The thing about unbeaten league campaigns is they are objectively, numerically worse than ones where you lose a game or two but got more points. There's been something like 12 better Premier League seasons than that Arsenal one. It's just fun for its uniqueness, it's not actually a superior achievement to get less points.
Who had the better invincible season: Arsenal or Leverkusen
- Thread starter Murder on Zidanes Floor
- Start date
Too close to call for me.
Arsenal had to do it over 38 instead of 34 league games. If my maths aren't wrong that's 13.6% extra, and in what I think was a better league.
Leverkusen won more points per game, and I'm confident in saying they would have topped Arsenal's points tally if they did play 38, even if I can't be as sure as that they'd have remained undefeated. Just 1 more point would have done it.
Leverkusen won their domestic cup, Arsenal didn't. If I'm making ther argument that the PL is a better league than the Bundesliga the FA Cup is surely more difficult than the DFB Pokal too. Leverkusen's cup run was also extremely kind, playing just one top flight team in the whole competition. That was the equivalent of Millwall's run when they faced us in the FA Cup final in 2004. Arsenal played a Premier League club in all 5 of their FA cup games in their season and hardly disgraced themselves.
Leverkusen reached a European final, Arsenal reached the last 16 but Europa League and Champions League are obviously very different. We've seen our own club win the EL and reach the final when consensus was that we weren't particularly great football teams, the same for other PL clubs and fans are often not too happy to even be in it. CL last 16 teams and EL finalists are probably about the same in ability on average. Could even argue that last 16 in CL is better seeing as the EL picks up the 3rd place group stage finishers from the CL that failed to reach the stage Arsenal did.
While Arsenal had to keep their unbeaten domestic league run going for 4 extra league games, Leverkusen did theirs while playing an extra 5 games in Europe in terms of how far it stretched the squad. However, Arsenal played a further 5 matches in the league cup, a competition Leverkusen obviously didn't have to deal with as there is no equivalent.
Leverkusen clearly better in terms of expectations going into the season if we're looking at that. I think Arsenal were a stronger football team.
Arsenal had to do it over 38 instead of 34 league games. If my maths aren't wrong that's 13.6% extra, and in what I think was a better league.
Leverkusen won more points per game, and I'm confident in saying they would have topped Arsenal's points tally if they did play 38, even if I can't be as sure as that they'd have remained undefeated. Just 1 more point would have done it.
Leverkusen won their domestic cup, Arsenal didn't. If I'm making ther argument that the PL is a better league than the Bundesliga the FA Cup is surely more difficult than the DFB Pokal too. Leverkusen's cup run was also extremely kind, playing just one top flight team in the whole competition. That was the equivalent of Millwall's run when they faced us in the FA Cup final in 2004. Arsenal played a Premier League club in all 5 of their FA cup games in their season and hardly disgraced themselves.
Leverkusen reached a European final, Arsenal reached the last 16 but Europa League and Champions League are obviously very different. We've seen our own club win the EL and reach the final when consensus was that we weren't particularly great football teams, the same for other PL clubs and fans are often not too happy to even be in it. CL last 16 teams and EL finalists are probably about the same in ability on average. Could even argue that last 16 in CL is better seeing as the EL picks up the 3rd place group stage finishers from the CL that failed to reach the stage Arsenal did.
While Arsenal had to keep their unbeaten domestic league run going for 4 extra league games, Leverkusen did theirs while playing an extra 5 games in Europe in terms of how far it stretched the squad. However, Arsenal played a further 5 matches in the league cup, a competition Leverkusen obviously didn't have to deal with as there is no equivalent.
Leverkusen clearly better in terms of expectations going into the season if we're looking at that. I think Arsenal were a stronger football team.
Last edited:
I know this, I was just extending it out that's all. Swings and roundabouts, if my gran had wheels etc.
Leverkusen because the amount of Fergie time equalizers they had to keep the streak going was laughable
I disagree. To have a full season without a single off day that saw you lose… it’s amazing.
As a thought experiment (and an answer from me…)
Accepting that the treble is obviously more valuable than an unbeaten season.
And that I’d place an unbeaten season over a double. Or even a domestic treble.
The question is… would you rather win;
- three league titles back to back.
- two league titles in three years, with one fifth placed finish. But one of those title wins is unbeaten.
