16 points clear
18 January 2006, 09:08 PM
#31
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Denver
Posts: 265
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Reality
There's no chance of that (the liverpool / manure bit - every chance Chelsea will win the title for the next few years).
Come on then - who do you support ?
Jasey (Arsenal)
Come on then - who do you support ?
Jasey (Arsenal)
18 January 2006, 10:27 PM
#32
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: London Town
Posts: 983
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
i think you'll find the Arsenal are the best tem ever!!
http://arseweb.com/99-00/century.html
How consistency and caution made Arsenal England's greatest team of the 20th century
Three outstanding managers put the Gunners above Liverpool and Manchester United in the biggest league table of all.
Guy Hodgson. The Independent, January 2000
This will have eyebrows rocketing upwards on anyone who was attracted to football for the first time in the 1990s: the English club of the last 100 years has nothing to do with Jack Rowley, Bobby Charlton, or David Beckham. Manchester United may have been the team of three decades but the 20th century title belongs elsewhere.
Boring Arsenal? Lucky Arsenal? The statistics would suggest Successful Arsenal is a more appropriate and kindly description. Liverpool may have won more championships, but in terms of consistency, of riding out the rough years, the London club that began as Dial Square on a pitch with an open sewer running by it come up smelling sweeter than anyone. "When I played for Arsenal," Ted Drake, their prolific centre-forward of the 1930s, recalled, "the saying was 'what we have we hold'." It is a sentiment underpinning a solidity which has endured for nearly all the 100 years.
Judged by their finishing positions, Arsenal's average in England's top division is 8.5, which pips Liverpool's 8.7, while Old Trafford's near monopoly of honours in recent times has merely dragged Manchester United to fourth with 10.9. Surprisingly, to anyone who has closely followed the modern trials at Goodison Park, Everton are the century's third best club with a score of 10.6.
Arsenal's place at the top of the table has plenty to do with Arsène Wenger and George Graham, who won titles in the 80s and 90s, but they themselves would bow to Herbert Chapman who, arguably, surpasses even Bob Paisley and Matt Busby as the manager of the century.
In 1925 Arsenal's chief notoriety had been achieved by their scandalous inclusion in the post-Great War First Division at the expense of Tottenham Hotspur, thus becoming the only club to be promoted for reasons other than playing merit. Even then they were an undistinguished and perpetually broke institution whose advertisement for a new secretary-manager in the Athletic News read: "Only people who will not spend big money on transfer fees need apply".
For some reason this less-than-succulent morsel attracted Chapman, who had just guided Huddersfield Town to two of their three successive championships and, after the starter of the 1930 FA Cup, his team of Alex James, Cliff Bastin, David Jack and Ted Drake etc consumed five titles in seven years.
The Marble Halls, the allure of Highbury, a repute as England's premier club all stemmed from the period made more glittering by its backcloth of the Depression and the countdown to the Second World War.
Equally importantly in terms of their position as the club of the century, Arsenal's glory days were not followed by the anti-climax of relegation and their 80 successive years in the top division edge them ahead of Liverpool, whose 18 championships are undermined by two spells in the Second Division, the latter for eight seasons between 1954 and 1962.
Manchester United (12 titles) and Everton (eight), too, have had their years in the shadows while the other members of the top 10 – Aston Villa (two), Tottenham (two), Newcastle (four), Manchester City (two), Chelsea (one) and Sunderland (three) – have interspersed their successes with occasional visits to the lower orders of the Football League.
In a system which penalises relegation (Sunderland's First Division Championship last season gave them a finishing position only of 21st, for example) these lapses prove costly although it is also interesting how success has a lingering effect. Burnley, champions in 1921 and 1960, are 27th, Portsmouth, also two titles, are 30th.
The two Sheffield clubs, with seven titles between them, are both in the top 20 which makes their current plights even less bearable and underlines why local opinion would oppose a merger. Heritage and history are never easily shared.
Further down there are names that read like fading inscriptions on tombstones. Bradford Park Avenue are 53rd, ahead of last week's FA Cup giant-killers Wrexham and Tranmere, while New Brighton, who once had a ground that incorporated a tower to rival Blackpool's tourist attraction, are 70th and Accrington Stanley 73rd. The doleful list of clubs who no longer exist includes Gateshead (57th), who were voted into oblivion in 1960 after their first application for re-election since 1937. Theirs was possibly the most unjust rejection in Football League history.
