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

Le King · 13-10-2010 1:21am

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.

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.

If Phil Neville didn't slide tackle him recklessly in the box there would have been no peno.

If "ifs" and "buts" were candy and nuts, wouldn't it be a Merry Christmas?

DOC09UNAM · 13-10-2010 1:27am

Le King wrote: »

If Phil Neville didn't slide tackle him recklessly in the box there would have been no peno.

If "ifs" and "buts" were candy and nuts, wouldn't it be a Merry Christmas?

Not if you're jewish

jank · 13-10-2010 1:31am

yahoo_moe wrote: »

People forget the huge amount of pressure on Arsenal to go unbeaten after the New Year in '04 though. Yes, United had pressure to win trophies during their run but Arsenal were being talked about every week in terms of an unbeaten season. I think we drew 3 out of 4 that February and I remember thinking we could well go unbeaten but lose the league, it seemed that big a burden. So it's not just 49 games vs. 45.

Also, I think Arsenal were comfortably better than their rivals that season, whereas United won their trophies on very fine margins: the late goals against Bayern and the epic FA Cup semi against Arsenal. I'm still convinced that that semi decided which of the two teams would win the double that year and United just shaded it (1 point in the league, extra-time replay in the cup semi). But the European thing makes the meaning of 'rivals' different so it's hard to compare.

My heart says Arsenal, but I'm not sure I can really separate them if I'm honest.

Agree, the margins of football are so fine. If Bergkamp scored that peno I am convinceed that Arsenal would have won the double that year and United would have ended up with nada...
Thats football for you.

Paul Tergat · 13-10-2010 1:35am

This will just go around in circles.

Imagine the pressure on united as people begin to talk about a treble, playing 2 quarter finals, 2 semi finals 2 of which were 2 legged and against europes strong teams and then effectively 3 finals 10 days. It works both ways. Basically its ridiculously hard to call

OPENROAD · 13-10-2010 1:41am

Le King wrote: »

If Phil Neville didn't slide tackle him recklessly in the box there would have been no peno.

If "ifs" and "buts" were candy and nuts, wouldn't it be a Merry Christmas?

Which backs up my point.

eagle eye · 13-10-2010 1:47am

Why do we have to pick one, they are nothing alike and they are both magnificent achievements in their own right. Why does one have to be better than the other?

Personally I couldn't pick between them as they are such different runs.

enfant terrible · 13-10-2010 1:56am

Gone Drinking wrote: »

1 < 3

IMO

Seriously though, two very great achievements. Made even more special by the fact that they probably won't be replicated for a long time.. the way football today is going.

I can see the points to both arguments and its tough to call, but at the end of the day, United takes it for me.

Disagree can see the treble being replicated a few times in my life time.

Don't think i'll ever see a team go 49 games in a row in the premier league without losing again in my life time.

orourkeda · 13-10-2010 2:15am

who cares

DOC09UNAM · 13-10-2010 2:20am

orourkeda wrote: »

who cares

At least 159 people.

Le King · 13-10-2010 2:22am

enfant terrible wrote: »

Disagree can see the treble being replicated a few times in my life time.

Don't think i'll ever see a team go 49 games in a row in the premier league without losing again in my life time.

Since we are doing Premier League thing here, the treble has yet to be replicated in England. The chances of either are as likely IMO.

Le King · 13-10-2010 2:27am

OPENROAD wrote: »

Which backs up my point.

Luck? If you call saving a penalty luck... I regard it as a skill. Obviously a certain amount of luck is involved as well but luck has nothing to do with this. The luck argument could technically be brought into every argument.

eg. Arsenal got lucky, United got lucky.

I agree it's a BS story tbf.

L'prof · 13-10-2010 7:22am

Le King wrote: »

Since we are doing Premier League thing here, the treble has yet to be replicated in England. The chances of either are as likely IMO.

I have to say I strongly disagree with this, we'll see another treble in England before we see another unbeaten season.

Le King wrote: »

Arsenal got lucky, United got lucky.

Of course there was luck involved, neither team could have done what they did without a certain amount of luck.

DOC09UNAM · 13-10-2010 7:58am

L'prof wrote: »

I have to say I strongly disagree with this, we'll see another treble in England before we see another unbeaten season.

Of course there was luck involved, neither team could have done what they did without a certain amount of luck.

What makes you so sure about that though?

It's been 10 seasons, and there hasn't been another treble, whereas there has been a few close attempts at an unbeaten season.

