Fair point but looking back, I'd take a distant 3rd place finish and a cup then a very close 2nd place finish and no cups. Being so close yet so far is painful.
We seem to mount a strong title challenge every 5 or so years.
Our 01-02 team should be in here. Amazing team, even with Richard Wright and Stuart Taylor making 10+ appearances each.
A 21 game unbeaten run in which we won 19 helped us storm to the title in a very competitive season.
Yeah that Arsenal team were very good.
comment by LeedsRich - Sell up now and Fook off home! (U18097)
posted 4 hours, 55 minutes ago
comment by Nickalopodis (U9257)
posted 4 minutes ago
comment by Zlatan The King Ibrahimovic (U10026)
posted 2 minutes ago
Nah they get remembered for the team as well. Their football was more rememberable than Chelsea's a year later.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
memorable, and was it? Like i said they only scored a couple more goals, and chelsea only got bad press cause they could defend. The best football i've seen down the bridge was that year, robben,duff,drogba,gudjohsen, cole, lampard...we played some fantastic stuff. But it all gets twisted by what people want to remember.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
biased much
----------------------------------------------------------------------
not really,given you clear points and facts and figures
comment by Zlatan The King Ibrahimovic (U10026)
posted 4 hours, 51 minutes ago
Chelsea's 14/15 team shouldn't be on here.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
agree
comment by Tu Meke Takuma. (U3732)
posted 3 hours, 39 minutes ago
comment by Nickalopodis (U9257)
posted 1 hour, 19 minutes ago
comment by Zlatan The King Ibrahimovic (U10026)
posted 2 minutes ago
Nah they get remembered for the team as well. Their football was more rememberable than Chelsea's a year later.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
memorable, and was it? Like i said they only scored a couple more goals, and chelsea only got bad press cause they could defend. The best football i've seen down the bridge was that year, robben,duff,drogba,gudjohsen, cole, lampard...we played some fantastic stuff. But it all gets twisted by what people want to remember.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Just because your football that year was underrated (which I actually agree with) and the best you've seen Chelsea play, that doesn't mean it was better than the invincibles.
Think you're letting your club bias get in the way of things mate.
Both very strong teams, would be great if the league had sides like that again.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I dont get how you can say bias when its the stats that back up my point, the "invincibles" scored only 1 more goal, and conceded a lot more. And got less points. I don't see how bias can play a part. Im pretty sure i've heard arsenal fans speak on how they got lucky decisions in a few games also (which doesn't hold much weight)
I wonder how if we would have converted one of the chances at man city away in 05 how the team would be remembered, who in nearly every other department were statistically better than arsenal the year before.
The stats don't back up your point about their football being memorable, though.
This is literally the first time I've ever seen someone questioning this with regard to the invincibles.
OP
Given that Chelsea set all records & still retain most if not all of them...I can only agree...
Obvs' there was the season the goonz drew a lot of games......
comment by Zlatan The King Ibrahimovic (U10026)
posted 10 hours, 37 minutes ago
The stats don't back up your point about their football being memorable, though.
This is literally the first time I've ever seen someone questioning this with regard to the invincibles.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
that doesn't make much sense zlatan...im saying it can easily be twisted, the media baby(especially in london) Is arsenal, a lot of the fleet street journalists and such being arsenal and tottenham fans. The fact they went unbeaten was great, but their football is remembered more positively than chelsea the year after who were just as easy on the eye but because they could defend making games boring it wasn't as pleasing for the media.
And the stats back that up, with the chelsea team having a great goal difference.
But Chelsea's football wasn't just as easy on the eye. And stats don't back that up because attractiveness of football is subjective. You can call it a media agenda if it makes you feel better but the reason Arsenal were remembered for their memorable football and Chelsea wasn't was precisely because they were.
comment by Nickalopodis (U9257)
posted 23 hours, 2 minutes ago
comment by Tu Meke Takuma. (U3732)
posted 3 hours, 39 minutes ago
comment by Nickalopodis (U9257)
posted 1 hour, 19 minutes ago
comment by Zlatan The King Ibrahimovic (U10026)
posted 2 minutes ago
Nah they get remembered for the team as well. Their football was more rememberable than Chelsea's a year later.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
memorable, and was it? Like i said they only scored a couple more goals, and chelsea only got bad press cause they could defend. The best football i've seen down the bridge was that year, robben,duff,drogba,gudjohsen, cole, lampard...we played some fantastic stuff. But it all gets twisted by what people want to remember.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Just because your football that year was underrated (which I actually agree with) and the best you've seen Chelsea play, that doesn't mean it was better than the invincibles.
