The Invincibles vs The Treble Winners

Moneymaker

Watching the Keane/Vieira documentry had me thinking, take the 98/99 Man Utd side and put them in a DeLorean and put them on the same pitch against the 03/04 Arsenal side.

Who would come out on top?

Assume a neutral venue and all players are at the level they were at that respective time, i.e Jaap Stam at his 98/99 level, and Henry at his 03/04 level.

You may make 3 substitues using the respective squad of each team.

Man Utd:

League: 79 points, 83 goals scored, 37 against. 22 wins, 13 draws, 3 defeats. 1st place.

FA Cup: Winners

CL: Winners

The team;



One of the greatest goalkeepers of all time. Arguably the best centre half in the world at the time. Two superb full backs, a midfield four you dream of and a brilliant strike partnership that developed a near clairvoyant understanding.

If there is a weakness anywhere, it is the lack of a great partner for Stam and perhaps a lack of true, modern pace in the front two.


Arsenal:

League: 26 wins, 12 draws, 0 defeats. 73 goals scored, 27 against. 90 points, 1st place.

FA Cup: 1-0 defeat to Man Utd in the semi-final

Champions League: Knocked out by Chelsea in the QF, 3-2 on aggregate.

The team:



Two pacy and powerful centre halves, good attacking full backs, Vieiras power and Pires's genius, Bergkamp being Bergkamp and last but not least Henry pretty much at his peak. It's easy to see why this team swept by everyone in the league and dazzled with their football. But does a lack of European success make this team inferior to the all conquering Man Utd side?

Over to you. Who wins over 90 minutes? Who was the greater team?

Have fun.

The_Kew_Tour

One team won 3 trophies
the other won 1 trophy.

Both super sides, but no argument over who was the better.

bucketybuck

The treble winners were the better team, both player for player and in terms of achievement. I judge 7 truly world class players on the treble side, 5 on the Arsenal side.

Besides, calling them the Invincibles was a misnomer. They drew too many games that year to be judged truly invincible. :pac:

My combined side from those two would be:

Schmeichal
Irwin, Stam, Campbell, Cole
Beckham, Keane, Scholes, Giggs
Bergkamp, Henry

What a team that would be!

Skylinehead

bucketybuck wrote: »

The treble winners were the better team, both player for player and in terms of achievement. I judge 7 truly world class players on the treble side, 5 on the Arsenal side.

Besides, calling them the Invincibles was a misnomer. They drew too many games that year to be judged truly invincible. :pac:

My combined side from those two would be:

Schmeichal
Irwin, Stam, Campbell, Cole
Beckham, Keane, Scholes, Giggs
Bergkamp, Henry

What a team that would be!

While I agree that the Treble team won more, I don't agree with your world-class players. Henry, Bergkamp, Pires, Cole, Campbell, Gilberto, Vieira at a minimum, and Freddie wasn't exactly bad either. Think you could be selling the Treble short as well.

I like the team, although I'd have Pires over Giggs.

IvySlayer

Winning 3 different titles > Winning 1

LuckyLloyd

That Utd team would have found a way to win.

2ndcoming

IvySlayer wrote: »

Winning 3 different titles > Winning 1

Cups are cups to be fair, anything can happen. By your logic Liverpool in 01 and Arsenal in 93 were better than the Invincibles too.

The_Kew_Tour

2ndcoming wrote: »

Cups are cups to be fair, anything can happen. By your logic Liverpool in 01 and Arsenal in 93 were better than the Invincibles too.

ah jesus christ its not hard to understand what we are trying to say.

EuropeanSon

The_Kew_Tour wrote: »

ah jesus christ its not hard to understand what we are trying to say.

But it's not hard to understand it's a silly argument. Is every double winning side a better side too?

bucketybuck

Skylinehead wrote: »

While I agree that the Treble team won more, I don't agree with your world-class players. Henry, Bergkamp, Pires, Cole, Campbell, Gilberto, Vieira at a minimum, and Freddie wasn't exactly bad either. Think you could be selling the Treble short as well.

I like the team, although I'd have Pires over Giggs.

I just didn't rate Pires as much as some others do, imo he wasn't on the same level as Henry, Bergkamp or even Overmars before him. The same for Gilberto, an excellent player sure, but not world class as I see the term. Its the same reason I didn't rate Yorke or Cole as truly world class.

