Scholes yes. The others aren’t even close.
Where would you rank this Man City side now?
- Thread starter tentan
- Start date
You are merging the 60s with the 90s and mid 2000s in your argument. 2008 Ronaldo transferred to 2019, is not only 1 to 2 tiers above any City player but probabaly top 2 in all of Europe
2007 2008 Torres will be Citys best player today. 08 Rooney is just as good as current Sergio. The list goes on forever. Ronaldinho ronaldo zidane pirlo henry will simply take over the top players slots today.
I find your post about how players 10 to 15 years ago will struggle in today's league to be arrogant and borderline offensive.
Total point means zilch.
We got 96 under Pellegrini, and there was not a day during the whole season that you felt like we were going to win it. Still 96 points, which is like top 5 in all time in La Liga. Yet I didn't think we were even a top 10 side in Europe in that season.
We also got 100 under Jose, and although we were an absolute machine on the counters, simply murdering most sides, we were far too one-dimensional, like Pep's sides are. It's like in order to get +95 points, it's usually best to just perfect one style of play to a T, the rest are irrelevant, as over the course of a campaign you'll be more consistent, but you're gonna struggle in Europe.
But we were a far more complete and mature side with so different elements to our game during most of Zidane's reign, and I definitely consider that a superior side.
We got 96 under Pellegrini, and there was not a day during the whole season that you felt like we were going to win it. Still 96 points, which is like top 5 in all time in La Liga. Yet I didn't think we were even a top 10 side in Europe in that season.
We also got 100 under Jose, and although we were an absolute machine on the counters, simply murdering most sides, we were far too one-dimensional, like Pep's sides are. It's like in order to get +95 points, it's usually best to just perfect one style of play to a T, the rest are irrelevant, as over the course of a campaign you'll be more consistent, but you're gonna struggle in Europe.
But we were a far more complete and mature side with so different elements to our game during most of Zidane's reign, and I definitely consider that a superior side.
Last edited:
The bestest most plasticest owned by a criminal regime team in the history of the world.
Hate them but they are pretty good.
Hate them but they are pretty good.
You were competing against the greatest club side of all time so the Pellegrini season was as much of an anomaly as Liverpool’s 2018-19.
Zidane’s “complete and mature” side were pretty rubbish domestically too, which will always count against them.
Of course points matter.
Zidane's teams never once got higher than 93 points.
Interestingly enough the 2008-09 Barca side everyone jerks off as potentially being the best ever "only" got 87 points, which is lower than every la liga winner since.
I agree points tallies aren't always the best measure though.
Rubbish? Let's not rewrite history here. He got around 85-90% win ratio in his first season, which over the course of a season would've been over 100 points. He closed a huge gap with that MSN side who had a great win ratio as well to just 1 point.
He also won the second league title.
And that's all on top of back to back to back CLs.
That same season though they were led by Ibrahimovic and failed against Inter. Interestingly they finished 12 points higher than the previous season when they won 6 trophies. So that means Pellegrini's side were better than Barca of 08-09?
Zidane has only had one lousy full domestic season, he actually recovered Madrid pretty well after the Benitez debacle and got them to 90 points, they won the league with 93 the year after. The third season was a complete failure though.
Beckham and Giggs not even close to De Bruyne when it comes passing and creating? Have you watched any of Utd's games from around that time?
I think De Bruyne is probably a overall more complete player than both Becks and Giggs. But 90s Giggs IMO was a better dribbler, and Becks was a better crosser and the combination of the two on the 2 wings was a deadly combination.
I'm out of posts now since my 5 post limit is gone, so I'll reply tomorrow.
And that complete failure still got us another CL, something that Pep tries year in year out with unlimited funds without success, never mind that, can barely reach top 8, losing to Monaco, Pool and Spurs.
So you’re saying a large points tally is a significant achievement?
The big difference being that the second place won't be punished like the other two were, yes I know it was different because drugs were involved, however surely they will look into City financial dealings one day but knowing them it won't ever happen at all
Which seasons do you think United are getting more points than Liverpool then?
Giggs as good a passer as De Bruyne? Keane nearly as good? Have you actually seen De Bruyne play?
Beckham’s long passing and crossing is certainly comparable with De Bruyne but De Bruyne is way ahead when it comes to short passes and through balls.
We’ll be getting people arguing that Andy Cole was a better finisher than Agüero next.
Yeah, if we’re talking about dribbling Giggs is obviously better than De Bruyne. Even when he converted to a CM later in his career though, his passing was nowhere near De Bruyne’s level.
Beckham is probably the greatest crosser of all time but De Bruyne is up there too. Before Pep came along and he was still playing on the right he looked like the second coming of Beckham. If you include all the other elements of his game, he’s undoubtedly a few tiers above. I can’t imagine any top manager picking a peak Beckham, Scholes or the CM iteration of Giggs ahead of De Bruyne in their midfield if given a choice between the four players.
Essentially, the argument is that Beckham, Giggs and Scholes combined are more creative that De Bruyne, which may be true but hardly reflects badly on him.
