Best Sides To Have Played in the Premier League

[DNA]

1 hour ago, Danny said:

So the invcibles still got 90 points though, what an amazing pointless comparison  To shrug off the weekly demands of the Premier League is amazing, just can't take the opinion that its more difficult to win the Champions League seriously, yourselves and Chelsea proved its not. 

Think the point made previous about teams who over a span of 4/5 years straight fail to win the Champions league along with their domestic success speaks volumes to the true nature of how elite that side is, the top top players will turn up for the big nights, the games elite, especially if like City for example you also get blessed with some nice fixtures. City however not alone in that, United should have had more..  for the teams that didn’t quite do it (van nistelrroy’s era, that 07/09 run regardless of Barca’s brilliance) the shine gets taken off a bit I think; in terms of ‘Greatness’. 

[Spike]

Chelsea 09/10 one of the best seasons ever, not only did they win but they won when United, Arsenal, and Livepool were pushing great heights

[Toinho]

10 hours ago, Cicero said:

@Danny We won the FA Cup as well in 2006/07

 

Personally, the United 98/99 side tops it. The mentality of that team to grind out and win the treble is nothing short of extraordinary. This is all personal preference. 

 

1. 99 United team. 

2. 2006-2009 United & 2004-2008 Chelsea (these were too close to call)

3. 2002-2004 Arsenal 

4. 2017-2019 Man City 

5. 2018-2020 Liverpool. 

I think I second this. I don’t think we can go past those 99-01 years for United. 
 

Tempted to swap the Chelsea and Arsenal side around just from pure entertainment(and a few titles!) but can’t really argue with what Chelsea achieved in that period against some arguably better sides. 

[Danny]

8 hours ago, DNA said:

Think the point made previous about teams who over a span of 4/5 years straight fail to win the Champions league along with their domestic success speaks volumes to the true nature of how elite that side is, the top top players will turn up for the big nights, the games elite, especially if like City for example you also get blessed with some nice fixtures. City however not alone in that, United should have had more..  for the teams that didn’t quite do it (van nistelrroy’s era, that 07/09 run regardless of Barca’s brilliance) the shine gets taken off a bit I think; in terms of ‘Greatness’. 

I get what is trying to be said, but it only works if you’ve actually won 3, 4, 5 major competitions. How can you say Arsenal, City, Chelsea etc aren’t as great because they haven’t been able to win the Champions League when this Liverpool side haven’t been able to win multiple trophies in one season, or more than 2 major competitions? Why do we just ignore that and go yeah they won the CL, it don’t matter. Winning the Champions League is not the only barometer of greatness, it’s one of them, the others as proven by great sides are the ability to successfully win more than one major competition in a season and win 3, 4, 5 major trophies over its lifespan. Liverpool have failed to do both of those so far.

[Lucas]

As much as it pains me to say it, and it fucking does because we had a young, exciting team back then, that Fergie team in '99 were just something else.

They were in perfect sync. Cole and Yorke were on the same wavelength as Solskjaer and Sheringham. It was electric chemistry. It didn't matter who he played, the cunts always fucking scored.

And never knew when they were beat. That was the biggest thing for me, the character they had. During that season they had some great strengths of character to come back and keep it going.

In the Champions League they had those two epic comebacks away at Juve in the semi's and then the final against Bayern, which was insane.

In the Cup they were going out to Liverpool and turned it around with 2 goals in the last minute to go through.

Then that epic semi final replay with Arsenal where they went down to 10 men, saved a late penalty and a man down, beat them in extra time with the Giggs goal.

Just a complete pack of annoying cunts really weren't they, led by the biggest cunt of them all and his red face.

But I have to give them credit because no one has done the proper treble since.

[Lucas]

P.S Special mention to Kevin Keegan's Newcastle who were one of the best/entertaining side's for 6 months of the 95/96 season.

Honestly, you will struggle to find a more fun team to watch.

We won't talk about February onwards.

[Danny]

42 minutes ago, Lucas said:

As much as it pains me to say it, and it fucking does because we had a young, exciting team back then, that Fergie team in '99 were just something else.

