General Premier League Thread 2019-20

Shanotheslayer

KaiserGunner wrote: »

Your post makes no sense then, when ya referred to the CL and Man City. And that Arsenal team most definitely wouldn’t be smashed by anyone. Foolish claim.

It makes sense, you're just failing to understand it. Somebody was claiming about the Arsenal team despite not winning a CL. Hense why I included Man City in the examples provided.

Your claim that nobody would smash that Arsenal team was put to bed. So I won't mention that. But I was referring to smashing thier achievements not an actual individual game.

There is always going to be a debate of ''Greatest team ever'' In terms of Arsenals achievements of Trophies it's not on par with the likes of Liverpool/City/United debate.

The only reason Arsenal are in the discussion is because they went unbeaten. If Liverpool do go unbeaten this season then it takes Arsenal out of the equation all together.

As I stated already I haven't once heard anyone ever say they'd rather be Invinicble than win a CL.

And for the record, I fcking loved that Arsenal team. Henry was always one of my favorite players to watch

cj maxx

inforfun wrote: »

That is because he was in Ace Ventura

Laces out!

8-10

Potential Underachiever wrote: »

Said it before but the invincible season was an amazing achievement and would definitely have Arsenal involved in the greatest PL team debate, whether they won the CL is irrelevant in that particular debate.

In the PL era you have:

Mourinho's Chelsea
Wenger's Arsenal
Pep's City
Klopp's Liverpool
Ferguson's United x2

...as the 6 best in my opinion. Ranking between them is futile really. Should be obvious which years I'm talking about for all of these but I think singularly these were the strongest teams the league has seen since the name change in 92....regardless of how any of them did in Europe.

j8wk2feszrnpao

gimli2112 wrote: »

Not winning a cup competition does not dilute that Arsenal team's achievements

Not winning the CL does dilute it some bit. They couldn’t get over the line. Great domestically, and deserve high praise, amazing team to watch but underachieved in Europe (hence why Henry jumped ship).

MD1990

munstermagic11 wrote: »

Not winning the CL does dilute it some bit. They couldn’t get over the line. Great domestically, and deserve high praise, amazing team to watch but underachieved in Europe (hence why Henry jumped ship).

Luck comes in to it much more in Europe.

I wouldn't hold it against Arsenal not doing it in Europe.

Shanotheslayer

MD1990 wrote: »

Luck comes in to it much more in Europe.

I wouldn't hold it against Arsenal not doing it in Europe.

But you hold it against City?

j8wk2feszrnpao

MD1990 wrote: »

Luck comes in to it much more in Europe.

I wouldn't hold it against Arsenal not doing it in Europe.

I give credit to them for making it to a final (during an amazing run for PL teams), but it's not unfair to suggest that team did underachieved when it came to European success (it forced Henry and Fabregas to consider their options).

Luck is certainly a factor. Had Lehmann not been sent off, with Almunia beaten a bit easily twice, who knows how it would have panned out. But that's part of winning; Lehmann screwed up for Arsenal, Karius screwed up for Liverpool, it can end up defining a team.

Quazzie

6 wrote: »

Nobody said the invincible side was average, absolutely nobody. They were a brilliant team, and that season was superb. They were also failures in Europe and not on a par with the great teams who did it both domestically and in Europe.

Pretty sure none of the that isn't correct.

So you have to do it both domestically and in Europe to be considered great. Why are Liverpool in that then since they haven't done it domestically in 30 years? Why are city in it since they haven't done in Europe in... forever?

Stop moving the goalposts.

Quazzie

Quazzie wrote: »

So you have to do it both domestically and in Europe to be considered great. Why are Liverpool in that then since they haven't done it domestically in 30 years? Why are city in it since they haven't done in Europe in... forever?

Stop moving the goalposts.

Of course you do. Name me the best teams of the last 3 or 4 decades. They best ones did it both domestically and in Europe. Big clubs are measured on European success. It's the biggest club competition after all.

j8wk2feszrnpao

Quazzie wrote: »

So you have to do it both domestically and in Europe to be considered great. Why are Liverpool in that then since they haven't done it domestically in 30 years? Why are city in it since they haven't done in Europe in... forever?

Stop moving the goalposts.

It's done.

16 years since Arsenal won the PL, and don't see that changing in the next few years either. 30 years can creep up pretty quickly.

Quazzie

6 wrote: »

Of course you do. Name me the best teams of the last 3 or 4 decades. They best ones did it both domestically and in Europe. Big clubs are measured on European success. It's the biggest club competition after all.

The only teams to do it both domestically and in Europe are United, and Chelsea.

Liverpool haven't done it domestically, and City haven't done it in Europe.

So by your moronic logic neither Liverpool or City can be considered with the best.

munstermagic11

munstermagic11 wrote: »

It's done.

