mzamani wrote:So how many decent teams are there ? Barca, Madrid, Chelsea, Man United???? asuming Milan are not a decent team...

anyway, i am pretty much sure Madrid would only park the bus against Barca.

What? I was talking about La liga and the competition RM and Barcelona face. Even when Madrid where getting knocked out in the last 16, they were cruisng la liga. They couldnt hack it in Europe yet they battered all the teams in La liga bar Barca. No competition. You know who the usual suspects are dude, you're not brain dead.

i suggest you go and look at La Liga during those seasons, and maybe after that, you can let me know of the new meaning of battering

jibers wrote:

mzamani wrote:

jibers wrote:

mzamani wrote:

jibers wrote:

mzamani wrote:

jibers wrote:

mzamani wrote:

jibers wrote:It';s between chelsea 04/05, United 08 and United 99 tbh. Invincibles? No chance. They won just the prem and couln't even sustain it. Chelsea revolutionised tactics in the prem and I owe Uniteds 08 tactical development and Fergie finally getting it right in Europ on a consistent Basis down to them. They lost once and broke every record in the prem, managed to win other trophies and their cycle didn't end after one season. Invincibles were 1 season wonders. If you can't sustain a cycle your not a great team.

And what else did Chelsea win that season? Carling cup?

You mean go unbeaten for two seasons?

two season? I guess I was dreaming when we ended your run wasn't I. so it was two season eh? Again, I have put out the stas for all to see, chelsea had one more loss and half the draws than the almight invincibles. They managed to win the prem multiple times, they have the best defensive record in EPL history and thye scored 1 more fewr goals for a supposedly defensive team and seeing as people her regard the invincibles as some sort of attacking godly team. Stats don't lie. Having 0 in the loss column doesn't make up for you failing in the goals conceded, pioonts won and draws had department. Stop being biased and accept it.

you said we could not maintain our cycle, so i was asking if you meant we should have gone 2 seasons unbeaten to be great. thats your logic right?

and oh, unbeaten>>>>>one loss but more points. ask any one who knows footbal and they would rather win the league unbeaten than win with more points

at the end of the day, people do not care about the scoreline, they care about the result, not amount of goals conceded in the game/season. anyway you look at 4 more draws is still >>> one more loss
and ffs, stop saying more points as if it is a 20 point difference.

How manmy trophies have Arsenal won since that season? At the end of the day statistically chelsea where better, they concede less goals, won more, dre less and had more points and played pretty much the exact team and exact manager the following season, how you can call Arsenal the best is beyond belief.

i suggest you look at the poll again

So because the masses of the very knowledgeable fans of Goal legacy vote Arsenal i should follwo suit. I have laid out may arguements or why I think it'sa chelsea. Ends of the day Chelsea have the most points, Arsenal were unbeaten, FACT is the same Arsenal team were dethroned the following season by a chelsea that conced less socred one more less and had more points and fewr draws. Chelsea wins.

by look at the poll, i meant look at what the pool is asking...

you forgot one more loss

btw, are you saying just because the won the league off us meant they were better than our team the season before? thats a terrible logic there. again, compare the chelsea team with the 03\04 Arsenal side, not the 04/05 one.

Fine I will compare them by the table. Chelsea were statistically better.

Zealous wrote:I think Jibers is giving Chelsea credit because of how they changed tactics in the PL forever. From a pure tactical standpoint his argument makes sense.

The dominant fashion in which they won their league title was extremely impressive too. No one even came close that year.

english_jewel wrote:Chelsea 04-05 over Arsenal Invicibles anyday

We lost only one match in that season and won one more cup than Arsenal

1 cup> 1 game
2 cups> 1 cup