Which of these was the greatest trophy winning comeback?

djPSB

City

Liverpool's.

Mainly because of difference in quality between the two teams.

On paper, that Milan team were miles better and to turn around a 3 goal deficit was phenomenal.

djPSB

City

Newcastle comeback v Arsenal a few years back deserves a mention.

citytillidie

City

The last FAI cup final in the old Landowne Road

Derry City 4 - 3 St Pats

UnawareCaesar

City

djPSB wrote: »

Newcastle comeback v Arsenal a few years back deserves a mention.

I must have missed the trophy presentation after that game

HalloweenJack

City

It has to be Liverpool.

They were 3-0 down against the favourites. They looked absolutely clueless in the first half. Milan completely wiped them away. Everyone was saying it was all over at half time. For them to comeback from that was immense and then to hold their nerves in penalties was brilliant.

I don't clearly remember the 99 final but wasn't it a fairly even game overall? And I did watch the City game and they were trouncing QPR. From all the chances they had, it wasn't terribly impressive that they scored twice against a side with ten-men that were absolutely dirt under that manager at the time.

Either Utd or City.
Liverpool only came back to draw level and subsequently won on penalties.

This is bollocks reasoning.

United were only a goal down. City were only a goal down. Liverpool were three down. United and City only needed to score two to win. Liverpool needed four. It's still more impressive for them to score three against Milan than United scoring two against Bayern and City scoring two against Mark Hughes' QPR.

You'd have to be a hardened, bitter, spiteful to the point of insane anti-Liverpooler to begrudge them the title from those three choices. I'm far from being a fan of Liverpool but I can't deny them the prize in this contest.

bucketybuck

Liverpool

HalloweenJack wrote: »

You'd have to be a hardened, bitter, spiteful to the point of insane anti-Liverpooler to begrudge them the title from those three choices.

:rolleyes:

There couldn't possibly be any other reason could there.

HalloweenJack

City

bucketybuck wrote: »

:rolleyes:

There couldn't possibly be any other reason could there.

Why don't you give me one then?

bucketybuck

Liverpool

HalloweenJack wrote: »

Why don't you give me one then?

You cannot be serious?

This thread has nearly 60 posts of people explaining why they think one of the listed games was the best trophy winning comeback, and few if any of them are based upon being "hardened, bitter, spiteful to the point of insane anti-Liverpooler". And your response is a childish "Why don't you give me one then"?

Perhaps you should try reading the thread.

HalloweenJack

City

bucketybuck wrote: »

You cannot be serious?

This thread has nearly 60 posts of people explaining why they think one of the listed games was the best trophy winning comeback, and few if any of them are based upon being "hardened, bitter, spiteful to the point of insane anti-Liverpooler". And your response is a childish "Why don't you give me one then"?

Perhaps you should try reading the thread.

I've gone back and re-read the thread and I think the points being made for the Liverpool one are still better (bigger gap in quality by the eventual winning team) while the reasons against it (penalty is a lottery, more time to do it [while conveniently ignoring the higher amount of goals needed]) don't hold up as well.

bucketybuck

Liverpool

HalloweenJack wrote: »

I've gone back and re-read the thread and I think the points being made for the Liverpool one are still better (bigger gap in quality by the eventual winning team) while the reasons against it (penalty is a lottery, more time to do it [while conveniently ignoring the higher amount of goals needed]) don't hold up as well.

A far cry from

You'd have to be a hardened, bitter, spiteful to the point of insane anti-Liverpooler to begrudge them the title

HalloweenJack

City

bucketybuck wrote: »

A far cry from

I'm sure there are still plenty of people voting both for against whatever option they choose purely because of bias.

I just think those voting against Liverpool because of bias have a weaker case to argue.

LuckyLloyd

City

That Milan team contested three Champions League Finals in a five year stretch, winning two. Liverpool went in off the back of a fairytale run as huge underdogs. Everyone agreed that they needed a strong first 20 minutes and to gradually establish themselves with a chance of maybe nicking it late on. To walk in down 3 - 0 at halftime having been played off the park meant there was no chance whatsoever. To win from there is extraordinary.

