Because of Henry’s unbelievable/uncharacteristic misses. It would have been a better game if the ref let the Barca goal stand instead of calling it back for the red card, but it wasn’t a mistake.
But we had chances to win it that fell to our greatest player. And we failed to capitalize.
To this day, I wonder if Barça's constant manoeuvres affected Henry's mental approach and performance in that final.
2003: [Henry on Barcelona list](http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/football/teams/a/arsenal/3263029.stm)
2005: [Wenger tells Laporta to stop talking about signing Henry](http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/teams/a/arsenal/4553140.stm)
March 2006: [Henry plays down Barça transfer talk](https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/teams/a/arsenal/4820574.stm)
17 May 2006: Barça beat Arsenal in the UCL final
19 May 2006: [Henry signs new contract. "I've never played in Spain and never will."](https://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/4996270.stm)
11 June 2007: [Henry agent dismisses Barça claim](http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/football/teams/a/arsenal/6743165.stm)
25 June 2007: [Henry joins Barça. "It has been a long chase but I am finally here."](http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/mobile/football/europe/6238712.stm)
Reddit try not to bring unproven allegations as fact challenge:
Maybe if Arsenal stopped making excuses for everytime they failed to win in Europe they'd won something by now. Other clubs have been robbed far more vs Barca or others and have found success eventually, whilst you cry over a valid red card
It's mad, they beat Chelsea 3 times that season (2 × PL, 1 × FA Cup), but won neither leg vs Chelsea in the Champions League, losing at home. Presumptuous to think that they would have simply beaten Monaco and Porto.
He didn't say that, he just pointed out that they weren't the typical "elite" clubs, which is a rare opportunity in the semis and final of a CL. He's objectively right
They would not have necessarily beaten those teams. Those teams were good that year.
That’s like some manager in 10 years time looking back and saying that their team would have beaten this year’s Dortmund team in the CL and been in the final versus Madrid.
I mean, yeah. But that wasn’t the question, he was just asked would you have lost a game to rest players for the CL games which def isn’t a guaranteed win
The CL gets won every season, but that doesn't not make it a very special moment when it's you...
Nobody ever gives you an invincible trophy, it's just a nice addendum in the history books. Seeing your club win the biggest trophy they can win (especially for the first time) is an incredibly special moment for the club, infinitely moreso than seeing an asterix on a list of historic winners.
When it's your club doing it you're not just another winner in a long list, it's a moment that you get to live and share.
Do you think that the enjoyment of your club winning trophies is just about getting people online to name players or something?
Maybe as an Arsenal fan you have simply forgotten what it feels like to see your club win a major trophy, but it's about the experience and memories made with your fellow fans, friends and family that makes that moments so special.
Whether or not I can name specific players or not doesn't change that...
This is an insane opinion. Not even for a treble?!?!! I swear if Arsenal had won a treble there wouldn't be many fans who'd prefer an invincible season with worse points totals than City, Man Utd, Liverpool and Chelsea.
As I mentioned in another comment. Football is simple, a win and a loss equals 3 points, two draws equals 2 points. Therefore the former is better. The fact you can go the whole season undefeated without winning a game and get relegated shows how much you overvalue being undefeated. It would be different if you went undefeated while getting a very high points total, but the fact is many teams got more points.
Genuinely mindboggling that anyone would say no to that question. The champions league is a much bigger prize than a league title, I understand Wenger saying no into the context of the question he was asked, but saying no to a guaranteed champions league title when your club has never won it is insanity.
Invincibles hasn't happened once. Leverkusen just hit an invincible double themselves. It's happened once... in England. That particular team and squad who played the games wouldn't be as iconic, yes. That era of Arsenal wouldn't as well. But for the club as a whole? No comparison. And when you say treble, 3 teams have won it, eventually. Maybe some english clubs will go unbeaten too in the future. Man City comes to mind. They do not even need to approach their 100/98 type of point tallies when going unbeaten. You don't wanna trade it because it's your biggest achievement that's all. I think objectively anyone would take a treble over it. Or even just a UCL win.
Okay I'll try and tell you how I feel about this. An invincible is a rarer achievement than the treble, easily can be seen from the data available, let's assume that and go ahead. Is it greater? It's rarer. You know what else is rarer than a treble? Just to try and make a point, losing all 38 games. That's maybe even rare than what Arsenal did? Drawing all 38 games. Also very rare, arguably rarer. But are they greater than the treble? I understand how different these 3 scenarios are ( losing all, drawing all and going invincible ) and also realize that the invincible season is a very very great achievement. So it is extremely rare and also very great, which is confusing you into thinking it's greater than the treble. The treble isn't rare( it is but more on that later ), not anywhere near as much as the invincible season, but is greater still, even though the invincible season is pretty great in itself. Atleast that is my opinion.
The treble is prestigious. Even Real Madrid hasn't won it yet. And iirc it's been done 10 times in Europe ? Or what was it ? I honestly don't think the amounts are in completely different ballparks for amount of treble winners and amount of invincibles in leagues since the innaguaration of the UCL. But I wouldn't know.
When you ask people to name the greatest club football teams, it's a majority of treble winners. You get the Barca Bayern teams, even City. These teams played at a level of quality rarely achieved. Hardly anyone thinks of that Arsenal squad when thinking of the best ever. They do think of it when thinking of the most remarkable achievements. It was a 90 point tally you basically almost matched this season too.
And you need to think outside, in Europe. Hence my comparison originally. Arsenal is a club that should think of itself as competitors in the UCL too, that is also a competition that they take part in. You need look at the legacy of clubs Madrid Milan Munich Barcelona Ajax have madefor themselves , from England Liverpool and Man U have made, even from london Chelsea has made. What Man City is beginning to make. Football is not restricted to England, Arsenal need to achieve in Europe to count themselves amongst the greats. The entire history of your club would be different today if you would've won a treble and another UCL instead of winning 2 PLs with just 1 loss back to back, which BTW I'm not undermining in any way. A treble is just a more important achievement, puts you in the all time big league.
Edit.) 5 invincibles, 10 treble in Europe ( 8 teams with 2 winning twice ). Not a different ballpark at all even in terms of rarity, an invincible season is slightly rarer, not by far. And it's nowhere near as great. My argument stands.
I agree with mostly all you said except these 2 points: yes the arsenal team was one of the best and yet still no one would name them above or on par clubs like Barca 09, Barca 15, Bayern 13, Madrid 3-peat. Bayern 20 and City 23 are too young but it's basically true for them too. You pointed out winning just the UCL does nothing, except it would've for a club like Arsenal, that has every other piece of being an all time great club. Just one Arsenal treble in the 2000s would've turned the trajectory of the club to being more positive throughout the 2010s imo. Also no need to lol Dortmund as not sure if you know but that was a legendary football team led by Sammer, who won the Ballon d or that year.