Think you're letting your club bias get in the way of things mate.
Both very strong teams, would be great if the league had sides like that again.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I dont get how you can say bias when its the stats that back up my point, the "invincibles" scored only 1 more goal, and conceded a lot more. And got less points. I don't see how bias can play a part. Im pretty sure i've heard arsenal fans speak on how they got lucky decisions in a few games also (which doesn't hold much weight)
I wonder how if we would have converted one of the chances at man city away in 05 how the team would be remembered, who in nearly every other department were statistically better than arsenal the year before.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
How can you use stats to give a verdict on something that is judged by eye?
It's an opinion mate, and you're literally the only person I've ever seen to claim that Chelsea side played better football than the invincibles.
So what if you got more points? How does that mean you played better football? More effective, sure, I could understand that argument.
No offence, but you come across as a tad bitter in your posts. I'm not sure why though, just enjoy the memories mate.
When did I say Chelsea played better football? Me? Bitter your way off the mark. I'm not fussed either way. Arsenal have not won the league title in 10 years and Chelsea can be disliked by anyone. I've got my memories
Why are you arguing with me about Arsenal's football being memorable then?
But Chelsea's football wasn't just as easy on the eye. And stats don't back that up because attractiveness of football is subjective.
-------------------
Bro!
Sign in if you want to comment
Top 10 Best PL Champions ever
Page 5 of 5
posted on 13/10/16
Fair point but looking back, I'd take a distant 3rd place finish and a cup then a very close 2nd place finish and no cups. Being so close yet so far is painful.
We seem to mount a strong title challenge every 5 or so years.
posted on 13/10/16
Yeah no doubt.
posted on 13/10/16
Our 01-02 team should be in here. Amazing team, even with Richard Wright and Stuart Taylor making 10+ appearances each.
A 21 game unbeaten run in which we won 19 helped us storm to the title in a very competitive season.
posted on 13/10/16
Yeah that Arsenal team were very good.
posted on 13/10/16
comment by LeedsRich - Sell up now and Fook off home! (U18097)
posted 4 hours, 55 minutes ago
comment by Nickalopodis (U9257)
posted 4 minutes ago
comment by Zlatan The King Ibrahimovic (U10026)
posted 2 minutes ago
Nah they get remembered for the team as well. Their football was more rememberable than Chelsea's a year later.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
memorable, and was it? Like i said they only scored a couple more goals, and chelsea only got bad press cause they could defend. The best football i've seen down the bridge was that year, robben,duff,drogba,gudjohsen, cole, lampard...we played some fantastic stuff. But it all gets twisted by what people want to remember.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
biased much
----------------------------------------------------------------------
not really,given you clear points and facts and figures
posted on 13/10/16
comment by Zlatan The King Ibrahimovic (U10026)
posted 4 hours, 51 minutes ago
Chelsea's 14/15 team shouldn't be on here.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
agree
posted on 13/10/16
comment by Tu Meke Takuma. (U3732)
posted 3 hours, 39 minutes ago
comment by Nickalopodis (U9257)
posted 1 hour, 19 minutes ago
comment by Zlatan The King Ibrahimovic (U10026)
posted 2 minutes ago
Nah they get remembered for the team as well. Their football was more rememberable than Chelsea's a year later.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
memorable, and was it? Like i said they only scored a couple more goals, and chelsea only got bad press cause they could defend. The best football i've seen down the bridge was that year, robben,duff,drogba,gudjohsen, cole, lampard...we played some fantastic stuff. But it all gets twisted by what people want to remember.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Just because your football that year was underrated (which I actually agree with) and the best you've seen Chelsea play, that doesn't mean it was better than the invincibles.