There was a season I think where Chelsea lost only one game, and I could be wrong, but didn't liverpool have a season when they only lost two games?

Mister men · 13-10-2010 8:04am

Arsenal by a country mile. Also the football they played during that period was something to behold.

L'prof · 13-10-2010 8:31am

DOC09UNAM wrote: »

What makes you so sure about that though?

It's been 10 seasons, and there hasn't been another treble, whereas there has been a few close attempts at an unbeaten season.

There was a season I think where Chelsea lost only one game, and I could be wrong, but didn't liverpool have a season when they only lost two games?

Just my opinion of course. You argue that some teams have come close, losing only one or two games, you could equally argue that losing one or two games blows your chances of winning the treble. The treble has been done since by Barcelona and Inter in top leagues, yet nobody has had an unbeaten season.

homerjay2005 · 13-10-2010 8:41am

Mister men wrote: »

Arsenal by a country mile.

when i see posts like this, i really do wonder why i bother trying to start a good debate on here for once. can you justify why besides just giving a statement and not backing it up?

as regards those saying nobody will come close to doing what arsenal did, errm, chelsea only lost once the season after so they werent far off. people go on about the great football arsenal played, but in terms of goals scored and games won, the stats are pretty much exactly the same, with united slightly edging it, so i stick to my point, going on the average age group here, people were only 10-15 back then and are too young to perhaps remember and appreciate just how good united were in 99. and people also laud arsenal as the best league team ever, forgetting united went on to do 3 in a row, that arsenal team never retained their league and there was a gap of 18 points between united and everybody else the following season. maybe that team, the defending league champions and winners of the champions league the season before, as well as fa cup champions, were the greatest league team of all time?

people should really take everything into account besides just lashing out opinions as if they are facts.

DOC09UNAM · 13-10-2010 8:41am

L'prof wrote: »

Just my opinion of course. You argue that some teams have come close, losing only one or two games, you could equally argue that losing one or two games blows your chances of winning the treble. The treble has been done since by Barcelona and Inter in top leagues, yet nobody has had an unbeaten season.

True, I for one don't even see the importance of an unbeaten season, it just doesn't really excite me to think of United getting an unbeated season, I'd much prefer the treble.

homerjay2005 · 13-10-2010 8:48am

there was a valid question asked to arsenal fans and i would extent it to neutral fans, but it wasnt answersed.

simple, which would they rather -

an unbeaten run leading to a treble or an unbeaten league season?

massdebater · 13-10-2010 9:00am

homerjay2005 wrote: »

there was a valid question asked to arsenal fans and i would extent it to neutral fans, but it wasnt answersed.

simple, which would they rather -

an unbeaten run leading to a treble or an unbeaten league season?

I'm a neutral in this but your question isn't really valid anymore. Seeing as both feats have been accomplished already, I think anyone would pick the treble. If neither feat had been done already, I think they would have picked the unbeaten league season. It's far less likely to be repeated anytime soon

Frisbee · 13-10-2010 9:06am

homerjay2005 wrote: »

as regards those saying nobody will come close to doing what arsenal did, errm, chelsea only lost once the season after so they werent far off.

Chelsea lost that game in October, so there was zero pressure on them to do the unbeaten season which, unfortunately, has to be taken into account. If they had have made it to March/April with an unbeaten record intact the pressure on them would have been much higher.

homerjay2005 wrote: »

people go on about the great football arsenal played, but in terms of goals scored and games won, the stats are pretty much exactly the same, with united slightly edging it, so i stick to my point

Exactly, people go on about the great football Arsenal played. Een though their trophy haul wasn't as impressive as United's that ARsenal team played the best football the Premier League has seen imo, United haven't even come close. When people are talking about the great football their not necessarily talking about trophies. Obviously that year a trophy did come with playing unbelieveable football, which was a nice bonus.

homerjay2005 wrote: »

people should really take everything into account besides just lashing out opinions as if they are facts.

..........

homerjay2005 wrote: »

going on the average age group here, people were only 10-15 back then and are too young to perhaps remember and appreciate just how good united were in 99

Cool where's your survey on the average age group of the SF? Or is that just your opinion that the average age was 10-15 and not a FACHT? :cool:

joke

homerjay2005 · 13-10-2010 9:12am

Frisbee wrote: »

Cool where's your survey on the average age group of the SF? Or is that just your opinion that the average age was 10-15 and not a FACHT? :cool:

come off it, you know bloody well a huge amount of people on here are in their early to mid 20's, with some lads even younger than that.

and tell me, how do you know for sure, that the arsenal played the best football of any team in the history of the league? how do you know they played better football than the united team who won it by 18 points?

