Imo your team of 2004 would smash the current Barca one.
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
Lehmann
Lauren Campbell Kompany Cashley
Vieira Yaya
Pires Bergkamp Silva
Titi
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
No, for me Freddie would get ahead of Silva. Silva is the more talented player IMO, but as the OP states, Ljungberg was a much more effective and efficient player. More consistent as well I think. It's a tough one, but I'd take Freddie. Maybe that's my bias shining through but I think he was a more productive player.
comment by Don and Bubbles love child (U1762)
posted 8 minutes ago
Imo your team of 2004 would smash the current Barca one.
==================================
Not a chance
The Interesting thing is that on their method of comparing one player against another you could end up with a whole variety of scores
e.g. at CB
Campbell>Kompany
Toure>Lescott
2-0 to Arsenal
OR
Campbell>Lescott
Komoany>Toure
1-1
Same applies to CM, if you did it a certain way you could get a whole Arsenal Team!
Lehmann>Hart
Lauren>Richards
Campbell>Kompany
Toure>Lescott
Cole>Clichy
Pires>Silva
Viera>Yaya
Gilberto>Barry
Freddie>Milner
Henry>Aguero
Bergkamp>Dzeko
11-0 to the Arsenal
However some are ridiculous Bergkamp is one of the best players ever to play in the PL.
Silva has hardly done anything for half a season. How he merits a place ahead of Ljungberg is beyond me.
"not a chance"
we'll never know earl ,will we...................
What makes me laugh is that the Invincibles did the impossible......like Man U team on 1999........so to compare a team who is second and no trophies to a team who went a whole season undefeated in the league is stupid....
its talk sports way of a wind up....
I noticed they did not compare to Man U 1999 with the Man C players winning in most positions....this is due to SAF probably suing talksh.it and the backlash of 1 billion Man U fans....
The reason they chose us is because they hate us and need to ridicule us as much as possible.....
You cannot compare the 2 teams as one was 'INVINICIBLE' and the other are the NOT INVINCIBLES.....
Imo your team of 2004 would
smash the current Barca one.
--------
Our Invincibles side would get well overrun by this Barca team. Let's not exaggerate how great it was. Mourinho's Chelsea were arguably the best Premier League era side and they may stand a chance due to what was often an impermeable defence.
Sadly not, that was a great team no doubt, but this current barca set up are something else.
Sadly, I have to agree with Earl. Barca would definitely beat our Invincibles.
mthierry (U7482)
I think it because Cole can handle Messi (he's showed that) and Vieira would have Xavi and Iniesta for breakfast.
Then there's Henry and Bergkamp, Pique and Mascerano would be scarred for life after facing those 2.
If you played them on a 2 legged tie i think it would be 1-1 at Camp Nou and 2-0 at Highbury
Man Utd 2008 is the best Prem ever. Even beat Barcelona on route to winning the CL.
You cannot compare the 2 teams as one was 'INVINICIBLE' and the other are the NOT INVINCIBLES.....
-------------------------------------------------
I agree with what you said, however City have made it their task to assemble the most expensive and talented squad that they can possibly manufacture. It would onnly be right to compare them with the best that the Premier League has ever had to offer.
However, I agree with others about the Chelsea team of 2004-06. I do not think that the United team that won the treble were actually that good. Remember that missed penalty by Bergkamp in the 1999 FA Cup Semi-Final before Giggs scored that wonder-goal.
Ultimately, players like Aguero and Silva need more time before such comparisons. On sheer talent alone, Silva is better than Ljunberg and I'd argue the Aguero/Bergkamp comparison isn't as outrageous as some believe. Bergkamp was the ultimate luxury player but was he a more lethal match-winner than Aguero.
The united 99 wins it for me, never seen a team with such a never say die attitude, exemplified by the fa cup semi final replay at villa park against your boys, one of the best games ever.
IMO, 04/05 Chelsea >> 03/04 Arsenal = 07/08 Man Utd >> 98/99 Man Utd.
Only that Mourinho Chelsea side stand a great chance against Barca at their best.
For sheer brutal efficiency in getting results, 04/05 Chelsea, while not the most exciting, were simply the best and the most unstoppable.
Are we discussing league only here? because if not, united 99 wins handsdown.
Are we discussing league only
here? because if not, united 99
wins handsdown.
-------
We're discussing the better team - not who won the most trophies. I don't rate our double winning side of '98 or '02 ahead of our unbeaten side who won less trophies. In a fantasy match between the United side of '99 and the other sides I listed, I'd tip you to lose - incuding to your 07/08 team.
The Interesting thing is that on their method of comparing one player against another you could end up with a whole variety of scores
---------
Should be like this though:
Campbell > Kompany > Toure > Lescott
That's how you should set up your inequality. That way you end up with the best 11 players... Your considerations are independent and they shouldn't be.
comment by Earl Brutus (U1449)
posted 9 minutes ago
Are we discussing league only here? because if not, united 99 wins handsdown.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Your 99 team were great but if we judged the teams solely on trophies won, would Houllier's Liverpool team in 2001 deserve a mention also?
Does anyone know how I can contact the admins?
