Which was the greater Unbeaten Achievement - United 98/99 V Arsenal 03/04

DOC09UNAM

Warper wrote: »

Plenty - Celtic, Real Madrid, AC Milan, Juventus, Ajax, Barcelona to name but a few.

In all competitions, or is that just league?

keane2097

Separating the unbeaten runs from the trophies they lead to teams winning makes for a really stunted discussion IMO, I can't see why you want to do it.

homerjay2005

errm what was wrong with the football played by united from december 98 to october 99? and to say that arsenal were a better team and declare it as fact, is very very dismissive and biased to be honest. that united team contained one of the best, if not the best attacking 6 players (plus ole and teddy) in the history of english football along with the greatest ever keeper and 2 of the most respected full backs also. jaap stam got european defender of the year 3 years in a row.

people are under estimating just how good that united team was i think, maybe cos its 5 years longer and some of the people on here would only have been 10-15 years old at the time.

actually, should count up the goals scored in those 49 and 45games....gimme a few mins.

event

i think united got more goals in theirs homer, off the top of my head.

I wonder what sort of team did arsenal put out in the cup competitions?
In uniteds unbeaten run, id imagine that they had the majority of their full team out in all the FA cups games and same in the CL. Did arsenal have a lot of kids playing in the CC that year, and did they de-prioritize the FA cup as well, due to the pressure of the unbeaten season?

homerjay2005

event wrote: »

i think united got more goals in theirs homer, off the top of my head.

I wonder what sort of team did arsenal put out in the cup competitions?
In uniteds unbeaten run, id imagine that they had the majority of their full team out in all the FA cups games and same in the CL. Did arsenal have a lot of kids playing in the CC that year, and did they de-prioritize the FA cup as well, due to the pressure of the unbeaten season?

i wont be counting the carling cup. i will only be counting the games in question 49 (38) v 45 (33). i have arsenal complete as its a lot easier to do theirs, just by simple looking at league tables and then adding in 11 games more! united is 45 games counted manually

SlickRic

homerjay2005 wrote: »

errm what was wrong with the football played by united from december 98 to october 99?

not a thing.

i prefer Arsenal's football, and remember full well the football Utd played circa-1999, and very few, if any, are dismissing Utd as an inferior team to Arsenal. that can't be declared as fact.

but i thought the Arsenal team was just marginally better, as was the football they played, and the unbeaten achievement.

IMO, they were better in all these areas, by a hair.

you talk of Utd's front 6 being one of the best ever in English football; Arsenal's was the best I've ever seen.

---

Vieira----Gilberto

---

Freddie

---

Bergkamp

---

Bob

---

Henry

---

i don't know the amount of goals scored, but their fluidity was breathless, that season especially, and is the best i've witnessed.

herbieflowers

SlickRic wrote: »

you talk of Utd's front 6 being one of the best ever in English football; Arsenal's was the best I've ever seen.

---

Vieira----Gilberto

---

Freddie

---

Bergkamp

---

Bob

---

Henry

---

i don't know the amount of goals scored, but their fluidity was breathless, that season especially, and is the best i've witnessed.

Arsenal's side that season was also exceptional tactically. I think this was the first English side that had such a great understanding and fluid movement between the front players, which bamboozled defences.

Henry could drift wide, Ljunberg and Pires both swapped sides, Berkgamp dropping deep - it was a nightmare for opposition defences having to play against such a system.

3hn2givr7mx1sc

Considering that it wasn't a 'proper' unbeaten run, as they lost in the cups, I'd have to with United.

Oh, and the fact that United won 3 trophies, whereas Arsenal won one.

homerjay2005

100 votes, 50 for each :eek::eek: couldnt be any tighter.

3hn2givr7mx1sc

homerjay2005 wrote: »

100 votes, 50 for each :eek::eek: couldnt be any tighter.

I made it 50-50 by voting for United.:D

homerjay2005

so here are the stats, done by the season and then by the overall run, as most people here are dismissing the other games apart from 98/99 and 03/04 (what i mean here is united played 12 games the following season unbeaten and arsenal played 2 in 02/03 and 9 in 04/05) so i will do as many figures as possible.

will do the overall run stats in another post to avoid having too many stats in one post.

---

98/99 V 03/04.

---

United

---

Games unbeaten - 33
Goals Scored - 64
Goals scored per game - 1.94
Goals Conceded - 22
Goals Conceded per game - 0.66
Goal Difference - 42
Games won - 23
Win % - 69.7%

---

Arsenal

---

Games Unbeaten - 38
Goals Scored - 73
Goals scored per game - 1.92
Goals Conceded - 26
Goals Conceded per game - 0.68
Goal Difference - 47
Games won - 26
Win % - 68.4%

Conclusion, theres f8ck all in it to be honest! both stats are pretty much the same, as shown by the win % and the goals per game which is the fairest way to judge considering united played 5 games less in their run.