CSF

It is the Treble Winners no doubt, but if you still had Overmars and Petit in there it is a different story altogether IMO.

messinkiapina

I'd say the United team have a marginally better midfield, Arsenal better in defence and up front. I've gone with Arsenal, by a whisker.

Spanish Johnny

The_Kew_Tour wrote: »

One team won 3 trophies
the other won 1 trophy.

Both super sides, but no argument over who was the better.

Oh that's it settled so - we'l shut down the thread now will we??:rolleyes:

Of course there is an argument. These sides were 5 years apart in their pomp.

Even the Champions League had changed format in the time between.

The question is the better team - not who won more in different eras.

kryogen

Em, the Treble winning team won 3 trophies, winning the important matches in 3 competitions.

The invincibles were beaten in every other competition bar the league, plus they had about 12 draws, its not like they beat all before them!

Its really a no brainer which was the best team tbh

The_Kew_Tour

EuropeanSon wrote: »

But it's not hard to understand it's a silly argument. Is every double winning side a better side too?

United won the Champions League, Fa cup and league.

We won a CL knocking out Barca, beating Inter, Juve and Byern.

We won the FA Cup beating Liverpool, Arsenal, Chelsea, Boro and Newcastle.

We won the league.

While Arsenal got knocked out by Chelsea in 04 in CL. United beat them in Cup

ye can huff all ye like. Its clear who is winner. No argument.

The_Kew_Tour

Spanish Johnny wrote: »

Oh that's it settled so - we'l shut down the thread now will we??

Yes

Good man glad you agree

Skylinehead

bucketybuck wrote: »

I just didn't rate Pires as much as some others do, imo he wasn't on the same level as Henry, Bergkamp or even Overmars before him. The same for Gilberto, an excellent player sure, but not world class as I see the term. Its the same reason I didn't rate Yorke or Cole as truly world class.

Pires scored 1 in 3 from a wing position, in those days it was absolutely superb. In contrast Giggs got about 1 in 5/6. I thought he was absolute class, but I'm biased :pac:

Gilberto unfortunately won't get plaudits because of where he played. He was one of the very best defensive midfielders though, possibly just behind Makelele when we won the title, so by definition he was world class. Just in an underrated position.

The_Kew_Tour

The_Kew_Tour wrote: »

United won the Champions League, Fa cup and league.

We won a CL knocking out Barca, beating Inter, Juve and Byern.

We won the FA Cup beating Liverpool, Arsenal, Chelsea, Boro and Newcastle.

We won the league.

While Arsenal got knocked out by Chelsea in 04 in CL. United beat them in Cup

ye can huff all ye like. Its clear who is winner. No argument.

Poll says otherwise. And saying no argument doesn't make your argument any better...

kryogen

Spanish Johnny wrote: »

Oh that's it settled so - we'l shut down the thread now will we??:rolleyes:

Of course there is an argument. These sides were 5 years apart in their pomp.

Even the Champions League had changed format in the time between.

The question is the better team - not who won more in different eras.

Ok, to put it in a way more acceptable to you. The 99 treble winning team had more character in it and would have found a way to win.

Johnson was extremely underrated and was very good on the ball, excellent foil for Stam who is one of the all time great centre halves. Irwin is probably the best full back the club has ever had, the United midfield is as perfect as you can get from a midfield, it has everything and a great balance and up front the lads were almost telepathic they were so close on and off the field.

Arguably the best goalkeeper in history, certainly the best at that stage marshalling things from the back.

No real argument here for me as to who was the best

kryogen

AdamD wrote: »

Poll says otherwise. And saying no argument doesn't make your argument any better...

There are more non united fans on the board then united fans.

kryogen

kryogen wrote: »

There are more non united fans on the board then united fans.

While you're questioning their objectivity you should have a look at your own. There's clearly a debate to be had here

EuropeanSon

The_Kew_Tour wrote: »

United won the Champions League, Fa cup and league.

We won a CL knocking out Barca, beating Inter, Juve and Byern.

We won the FA Cup beating Liverpool, Arsenal, Chelsea, Boro and Newcastle.

We won the league.

While Arsenal got knocked out by Chelsea in 04 in CL. United beat them in Cup

ye can huff all ye like. Its clear who is winner. No argument.

I don't remember the Utd team. I'm not huffing, or even expressing an opinion. I'm just letting you know that "they won more things" is a silly argument.