Sign in if you want to comment
City's Current Squad vs The Invincibles
Page 1 of 2
posted on 13/4/12
Imo your team of 2004 would smash the current Barca one.
posted on 13/4/12
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
posted on 13/4/12
Lehmann
Lauren Campbell Kompany Cashley
Vieira Yaya
Pires Bergkamp Silva
Titi
posted on 13/4/12
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
posted on 13/4/12
No, for me Freddie would get ahead of Silva. Silva is the more talented player IMO, but as the OP states, Ljungberg was a much more effective and efficient player. More consistent as well I think. It's a tough one, but I'd take Freddie. Maybe that's my bias shining through but I think he was a more productive player.
posted on 13/4/12
comment by Don and Bubbles love child (U1762)
posted 8 minutes ago
Imo your team of 2004 would smash the current Barca one.
==================================
Not a chance
posted on 13/4/12
The Interesting thing is that on their method of comparing one player against another you could end up with a whole variety of scores
e.g. at CB
Campbell>Kompany
Toure>Lescott
2-0 to Arsenal
OR
Campbell>Lescott
Komoany>Toure
1-1
Same applies to CM, if you did it a certain way you could get a whole Arsenal Team!
Lehmann>Hart
Lauren>Richards
Campbell>Kompany
Toure>Lescott
Cole>Clichy
Pires>Silva
Viera>Yaya
Gilberto>Barry
Freddie>Milner
Henry>Aguero
Bergkamp>Dzeko
11-0 to the Arsenal
However some are ridiculous Bergkamp is one of the best players ever to play in the PL.
posted on 13/4/12
Silva has hardly done anything for half a season. How he merits a place ahead of Ljungberg is beyond me.
posted on 13/4/12
"not a chance"
we'll never know earl ,will we...................
posted on 13/4/12
What makes me laugh is that the Invincibles did the impossible......like Man U team on 1999........so to compare a team who is second and no trophies to a team who went a whole season undefeated in the league is stupid....
its talk sports way of a wind up....
I noticed they did not compare to Man U 1999 with the Man C players winning in most positions....this is due to SAF probably suing talksh.it and the backlash of 1 billion Man U fans....
The reason they chose us is because they hate us and need to ridicule us as much as possible.....
You cannot compare the 2 teams as one was 'INVINICIBLE' and the other are the NOT INVINCIBLES.....
posted on 13/4/12
Imo your team of 2004 would
smash the current Barca one.
--------
Our Invincibles side would get well overrun by this Barca team. Let's not exaggerate how great it was. Mourinho's Chelsea were arguably the best Premier League era side and they may stand a chance due to what was often an impermeable defence.
posted on 13/4/12
Sadly not, that was a great team no doubt, but this current barca set up are something else.
posted on 13/4/12
Sadly, I have to agree with Earl. Barca would definitely beat our Invincibles.
posted on 13/4/12
mthierry (U7482)
I think it because Cole can handle Messi (he's showed that) and Vieira would have Xavi and Iniesta for breakfast.
Then there's Henry and Bergkamp, Pique and Mascerano would be scarred for life after facing those 2.
If you played them on a 2 legged tie i think it would be 1-1 at Camp Nou and 2-0 at Highbury
posted on 13/4/12
Man Utd 2008 is the best Prem ever. Even beat Barcelona on route to winning the CL.
posted on 13/4/12
You cannot compare the 2 teams as one was 'INVINICIBLE' and the other are the NOT INVINCIBLES.....
-------------------------------------------------
I agree with what you said, however City have made it their task to assemble the most expensive and talented squad that they can possibly manufacture. It would onnly be right to compare them with the best that the Premier League has ever had to offer.
However, I agree with others about the Chelsea team of 2004-06. I do not think that the United team that won the treble were actually that good. Remember that missed penalty by Bergkamp in the 1999 FA Cup Semi-Final before Giggs scored that wonder-goal.
posted on 13/4/12
Ultimately, players like Aguero and Silva need more time before such comparisons. On sheer talent alone, Silva is better than Ljunberg and I'd argue the Aguero/Bergkamp comparison isn't as outrageous as some believe. Bergkamp was the ultimate luxury player but was he a more lethal match-winner than Aguero.
posted on 13/4/12
The united 99 wins it for me, never seen a team with such a never say die attitude, exemplified by the fa cup semi final replay at villa park against your boys, one of the best games ever.
posted on 13/4/12
IMO, 04/05 Chelsea >> 03/04 Arsenal = 07/08 Man Utd >> 98/99 Man Utd.
Only that Mourinho Chelsea side stand a great chance against Barca at their best.
posted on 13/4/12
For sheer brutal efficiency in getting results, 04/05 Chelsea, while not the most exciting, were simply the best and the most unstoppable.
posted on 13/4/12
Are we discussing league only here? because if not, united 99 wins handsdown.
posted on 13/4/12
Are we discussing league only
here? because if not, united 99
wins handsdown.
-------
We're discussing the better team - not who won the most trophies. I don't rate our double winning side of '98 or '02 ahead of our unbeaten side who won less trophies. In a fantasy match between the United side of '99 and the other sides I listed, I'd tip you to lose - incuding to your 07/08 team.
posted on 13/4/12
The Interesting thing is that on their method of comparing one player against another you could end up with a whole variety of scores
---------
Should be like this though:
Campbell > Kompany > Toure > Lescott
That's how you should set up your inequality. That way you end up with the best 11 players... Your considerations are independent and they shouldn't be.
posted on 13/4/12
comment by Earl Brutus (U1449)
posted 9 minutes ago
Are we discussing league only here? because if not, united 99 wins handsdown.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Your 99 team were great but if we judged the teams solely on trophies won, would Houllier's Liverpool team in 2001 deserve a mention also?
posted on 13/4/12
Does anyone know how I can contact the admins?
Page 1 of 2