United with Ronaldo at his best would make mincemeat out of this City side. Also noway can they be considered one of the best. Lets see how they do against 3 of the best sides in europe who just happen to be challenging for the league title as well. At one point United were winning titles, home and abroad when england was by far the continents best footballing nation in Champions League terms.
fkn hell !! UTD with CR reached CL twice and dominated PL how is that comparable to city who lost 4 at half of the season, many to average sides Arsenal had only UTD to match when they were invincible, a UTD side with banned Rio the same invincible side has been found out and Chelsea made them look average the next season once Chelsea get stronger .. so what logic you work with exactly?
City have to prove it, true. Remember everyone keeps banging on about how competitive this league is but in terms of top 6 teams they are clearly the best team right now. The table shows that now as well, new manager new players, a few away blips but they seem to have got over that. They've had a few "decisions" in terms of disallowed goals. They are the only one of the top teams that are likely to hammer most of the other top sides. They seem to be getting their away form sorted. Regardless of all the above, they just play better fooking football than any of the other sides end of story. Best football top of the league and they can still improve.
Yup, City beat 10 man spurs 5-1 at WHL, we beat 11 man Spurs 5-0 at WHL, We Are the best in the world. But yeah, City beat us 2-1, and....were 4th and.. Did I ever tell you the story with the leper and the prostitute?
We went out to an English side. Hardly failing against Europe's elite. Criminal loss really as the other three teams who got through that round were not top quality.
Is that an opinion masquerading as a fact again? This season they've beaten the current Bundesliga champions in Munich and beaten the current EPL champions 4-0 at home. So you're saying the European teams United were playing against were worse than they are now... doesn't that kind of downplay United's achievement?
He's so bent on trying to prove he's right he just did water down United's achievements. I think a more accurate account of it is that the PL was outspending other leagues by some margin so at that time. The PL still does but the gap in league spending was much much larger in the PL back then, possibly something that got UEFA all uppity, Platini didn't like seeing English teams in the CL final so often.
Wow, do you get a trophy for that? No, course you don't. The point he is trying to make is that so far City have won nothing. Let's see at the end of the season how 'great' they can be considered shall we. Oh, and it was 4-1.
cini65.....Man City were dismantled by Bayern Munich at the Etihad, and only beat Bayern in Munich because Bayern were already through and had taken there foot off the gas. Arsenal went to Munich last year and did the same thing to them, due to Munich easing off having already won the away leg 3-1. I can assure you there is no way Man City would get the better of Bayern if there was actually something to play for, as was proven at the Etihad
None of our sides tried. Wenger was saying as early as 2002 he wanted Arsenal to go a season unbeaten, whereas SAF, Mourinho and all the other PL managers ranked competing in multiple trophies ahead of winning the league. Also Chelsea and Utd have both gotten more points in a PL season than Arsenal did in 2004 - personally I'd rank winning 29 and 28 games out of 38 and losing a couple as being as good as winning 26 and not losing any. Football's a game you try to win, not try to avoid losing. In the league yes, but then we went out of Europe to Real in April and didn't enter the FA Cup, so the league was all we had to focus on. Which meant we won 11 or 12 games in a row in the end, whereas in 99 we were drawing plenty of games as we kept our powder dry for the cups. Nope. He's saying when Utd were the best in England they were the best in the best league in Europe at the time. City are currently the best in England, but England is now around the third best league in Europe, so there's no real objective basis on which to say City are the best in the world. Beating Bayern in what was effectively a dead rubber and being one point clear at the top of the league isn't all that convincing, particularly given how Bayern are motoring along in the Bundesliga, and Barca, Atletico and Real are doing in La Liga. City can only be called the best in the world, and really compared to other top sides like Chelsea 05, Arsenal 04 and Utd 94, 99 and 08 once we see how they've done when the season ends.
You are assuming as ever that the best team in the world this/last year comes from Europe. Do you not think that with the World Cup happening in South America this summer, the standards of South American clubs (where all the best players seem to come from) is going up through the roof ? I will be surprised if Europe wins any World club championships this term, and even more surprised if the World Cup isn't won by Brazil or Argentina.
erm....all the best South American players either play in, or will very soon be playing in Europe. Thats where the money is.
City is definitely NOT the best team on the planet. They steam rolled United , arsenal, spurs but deservedly beaten by Maureen. Hats off to him (he says through gritted teeth) but he outfoxed Pellegrini. Faster all over the pitch and 3 hits against the woodwork. This was no lucky win. Maureen showed how it should be done
City unlucky to lose fernandinho before Match and still favorites for the title. Very good side but we silenced the noisiest stadium in the prem
Yep. Been going away with Chelsea for 30 years. And of the most recent years, Spurs v good atmos under Harry (hate to say it), and Etihad the two times I have been there. Noise was fantastic at Etihad in first half last night. Fenerbahce away in Europe noisiest I have been to recently, noisier than Anfield 05. But noisiest Zaragoza 94. Which Prem ground do you think is noisiest?