They were in perfect sync. Cole and Yorke were on the same wavelength as Solskjaer and Sheringham. It was electric chemistry. It didn't matter who he played, the cunts always fucking scored.

And never knew when they were beat. That was the biggest thing for me, the character they had. During that season they had some great strengths of character to come back and keep it going.

In the Champions League they had those two epic comebacks away at Juve in the semi's and then the final against Bayern, which was insane.

In the Cup they were going out to Liverpool and turned it around with 2 goals in the last minute to go through.

Then that epic semi final replay with Arsenal where they went down to 10 men, saved a late penalty and a man down, beat them in extra time with the Giggs goal.

Just a complete pack of annoying cunts really weren't they, led by the biggest cunt of them all and his red face.

But I have to give them credit because no one has done the proper treble since.

Ever* (in england)

[Dave]

Liverpool and Manchester City 2018/2020 - Klopp and Pep have truly spoiled out the last couple of years with the teams they've assembled. For Manchester City to obtain as many points as they did with Kevin De Bruyne injured for as long as he was and then for Liverpool to maintain the same pace for almost two years was something special. Even with our financial mount over the rest of Europe at present I think we will struggle to see teams maintain such consistent quality for a while.

Manchester United 2007/2009 - You had Tevez, Rooney, Ronaldo and Berbatov going at you with Carrick and Scholes in the middle. Rio, Vidic, Evra, Neville and Van Der Sarr at the back. Neville was past his best but other than that what a team.

Chelsea 2004/2007 - Whilst they had their Champions League moment long past their peak it would have been far more fitting if they could have won it during Jose Mourinho's first era. They raised the bar in English football for everybody else to follow.

Arsenal 2002/2004 - Another team that it was a shame couldn't eclipse The Champions League in their prime. The starting eleven in that Invincibles team was absolute quality. Bergkamp being the jigsaw piece that connected all these wonderful players around him. What a time to be alive.

 

I think I'll have The Treble Winning era slightly ahead of The Cantona Era for Manchester United. There's a lot of familitiarity between the teams but the depth of that 99 team is what edge's it.

[JoshBRFC+]

I’m surprised people pick United 99 over the team Fergie had to the end of the 2000’s. I know the media and pundits shove that team down our throats in every documentary and special, but really?

I watched a Giggs interview recently and he himself said that the team they had in the late 2000’s was better than 99. They also had more competition than they did in 99. And if it wasn’t for the greatest club side of all time they’d have won multiple Champions League’s.

 

[Dave]

2 hours ago, JoshBRFC said:

I’m surprised people pick United 99 over the team Fergie had to the end of the 2000’s. I know the media and pundits shove that team down our throats in every documentary and special, but really?

I watched a Giggs interview recently and he himself said that the team they had in the late 2000’s was better than 99. They also had more competition than they did in 99. And if it wasn’t for the greatest club side of all time they’d have won multiple Champions League’s.

 

I don't think its even a debate to be honest. How many of the 1999 team would get in to a combined team? Maybe two? Three at a push?

[Mpache]

The best team to not win in my lifetime was Liverpool 2013-14. They had a few defensive flaws at times but overall were hard to stop when they got going. Not just Suarez, but Sturridge, Coutinho, Gerrard and at times Sterling (he was still a bit raw). Skrtel too who wasn't the best defender but always came up big during set pieces. That 3-3 draw at Palace really upset me I remember because that pretty much opened the gates for City to go on and win. The Gerrard slip vs Chelsea was only the start of it.

[Dave]

12 minutes ago, Mpache said:

The best team to not win in my lifetime was Liverpool 2013-14. They had a few defensive flaws at times but overall were hard to stop when they got going. Not just Suarez, but Sturridge, Coutinho, Gerrard and at times Sterling (he was still a bit raw). Skrtel too who wasn't the best defender but always came up big during set pieces. That 3-3 draw at Palace really upset me I remember because that pretty much opened the gates for City to go on and win. The Gerrard slip vs Chelsea was only the start of it.

