fair point. But if Arsenal had reached two finals, I don't think they would have got third. based on previous season's evidence, challenging on several fronts is too much for them mentally and their league form suffers
There's no erosion at all its a cycle (series of occurrences that repeats) that I'm suprised you cant recognise.(other clubs do it - like Ajax and Porto but the big difference is we dont NEED to sell.) If it was erosion we would have fallen out of the top four several years ago. We just need to stop selling our best players to make it work. Course they are, some will be better..some worse. (We have TOP quality young talent coming through on a consistant basis now and we continue to sign young players from outside also.)
So because Chelsea won the majority of Europe think that the Premiership is stronger than it was? do they think that our league is stronger than when Liverpool or united won it last? your spouting nonsense I'm afraid.
When did Liverpool win the league? The Prem was strongest around 08 when the big four all had great sides. Chelsea were just unlucky they did not win the EC then. But if you keep on reaching semis and finals eventually your luck will change. Our strongest sides were 2005-10. United's 07-09. Liverpool 08-9.
In my opinion, Chelsea should have won the Champions League much earlier but it was mainly down to bad luck. I remember seeing Chelsea take on Barca when you played Essien as a defensive midfielder, that was a 50/50 game. In the past Chelsea were a more powerful and competitive side, much more than the current one that won the cup this time round. Yes i agree, it does help not being involved in too many cups, but if it wasn't for all the managerial/player power nonsense occuring earlier in the season for you, then you would have been in the top 4.
The quality of the English league has risen and fallen. The bottom and mid level teams have improved but the top teams have worsened. There has not been a stand out team since Chelsea under Mourinho.
No I think it's stronger because it is. Man City, Chelsea, United, Tottenham, Arsenal, Newcastle .. there's quality throughout the league. Not just the top teams the 'mid table' teams are better than they ever have been. Unlike Spain which is nothing more than a two horse race.
Man City have a chance but it looks like Man U and Chelsea are strengthening significantly this summer transfer window. If Chelsea can stop their managerial woes and Man U have Vidic and a more injury free defence, then we will see a much more competitive Premier League next season.
Come on, clearly Man U, Chelsea, Arsenal, Liverpool and Aston Villa have gotten worse. Only Man City and Spurs have significantly improved.
Exactly..Bear seems to think that because you won the champions league you are actually stronger now than when you previously were I am saying you arent, under Jose you were much stronger in my opinion.
This, I'm afraid that no matter what we say..we cant convince him that the majority of the big teams have gotten weaker...case point is Liverpool who have been dire this season.
The fact that we outclassed Chelsea at Stamford Bridge with one of our worst sides under Wenger, should really tell the whole story. With better sides we've struggled at Stamford Bridge and at home against Chelsea. Against a Maureen side, then forget about it...
I never even remotely claimed that. (I dont think chelsea are stronger but I DO think the 'League' is) I only stated Chelsea's win because you were claiming we've (EPL teams) are now worse than they were. With the emergence of City the improvements made by Tottenham, Newcastle etc.. I dont think that's the case. Plus I think the 'lower' teams are better and harder to beat than ever. Cup competitions require a larger element of luck, the league is longer and a better indicator of a teams quality.
You do realise that most of the invincibles played in the 04/05,05/06 sides? Reached a CL final in the later season after beating sides like Madrid and Juve.
I said the top teams were eaker and you used Chelsea winning the Champions League to say they are not, your contradicting yourself now becuase your now saying Chelsea are actaully arent as strong as they were I said the top teams were weaker and you used Chelsea winning the Champions League to say they are not, your contradicting yourself now becuase your now saying Chelsea are actaully arent as strong as they were so which one is it?
Invincibles would destroy City, City even had trouble with us this season so imagine the invincibles playing them
Agree but don't think the 05/6 side better than City 11.12. 04/5 side would be closer but it finished 12 points off Chelsea and lost to Bayern in last 16 of CL
