The Invincibles vs The Treble Winners

Spanish Johnny

shadowcomplex wrote: »

Henry and bergcamp may have been better players individually but as a partnership cole and Yorke where on a another level especially in 99

Henry and Bergkamp were a consistently brilliant partnership for the best part of 5 years.

premierstone

iDave wrote: »

Ignoring the treble for second but its hard to argue against a team that won Europe

Why? Its a knock out competition that any team could win, a cup competition by its very nature increases the variance and the chances of a freak win, see Liverpool for proof.

As for the thread would it not just be easier to have a poll with the options who supports Man U and who really dislikes Man U??

Some people pointed out that Arsenal were beaten that season they were beaten by Chelsea, Man U and M'boro and that this took away from the achievement of going a season unbeaten, despite the fact that in thier all conquering season Utd also lost three games to Spurs, Arsenal and M'Boro.

As regards the OP's question it really is impossible to say its so close , those claiming that it doesn't even merit debate are having a laugh. United definite better Keeper, very slight edge in defence, midfield is a lock no advantage to either team and upfront Arsenal would have a slight advantage. Also two wonderfull managers so Im going to get spinters and say a wonderfull 2-2 draw with Viera and Keane seing Red

LiamoSail

Great idea for a thread, surprised at the outrage of some on here

I don't think it can be argued that the invincible's were better, on the basis that they didn't win the Champions League. They were a great side, IMO better to watch, and while individually you could argue that a combined side would have more arsenal players (Bergkamp, Henry, Vieira, Campbell, Cole & possibly Pires), in united's case, the whole was certainly far better then the sum of the parts, and as team, exceeded the invincibles

Hangballlouie

United had so many ways of winning a game. They could adjust their gameplan for different competition. As mentioned already they'd find a way to win. Arsenal were great but that united team were on a higher level. It's the ultimate treble so comparing it to Liverpool in 01 is ridiculous. And im a Liverpool fan!!

iDave

premierstone wrote: »

Why? Its a knock out competition that any team could win, a cup competition by its very nature increases the variance and the chances of a freak win, see Liverpool for proof.

Look the Champions League is the best barometer for the greatness of a team. Your not suggesting the PL is a more prestigious competition than the CL just because Liverpool won it?

Skylinehead

Too Tough To Die wrote: »

One was a great team domestically. The other was quite simply a great team, on any level. Truly elite.

So they were both great teams. How is comparing them an "insult", like they'd be offended or something?

Also, the resulting debate on the topic just goes to show that it isn't an insult at all, or there wouldn't be a debate.

The_Kew_Tour

but United fans have argued why United were better team

Arsenal have argued about better partnerships.

Tells its own story.

premierstone

iDave wrote: »

Look the Champions League is the best barometer for the greatness of a team. Your not suggesting the PL is a more prestigious competition than the CL just because Liverpool won it?

I don't agree at the end of the day the Champions League is a cup competition, a league is a far better barometer of a team - as for it being called the Champions League, another joke! If either of United or Liverpool had actually been Champions it might have a bit more creedance!

Be honest now do you think that the Liverpool team that won the champions league was better than that Milan team??

bullvine

The invincible team couldnt even beat the 04 united team. its not even close ffs

Moneymaker

Keane and Vieira actually talked about this for a few moments.

Keane made a very pertinent point. That Man U side could grind out wins and win when playing badly better then almost any other side.

Did that Arsenal team have that same mental quality and sheer force of will?

Debatable.

LiamoSail makes a great point too. That Man U side exceeded the sum of its parts time and time again. Yorke and Cole are far from the greatest strikers ever as individuals but as a pair, they were damn near unstoppable.

Skylinehead

The_Kew_Tour wrote: »

but United fans have argued why United were better team

Arsenal have argued about better partnerships.

Tells its own story.

Has any Arsenal fan actually argued that they were better? I don't see any.

premierstone

The_Kew_Tour wrote: »

but United fans have argued why United were better team

Arsenal have argued about better partnerships.

Tells its own story.

You have the blinkers on so tight you cant even read anymore, It was a united fan who claimed Arsenal had the better Strikers individually but that United had a better partnership upfront. I stress the word claimed aswell.