I'm glad that 3-3 upset you.

[JoshBRFC+]

21 minutes ago, The Palace Fan said:

I don't think its even a debate to be honest. How many of the 1999 team would get in to a combined team? Maybe two? Three at a push?

Glad someone see’s sense.

It’s usually Churchill nodding dogs or nostalgic United fans who believe the class of 92 are the goats that disagree.  

[Stan]

17 minutes ago, Mpache said:

That 3-3 draw at Palace really upset me

That was hilarious though.

Proper bottled it that night.

[Mpache]

Just now, Stan said:

That was hilarious though.

Proper bottled it that night.

I was a big fan of that Liverpool side. Loved the way they played and I thought they were effective even in the games without Suarez. While it's absolutely true that they wouldn't have gone as far as they did if Suarez was banned that whole season, I thought they were at least better without him than the entirety of the following season.

And yeah they were cruising that night. Fell apart near the end. If I recall correctly that was Palace's first season back in the Premier League and were looking destined for relegation near the start of the season but ended up improving in the second half.

[Stan]

Just now, Mpache said:

I was a big fan of that Liverpool side. Loved the way they played and I thought they were effective even in the games without Suarez. While it's absolutely true that they wouldn't have gone as far as they did if Suarez was banned that whole season, I thought they were at least better without him than the entirety of the following season.

And yeah they were cruising that night. Fell apart near the end. If I recall correctly that was Palace's first season back in the Premier League and were looking destined for relegation near the start of the season but ended up improving in the second half.

It was very unexpected Palace would come back to draw or even get anything. Suarez was ridiculous for his whole time at Liverpool. Unplayable.

[Tar-Mairon]

34 minutes ago, The Palace Fan said:

I don't think its even a debate to be honest. How many of the 1999 team would get in to a combined team? Maybe two? Three at a push?

Ooh, tough one.

My dad is a Man Utd fan and although I'm a Spurs fan, I grew up around United being on all the time so the 99 team was a part of my teenage years and I watched the 2009 team a lot too. The early 1990's team, before the real emergence of the Class of 92 also has a case too. But a mixture of 99 and 2009? Tough.

Schmeichel or Van Der Sar? Both great but Schmeichel edges it for me.

Gary Neville or Wes Brown? It has to be Neville.

Jaap Stam or Rio Ferdinand? Both brilliant, brilliant defenders and you could have either as they were big parts of their team but Ferdinand was the better player overrall.

Ronny Johnsen or Nemanja Vidic? Johnsen was underrated but it has to be Vidic.

Denis Irwin v Patrice Evra? Denis Irwin, easily. In the top three in terms of best left backs the league has ever had. Evra was a little overrated to me.

David Beckham v Cristiano Ronaldo? Beckham was obviously a brilliant player but can't compete with Ronaldo. 

Roy Keane v Michael Carrick? Keane. Carrick was a good player but Keane was something else.

Paul Scholes v Owen Hargreaves? I know that Scholes played in both teams and Hargreaves was utterly brilliant in United's CL run, that season he gave before his knees gave out was sensational but it has to be Scholes, it can't not be.

Ryan Giggs v Carlos Tevez? - again, brilliant players but it has to be Giggs who was unplayable at that time.

Andy Cole v Wayne Rooney? Both great, again, but has to be Rooney.

Dwight Yorke v Dimitar Berbatov? I would give it to Berbatov.

Squad? In attack in 1999, United had the most enviable strike force in the league's history with four players who would walk into any team but the 2009 squad was, overall, stronger.

In terms of the team, 1999 shades it but in terms of squad, 2009.

As much as it pains me to say it, the Chelsea teams of Mourinho's original stint and Wenger's Invincibles team were incredible sides who you'd almost lost to before you'd stepped out on the pitch and, of course, the City team of two years ago.

 

 

 

 

[LFCMike]

1 hour ago, Mpache said:

The best team to not win in my lifetime was Liverpool 2013-14. They had a few defensive flaws at times but overall were hard to stop when they got going. Not just Suarez, but Sturridge, Coutinho, Gerrard and at times Sterling (he was still a bit raw). Skrtel too who wasn't the best defender but always came up big during set pieces. That 3-3 draw at Palace really upset me I remember because that pretty much opened the gates for City to go on and win. The Gerrard slip vs Chelsea was only the start of it.