It’s hard to argue for the former if I’m honest. It’s not JUST a results business. It was a properly magical season for Arsenal to go unbeaten. It’s up there with Leicester for insanity. I think we’d all be wanking about it still had it been us. Every single game that passed, achieving it got harder.
It gets lost in the noise a little as Arsenal turned to shit immediately afterwards, at the exact same time they left the stadium that it happened.
But romance is important. It’s what we’re all here for. The Invincible season was incredible. I’d fecking love us to have one. Even if we bombed out of everything else. It’s properly great.
The most important factor that is also subjective. German teams this season did better than English teams did that season in Europe. Was the prem then actually better than the Bundesliga is now when the only metric we have is European performance.
Is your knowledge good enough to know if the quality of the rest of the prem in 03/04 is as good as the rest in the German league currently. Would 03/04 City beat 23/24 VFL Bochum?
If you watched the 03/04 PL and the 23/24 BL you know the PL was much harder with better teams.
Leverkusen.
Arsenal lost loads of cup games that year, four in CL, Boro beat them at least once in league cup SF and also Man. United in FA cup SF.
Only game Leverkusen lost was final of Europa league, completely unbeatable in all the endless European games before that. They still had to juggle those games with maintaing unbeaten Bundesliga record.
From mid April Arsenal had a clear run of playing once a week and preserving their unbeaten prem record. Of course a fantastic achievement but there's been better prem teams (including Arsenal ones).
Arsenal lost loads of cup games that year, four in CL, Boro beat them at least once in league cup SF and also Man. United in FA cup SF.
Only game Leverkusen lost was final of Europa league, completely unbeatable in all the endless European games before that. They still had to juggle those games with maintaing unbeaten Bundesliga record.
From mid April Arsenal had a clear run of playing once a week and preserving their unbeaten prem record. Of course a fantastic achievement but there's been better prem teams (including Arsenal ones).
Ah yes the objective eye test. It’s fine if you have nothing to back your claim bar ‘it just is’.
If you honestly think last season's bundesliga teams are as strong as the PL teams from 03/04 I really don't know what else to say...
If you have any metric to base it on I’m all ears. It doesn’t matter what I think, that would be subjective. Leverkusen went unbeaten in a league which performed better on the European stage. The quality of their opponents showed themselves to perform at a higher level than the quality of yours. Your best team in 20 years lost to one of them if you don’t remember.
What are you on about? Metrics? To compare football 20 years apart? How does that even work? I watched both and the pl teams overall were better. That's it.
Yes to decide which is ‘objectively’ a more impressive feat. A word you laughed at yet all you seem to want to do is be incredibly subjective. Just because Leverkusen did something a touch more impressive than Arsenal doesn’t diminish Arsenal’s achievements. No need to be all defensive. It will be ok.
Word salad about metrics and condescension, a classic
I think one of the things that's impressive about winning the league unbeaten is the mental side of it. Finding that ability to dig deep every time you're up against it.
I'd say that even more of that is needed to win 3 titles in a row whether you are unbeaten or not.
I'd offer a different thought experiment that I think includes just as much romance. If Utd won the league and we're unbeaten but crashed out of every other competition, on the final day of the Premier League season would you swap having 1 loss on the record and still winning the league for having an FA Cup final to look forward to the next week? Not even a guaranteed win just the final.
I would very easily.
Good counter question.
I wouldn’t. I’d take the unbeaten season vs a double with a single league win. It’s rarer.
The problem is, without any metrics, another person can simply say "well I watched both of them and the PL teams were not better."
I think/assume PL was better. But Leverkusen performed better in their league as well as in other competitions so the question is, was the PL so much better that it compensates for that?
Last edited:
Most people saying Leverkusen but I don’t think it’s as cut and dry. Not at all.
Arsenal played a 38 game league campaign vs 34 for Leverkusen, in a MUCH tougher league..
Arsenal were also playing in the CL at the time which takes its toll on the squad. Leverkusen was in the Europa which is a lot easier and allows for much more rotation.
That said. I’m not saying Arsenal’s was better, I’m just saying context matters.
Arsenal played a 38 game league campaign vs 34 for Leverkusen, in a MUCH tougher league..
Arsenal were also playing in the CL at the time which takes its toll on the squad. Leverkusen was in the Europa which is a lot easier and allows for much more rotation.
That said. I’m not saying Arsenal’s was better, I’m just saying context matters.
Mate, why are you talking about water collecting as droplets on a cold surface when humid air comes into contact with it? It’s a football forum you nerd.Word salad about metrics and condescension, a classic
Your math is wrong.
