Messi took HGH
The difference is Messi has been dominating for many seasons, Arsenal only one. So I don't see what you're trying to say.
Man Utd in 99 have a claim to be the best Prem side ever and they won the title with 79 points. The thing about Arsenal is they did not lose a game in the Prem and played a risk taking, storming forward game, which left them potentially vulnerable at the back. Clearly Chelsea in 2005 were a great side, but were they more of a hold what we have team when ahead.
"You lost a game, we did not."
So if we go unbeaten this season does that mean we win the league regardless even if another team picks up more points.
We won the league without losing a game so I don't see your point.
Nope, the invincibles are more like Quaresma. Promised so much after such a dominating first impression, but ultimately amounted to nothing.
GUNNERBEGOOD (U10646)
For 2/3rds of that season i agree, but as soon as you were clear at the top and the unbeaten season was suddenly in sight, you started settling for draws a lot even celebrated them come the end.
Funnily enough i thought Arsenal were more of an attacking threat in 04/05, they took teams like Charlton, Potsmouth and Birmingham apart at Highbury that season, teams you only just beat or drew too in the same fixtures when you went unbeaten.
"You lost a game, we did not."
What's better
95pts 1 loss 28 wins
or
90pts 0 loss 26 wins
'Nope, the invincibles are more like Quaresma. Promised so much after such a dominating first impression, but ultimately amounted to nothing.'
Yeah, the Invincibles were crap. Thierry Henry? Dreadful player, one of the worst I have ever seen.
90pts 0 loss 26 wins
Next question.
"We won the league without losing a game so I don't see your point."
The point is we can go unbeaten in the league this season, but if someone picks up more points it counts for nothing.
That Quresma analogy works
Yeah, those 49 games unbeaten in which we won the PL amounted to nothing, seriously, those were dark days for Arsenal. Thank God we have Frimpong coming back.
Except that the spine of that Arsenal team had been performing well for years, winning the league twice before.
"The point is we can go unbeaten in the league this season, but if someone picks up more points it counts for nothing."
But nobody did pick up more points, so it's redundant.
comment by Giroulski (U14971)
posted 1 minute ago
90pts 0 loss 26 wins
Next question.
-----------------------------------------------------------
Less wins, less points is better then more wins and more points. Wow, some people are blind.
Quaresma was gold in his first couple of seasons in Portugal, rated to be the player CR7 is now. Where's he now?
Arsenal's invincibles were fantastic. Rated to dominate English football the way we did for a spell. What happened to that?
Spot the similarity?
It's a better title winning season, get over it. Chelsea fans are funny. They want to compare the achievement of the Invincibles to throwing as much money as it takes to win the league, in considerably less style?
There's really no point to this argument so this is my last comment.
comment by The Psychologist - I Lived To See RDM's Rendition of the AVB Project (first 20 min impressions, hmmm... not sure, no hook as yet) (U6522)
posted 12 seconds ago
Quaresma was gold in his first couple of seasons in Portugal, rated to be the player CR7 is now. Where's he now?
Arsenal's invincibles were fantastic. Rated to dominate English football the way we did for a spell. What happened to that?
Spot the similarity?
---------------------------------------------------------
Didn't Wenger say his team will go on to dominate the league
The ironic thing is, if Arsenal beat us in the CL q/f, they would probably have lost a match while focusing on the latter stages of the CL.
Tbf, Ancelotti said he'd be our manager for the next 10 years after the double
Girlouski your argument is redundant. All you have is that 'invicibles' title to stand on. We are not talking about style, but which team is stronger, and as both teams overlapped nicely, it is clear to see Chelsea's team was stronger.
I'll admit and say Arsenal team done it in a more 'stylish' way, but that's it.
Tommy
No, the ironic thing is, if Van Nistelrooy had of taken a breath or two, Arsenal would've had just a moderate title victory like ours
Both teams were crap to be honest
Two of the worst teams I've ever seen. Thierry Henry, Patrick Vieira, Robert Pires, Freddie Ljungberg, Dennis Bergkamp, John Terry, Frank Lampard, Ricardo Carvalho and more in their prime?
Wenger and Mourinho in the dugout?
Two PL titles, Chelsea losing only 8, Arsenal only losing 5 games over two seasons? Chelsea with 139 goals scored, Arsenal 160? Chelsea conceding only 45, Arsenal only 62?
Arsenal becoming the only team to win the PL unbeaten, Chelsea only losing once in their title-winning campaign?
What a complete joke. Wish I could erase the memories from history.
[Thanks to Wikipedia]
@ Andrei
I don't get it, didn't Chelsea win 2 premier league trophies in those 2 seasons under Mourinhio?
Sign in if you want to comment
Who was better...
Page 3 of 4
posted on 20/9/12
Messi took HGH
The difference is Messi has been dominating for many seasons, Arsenal only one. So I don't see what you're trying to say.
posted on 20/9/12
Man Utd in 99 have a claim to be the best Prem side ever and they won the title with 79 points. The thing about Arsenal is they did not lose a game in the Prem and played a risk taking, storming forward game, which left them potentially vulnerable at the back. Clearly Chelsea in 2005 were a great side, but were they more of a hold what we have team when ahead.
posted on 20/9/12
"You lost a game, we did not."