City were a nailed on formality at kickoff (though their clawing back of Utd's seemingly league winning points advantage in the couple of weeks preceeding had been remarkable). And were on track at half time. Then in the space of a few mad minutes they were chasing the game. Their perseverance during that final 10 minute stretch was remarkable and the composure to take the two chances right at the end ice cold. But they were up against significantly inferior opposition reduced to 10 men during the key moments.

Utd spent the game chasing one goal. It was never out of sight (though it should have been). I think the remarkable aspect of their victory was the fact they were starting a makeshift midfield of sorts on the night without their best player and they did brilliantly to hang in long enough for the madness to happen at the end.

ThunbergsAreGo

City

The Liverpool one for me just because they were the underdog and clearly the inferior team.

Alot more than United were in 1999

All very impressive though

bad2dabone

City

Liverpool was, they should have been 5 down at half time. when they scored AC wobbled and liverpool went for the jugular. Amazing comeback.

lassykk

City

I next to never post in the soccer forum but I am amazed at how bitter people are in here. Firstly I'm a United fan but not one that can't appreciate the merits of other teams performances.

Firstly the argument that Liverpool had longer to score their 3 goals compared to United is pure rubbish. Mario Basler scored in the 6th minute for Bayern Munich which meant that United had 84 minutes + injury time to score two goals. The fact that they only did it in the last 2 minutes if evidence of Bayern being superior for vast parts of the game and the never give up attitude of Ferguson's United. (I refer to Ferguson's United as I have only seen them under him and Moyes and they are a totally different animal nowadays in terms of winning mentality).

Liverpool had 45 minutes to score at least 3 goals to rescue the game and another 30 minutes to win it in extra time. This is less time than what United had. Penalties are also not a lottery and require skill and huge mental strength when under such pressure.

I also feel that the gulf in quality between Liverpool and Milan in 2005 further emphasises the argument in favour of Liverpool's achievement. Liverpool started with a team that contained IMHO one the worst players to win a Champions League in Djimi Traore and also an out-of-form Harry Kewell and Milan Baros who hadn't set the world on fire in the Champions League that year.

That's not to say that United weren't depleted in the 1999 final as they were missing vital players in Scholes and Keane and had to play Jesper Blomqvist as a poor replacement for them and had also been challenging on 3 fronts (League & FA Cup) whereas Liverpool were out of the title race and had been knocked out of the 3rd round of the FA Cup.

All in all though given the extra time United had to retrieve the game and the difference in quality between Liverpool & Milan's squads I'd have to give the nod to Liverpool.

As for City, I think most agree here that they were playing a very poor opposition who by the end of the game had nothing left to play for and City should never have been in the position they were in, in that game.

K-9

galwaylad14 wrote: »

Ya I'd agree on the Offaly Limerick one too!

But in terms of those options I'd have to go with City coming back to beat QPR and win the league. Simpkly becuase Liverpool had all that time to get the 3 and United didn't actually need Solskjaer's goal that night. Well of course they needed it but even without it they would have had another 30 minutes to win the tie. City had to get 2 goals in those 3 or 4 minutes and they got them. It was just unbelievable drama

Liverpool had to hang on to 3-3 though, and that save from Shevchenko and Dudek with his eyes to heaven, said it all. It was just meant to be, no matter what Milan could throw at them. Any time I watch those penalties Milan just look shell shocked and in total disbelief.

So, while City and United turned it round in injury time, Liverpool vs. Milan was more compelling, fascinating and dramatic for me.

Utopia Parkway

City

City's (amazing as it was at the time) was against bloody QPR.

LiamoSail

bangkok wrote: »

Liverpools was a brilliant comeback but they had 45 min to score 3 goals, another 30 mins then to score another and couldn't and won on penos

That argument makes no sense. United had a similar 45 minute period to get back into that game too.

Ironman76

City

As a United fan obviously the most memorable was 99. Still actually get a rush when i see Ole scoring the winner.

But the greatest has to be Liverpool's. I was watching it with my brother who is a life long pool fan and my two nephews. I remember one of my nephews being really upset at half time and my brother saying theres no shame in going out to that Milan team. Then their reactions as the second half unfolded, unreal. How in the name of jaysus they did it with that team is anyone's guess. Traore, Baros and co.