The_Kew_Tour

premierstone wrote: »

You have the blinkers on so tight you cant even read anymore, It was a united fan who claimed Arsenal had the better Strikers individually but that United had a better partnership upfront. I stress the word claimed aswell.

Blinkers?

Read who he was responding too.

well done on making balls of that

iDave

premierstone wrote: »

I don't agree at the end of the day the Champions League is a cup competition, a league is a far better barometer of a team - as for it being called the Champions League, another joke! If either of United or Liverpool had actually been Champions it might have a bit more creedance!

Be honest now do you think that the Liverpool team that won the champions league was better than that Milan team??

Its irrelevant what its called it has the best teams in Europe in it. 2nd place in Spain V 3rd place in England are much better teams than 1st in Poland v 1st in Scotland. The Champions League is the most prestigious club competition in the world and a once off fluke wont change it. More often then not its domestic champions who have trouble upping to a Champions League level than the other way around.

LiamoSail

[

premierstone wrote: »

Be honest now do you think that the Liverpool team that won the champions league was better than that Milan team??

Winning the champions league doesn't make you one of the great sides, but to considered one of the great sides, I believe you have to win the CL.

Spanish Johnny

The_Kew_Tour wrote: »

but United fans have argued why United were better team

Arsenal have argued about better partnerships.

Tells its own story.

I believe it was the United fan that first spoke about partnerships regarding Cole and Yorke and an Arsenal reply showed that Henry and Bergkamp had too??

Bit selective there no??

Obviously they were two great teams. As stated at the outset it's well worthy of debate. The fact that many arguments and cases put forward in favour of one side are so irrelevant is just a shame.

Spanish Johnny

Moneymaker wrote: »

Keane and Vieira actually talked about this for a few moments.

Keane made a very pertinent point. That Man U side could grind out wins and win when playing badly better then almost any other side.

Did that Arsenal team have that same mental quality and sheer force of will?

Debatable.

LiamoSail makes a great point too. That Man U side exceeded the sum of its parts time and time again. Yorke and Cole are far from the greatest strikers ever as individuals but as a pair, they were damn near unstoppable.

They went 38 games unbeaten in the League which has never been done in the professional era. Of course they did.

The_Kew_Tour

Spanish Johnny wrote: »

I believe it was the United fan that first spoke about partnerships regarding Cole and Yorke and an Arsenal reply showed that Henry and Bergkamp had too??

Bit selective there no??

Obviously they were two great teams. As stated at the outset it's well worthy of debate. The fact that many arguments and cases put forward in favour of one side are so irrelevant is just a shame.

None of us are stopping you from making the arguments.

We have given plenty. Ye have given bits and bobs.

If ye are outraged this much ye need to do better then just blaming United fans cause ye dont know what to say.

Spanish Johnny

The_Kew_Tour wrote: »

None of us are stopping you from making the arguments.

We have given plenty. Ye have given bits and bobs.

If ye are outraged this much ye need to do better then just blaming United fans cause ye dont know what to say.

Are you actually not reading some posts? I refer you to all my previous posts. The only team to go through a league season undefeated.

A detailed look at the players involved on both sides and it's clear there is 5/6 or 6/5 split between them and only one totally clear cut position and that being the goalkeepers (and arguably strikers).

The very fact that the only posters here that have acknowledged there is a 5 year gap between two teams we are comparing seem to be Arsenal ones. United fans and some others keep citing the treble win as if it came at the expense of the 2004 Arsenal team - it didn't. Those are all valid points.

geeky

Personally, I think the overall standard of the EPL continued to improve in the time between the treble and the invincible winners, and that should be considered.

Player for player, I'd pick Arsenal but, as previous posters have pointed out, even guys that did nothing much elsewhere shone as part of the United Team.

If I had to call it, I'd peg a United win, but it would be closer than some people seem to think.

I'm surprised nobody has tried to manipulate Championship Manager to set this dream match up....

premierstone

Moneymaker wrote: »

Keane and Vieira actually talked about this for a few moments.

Keane made a very pertinent point. That Man U side could grind out wins and win when playing badly better then almost any other side.

Did that Arsenal team have that same mental quality and sheer force of will?

Debatable.