The_Kew_Tour

AdamD wrote: »

Poll says otherwise. And saying no argument doesn't make your argument any better...

oh well if the poll full of ABUS say it then;)

Moneymaker

For what its worth I think the Man U side was superior also. I've heard some pretty strong arguements for the Arsenal side however and felt it was thread worthy.

Plus I was bored in work, productive day as usual :pac::pac:

Spanish Johnny

kryogen wrote: »

Em, the Treble winning team won 3 trophies, winning the important matches in 3 competitions.

The invincibles were beaten in every other competition bar the league, plus they had about 12 draws, its not like they beat all before them!

Its really a no brainer which was the best team tbh

Head in hands comment that. Of course you will have draws in a 38 game league. Like the treble which was a superb achievement the ability to go undefeated for a whole season is particularly special as it has never been done before in professional English football with that many games.

The_Kew_Tour

EuropeanSon wrote: »

I don't remember the Utd team. I'm not huffing, or even expressing an opinion. I'm just letting you know that "they won more things" is a silly argument.

It is in some cases.

But when you take home the big 3 competitions then to me it is clear.

That is not taking away from Arsneal. One of the best sides I have ever seen from any country.

I have said plenty of good things about Arsenal the past few months that I dont need bring up.

Truly super side. I cant give more credit, but United were better.

Spanish Johnny

The_Kew_Tour wrote: »

United won the Champions League, Fa cup and league.

We won a CL knocking out Barca, beating Inter, Juve and Byern.

We won the FA Cup beating Liverpool, Arsenal, Chelsea, Boro and Newcastle.

We won the league.

While Arsenal got knocked out by Chelsea in 04 in CL. United beat them in Cup

ye can huff all ye like. Its clear who is winner. No argument.

Again the teams were five years apart playing different opposition and one of the competitions wasn't even structured the same.

If you are comparing the 99 United team to the 99 Arsenal team you have a point but we'r not.

Fuzzy_Dunlop

kryogen wrote: »

There are more non united fans on the board then united fans.

There are also more non Arsenal fans than Arsenal fans, moreso in fact.

kryogen

AdamD wrote: »

While you're questioning their objectivity you should have a look at your own. There's clearly a debate to be had here

Not a very long one anyway

The_Kew_Tour

Spanish Johnny wrote: »

Again the teams were five years apart playing different opposition and one of the competitions wasn't even structured the same.

If you are comparing the 99 United team to the 99 Arsenal team you have a point but we'r not.

Im not comparing them. It was clear by OP who we are comapring tbf.

Were the teams in 99 worse then in 04? Is that what you mean?

Fuzzy_Dunlop

Fuckin hell. I'd even probably agree that the treble win is better but the attitude of the United fans here is shocking.

kryogen

Spanish Johnny wrote: »

Head in hands comment that. Of course you will have draws in a 38 game league. Like the treble which was a superb achievement the ability to go undefeated for a whole season is particularly special as it has never been done before in professional English football with that many games.

Head in hands comment? That the "invincibles" were far from invincible when you take them out of the league

Spanish Johnny

kryogen wrote: »

Ok, to put it in a way more acceptable to you. The 99 treble winning team had more character in it and would have found a way to win.

Johnson was extremely underrated and was very good on the ball, excellent foil for Stam who is one of the all time great centre halves. Irwin is probably the best full back the club has ever had, the United midfield is as perfect as you can get from a midfield, it has everything and a great balance and up front the lads were almost telepathic they were so close on and off the field.

Arguably the best goalkeeper in history, certainly the best at that stage marshalling things from the back.

No real argument here for me as to who was the best

Fair enough - don't disagree with any of that. A truly fantastic side. My point was it's well worthy of an argument however.

That Arsenal midfield to me is equally as good and they had a far superior strike force.

United had the best keeper ever - agreed.

Defence - can pick a lot of arguments each side I think it's fair to say.

So all in all well worth a debate!

It's the arrogant dismissive attitude about it that irks people.

kryogen

Fuzzy_Dunlop wrote: »

There are also more non Arsenal fans than Arsenal fans, moreso in fact.

Do you think there would be more anti United or anti Arsenal fans?

dfx-

The United side was better, probably the best side since I've watched the Premier League, nothing really to do how much what they won.