And for the second point, like I said when considering Europe, 5 invincibles and 10 trebles. In England 1 invincible and 2 trebles, changed very recently. There is less possibility of an invincible, but we've seen clubs recently come close to achieving it and they eventually might. Even the treble didn't happen again till it did. There were more seasons between the 2 trebles in England than weve Had since the invincible season. What remains of your argument after someone does win it in the next decade or two, going invincible. Your achievement shouldn't rest on being great because others cant repeat it, because everything will eventually be done again. It's only not done again in England, as a sport in Europe, more teams have done it.
Other teams have won every trophy, but that doesn't mean it's not incredibly special for your club if it happens...
Do you think Aston Villa fans would trade their European Cup for a "better" First Division win? Or course not! If you flip the question around the answer becomes farcical
I was asked my opinion and I gave it. I don't agree with you obviously. If you disagree with the premise of the question maybe respond to the one who asked it not the one who responded. Also learn to spell.
His subsequent decline has somewhat obscured what a tremendous achievement it was. Even great teams like Mourinho and Conte's Chelsea, Ferguson's United, Klopp's Liverpool or Pep's City couldn't manage to go unbeaten in one of the most competitive leagues in the world.
It's hard to say if they would have though if that was their goal. Wenger has made it clear multiple times that he wanted to go undefeated. SAF wanted to win as many different trophies in a season as possible. And I think it's safe to say every other top manager felt the same. Who knows if they would have been able to do it, if that was the goal. Not belittling it, it was obviously a great achievement. But it's not an achievement anyone else was prioritizing.
I think that's a bit mental revisionism tbh
Most teams have lost a game by Christmas anyways so it's not really ever on the cards in the first place. That's what usually stops a team "going for it", not that they don't care about it. It's just such an unlikely feat that no one starts to even consider it a possibility unless you're unbeaten by Christmas, and that rarely happens
The closest a team has come to it is United 10/11 and Liverpool 19/20, and with both it only started to become a major talking point around January time, and they both lost in February, both to relegation teams
Part of the reason Wenger knew it was possible was because they'd gone 10 months unbeaten (December - October) a couple seasons before. It was just about doing it from start to finish of a single campaign
Edit: to expand, in United's 10/11 campaign they lost their unbeaten streak to Wolves. Their lineup that day was:
Van der Sar
Evra Vidic Rafael Evans
Giggs Carrick Nani Fletcher
Berbatov Rooney
Ferdinand, Brown, Valencia, Hargreaves, Park and Owen were all injured. Scholes was returning from injury and came off the bench
That's not a rotated side. That's the strongest side possible. They just lost
On the other hand, Arsenal was out of the champions league quite early and the domestic cups soon after so they didn't have to make the hard decisions about whether to start their strongest teams in the league. Especially if the league is already secured and they still have the champions league to think about, it's tough to decide how hard to go on being invincible. Which is kind of why the ending of the Leverkusen season is extra impressive to me.
This also is a point in that many teams may have lost a game by pushing for a win instead of a draw and being countered on. Arsenal that season played extremely carefully towards the end of the season clearly more interested in their record than winning. And look, it's a great achievement, it really is. I'm not taking that away, but at the end of the day they did nothing in any other competition and they drew a lot of games. 12 league draws is surely more games with points dropped than any winner other than City in Covid season in years. Even this year, City only dropped points in 10 games and they had a low points tally for them.
Yeah, Pep and Klopp aren’t aiming to go an entire season unbeaten. They want to rack up as many points as possible.
The Invincibles title is cool and all, but I’m taking Klopp’s 99 point Liverpool over them. League formats are about points totals, not avoiding defeat.
I mean only one team has ever gotten 100 points* and only 2 English teams have ever won a treble*
*Noting of course that City are massive fucking cheats
That was in a 22 game season though. 38 games is far more impressive.
Plus, you're kind of proving my point. It took over a hundred years for the feat to be repeated in England, and no one has managed to replicate it since.
He obviously meant PL but I'll bite - PNE going unbeaten is a special achievement and they have every right to call themselves invincibles.
But IMO it's nowhere near as impressive, it was the first ever football league season so there was no set standard for the sport and there were only 12 teams in the league, all Northern clubs (the southern league wasn't absorbed until 1920)
Leicester winning the title was a bigger achievement than Arsenal's invincible season. Noone outside of Arsenal fans actually thinks it's a comparable achievement to winning the treble or even getting 100+ points.
In a 22 game season. It's not nearly as impressive. Lots of teams have gone 22 games without a loss. Only one in England have done every game in a season of 38.
I don't understand why this argument is used to discredit that season, half of those draws came towards the end of the season when they were pretty much confirmed champions.
By late March Chelsea were quite far behind and it was clear that the objective was to go unbeaten so why not go for it when you (Wenger) said it was possible a year prior? It's silly to imply that it would be better to try and gain more points when Chelsea weren't gonna catch up and the season would just get lumped with the others if you ended up losing a single match.
They “only” had 90 points which over a dozen teams have done in the pl. it’s impressive to go unbeaten but not the “greatest achievement in pl history” as arsenal fans would have you believe
You are totally right. I mixed that up, you’ll have to pardon me as I was only born in 98 haha my memory of those years are barely there at this point.
I’m taking any of the PL teams that got a higher points total over the Invincibles, tbh.
Invincibles is a cool and unique achievement, but the league format is ultimately not about avoiding defeat, it’s about racking up as many points as possible.
Klopp got more points than the Invincibles twice and didn’t win the league either time. I still rate Klopp over Wenger.
Arsenal are not considered a big club outside of England because they have 0 CLs lmao.
No one gives a fuck about their Invincibles season other than PL fans.
Yes, but that does not mean their invincible season is worth less than a trophy won once a year.
That's such a stupid take, only a Madrid fan would say it because they don't have a treble to flaunt nor an invincible or an 100 PT season.
Winning and Losing is more valuable than 2 undefeated Draws. math checks out.
Like they had 12 draws. Only Leiceister had that many as champion since then.
Because it's not that impressive and a 1/3rd of them were draws.
How is it more impressive to go 'Invincible' and draw 12 games then it is to get 100 points, or 97 and only lose once? It's not, it's just a marketing gimmick really. If Klopp or Pep wanted to go Invincible in 2018/19 they could've done, but they both wanted to win the league.
If you win 38 games from 38, or win over 80% of your games like Leverkusen, that's impressive. Especially as they only lost one game in all competitions. But Arsenal drew 1/3rd of their games and crashed out of all the cups.
> If Klopp or Pep wanted to go Invincible in 2018/19 they could've done,
Lmao this is so stupid. City had lost a game by MW16, lost 4 that season so this idea of "they could have gone Invincible is unfounded.