While for alot of the Arsenal sides in the interim this would be a very valuable point you cannot seriously question the mental fortitude of a team that went an entire league season unbeaten?

premierstone

LiamoSail wrote: »

[



Winning the champions league doesn't make you one of the great sides, but to considered one of the great sides, I believe you have to win the CL.

That's certainly a more valid arguement but not the one that was originally made.

ahnowbrowncow

bullvine wrote: »

The invincible team couldnt even beat the 04 united team. its not even close ffs

The treble winning team lost to the 98/99 Sheffield Wednesday team ffs.

brianregan09

Arsenal Fan here

I think for us the champions league games against chelsea could have went either way, I'm sure we would have beaten Liverpool in the semi too as we had beaten them twice in the league and beaten them well too, But not to be , I think in the end both United's treble team and Arsenal invincibles 1st teams were amazing teams but where United have the advantage....2 things...Chelsea and Liverpool despite what i said above were much stronger than 5 years previous and 2ndly United had a much deeper squad than Arsenal ,

We happened to be blessed with a lack of injuries to key players that year

Moneymaker

premierstone wrote: »

While for alot of the Arsenal sides in the interim this would be a very valuable point you cannot seriously question the mental fortitude of a team that went an entire league season unbeaten?

You can when they lost to inferior sides in cup competitions.

And you can when you compare it to that Man U side.

I'm being harsh but we're talking truly great teams here. The bar is very high.

Wolf Club

I'd say the United team was better but I wouldn't say there was a huge difference in it. Their will to win was superb, and it was enough to get them over the edge, but I wouldn't compare them to the Barca team of '09 or the Bayern team of last year, who obliterated everything in their path. In '99, United beat Arsenal to the league by a point, won the CL with 2 injury time goals, fair enough they won the FA Cup final with relative ease but the semi final win came in extra time after Arsenal missed a penalty. Arsenal really should have won the CL in 2004 as they were easily the best team in Europe that year, but fell up short. It's not the only time that has happened to a great team. United's will to win in '99 was better than Arsenal's in '04 and that makes them a better team but I wouldn't say they were in a completely different league to them altogether.

Spanish Johnny

Moneymaker wrote: »

You can when they lost to inferior sides in cup competitions.

And you can when you compare it to that Man U side.

I'm being harsh but we're talking truly great teams here. The bar is very high.

:D:D

jonnyfingers

If you look at that United team they had a fantastic goalkeeper, one of the best centre backs in the game in Stam, Johnson wasn't a bad player himself and complimented Stam too. The full backs were both top class, both when defending and going forward. I remember Neville and Beckham especially linking up well together.

It had Keane in midfield at the height of his powers who could single-handedly boss a game. Scholes beside him was just sublime, a tough (and often mistimed ) tackler when needed but a huge threat going forward. Giggs was in flying form on the wing that year and Beckham was great too, both in his general play but also with his set pieces and the important goals he scored that year, arguably people forget about his goal in the Arsenal FA Cup Semi, Final which was overshadowed by Giggs' famous run, and his great goal against Spurs that helped win the league.

Cole and Yorke up front completely synced up that year. Their movement was amazing, the understanding between them was great, they were both pacey and each was a great finisher in their own right. So while Bergkamp and Henry are better players individually, and a pretty good partnership themselves, the best thing about Yorke and Cole was they completely suited almost every style of attack that that team played that year, be it through balls, crosses, interplay between themselves, which was a huge reason for the success of that team. In all competitions Yorke scored 29 and Cole scored 24. Scholes (11), Giggs(10) and Beckham (9) also chipped in with a decent haul of goals that season too so the goals were pretty well shared around the team.


The Aresenal 'Invincibles' team is also pretty special but I don't think it's as balanced as the united team. Their defense is top class and only conceding 26 goals that season show that. However the main reason I think it's slightly unbalanced was the reliance on Henry that season to score. He scored an unbelievable amount of goals that season, 39 in all competitions, with Pires chipping in with the second highest for the team with 19. After than Ljungberg had 10 and surprisingly Bergkamp only had 5 goals in all competitions that season.


