I agree about Henry and Bergkamp, anyway.
The Arsenal side of the late nineties was also fantastic. There was very little difference between that side and the treble side, as was seen in the matches between us that year.
Robin van Persie
- Thread starter ben_foster
- Start date
- Status
I agree about Henry and Bergkamp, anyway.
The Arsenal side of the late nineties was also fantastic. There was very little difference between that side and the treble side, as was seen in the matches between us that year.
What a load of bollox. The 99 team was hair's width better than the Arsenal 99 team - and both were a mile behind the 2004 side.
That's another debate entirely. Im not sure I agree. But Id like to think both are better than any team Arsenal has had.
No. Its is you, sir, spouting bollocks.
Wouldnt have Mourinho above him based on his Chelsea's exploits. Had he stayed on to regain the title and cement Chelsea's place at the top, then yes. But it wasnt to be. He was here for far too short a period, with too few challenges for me to rank him above Wenger in English Football.
Fixed, I wish people wouldnt forget that word.
Didnt we just say the same thing?
Wenger - "The options are clear - we want to keep our players. I would be happy for him to stay in the English Premier League - at Arsenal."
Hm, they will most likely sell to City if they bid a ridiculous price but if a foreign side make a respectable bid they'll be first option. Wenger will be pissed if he leaves for another PL side.
Hm, they will most likely sell to City if they bid a ridiculous price but if a foreign side make a respectable bid they'll be first option. Wenger will be pissed if he leaves for another PL side.
It will be interesting when we play Arsenal on Friday.
The 2004 side who were one season wonders?
The 99 United side won the following championships at a canter. No contest.
A hair's width better if you discount one whole leg of the treble. But we had some fixture congestion to deal with - and Arsenal must know better than most how hard it is to deal with that, seeing as you so regularly falter in the latter stages of the CL. On this occasion you didnt even need to worry about those pesky QFs, as you exited the competition at the group stages, coming behind Dynamo Kiev and Lens, and managing only to beat Panathinaikos. While we, as you will remember, qualified out of a group that included Bayern Munich and Barca, as well as Brondby. And then took a very hard route through the knock out stages to win it.
All of which sets the context for why we were so close in the league and why we did not dispatch of you more convincingly in that FA Cup Semi.
And the 2004 team that, despite going unbeaten, finished with a fairly unspectacular points tally, due to their habit of drawing so many games.
I disagree - it seems he's preoccupied by trying to do things in what he considers the "right" way, that is bringing young kids through and not having to buy any established stars.
He could have moved on to other clubs - apprently the likes of Real Madrid and Barca if you believe what you hear, where he would have money to spend - instead he persists with Arsenal, desperate to win a title with his team of youngsters.
Arsenal play good football, and are good to watch - you can't take enything away from their style of play, but what I find amazing is that despite Wenger having great success with teams consisting of a mix of young and vastly experienced players he's recently failed to address glaring issues in his side - some issues that perhaps could have been resolved without spending tens of millions of pounds.
You are right, you can't take away from what he's achieved - but to me that simply shows him in an even worse light now - 7 years without a trophy, and (in my opinion) a fair bit behind the other top clubs.
If I were an Arsenal fan I'd be sick of waiting for the young lads to "come good", I'd be sick of the better players leaving every year to go and chase silverware and frankly I'd be questioning what he's likely to achieve in the long term and the direction of the club.
Currently the relationship between Wenger and the board seems very cosy. He never causes any trouble, seems never to make any demands, has a job for life - despite recent failures, and it seems everyone at the club is just happy to finish top 4.
I think I might make a habit of doing this every time someone mentions Arsenal's 'invincibles'. I've said it before, and I'll say it again, Manchester United going 25 matches unbeaten in the Champions League is more of an achievement than Arsenal going 49 unbeaten in the Premier League. The last match in that former run, incidentally, was a spanking of Arsenal at the Emirates.
To be fair mate all I said was that the invincible Arsenal team was my favourite premier league team and everyone started going off on one.
You can't argue with uniteds records over the years. They are still the team everyone is aiming for and imo whoever finishes above United this season will win the league.
People say that, but when the likes of Young are going for almost 20 million pounds, and the likes of Silva are sold at record breaking values, is that true? It takes a lot of investment to bridge the gap between the almost title contenders (Arsenal, Tottenham, Newcastle) and the title contenders (City and us). Chelsea are in the latter group because of their ability to spend big. Arsenal are in the former group cause of their inability.