United had an awesome side even without Keane and Scholes. City deserve nowhere near the plaudits with the quality in their side and having gone against QPR.

bucketybuck

Liverpool

By the way, the real answer is indeed the Arsenal victory over Liverpool in 1989, which wins by every metric suggested in this thread.

The final match of the 1988–89 English Football League season was contested on 26 May 1989, between Liverpool and Arsenal, at Liverpool's Anfield ground. By sheer coincidence, it was the match between the top two teams in the First Division and the teams were close enough on points for the match to act as a decider for the First Division Championship. Arsenal needed to win the game by at least two goals to take the title, while Liverpool enjoyed home advantage and had won the FA Cup the previous weekend.
Despite being labelled underdogs, Arsenal won 2–0, with a last-minute goal scored by Michael Thomas, giving Arsenal their ninth First Division title and denying Liverpool the chance of a second Double.

Going into the game Arsenal were 3 points behind with an inferior goal difference, it was against the strongest team in the country, and they won it with almost the last kick of the game.

Morzadec

City

lassykk wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Likewise, as a Liverpool fan, I would say that those saying that United's victory is somehow worth less because the goals came from set pieces are equally ridiculous

Morzadec

City

bangkok wrote: »

united in 99 without a doubt.... game was over

Can't agree with that at all.

It was never 'over' it was always in the balance, with just 1 goal being needed.

Do you think any fans left the Camp Nou early? Did anyone stop watching the tv at home?

In Istanbul fans did leave early - and we're left red faced. While I would never agree with abandoning your team like that,rationally I can understand their decision. For almost everyone watching the game was 'over'.

Remember that the Milan team had an incredible defence and Liverpool an awful attack. Liverpool had got to the final through spirit and tactics. It was never thought they would have the quality to score 3 past one of the greatest club defence sever seen.

It was almost universally agreed that if Liverpool were to win they would have to keep a clean sheet. So at 3-0 down I don't know if there was anyone who really held genuine hope.

For me it honestly felt like game over at 2-0 let alone 3

mitosis

The_Kew_Tour wrote: »

Uniteds victory against Juventus in Semi was better. Juve were seriously good side. Best in Europe for 4 years till we beat them

This belief always surprises me. Juventus were awful that season, Del Piero did his cruciate, Lippi had been sacked just a few games before the semi, and they finished seventh. Not the giant killing feat people like to believe.

Morzadec

City

bucketybuck wrote: »

By the way, the real answer is indeed the Arsenal victory over Liverpool in 1989, which wins by every metric suggested in this thread.

Going into the game Arsenal were 3 points behind with an inferior goal difference, it was against the strongest team in the country, and they won it with almost the last kick of the game.

I'm too young to remember this, but it certainly should be included in the discussion.

But were Arsenal, at any point in that game, quite as long shots as Liverpool at half time?

That's the only rational criteria I can apply to this. Perhaps when Barnes (I think it was) had the ball out right with about a minute of injury time left...? Would people have been turning off their tellies, leaving the stadium?

I still would say that no team at any point were quite the long shot that Liverpool were at half-time in Istanbul

bucketybuck

Liverpool

Morzadec wrote: »

It was never thought they would have the quality to score 3 past one of the greatest club defence sever seen.

I really wish people didn't go so overboard in trying to emphasise their points, it doesn't really help matters.

Maldini was 37, Cafu was 35, Stam was 33, and Nesta was the baby at 29. Legends of the game, but in 2005 they were not the greatest club defence ever seen.

SantryRed

It's got to be Liverpool's comeback.

Liverpool went in at half time, stewing, had been taken assunder in the first half. They came out at the start of the 2nd half and absolutely blew Milan away.

United were very, very lucky to still be in the game at all. They were poor for 89 minutes of the game. Really only got into it as Bayern began to try hold on to the 1-0. 3 magical minutes for them, but I do think Liverpool's was better.

City's one isn't even close.

A2LUE42

bucketybuck wrote: »

By the way, the real answer is indeed the Arsenal victory over Liverpool in 1989, which wins by every metric suggested in this thread.

Going into the game Arsenal were 3 points behind with an inferior goal difference, it was against the strongest team in the country, and they won it with almost the last kick of the game.