So you have a United team where goals can come from a variety of players, a quality midfield that can make things happen and a solid back 5 who don't concede too many (back 6 if you included Keane!). You have a pair of striker who can score from any situation. You have Giggs who can take his man on and get crosses in. You have Beckham who doesn't even need to take his man on to get a cross in, and also a fantastic dead ball specialist, and Scholes who can ghost into the box to score an easy goal, or hit a volley from outside the box, depends on how he's feeling that day!

On the other hand you have an Arsenal team who are very tough to break down. Viera and Gilberto Silva would give Scholes and Keane a tough time, while they have two attacking full backs and in Pires and Lljungberg two great players at attacking from wide. You have Bergkamp who can weave a bit of magic and you have a goal-machine in Henry who will score if given half a chance.

So in a one-off game I would think a score draw would be the most likely result. However if the game kept being played out I'd give United slightly more chance of winning overall because they can score from more areas of the pitch, whereas if Henry or Pires have an off day I think Arsenal would struggel to win. United also have a fantastic never-say-die attitude and are driven by Keane's desire. Beckham can score from free kicks and can whip quality balls into the strikers. And, if we count subs, they have Solksjaer to come off the bench to win the game! Also Denis Irwin would score any penalty United got!

So two great teams, it's really unfair to judge them against each other, but what a game it would be if time travel were to exist and both could play each other!

Mushy

Spanish Johnny wrote: »

The issue is that most are boiling it down to an achievement battle in terms of trophies and are not looking at the teams.

Was United's achievement greater - yes I think so.

My point is you are comparing the achievements in two teams that were 5 years apart. Different opposition and different competitions. You have to look at the teams and obviously by extension the players.

Now are really suggesting there is no debate to be had over them two teams??

Goalkeeper: Schmeichel all day long.

Defence: Campbell and Stam definites for me. Irwin and Cole full backs for me.

Midfield: Hard to pick individually because they were both great units. Keane/Vieira can you split them (rose tinted glasses away on both sides!) Scholes gets the nod anyway although Gilberto was world class in his position and a World Cup winner.

Pires and Giggs probably then.

Attack: Henry and Bergkamp

Now look at those teams and honestly say there is no debate to be had??

In terms of individuals there is a debate of course, in terms of a team, its very hard to argue against that Utd team.

Spanish Johnny

jonnyfingers wrote: »

If you look at that United team they had a fantastic goalkeeper, one of the best centre backs in the game in Stam, Johnson wasn't a bad player himself and complimented Stam too. The full backs were both top class, both when defending and going forward. I remember Neville and Beckham especially linking up well together.

It had Keane in midfield at the height of his powers who could single-handedly boss a game. Scholes beside him was just sublime, a tough (and often mistimed ) tackler when needed but a huge threat going forward. Giggs was in flying form on the wing that year and Beckham was great too, both in his general play but also with his set pieces and the important goals he scored that year, arguably people forget about his goal in the Arsenal FA Cup Semi, Final which was overshadowed by Giggs' famous run, and his great goal against Spurs that helped win the league.

Cole and Yorke up front completely synced up that year. Their movement was amazing, the understanding between them was great, they were both pacey and each was a great finisher in their own right. So while Bergkamp and Henry are better players individually, and a pretty good partnership themselves, the best thing about Yorke and Cole was they completely suited almost every style of attack that that team played that year, be it through balls, crosses, interplay between themselves, which was a huge reason for the success of that team. In all competitions Yorke scored 29 and Cole scored 24. Scholes (11), Giggs(10) and Beckham (9) also chipped in with a decent haul of goals that season too so the goals were pretty well shared around the team.


The Aresenal 'Invincibles' team is also pretty special but I don't think it's as balanced as the united team. Their defense is top class and only conceding 26 goals that season show that. However the main reason I think it's slightly unbalanced was the reliance on Henry that season to score. He scored an unbelievable amount of goals that season, 39 in all competitions, with Pires chipping in with the second highest for the team with 19. After than Ljungberg had 10 and surprisingly Bergkamp only had 5 goals in all competitions that season.


