Home Community General Football The best ever

Viewing 18 posts - 21 through 38 (of 38 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #59907 Score: 1
    threepsthreeps
    Participant
    183 pts

    The thing I noticed is that everyone is lauding the teams achievement rather than the actual team. Take City’s team for instance, they got 100 points, that is fantastic, but they also had Delph and Otanmendi in defence. Do they belong in a best ever team? Looks pretty weak to me.

    I said early Utd’s team of 99 was the best but not for what they won but for the quality and balance. I also think the Arsenal and Chelsea teams would also give them a good game too. But looking at the league table for that year they “only” got 79 points, yet City won with 100 in what I think is a team of lesser quality.

    So what’s changed? Are the winning teams (City, maybe Liverpool) actually that much better these day? Has the league got that much worse over the years? Or is the standard of coaching and management at the best clubs now at a much higher level? I genuinely don’t know, maybe a combination of all three.

    Chelsea.man
    #59918 Score: 0
    steveosnakeeyesteveosnakeeye
    Participant
    270 pts

    3ps are you changing the goal posts? surely if you compare succesful teams its abot what they achieved, how and under what circumstances?

    if this thread is “which teams players look the strongest and best” or something then maybe people would vote differently?

    for me its really hard to call, but city and pool over the last 2 years (more pool obviously) are utter machines, the number of games lost or drawn in over 2 seasons is naff all, utter machines!!! and they dont play badly either

    each era had its own circumstances and nuances, WHEN pool win this year they will be up there with the best if not the best for me

    #59928 Score: 0
    threepsthreeps
    Participant
    183 pts

    I’m merely steering the thread away from a simple “they won this and that and so are the best” to a more objective look at the teams. LFC has been mentioned a lot recently as the best ever in the media, and by yourself in your last post, but I don’t think so. And I don’t think City was either. We have seen some great teams in the last 20 years, yet the two I think are not the best are the two that have recorded the highest points totals (Liverpool last year before I get accused of being presumptuous).

    Maybe I should of asked if they all played each other in a league format and assuming they are all at their peak age and condition who would win. Then, if as I predict people would choose the teams from the earlier Premiership days, ask the question what has changed and why. Saying different era or whatever is true, but why?

    I appologise if this has mislead or confused anyone on here, I thought it was a reasonable opportunity to talk about football at a more thoughtful level.

    #59949 Score: 0
    steveosnakeeyesteveosnakeeye
    Participant
    270 pts

    dont worry 3ps is far to easy to confuse me!
    i just ifnd it very hard to compare teams from different eras to be honest, on paper many of those teams look far better than they actually were like my team, its quite possible a doubkle edged sword, that AW got that beautiful team/squad together but then didnt achieve half what he should have done, that team under a Pep or a Klopp now would be one of the best! good to get the old grey cells working though, even if mine are little on the slow side!

    #59972 Score: 2
    Brian blue
    Participant
    451 pts

    You can compare teams from different era’s from a personal point of view but it is unrealistic to say who is best. The circumstances, level of the game, up or down make it inprobable. We all have a tendency to think from hindsight and logically, there is not an answer, only an opinion amongst a few thousand others. For the same reason I have never liked comparing players. A test for anyone would be to name a team of players, from any club, would they win everything in sight? I doubt it. As to the “best” it does not matter if a team wins by one, ten or twenty points…they are the “best” There cannot be no argument about this. The “best” is always in No1 position

    steveosnakeeyethreeps
    #60072 Score: 0
    CriticalmaKCriticalmaK
    Participant
    49 pts

    I don’t think Threeps was ever expecting anything conclusive to come out of this but that doesn’t mean that there’s no merit in asking the question. I’ve enjoyed taking a glance at each side and I think he’s got a point. I mean, our midfield wouldn’t compare to the legends of some past PL sides but after that, I think we compare very well.

    #60103 Score: 0
    MightyMoosMightyMoos
    Participant
    36 pts

    I’m talking about the best footballing team ever not the most successful even they also have been very successful in the last decade.

    #60130 Score: 3
    threepsthreeps
    Participant
    183 pts

    You’re right Mak theres no right or wrong answer, just wanted a discussion.

    Anyway all were or still are great sides.

    steveosnakeeyeHightown hope
    #60516 Score: 2
    Chelsea.manChelsea.man
    Participant
    142 pts

    Between Grealish and Madison, i would have Madison over Grealish in a heart beat. he is more all round player than. Grealish.

    As for Liverpool, winning the league will be the greast achievement they could achieve this season. anything else is just a secondary. after they had been taunted so long for not winning the premier league. here they are winning in style and without arrogance as well. i’m a massive fan of Klopp and his style of play also.

    CriticalmaK
    #60538 Score: 1
    maverick1973maverick1973
    Participant
    615 pts

    CHM-Spot on mate,I agree completely.Especially about the the arrogance bit,which both SAF & Wenger did have a lot.On top of everything else,Klopp is achieving European success too.

