Chelsea or City?

[Chris in London]

Platini celebrates with the Chelsea squad:

 

[PragueBlue]

Given that we hadn't won the league in 44 years and Chelsea have won it recently, I doubt either club would want to swap achievements this season and both should be extremely happy, so it's hard to say who has had the better season.

Having said that, for me the league is always the most important. Sadly, Chelsea's success will be viewed by many as being extremely fortunate and they may not get the credit they deserve.

 

[SWP's back]

You have absolutely just proven my point with that comment. Barcelona have been the best club team the world have ever seen for 5 years and won the CL twice in that time.

The CL is harder to win but is rarely won by the best team their own country that season, let alone in Europe as winning it is not solely down to ability but also luck. Far more so than a league season. As for your "its not won by teams in Turkey etc" no it isn't, well spotted. The seeding and group stage sorts that out, leaving 16 half decent teams, just about any of which could then win it.

The Premier League will always carry more prestige with me. As stated, I'd take it over Europe every year.

Won it three times since 2005/6. I do not call that luck. I do not call Mourinho's ability to consistently do well in it luck - surely this is one of the reasons you wanted him over Mancini, a proven league winner. Sure there's more luck in it than a full league system but there's nowhere as near as much as luck as you are pretending as there is a mini-league system with home and away legs and then two legs all the way to the final. Most great teams will beat another lesser team across two legs.

Rarely? Ok, past ten winners, six won the league in the same season, one won the league whilst holders of the Champions League, leaving three; Chelsea (11/12); Liverpool (04/05) and Milan (06/07).

Not for me. To consistently win Champions League titles like Barcelona have done in recent years, or others did in the past, proves you are not just the best in your country but in the world. No, this doesn't mean the success can be measured as consistently as with a league with luck being a bigger factor but various periods of European dominance. Real Madrid (five consecutive wins in the fifties); Benfica (back-to-back wins); Inter (back-to-back wins); Ajax (three consecutive wins); Bayern Munich (three back-to-back wins); Liverpool (four wins in eight years); Nottingham Forest (back-to-back wins); Milan (back-to-back wins); Real Madrid (three wins in five years, late nineties and early noughties); Barcelona (three wins in six years). I hope City have a period of consistent success in Europe and I do not wish to see it sullied by accusations of luck.

I think you are being disingenuous in the extreme by including the European dominance of clubs in the old format. The old European Cup, with only the national champions progressing is nothing like the CL as well you know so you can leave them out straight away.

Liverpool winning (5th) and Chelsea (6th) just goes to prove that a CL win does not equate to a great team. Domestic dominance over a decade however, does.

And I don't know I chelsea fan that wouldn't agree (nevermind sully their acheivement) that they benefitted from huge slices of luck against Napoli, Barca and Bayern.

 

[Pagie Jnr]

Has to be City as finishing 6th in what is known as your bread & butter is poor by their standards

had they finished 3rd and won FA Cup Champions League then i may have swayed more towards them but not a team who finishes 6th in their domestic league

 

[SWP's back]

Think with the question the actual answer is Manchester City.
When you talk about season, that's across the duration of all of the matches played.

City led the table for 8 months, enjoyed being dominant, had a great unbeaten run.
Smacked United at home, got them to bel19ve again lool and then kept that stupid spelling the way it is, with the Aguero finish.

Before Tevez went you were playing scintillating football, in terms of the Champions League, it was a tough group w/ Bayern & Napoli in it. Fa Cup I can't even remember how you went out, but definitely across the season you were the best.

However in terms of what was achieved, you hadn't won the league in over 4 decades.
We'd never won the top European trophy, both of them were monumental wins.

If you look at the fact that Barca are so good but cannot win it twice in a row, it shows that it's not easy to win this competition at all, we've been close with no cigar...

and to be fair, we want to win it in a better way than we have done this season.
But, in terms of achievement a UCL win added to the FA cup, trumps a Premier League win.