3hn2givr7mx1sc

baz2009 wrote: »

Considering that it wasn't a 'proper' unbeaten run, as they lost in the cups, I'd have to with United.

Oh, and the fact that United won 3 trophies, whereas Arsenal won one.

Hmm, after seeing the stats I think it's a lot closer than I originally did, but still United because of the trophy count.

Iago

I've spent the best part of the day thinking about this, and the conclusion that I've come to is that Arsenals achievement was greater.

I don't think it will ever be equalled again in the premier league, or certainly not in the foreseeable future at any rate. Uniteds achievement was epic of course, and it's no disrespect to one to choose the other. Arsenal shade it though, and that's exactly as it should be imo.

Arsenals run was more impressive as it was league games.

However, If the poll was "which was the greater acheviement - United treble or Arsenal's unbeaten run", United would win hands down.

homerjay2005

baz2009 wrote: »

Hmm, after seeing the stats I think it's a lot closer than I originally did, but still United because of the trophy count.

the fact that arsenal lost games during their league run, slighlty skews their stats. i mean if for example, we took it over a 38 + 5 (number of defeats for arsenal that season) plus their other games played that season and compared to the 45 united actually went unbeaten, then im sure uniteds stats would be a nice bit better.

so, really the stats dont tell us anything, i only put them up just to discuss the notion that arsenal were a more attractive team to watch.

perhaps it would have been best just to go with season v season as united 45 game run is over 2 seasons and arsenals spreads 3 seasons.

OPENROAD

Arsenal, easily imo

Frisbee

OPENROAD wrote: »

Arsenal, easily imo

I don't see how anyone could view it as easily either way. It's very tight.

3hn2givr7mx1sc

OPENROAD wrote: »

Arsenal, easily imo

Neither win easily, tbf.

OPENROAD

baz2009 wrote: »

Neither win easily, tbf.

Well in my mind it is, but then I am biased Seriously though yes it is close, but considering Arsenals was in the league and the way they actually played, I have to give it to Arsenal, the fact is it is also unlikely to be repeated again.

If memory serves me correct we also nearly went unbeaten with George Graham back in 1991, just one defeat.

yahoo_moe

event wrote: »

I wonder what sort of team did arsenal put out in the cup competitions?

Proper team in the FA Cup anyway, less so in the Carling Cup where we were playing Graham Stack, Cygan, a young Clichy, a young Fabregas, Aliadiere, Jay Thomas, etc. Got to both semi-finals.

homerjay2005 wrote: »

people are under estimating just how good that united team was i think

Maybe there's a bit of that. But you can't just dismiss Arsenal's line-up in '04 like it was nothing either.

I don't know, as an unbeaten run, United's seems a bit more contrived - they were beaten just before Christmas '98, and the "all competitions" thing only applies because they were already out of the League Cup to Spurs.

RasTa

How many times did Arsenal draw in their run?

gosplan

DOC09UNAM wrote: »

The deciding factor for me, was uniteds run took them to an unprecedented treble that may never be matched.

Do Porto and Barca not count?

Fuhrer

gosplan wrote: »

Do Porto and Barca not count?

Unprecedendant: "without previous instance; never before known or experienced; unexampled or unparalleled:"


Their trebles happened after.


But PSV, Ajax & Celtic have done equivalent trebles beforehand

Nalz

Trophies > Records

adox

I voted Arsenal based on the question asked.

It really was a truly remarkable thing to do and one which I doubt will happen again any time soon, if ever.

Fuhrer

Fuhrer wrote: »

Unprecedendant: "without previous instance; never before known or experienced; unexampled or unparalleled:"


Their trebles happened after.


But PSV, Ajax & Celtic have done equivalent trebles beforehand

Celtic actually won the quadruple afaik in '67

OPENROAD

In fairness the poll is kind of flawed, would have liked to have seen a public poll with a breakdown of Arsenal/Utd/neutral supporters.

Utd supporters will vote utd, and Arsenal supporters will vote for Arsenal by and large.

adox

OPENROAD wrote: »

In fairness the poll is kind of flawed, would have liked to have seen a public poll with a breakdown of Arsenal/Utd/neutral supporters.

Utd supporters will vote utd, and Arsenal supporters will vote for Arsenal by and large.

I'm a United supporter and voted Arsenal.