If you look at the league in isolation it's arsenal because of the number of games
That said league seasons don't happen in isolation and it's dumb to look at it that way, and when you look at the season on the whole there is only one answer here, unless you're an Arsenal fan. Actually, probably also if you're an arsenal fan, you'd just be wrong
That said league seasons don't happen in isolation and it's dumb to look at it that way, and when you look at the season on the whole there is only one answer here, unless you're an Arsenal fan. Actually, probably also if you're an arsenal fan, you'd just be wrong
I would say Leverkusen.
Would anyone have even called them a title contender at the start of the season, never mind a team that would win the title undefeated? If it was Bayern that did it it would be a different story, but a team like Leverkusen doing it definitely puts them above arsenal who were already a top team
Would anyone have even called them a title contender at the start of the season, never mind a team that would win the title undefeated? If it was Bayern that did it it would be a different story, but a team like Leverkusen doing it definitely puts them above arsenal who were already a top team
Metric for the same season I guess... but 20 years apart seems a pretty useless exercise for me.
But if we apply a bit more context to that, we could say Arsenal in 2004 were were a MUCH better side than Leverkusen in 2024. That Arsenal team were probably what, top 2/3 in all of Europe at that time? So yeah the EL is an easier competition than the CL by Arsenal in 2004 standards, but it's a really tough competition by Leverkusen's standard.
I actually don't know which one I'd pick as the more impressive. Each one could make a really convincing argument.
Not for European performance it wasn't, strictly coefficient-wise. Spain was better every year except 04/05 in the single-year ratings from 99/00 to 07/08...then England was better from 07/08 to 10/11.
I don't think there was often a big gap though. imo too many fans just exaggerate the quality differences between the usual top 3-4 leagues, especially back then when EPL was just starting to really take off as a corrupt money making juggernaut.
While a decent metric I don't find uefa's Coefficient to be a perfect measurement of a league's quality as there's a lot of intangibles un regards to european performances whether it be experience, how top heavy a league is and to simply put it luck.
You're bang on people exaggerating on how big of a difference between the top 3 us though, even now.
For what it's worth in my opinion the top league from 90s onwards was serie till 2000 then prem till 2009 when La Liga took over and prem again from 2018.
This is really cruel behavior towards the Arsenal fans on here. And I thank you for it.
Oh all of a sudden Germany and Portugal arent farmers league now eh CAF? I hate them the bottlers but doing in EPL isn't the same anywhere else guys, come on.
Anyways millan's 92 invictus campaign still stands the tallest for obvious reasons.
Maybe read a few posts?
I wasn't actually aware of this season, just been looking it up. Looks like an amazing season but why is it obviously the best invincible one?
Legendary players in there of course, but on the downside 12 draws in 34. Arsenal's invincible campaign is sometimes diminished by people due to drawing 12 too, and they had to play 38 so won a higher pecentage of matches. Milan had no European football to deal with due to refusing to continue a match that was halted against Marseille the previous year follwoing floodlight faliure apparently? They were banned. That makes it easier than teams who did have to cope with that. In all competitions they only played 42 and won one trophy.
Again, fanatstic names in that team and they might well have been the best invicible team/squad. Probably were in fact. The season doesn't stand out as obviously better than others to me.
Is there any context I'm missing as I'm just getting this from wikipedia?
Last edited:
You're all wrong anyways. The greatest invincible season was Perugia's 78/79, obviously
Serie a was by far and large the best league around that time as the distance between the top leagues were more pronounced as la Liga was in a bit of a long term alump that would only go away by the 2000s and the English league was just coming out of their European ban.
A mitigating factor of arsenal's victory was they dort of got a lucky break as we were clearly on a downwards slope and the rebuilding period took a few years while Chelsea had not yet gotten doped up on aromatic oil money the way they did just the season after so admittedly with a but of hindsight it was only really arsenal that was in for it that year, the same applies to Bayern as their decline has been pronounced and they had no right to win it the season prior when they did so.
Now it would take juventus a few years to reach their peak again but even at their state at the time they were superior to what Leverkusen and arsenal had to deal with.
Also it's the only campaign that comes closest to bring truly perfect as arsenal lost too many games overall that season while Leverkusen's final loss and manner that in which it happened gas a sobering effect on their achievement, millan's failure against juventus was a much closer run thing while against clearly better opposition.