Frisbee · 13-10-2010 9:14am

homerjay2005 wrote: »

come off it, you know bloody well a huge amount of people on here are in their early to mid 20's, with some lads even younger than that.

and tell me, how do you know for sure, that the arsenal played the best football of any team in the history of the league? how do you know they played better football than the united team who won it by 18 points?

I think you got in before my ninja edit.

I don't know for sure, that's why I said 'imo'.

DOC09UNAM · 13-10-2010 9:15am

L'prof wrote: »

Just my opinion of course. You argue that some teams have come close, losing only one or two games, you could equally argue that losing one or two games blows your chances of winning the treble. The treble has been done since by Barcelona and Inter in top leagues, yet nobody has had an unbeaten season.

massdebater wrote: »

I'm a neutral in this but your question isn't really valid anymore. Seeing as both feats have been accomplished already, I think anyone would pick the treble. If neither feat had been done already, I think they would have picked the unbeaten league season. It's far less likely to be repeated anytime soon

Arsenal were the second team to win the top flight with an unbeaten season.

Preston North End did it, and won the FA cup the same year without conceding a goal.

If anything, Arsenals was bettered before they even did it.

United's treble was unprecedented in english football, and has yet to be matched or beaten.

L'prof · 13-10-2010 9:16am

homerjay2005 wrote: »

there was a valid question asked to arsenal fans and i would extent it to neutral fans, but it wasnt answersed.

simple, which would they rather -

an unbeaten run leading to a treble or an unbeaten league season?

That question doesn't need to be answered, it's a no brainer, but the fact remains that that question really has no relevance in this thread.

Fuhrer · 13-10-2010 9:17am

Frisbee wrote: »

I think you got in before my ninja edit.

I don't know for sure, that's why I said 'imo'.

Oh, In your opinion.

Well, IMO Arsenal played the worst football in the league ever...

L'prof · 13-10-2010 9:18am

DOC09UNAM wrote: »

Arsenal were the second team to win the top flight with an unbeaten season.

Preston North End did it, and won the FA cup the same year without conceding a goal.

If anything, Arsenals was bettered before they even did it.

United's treble was unprecedented in english football, and has yet to be matched or beaten.

Preston only had 22 games, so while it was a great feat over 100 years ago, I don't think it's comparable especially with the quality of for all now compared to then.

Iago · 13-10-2010 9:19am

and that's why some opinions are valid, and some....

....not so much

Fuhrer · 13-10-2010 9:20am

L'prof wrote: »

Preston only had 22 games, so while it was a great feat over 100 years ago, I don't think it's comparable especially with the quality of for all now compared to then.

You're right, Preston couldnt just buy up a rake of foreigners and get them to win it, they had to build their team. So yeah, I agree with you. Prestons was far more impressive.

DOC09UNAM · 13-10-2010 9:23am

Fuhrer wrote: »

Oh, In your opinion.

Well, IMO Arsenal played the worst football in the league ever...

IMO, the United team of 99 was one of the best to ever grace the league.

One of the best goalkeepers ever.

Great defence in with neville staam and irwin in their prime.

IMO the best midfield to ever play at club level in Giggs - Keane - Scholes - Beckham.

And a very solid strikeforce of Yorke-Cole-Solsjkaer-Sheringham.

And, it was also the year that the almighty John O Shea joined United.

L'prof · 13-10-2010 9:25am

Fuhrer wrote: »

You're right, Preston couldnt just buy up a rake of foreigners and get them to win it, they had to build their team. So yeah, I agree with you. Prestons was far more impressive.

Right so Ted.

Fuhrer · 13-10-2010 9:25am

L'prof wrote: »

Right.

I know.

DOC09UNAM · 13-10-2010 9:27am

Iago wrote: »

and that's why some opinions are valid, and some....

....not so much

To who's opinion are you referring?

Cause so far everyone has tried to contribute to the discussion?

I don't see how your comment contributed at all, if anything, it did the complete opposite of contribute.

Frisbee · 13-10-2010 9:27am

Fuhrer wrote: »

You're right, Preston couldnt just buy up a rake of foreigners and get them to win it, they had to build their team. So yeah, I agree with you. Prestons was far more impressive.

You're right. Arsenal are the only team to ever buy foreigners and win things. Those filthy cheese eating surrender monkeys.