Warper

To simplify matters for everyone:

Which do you think will happen sooner:

1. A Premier League team to go unbeaten in 45 games over the course of 2 seasons in all competitions?
2. A Premier League team to go unbeaten in 49 Premier League games including going through a a full PL season?

The answer is 1. The pressure on Arsenal kept building throughout the entire season game by game whereas who really gave a toss if Utd lost a game in Aug 99.

No. 1 will be done a lot sooner than No. 2.

Het-Field

I have always felt that 2003/2004 was one of the poorerst seasons in EPL memory. United were out of sorts, while Chelsea were in a similar situation to the current setup at Manchester City (a marquee team, with insufficient cohesion). IIRC Everton never showed up, while Leeds United were on the downward slide. This gave ordinary Southampton, Charlton Athletic, and Birmingham City teams the chance to succeed. This doesnt negate the achievement that Arsenal managed. It is not likely to be achieved in the near future. However, context can be a bitch, and the context of Arsenal's achievement was a relatively uncompetitive league.

I always believe Man Utd's (not a fan of them at all) achievement of 1998/1999 was exceptional. To win the European Cup they needed to beat Barcelona, Brondby, Bayern Munich, Inter Milan, and Juventus to take the title. To win the FA Cup they had to take Arsenal, Liverpool, Chelsea and Newcastle. The 1999/2000 league was far more competitive then the 2003/2004 edition. IIRC Tottenham took the League Cup, West Ham United managed a European Cup Place, while the likes of Chelsea, Arsenal, and Leeds United had really stepped up the competitive edge in the league by signing top names, and enjoying the culmination of the development of several players over the previous 10 years. Leicester City were a tough proposition under Martin O Neill (they won the League Cup in March 2000), while Aston Villa had spent the first half of the season atop the table. In all competitions United lost 3 games, and one of those was to the suberb Arsenal team, who were the incumbent champions.

Arsenal's achievement is unique. However, they lost games in the Champions League (albeit only one), and Manchester United beat them on the way to the FA Cup. As such Arsenal lost games in other competitions, where Manchester United had not in their marquee season of 1998/1999. United did lose games in the leage. However, it was in a highly competitive leage, where very few sides were out of sorts. The fact that United eneded up with three trophies ensures that my vote is cast for United 1998-1999

L'prof

Most impressive unbeaten run? The one which became the longest run in league football and the only one to win the premier league completely unbeaten. 12 more games than when Preston did it in 1889 too.

KeithAFC

I’ll go with Arsenal and i’ll explain why. Im an Arsenal fan, obviusly but i think that Arsenal side was the greatest league team iv seen. The way the whole team was built, based on technique, pace and power. Big 6ft pure footballers who could pass it around you and murder you in the blink of an eye.

The invincbles first team was all world class in every position at that time. I was utterly gutted after that CL quarter final against Chelsea, if we had won that, things could of been completely different.

But that should not take away from the genius of the invincbles. From the forums im on, we still talk about the invincbles and compare so many players we have today to those players.

That United team was great too but the Arsenal team on 98 had a great chance to beat that Utd team and for me should of won the league and the FA cup again. Utd just had the grit and also a good bit of luck along the way.

Two great sides though.

Warper

Het-Field wrote: »

I have always felt that 2003/2004 was one of the poorerst seasons in EPL memory. United were out of sorts, while Chelsea were in a similar situation to the current setup at Manchester City (a marquee team, with insufficient cohesion). IIRC Everton never showed up, while Leeds United were on the downward slide. This gave ordinary Southampton, Charlton Athletic, and Birmingham City teams the chance to succeed. This doesnt negate the achievement that Arsenal managed. It is not likely to be achieved in the near future. However, context can be a bitch, and the context of Arsenal's achievement was a relatively uncompetitive league.

I always believe Man Utd's (not a fan of them at all) achievement of 1998/1999 was exceptional. To win the European Cup they needed to beat Barcelona, Brondby, Bayern Munich, Inter Milan, and Juventus to take the title. To win the FA Cup they had to take Arsenal, Liverpool, Chelsea and Newcastle. The 1999/2000 league was far more competitive then the 2003/2004 edition. IIRC Tottenham took the League Cup, West Ham United managed a European Cup Place, while the likes of Chelsea, Arsenal, and Leeds United had really stepped up the competitive edge in the league by signing top names, and enjoying the culmination of the development of several players over the previous 10 years. Leicester City were a tough proposition under Martin O Neill (they won the League Cup in March 2000), while Aston Villa had spent the first half of the season atop the table. In all competitions United lost 3 games, and one of those was to the suberb Arsenal team, who were the incumbent champions.