So you have a United team where goals can come from a variety of players, a quality midfield that can make things happen and a solid back 5 who don't concede too many (back 6 if you included Keane!). You have a pair of striker who can score from any situation. You have Giggs who can take his man on and get crosses in. You have Beckham who doesn't even need to take his man on to get a cross in, and also a fantastic dead ball specialist, and Scholes who can ghost in to the box to score an easy goal, or hit a volley from outside the box, depends on how he's feeling that day!

On the other hand you have an Arsenal team who are very touch to break down. Viera and Gilberto Silva would give Scholes and Keane a tough time, while they have two attacking full backs and in Pires and Lljungberg two great players at attacking from wide. You have Bergkamp who can weave a bit of magic and you have a goal-machine in Henry who will score if given half a chance.

So in a one-off game I would think a score draw would be the most likely result. However if the game kept being played out I'd give United slightly more chance of winning overall because they can score from more areas of the pitch, whereas if Henry or Pires have an off day I think Arsenal would struggel to win. United also have a fantastic never-say-die attitude and are driven by Keane's desire. Beckham can score from free kicks and can whip quality balls into the strikers. And, if we count subs, they have Solksjaer to come off the bench to win the game! Also Denis Irwin would score any penalty United got!

So two great teams, it's really unfair to judge them against each other, but what a game it would be if time travel were to exist and both could play each other!

A fine post in fairness to you but I would just point out that Bergkamp had a lot injuries that year hence the low goalscoring yet despite missing some games he still finished high up in the assists records. Makes that years achievements going unbeaten all the more remarkable.

niallo27

If ferguson was over the arsenal team and wenger over the utd team then who would have won more. Are we including the managers or is just players.

Spanish Johnny

Mushy wrote: »

In terms of individuals there is a debate of course, in terms of a team, its very hard to argue against that Utd team.

Wouldn't argue that United team at all Mushy. What I argue with is the dismissive, arrogant and misplaced views here that there is no argument to be had. I think my post you quoted shows that.

I also think that anyone questioning the mental strength of that Arsenal group is ridiculous. I think people seriously underestimate how difficult that is. Proof is in how many have done it before or since or even came close. That team had characters like Vieira, Campbell, Silva, Lehmann Lauren and Bergkamp.

I think peoples views are overshadowed by some of the recent Arsenal sides.

erkifino

My train of thought is the Arsenal side of 03/04 were better tactically, mentally and physically than the Arsenal side of 98/99 and their record against United that year was W2 D2 L1. The Head 2 Head is in Arsenal's favour. IMO Wenger really revolutionised English football by changing footballers diets and bringing with him stylish football. So because of the athletes available in the 03/04 team, my money would be on Arsenal.

As previously stated, I'm not knocking United's achievements that year. They were a special team.

Mushy

Spanish Johnny wrote: »

Wouldn't argue that United team at all Mushy. What I argue with is the dismissive, arrogant and misplaced views here that there is no argument to be had. I think my post you quoted shows that.

I also think that anyone questioning the mental strength of that Arsenal group is ridiculous. I think people seriously underestimate how difficult that is. Proof is in how many have done it before or since or even came close. That team had characters like Vieira, Campbell, Silva, Lehmann Lauren and Bergkamp.

I think peoples views are overshadowed by some of the recent Arsenal sides.

I wouldn't be questioning the mental strength of Arsenal either, it is an amazing achievement. But I still had to go for Utd. I don't support them btw, but maybe I'm not impartial due to watching Class of 92 the other night.

LiamoSail

brianregan09 wrote: »

Arsenal Fan here

I think for us the champions league games against chelsea could have went either way, I'm sure we would have beaten Liverpool in the semi too as we had beaten them twice in the league and beaten them well too, But not to be , I think in the end both United's treble team and Arsenal invincibles 1st teams were amazing teams but where United have the advantage....2 things...Chelsea and Liverpool despite what i said above were much stronger than 5 years previous and 2ndly United had a much deeper squad than Arsenal ,

We happened to be blessed with a lack of injuries to key players that year

Liverpool weren't in the semi that year, that was the year after

Arsenal would have got monaco in the semi IIRC and mourinho's Porto in the final, two sides I'd have backed them to beat

bucketybuck

Spanish Johnny wrote: »

They went 38 games unbeaten in the League which has never been done in the professional era. Of course they did.

