That’s not such a crazy take. It’s always hard to pit teams from different eras against each other but this iteration of Arsenal is outrageous. It’s just a little distorted because of a sportswashing project sucking all the air out of the room.
1 Like
City’s 100-point and Liverpool’s 99-point teams are better (by some margin) than our Invincibles.
This current Arsenal team is better than the Invincibles too.
I can’t say I agree with this.
Pires, Vieira, Henry, Cole, Campbell, Lehmann are absolute shoe ins for the current team.
I’d defo have Saka over Freddie, probably White over Lauren (but debatable) and Gilberto Silva was magnificent shielding the defence and I wouldn’t argue with having him in the team either.
Bergkamp was at an advanced age by that point but still an excellent player.
2 Likes
In what world are they better then the Invincibles team “by some margin”?
Are we genuinely using points totals as a measure of greatness now?
What Liverpool player from that team is walking into the 2004 team?
United 07-09
Chelsea 04-06
Arsenal 02-05
City 22-24
To me that above there are the 4 best teams in English football history.
1 Like
I included “as good as” for the very reason that there are areas of the pitch where the 2004 team had the edge. Obviously Henry is the standout but I wouldn’t argue with the quality of any of the others you mentioned.
But this team can certainly compete on individual quality and what they produce as a collective is certainly comparable to the 2004 squad (they might even end up on the same points for whatever that is worth).
It’s a good discussion to have.
But I don’t pay any attention to points totals. I think that 03/04 team could have won 100 points if they didn’t slow down at the tail end of that season trying to go undefeated.
But as far as the comparable go:
Lehmann over Raya
Campbell over Gabriel
Saliba over Toure
Lauren = White (I could pick either)
Gilberto is so underrated he was a genuine top quality DM. He’d fit seamlessly into this team in the 6 role. Him or Rice, I could take either.
Vieira over any of our midfielders.
Pires over any of our left sided attackers.
Henry over any of our attackers full stop.
Saka over Freddie.
But that 2004 team had Edu, Reyes,
4 Likes
Not just points, it’s the fact they nearly won every single game is what makes them better. They just smashed everyone up, no contest.
I’d easily take Mane or Salah from their EPL league win or UCL win the year after over Pires/Ljungberg.
It’s just my unpopular football opinion 
I definitely agree the 2004 squad left points in the table. The final league table really doesn’t reflect that Arsenal ran away with that season, it wasn’t even close to a race for a lot of it.
Likewise, I don’t know if Liverpool or City would have had such a ridiculous points tally that season if not for having each other breathing down their necks. That’s definitely not where the comparison lies.
As far as the individual comparison goes I’d go with you on most of it. I think Vieira Vs Rice might, especially in a few years look a closer comparison than you’ve made it. But the collective output I think is highly comparable. This squad is never out of its depth, and shares that tendency the 2004 team had even when it looked bleak to be able to come back and take points.
English football HISTORY is such a bold claim
1 Like
It was short lived but I think Liverpool 2018-22 is in the conversation. 97, 99 and 92 point seasons in there along with 3 CL finals and many domestic cups. To not win the league with 97 and 92 points is incredibly unlucky.
1 Like
Modern history then? I think it’s a total fool’s errand to compare across eras in general but definitely given how long football existed in England and how far we’ve come with medicine and sport science. I mean, it’s not that long ago in the grand scheme of things that players were taking the summer’s off and coming back out of shape. I don’t think that’s the norm now.
I’d just about agree with the 2004 version of Freddie, but the 2002 Freddie was better than Saka.
1 Like
I actually meant PL history haha. I don’t know why I typed English football history
1 Like
This! It’s a record that we’ve not come anywhere near, even with our best squads. And Liverpool was up against the juggernauts of Man City and Real Madrid going deep in multiple competitions, not whimpering away etc.
To discount it is laughable.
Perhaps. The same applies for Ronaldo vs. Messi - it doesn’t take away from their greatness though. If anything, it adds to it.
They never had to come up against Ferguson’s United.
I just think, as a whole, the competition was a lot fiercer back then. United, for example, in our Invincibles year only relinquished top spot when they lost at Wolves (relegation fodder) at the turn of the year.
2 Likes
Do people remember what Man Utd were doing to the PL back then?
yes, they were in bed with the EPL and all the refs. Cheating scum.
1 Like
Before the PL, there haven’t been many teams better than Liverpool.
Most seasons when Paisley was there they were winning the league title and European Cup.
1 Like
You only have to look at the points totals for champions to see the league was more competitive as a whole back then.
2 Likes
That’s a fair point. It makes me ponder the question though, was the competition actually fiercer, or were Liverpool and Man City just that much stronger than everyone else?
e.g. is it easier or harder now to get into the top 4 than it was during those days?
and another question we’ll never know the true answer to:
If this Arsenal side, and Liverpool/City’s great sides were in the SAF era, where would they all place? Cause imho, Pep’s City has far more technical ability/quality than SAF’s teams.