Which side was better? The "Invincibles" vs 2004-05 Chelsea

Basic quick poll. Which side was better?

Some stats

Points 90 - 95
Wins 26 - 29
Draws 12 - 8
Losses 0 - 1
Goals Scored 73 - 72
Goals Conceded 26 - 15
Goal Difference 47 - 57
Top Scorer Henry 30 of 73 - Lampard 13 of 72
Date title clinched April 25th - Game 34 (2-2 draw at Spurs) - April 30th - Game 35 (2-0 win at Bolton
W-D-L in All Comps 35-15-6 - 42-11-6
GS-GC-GD All Comps 112-47-65 107-34-73
Top Scorer All Comps Henry 39 of 112 - Lampard 19 of 107

Chelsea reached Champions League semi final, FA Cup round 5 and won the League Cup. Arsenal reached Champions League quarter final, FA Cup semi final and League Cup semi final.

How about adding the Utd of 99 into the mix?

Points 79
Wins 22
Draws 13
Losses 3
Goals scored 80
Goals conceded 37
Top scorer Cole 17 of 80
Date title clinched May 16th - Game 38 (2-1 win v Spurs)
W-D-L in all comps 36 - 21 - 4
GS-GC-GD All comps 128- 60-68
Top Scorer All Comps Yorke 29 of 128

Utd won the Champions League, won the FA Cup and reached the quarter final of the League Cup.

Arsenal were more fun to watch.

On that basis the Arsenal side currently is more fun to watch!

I haven't voted but I think the 03-04 Arsenal team in top form would get Poopie all over by the 04-05 Chelsea side.

CFCNick wrote:I haven't voted but I think the 03-04 Arsenal team in top form would get Poopie all over by the 04-05 Chelsea side.

I can't see the Arsenal side of 03-04 being crapped on by anyone......

May lose a close game but it's a bit silly to be denigrating a top side like that because you're a devoted Chelsea fan.......

I may be a City fan but I know we aren't as good a team as the Utd side that had guys like Beckham, Keane, Schmeichel and Cantona in it..

I think the Chelsea side would have narrowly won between the two...but both are bridesmaids to Utd's 99 team

Difficult to answer. Are you asking in a one off match, or over the course of a season? My initial thoughts were Arsenal, for both as a matter of fact, but if I'm not mistaken, Arsenal drew Chelsea in 2003-4 Champs league QF and got edged out by that team, lost at Highbury as well, if I recall (might be wrong on this charge). Chelsea then upgraded BIG time after that, season, both in terms of personnel and managerial talents. With all that in mind, I'd go Chelsea on both fronts, but I wouldn't put my lunch money on it.

kingraf wrote:Difficult to answer. Are you asking in a one off match, or over the course of a season? My initial thoughts were Arsenal, for both as a matter of fact, but if I'm not mistaken, Arsenal drew Chelsea in 2003-4 Champs league QF and got edged out by that team, lost at Highbury as well, if I recall (might be wrong on this charge). Chelsea then upgraded BIG time after that, season, both in terms of personnel and managerial talents. With all that in mind, I'd go Chelsea on both fronts, but I wouldn't put my lunch money on it.

Wayne Bridge's most famous moment in a Chelsea shirt.

And the main question was over the course of the season.

Chelsea's 04-05 team were better, imo. very hard to break down, and scored a few. Many think Jose's team were a tad boring, but in truth, with Robben, and Eider (can't spell his surname) in the team, they had a bit of flair.

That Arsenal team were the bees, and I think may be being slightly undervalued in this debate considering what Arsenal became. No chance they'd have got outfought by Chelsea, this was a team that Wenger got absolutely right pillar to post. United had to cheat to beat them the next year.

I'd have put them alongside United's 99 team, then Chelsea a tier below. They were also doing it when United seemed to have a brainfart cos Ferguson couldnt quite understand what a Mourinho was

Arsenal's 01-02 team were maybe just as strong as the 03-04 one. Pires was sublime that season, plus they won the cup.

The Chelsea side in 04-05 in the league had more points, more wins, best goal difference, the goals were shared out a lot more evenly across the team, and more wins in all competitions.

They were the better team. The stats prove it.

You can look at trophies won but Manchester United's Champions League win in 1999 doesn't mention how they should have lost the final to Bayern Munich and but for wasted chances and some injury time brilliance they would have. Just saying "treble" doesn't make them a better team.