Arsenal's achievement is unique. However, they lost games in the Champions League (albeit only one), and Manchester United beat them on the way to the FA Cup. As such Arsenal lost games in other competitions, where Manchester United had not in their marquee season of 1998/1999. United did lose games in the leage. However, it was in a highly competitive leage, where very few sides were out of sorts. The fact that United eneded up with three trophies ensures that my vote is cast for United 1998-1999

In fairness everything went for Utd during their treble. How they won the CL was some sort of Black Magic. Inter had a perfect goal disallowed by Simeone at Old Trafford in the 1/4 final which would have knocked them out. Juventus played Utd off the park at OT in the fist leg only for a totally undeserved leveller in injury-time. Davids and Zidane were utterly dominant and the likes of Keane couldnt get near them. Juve thought they were through when they went 2-0 up in the return leg and simply played worse than they had all season. The Final was an absolute joke - Munich were clearly the better side and should have been out of sight come the freakish 3 mins in INJURY-TIME. Utd.'s win in 98-99 was one of the luckiest in CL history and thats a fact.

Who can forget Berkgamps peno miss against 10 man Utd in the FA Cup with time up. How often does that happen. Great goal by Giggs but he has never scored a goal like that again. Etc. etc.

To suggest that Arsenal had all the luck?????????

Paul Tergat

Warper wrote: »

In fairness everything went for Utd during their treble.

Ive heard it all now


What total and utter ****ing bs

Het-Field

Warper wrote: »

In fairness everything went for Utd during their treble. How they won the CL was some sort of Black Magic. Inter had a perfect goal disallowed by Simeone at Old Trafford in the 1/4 final which would have knocked them out. Juventus played Utd off the park at OT in the fist leg only for a totally undeserved leveller in injury-time. Davids and Zidane were utterly dominant and the likes of Keane couldnt get near them. Juve thought they were through when they went 2-0 up in the return leg and simply played worse than they had all season. The Final was an absolute joke - Munich were clearly the better side and should have been out of sight come the freakish 3 mins in INJURY-TIME. Utd.'s win in 98-99 was one of the luckiest in CL history and thats a fact.

Who can forget Berkgamps peno miss against 10 man Utd in the FA Cup with time up. How often does that happen. Great goal by Giggs but he has never scored a goal like that again. Etc. etc.

To suggest that Arsenal had all the luck?????????

I never suggested luck had anything to do with Arsenal's achievement. It was hard graft. Dont get me wrong.

With due respe3ct, I think you are misrepresenting Man Utd's position somewhat. Simione's goal, in the ultimate reckoning was irrelevant. I understand that the argument is that the entire complexion of the game would have changed. However, it is possible that United would have amended their gameplan, and done so to take Inter on. United were outclassed by Juve in 1999 at Old Trafford. In spite of this, some might call Ryan Giggs's goal the hallmark of resiliance. If that was not resiliance, what occurred in Turin was. The 2-0 defecit should have been enough for Juve. However, United didnt let that overae them. In fact, even though they knew they wouldnt be playing in the final, both Keane and Scholes turned in stellar performances to drag United into the final. I accept that the final victory was lucky. However, that shouldnt negate the fact that United took the title in the end

The FA Cup win couldnt be construed as "lucky". Giggs goal remains the hallmark of great FA Cup goals, while Schmeichel saved the pnealty fair and square. I towuld be wrong to call that penalty save lucky, because then you could classify all peno saves as lucky. If United didnt deserve the European Cup, they certainly deserved the FA Cup that season.

At the end of the day you can talk about what was "deserved", but that could be countered by several games in 2003/2004 when Arsenal were lucky to come away with their unbeaten record. When results are achieved, they are ultimately deserved. As such, both Arsenal and United deserve much respect for their achievements. My opinion, I find United's moreso.

KeithAFC

Guys, you could argue all day about luck. Man utd got lucky against Arsenal in 99 in THAT semi final. Bergkamp should of slotted it. Arsenal got lucky against Man utd with the RVN penalty, plus a few other incidents.

But both over came that and cemented their place in greatness in english football.

Het-Field

KeithAFC wrote: »

Guys, you could argue all day about luck. Man utd got lucky against Arsenal in 99 in THAT semi final. Bergkamp should of slotted it. Arsenal got lucky against Man utd with the RVN penalty, plus a few other incidents.

But both over came that and cemented their place in greatness in english football.

I have boulded the operative word. As far as I am concerned what "should" have been done is irrelevant.

KeithAFC

Het-Field wrote: »

I have boulded the operative word. As far as I am concerned what "should" have been done is irrelevant.

Yeah but this Bergkamp we are talking about. World class footballer. Van Nistlerooy, should of slotted that penalty, world class striker. But sometimes luck does come into it.