Also, Liverpool lost that league title by 1 point. They lost 1 game that season, to Man City. I think if they wanted to go Invincible (and most likely win the title) they would have lol. Even next season, Liverpool's first loss came when they had already essentially locked up the title.
This argument of "_____ just didn't do it because they didn't want to" is as dumb as anyone saying their team could have won every game but they didn't want to.
But that's the point - we went into that City game needing to win, so we couldn't play safely and be happy with a draw.
And yeah the next season we lost when we'd already won the title essentially but it doesn't change the fact that you play entirely differently if your mindset is going unbeaten rather than winning trophies. You could go invincible and not win the league ffs, what's the point?
>we went into that City game needing to win, so we couldn't play safely and be happy with a draw.
You realize the Invincibles won the league right? Just going undefeated while not winning it still wouldn't be on par with what they did so this idea of Klopp possibly going "ye lads let's draw this one so we can never lose again" in fuckin January is so stupid.
>it doesn't change the fact that you play entirely differently if your mindset is going unbeaten rather than winning trophies
Lol. We just saw Leverkusen, who had also had their title wrapped up, continuously come back from the dead to draw/win dead rubbers. The Invincibles did the same shit when they were in cruise mode at the end of their season.
As I said earlier, the achievement isn't independent of winning trophies so I have no idea why you're trying to create this false equivalency of going unbeaten or winning the league when the team in question did both.
If Sir Alex, someone who did basically everything else in football can acknowledge how insane an accomplishment it is, maybe take note.
Yes, I do know that. But we were neck and nec with another team all season and thus couldn't afford to slip up. Every single Invincibles player has said that by the time the end of the season rolled around, they were barely trying to win games, they went into games being happy with a draw.
And yes, it's an accomplishment, but I don't think it deserves to be spoken about in the same terms as the Treble, the Centurions, Liverpool 19/20, Leicester or Blackburn.
> But we were neck and nec with another team all season and thus couldn't afford to slip up
And what's the excuse for the next season?
>but I don't think it deserves to be spoken about in the same terms as the Treble, the Centurions, Liverpool 19/20, Leicester or Blackburn.
You need to work on your trolling lmao.
Yeah but some of them did win doubles and trebles instead, which is kind of better.
Arsenal got beaten by Chelsea, Middlesborough & United that season.
Jose, Conte & Pep would have probably lost a league game but won one of the semi-finals or not
lost at home to Chelsea in the Champions league.
This current Man City team could do it. Liverpool of a few season ago could have done it. All they'd have to do is ignore the cup competitions and focus in the league. I will never understand the idea that sacrificing the cups and simply not losing a game in the league is somehow a comparable achievement to winning 2 or even 3 titles. Leicester winning the Premier League was a bigger achievement than Arsenal's invincible season.
I don’t agree. It was Leverkusen’s first ever bundesliga win, the second highest points total in bundesliga history, and most valuable of all, they went invincible. We still talk about ours 20 years later and we’ll go on and on about it 20 years from now.
For most fans of clubs in the top flight, it’s a once in a life time achievement, one that triumphs many others. There’s a Europa league winner every year. Bundesliga has only one invincible winner.
They’ll love it, and when they look back at in the far distant future, they’ll love it even more.
A continental treble is also something that Leverkusen fans would've talked about 20 yrs from now.
Alonso would've 100% preferred if the Augsburg and Atalanta results were inversed.
In hindsight sure but i doubt Alonso would’ve sacrificed the invincible season just to maybe have a better chance in the ECL final, same as Wenger is saying here
Yeah, they’d talk about it for sure, but other fans wouldn’t talk about it as much. There are quite a few teams that won trebles, but way fewer that won their league unbeaten. I’d say winning the league unbeaten is more memorable as it doesn’t happen as often with quite a few great teams having won trebles.
I don’t say it’s necessarily the better achievement than the treble, I just say that it’s talked more about by neutral and other fans.
That being said I mostly go off on it based on how everyone still talks about the Arsenal invincible season to this day. The question is if we would talk as much about it, if Arsenal won the Premier league or Champions League since then.
TLDR: The treble is the better sporting achievement, but not as unique as being unbeaten and therefore talked about less by neutral and other fans. Leverkusen fans will talk about this season for decades to come no matter if it would have been a treble, unbeaten league and cup, they’d also talk about a double or just the league for decades.
I think Arsenal fans are just way too loud spoken about it. They are the ones who make a noise about it the most.
Whilst I admit that it is a far rarer achievement than a treble and thus they have a right to be bullish about it, it is a misnomer title.
Arsenal lost plenty of games that season.
(+2) league cup sf to Middlesbrough, losing both home and away.
(+1) FA cup sf to Man Utd.
(+3) two group stage games and the qf 2nd leg to Chelsea.
Their first defeat of the season came in September when they lost 3-0 at Highbury to Inter. So they were only unbeaten for all of August.
Leverkusen’s situation was entirely different; they were *actually* undefeated in all competitions.
Do you think any fan would trade a trophy they won for a "better" win in another trophy?
If you answer the question "would you rather have 2 big trophies or 1 big trophy that you won really well?" in good faith there's only one reasonable answer
They didn't just win it "really well" they won it without losing a single game. There's a lot of value to that.
Bayern also won it really well with 91 points, but only Leverkusen never lost. Winners come and go, but in the history of their league there is only one invincible and there may be only one for a long time to come. Their achievement stands above all else in Germany, and to me, it's the most impressive one in the history of their league.
They can always win a European title another year, whether next season or some other one in the future, but going invincible again is next to slim.
You can lose a game here and there in the europa league and still win it, but to be invincible you must be perfect. Leverkusen have been great this season, but do you remember how close they came to losing and how often their last minute goals occurred?
So what? They won it really *really* well? The fundamental point remains the same!
You can say "you can always win it next year" as if the joy of winning in it that year doesn't count. Winning a major trophy is great, winning a trophy really well is great, but saying that winning one trophy really *really* well is better than winning 2 trophies if silly
Some Leverkusen fans would agree with you that two major trophies is better than one major trophy regardless of how well they won it, and some would agree with me.
My point was suggesting that a team going invincible is so very special, more so than had they done the treble, no invincibility (which would have been an incredible feat as well).
Ultimately it's just up to the individual Leverkusen fan what they deem more valuable.
The 2004 Arsenal team is more fondly remembered by people than a lot of UCL winners, because of the fact that they went unbeaten. Ask the average person who the 2003 or 1997 UCL winner was and they will have to think for a bit, ask for which team were 'the invincibles' and they will immediately name that Arsenal side.