16 years since Arsenal won the PL, and don't see that changing in the next few years either. 30 years can creep up pretty quickly.

16? :eek:

****ing hell, where's the time going

8-10

Quazzie wrote: »

The only teams to do it both domestically and in Europe are United, and Chelsea.

Liverpool haven't done it domestically, and City haven't done it in Europe.

So by your moronic logic neither Liverpool or City can be considered with the best.

He said last 3 or 4 decades

Quazzie

Using the same logic, if Liverpool win the league this year, and Man City win the UCL, does that mean City are a better team?

j8wk2feszrnpao

We can call people’s opinion moronic now?

Quazzie

munstermagic11 wrote: »

We can call people’s opinion moronic now?

Learn to read will you. I called his logic moronic. There's a difference

ShamoBuc

Quazzie wrote: »

Using the same logic, if Liverpool win the league this year, and Man City win the UCL, does that mean City are a better team?

No.
It will mean Utd are crap .;)

8-10

Quazzie wrote: »

Using the same logic, if Liverpool win the league this year, and Man City win the UCL, does that mean City are a better team?

If Liverpool win the league this year you can all call us as **** as you want to.

It would be one of the best moments of my life

j8wk2feszrnpao

Quazzie wrote: »

Learn to read will you. I called his logic moronic. There's a difference

Oh, well that’s totally difference. You think I was referring to opinion and not logic (maybe learn what someone is focused on in a sentence).

ShamoBuc

ShamoBuc wrote: »

No.
It will mean Utd are crap .;)

Tbf, Utd have proven themselves in Europe twice while winning leagues. Arsenal on the other hand consistently bottled it in the biggest comp. The best teams in eras have won both league and CL as a team. Neville and Carragher had a decent show on it the other night. Worth a watch.

ShamoBuc

True.

Maybe the league was poor when Arsenal went unbeaten.

8-10

6 wrote: »

The best teams in eras have won both league and CL as a team.

I don't think it's a simplistic as that though I understand why they have the criteria like that.

For me it's not the Arsenal example but the Chelsea example which disproves that rule.

The 2005 side is up there with any team in the league before or after.

15 goals conceded all season, 25 clean sheets from the 38 games. Terry, Carvalho, Makelele, Drogba, Lampard, Duff, Robben, Cech

They were great going forward but ridiculously solid at the back. They didn't win a CL but that was a crazy good team. Didn't lose a home game for 4 years, 86 games! Even Liverpool now is shy of 3 years so it's way off and unlikely to be beaten.

They came unstuck against Rafa's Liverpool but they were much the better team. They were an Eiður Guðjohnsen strike away from the CL final. I wouldn't say the lack of that trophy changes how good they were. They were a better team than the 2012 team that won the CL and for me one of the top teams in the PL era.

j8wk2feszrnpao

ShamoBuc wrote: »

True.

Maybe the league was poor when Arsenal went unbeaten.

That was the year Leeds went down, and you had teams like Charlton, Bolton, Birmingham, Fulham, Middlesbrough and Portsmouth who were mid table and in the top 10.

gimli2112

munstermagic11 wrote: »

That was the year Leeds went down, and you had teams like Charlton, Bolton, Birmingham, Fulham, Middlesbrough and Portsmouth who were mid table and in the top 10.

those sides were pretty ok then though, it's like in 20 years time we'll be saying you had teams like Sheffield Utd, Wolves, Burnley and Manchester Utd in the top ten.

Harambe

Last night really drives home how good Liverpool are and the strength of the PL. The team in second place 22 points behind Liverpool just went out and whipped Real Madrid in the Bernabeu in the champions league.

pjohnson

"Logic Moronic"

Would be a solid album title.

yourdeadwright

Footballs a funny game with 13 minutes to go everyone was questioning Pep's crazy starting line up and tactic,
13 minutes later they win 2-1 with a goal that could have been ruled out for a push and a peno and he's a tactical genius .

In reality he was somewhere in the middle

Madrid are not nearly as good as previous years but its a huge win for City who have often struggled in the Champions league,

Alonso77

Such an infantile argument to suggest just cos a team who is languishing now and were in the top ten 15 yrs ago that suggests the lg was poor then.

Notts forest have been out of the top flight for ages but won the euro cup and lgs back in the late 70s early 80s. Mustve been crap lg back then too so.

8-10

Alonso77 wrote: »

Such an infantile argument to suggest just cos a team who is languishing now and were in the top ten 15 yrs ago that suggests the lg was poor then.

I'm not commenting on the poorness or competitiveness of the league, but I do honestly believe that the bottom half clubs right now have much more quality players, relative to the standard across Europe, than they used to.