I'd probably prefer the 97-98 Arsenal side to the Invincibles.

homerjay2005

That United team went unbeaten in all competitions from December 19th 1998 to October 3rd 1999, a feat that goes completely unnoticed. 45 games in total, 29 in the league, 8 in FA Cup and 8 in Europe, spanning a run of 33 during the treble.

in their "unbeaten" run, Arsenal actually were knocked out of europe and both domestic cups something United avoided happening.

obviously i am going to be biased as a United fan, but taking this into consideration i think the achievements of 99 were unique and much better and at the end of the day, winning a CL and Fa Cup, as well as the league tops any unbeaten record while winning the same league.

Too Tough To Die

Thread is an insult to the brilliance that was that Man U team.

The_Kew_Tour

Fuzzy_Dunlop wrote: »

Fuckin hell. I'd even probably agree that the treble win is better but the attitude of the United fans here is shocking.

What calling Arsenal side a super side and one of greatest sides ever is shocking?

I think calling that shocking is unfair. Arsenal were very good. United better though.

Moneymaker

Too Tough To Die wrote: »

Thread is an insult to the brilliance that was that Man U team.

2/10. Must work harder.

Fuzzy_Dunlop

The_Kew_Tour wrote: »

What calling Arsenal side a super side and one of greatest sides ever is shocking?

I think calling that shocking is unfair. Arsenal were very good. United better though.

I'm referring to the complete dismissal of any other opinion.

Skylinehead

homerjay2005 wrote: »

obviously i am going to be biased as a United fan, but taking this into consideration i think the achievements of 99 were unique and much better and at the end of the day, winning a CL and Fa Cup, as well as the league tops any unbeaten record while winning the same league.

I think the United team was better/achieved more, but they were both unique. Bizarre comment really.

Too Tough To Die wrote: »

Thread is an insult to the brilliance that was that Man U team.

Ah here, get over yourself. Insult?

iDave

Ignoring the treble for second but its hard to argue against a team that won Europe

Too Tough To Die

Skylinehead wrote: »

I think the United team was better/achieved more, but they were both unique. Bizarre comment really.



Ah here, get over yourself. Insult?

Yes, an insult.

The_Kew_Tour

United did not lose a single game to Inter, Barcelona, Juventus and Bayern. We met each twice and Bayern 3 times. Thats 9 games against top sides.

That Juve side had players of legends of Zidane and Davids. Bayern had fantastic side. Inter were excellent. Barca had some unreal players then

Spanish Johnny

The issue is that most are boiling it down to an achievement battle in terms of trophies and are not looking at the teams.

Was United's achievement greater - yes I think so.

My point is you are comparing the achievements in two teams that were 5 years apart. Different opposition and different competitions. You have to look at the teams and obviously by extension the players.

Now are really suggesting there is no debate to be had over them two teams??

Goalkeeper: Schmeichel all day long.

Defence: Campbell and Stam definites for me. Irwin and Cole full backs for me.

Midfield: Hard to pick individually because they were both great units. Keane/Vieira can you split them (rose tinted glasses away on both sides!) Scholes gets the nod anyway although Gilberto was world class in his position and a World Cup winner.

Pires and Giggs probably then.

Attack: Henry and Bergkamp

Now look at those teams and honestly say there is no debate to be had??

Skylinehead

Too Tough To Die wrote: »

Yes, an insult.

Are you a United fan?

shadowcomplex

Henry and bergcamp may have been better players individually but as a partnership cole and Yorke where on a another level especially in 99

Too Tough To Die

Skylinehead wrote: »

Are you a United fan?

Yes, but i'd say the same if i was an Arsenal fan.

Skylinehead

Too Tough To Die wrote: »

Yes, but i'd say the same if i was an Arsenal fan.

Sure you would. You're acting like there was leagues of difference between the two teams, when there clearly wasn't.

kryogen

Skylinehead wrote: »

Sure you would. You're acting like there was leagues of difference between the two teams, when there clearly wasn't.

There doesn't have to be a huge chasm between the two teams to be able to clearly see that one is superior to the other though.

Even the beloved poll is starting to look sane now

Too Tough To Die

Skylinehead wrote: »

Sure you would. You're acting like there was leagues of difference between the two teams, when there clearly wasn't.

One was a great team domestically. The other was quite simply a great team, on any level. Truly elite.