He always gives the impression of being someone who knows all the theory and the psychology behind motivating his players, but simply isn't very good at it. Much like with the three names in envelopes think he did last season, I think he's trying to copy Mourinho and SAF, and use the techniques they always used when dealing with the media, but simply lacks the personality and conviction to pull it off. Gives the impression of an amateur who has read all the books and now thinks he can mix it up like a pro. The comments about Gerrard in the OP are probably a reflection of this. Mourinho is famous for always saying that he has the best player in the world whichever club he is managing at the time - Rodgers is just trying to copy him with Gerrard, and like you say luv I doubt he actually believes it himself.
To make a list of the best PL players then surely they have to be analysed as an individual? If that was the case than the invincibles of Arsenal were the best team and there for had the best players. People would argue that Lehman and Lauren aren't better than Adams and Scmichael but to go a whole season unbeaten in prem standards is the definition of being the best. So not using the 'our team won more so there the best players' categorie it then boils down to individual stats and I'm not really willing to look into that. Lampard scored far more then Gerrard, Viera, Scholes and Keane and I don't know who assisted the most but it would probably be between Gerrard and Lampard. By stats you argue Lampard would be the best. People would then argue to me that stats don't really show who was the best and I agree which boils down to the argument really won't go anywhere. Man U fans will say Scholes and Keane were better, Cheslea fans would say Lampard was better and Arsenal fans would say Viera was better. Could be argued that in Europe Gerrard was the better player than the other four, Keane and Scholes didn't play in the 1999 final and I can't remeber Scholes doing a lot in the other finals he was in. Viera never got to a final with Arsenal? I think he left before they made it, but if he never then he didn't add much to the game. And Lampard scored against Man U but in both finals he featured in actually did little. Gerrard has reached two champions league finals and basically won us the first one and the second one didn't add a lot into. Internationally Viera takes it by a country mile. Taking all that into account, as players I would go for: PL: Viera Scholes=Keane Lampard Gerrard Europe: Gerrard Lampard Scholes Keane Viera Internationally: Viera Lampard=Gerrard Scholes Keane
No it isn't. Football is about winning things, not avoiding defeat. The Premier League title is won by the team with the most points, not the team with the fewest losses. Ergo the teams with the most points in the PL are by definition the best. Had Arsenal gone undefeated in 2004, but another team finished with more points, Arsenal would not have finished ahead of that team. Both the Utd team in 99/00 and the Chelsea teams in 04/05 and 05/06 earned more points that Arsenal's 'invisibles' (surely that's the term for every Arsenal team since 2004 ). Therefore, by definition, they were better. Utd's team of 08/09 also earned as many points as Arsenal in 03/04, whilst winning the league cup and reaching the CL final, so again they are better. That's even without including Utd, Arsenal and Chelsea's double winning sides - more trophies = a better team in almost anyone's book. And finally, the fact that Utd's 98/99 team not only won three trophies, but also had a longer unbeaten run that Arsenal in all competitions.
But they didn't lose a single game, the whole total points thing isn't a stat which comes close to not losing a game all season. There will be another treble winning side, there will never be another invincibles. Preston 22 games invincibles shoUldnt even be mentioned, Chelsea went 23 games unbeaten this season haha.
In all competitions. You seem to be chopping between criteria, Arsenal DID lose a single game as they were knocked out of all cup competitions. Nice free run at the end of the season where they could play to not lose every game. Every single match United played leading up to the treble was absolutely must not lose crucial. We played an FA Cup final four days before a champions league final. Against Bayern Munich. Having won the league by a point the previous weekend. Arsenal's nice little cruisey draw-a-thon doesn't even come close.
I've never understood why the whole 'invincibles v treble winning side' argument exists. In short, people are saying they'd rather win 1 trophy than 3.
