That 12/13 CL team only had a loss in the CL (BATE) and one in the Bundesliga (Leverkusen) in October. The next match they lost was in the league in April 2014 when they already had won the Bundesliga.
They lost to Arsenal in the CL knockout round. Won the tie but still lost a game.
Good man, I agree with this list whole heartedly.
Maybe. I think Matteos Chelsea winning it was almost a fluke. They finished 5th or 6th in the league while Inter won everything. They were the best defensive team I've seen in the last 15 years.
I'd say the Bayern side was the best defensively because you could hardly come close to their goal or counter them which at least you could to Barcelona. But I assume you mean defending deep in your own area with men behind the ball. For that, I'd pick Atlético Madrid over that period simply because they have done it over a number of years and produced multiple performances of that type whereas Inter only had that one season where they capitalized on the momentum generated by Mourinho and his war like approach in that period. I don't think it was based on some sound defensive foundation which is evidenced by their lame performances before and after 2010. Inter's win was not as fluky as Chelsea's by any means but it was still the flukiest out of all the treble winners as far as I remember.
The only correct response.
Long may it continue.
That's because they quite often all but give up on one or more competitions rather early in order to be competitive in Europe. I think they "only" have like 3 or 4 league + UCL doubles too.
Qintuple. Won the Glasgow cup too, scored 196 goals over the season. One of the finest footballing achievements of all time.
They barely even win the league in most of them.
Neither did Liverpool or Milan (I believe) despite so many CLs.
Underrated opinion
These question marks only exist on internet forums.
Because the question is what was the best team, not which team was assembled most fairly. Their cheating (assuming it gets confirmed) is purely based on how they signed players, got sponsors etc, nothing with regards of buying referees, doping or whatever. And some of the teams who we are comparing, like Barcelona or Inter had also outside financing, just that it came before FFP.
We won the league with 90 (not 80) points in 2009. We were more or less equally good in 2008 and 2009. Maybe more focused in 2008. The decline started after 2009.
Maybe because the level of play of the 2008 team was perceived by some to be better than that of the 1999 team? It's not as simple as "3 > 2 so 1999 > 2008".
Yep, you are correct. We won with 80 two years later.
It’s a treble thread and clear from the op that it includes the league, CL and the main domestic cup. So that’s the “focus of this thread”.
Or you could say it was the best because football was much more even, it was harder. An English club hadn’t won the CL since the ban. Ferguson hadn’t won the CL. They we’re also the first on this list to do it. So in many ways it was more notable because they were pioneers. They scored 128 goals in 98/99, they would be a goal threat against any of them and showed by far the best adversity, they wouldn’t have a problem falling behind in a game and grinding it back. Whereas City I think for example aren’t quite as resilient.
We got 90 points in the league in 08/09
Ok thread czar
Yep, it’s completely different circumstances. In 99 the Premier League was only the 5th or 6th best league. Our team with class of 92 as core were in their grand total of only 3rd European campaign (as back then only 1st and later only 1st and 2nd place in the PL got a CL spot). So a United or Spurs or Atalanta or Dortmund of today have more CL experience than the United team of 99 had.