Long time since there were five Irish players in with a chance of winning the league on the last day of the season in the starting teams.

Morzadec

City

bucketybuck wrote: »

I really wish people didn't go so overboard in trying to emphasise their points, it doesn't really help matters.

Maldini was 37, Cafu was 35, Stam was 33, and Nesta was the baby at 29. Legends of the game, but in 2005 they were not the greatest club defence ever seen.

A slight overstatement perhaps, but all of those players were absolutely still top players at that age, and hugely experienced.

To give you an idea of how stingy that Milan defence was, they only conceded 3 goals in 2 other matches all season.

And in the high pressure CL games? They conceded 6 goals in their 12 CL games

Inter and United didn't put a single goal past them in 2 matches.

This was a defence full of experience, used to the big stage, who had already shown they knew how to lock teams out.

No one gave Liverpool a hope in hell of putting more than 1 goal past them in 90 minutes, let alone 3 in 45

citytillidie

City

bucketybuck wrote: »

By the way, the real answer is indeed the Arsenal victory over Liverpool in 1989, which wins by every metric suggested in this thread.

Going into the game Arsenal were 3 points behind with an inferior goal difference, it was against the strongest team in the country, and they won it with almost the last kick of the game.

Playing a team who where playing their 3rd game in 6 days one being an energy sapping 120 min cup final in Wembly, while Arsenal had not played for 2 weeks

Skylinehead

citytillidie wrote: »

Playing a team who where playing their 3rd game in 6 days one being an energy sapping 120 min cup final in Wembly, while Arsenal had not played for 2 weeks

What was this?

bucketybuck

Liverpool

citytillidie wrote: »

Playing a team who where playing their 3rd game in 6 days one being an energy sapping 120 min cup final in Wembly, while Arsenal had not played for 2 weeks

Just like United in 1999, who only won the league on the last day of the season and then had to play the FA cup final the weekend before the Champions league final.

The_Kew_Tour

bucketybuck wrote: »

Just like United in 1999, who only won the league on the last day of the season and then had to play the FA cup final the weekend before the Champions league final.

Just like Italy having to beat Germany in their back garden over 120 minutes and then another 120 minutes in final and go to penos and win this so called World Cup.;)

Great teams dont need excuses.

bullvine

City

United were probably the best team in Europe that season, although missing there two best players in the final.

Liverpool had players like Traore, Smicer and Biscan. It was some achievement in fairness.

smileyj1987

City

bullvine wrote: »

Liverpool had players like Traore, Smicer and Biscan. It was some achievement in fairness.

That's why the Liverpool comeback has to be the greatest achievement of the lot . I don't think you will ever see such a bad squad win the champions league for a number of years .

bucketybuck

Liverpool

bullvine wrote: »

United were probably the best team in Europe that season

No probably about it!

bullvine

City

smileyj1987 wrote: »

That's why the Liverpool comeback has to be the greatest achievement of the lot . I don't think you will ever see such a bad squad win the champions league for a number of years .

Maybe United this year.......:pac:

citytillidie

City

Skylinehead wrote: »

What was this?

Person talking about Arsenals 1989 league win.

Last week of the season Liverpool had cup final V Everton which was Extra Time so 120 minutes long on a Saturday

Then they played a West Ham on the Tuesday and Arsenal on the Friday

Skylinehead

citytillidie wrote: »

Person talking about Arsenals 1989 league win.

Last week of the season Liverpool had cup final V Everton which was Extra Time so 120 minutes long on a Saturday

Then they played a West Ham on the Tuesday and Arsenal on the Friday

Oh ok, I read it as mixing Liverpools 2006 FA Cup win up with the 2005 Cup. My mistake!

A2LUE42

citytillidie wrote: »

Person talking about Arsenals 1989 league win.

Last week of the season Liverpool had cup final V Everton which was Extra Time so 120 minutes long on a Saturday

Then they played a West Ham on the Tuesday and Arsenal on the Friday

That season finished that team and their manager, after the previous months stresses and all the funerals, It was a miracle that the league was even within their grasp. But in the context of what had gone before, losing the league like that was a shame, but nothing compared to what the families and friends of the 96 suffered. It is hard to believe that it took until recently for them to get the answers that they had been waiting for since way back then.