They took uuuurrrrrr jeeerrrbbbbsss!

Frisbee · 13-10-2010 9:29am

DOC09UNAM wrote: »

To who's opinion are you referring?

Cause so far everyone has tried to contribute to the discussion?

I don't see how your comment contributed at all, if anything, it did the complete opposite of contribute.

I'd imagine he was referring to 'Fuhrer's comment of Arsenal playing the worst football ever. How that is adding to the conversation I'll never know so either he:

Was trolling.
Knows nothing about football.

Fuhrer · 13-10-2010 9:29am

Frisbee wrote: »

You're right. Arsenal are the only team to ever buy foreigners and win things. Those filthy cheese eating surrender monkeys.

They took uuuurrrrrr jeeerrrbbbbsss!

Yes Frisbee, Preston in 1880 had their scouts scouring Europe looking for the best next young French or Dutch Kid.

Fuhrer · 13-10-2010 9:30am

Frisbee wrote: »

I'd imagine he was referring to 'Fuhrer's comment of Arsenal playing the worst football ever. How that is adding to the conversation I'll never know so either he:

Was trolling.
Knows nothing about football.

No, I was pointing out how increadible stupid it was to use "In My Opinion" as an attempt to explain why something is true.

DOC09UNAM · 13-10-2010 9:31am

Frisbee wrote:

You're right. Arsenal are the only team to ever buy foreigners and win things. Those filthy cheese eating surrender monkeys.

They took uuuurrrrrr jeeerrrbbbbsss!

Thought this might be fitting.

Frisbee wrote: »

Grow up would you?

homerjay2005 · 13-10-2010 9:33am

Frisbee wrote: »

I think you got in before my ninja edit.

I don't know for sure, that's why I said 'imo'.

your saying it as your opinion and that is fine, but others are expressing it as if its fact and 100% fact. who played the best football, its hard to tell, its really down to opinion.

apart for that, we can only go on stats and to do a 3 in a row, winning the 2nd one by 18 points, scoring 97 goals that season, with pretty much exactly the same team in all 3 seasons, is pretty impressive.

to dismiss that team is incredible to be honest, bordering on laughable. there also seems to be a huge superior complex with certain arsenal fans that they invented football and nobody else is allowed to play it or can play it. its being prooved in this thread.

Frisbee · 13-10-2010 9:34am

Fuhrer wrote: »

No, I was pointing out how increadible stupid it was to use "In My Opinion" as an attempt to explain why something is true.

I wasn't using 'imo' to explain why something was true. In fact, I went out of my way to say it was only 'imo' and couldn't be proved to be true.

Fuhrer · 13-10-2010 9:35am

Frisbee wrote: »

I wasn't using 'imo' to explain why something was true. In fact, I went out of my way to say it was only 'imo' and couldn't be proved to be true.

But then when I offer my "opinion" you immediately say its because I know nothing about football.

Imagine that, double standards.

Frisbee · 13-10-2010 9:37am

homerjay2005 wrote: »

your saying it as your opinion and that is fine, but others are expressing it as if its fact and 100% fact. who played the best football, its hard to tell, its really down to opinion.

apart for that, we can only go on stats and to do a 3 in a row, winning the 2nd one by 18 points, scoring 97 goals that season, with pretty much exactly the same team in all 3 seasons, is pretty impressive.

to dismiss that team is incredible to be honest, bordering on laughable. there also seems to be a huge superior complex with certain arsenal fans that they invented football and nobody else is allowed to play it or can play it. its being prooved in this thread.

As I've said, anyone who dismisses one or the other is an idiot. Both are remarkable achievements that will be very difficult to replicate, if indeed they are ever replicated.

I didn't vote because of my bias. But personally I do think Arsenal played the best football the PL has seen over the course of that season and one or two preceding it. United were undoubtedly playing great stuff also, and were definitely more efficient (which is what people want, combing performances with wins) than Arsenal.

Frisbee · 13-10-2010 9:39am

Fuhrer wrote: »

But then when I offer my "opinion" you immediately say its because I know nothing about football.

Imagine that, double standards.

Because I very much doubt that it was you're opinion. It was just you trying to be a smart arse and derail the thread.

You're honestly telling me you think that Arsenal side that went a Premier League season unbeaten played the worst football the Premier League has ever seen?

Fuhrer · 13-10-2010 9:45am

Frisbee wrote: »

Because I very much doubt that it was you're opinion. It was just you trying to be a smart arse and derail the thread.