    CriticalmaK
    #60570 Score: 0
    Hightown hopeHightown hope
    Participant
    213 pts

    I’m sorry I’ve not seen this thread until now. It’s an interesting question, threeps, and obviously there is no definitive answer. Each team has, to my perception, some apparent weaknesses. The first United team in the list has Johnsen, Irwin, Yorke and Cole (all great players but unarguably far from the greatest). The Arsenal team has Lehmann, Lauren, Toure and Gilberto. For Chelsea, Ferreira, Carvalho, Duff and Gudjohnsen. The 2nd Utd team has Brown, Hargreaves and Carrick, and City have Walker, Otamendi and Delph. And Liverpool have Matip, Hendo and Wijnaldum none of whom would get near a combined team. If I had to pick one of those teams, at first glance I’d go for the Arsenal team, I think, but just for fun (ands to start some further arguments!) here’s my combined team from the players above…

    Schmeichel,
    Trent, Terry, Van Dijk, Cole
    De Bruyne, Keane, Lampard
    Ronaldo, Aguero, Henry

    Reserve keeper – Cech
    Reserve defenders – Ferdinand and Robertson
    Resrve midfield – Viera and Robben
    Reserve strikers – Bergkamp and Drogba

    #60657 Score: 0
    CriticalmaKCriticalmaK
    Participant
    49 pts

    HH, glad to see you have Bergkamp on the bench. I think most forget just how insanely talented he was. I guess it’s because there are strikers who scored more goals. I was going to make some changes to the strikers but then I realised how many great ones there have been.

    I think Suarez is probably in there though, somewhere. I don’t like to remove Drogba but Suarez was in my opinion, the best player int he world for some of his spell at Liverpool.

    As for the RB, I’d love to have Robertson. Cole was kinda super human, or considered to be anyway…. I’m on the fence who is better (I know pretty much everyone on this page will disagree with me).. but Robertson is potentially my favourite Liverpool player. He’s just great at everything, has an incredible engine but most of all, he’s got more heart than the vast majority of top players. I’m not saying that I’d 100% have him ahead of Cole though, perhaps we need to see where this Liverpool side goes before I can make that call.

    Really good combination team though. It’s a shame we can’t get Gerrard in there.

    EDIT: took out 2 sentences about hypothetical where Gerrard is pick-able and created a new thread 😉

    #60682 Score: 0
    Hightown hopeHightown hope
    Participant
    213 pts

    Yeak, Mak, but you can’t have Suarez in the team as he was not in any of those teams that threeps posted at the beginning. That combined team would be a pretty awesome team though, wouldn’t it? A few egos in there, methinks!!

    #60685 Score: 0
    threepsthreeps
    Participant
    183 pts

    HH you make a good point about each team has a relative weak link in it. I think the first Utd team has the least weak links, with only Johnsen looking out of place (slightly). I think Irwin was underrated and pretty good, and Cole and York whilst not the best individually made a great partnership. I would say that team at it’s best would beat the modern day City and Liverpool teams yet they only got 79 points compared to the insane amount City and Liverpool get.

    I read somewhere that today all teams play similar, as in playing out from the back, there are no Wimbledons anymore, so the variation factor has been lost on the matches of today, so matches are usually determined just by who has the better players. No sure myself, maybe slightly, probably combinded with other factors.

    Regarding your team, agree with most, but probably have Rio instead of Terry. Maybe also Viera instead of Keane. Would be very difficult to decided between them.

    • This reply was modified 6 months ago by threepsthreeps.
    #60689 Score: 0
    sean the sailor
    Participant
    468 pts

    Denis Irwin was one of the best full backs the pl has ever seen. He could play right or left back and was so consistent

    Love him or hate him, Ashley coke was the best left back ever in the pl. absolutely world class. Couldn’t stand the man but he was virtually impossible to get by.

    Good going forward aswell. Another player who was so consistent. Brilliant player

    #60691 Score: 0
    sean the sailor
    Participant
    468 pts

    Keane all day for me. True leader and solid as a rock

    John Terry was slow but his positioning and anticipation made up for that. Much better on the ball then people gave him credit. Could smash a perfect cross field ball with either foot.

    Rio was just world class. Brilliant on the ball but could really defend aswell.

    Ye tough one that but I’d probs go for terry. He was a proper captain,

    Used to love watching Bergkamp.

    Alonso was my favourite Liverpool player for years. Was absolutely gutted when he left. He had some career.

    #60757 Score: 0
    Brian blue
    Participant
    451 pts

    Mak…out of interest would you put Gerrard ahead of Hughes? I liked both of them but guess I lean more toHughes because I saw more of him

    #60775 Score: 0
    CriticalmaKCriticalmaK
    Participant
    49 pts

    Hughes was a striker tho. Im typing from my phone in bed soi assume ive made a mistake but perhaps I can answer.
    Id have gerrard abead of anyone, except Keane, who woukd be captain … but kets keave off ob the hypothetical r

Viewing 18 posts - 21 through 38 (of 38 total)
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.