Het-Field

KeithAFC wrote: »

Yeah but this Bergkamp we are talking about. World class footballer. Van Nistlerooy, should of slotted that penalty, world class striker. But sometimes luck does come into it.

IIRC didnt RVN blast the ball over the bar/put it wide ? I am open to be correction. If this was the case, I would agree that luck had a part to play.

I agree that Bergkamp was a World Class Footballer (and he remains my preference for "greatest ever Premier League Signing) however, he was up against a World Class keeper in Peter Schmeichal. You cant say tha coring a penalty is down to skill, while saving it is down to good fortune.

citytillidie

I would go with Arsenals run.

Why leave out Forest who also went a full year unbeaten

As for United why do people say they were the 1st English team to win the league, a cup and the European Cup in one season when they were not?

yahoo_moe

OPENROAD wrote: »

Utd supporters will vote utd, and Arsenal supporters will vote for Arsenal by and large.

I haven't voted - my heart says Arsenal but I can't really justify splitting them because it's the old apples and oranges thing really.

@Het-Field: RVN hit the bar with that penno. But I agree that I wouldn't call it bad luck - neither were great pennos and a miss is a miss really.

yahoo_moe

citytillidie wrote: »

As for United why do people say they were the 1st English team to win the league, a cup and the European Cup in one season when they were not?

In fairness, it's not "a cup" that people say, it's "the FA Cup".

OPENROAD

p_larkin99 wrote: »

Ive heard it all now


What total and utter ****ing bs

In fairness he was responding to a post that suggested that Arsenals achievement had been achieved because utd and chelsea were out of sorts.

Sure you could use that argument for most teams achievements.

Also I can't believe people are mentioning luck, again could you not use this argument for every team that wins a cup, every team will have a degree of luck along the way. If Bergkamp had scored that pen in the FA cup against utd, utd would not have gone on to win the cup.

Het-Field

OPENROAD wrote: »

In fairness he was responding to a post that suggested that Arsenals achievement had been achieved because utd and chelsea were out of sorts.

Sure you could use that argument for most teams achievements.

I think you will find that consistency amongst the top teams was at a far greater level in 1998/1999. As a result the title was being fought between three teams with two weeks to go, and it went down to the last day after Chelsea had fallen away.

I didnt suggest anything btw, I was simply applying context.

flas

Deleted User wrote: »

I'm sorry but this post is just so bitter I don't even know where to start.

United run was more than 5 months.

The CL Final was played without their 2 core players... Keane and Scholes. They were outplayed for a large part of the game yes, but they weren't lucky goals. There was no fortune involved, a ball didn't bounce in off someones ass.... players took shots, and scored, there wasn;t even a deflection. The only "luck" in that game came from the deflected free kick that gave Bayern the lead. Get your facts straight.

get your own facts right, there was not one bit of bitterness in my post, i said uniteds run was class and arsenal just shaded it for me because it was a league, thats just my opinion, its an opinion, i didnt ask you to agree with it. arsenal palyed the better football, for a longer period of time.

Paul Tergat

OPENROAD wrote: »

In fairness he was responding to a post that suggested that Arsenals achievement had been achieved because utd and chelsea were out of sorts.
.

yeah thats fine, to turn around and talk about look is stupid

flahavaj

Le King wrote: »

Our 45 encompassed all competitions. Arsenal's was 20 in all competitions, I think.

We won 3 trophies that season. Arsenal won 1.

Pretty obvious to me that United's is a far greater achievement.

I think Arsenal also got knocked out in the quarter final stage of the Champions League. United won all 3.

Carrying consistency into 3 major competitions is a harder achievement than dominating one.

The trophies alone would win it for me, not to mention my other points.

+1. Even if United hadn't gone unbeaten in winning the treble its a far far greater achievement.

3hn2givr7mx1sc

Arsenal fans, would you have rathered an unbeaten league campaign or a treble?

DOC09UNAM

baz2009 wrote: »

Arsenal fans, would you have rathered an unbeaten league campaign or a treble?

Silly question, Arsenal fans like 'beautiful football', not trophys :pac:

massdebater

Am I way off the mark but did Chelsea only lose 1 match the year after Arsenal's Invincibles? Think it was to Man City. I was just about to say that it was fairly impressive and proof that an unbeaten season could happen again but as I'm typing this I'm just realising that they lost their match earlier in the season and so they wouldn't have the "unbeaten season" pressure to go into every game with

This poll is wrecking my head because I really can't pick between the two. Feck it, I'm going for Arsenal because I don't think any top team in Europe are even close to achieving that any time soon