No matter who goes down, there's going to be relegated players who end up at top teams. There's just so much money available just by being in the league that makes the poorer teams able to spend more than the equivalent bottom half teams in the other 4 main European leagues.

bucketybuck

8-10 wrote: »

No matter who goes down, there's going to be relegated players who end up at top teams.

But that was always the case?

Middlesborough got relegated with Juninho for example. Leeds went down with a lot of top players, Di Canio was relegated, West Ham had the likes of James, Cole, Defoe, Carrick when they went down, and even Roy Keane was relegated at one stage.

I'd nearly say the opposite to you, it used to be that relegated teams always had a few gems to pick up, now those bottom teams all seem to be made up of a similar level of average player.

8-10

bucketybuck wrote: »

But that was always the case?

Middlesborough got relegated with Juninho for example. Leeds went down with a lot of top players, Di Canio was relegated, West Ham had the likes of James, Cole, Defoe, Carrick when they went down, and even Roy Keane was relegated at one stage.

I'd nearly say the opposite to you, it used to be that relegated teams always had a few gems to pick up, now those bottom teams all seem to be made up of a similar level of average player.

I mean at worst it's the same as it was before but I'm not convinced. I look at Watford signing Joao Pedro and Richarlison instead of other European teams, Wolves signing Neves in the Championship and the money they spent when they came up on e.g. Patricio. Wijnaldum, Elliott, Robertson and Shaqiri could win a league title this season after being relegated with different teams in recent years. The most expensive defender in history was relegated a couple of seasons ago.

di Canio didn't win anything after being relegated. Juninho went to play in Scotland after Middlesbrough. David James went to Bristol City.

Yes youngsters from these islands like Keane, Defoe, Carrick, Cole have always had a chance of moving up and get more opportunities at poorer teams at a young age and that won't change - Max Aarons, Declan Rice etc.

But Juninho and di Canio weren't players you'd throw into a title chasing side, they were players who stood out in poor teams because they had mid-table quality and a bit of flair in a more British type of environment where everybody still played 4-4-2. James I wouldn't argue was anything more than average anyway so I think you're overrating him and I was a big fan of his when he played for us!

I think my point is more about comparing them to the other 4 main leagues rather than the PL of the past. Right now I think the spending power of the bottom half teams is much much stronger than the bottom half teams of Germany, Italy, Spain or France and is resulting in a higher quality of player coming into the league whereas previously they would have gone to Portugal, Spain or Italy first. (Joao Pedro is going to be some player)

citytillidie

The Premier League are going to start a hall of fame this year, with two players going in, no doubt those will be Giggs and Shearer i say in this 1st year of it

Fitz*

Did Giggs play enough to warrant inclusion? :pac:

Skylinehead

8-10 wrote: »

I mean at worst it's the same as it was before but I'm not convinced. I look at Watford signing Joao Pedro and Richarlison instead of other European teams, Wolves signing Neves in the Championship and the money they spent when they came up on e.g. Patricio. Wijnaldum, Elliott, Robertson and Shaqiri could win a league title this season after being relegated with different teams in recent years. The most expensive defender in history was relegated a couple of seasons ago.

di Canio didn't win anything after being relegated. Juninho went to play in Scotland after Middlesbrough. David James went to Bristol City.

Yes youngsters from these islands like Keane, Defoe, Carrick, Cole have always had a chance of moving up and get more opportunities at poorer teams at a young age and that won't change - Max Aarons, Declan Rice etc.

But Juninho and di Canio weren't players you'd throw into a title chasing side, they were players who stood out in poor teams because they had mid-table quality and a bit of flair in a more British type of environment where everybody still played 4-4-2. James I wouldn't argue was anything more than average anyway so I think you're overrating him and I was a big fan of his when he played for us!

I think my point is more about comparing them to the other 4 main leagues rather than the PL of the past. Right now I think the spending power of the bottom half teams is much much stronger than the bottom half teams of Germany, Italy, Spain or France and is resulting in a higher quality of player coming into the league whereas previously they would have gone to Portugal, Spain or Italy first. (Joao Pedro is going to be some player)

Small clubs are "better", but the gap is ever-widening.

Fitz*

Skylinehead wrote: »

Small clubs are "better", but the gap is ever-widening.

I would say that the gap between teams 3 and 9 is growing closer now, making that section of the league more competitive. It's no longer a closed shop of top 4 against the rest. Man United, Arsenal et all may have dropped off but just because they are dropping off does not reflect on a whole league, it just reflects on them as clubs.

Leicester & Wolves have made some terrific signings in recent years and have bridged the gap between them and the top teams. Everton have a Champions League winning manager and all 3 clubs have some good players too that anyone else in the league would take if they had the chance to. Wolves well able to hold their own in Europe competition too, and you would expect Leicester to do the same next season, even with Rodgers shortcomings in Europe.