Just that it doesn't mean much, or there would be stuff like this (this is not a complete list, but it proves the point):
Jose's Madrid = Tito's Barca > Pellegrini's Madrid > Zizou's Madrid > Pep's treble winning Barca
Meanwhile Pellegrini and Tito's side were simply consistent but not that good. Far from Europe's best. They couldn't handle big matches. Also Jose's side, though it was great, wasn't as good as the last two teams in the list.
I know you aren't asking me but just felt to give my opinion.
No, because they haven't won anything while United have.
If they do actually win the CL, maybe it can be up for discussion (as some people might say the greatest EPL side ever City only beat them by a point to the league)
Unless this Liverpool team that lost ONE game all season (narrowly away at City) would suddenly start dropping points against the dross of the early Premier League then I don’t see how that’s even a plausible thought.
Fergie’s teams traditionally never go started until Christmas, by which point this Liverpool team would be about 20 points clear.
https://www.grassrootscoaching.com/...-has-evolved-over-the-last-20-years-part-one/
Moving away from the physical conditioning, I suggest some people go back and watch some Premier League football matches from the ‘90s. They were struggling to pass water and the defending is comical.
This City team is tremendous, no argument there, but I don't think it's as good as United of the late nineties and 2007-2009, nor the Liverpool side of the late seventies. Just my opinion. It might become as good; only time will tell.
Busby Babes long before my time, though I'm a collector of all things of that side and I think they were superior too.
Busby Babes long before my time, though I'm a collector of all things of that side and I think they were superior too.
They need to win European silverware to be measured.
That's the starting point of any discussion.
That's the starting point of any discussion.
This makes no sense. So no team apart from United 99 or United 08 can be spoken about?
Bizarre statement tbh.
Absolutely.
He means in order to be considered amongst the very best, which is fair comment.
Barca, AC Milan, RM to name a few.
In a thread full of nonsense, this stands out.
How? Peak Torres will be the best player in the PL today or close to it.
Top FORM Rooney is every bit as good as current Sergio if not better.
Dont know what's so shocking about it. Do you deny Ronaldinho will be top 3 today? Or that 08 Ronaldo will be by far the best player in the PL?
This thread is talking about comparisons between this side and other PL sides.
Its just impossible to compare generations Ty.
But if you want to refine it further, European silverware would add another level for comparison whether domestic or across the world.
Domestically the current City team is right up amongst the best, hence they are the first team to win a domestic treble. No argument there.
Not that high, I think Arsenal's invincibles, our 08 team (to young for the 90's team) and even the current Liverpool team are better.
They win the league because they just stack the midfield and attack with top class attackers, and stick good midfielders like Delph as fullbacks. It works because most of the time in the league you'll win with just playing better players, it's a modus operandi perfected in La Liga and Bundesliga by Pep.
But against the other top teams, it'll fall short, because you need top teams to be more balanced. It's why the current Liverpool go further in Europe, and usually have the better of City in head to head matches. It's why Madrid won 4 CL's in 5 years - a balanced team filled with top players.
That said the time is ripe for them to get a CL because the field of top teams is the weakest it's been for around a decade. Bayern, Madrid and Barca have all regressed massively, Juve and PSG have good players but not top teams. Really they're unlucky they lost against Spurs because I think they beat Ajax, but they should make a massive attempt next season because the likes of Madrid and Barca are rebuilding and could well become top teams again very soon.
They win the league because they just stack the midfield and attack with top class attackers, and stick good midfielders like Delph as fullbacks. It works because most of the time in the league you'll win with just playing better players, it's a modus operandi perfected in La Liga and Bundesliga by Pep.
But against the other top teams, it'll fall short, because you need top teams to be more balanced. It's why the current Liverpool go further in Europe, and usually have the better of City in head to head matches. It's why Madrid won 4 CL's in 5 years - a balanced team filled with top players.
That said the time is ripe for them to get a CL because the field of top teams is the weakest it's been for around a decade. Bayern, Madrid and Barca have all regressed massively, Juve and PSG have good players but not top teams. Really they're unlucky they lost against Spurs because I think they beat Ajax, but they should make a massive attempt next season because the likes of Madrid and Barca are rebuilding and could well become top teams again very soon.
I just disagree with first two points entirely. Agüero’s a much better player than peak Torres or Rooney for me. Torres in particular is very overrated based on a couple of good seasons.
The Ronaldinho and Cristiano points are different as both were the best player in the world at one point and Cristiano is an all time great of the sport. Of course they’d be the best in the PL/top three in the world. Torres and Rooney were never at that level.
Sorry, but this post is filled with inaccuracies.
City, have only lost only twice in all competitions to the top prem teams (Chelsea and Spurs) this season. Thats out of 12 or so games. Last season, they were also dominant against the other top teams.
Also, you said that City won the league by playing Delph at left back? Fabian Delph would struggle to get into left back at most of the top 6 clubs. Kyle Walker is at right back and is hardly the second coming of Cafu. A 33 year past his best Kompany still plays at centre half and theyve just won 14 league games in a row with Gundogan instead of the apparently irreplaceable Fernandinho.