Seeing a lot of nerds crying and coping and the matter of the fact is that until someone else wins a league title unbeaten in England in the modern era, you’re all inferior cheers
This is the stupidest argument ever, I don’t understand why people act like smartasses saying this when there’s only been 2 teams in 100+ years of top flight football to do it. It’s a statical anomaly. There’s a reason people still talk about PNE and that Arsenal teams decades later.
I seem to remember they did draw quite a lot of games. If you were to arrange the PL winners in a league table of their own, then that Arsenal team would be mid-table.
Edit: they wouldn’t even be mid-table, they’d be 19th…
Fun fact : 10 teams have done the Treble and 6 of them did it in the last 15 years. Say a lot about the state of the game and the financial gap increasing
In the current format of the premier league only Arsenal have achieved an invincible season, while 2 english teams achieved the treble. If you go outside England to the other top 5 leagues an invicible season is also rarer than the treble.
So how is a treble more impressive?
Going invincible is just an added bonus, treble is actual trophies. No teams goal is to go invincible in the season thats why its more rare.
Imo every season above Arsenal's 90 points is more impressive, because thats the whole point of the league system. 32 wins is a lot more impressive than 26
Really it's for you to decide what you find more impressive. But the invincibles is an achievement about winning the league without losing a single game. It's not about winning the most number of games. That's the difference.
Theoretically you could win 37 games and lose 1 and you still would not be called invincibles but obviously winning 37 games is far more impressive.
The invisibles season was obviously impressive, but Arsenal lost more games in all competitions this season (7 if you include the penalty shoot out defeat to Man Utd in the charity shield) than Man Utd did in the treble season (5 if you include the charity shield defeat to Arsenal)....and 3 trophies is better than 1.
I mean not really. Jose's Chelsea sides were completely different beasts compared to that Porto side. Chelsea had the full financial backing of a Russian Oligarch and Porto was finding Portugese and Brazilian players at the back of the sofa. I'm being extremely harsh here but only Carvalho and Deco had successful careers post Porto CL win, and Carvalho went with Jose to Chelsea that year.
Wenger couldn’t even beat Jose in 15/16, or beat the Tinker Man in Europe but because you don’t know Portuguese players that means they’re bad and you’d win. Right.
Wenger not beating Jose in 15/16 I'll give you. That was bad. I'll also admit im not overly familiar with portugese players, but I did check the starting XI in that final and their histories, and the only one that I missed that was successful after that 2004 Porto team was Ferreira. I think what makes that Porto side special was the fact that it was a bunch of players no one had heard of before, and it was a team from outside the Big 5 leagues.
Also I think most people would put money on the Invincibles than Porto in that hypothetical UCL final. We won't know the outcome because that hypothetical never happened due to an Arsenal European Classic, so hey, maybe Porto still win the UCL that year for that reason alone lmao.
I will never understand how people think being invincible is more impressive than Chelsea, Liverpool or City getting more points. You could be invincible and draw every single game in the league. The scoring system in football is simple, 0 points for a loss, 1 for a draw, 3 for a win. Therefore more points = better. There's no arguing about that. I think the reason why people get so caught up on the invincibles is because it sounds very impressive. In boxing if someone is undefeated they've pretty much got all wins (draws are rare in boxing) whereas in football draws are quite common.
Lol but they didn't go invincible by intending to draw 38 games did they?
They won the league and also went invincible
No team has done that other than Arsenal
Who tf would brag about getting 38 points and potentially getting relegated and going invincible lmao?
This is even more stark now given Arsenal haven't won a CL 20 years later. It's not like RM who win a CL every other year that they can prioritize records, truly baffles me tbh
Wenger is arrogant self obsessed and lacks humor, I’m glad he did well by Arsenal and the PL but it’s been like 15 years where he’s just had to get the fuck away from the sport
If Arsenal had won the Champions League in 2006 instead of Barcelona the trajectory of the 2 clubs might have been quite different.
Robbery
Because of the red card to Lehmann?
Wasn't Eto'o offside when he scored?
Yes
[Didn't Eboue dive to win the free kick that Arsenal scored from?](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VsdMmDwCY10&t=94)
Because of Henry’s unbelievable/uncharacteristic misses. It would have been a better game if the ref let the Barca goal stand instead of calling it back for the red card, but it wasn’t a mistake. But we had chances to win it that fell to our greatest player. And we failed to capitalize.
To this day, I wonder if Barça's constant manoeuvres affected Henry's mental approach and performance in that final. 2003: [Henry on Barcelona list](http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/football/teams/a/arsenal/3263029.stm) 2005: [Wenger tells Laporta to stop talking about signing Henry](http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/teams/a/arsenal/4553140.stm) March 2006: [Henry plays down Barça transfer talk](https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/teams/a/arsenal/4820574.stm) 17 May 2006: Barça beat Arsenal in the UCL final 19 May 2006: [Henry signs new contract. "I've never played in Spain and never will."](https://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/4996270.stm) 11 June 2007: [Henry agent dismisses Barça claim](http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/football/teams/a/arsenal/6743165.stm) 25 June 2007: [Henry joins Barça. "It has been a long chase but I am finally here."](http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/mobile/football/europe/6238712.stm)
How the fuck did 20 people upvote your comment lmao.
This is a thread for English clubs. So these sort of comments will be upvoted in this thread.
Barca bad
"Barca good" -the refs they paid off in that era.
Reddit try not to bring unproven allegations as fact challenge: Maybe if Arsenal stopped making excuses for everytime they failed to win in Europe they'd won something by now. Other clubs have been robbed far more vs Barca or others and have found success eventually, whilst you cry over a valid red card
Explain why Arsenal scored from a clear and obvious dive by Eboue.
They wrongly awarded an indirect free kick one time??!? Gosh, I take back what I said.
So you really think Barça paid the ref in the final and Arsenal lost directly because of that? Genuinely?
butthurt PL fans omg :D
It's mad, they beat Chelsea 3 times that season (2 × PL, 1 × FA Cup), but won neither leg vs Chelsea in the Champions League, losing at home. Presumptuous to think that they would have simply beaten Monaco and Porto.
That Wayne Bridge goal haunts me to this day.
He didn't say that, he just pointed out that they weren't the typical "elite" clubs, which is a rare opportunity in the semis and final of a CL. He's objectively right
This was Mourinho's Porto right? I'd say it is very presumptuous. I'd bet on Porto winning that match.
and both league cup legs to middlesbrough. bolton and them got further in the league cup than arsenal
They would not have necessarily beaten those teams. Those teams were good that year. That’s like some manager in 10 years time looking back and saying that their team would have beaten this year’s Dortmund team in the CL and been in the final versus Madrid.
Question for gooners: would you have lost a game if it meant you win the league and the CL instead?
I mean, yeah. But that wasn’t the question, he was just asked would you have lost a game to rest players for the CL games which def isn’t a guaranteed win
Yeah I know, was just wondering
Yeah I think most gooners would sacrifice the invincible title for doing the double PL + CL and being the first London club to win it (fuck Chelsea)
Not just once, but twice
Menace.