Peterborough, who replaced Gateshead, have inched only to 86th of the 99 clubs who make the 20-season qualification, but newness does not necessarily mean lowliness. Wimbledon, who were elected in 1977, are 28th and Ipswich are 25th despite not joining the League until the season before the Second World War. Both have had to overcome the built-in handicap of having to rise through four divisions.
On a decade-by-decade basis some statistics are so remarkable they look like errors. Manchester United's average position in the 90s is 1.9, which means they have been first so often the lesser years cannot even drag them down to an average of second. Astonishing, except that the figure was equalled by Liverpool in the 70s and even surpassed with 1.7 in the 80s. That is a lot of win bonuses.
Lancashire has been predominant since the war as the old county boundaries have encompassed the team of the decade on each occasion, Manchester United taking the honours in the 40s (despite failing to win a championship), 50s and 90s, Liverpool in the 70s and 80s and Everton in the 60s. The north-east had its heyday at the turn of the century and Herbert Chapman's teams dominated the inter-war years.
But the tables also chronicle the accelerating trend of strength being drawn to the bright lights of the big cities. In the 50s Burnley, Blackpool, Bolton and Preston finished in the top 10 while even as recently as the 80s the most successful dozen included Norwich and Luton.
The rich variety those clubs brought is slowly dying thanks to the concentration of television money and playing resources towards a dwindling number. The seven most successful clubs of the 90s are arguably also the richest and there is no reason to believe that the team of the next decade will come from outside their ranks.
http://arseweb.com/99-00/century.html
How consistency and caution made Arsenal England's greatest team of the 20th century
Three outstanding managers put the Gunners above Liverpool and Manchester United in the biggest league table of all.
Guy Hodgson. The Independent, January 2000
This will have eyebrows rocketing upwards on anyone who was attracted to football for the first time in the 1990s: the English club of the last 100 years has nothing to do with Jack Rowley, Bobby Charlton, or David Beckham. Manchester United may have been the team of three decades but the 20th century title belongs elsewhere.
Boring Arsenal? Lucky Arsenal? The statistics would suggest Successful Arsenal is a more appropriate and kindly description. Liverpool may have won more championships, but in terms of consistency, of riding out the rough years, the London club that began as Dial Square on a pitch with an open sewer running by it come up smelling sweeter than anyone. "When I played for Arsenal," Ted Drake, their prolific centre-forward of the 1930s, recalled, "the saying was 'what we have we hold'." It is a sentiment underpinning a solidity which has endured for nearly all the 100 years.
Judged by their finishing positions, Arsenal's average in England's top division is 8.5, which pips Liverpool's 8.7, while Old Trafford's near monopoly of honours in recent times has merely dragged Manchester United to fourth with 10.9. Surprisingly, to anyone who has closely followed the modern trials at Goodison Park, Everton are the century's third best club with a score of 10.6.
Arsenal's place at the top of the table has plenty to do with Arsène Wenger and George Graham, who won titles in the 80s and 90s, but they themselves would bow to Herbert Chapman who, arguably, surpasses even Bob Paisley and Matt Busby as the manager of the century.
In 1925 Arsenal's chief notoriety had been achieved by their scandalous inclusion in the post-Great War First Division at the expense of Tottenham Hotspur, thus becoming the only club to be promoted for reasons other than playing merit. Even then they were an undistinguished and perpetually broke institution whose advertisement for a new secretary-manager in the Athletic News read: "Only people who will not spend big money on transfer fees need apply".
For some reason this less-than-succulent morsel attracted Chapman, who had just guided Huddersfield Town to two of their three successive championships and, after the starter of the 1930 FA Cup, his team of Alex James, Cliff Bastin, David Jack and Ted Drake etc consumed five titles in seven years.
The Marble Halls, the allure of Highbury, a repute as England's premier club all stemmed from the period made more glittering by its backcloth of the Depression and the countdown to the Second World War.