At some point, youre going to have to give Pep his credit for managing and creating z team that's greater than the sum of its parts. Zinchenko at left back? Hes another converted midfielder that other top 6 teams wouldn't take a gamble on either, yet hes been transformed.
This is a great great team
This post is a car crash, ffs. United of 10 years ago... that contained a back 5 which would've been the best in the world at any point in the previous 10 years, or Cristiano Ronaldo, who, you know, has been officially the best player in the world for 5 of the previous 10 years. But keep going on about how 2019 is so different to 2008, and how a superior points total means more than actually winning both the league and Champions League together.
Agreed. Which is why I'll have our 98/99 and 07/08 sides top 2 of the PL era.
Obsessing over points totals is dumb. Always has been, always will be. City getting 100 and 98 points is excellent of course, but it absolutely 100% pales in comparison to any trophy on top of a title. So many examples of points totals not being comparable in the slightest between seasons, yet it's ridiculous how often people bring it up.
Basically - United 99 and 2008 have to be 1 and 2. No discussion. City have the best shout at being #3, but theres a far bigger difference between Uniteds top 2 and the rest, compared to the difference between City, Arsenal invincibles and Mourinhos Chelsea. 3 title wins in a row for both United sides, CL winners for both. 1999 team got to the CL quarter finals in the 2 other seasons of their 3 titles, 2008 team reached a CL semi and a CL final in the other 2 title winning seasons. The list goes on. Having a flawless record against the teams you should be beating (incredible consistency) doesn't make you better though than succeeding at the top level, which is the Champions League. And just winning the CL but not the league doesnt put you in there either. Has to be all of it. We're talking about the best, so how can one possibly be ranked as the best when they couldn't even win the biggest trophy?
- United in 2007/2008 got 87 points, won the double, had the best defensive unit in the world and the best player in the world. Were unlucky not to win the FA Cup too.
- United on 2011/12 finished on 89 points, even though they bottled 8 points in the last few games. Knocked out of CL groups, 2nd in PL, no cups.
- United in 12/13 bought Van Persie finished on 89 points like the previous season, worse goal difference, yet walked to the title and were a better team by a mile compared to the previous year.
- And the obvious, United in 1999 finished on 79 points only, but won the treble.
Basically - United 99 and 2008 have to be 1 and 2. No discussion. City have the best shout at being #3, but theres a far bigger difference between Uniteds top 2 and the rest, compared to the difference between City, Arsenal invincibles and Mourinhos Chelsea. 3 title wins in a row for both United sides, CL winners for both. 1999 team got to the CL quarter finals in the 2 other seasons of their 3 titles, 2008 team reached a CL semi and a CL final in the other 2 title winning seasons. The list goes on. Having a flawless record against the teams you should be beating (incredible consistency) doesn't make you better though than succeeding at the top level, which is the Champions League. And just winning the CL but not the league doesnt put you in there either. Has to be all of it. We're talking about the best, so how can one possibly be ranked as the best when they couldn't even win the biggest trophy?
Last edited:
It's hard to tell due to different eras. It's like the Messi Maradonna argument. I've always held the opinion that the level of football is exponentially increasing so given what city have just achieved, and their squad, yes they are the greatest premier league side ever.
However, I think our 07/08 would devastate them in a single match. We weren't as consistent but we had the best player in the world and the greatest manager ever at that time, coupled with a great first team and squad.
City need that champions league and everyone knows it. Their fans dismiss the champions league because they have been disappointing in it since the takeover. They are yet to dominate Europe, yet to go and beat the likes of Barca, Bayern, Juve etc in the same year and then win the final which is the most nerve wracking spectacle club football has to offer.
Until they get that European cup they are not a big club.
However, I think our 07/08 would devastate them in a single match. We weren't as consistent but we had the best player in the world and the greatest manager ever at that time, coupled with a great first team and squad.
City need that champions league and everyone knows it. Their fans dismiss the champions league because they have been disappointing in it since the takeover. They are yet to dominate Europe, yet to go and beat the likes of Barca, Bayern, Juve etc in the same year and then win the final which is the most nerve wracking spectacle club football has to offer.
Until they get that European cup they are not a big club.
Sadly they are the best I've seen.
However, 2008 United would beat them in a cup tie due to tactical flexibility that few sides since have displayed.
2008 United could shut down city with an incredible defense. Also Rooney Ronaldo and Tevez would score against the city defense.
The midfield could also keep the ball or play with defensive energy with fletcher and park and Hargreaves. Not to mention Rooney and Tevez pressing from the front all game..
However, 2008 United would beat them in a cup tie due to tactical flexibility that few sides since have displayed.
2008 United could shut down city with an incredible defense. Also Rooney Ronaldo and Tevez would score against the city defense.
The midfield could also keep the ball or play with defensive energy with fletcher and park and Hargreaves. Not to mention Rooney and Tevez pressing from the front all game..
Ridiculous post.