Didn't the Utd team of 00-001 get something like 91 points. They hammered the gunners 6-1 as well. That team again, arguably were better than the 99 one.

out of those two chelsea, quite simple but the team that finishes with the most points is the best team

i would take wins over draws any day of the week, invincibles couldn't even defend there title which is often said is the hardest challenge for any great team. both united and chelsea could

but the best team is the one that wins the most trophies for me, would take champions league and fa cup over finishing unbeaten anyday so the best team is uniteds 99 team

Marky wrote:The Chelsea side in 04-05 in the league had more points, more wins, best goal difference, the goals were shared out a lot more evenly across the team, and more wins in all competitions.

They were the better team. The stats prove it.

You can look at trophies won but Manchester United's Champions League win in 1999 doesn't mention how they should have lost the final to Bayern Munich and but for wasted chances and some injury time brilliance they would have. Just saying "treble" doesn't make them a better team.

yeah lets not forget that we walked the season afterwards defending our title (something the great invincibles couldnt do) as well winning it by a record margin and with more points than arsenal could ever manage. but we were a great team because of a lucky final win

Stella wrote:Didn't the Utd team of 00-001 get something like 91 points. They hammered the gunners 6-1 as well. That team again, arguably were better than the 99 one.

1999-2000 season it was, the season directly after treble winning side so same side really

Marky wrote:The Chelsea side in 04-05 in the league had more points, more wins, best goal difference, the goals were shared out a lot more evenly across the team, and more wins in all competitions.

They were the better team. The stats prove it.

You can look at trophies won but Manchester United's Champions League win in 1999 doesn't mention how they should have lost the final to Bayern Munich and but for wasted chances and some injury time brilliance they would have. Just saying "treble" doesn't make them a better team.

Bayern scored once and we scored two legitimate goals so not sure how they means we should have the lost final, I guarantee that both Chelsea and Arsenal got wins and draws in injury time during their best seasons. That win in the Nou Camp is a perfect summation of Fergusons Manchester United, battling until the very last second even when we weren't playing that well.

Saying treble does make them a better team, going for and winning the top three trophies in a single season takes some doing hence why we were the first to do it and are still the only English team to do it. We were lucky along the way but every team benefits from luck at some stage so why we should be marked down for it I don't know.

compelling and rich wrote:

Stella wrote:Didn't the Utd team of 00-001 get something like 91 points. They hammered the gunners 6-1 as well. That team again, arguably were better than the 99 one.

1999-2000 season it was, the season directly after treble winning side so same side really

The season after wasn't too bad either, although we had pretty given up trying by March such was our dominance again, we could easily have beaten the 91 point total if we'd kept our foot on the pedal.

Come to think of it, these two teams did do battle. and Chelsea won the title with ease. The Arsenal 04-05 side was the same as the 03-04 one, from what I remember.

The "invincible" side is one of the biggest myths in pl history. They were a crossbars width away from never being talked about. The 01-02 arsenal side was better.

One trophy that season and crucially didnt retain the title.

Chelsea side far superior

In their defense, they did do something that hadn't been done for about 100 years, which would have course, had a bit of luck involved. Pires diving against Birmingham was another stroke of fortune that went their way.

Chelsea side was better but then their resources far outweighed their rivals at the time bar maybe one. They were not particularly good to watch though so while very good, they were also unmemorable. Much preferred United in 06/07 (or 07/08 was it?) or City 13/14.

Stella wrote:In their defense, they did do something that hadn't been done for about 100 years, which would have course, had a bit of luck involved. Pires diving against Birmingham was another stroke of fortune that went their way.

Getting a load of draws doesn't make you a great side, it's statistically interesting but no more, no less.

Ent wrote:

Stella wrote:In their defense, they did do something that hadn't been done for about 100 years, which would have course, had a bit of luck involved. Pires diving against Birmingham was another stroke of fortune that went their way.

Getting a load of draws doesn't make you a great side, it's statistically interesting but no more, no less.

I see and agree with you, but going unbeaten is a fine achievement all the same. They were also a bit unlucky against Utd in the cup semi, and with a final against Millwall awaiting, the double wasn't far off.

There's also a psychological barrier with the unbeaten thing. It's a huge achievement and as the Chelsea side this year have shown, one that is extremely difficult to achieve.

Also, every side that wins a title will have had games where they were a nipples width away from shots going in rather than against the woodwork.