Invincibles v Centurions?

100 points is harder to achieve.

A match between the 2 sides would be a great watch. The invincibles had some real great players. Henry, Bergkamp, Pires, Vieira, Gilberto. A.Cole, Lauren etc
 
I don’t even out the invincibles in the top 6 premier league sides of all time. In no particular order:

City 17-19
City 22-23
Liverpool 18-20
Utd 07-09
Utd 98-99
Chelsea 04-05

All better than the invincibles.
 
Mazzarelli's Swiss Cheese said:
Nobody gives a fuck about boring arsenal, and we only got 100 points because of financial doping. For me the most impressive side of recent times has to be Liverpool who would've won the PL at our expense if only shots from outside the box counted.
Click to expand...
Don't forget the amazing "Heavy Metal" brand of football under Klopp.
The most tactically innovative brand of football - ever...
 
And to top it off Arsenal the so called invincibles got a special award .

Have we ever been given any special awards for are Achievements in the whole of English football history?
 
As Porto+Benfica have shown this season, teams can go unbeaten all season and not win the league, while a team who loses a game wins the league over them. The better accomplishment is winning the league while losing a game, compared to finishing second and not losing.

A team could go unbeaten all season and get relegated on 38 points after 38 draws, while a team could finish a place above them on 39 points and stay up after 8 wins, 15 draws and 15 defeats. The better accomplishment would staying up on 39 points over not losing and getting relegated.

Not-losing is a negative thing to look at in sport.

For me, the least impressive thing 2003-04 Arsenal did was go unbeaten in the league. I’m more impressed that they scored the most goals, had the best goal difference, won the most games and got the most points that season to win the title. Not-losing is just a thing on the side which wouldn’t even be considered when separating the teams if the team who finished 2nd had the same points as Arsenal that season.
 
.db. said:
As Porto+Benfica have shown this season, teams can go unbeaten all season and not win the league, while a team who loses a game wins the league over them. The better accomplishment is winning the league while losing a game, compared to finishing second and not losing.

A team could go unbeaten all season and get relegated on 38 points after 38 draws, while a team could finish a place above them on 39 points and stay up after 8 wins, 15 draws and 15 defeats. The better accomplishment would staying up on 39 points over not losing and getting relegated.

Not-losing is a negative thing to look at in sport.

For me, the least impressive thing 2003-04 Arsenal did was go unbeaten in the league. I’m more impressed that they scored the most goals, had the best goal difference, won the most games and got the most points that season to win the title. Not-losing is just a thing on the side which wouldn’t even be considered when separating the teams if the team who finished 2nd had the same points as Arsenal that season.
Click to expand...

Manchester City's 100-point title-winning season (centurions) is the benchmark

For me, you have to win every game and finish on 114 points to call yourself (invincible). Drawing games means you didn't beat everybody and somebody else could have won the title
 
That invincibles team is overrated. They failed to win nearly a third of their games (a win rate of 68.4%). The Centurions team drew 4, and lost 2, giving a win rate of 84.2%. Clear who was the better side. It's not even up for debate. If the two sides (both in their prime) met at a neutral venue, I'd back us every time.
 
All you hear from Arsenal fans on the ubiquitous social media is, "you haven't got one of these, have you", accompanied by a picture of the gold miniature replica of the PL trophy. No, we haven't. What we have is our name in the record books for winning 8 PL titles in the intervening 21 years since they last won it I know which I'd take.
 
mancboy said:
The whole idea of the pl is to get the most points possible over 38 games, therefore the centurions is the best pl team ever, debate over , this is facts not feelings
Click to expand...

Spot on

We should have been given a special trophy that we hold until somebody beats the 100-point title win
 
jimharri said:
That invincibles team is overrated. They failed to win nearly a third of their games (a win rate of 68.4%). The Centurions team drew 4, and lost 2, giving a win rate of 84.2%. Clear who was the better side. It's not even up for debate. If the two sides (both in their prime) met at a neutral venue, I'd back us every time.
Click to expand...
I’m more impressed with their 1997-98 title winning team who came from a PL record 14 points behind United, going on a run of winning 13 games out of 14, to end up winning it.

They also won the FA Cup that season.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Unread Posts

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top