So if we go unbeaten this season does that mean we win the league regardless even if another team picks up more points.
posted on 20/9/12
We won the league without losing a game so I don't see your point.
posted on 20/9/12
Nope, the invincibles are more like Quaresma. Promised so much after such a dominating first impression, but ultimately amounted to nothing.
posted on 20/9/12
GUNNERBEGOOD (U10646)
For 2/3rds of that season i agree, but as soon as you were clear at the top and the unbeaten season was suddenly in sight, you started settling for draws a lot even celebrated them come the end.
Funnily enough i thought Arsenal were more of an attacking threat in 04/05, they took teams like Charlton, Potsmouth and Birmingham apart at Highbury that season, teams you only just beat or drew too in the same fixtures when you went unbeaten.
posted on 20/9/12
"You lost a game, we did not."
What's better
95pts 1 loss 28 wins
or
90pts 0 loss 26 wins
posted on 20/9/12
'Nope, the invincibles are more like Quaresma. Promised so much after such a dominating first impression, but ultimately amounted to nothing.'
Yeah, the Invincibles were crap. Thierry Henry? Dreadful player, one of the worst I have ever seen.
posted on 20/9/12
90pts 0 loss 26 wins
Next question.
posted on 20/9/12
"We won the league without losing a game so I don't see your point."
The point is we can go unbeaten in the league this season, but if someone picks up more points it counts for nothing.
posted on 20/9/12
That Quresma analogy works
posted on 20/9/12
Yeah, those 49 games unbeaten in which we won the PL amounted to nothing, seriously, those were dark days for Arsenal. Thank God we have Frimpong coming back.
posted on 20/9/12
Except that the spine of that Arsenal team had been performing well for years, winning the league twice before.
"The point is we can go unbeaten in the league this season, but if someone picks up more points it counts for nothing."
But nobody did pick up more points, so it's redundant.
posted on 20/9/12
comment by Giroulski (U14971)
posted 1 minute ago
90pts 0 loss 26 wins
Next question.
-----------------------------------------------------------
Less wins, less points is better then more wins and more points. Wow, some people are blind.
posted on 20/9/12
Quaresma was gold in his first couple of seasons in Portugal, rated to be the player CR7 is now. Where's he now?
Arsenal's invincibles were fantastic. Rated to dominate English football the way we did for a spell. What happened to that?
Spot the similarity?
posted on 20/9/12
Fewer*
posted on 20/9/12
It's a better title winning season, get over it. Chelsea fans are funny. They want to compare the achievement of the Invincibles to throwing as much money as it takes to win the league, in considerably less style?
There's really no point to this argument so this is my last comment.
posted on 20/9/12
comment by The Psychologist - I Lived To See RDM's Rendition of the AVB Project (first 20 min impressions, hmmm... not sure, no hook as yet) (U6522)
posted 12 seconds ago
Quaresma was gold in his first couple of seasons in Portugal, rated to be the player CR7 is now. Where's he now?
Arsenal's invincibles were fantastic. Rated to dominate English football the way we did for a spell. What happened to that?
Spot the similarity?
---------------------------------------------------------
Didn't Wenger say his team will go on to dominate the league
posted on 20/9/12
The ironic thing is, if Arsenal beat us in the CL q/f, they would probably have lost a match while focusing on the latter stages of the CL.
posted on 20/9/12
Tbf, Ancelotti said he'd be our manager for the next 10 years after the double
posted on 20/9/12
Girlouski your argument is redundant. All you have is that 'invicibles' title to stand on. We are not talking about style, but which team is stronger, and as both teams overlapped nicely, it is clear to see Chelsea's team was stronger.
I'll admit and say Arsenal team done it in a more 'stylish' way, but that's it.
posted on 20/9/12
Tommy
No, the ironic thing is, if Van Nistelrooy had of taken a breath or two, Arsenal would've had just a moderate title victory like ours
posted on 20/9/12
Both teams were crap to be honest
Two of the worst teams I've ever seen. Thierry Henry, Patrick Vieira, Robert Pires, Freddie Ljungberg, Dennis Bergkamp, John Terry, Frank Lampard, Ricardo Carvalho and more in their prime?
Wenger and Mourinho in the dugout?
Two PL titles, Chelsea losing only 8, Arsenal only losing 5 games over two seasons? Chelsea with 139 goals scored, Arsenal 160? Chelsea conceding only 45, Arsenal only 62?
Arsenal becoming the only team to win the PL unbeaten, Chelsea only losing once in their title-winning campaign?
What a complete joke. Wish I could erase the memories from history.
[Thanks to Wikipedia]
posted on 20/9/12
@ Andrei
I don't get it, didn't Chelsea win 2 premier league trophies in those 2 seasons under Mourinhio?
posted on 20/9/12
Spurs of 61
Page 3 of 4