Chelsea or City?

[Yorksblue61]

I hope so, although I would still prefer to retain the Premier League if offered!

 

[SWP's back]

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.

When do we start checking then? I've already done the past ten winners for you, six Champions the same year, one the following year.

It remains the only way to test Europe's clubs against each other and though not as consistent as a league, being consistently strong in the competition shows that you are amongst the very best in the world. A team like Barcelona has been the best in the world since 2005/6 and it has three Champions League wins to demonstrate that.

Winning it once doesn't show domestic dominance, and domestic dominance is pretty irrelevant if you then get tanned in Europe. Winning it consistently and then consistently performing well against the best from elsewhere in Europe shows you're great.

Which is why City had the better season (which is the thread) and I would take the league each and every year.

Now if Chelsea were to win it the next two years after this and we were to win to the league in those two following years then I could see some sense in you saying they had the best 3 year period (as they would have proven themselves over a period of time).

But a one off win that could probably considered the most fortuitous in the last 2 decades does not equate to a great season when combined with a 6th place finish.

 

[Neville Kneville]

Is this thread serious ?

 

[BoyBlue_1985]

Is this thread serious ?

Yes, why wouldn't it be. Seems a decent question to me. Try and look at it from a neutrals posistion

 

[Neville Kneville]

Is this thread serious ?

Yes, why wouldn't it be. Seems a decent question to me. Try and look at it from a neutrals posistion

I am. I've been a neutral or a pissed off rival watching teams win the league for the last 44 years.


There is absolutely no comparison.

 

[BoyBlue_1985]

Is this thread serious ?

Yes, why wouldn't it be. Seems a decent question to me. Try and look at it from a neutrals posistion

I am. I've been a neutral or a pissed off rival watching teams win the league for the last 44 years.


There is absolutely no comparison.

Well that's your answer then

 

[glen quagmire]

I think this has to be looked at from a wider angle. My choice would be:

(1) Manchester united - The supreme community shield only contested by champions and trophy winners.

(2) Chelsea - The F.A cup and the champions of europe trophy. (despite them not being champions of their own league, what a feat eh?)

(3) West ham - for winning the 'richest game in football.'

(4) Stockport County - for staying in the conference

(5) Manchester City - a very very lucky premier league win in injury time that should never have been...

 

[SuperYaya]

I'd say us, just because we've not won the league for 44 years wheras they've been winning stuff for a while now.

Not to mention we've established a much stronger base for next season. Them defending for their lives for 300 minutes of football and probably making a deal with Satan to get unbelievable luck doesn't mean they're going to win anything next year. Their squad is aging and doesn't have many standout players. They're the 5th best team in England, we're the best.

 

[BoyBlue_1985]

I think this has to be looked at from a wider angle. My choice would be:

(1) Manchester united - The supreme community shield only contested by champions and trophy winners.

(2) Chelsea - The F.A cup and the champions of europe trophy. (despite them not being champions of their own league, what a feat eh?)

(3) West ham - for winning the 'richest game in football.'

(4) Stockport County - for staying in the conference

(5) Manchester City - a very very lucky premier league win in injury time that should never have been...

Amen

 

[Ming Hai Wang]

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.

"Luck is merely a name we give to events after they occur which we find to be fortuitous and perhaps improbable."

I was using the word "lucky" in a descriptive sense rather than a prescriptive sense. copywright Wikipedia.

There's no need to suggest I'm "away with the fairies".