Equally importantly in terms of their position as the club of the century, Arsenal's glory days were not followed by the anti-climax of relegation and their 80 successive years in the top division edge them ahead of Liverpool, whose 18 championships are undermined by two spells in the Second Division, the latter for eight seasons between 1954 and 1962.
Manchester United (12 titles) and Everton (eight), too, have had their years in the shadows while the other members of the top 10 – Aston Villa (two), Tottenham (two), Newcastle (four), Manchester City (two), Chelsea (one) and Sunderland (three) – have interspersed their successes with occasional visits to the lower orders of the Football League.
In a system which penalises relegation (Sunderland's First Division Championship last season gave them a finishing position only of 21st, for example) these lapses prove costly although it is also interesting how success has a lingering effect. Burnley, champions in 1921 and 1960, are 27th, Portsmouth, also two titles, are 30th.
The two Sheffield clubs, with seven titles between them, are both in the top 20 which makes their current plights even less bearable and underlines why local opinion would oppose a merger. Heritage and history are never easily shared.
Further down there are names that read like fading inscriptions on tombstones. Bradford Park Avenue are 53rd, ahead of last week's FA Cup giant-killers Wrexham and Tranmere, while New Brighton, who once had a ground that incorporated a tower to rival Blackpool's tourist attraction, are 70th and Accrington Stanley 73rd. The doleful list of clubs who no longer exist includes Gateshead (57th), who were voted into oblivion in 1960 after their first application for re-election since 1937. Theirs was possibly the most unjust rejection in Football League history.
Peterborough, who replaced Gateshead, have inched only to 86th of the 99 clubs who make the 20-season qualification, but newness does not necessarily mean lowliness. Wimbledon, who were elected in 1977, are 28th and Ipswich are 25th despite not joining the League until the season before the Second World War. Both have had to overcome the built-in handicap of having to rise through four divisions.
On a decade-by-decade basis some statistics are so remarkable they look like errors. Manchester United's average position in the 90s is 1.9, which means they have been first so often the lesser years cannot even drag them down to an average of second. Astonishing, except that the figure was equalled by Liverpool in the 70s and even surpassed with 1.7 in the 80s. That is a lot of win bonuses.
Lancashire has been predominant since the war as the old county boundaries have encompassed the team of the decade on each occasion, Manchester United taking the honours in the 40s (despite failing to win a championship), 50s and 90s, Liverpool in the 70s and 80s and Everton in the 60s. The north-east had its heyday at the turn of the century and Herbert Chapman's teams dominated the inter-war years.
But the tables also chronicle the accelerating trend of strength being drawn to the bright lights of the big cities. In the 50s Burnley, Blackpool, Bolton and Preston finished in the top 10 while even as recently as the 80s the most successful dozen included Norwich and Luton.
The rich variety those clubs brought is slowly dying thanks to the concentration of television money and playing resources towards a dwindling number. The seven most successful clubs of the 90s are arguably also the richest and there is no reason to believe that the team of the next decade will come from outside their ranks.
19 January 2006, 06:46 AM
#33
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
Originally Posted by 555 Markus
Hi Paul, I'll be there. My season ticket is in the East Upper, seat 102 which is right over the tunnel, just to the left of the halfway line. Fortunately its pretty near the front of the upper tier..... take an oxygen supply with you if you're in one of the higher rows!
Enjoy the game, and keep the blue flag flying high!
Mark
Enjoy the game, and keep the blue flag flying high!
Mark
I will look out for you Mark
19 January 2006, 06:48 AM
#34
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
Originally Posted by Ted Maul
i think you'll find the Arsenal are the best tem ever!!
http://arseweb.com/99-00/century.html
How consistency and caution made Arsenal England's greatest team of the 20th century
Three outstanding managers put the Gunners above Liverpool and Manchester United in the biggest league table of all.
Guy Hodgson. The Independent, January 2000
This will have eyebrows rocketing upwards on anyone who was attracted to football for the first time in the 1990s: the English club of the last 100 years has nothing to do with Jack Rowley, Bobby Charlton, or David Beckham. Manchester United may have been the team of three decades but the 20th century title belongs elsewhere.