But as has already been pointed out, the United treble team went 45 games unbeaten...

homerjay2005 wrote: »

That United team went unbeaten in all competitions from December 19th 1998 to October 3rd 1999, a feat that goes completely unnoticed. 45 games in total, 29 in the league, 8 in FA Cup and 8 in Europe, spanning a run of 33 during the treble.

erkifino

bucketybuck wrote: »

But as has already been pointed out, the United treble team went 45 games unbeaten...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1999%E2%80%932000_Manchester_United_F.C._season

Not sure if I'm right or wrong with this (I am just looking at wikipedia), but that 45 games unbeaten seems wrong?

Charity Shield and Super Cup losses.

prettyboy81

The Invincible's all day everyday!

bucketybuck

erkifino wrote: »

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1999%E2%80%932000_Manchester_United_F.C._season

Not sure if I'm right or wrong with this (I am just looking at wikipedia), but that 45 games unbeaten seems wrong?

Charity Shield and Super Cup losses.

That link is for the year after they won the treble.

erkifino

bucketybuck wrote: »

That link is for the year after they won the treble.

That's correct. The quote you quoted:

homerjay2005 wrote: »

That United team went unbeaten in all competitions from December 19th 1998 to October 3rd 1999, a feat that goes completely unnoticed. 45 games in total, 29 in the league, 8 in FA Cup and 8 in Europe, spanning a run of 33 during the treble.

Again I could be wrong but that would be end of season 98/99 to the start of season 99/00.

bucketybuck

erkifino wrote: »

That's correct. The quote you quoted:



Again I could be wrong but that would be end of season 98/99 to the start of season 99/00.

No, you are correct, they did lose the charity shield and Super Cup in that period. I guess then it comes down to whether you consider them "proper" competitions. Personally I don't consider the charity shield any different than a friendly, but on the other hand the Super cup is a more legitimate title.

The point in general still stands though. The Invincibles actually lost a lot of games the year they went "unbeaten", whereas the Treble side actually had a comparable run unbeaten in all competitions.

There's zero comparison in terms of achievement tbf.

homerjay2005

erkifino wrote: »

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1999%E2%80%932000_Manchester_United_F.C._season

Not sure if I'm right or wrong with this (I am just looking at wikipedia), but that 45 games unbeaten seems wrong?

Charity Shield and Super Cup losses.

f*cking hell, talk about being pedantic, i dont think anybody cares who won the charity shield that year nor is the super cup relevent to this debate.

For what its worth, if you want to be that petty, i also clearly stated that it was 33 games during the treble itself and i also broke down the 45 games into league, champions league and cup but sure, off you go.

regardless, i dont think Arsenal went 33 games unbeaten that season.

Guy:Incognito

The_Kew_Tour wrote: »

One team won 3 trophies
the other won 1 trophy.

Both super sides, but no argument over who was the better.

Would utd be a worse side had one of the cl goals hit a post and they went on to lose on penalties?

djPSB

Biased poll as there are alot more United fans on here than Arsenal.

The_Kew_Tour

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

Would utd be a worse side had one of the cl goals hit a post and they went on to lose on penalties?

Ah well if my aunty had balls she be my uncle like.

It kinda would cause it may have shown a weakness.

This is like saying had Arsenal let in another goal in drawn game they be not invincible.

If's, but's and maybe's.

The fact is United won 3 of the biggest trophies they could win.

The_Kew_Tour

djPSB wrote: »

Biased poll as there are alot more United fans on here than Arsenal.

I can assure you plenty of Neutrals had a say

homerjay2005

djPSB wrote: »

Biased poll as there are alot more United fans on here than Arsenal.

the amount of ABU's on this forum, far outweights any number of United fans. im shocked that it even is close as it is.

most reasonable neutrals would vote for United. for all the talk about Arsenal in 04, their points tally of 90 was bettered by Chelsea (95 and 91) the following 2 years, with United picking up 89, 87 and 90 the following 3 years.

even United came second two years ago on 89 points FFS.

Iused2likebusts

Utd had the stronger team IMO and winning a treble is a greater achievement then going through a season unbeaten. Looking at utds midfield then and comparing it to what they have now makes me happy though:pac:

The_Kew_Tour

Pity we cant see the names on the poll