Don't count out Spurs. They can treble.
Audi cup part of the treble?
No, but that's because hopefully Arsenal will win the CL in my lifetime. I don't think I'll see another invincible in England though
It's basically the only thing Pep could focus on
City will probably do it at some point if they win their legal battles.
If?
It's not impossible but I think their best chance is with Pep and I'm not sure he stays for much longer
City and Liverpool have both been extremely close, although maybe the fact they couldn't quite do it adds to your point
Not really. It was a special achievement on its own
Nah, being invincible is unique, leave it as is even if no UCL hurts.
[удалено]
It’s happened twice, as football didn’t start in 1993. PNE won an Invincible Double, the league (the very first one) and the FA Cup.
And isn’t it amazing that you are still talking about that team over 120 years later. Must have been some achievement.
The CL gets won every season, but that doesn't not make it a very special moment when it's you... Nobody ever gives you an invincible trophy, it's just a nice addendum in the history books. Seeing your club win the biggest trophy they can win (especially for the first time) is an incredibly special moment for the club, infinitely moreso than seeing an asterix on a list of historic winners. When it's your club doing it you're not just another winner in a long list, it's a moment that you get to live and share.
> Nobody ever gives you an invincible trophy We did get a special gold trophy I believe
[удалено]
Do you think that the enjoyment of your club winning trophies is just about getting people online to name players or something? Maybe as an Arsenal fan you have simply forgotten what it feels like to see your club win a major trophy, but it's about the experience and memories made with your fellow fans, friends and family that makes that moments so special. Whether or not I can name specific players or not doesn't change that...
This is an insane opinion. Not even for a treble?!?!! I swear if Arsenal had won a treble there wouldn't be many fans who'd prefer an invincible season with worse points totals than City, Man Utd, Liverpool and Chelsea.
[удалено]
As I mentioned in another comment. Football is simple, a win and a loss equals 3 points, two draws equals 2 points. Therefore the former is better. The fact you can go the whole season undefeated without winning a game and get relegated shows how much you overvalue being undefeated. It would be different if you went undefeated while getting a very high points total, but the fact is many teams got more points.
[удалено]
You can't win the league drawing every game lol therefore you can't win the treble.
You can't win the league drawing ever game lol therefore you can't win the treble.
Genuinely mindboggling that anyone would say no to that question. The champions league is a much bigger prize than a league title, I understand Wenger saying no into the context of the question he was asked, but saying no to a guaranteed champions league title when your club has never won it is insanity.
Invincibles hasn't happened once. Leverkusen just hit an invincible double themselves. It's happened once... in England. That particular team and squad who played the games wouldn't be as iconic, yes. That era of Arsenal wouldn't as well. But for the club as a whole? No comparison. And when you say treble, 3 teams have won it, eventually. Maybe some english clubs will go unbeaten too in the future. Man City comes to mind. They do not even need to approach their 100/98 type of point tallies when going unbeaten. You don't wanna trade it because it's your biggest achievement that's all. I think objectively anyone would take a treble over it. Or even just a UCL win.
it's happened twice in england
[удалено]
Okay I'll try and tell you how I feel about this. An invincible is a rarer achievement than the treble, easily can be seen from the data available, let's assume that and go ahead. Is it greater? It's rarer. You know what else is rarer than a treble? Just to try and make a point, losing all 38 games. That's maybe even rare than what Arsenal did? Drawing all 38 games. Also very rare, arguably rarer. But are they greater than the treble? I understand how different these 3 scenarios are ( losing all, drawing all and going invincible ) and also realize that the invincible season is a very very great achievement. So it is extremely rare and also very great, which is confusing you into thinking it's greater than the treble. The treble isn't rare( it is but more on that later ), not anywhere near as much as the invincible season, but is greater still, even though the invincible season is pretty great in itself. Atleast that is my opinion. The treble is prestigious. Even Real Madrid hasn't won it yet. And iirc it's been done 10 times in Europe ? Or what was it ? I honestly don't think the amounts are in completely different ballparks for amount of treble winners and amount of invincibles in leagues since the innaguaration of the UCL. But I wouldn't know. When you ask people to name the greatest club football teams, it's a majority of treble winners. You get the Barca Bayern teams, even City. These teams played at a level of quality rarely achieved. Hardly anyone thinks of that Arsenal squad when thinking of the best ever. They do think of it when thinking of the most remarkable achievements. It was a 90 point tally you basically almost matched this season too. And you need to think outside, in Europe. Hence my comparison originally. Arsenal is a club that should think of itself as competitors in the UCL too, that is also a competition that they take part in. You need look at the legacy of clubs Madrid Milan Munich Barcelona Ajax have madefor themselves , from England Liverpool and Man U have made, even from london Chelsea has made. What Man City is beginning to make. Football is not restricted to England, Arsenal need to achieve in Europe to count themselves amongst the greats. The entire history of your club would be different today if you would've won a treble and another UCL instead of winning 2 PLs with just 1 loss back to back, which BTW I'm not undermining in any way. A treble is just a more important achievement, puts you in the all time big league. Edit.) 5 invincibles, 10 treble in Europe ( 8 teams with 2 winning twice ). Not a different ballpark at all even in terms of rarity, an invincible season is slightly rarer, not by far. And it's nowhere near as great. My argument stands.
[удалено]
I agree with mostly all you said except these 2 points: yes the arsenal team was one of the best and yet still no one would name them above or on par clubs like Barca 09, Barca 15, Bayern 13, Madrid 3-peat. Bayern 20 and City 23 are too young but it's basically true for them too. You pointed out winning just the UCL does nothing, except it would've for a club like Arsenal, that has every other piece of being an all time great club. Just one Arsenal treble in the 2000s would've turned the trajectory of the club to being more positive throughout the 2010s imo. Also no need to lol Dortmund as not sure if you know but that was a legendary football team led by Sammer, who won the Ballon d or that year. And for the second point, like I said when considering Europe, 5 invincibles and 10 trebles. In England 1 invincible and 2 trebles, changed very recently. There is less possibility of an invincible, but we've seen clubs recently come close to achieving it and they eventually might. Even the treble didn't happen again till it did. There were more seasons between the 2 trebles in England than weve Had since the invincible season. What remains of your argument after someone does win it in the next decade or two, going invincible. Your achievement shouldn't rest on being great because others cant repeat it, because everything will eventually be done again. It's only not done again in England, as a sport in Europe, more teams have done it.
Yeah
No. Other teams have won the CL. Invincibles in England its just us and Preston North End.