Boring Arsenal? Lucky Arsenal? The statistics would suggest Successful Arsenal is a more appropriate and kindly description. Liverpool may have won more championships, but in terms of consistency, of riding out the rough years, the London club that began as Dial Square on a pitch with an open sewer running by it come up smelling sweeter than anyone. "When I played for Arsenal," Ted Drake, their prolific centre-forward of the 1930s, recalled, "the saying was 'what we have we hold'." It is a sentiment underpinning a solidity which has endured for nearly all the 100 years.
Judged by their finishing positions, Arsenal's average in England's top division is 8.5, which pips Liverpool's 8.7, while Old Trafford's near monopoly of honours in recent times has merely dragged Manchester United to fourth with 10.9. Surprisingly, to anyone who has closely followed the modern trials at Goodison Park, Everton are the century's third best club with a score of 10.6.
Arsenal's place at the top of the table has plenty to do with Arsène Wenger and George Graham, who won titles in the 80s and 90s, but they themselves would bow to Herbert Chapman who, arguably, surpasses even Bob Paisley and Matt Busby as the manager of the century.
In 1925 Arsenal's chief notoriety had been achieved by their scandalous inclusion in the post-Great War First Division at the expense of Tottenham Hotspur, thus becoming the only club to be promoted for reasons other than playing merit. Even then they were an undistinguished and perpetually broke institution whose advertisement for a new secretary-manager in the Athletic News read: "Only people who will not spend big money on transfer fees need apply".
For some reason this less-than-succulent morsel attracted Chapman, who had just guided Huddersfield Town to two of their three successive championships and, after the starter of the 1930 FA Cup, his team of Alex James, Cliff Bastin, David Jack and Ted Drake etc consumed five titles in seven years.
The Marble Halls, the allure of Highbury, a repute as England's premier club all stemmed from the period made more glittering by its backcloth of the Depression and the countdown to the Second World War.
Equally importantly in terms of their position as the club of the century, Arsenal's glory days were not followed by the anti-climax of relegation and their 80 successive years in the top division edge them ahead of Liverpool, whose 18 championships are undermined by two spells in the Second Division, the latter for eight seasons between 1954 and 1962.
Manchester United (12 titles) and Everton (eight), too, have had their years in the shadows while the other members of the top 10 – Aston Villa (two), Tottenham (two), Newcastle (four), Manchester City (two), Chelsea (one) and Sunderland (three) – have interspersed their successes with occasional visits to the lower orders of the Football League.
In a system which penalises relegation (Sunderland's First Division Championship last season gave them a finishing position only of 21st, for example) these lapses prove costly although it is also interesting how success has a lingering effect. Burnley, champions in 1921 and 1960, are 27th, Portsmouth, also two titles, are 30th.
The two Sheffield clubs, with seven titles between them, are both in the top 20 which makes their current plights even less bearable and underlines why local opinion would oppose a merger. Heritage and history are never easily shared.
Further down there are names that read like fading inscriptions on tombstones. Bradford Park Avenue are 53rd, ahead of last week's FA Cup giant-killers Wrexham and Tranmere, while New Brighton, who once had a ground that incorporated a tower to rival Blackpool's tourist attraction, are 70th and Accrington Stanley 73rd. The doleful list of clubs who no longer exist includes Gateshead (57th), who were voted into oblivion in 1960 after their first application for re-election since 1937. Theirs was possibly the most unjust rejection in Football League history.
Peterborough, who replaced Gateshead, have inched only to 86th of the 99 clubs who make the 20-season qualification, but newness does not necessarily mean lowliness. Wimbledon, who were elected in 1977, are 28th and Ipswich are 25th despite not joining the League until the season before the Second World War. Both have had to overcome the built-in handicap of having to rise through four divisions.
On a decade-by-decade basis some statistics are so remarkable they look like errors. Manchester United's average position in the 90s is 1.9, which means they have been first so often the lesser years cannot even drag them down to an average of second. Astonishing, except that the figure was equalled by Liverpool in the 70s and even surpassed with 1.7 in the 80s. That is a lot of win bonuses.
