Oh feck off, invincibles are never number 1.
I'm just saying it in terms of just PL. Going undefeated is a hell of a feat. Don't be so angry
You keep repeating this but it doesn't make it anymore sensible, it's a ridiculous point really. City might well be the best PL side ever but that has absolutely nothing to do with it.
What does them beating us twice then have to do with it?
This. There is no such a thing as Barca style. Rijkaard's Barca was a different team compared to Pep's Barca, Lucho's Barca was a different team also. I am not even going to make a comparison to the current Valverde's Barca
If people mean the way that team played during Pep's era and compare it to the way Pep's Bayern or now Pep's City play it is fair because it is his own style 
And yet Pep uses it differently and with tweaks because he is adapting it to the quality of the players at his disposal.. Thats all.Struggling to understand the logic here. Youre saying that the team of 99 would get 20 more points if they were playing this season? Why would they find teams now to get points against? Are the teams back then better/ tougher to beat? There is absolutely no indication of that. West Ham and Aston Villa finished in the top 6 with 57 and 55 points that season. They are significantly poorer than this seasons counterparts. And what of Arsenal, who only finished a point behind that United. Are you telling me they would be pushing 90 odd points? This Liverpool team is far batter than the Arsenal of 98/99.
Really?
100 points is much more of a feat. Rather have 1 loss than 10 draws.I'm just saying it in terms of just PL. Going undefeated is a hell of a feat. Don't be so angry
How many points do you think that Arsenal team would have got in this seasons P
They got one less point than us in 99, and you say this Liverpool side is a far better side than them, so surely this Liverpool side are a better team than our 1999 team going by your logic.
Funny enough its your logic that I don't get. That United team of 98/99 that finished with 79 points managed to get 91 the following season with pretty much no change to the team. They were clearly capable of hitting the mid to late 90s, they just weren't pushed to do it.
I don't know why people are struggling here. The points totals were lower in the past due to the league being tougher. There were no teams playing the same style as City but that doesn't mean they couldn't win by playing their own style. It is nonsensical to take a comparison of West Ham & Villa 20 years apart to determine how strong today's PL is.
No it wouldn't. If you really think that you need to have a look at the team we used to have. Keane, Scholes, Beckham and Giggs. Yorke and Cole with Ole/ Sheringham on the bench? Stam was also immense and often now forgotten with the likes of Kompany and VVD. We also had Irwin who is still one of the best FB's ever in the PL. I'm not saying the 99 team would win, but to claim the City team would easily beat the United team is wrong as well. It would be a hard fought battle, like Liverpool vs City this season.
You don't say...
No, on a player for player basis, you’d choose more United 08 players than City 19. It’s great beating up domestic opposition like Watford but it’s more fun playing in Champions League finals. Maybe next year you can get past the QF.
They'll be saying the same about United's 16/17 Europa League win I reckon. You can only beat what's in front of you.
All the players you quote were absolutely world class in their day but then so was Stanley Matthews or Billy Meredith. But the world moves on. Whoever is the best team in 10 to 15 years is likely to beat today’s Man City if “time travel” was possible. There is no reason everything improves, all sports that are metrics based and can be absolutely measured continue to improve but weirdly those that can’t be measured absolutely “don’t get better”? It isn’t realistic
Agreed, people seem to think that when we say that PL is weaker now we’re talking about the top 6 teams, they forget that there’s 14 other teams in the league that are in my opinion weaker than they were 10, 15, even 20 years ago, which along with these Man City & Liverpool teams being very good (but not the best ever) & pushing each other, means we’re getting these crazy points tallies.
Do you really believe it’s ‘far better’ ?
Jack Nicklaus is still considered by most to be the best golfer of all time, Sugar Ray Robinson is still considered to be the best boxer of all time. Your logic doesn’t work for everything.
So with the PL being so weak at the moment (in your opinion), would you still say it was the strongest league in the world?
It's a bit of a weak argument imo. Using the athletics analogy, more often than not Michael Johnson would beat van Niekerk over 400m, even though van Niekerk is the World Record holder in 400m and has access to 2 decades of advancement.
Finishing with 100 points is a greater achievement than finishing undefeated. You could just play for draws and easily get it.I'm just saying it in terms of just PL. Going undefeated is a hell of a feat. Don't be so angry
If losing fewer games makes you a better side then Liverpool are currently better than City which is clearly ridiculous.I'm just saying it in terms of just PL. Going undefeated is a hell of a feat. Don't be so angry
It wasn’t though, it was shite.
Hardly, even so, I certainly wouldn't say the current bottom half of today's PL are any better. Some teams like Bournemouth play decent football but its as shit as its always been.
The average quality was significantly lower.
There's plenty of British players in Liverpool who I would have struggled to have called World Class prior to this season, including Milner, Henderson, Alexander-Arnold, Robertson, Gomez, and tbh still do. But those aformentioned players have just kicked the sh1t out of Barcelona and may go onto win the CL.
You make it sound like the jump in quality from the late 90s to now is the same as it is from the 1960s, pretty daft. The 1999 side had 3 players in Scholes, Giggs and Beckham who could pass and create as good as the likes of De Bruyne, Roy Keane wasn't far behind either. They also understood the importance of high energy levels and constant movement and positioning. It'd be a cracking game between the two sides, but to say City would "crucify" the 1999 side is pure nonsense.
Points aren’t everything but they’re certainly significant. I do think this Liverpool side would, over the course of a season, accumulate more points than any Ferguson side pre 2007-08, as his teams were never this relentless in the league and dropped plenty of stupid points against poor sides.