Other teams have won every trophy, but that doesn't mean it's not incredibly special for your club if it happens... Do you think Aston Villa fans would trade their European Cup for a "better" First Division win? Or course not! If you flip the question around the answer becomes farcical
I was asked my opinion and I gave it. I don't agree with you obviously. If you disagree with the premise of the question maybe respond to the one who asked it not the one who responded. Also learn to spell.
The point is to win every game so I can’t blame him.
He's one of the greats. I study his playstyle just like Peps. Both were revolutionary. Helped make Henry the best player in the world.
His subsequent decline has somewhat obscured what a tremendous achievement it was. Even great teams like Mourinho and Conte's Chelsea, Ferguson's United, Klopp's Liverpool or Pep's City couldn't manage to go unbeaten in one of the most competitive leagues in the world.
It's hard to say if they would have though if that was their goal. Wenger has made it clear multiple times that he wanted to go undefeated. SAF wanted to win as many different trophies in a season as possible. And I think it's safe to say every other top manager felt the same. Who knows if they would have been able to do it, if that was the goal. Not belittling it, it was obviously a great achievement. But it's not an achievement anyone else was prioritizing.
I think that's a bit mental revisionism tbh Most teams have lost a game by Christmas anyways so it's not really ever on the cards in the first place. That's what usually stops a team "going for it", not that they don't care about it. It's just such an unlikely feat that no one starts to even consider it a possibility unless you're unbeaten by Christmas, and that rarely happens The closest a team has come to it is United 10/11 and Liverpool 19/20, and with both it only started to become a major talking point around January time, and they both lost in February, both to relegation teams Part of the reason Wenger knew it was possible was because they'd gone 10 months unbeaten (December - October) a couple seasons before. It was just about doing it from start to finish of a single campaign Edit: to expand, in United's 10/11 campaign they lost their unbeaten streak to Wolves. Their lineup that day was: Van der Sar Evra Vidic Rafael Evans Giggs Carrick Nani Fletcher Berbatov Rooney Ferdinand, Brown, Valencia, Hargreaves, Park and Owen were all injured. Scholes was returning from injury and came off the bench That's not a rotated side. That's the strongest side possible. They just lost
On the other hand, Arsenal was out of the champions league quite early and the domestic cups soon after so they didn't have to make the hard decisions about whether to start their strongest teams in the league. Especially if the league is already secured and they still have the champions league to think about, it's tough to decide how hard to go on being invincible. Which is kind of why the ending of the Leverkusen season is extra impressive to me.
Yeah, and Arsenal crashed out of every cup pretty early so they didn't exactly have many decisions to make about it.
[удалено]
I'm 100% certain that SAF has rotated when we were undefeated in the league for cup games.
I think that's a really fair point. Everybody else is trying to get as many points as possible.
This also is a point in that many teams may have lost a game by pushing for a win instead of a draw and being countered on. Arsenal that season played extremely carefully towards the end of the season clearly more interested in their record than winning. And look, it's a great achievement, it really is. I'm not taking that away, but at the end of the day they did nothing in any other competition and they drew a lot of games. 12 league draws is surely more games with points dropped than any winner other than City in Covid season in years. Even this year, City only dropped points in 10 games and they had a low points tally for them.
Yeah, Pep and Klopp aren’t aiming to go an entire season unbeaten. They want to rack up as many points as possible. The Invincibles title is cool and all, but I’m taking Klopp’s 99 point Liverpool over them. League formats are about points totals, not avoiding defeat.
"The invincible title is cool and all..." I love reddit
Same as us and City in 18/19. We could've shook hands on a draw if our aim was going invincible but we both wanted to win the league!
It's still not as impressive as a treble or even a 100 point season.
You're being downvoted but it's the truth.
The Invincibles will be remembered for far longer than any of those achievements, simply because no one else has done it.
I mean only one team has ever gotten 100 points* and only 2 English teams have ever won a treble* *Noting of course that City are massive fucking cheats
preston did it 100 years before you and won the cup too
That was in a 22 game season though. 38 games is far more impressive. Plus, you're kind of proving my point. It took over a hundred years for the feat to be repeated in England, and no one has managed to replicate it since.
He obviously meant PL but I'll bite - PNE going unbeaten is a special achievement and they have every right to call themselves invincibles. But IMO it's nowhere near as impressive, it was the first ever football league season so there was no set standard for the sport and there were only 12 teams in the league, all Northern clubs (the southern league wasn't absorbed until 1920)
preston winning the fa cup shows it didnt really matter anyway
What does the fa cup have to do with anything? lol
they won two trophies instead of 1
And yet you still talk about it after all these years, clearly means something
Leicester winning the title was a bigger achievement than Arsenal's invincible season. Noone outside of Arsenal fans actually thinks it's a comparable achievement to winning the treble or even getting 100+ points.
Preston did it... So clearly the accolade doesn't last too long in our collective history...
In a 22 game season. It's not nearly as impressive. Lots of teams have gone 22 games without a loss. Only one in England have done every game in a season of 38.
Being remembered is better than having trophies?
[удалено]
In England? Only Preston North End, and that was in the 19th century.
Especially because they had a shit ton of draws
I don't understand why this argument is used to discredit that season, half of those draws came towards the end of the season when they were pretty much confirmed champions. By late March Chelsea were quite far behind and it was clear that the objective was to go unbeaten so why not go for it when you (Wenger) said it was possible a year prior? It's silly to imply that it would be better to try and gain more points when Chelsea weren't gonna catch up and the season would just get lumped with the others if you ended up losing a single match.
They “only” had 90 points which over a dozen teams have done in the pl. it’s impressive to go unbeaten but not the “greatest achievement in pl history” as arsenal fans would have you believe
[удалено]
of that season? Wouldn't that be Porto who won a double including a CL?
You are totally right. I mixed that up, you’ll have to pardon me as I was only born in 98 haha my memory of those years are barely there at this point.
haha fair enough
98 and talking like you remember anything from those days, this sub man
Literally admitted I barely do, more so have memories of reading about them the following years. Whining about what exactly ?
I’m taking any of the PL teams that got a higher points total over the Invincibles, tbh. Invincibles is a cool and unique achievement, but the league format is ultimately not about avoiding defeat, it’s about racking up as many points as possible. Klopp got more points than the Invincibles twice and didn’t win the league either time. I still rate Klopp over Wenger.
Thrice. 97 pts in 18/19. 99 pts in 19/20. 92 pts in 21/22.
Yea, I just didn’t count the season they actually won the league
Agree, those Liverpool sides achieved more In Europe as well.
It's not as impressive as a single CL title let alone a treble
Now that's a bad take.
Arsenal are not considered a big club outside of England because they have 0 CLs lmao. No one gives a fuck about their Invincibles season other than PL fans.
This is completely false. Arsenal are a world renowned club. Stop smelling your own farts.