Lancashire has been predominant since the war as the old county boundaries have encompassed the team of the decade on each occasion, Manchester United taking the honours in the 40s (despite failing to win a championship), 50s and 90s, Liverpool in the 70s and 80s and Everton in the 60s. The north-east had its heyday at the turn of the century and Herbert Chapman's teams dominated the inter-war years.
But the tables also chronicle the accelerating trend of strength being drawn to the bright lights of the big cities. In the 50s Burnley, Blackpool, Bolton and Preston finished in the top 10 while even as recently as the 80s the most successful dozen included Norwich and Luton.
The rich variety those clubs brought is slowly dying thanks to the concentration of television money and playing resources towards a dwindling number. The seven most successful clubs of the 90s are arguably also the richest and there is no reason to believe that the team of the next decade will come from outside their ranks.
http://arseweb.com/99-00/century.html
How consistency and caution made Arsenal England's greatest team of the 20th century
Three outstanding managers put the Gunners above Liverpool and Manchester United in the biggest league table of all.
Guy Hodgson. The Independent, January 2000
This will have eyebrows rocketing upwards on anyone who was attracted to football for the first time in the 1990s: the English club of the last 100 years has nothing to do with Jack Rowley, Bobby Charlton, or David Beckham. Manchester United may have been the team of three decades but the 20th century title belongs elsewhere.
Boring Arsenal? Lucky Arsenal? The statistics would suggest Successful Arsenal is a more appropriate and kindly description. Liverpool may have won more championships, but in terms of consistency, of riding out the rough years, the London club that began as Dial Square on a pitch with an open sewer running by it come up smelling sweeter than anyone. "When I played for Arsenal," Ted Drake, their prolific centre-forward of the 1930s, recalled, "the saying was 'what we have we hold'." It is a sentiment underpinning a solidity which has endured for nearly all the 100 years.
Judged by their finishing positions, Arsenal's average in England's top division is 8.5, which pips Liverpool's 8.7, while Old Trafford's near monopoly of honours in recent times has merely dragged Manchester United to fourth with 10.9. Surprisingly, to anyone who has closely followed the modern trials at Goodison Park, Everton are the century's third best club with a score of 10.6.
Arsenal's place at the top of the table has plenty to do with Arsène Wenger and George Graham, who won titles in the 80s and 90s, but they themselves would bow to Herbert Chapman who, arguably, surpasses even Bob Paisley and Matt Busby as the manager of the century.
In 1925 Arsenal's chief notoriety had been achieved by their scandalous inclusion in the post-Great War First Division at the expense of Tottenham Hotspur, thus becoming the only club to be promoted for reasons other than playing merit. Even then they were an undistinguished and perpetually broke institution whose advertisement for a new secretary-manager in the Athletic News read: "Only people who will not spend big money on transfer fees need apply".
For some reason this less-than-succulent morsel attracted Chapman, who had just guided Huddersfield Town to two of their three successive championships and, after the starter of the 1930 FA Cup, his team of Alex James, Cliff Bastin, David Jack and Ted Drake etc consumed five titles in seven years.
The Marble Halls, the allure of Highbury, a repute as England's premier club all stemmed from the period made more glittering by its backcloth of the Depression and the countdown to the Second World War.
Equally importantly in terms of their position as the club of the century, Arsenal's glory days were not followed by the anti-climax of relegation and their 80 successive years in the top division edge them ahead of Liverpool, whose 18 championships are undermined by two spells in the Second Division, the latter for eight seasons between 1954 and 1962.
Manchester United (12 titles) and Everton (eight), too, have had their years in the shadows while the other members of the top 10 – Aston Villa (two), Tottenham (two), Newcastle (four), Manchester City (two), Chelsea (one) and Sunderland (three) – have interspersed their successes with occasional visits to the lower orders of the Football League.
In a system which penalises relegation (Sunderland's First Division Championship last season gave them a finishing position only of 21st, for example) these lapses prove costly although it is also interesting how success has a lingering effect. Burnley, champions in 1921 and 1960, are 27th, Portsmouth, also two titles, are 30th.
The two Sheffield clubs, with seven titles between them, are both in the top 20 which makes their current plights even less bearable and underlines why local opinion would oppose a merger. Heritage and history are never easily shared.