I agree with your last point, made it a lot when people predicted Wenger would be fired. He's a chairman's wet dream, brings in predicted revenue with minimal investment. Can't see anyone else (apart from Ferguson) who would do a better job at Arsenal than him. The only valid criticism is his propensity to let experience leave too early. The effects of experience are overstated on here, but it still plays a role, and it's been completely absent at the Emirates, to their detriment. Winning a small trophy (Carling cup/FA Cup) should help though.
I'll agree with this, although a case can be made for either run. Didn't Rooney dive to win that penalty for us?
I consider Chelsea's achievement in 2004-06 more impressive (yes, they bought it). Destroyed all oncomers, conceded only 14 goals one season? They were imperious in Europe too, luck fecked them over so many times (which makes their win last season the more ironic)
Get used to it
The only area that Utd team would come out on top is defensively. The midfield we had in 99 would have destroyed the 08 version.
I think Rooney, Ronaldo and Tevez is better than Cole, Yorke, Solskjaer and Sherringham
I'm sorry, and excuse me if I'm a tad biased here, but that Treble 1999 team simply cannot be matched IMO. Here's why:
To win the three primary trophies in English football in one season, it was never done before (and hasn't been done since).
We lost only five matches in all competitions.
We went on a 33 match unbeaten run from Boxing Day until the end of the season.
We played top sides throughout the season in the three trophies, and won them all.
That 1999 team went on to win the league the next few seasons (we weren't one season wonders like Arsenal).
To win the three primary trophies in English football in one season, it was never done before (and hasn't been done since).
We lost only five matches in all competitions.
We went on a 33 match unbeaten run from Boxing Day until the end of the season.
We played top sides throughout the season in the three trophies, and won them all.
That 1999 team went on to win the league the next few seasons (we weren't one season wonders like Arsenal).
Maybe - but I still think players were available who would have improved them. Parker isn't a world beater but would have added steel to the midfield, he seemingly could have had Mata for a decent sum (owing to a contract clause) had he pulled the trigger early enough. Gary Cahill could have been theirs if they'd made a decent enough offer early in the season.
I'm not saying its easy - but those players are better than what they panic bought at the end of the window - having naively battled to keep Nasri and Fabregas for so long rather than getting rid and spending some money wisely.
Ronaldo would grace either team but Cole and Yorke were a much more effective pair than Rooney and Tevez. Solskjaer and Sheringham much better back up than Saha too.
If I was to pick a split team I'd probably go
Schmeichel
Neville
Irwin
Stam
Ferdinand
Ronaldo
Giggs
Keane
Scholes
Rooney
Cole
It's close but 99 would shade it for me. Both would beat Arsenal's beatables of 04.
It wasnt done then either, we won the League, granted, the FA Cup, Granted, and the CL which last time I checked is a european trophy. The three Primary trophies in english football are the The league, FA Cup and League Cup.
Sorry, worded it wrong.
I should have said the 3 primary trophies for top English clubs.
Wasn't an attack on you, I think it's fair enough to think the Arsenal team of that era was one of the best ever, it's just their achievement itself which I think is overplayed, rather than their undoubted quality. I agree, for example, with the poster above saying that Mourinho's Chelsea was a better side, which it absolutely was, but they were fecking tedious compared to the Arsenal team they deposed.
Amen
Our FA Cup run that season included playing Middlesbrough Liverpool, Chelsea 2x, Arsenal 2x and a very good Newcastle team in the final.
Champions League run Barcelona, Bayern Munich, Inter Milan and Juventus and going unbeaten.
It should be pointed out that Arsenal's Invincible team didn't even beat Utd's 2003-2004 team.
Results were:
Man Utd 0-0 Arsenal
Arsenal 1-1 Man Utd
Man Utd 1-0 Arsenal (FA cup semi)
2 mins till the Lucas thread opens again.
Ive said this all before many times. But for me the thing about the 99 team was how well balanced it was. Yorke and Cole versus Tevez and Rooney may come up short in terms of individual quality, but as a partnership, two people complementing each other, the former is considerably ahead. OK in 99 we didnt have Ronaldo, but Beckham was the perfect winger for the strikers we had, Ronaldo would have changed the whole dynamic of the team. And Scholes - Keane: those were the days when the phrase "weakness in midfield" was a totally alien concept to us. We could play 442 and never worry about being overrun in midfield. I know football has moved on tactically since then, but I think that pairing would cope well playing against most midfields today without much need for reinforcement.
This thread may as well be renamed "the 50k football thread" seeing as it's basically become a megathread for anything football related people want to discuss on here at this stage.
so is RVP signed yet or what?
Very surprising of Fergie to admit that we are in for RVP then the next day confirm Lucas bid too.
I just hope he isn't doing this to make it seem like we are in for some top players only to end up not meeting valuations at the end and miss out. I really do hope this isn't some kind of elaborate ploy to keep fans satisfied/placated for the summer.