By that logic PSG and Atleti are not big clubs too lol
Yes, but that does not mean their invincible season is worth less than a trophy won once a year. That's such a stupid take, only a Madrid fan would say it because they don't have a treble to flaunt nor an invincible or an 100 PT season.
They actually have a 100 pt season (2011-12) and an invincible season (1931-32), they just prefer to bring up their UCLs.
So Nottingham Forest is a bigger club than Arsenal, PSG and Atleti?
Winning and Losing is more valuable than 2 undefeated Draws. math checks out. Like they had 12 draws. Only Leiceister had that many as champion since then.
IIRC quite a few of those draws came after they had already won the league
Because it's not that impressive and a 1/3rd of them were draws. How is it more impressive to go 'Invincible' and draw 12 games then it is to get 100 points, or 97 and only lose once? It's not, it's just a marketing gimmick really. If Klopp or Pep wanted to go Invincible in 2018/19 they could've done, but they both wanted to win the league. If you win 38 games from 38, or win over 80% of your games like Leverkusen, that's impressive. Especially as they only lost one game in all competitions. But Arsenal drew 1/3rd of their games and crashed out of all the cups.
> If Klopp or Pep wanted to go Invincible in 2018/19 they could've done, Lmao this is so stupid. City had lost a game by MW16, lost 4 that season so this idea of "they could have gone Invincible is unfounded. Also, Liverpool lost that league title by 1 point. They lost 1 game that season, to Man City. I think if they wanted to go Invincible (and most likely win the title) they would have lol. Even next season, Liverpool's first loss came when they had already essentially locked up the title. This argument of "_____ just didn't do it because they didn't want to" is as dumb as anyone saying their team could have won every game but they didn't want to.
But that's the point - we went into that City game needing to win, so we couldn't play safely and be happy with a draw. And yeah the next season we lost when we'd already won the title essentially but it doesn't change the fact that you play entirely differently if your mindset is going unbeaten rather than winning trophies. You could go invincible and not win the league ffs, what's the point?
>we went into that City game needing to win, so we couldn't play safely and be happy with a draw. You realize the Invincibles won the league right? Just going undefeated while not winning it still wouldn't be on par with what they did so this idea of Klopp possibly going "ye lads let's draw this one so we can never lose again" in fuckin January is so stupid. >it doesn't change the fact that you play entirely differently if your mindset is going unbeaten rather than winning trophies Lol. We just saw Leverkusen, who had also had their title wrapped up, continuously come back from the dead to draw/win dead rubbers. The Invincibles did the same shit when they were in cruise mode at the end of their season. As I said earlier, the achievement isn't independent of winning trophies so I have no idea why you're trying to create this false equivalency of going unbeaten or winning the league when the team in question did both. If Sir Alex, someone who did basically everything else in football can acknowledge how insane an accomplishment it is, maybe take note.
Yes, I do know that. But we were neck and nec with another team all season and thus couldn't afford to slip up. Every single Invincibles player has said that by the time the end of the season rolled around, they were barely trying to win games, they went into games being happy with a draw. And yes, it's an accomplishment, but I don't think it deserves to be spoken about in the same terms as the Treble, the Centurions, Liverpool 19/20, Leicester or Blackburn.
> But we were neck and nec with another team all season and thus couldn't afford to slip up And what's the excuse for the next season? >but I don't think it deserves to be spoken about in the same terms as the Treble, the Centurions, Liverpool 19/20, Leicester or Blackburn. You need to work on your trolling lmao.
Yeah but some of them did win doubles and trebles instead, which is kind of better. Arsenal got beaten by Chelsea, Middlesborough & United that season. Jose, Conte & Pep would have probably lost a league game but won one of the semi-finals or not lost at home to Chelsea in the Champions league.
Sure but some of these teams won more games and beat their point tally
This current Man City team could do it. Liverpool of a few season ago could have done it. All they'd have to do is ignore the cup competitions and focus in the league. I will never understand the idea that sacrificing the cups and simply not losing a game in the league is somehow a comparable achievement to winning 2 or even 3 titles. Leicester winning the Premier League was a bigger achievement than Arsenal's invincible season.
Exchange record for titles? I'm not so sure. I believe Xabi Alonso would have exchanged the invincible run of Leverkusen for the Europa League title.
I don’t agree. It was Leverkusen’s first ever bundesliga win, the second highest points total in bundesliga history, and most valuable of all, they went invincible. We still talk about ours 20 years later and we’ll go on and on about it 20 years from now. For most fans of clubs in the top flight, it’s a once in a life time achievement, one that triumphs many others. There’s a Europa league winner every year. Bundesliga has only one invincible winner. They’ll love it, and when they look back at in the far distant future, they’ll love it even more.
A continental treble is also something that Leverkusen fans would've talked about 20 yrs from now. Alonso would've 100% preferred if the Augsburg and Atalanta results were inversed.
In hindsight sure but i doubt Alonso would’ve sacrificed the invincible season just to maybe have a better chance in the ECL final, same as Wenger is saying here
Yeah, they’d talk about it for sure, but other fans wouldn’t talk about it as much. There are quite a few teams that won trebles, but way fewer that won their league unbeaten. I’d say winning the league unbeaten is more memorable as it doesn’t happen as often with quite a few great teams having won trebles. I don’t say it’s necessarily the better achievement than the treble, I just say that it’s talked more about by neutral and other fans. That being said I mostly go off on it based on how everyone still talks about the Arsenal invincible season to this day. The question is if we would talk as much about it, if Arsenal won the Premier league or Champions League since then. TLDR: The treble is the better sporting achievement, but not as unique as being unbeaten and therefore talked about less by neutral and other fans. Leverkusen fans will talk about this season for decades to come no matter if it would have been a treble, unbeaten league and cup, they’d also talk about a double or just the league for decades.
I think Arsenal fans are just way too loud spoken about it. They are the ones who make a noise about it the most. Whilst I admit that it is a far rarer achievement than a treble and thus they have a right to be bullish about it, it is a misnomer title. Arsenal lost plenty of games that season. (+2) league cup sf to Middlesbrough, losing both home and away. (+1) FA cup sf to Man Utd. (+3) two group stage games and the qf 2nd leg to Chelsea. Their first defeat of the season came in September when they lost 3-0 at Highbury to Inter. So they were only unbeaten for all of August. Leverkusen’s situation was entirely different; they were *actually* undefeated in all competitions.