Further down there are names that read like fading inscriptions on tombstones. Bradford Park Avenue are 53rd, ahead of last week's FA Cup giant-killers Wrexham and Tranmere, while New Brighton, who once had a ground that incorporated a tower to rival Blackpool's tourist attraction, are 70th and Accrington Stanley 73rd. The doleful list of clubs who no longer exist includes Gateshead (57th), who were voted into oblivion in 1960 after their first application for re-election since 1937. Theirs was possibly the most unjust rejection in Football League history.
Peterborough, who replaced Gateshead, have inched only to 86th of the 99 clubs who make the 20-season qualification, but newness does not necessarily mean lowliness. Wimbledon, who were elected in 1977, are 28th and Ipswich are 25th despite not joining the League until the season before the Second World War. Both have had to overcome the built-in handicap of having to rise through four divisions.
On a decade-by-decade basis some statistics are so remarkable they look like errors. Manchester United's average position in the 90s is 1.9, which means they have been first so often the lesser years cannot even drag them down to an average of second. Astonishing, except that the figure was equalled by Liverpool in the 70s and even surpassed with 1.7 in the 80s. That is a lot of win bonuses.
Lancashire has been predominant since the war as the old county boundaries have encompassed the team of the decade on each occasion, Manchester United taking the honours in the 40s (despite failing to win a championship), 50s and 90s, Liverpool in the 70s and 80s and Everton in the 60s. The north-east had its heyday at the turn of the century and Herbert Chapman's teams dominated the inter-war years.
But the tables also chronicle the accelerating trend of strength being drawn to the bright lights of the big cities. In the 50s Burnley, Blackpool, Bolton and Preston finished in the top 10 while even as recently as the 80s the most successful dozen included Norwich and Luton.
The rich variety those clubs brought is slowly dying thanks to the concentration of television money and playing resources towards a dwindling number. The seven most successful clubs of the 90s are arguably also the richest and there is no reason to believe that the team of the next decade will come from outside their ranks.
19 January 2006, 08:19 AM
#35
BANNED
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Jasey@Work
Posts: 2,507
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think you'll find Chelsea are the best team at the moment.
Who gives a **** who was the best team yesterday
.
I want to know who's gonna be the best team next year. It wont be Man Utd and it wont be Arsenal. It could well be Liverpool though
ps It wont be Leeds and it better not be Spurs
Who gives a **** who was the best team yesterday
.I want to know who's gonna be the best team next year. It wont be Man Utd and it wont be Arsenal. It could well be Liverpool though
ps It wont be Leeds and it better not be Spurs
19 January 2006, 09:35 AM
#36
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
Originally Posted by Reality
I think you'll find Chelsea are the best team at the moment.
Who gives a **** who was the best team yesterday.
I want to know who's gonna be the best team next year. It wont be Man Utd and it wont be Arsenal. It could well be Liverpool though
ps It wont be Leeds and it better not be Spurs
Who gives a **** who was the best team yesterday
.I want to know who's gonna be the best team next year. It wont be Man Utd and it wont be Arsenal. It could well be Liverpool though
ps It wont be Leeds and it better not be Spurs
History is certainly not to be sniffed at, but all this "we won the league 18 times stuff is v. boring
.Wolves had 8? players playing for England at one time, no-one mentions them, well LUCKO does
I respect what Man U, Arsenal and Liverpool have done, and will still do, but these teams earned the respect they have now, and Chelsea dont seem to be given the respect they deserve now.
Ok they have spent some money over a short period, but Man U and especially Liverpool have spent millions too, with really little comeback on there outlay ( The CL an exception
).Will Chelsea get an plaudits for defending the Premiership?? doubt it.
Its about here and now
19 January 2006, 04:43 PM
#37
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Parts Unknown (even to me!)
Posts: 1,964
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Reality
I want to know who's gonna be the best team next year. It wont be Man Utd...
If we bring in the two big midfield names that Gill has promised, we'll definitely be able to present a reasonable challenge to Chelsea domestically next season.
If we bring in Diarra/Gattuso/Mascherano as speculated, I honestly feel that we'll be very, very strong across the field. Our downfall this season has been the defence and centre midfield, but with Vidic and Evra, the defence is sorted, so all it leaves is the huge gap in the middle, which, as said, will be filled during the summer.