Crimson King

City

As a die hard United fan I have to say it was the 'Pool-Milan game.

The way Milan played in the first half was brilliant however they showed no class and were basically toying with 'pool. Actually looking for the 'Ole' chants from their own fans as they passed the ball to each other and all the tricks coming out.

I hate seeing that in any game and I turned around to my father at half time and said I hoped 'pool do them in the second half. They did and I loved every bit of it, being confidant is one thing but arrogance is not a nice trait in football.

bucketybuck

Liverpool

A2LUE42 wrote: »

It was a miracle that the league was even within their grasp.

Looking just at the football though, Liverpool were unbeaten in 24 games going into the Arsenal match. They were clearly the strongest team in the league and in great form, and Arsenal deserve great credit for even being in touch at that stage.

Knex*

City

For me, this is quite simple

If you wandered into a bookmakers with 5 mins to in the CL final in 99, 5 mins to go in the City game, or at half time of the CL final in 05, who had the odds stacked most against them?

For me, its absolutely has to be Liverpool.

United had a history of comebacks, even from that season, and I bet many still had some sort of expectation that they could at least force Extra Time. City went into the game v QPR as absolute downright favourites. And even though time was against them, once again there was that sense that they could pull it off. The had an overwhelming advantage in terms of quality of players on the pitch.

Liverpool had none of this. At 3-0 down to a far superior team, the thought was, lets not make this the most humiliating Cup defeat in CL history.

Trying to avoid emotional aspect of it, and being bias towards Liverpool etc, I think purely from a clinical bookmaker perspective, it has to be Liverpool.

citytillidie

City

There you go

Numbers 1 & 2
http://www.football365.com/topical-top-10/9206651/F365-s-Top-Ten-Champions-League-Comebacks

Morzadec

City

Knex. wrote: »

For me, this is quite simple

If you wandered into a bookmakers with 5 mins to in the CL final in 99, 5 mins to go in the City game, or at half time of the CL final in 05, who had the odds stacked most against them?

For me, its absolutely has to be Liverpool.

United had a history of comebacks, even from that season, and I bet many still had some sort of expectation that they could at least force Extra Time. City went into the game v QPR as absolute downright favourites. And even though time was against them, once again there was that sense that they could pull it off. The had an overwhelming advantage in terms of quality of players on the pitch.

Liverpool had none of this. At 3-0 down to a far superior team, the thought was, lets not make this the most humiliating Cup defeat in CL history.

Trying to avoid emotional aspect of it, and being bias towards Liverpool etc, I think purely from a clinical bookmaker perspective, it has to be Liverpool.

Well put Knex, but you stole my point :pac:

Knex*

City

Morzadec wrote: »

Well put Knex, but you stole my point :pac:

Hmm..Reading back, it would appear that I did.

Good work, Sir! :pac:

Read this thread on my mobile, bleary eyed on my way to work, so must have missed it then. Still, I have no regrets!

jaykay74

Knex. wrote: »

For me, this is quite simple

If you wandered into a bookmakers with 5 mins to in the CL final in 99, 5 mins to go in the City game, or at half time of the CL final in 05, who had the odds stacked most against them?

The first goal was timed at 90.36 so you have been looking for odds on a Utd win in 90 minutes at the 90th min not 85th... which would have been long

Knex*

City

jaykay74 wrote: »

The first goal was timed at 90.36 so you have been looking for odds on a Utd win in 90 minutes at the 90th min not 85th... which would have been long

Why?

I'm not seeing the logic behind the pedantry here. Does it even really matter much when you look at the rest of my points, anyhow?

Morzadec

City

jaykay74 wrote: »

The first goal was timed at 90.36 so you have been looking for odds on a Utd win in 90 minutes at the 90th min not 85th... which would have been long

But 90 minutes is not important. Winning the trophy is.

United were never quite down and out. Liverpool were. If a draw had meant a Bayern win then it'd be a much different story

joe123

City

masti123 wrote: »

Wasn't around for the first two options so I'm gonna have to go with C

What age are you??

Hardly a 9 year old on a football forum!