I always say the bread & butter is the Premier League & UCL winners should always want to win their league as well, that's the measure of a team. It was easier for us to focus on the Cup, by sacrificing the league.

I rambled on, but, you get my drift.

City better season, Chelsea better achievement.

Good assessment mate

 

[SWP's back]

Chelsea beat a poor Liverpool team in FA cup and were lucky to beat Barcelona and Bayern so City must be better season

There's no such thing as luck. There's no such thing as fate, destiny or magic neither. Putting circumstances and incidents down to these things shows a distinct lack of touch with the real world.

No such thing as luck? Are you serious?

 

[gordondaviesmoustache]

You have absolutely just proven my point with that comment. Barcelona have been the best club team the world have ever seen for 5 years and won the CL twice in that time.

The CL is harder to win but is rarely won by the best team their own country that season, let alone in Europe as winning it is not solely down to ability but also luck. Far more so than a league season. As for your "its not won by teams in Turkey etc" no it isn't, well spotted. The seeding and group stage sorts that out, leaving 16 half decent teams, just about any of which could then win it.

The Premier League will always carry more prestige with me. As stated, I'd take it over Europe every year.

Won it three times since 2005/6. I do not call that luck. I do not call Mourinho's ability to consistently do well in it luck - surely this is one of the reasons you wanted him over Mancini, a proven league winner. Sure there's more luck in it than a full league system but there's nowhere as near as much as luck as you are pretending as there is a mini-league system with home and away legs and then two legs all the way to the final. Most great teams will beat another lesser team across two legs.

Rarely? Ok, past ten winners, six won the league in the same season, one won the league whilst holders of the Champions League, leaving three; Chelsea (11/12); Liverpool (04/05) and Milan (06/07).

Not for me. To consistently win Champions League titles like Barcelona have done in recent years, or others did in the past, proves you are not just the best in your country but in the world. No, this doesn't mean the success can be measured as consistently as with a league with luck being a bigger factor but various periods of European dominance. Real Madrid (five consecutive wins in the fifties); Benfica (back-to-back wins); Inter (back-to-back wins); Ajax (three consecutive wins); Bayern Munich (three back-to-back wins); Liverpool (four wins in eight years); Nottingham Forest (back-to-back wins); Milan (back-to-back wins); Real Madrid (three wins in five years, late nineties and early noughties); Barcelona (three wins in six years). I hope City have a period of consistent success in Europe and I do not wish to see it sullied by accusations of luck.

I think you are being disingenuous in the extreme by including the European dominance of clubs in the old format. The old European Cup, with only the national champions progressing is nothing like the CL as well you know so you can leave them out straight away.

Liverpool winning (5th) and Chelsea (6th) just goes to prove that a CL win does not equate to a great team. Domestic dominance over a decade however, does.

Another thing we agree on SWPB. To me it is one of the most absurd arguments in football that the old European Cup was harder to win than the Champions League. Along with the Champions of Italy, Holland, Spain and West Germany you also had the Champions of Albania, Austria and Denmark, for example. It was not contested by the 32 best teams in Europe. An example I always use to illustrate this is the clubs that Nottingham Forest beat on their way to winning the European Cup in 1980. To get to the semis they had to beat:

Oster
Arges Pitesti
Dynamo Berlin

It's hardly the stuff of legends if you ask me, and compared to the clubs we had to beat just to get out of our group is, quite frankly, a walk in the park. People say the CL should only be for Champions without realising that the Champions in middle ranking UEFA countries wouldn't even get a Europa League place in the big leagues. Where do people think Celtic would finish in the PL for example?

Winning the CL is an incredible achievement, but I'd still rather win the league.

 

[mancity1]

I wouldn't trade a title for all other cups in any year.

Yes it would be nice to win the Chumps League but give me the premiership every year.

 

[smeghead64]

r u on the right site.....

Neither,, the rags did, they showed everyone how to do it and taught the world a footballing lesson by winning the first trophy of the season.

Pffffffffffft!

 

[Le Havre Oswald]

everton