Think you're letting your club bias get in the way of things mate.
Both very strong teams, would be great if the league had sides like that again.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I dont get how you can say bias when its the stats that back up my point, the "invincibles" scored only 1 more goal, and conceded a lot more. And got less points. I don't see how bias can play a part. Im pretty sure i've heard arsenal fans speak on how they got lucky decisions in a few games also (which doesn't hold much weight)
I wonder how if we would have converted one of the chances at man city away in 05 how the team would be remembered, who in nearly every other department were statistically better than arsenal the year before.
posted on 13/10/16
The stats don't back up your point about their football being memorable, though.
This is literally the first time I've ever seen someone questioning this with regard to the invincibles.
posted on 14/10/16
OP
Given that Chelsea set all records & still retain most if not all of them...I can only agree...
Obvs' there was the season the goonz drew a lot of games......
posted on 14/10/16
comment by Zlatan The King Ibrahimovic (U10026)
posted 10 hours, 37 minutes ago
The stats don't back up your point about their football being memorable, though.
This is literally the first time I've ever seen someone questioning this with regard to the invincibles.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
that doesn't make much sense zlatan...im saying it can easily be twisted, the media baby(especially in london) Is arsenal, a lot of the fleet street journalists and such being arsenal and tottenham fans. The fact they went unbeaten was great, but their football is remembered more positively than chelsea the year after who were just as easy on the eye but because they could defend making games boring it wasn't as pleasing for the media.
And the stats back that up, with the chelsea team having a great goal difference.
posted on 14/10/16
But Chelsea's football wasn't just as easy on the eye. And stats don't back that up because attractiveness of football is subjective. You can call it a media agenda if it makes you feel better but the reason Arsenal were remembered for their memorable football and Chelsea wasn't was precisely because they were.
posted on 14/10/16
comment by Nickalopodis (U9257)
posted 23 hours, 2 minutes ago
comment by Tu Meke Takuma. (U3732)
posted 3 hours, 39 minutes ago
comment by Nickalopodis (U9257)
posted 1 hour, 19 minutes ago
comment by Zlatan The King Ibrahimovic (U10026)
posted 2 minutes ago
Nah they get remembered for the team as well. Their football was more rememberable than Chelsea's a year later.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
memorable, and was it? Like i said they only scored a couple more goals, and chelsea only got bad press cause they could defend. The best football i've seen down the bridge was that year, robben,duff,drogba,gudjohsen, cole, lampard...we played some fantastic stuff. But it all gets twisted by what people want to remember.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Just because your football that year was underrated (which I actually agree with) and the best you've seen Chelsea play, that doesn't mean it was better than the invincibles.
Think you're letting your club bias get in the way of things mate.
Both very strong teams, would be great if the league had sides like that again.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I dont get how you can say bias when its the stats that back up my point, the "invincibles" scored only 1 more goal, and conceded a lot more. And got less points. I don't see how bias can play a part. Im pretty sure i've heard arsenal fans speak on how they got lucky decisions in a few games also (which doesn't hold much weight)
I wonder how if we would have converted one of the chances at man city away in 05 how the team would be remembered, who in nearly every other department were statistically better than arsenal the year before.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
How can you use stats to give a verdict on something that is judged by eye?
It's an opinion mate, and you're literally the only person I've ever seen to claim that Chelsea side played better football than the invincibles.
So what if you got more points? How does that mean you played better football? More effective, sure, I could understand that argument.
No offence, but you come across as a tad bitter in your posts. I'm not sure why though, just enjoy the memories mate.
posted on 14/10/16
When did I say Chelsea played better football? Me? Bitter your way off the mark. I'm not fussed either way. Arsenal have not won the league title in 10 years and Chelsea can be disliked by anyone. I've got my memories
posted on 14/10/16
Ok, big guy.
posted on 14/10/16
Why are you arguing with me about Arsenal's football being memorable then?
posted on 14/10/16
posted on 15/10/16
But Chelsea's football wasn't just as easy on the eye. And stats don't back that up because attractiveness of football is subjective.
-------------------
Bro!
posted on 15/10/16
Wahldude?
Page 5 of 5