The TV deal has helped all clubs a lot in recent years but these seem to have taken advantage the best. West Ham made a balls of their transfers. On paper, signing Anderson, Yarmalenko, Arnautovic, Haller, Fornals etc should have them closing the gap between the rest but they have completely failed. Newcastle spent big on a striker that does not suit them and Bournemouth just seem to get every transfer over £15m wrong bar Nathan Ake.

Perhaps the bottom half of the league is still as far away from the top as it has been for 20 years with average players in most teams supplemented by 2 players playing at a club below their level, but I think the top half seems to be improving in terms of teams bridging the gap to the European spots and finishing in the top 6.

gimli2112

citytillidie wrote: »

The Premier League are going to start a hall of fame this year, with two players going in, no doubt those will be Giggs and Shearer i say in this 1st year of it

My first thought on seeing this was that I hope boards opens a specific thread to cater for all the upcoming nonsense

Cantona's Collars

gimli2112 wrote: »

My first thought on seeing this was that I hope boards opens a specific thread to cater for all the upcoming nonsense

Exactly as it's going to be a disaster zone with common sense going out the window and point scoring taking over.
It's funny that when I think of hall of fame players I always go back to when the likes of Shearer etc were playing. Nobody in this decade really enter my thoughts on it.

gimli2112

my first thought was Shearer to be honest although my natural bias would skew me away from your lot

Fitz*

Cantona's Collars wrote: »

Exactly as it's going to be a disaster zone with common sense going out the window and point scoring taking over.
It's funny that when I think of hall of fame players I always go back to when the likes of Shearer etc were playing. Nobody in this decade really enter my thoughts on it.

Aguero has to be.

gimli2112

It's interesting actually but if you look at the US sports that have Hall of Fames, they effectively relate to one competition eg. the NBA, MBL or NFL. With a PL Hof there's strong arguments for someone like Gary Neville to be ahead of the likes of Shearer, Le Tissier, Ian Wright and even Thiery Henry while the likes of Fowler and Gerrard shouldn't get a look in as they never won one.

on reflection I'm talking nonsense as Wilt Chamberlain only won one NBA title, it doesn't really relate to the number you won

Cantona's Collars

gimli2112 wrote: »

It's interesting actually but if you look at the US sports that have Hall of Fames, they effectively relate to one competition eg. the NBA, MBL or NFL. With a PL Hof there's strong arguments for someone like Gary Neville to be ahead of the likes of Shearer, Le Tissier, Ian Wright and even Thiery Henry while the likes of Fowler and Gerrard shouldn't get a look in as they never won one.

Being judged on trophies would wipe a lot of great players from consideration.

rob316

Cantona's Collars wrote: »

Exactly as it's going to be a disaster zone with common sense going out the window and point scoring taking over.
It's funny that when I think of hall of fame players I always go back to when the likes of Shearer etc were playing. Nobody in this decade really enter my thoughts on it.

Aguero, Silva are the first 2 players I think of. I'd probably add Kompany to this too

Cantona's Collars

rob316 wrote: »

Aguero, Silva are the first 2 players I think of. I'd probably add Kompany to this too

Yeah, maybe it's just that I seem to look back further when thinking of hall of fame players.
It's like a case of rose tinted glasses and "back in my day" thinking.

8-10

FitzShane wrote: »

Aguero has to be.

Milner when he retires would be in consideration given his longevity in the league with multiple teams and likely 3 league titles and top 5 in terms of all-time PL appearances

bucketybuck

Trophies be damned, you aren't going to have Neville in a Hall of Fame before Cantona or Shearer. Its a Hall of Fame, not a Hall of Trophies.

He would be in there, sure, he can make his own case for being one of the best right backs of the PL era, but there will be plenty ahead of him in the overall queue.

dundalkfc10

yourdeadwright wrote: »

Up there with the best of fans in civilised football stadium's

Unfair to compare fans of English clubs to fans in lets say Brazil ,

You'd be arrested and banned for life if you went on like that lot,

Some countries still allow fans to act like its the 70's and 80's which is not goods ,

Hahaha you obs have not watched or been at many games around Europe.

citytillidie

dundalkfc10 wrote: »

Hahaha you obs have not watched or been at many games around Europe.

What like last week when Liverpool were in Madrid and the Madrid fans welcomed the buses with flares and smoke flares and chants along the streets and it was great.

Liverpool fans been doing that for a few years and laughed at by other English fans for doing it

yourdeadwright

First two in the hall of Fame have to be Shearer and Giggs ,

Most goals & most titles ,

Im a Liverpool fan I don't think anyone would argue with those two as the first two in ,

Baggly

Id have Aguero or Henry/Kane personally. Better goals to games ratios.

Giggs no issues. Great player.

Baggly

Also im biased because i think Alan Shearer is a bit of a cock.