- Joined
- Oct 22, 2010
- Messages
- 62,851
Ok, I'm biased.Did you come to this conclusion before or after seeing his versatility when it comes to cracking eggs?
Ok, I'm biased.Did you come to this conclusion before or after seeing his versatility when it comes to cracking eggs?
Liverpool's back 4 conceded one goal less than City did in the PL. I don't think there is a huge gap between the defenses of both sides.This City side is impressive in terms of personnel no doubt. Defensively I think they are suspect. Shearer is premature in defining them as the greatest EPL side ever. They do have world class players DeBruyne, Aguero, Sterling, Silva D, and Silva B, spring to mind. Add Liverpool's back 4 to City's midfield and forward line and you would have a formidable side.
Until they win the Champion's League their status as a great side is open to question.
It's the scale of City's spending, the sense of financial doping and the dubious regime behind City that renders your comparisons pointless. There is no comparison to what City have done. There 'achievements' don't engender the sense of admiration in theory they should from those that love the game irrespective of club loyalties.Nonsense post that ignores history. Liverpool is a club built on unearned owner investment. City won a european trophy before you and the FA cup 60 odd years before you so clearly you're a club built on owner money. Of course if you are in favour of cartel rigging corrupt ffp rules then i suppose City doing what you did seems wrong to you. Every fan who knows their stuff knows liverpool bought their trophies, everyone.
After ages we have 2 English teams in Champions League final and 2 English teams in Europa league final.What are you talking about. The PL was woeful this year. You've had 1 good team, 1 lucky team & the rest were diabolical. This is the reason both you & Liverpool racked up 90 pts + Your cup runs were also incredibly easy with you only facing 1 top team in the LC & FAC.
Where do you get the impression we never faced any competition in 2008. There was 11pts separating 1st & 4th at seasons end. There was only 4pts separating 1st & 3rd. This would be classed as a competitive league. We never dominated the league as you have due to the league being alot more competitive. The poor state of the PL combined with your State funding are the reasons why you have had 2 good seasons.
You have not created a league standard. You have merely used financial doping to distort the league. The only way other clubs can reach these levels is to find a rich sap to throw a few Billion their way without expecting a return.
After ages we have 2 English teams in Champions League final and 2 English teams in Europa league final.
If you think that the EPL is less competitive now, i truly fail to comprehend your argument.
You are not saying that the quality of all the teams across Europe has suddenly diminished when compared to 2008!!! Are you?
Fact is both City and Liverpool were so good this year that other teams just couldnt catch up.
Good post. Arsenal, Chelsea are average teams but somehow they're in the final because the EL is weakThe quality of the top teams in Europe has diminished this year which is why we have 4 European finalists. As said previously though, the CL & EL have absolutely no bearing on the PL.
I don't know why you would think a league that had a 26pt gap between 1st & 3rd & a 32pt gap between 1st & 6th competitive. The numbers alone say this isn't the case.
As a City fan you would obviously say that the league is more competitive than ever as it gives more credence to what you have done. All the data though points to the exact opposite.
Conte's Chelsea did well on the basis that Hazard, Costa and Kante were ever-present all season. What's scary about this Man City side is that you can take out 3 of their best players and not even notice it. Maybe the one they'd miss most would be Aguero.Mourinho's Chelsea team were every bit as good (and as terrifying) as this City team. It's their records which City have been taking after all, and people forget that that team could easily have racked up points totals in the high 90s in both of those seasons if they hadn't done the standard thing and mostly downed tools after winning the title early.
Conte's Chelsea were the same as City last season: they kept going after winning the title and managed a higher points total than any United team ever have. Are people really gonna argue that they were one of the best domestic sides ever?
Not in an attacking sense.Mourinho's Chelsea team were every bit as good (and as terrifying) as this City team. It's their records which City have been taking after all, and people forget that that team could easily have racked up points totals in the high 90s in both of those seasons if they hadn't done the standard thing and mostly downed tools after winning the title early.
Conte's Chelsea were the same as City last season: they kept going after winning the title and managed a higher points total than any United team ever have. Are people really gonna argue that they were one of the best domestic sides ever?
No, but they were much better defensively, and nearly as dominant. People seem to forget just how fecking scary they were at the time. The consensus was that they'd dominant the league for years to come.Not in an attacking sense.
They were better defensively (37 goals conceded over 2 years compared to City's 50). I don't think they were as dominant in open play. They could score 1 goal and shut up stop, but I never saw that team come up with a stifling performance like City have numerous times.No, but they were much better defensively, and nearly as dominant. People seem to forget just how fecking scary they were at the time. The consensus was that they'd dominant the league for years to come.
City 17-19 have GD of +151, Chelsea 04-06 - + 107. Obviously, City 17-19 dominated games on a different level to Chelsea 04-06, apart from being better to watch too.No, but they were much better defensively, and nearly as dominant. People seem to forget just how fecking scary they were at the time. The consensus was that they'd dominant the league for years to come.
That wasn't the question.Not in an attacking sense.
Exactly right.If they win the Champions League and the Premier League next year, they'll be equal to the two United sides (98-01 and 06-09) who won three consecutive titles as well as a European cup during the same period.
If they win one but not the other, they'll probably take third place behind those two sides.
Not sure about that. What's the most often used metric for a leagues strength? It's performances in Europe of teams from that league. What was the Spanish league deemed the best league in Europe over the last 10 years? Because of how their teams in Europe were dpoing so well, not just Real and Barca, but the teams below that were also winning multiple trophies and getting far in all competitions (Sevilla).The quality of the top teams in Europe has diminished this year which is why we have 4 European finalists. As said previously though, the CL & EL have absolutely no bearing on the PL.
I don't know why you would think a league that had a 26pt gap between 1st & 3rd & a 32pt gap between 1st & 6th competitive. The numbers alone say this isn't the case.
As a City fan you would obviously say that the league is more competitive than ever as it gives more credence to what you have done. All the data though points to the exact opposite.
MY GOD. This really shows you how far behind City is compared to United in terms of prestige over even the last 25 to 27 years. A mere foot soldier against a God of WarCity 18-19
City 17-18
Chelsea 16-17
Leicester 15-16
Chelsea 14-15
City 13-14
United 12-13
City 11-12
United 10-11
Chelsea 09-10
United 08-09
United 07-08
United 06-07
Chelsea 05-06
Chelsea 04-05
Arsenal 03-04
United 02-03
Arsenal 01-02
United 00-01
United 99-00
United 98-99
Arsenal 97-98
United 96-97
United 95-96
Blackburn 94-95
United 93-94
United 92-93
Invention of football by Sky
A proper ranking would be some re-arrangement of this list.
Are you new to football or something?MY GOD. This really shows you how far behind City is compared to United in terms of prestige over even the last 25 to 27 years. A mere foot soldier against a God of War
He's a massive City fan, apparentlyAre you new to football or something?
Been following football since I was a little kid back in the 2006 World Cup.Are you new to football or something?
Football is played in different ways. This Chelsea side made you feel that once they score a goal, even if it's in early minutes then it's pretty much game over, close the tv and go find something more useful to do than watching the opposition struggling to score an equalizer with absolutely no hope.They were better defensively (37 goals conceded over 2 years compared to City's 50). I don't think they were as dominant in open play. They could score 1 goal and shut up stop, but I never saw that team come up with a stifling performance like City have numerous times.
That was the consensus, then SAF ran them out of town (well, sort of, they were still up there).
Did they (and I'm talking about the 04-05 and 05-06 sides) have a domestic rival as strong as Liverpool's side this year?