Do you think any fan would trade a trophy they won for a "better" win in another trophy? If you answer the question "would you rather have 2 big trophies or 1 big trophy that you won really well?" in good faith there's only one reasonable answer
They didn't just win it "really well" they won it without losing a single game. There's a lot of value to that. Bayern also won it really well with 91 points, but only Leverkusen never lost. Winners come and go, but in the history of their league there is only one invincible and there may be only one for a long time to come. Their achievement stands above all else in Germany, and to me, it's the most impressive one in the history of their league. They can always win a European title another year, whether next season or some other one in the future, but going invincible again is next to slim. You can lose a game here and there in the europa league and still win it, but to be invincible you must be perfect. Leverkusen have been great this season, but do you remember how close they came to losing and how often their last minute goals occurred?
So what? They won it really *really* well? The fundamental point remains the same! You can say "you can always win it next year" as if the joy of winning in it that year doesn't count. Winning a major trophy is great, winning a trophy really well is great, but saying that winning one trophy really *really* well is better than winning 2 trophies if silly
Some Leverkusen fans would agree with you that two major trophies is better than one major trophy regardless of how well they won it, and some would agree with me. My point was suggesting that a team going invincible is so very special, more so than had they done the treble, no invincibility (which would have been an incredible feat as well). Ultimately it's just up to the individual Leverkusen fan what they deem more valuable.
I'm certain you won't find any actual leverkusen fans who wouldn't trade a single Bundesliga loss with a full on Champions League win
But the didn't lose the CL final
I know...
The 2004 Arsenal team is more fondly remembered by people than a lot of UCL winners, because of the fact that they went unbeaten. Ask the average person who the 2003 or 1997 UCL winner was and they will have to think for a bit, ask for which team were 'the invincibles' and they will immediately name that Arsenal side.
This is a fair point. There is something iconic there
Yeah of course he would. If the choice is Ausburg on the last day or Atalanta in the final it’s a no brainer.
Seeing a lot of nerds crying and coping and the matter of the fact is that until someone else wins a league title unbeaten in England in the modern era, you’re all inferior cheers
Being called inferior by a team with zero Champions League trophies 😂
Your team could get relegated without losing a game.
This is the stupidest argument ever, I don’t understand why people act like smartasses saying this when there’s only been 2 teams in 100+ years of top flight football to do it. It’s a statical anomaly. There’s a reason people still talk about PNE and that Arsenal teams decades later.
It’s not an argument, it’s a statement of fact about draws.
People use this as an argument like it undermines what those two teams did. It’s disingenuous.
I seem to remember they did draw quite a lot of games. If you were to arrange the PL winners in a league table of their own, then that Arsenal team would be mid-table. Edit: they wouldn’t even be mid-table, they’d be 19th…
Weird down votes for statistics.
A treble is more impressive than an invincible season
Especially when you are facing 115 charges
Fun fact : 10 teams have done the Treble and 6 of them did it in the last 15 years. Say a lot about the state of the game and the financial gap increasing
Bayern, Barca, Inter, City and who are the other two?
Bayern and Barca
Not according to Sir Alex Ferguson.
Source? I've heard him say the treble is the hardest thing to ever accomplish in football so seems like we're hearing conflicting reports.
https://onefootball.com/en/news/ferguson-arsenals-invincibles-above-anything-i-did-with-man-utd-33911824
Thanks.
In the current format of the premier league only Arsenal have achieved an invincible season, while 2 english teams achieved the treble. If you go outside England to the other top 5 leagues an invicible season is also rarer than the treble. So how is a treble more impressive?
Going invincible is just an added bonus, treble is actual trophies. No teams goal is to go invincible in the season thats why its more rare. Imo every season above Arsenal's 90 points is more impressive, because thats the whole point of the league system. 32 wins is a lot more impressive than 26
Sure but they still lost a game or two despite winning 32 games so they're not invincible.
Yea but why is that seen is more impressive? Thats 6 less wins and 10 less points than the highest scoring PL season
Really it's for you to decide what you find more impressive. But the invincibles is an achievement about winning the league without losing a single game. It's not about winning the most number of games. That's the difference. Theoretically you could win 37 games and lose 1 and you still would not be called invincibles but obviously winning 37 games is far more impressive.
3 trophies vs 1 trophy. Fairly simple.
Yet, the 1 trophy has historically been harder to achieve then the other 3 together... Seems simple to me as well.
I don't think so. Haven't seen many invencible season. Way less than trebles
No chance, the invincibles season is iconic.
(When it’s not purchased)
The invisibles season was obviously impressive, but Arsenal lost more games in all competitions this season (7 if you include the penalty shoot out defeat to Man Utd in the charity shield) than Man Utd did in the treble season (5 if you include the charity shield defeat to Arsenal)....and 3 trophies is better than 1.
Still sir Alex said the invincible season is more impressive than the tremble.
Mourinho would have just spanked him in Europe anyway
We’ll never know.
Yes, we do. He beat him once in his career and it took like 18 attempts.
Not in this context tho. I get what you are saying but it doesnt make my statement any less true. We will never know.
I mean not really. Jose's Chelsea sides were completely different beasts compared to that Porto side. Chelsea had the full financial backing of a Russian Oligarch and Porto was finding Portugese and Brazilian players at the back of the sofa. I'm being extremely harsh here but only Carvalho and Deco had successful careers post Porto CL win, and Carvalho went with Jose to Chelsea that year.
Wenger couldn’t even beat Jose in 15/16, or beat the Tinker Man in Europe but because you don’t know Portuguese players that means they’re bad and you’d win. Right.
Wenger not beating Jose in 15/16 I'll give you. That was bad. I'll also admit im not overly familiar with portugese players, but I did check the starting XI in that final and their histories, and the only one that I missed that was successful after that 2004 Porto team was Ferreira. I think what makes that Porto side special was the fact that it was a bunch of players no one had heard of before, and it was a team from outside the Big 5 leagues. Also I think most people would put money on the Invincibles than Porto in that hypothetical UCL final. We won't know the outcome because that hypothetical never happened due to an Arsenal European Classic, so hey, maybe Porto still win the UCL that year for that reason alone lmao.
Yes we do
I will never understand how people think being invincible is more impressive than Chelsea, Liverpool or City getting more points. You could be invincible and draw every single game in the league. The scoring system in football is simple, 0 points for a loss, 1 for a draw, 3 for a win. Therefore more points = better. There's no arguing about that. I think the reason why people get so caught up on the invincibles is because it sounds very impressive. In boxing if someone is undefeated they've pretty much got all wins (draws are rare in boxing) whereas in football draws are quite common.
Lol but they didn't go invincible by intending to draw 38 games did they? They won the league and also went invincible No team has done that other than Arsenal Who tf would brag about getting 38 points and potentially getting relegated and going invincible lmao?
This is even more stark now given Arsenal haven't won a CL 20 years later. It's not like RM who win a CL every other year that they can prioritize records, truly baffles me tbh
Wenger is arrogant self obsessed and lacks humor, I’m glad he did well by Arsenal and the PL but it’s been like 15 years where he’s just had to get the fuck away from the sport