Gooners cling onto the invincibles season as it's their greatest ever achievement, but to suggest that eclipses a treble winning season is beyond stupid
Probably. Because no one gives a f** about avoiding defeat in one competition for a whole season but Wenger, and certainly not enough to throw away their chances of other silverware. Ask Mourinho if he'd rather his Chelsea side could have avoided defeat against Newcastle, and go unbeaten for the whole season, but in return Chelsea won't win the CL this year, and what do you think he'd say? Oh, and the longest true unbeaten runs in all competitions by an English side are 40 games by Nottingham Forest between 1978 and 1979, and 33 by Manchester United in 1999. Arsenal's 03/04 bunch don't even feature in the top six in all comps. Invincible my arse.
As for the relative difficulty of the achievements, only Celtic, Ajax, PSV, Utd, Barcelona, Inter and Bayern have ever won the full Treble of league, main domestic cup and main European Cup. Whereas Juve, Milan, Preston, Perugia, Arsenal, Bilbao, Real, Benfica (twice), Ajax, Dinamo Bucharest, Steaua Bucharest and Celtic have all had undefeated league seasons. Which of those sounds more like an exclusive list of top European clubs?
Stupid isn't it? A more suitable debate would be the Liverpool 2001 treble (FA Cup, League Cup and UEFA Cup) versus the Invincibles. One wins the league undefeated whereas the other wins three second tier (PL & CL being first tier) trophies.
It's even worse than that, as being 'invincibles' doesn't even guarantee a title - though in Arsenal's case it did. You could in theory draw 38 games and be relegated. As for best premier league player, as before, Ronaldo hit a level no other P.L player has. If we're talking consistency, hard to look past Giggs. Very very difficult to justify picking Gerrard when he's never even won the thing. Yes it's a team game but at some point you have to use something to separate the very best. Deep down, wonder if Gerrard regrets not moving to us in 05.
Good question Greez. Personally I would take the PL, undefeated or not, over the other three. Would always take a first tier trophy over any number of second tier ones. And imo the UEFA Cup and League Cup are third tier ones, behind the FA Cup in terms of prestige. Although that's based on recent seasons when the CL has been expanded and the UEFA absorbed into the Europy - The UEFA Cup was close to being on a par with the FA Cup back in 2001.
There's nothing that compares to winning the league, your national team winning the world cup is second most wanted imo
Everyone claims that winning the league is the main priority, arsenal did so by staying undefeated for a whole season. In terms on what was more difficult, the invincibles was.
The praise of Alonso is a bit of historical revision. Alonso had a good first season and a brilliant final season. He was a decent player in between - much better than most players - but nowhere near the likes of Gerrard, Scholes, Keane etc. He's improved further with his moves to Madrid and Bayern - teams good enough to allow him to do his thing. And he's brilliant at what he does, love him as a player.
Tbh I'd be torn between Utd winning the CL and England winning the WC. But that's possibly because only one of them is believable Was it ****. If Perugia and Benfica can go undefeated for a whole season and not even win their respective leagues, that shows you just how valuable it is to go without losing. Or are you saying that if Benfica had lost one game and won two more, becoming league champions instead of finishing second undefeated, that would have made them worse?!? And if Arsenal were so good at staying undefeated, why didn't they stay undefeated to Boro, Utd, Inter, Dynamo Kiev and Chelsea in the cups? They actually lost more games that season that we did in 1999. Fair point - I didn't really notice Alonso at Liverpool until his last season. Tho' I thought he played better at CM that season than I have ever seen Gerrard play in CM, and he's only gotten better after leaving. Guess I'd put Alonso down as a player who is better than Gerrard, but wasn't better for most of his time in the PL. Bit like Ronaldo finishing better than Giggs, but not being better overall during his time in the league.
We're never gonna agree. I tried to be reasonable in my answer towards who's the best. Personally as an individual I would choose Viera. If we're going for who I would want in my team to get the best out of I would pick Scholes.
Always rated Alonso. Forget the Rodgers bollox, I would say the Masch / Alonso partnership with Gerrard in front is one of the best midfields the prem has seen. Just never hung around together long enough to win enough to be remembered as such. Just such a perfect balance. Alonso is just a player who oozes class. On of those players who always seem to have more time on the ball. Makes it look easy.