The Chelsea game opened it up for City to win it. They'd have won on goal difference even if Liverpool had held on at Palace. Liverpool were going for more goals as if it was only 1-0 once they went 3-0 up to claw back a bit of goal difference (I think City had +9 on Liverpool before the Palace game). When Palace got one back they should have just seen the game out so there was still a chance of winning it on goal difference on the last day

[Burning Gold]

Can't believe I have to come in here and once again dispel the myth that the Palace game cost us the title. After the defeat to Chelsea, we had to beat Palace about 10-0 to even be in with a chance of winning it on goal difference on the final day, and even then we were reliant on Man City drawing with West Ham. Was never going to happen. What hurt so much about that season was obviously the way we lost to Chelsea with Gerrard's slip, and the fact it came just a week after we won what was billed as the title decider against City. The Palace game was an embarrassing capitulation, but ultimately meaningless in the context of the title race.

That side played some scintillating football, but it had to because of how weak we were defensively and that's why it's not the best side not to win the league for me. Not even close. Even if you knew you couldn't live with Suarez and Sturridge, you could always get at a defense featuring 4 of Glen Johnson, John Flanagan, Aly Cissokho, Martin Skrtel, a 32/3 year old Kolo Toure and a broken Daniel Agger. Once you were past them, every other shot you had at Mignolet would go in. We conceded 50 goals, more than all but one of the top 8. I can't be bothered to look it up, but that must be more than the vast majority of other losing title challengers. Good god Brendan Rodgers still doesn't get enough credit for getting a tune out of that lot.

[Mpache]

Just now, Burning Gold said:

Good god Brendan Rodgers still doesn't get enough credit for getting a tune out of that lot.

That's right.

[Mpache]

7 minutes ago, LFCMike said:

The Chelsea game opened it up for City to win it. They'd have won on goal difference even if Liverpool had held on at Palace. Liverpool were going for more goals as if it was only 1-0 once they went 3-0 up to claw back a bit of goal difference (I think City had +9 on Liverpool before the Palace game). When Palace got one back they should have just seen the game out so there was still a chance of winning it on goal difference on the last day

I had forgotten about the goal difference completely.

[Scouse_Mouse]

22 hours ago, Stan said:

That was hilarious though.

Proper bottled it that night.

 

Liverpool didn't bottle it, we had to roll the dice at Palace, even when we were up 3-0 we were still taking chances, our only hope of catching City was for us to at least double that score to stand any chance of overhauling Cities goal difference.

I have a feeling you already knew that already though.

[Mpache]

2 minutes ago, Scouse_Mouse said:

 

Liverpool didn't bottle it, we had to roll the dice at Palace, even when we were up 3-0 we were still taking chances, our only hope of catching City was for us to at least double that score to stand any chance of overhauling Cities goal difference.

I have a feeling you already knew that already though.

To be fair to him, it was quite easy to forget the goal difference. I didn't remember, for example.

[Scouse_Mouse]

1 minute ago, Mpache said:

To be fair to him, it was quite easy to forget the goal difference. I didn't remember, for example.

Maybe, the situation regarding goal difference was a huge factor though. 

It's hard to imagine anyone putting it down to us being "bottlers", if a win was all we needed we could have shut up shop at two or three nil. 

Our chances of catching City were very slim and most understand that our only hope was to try and catch up to Cities goal difference.

[Mpache]

3 minutes ago, Scouse_Mouse said:

Maybe, the situation regarding goal difference was a huge factor though. 

It's hard to imagine anyone putting it down to us being "bottlers", if a win was all we needed we could have shut up shop at two or three nil. 

Our chances of catching City were very slim and most understand that our only hope was to try and catch up to Cities goal difference.

I remember the big game there was Everton vs City, that was my last hope in City losing given it was to be played at Goodison.