Chelsea. We also lost fewer games that season then Arsenal did.

I think arsenal was best as it was on a budget.

Unbeaten is Unbeaten. Has a nice ring to it. Highest points tally doesnt IMO

He is asking who was better, not who had a better value team or what sounds better. Breaking it down, the 2005 Chelsea team was pretty formidable.

Both superb. But in terms of a unique achievement, flair and an as yet never bettered 'unbeaten' season and the 49 game run you'd either have to be extremely biased or have little knowledge of the game to say anything other than Arsenal to the question posed.

Better, 49 games unbeaten, is better, straight up plain and simple.

We beat Arsenal's invincibles that very season (yes, we did ). Arsenal couldn't defeat Mourinho's Chelsea. Does that answer your question?

Surely 95 points is better? 49 games unbeaten sounds good.

What a surprise, Chelsea fans go for Chelsea ( not blaming them) and Arsenal fans go for the Gunners. May be one for the neutrals.

we were invincible. chelsea were just crap.

I won't just blindly back Chelsea. What Arsenal did was remarkable, but as a team which one was stronger, surely it's Chelsea.

Not just because of the points tally, defensive record, and less games lost that season, but also that same Arsenal team in the following season couldn't match Chelsea.

sam dalla bona

It's incredibly simple. We beat them in their one glory year, on their own patch no less, they could beat us in the referenced year aswell as Jose's other two years totaling 8 games i can think of. The maths doesn't lie

I won't just blindly back Chelsea. What Arsenal did was remarkable, but as a team which one was stronger, surely it's Chelsea.

Not just because of the points tally, defensive record, and less games lost that season, but also that same Arsenal team in the following season couldn't match Chelsea.

---------------------

This

Tinkerman > Voyeur

Say what you want about Mourinho, yes he's an eg-maniac and yes he's a fair way up his own a r s e h o l e, but he's a brilliant coach, tactically the best, hands down.

The funny thing about that 'Wenger is a voyeur' spat by Mourinho was that Jose then produced a 300 page dossier to the FA to back up his claims, somewhat showing his grasp of irony was a tad lapse. Great coach though.

Still say the invincibles were better.

*couldn't beat us

FFS not this again

The only contribution i will make, is you can go unbeaten and get relegated, you can not smash the points record and go down.

you can go unbeaten and get relegated
--------------------------------------------------------------
What formation did that team play?

9-1-0

And the one was Mikel

Wenger's a good coach, Arsenal had a solid team those years, and Mourinho recognised the threat. Therefore he had to get under Wenger's skin somehow, all mind games.

Still can't see how Arsenal's 2004 winning team is better then Chelsea's 2005 team. I'm open minded.

Juventus went unbeaten last year and nearly came 2nd . But those Inter Milan teams Mourinho managed were pretty spectacular.

Comment deleted by Site Moderator

Invincibles were just pure gold. The Premier League recognised this by producing a special one off golden trophy for Arsenal's Invincibles, where's the one for Chelsea?

arsenals were better

comment by Giroulski (U14971)
posted 1 minute ago
Invincibles were just pure gold. The Premier League recognised this by producing a special one off golden trophy for Arsenal's Invincibles, where's the one for Chelsea?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------

So if we don't lose a league game this season and get 90 points, does that mean we win the league even if City get 95 points and only lose once?