You're honestly telling me you think that Arsenal side that went a Premier League season unbeaten played the worst football the Premier League has ever seen?

No, I was trying to show how utterly pointless and insideous it was to tack on IMO before a statement as some sort of qualifier of authenticity.

Mr. Presentable · 13-10-2010 9:46am

homerjay2005 wrote: »

last thing we want here is another mickey waving thread, .

I thought that was exactly what you wanted. You certainly set it out that way. In fact I'd go so far as to say the reason the thread was started was to denigrate Arsenal's achievement.

DOC09UNAM · 13-10-2010 9:48am

Frisbee wrote: »

Because I very much doubt that it was you're opinion. It was just you trying to be a smart arse and derail the thread.

Sorry for doing this again, but

Frisbee wrote: »

You're right. Arsenal are the only team to ever buy foreigners and win things. Those filthy cheese eating surrender monkeys.

They took uuuurrrrrr jeeerrrbbbbsss!

On that note, I shall leave the thread, two fantastic achievements, and put both clubs into the history books forever.

Xavi6 · 13-10-2010 9:51am

I voted for Arsene's magic men. Awesome achievement to go a whole league season without losing.

keane2097 · 13-10-2010 9:56am

I have to agree with Homer's assertion that there are a pile of kiddies on the soccer forum - they're out in force this morning.

keane2097 · 13-10-2010 9:59am

homerjay2005 wrote: »

to dismiss that team is incredible to be honest, bordering on laughable. there also seems to be a huge superior complex with certain arsenal fans that they invented football and nobody else is allowed to play it or can play it. its being prooved in this thread.

I've seen one or two people say "arsenal without a doubt" or similar on the thread, a couple of whom withdrew the statement upon reflection.

You seem to want Arsenal fans to behave like tards so you can smite them with your reighteous indignation, but tbh I haven't seen anyone dismiss the United team, or do anything even close.

13-10-2010 9:59am

flas wrote: »

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.

Here's what you said:

flas wrote: »

for me it has to be the arsenal one, to start of in auguest and continue through to the following auguest not losing a league game is amazing. uniteds run was class aswell, for the 5 months or that, their best moment came against juve in that semi final, where as in the final they were outplayed all over the park for 90 minutes and did not deserve to win that champions league at all but they got the biggest slice of luck a team has ever got and did win it, but its just the starting a league and continueing right the way through to not being beaten that shades it for me.

- 5 month run - wrong.

- "biggest slice of luck ever" - ROFL - coming from 1 nil down in the last minute would be as much about heart, perseverence and grit, as it is to do with luck. As I said, United scored 2 goals that came from attempts at goal that didn't deflect or go in off the post, or come from dodgy freekicks or offsides that weren't spotted. Bayerns goal came from a deflected free kick.

Considering Uniteds midfield of that era was:

Giggs--Scholes--Keane--Beckham

and when you consider how fantastic a unit those 4 were, you look at the midfield that started the Final:

Blomqvist--Butt---Beckham--Giggs

That's missing 2 of the 4, and the 2 that are there were played out of position out of necessity. So they would have needed luck. Bare in mind we played Bayern 3 times that season, 2 draws and the final. Nothing between the 2. And Bayern were also going for the treble in that game.

I've no problem with you picking Asenal in this thread. For me its a photo finish anyway. What I do have a problem with is the way you are subtly (or not so subtly as it is) trying to discredit United in your post.

For what it's worth, I think there's so little between the 2. Both sides played outstanding football.

Pires, Henry and Vieira were in their primes at that stage and were so hard to deal with.

United at that time at the previously mentioned midfield quartet as well as the Yorke and Cole partnership at its dazzling best. Remember the following season that partnership ran 6 past Arsenal at Old Trafford!

2 great teams. Nothing between the 2 achievements IMO.

homerjay2005 · 13-10-2010 10:20am

Mr. Presentable wrote: »

I thought that was exactly what you wanted. You certainly set it out that way. In fact I'd go so far as to say the reason the thread was started was to denigrate Arsenal's achievement.

go on then, please tell me what is wrong with the "way i set out the thread". how do you know what my intention was? this thread by and large, was going very well until some time later, one or two lads started mickey waving and causing trouble, taking the thread off topic. exactly what you are doing now.

this thread had potential, had some good debate, but as usual, being dragged through the s*ite by a few people who are incapable of having a debate and backing up their points.

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

Comments