It does seem fishy though because I don't recall Fergie ever admitting anything right up until a deal is almost done.
That's exactly what I thought when he said he was interested in the two players. Keeping the transfer muppets happy for another couple of weeks.
I never get excited with potential signings until they actually sign so I don't
care either way but telling us who he bid for is definitely a new way of doing things for him
I never get excited with potential signings until they actually sign so I don't
care either way but telling us who he bid for is definitely a new way of doing things for him
Had it not been for the sugar daddies, everyone would have to do more or less the same thing. Its not Wenger's fault that City and Chelsea's millions have blinded most when it comes to how a team should operate. He has his flaws, everyone does, but to slag him off for giving young players a chance to flourish is bizarre. If anything, had arsenal just been willing to pay decent wages, most of these players that have left would have stayed on and they'd have a very good team.
Regarding the 2nd paragraph, are you actually criticizing him for not ditching his club to move to a bigger wealthier one?
Same as Sir Alex then. No one is perfect. Their arrogance to a degree and their belief in their players is what separates them from the rest and make their players play out of their skin.
Again, its the money City and Chelsea have that has changed the entire dynamics of the game. Without them, Arsenal would be our main competitors and challenging for titles every year. Again, its City and Chelsea who are in the wrong for spending so much and literally ruling everyone out of the title race, not arsenal for not following suit. What is he supposed to have done with the squad he has? Does he stand any chance of competing with what City have? Or us? No.
His style and the way he has done brilliant business with kids has put his club in a good state financially and they've been in the top 4 getting revenues and not missing out on anything while not spending anything either. Arsenal fans should be thankful they have him, they'd be in deep shit without the man.
Dont get me wrong, he has his faults. i said so myself in my first post. But to say he's not a great manager or that arsenal fans should be anything but grateful to have him is crazy talk.
Well, this does not compute. Danny Mills saying something both correct, and favourable to United:
"Manchester United are still, in terms of club, bigger on a worldwide basis," Mills told BBC Sport. "Manchester City are still up and coming.
"In terms of challenging for the Champions League, if that's what Van Persie really wants, I think Manchester United would be the better option for him."
"Manchester United are still, in terms of club, bigger on a worldwide basis," Mills told BBC Sport. "Manchester City are still up and coming.
"In terms of challenging for the Champions League, if that's what Van Persie really wants, I think Manchester United would be the better option for him."
I just cant get on board with this point of view at all. What is wrong about spending money to win the league? Where is the rule book that defines right and wrong? Where is this moral code football is supposed to abide by?
Football sold its soul a long time ago. To say Chelsea / City are "wrong" to buy titles now, or Arsenal are "right" to refuse to play that game, is absurd - as a line, demarking right from wrong, it is completely imaginary, and utterly pointless, in that City will be winning plenty of league titles from here on in, and Arsenal wont. If it serves to make Arsenal fans feel a little better about not winning anything then fair enough, but there is no more to it than that.
If politicians and regulators want to come in and make things a little more explicit, as they are trying to do with FFP, that is another thing. I support what they are trying to do there. And I do find it regrettable, despite what I have said above, that so much money has flooded into football, for all the inflation in wages and lunacy it has created - and for subtracting much of the unpredictability of the sport. But clubs should not be expected to behave morally in that respect, they should be doing what it takes to win - while ensuring their long term survival.
That is what is "wrong", for me: things like Leeds or Rangers or whoever else, spending way beyond their means, and it is hard because they feel they have to do that to compete. If Arsenal feel they are spending as much as they can while being prudent and making sure they do not get into financial trouble, that is a good thing. Only they can really know, I suspect Wenger could spend more than he does quite comfortably without overstretching Arsenal.
Ive said it in the IPO thread as well when this has been discussed, I just think United fans can be a little sanctimonious about other teams "buying trophies" when we have been outspending others for years, and winning plenty in no small part because of that. It doesnt detract anything from what SAF has done, but we have been the richest team in the land for a long time, and even though that money didnt come from a sugar daddy, that doesnt mean it is somehow pure, idealistic, winning it the right way.
Football in its purest form is not about making money out of your fan base by selling them credit cards or dressing gowns or cramming in more corporate boxes than anyone else. It isnt about having the best marketing ideas. Yes our money came from having more fans, but still. That is a distinction, but it doesnt seem like enough of a distinction to me to base a whole "Chelsea and City are bad for football, while Man United and Arsenal are good for football" argument on.
I guess to sum it all up: I see the City and Chelsea phenomenon as the next stage in a process that we helped lead football down. Not something that happened out of the blue, but something we share responsibility for.
- Status