Might make the Premiership a little more interesting next year.
19 January 2006, 04:58 PM
#38
Scooby Regular
iTrader: (3)
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: 2015 Golf R Dsg
Posts: 5,913
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by G-STAR
If we bring in Gattuso
Chelsea are so consistent.
in a nut-shell Man Utd need to go a season losing only 1 or 2 games to have a chance. Chelsea will beat them at least once so you cant win the league. Man Utd/Arsenal have had there time at the top, now it's someone else's turn
19 January 2006, 05:34 PM
#40
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Denver
Posts: 265
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Wait until the ageing glory-hunters of the seventies and eighties have retired from their positions in the media, and a new generation have taken over, then Chelsea will get more respect I reckon. Until then here's hoping they dominate the league for a good few years to wind up a few of these tools just a bit more.
19 January 2006, 07:24 PM
#41
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Parts Unknown (even to me!)
Posts: 1,964
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by LUCKO
can't see it myself, why leave milan? anyway it's not about bringing in a couple of players is it...it's about Chelsea
Chelsea are so consistent.
in a nut-shell Man Utd need to go a season losing only 1 or 2 games to have a chance. Chelsea will beat them at least once so you cant win the league. Man Utd/Arsenal have had there time at the top, now it's someone else's turn
Chelsea are so consistent.
in a nut-shell Man Utd need to go a season losing only 1 or 2 games to have a chance. Chelsea will beat them at least once so you cant win the league. Man Utd/Arsenal have had there time at the top, now it's someone else's turn
Besides, they're not immortal, as you seem to think, and I'm surprised that you've made such a comment. Granted, they're the strongest team in the league, but if you gave any club unlimited funds, they'd be in the exact same position.
It'll be nice to see Barca show them what real class is.
19 January 2006, 07:27 PM
#42
Scooby Regular
iTrader: (3)
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: 2015 Golf R Dsg
Posts: 5,913
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by G-STAR
It'll be nice to see Barca show them what real class is.
20 January 2006, 07:57 AM
#43
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
Originally Posted by G-STAR
Granted, they're the strongest team in the league, but if you gave any club unlimited funds, they'd be in the exact same position.
Was it not Man U. spent £60 million on just two players
Rooney and Rio???? if thats not having fairly unlimited funds I dont know what is, if Ferguson doesn't know how to use them thats his fault 
20 January 2006, 08:07 AM
#44
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
Originally Posted by G-STAR
It'll be nice to see Barca show them what real class is.
We'll see
Who is it your playing in the knockout stages????
20 January 2006, 08:16 AM
#45
BANNED
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Jasey@Work
Posts: 2,507
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by pauld37
Who is it your playing in the knockout stages????
Don't hit a guy when he's down Although as I have mentioned before Chelsea will be able to concentrate on domestic matters soon
.
20 January 2006, 08:41 AM
#46
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
Originally Posted by Reality
Although as I have mentioned before Chelsea will be able to concentrate on domestic matters soon
.Dont think we need to concentrate anymore
20 January 2006, 09:15 AM
#47
BANNED
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Jasey@Work
Posts: 2,507
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by pauld37
Dont think we need to concentrate anymore
Although there's a fat bird clearing her throat
.
20 January 2006, 11:22 PM
#49
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Parts Unknown (even to me!)
Posts: 1,964
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by pauld37
We'll see
Who is it your playing in the knockout stages????
Who is it your playing in the knockout stages????
20 January 2006, 11:39 PM
#50
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Parts Unknown (even to me!)
Posts: 1,964
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by pauld37
But us having unlimited funds didn't stop us losing to Man U. its nothing to do with Chelsea that you get thrashed by 'Boro, Man City and the likes.
In years gone by, we actually could get thumped several times a season and still end up with the championship, however, with the form and consistency that you've bought, even if we lose once or twice, we'll still be lucky to catch you.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
Mattybr5@MB Developments
Full Cars Breaking For Spares
28
28 December 2015 11:07 PM
Mattybr5@MB Developments
Full Cars Breaking For Spares
12
18 November 2015 07:03 AM