Statistically it's been the best league season that any club has had in the top flight since the game began. Highest number of points. Most goals scored. Biggest goal difference. Most wins. Most away wins. Most consecutive wins. Biggest title-winning margin.
It's a season which has provoked discussion regarding which team can be regarded to be the best of all time in England.
So far, the majority of the candidates that have been put forward have mainly come from the Premier League era, probably because they are more fresh in the memory, and the further back into history one goes, the harder it is to contextualise and compare. But below are some names that have been mentioned on numerous occasions. In no particular order:
United 1998-99
United 2007-08
Arsenal invincibles
Chelsea 2004-05
One of the arguments put forward is that in order to be classed as a truly great team, it has to win on a consistent basis, picking up trophy after trophy over a number of seasons.
Yet this line of reasoning ignores one very obvious point. The changes in playing personnel that invariably occur from season to season. If City for example go out and sign 1-2 players this summer, replacing 1-2 players in the current first team, then is it the same team? Wayne Rooney recently stated that United's team between 2007 and 2011 was the best team in Premier League history. Yet notable changes in first team players occurred during this period, including Ronaldo (no less), Tevez, Saha, and Silvestre leaving, and Berbatov, Valencia, Smalling, and Hernandez arrive.
The point is, to me at least, obvious. The 2011 team was simply not the same as the 2007 team, so therefore it can not simply be regarded as being ONE team that was great. So by that rationale, to say that any team, including City, needs to win consistently season after season is simply flawed logic. Unless the team itself during such a period doesn't change.
It's also a logic that rules out the Arsenal invincibles of 2003-04 in a discussion about which team is regarded as the greatest of all time. For the reason that team is mentioned is precisely because of what they achieved in going unbeaten for that season - for what they achieved in ONE season.
Which leads into the next point that has been discussed recently. Which is better? Going unbeaten, or gaining more points? Arsenal and Chelsea fans have debated this previously, and now that City have bettered Chelsea's points record, it surfaces once again, this time between City and Arsenal fans.
Arsenal's unbeaten league season is a tremendous achievement. Taking other competitions into account however, that season saw them, well, beaten in the Quarter finals of the CL (same stage as City this season), beaten in the FA Cup semi-final (compared to City's 5th round loss this season), and beaten in the League Cup semi-final (which City won this season). So overall, City attained more success than Arsenal courtesy of their league cup win. Furthermore, while going unbeaten (at least in the league) is without doubt a tremendous achievement, should not be undermined, and should most definitely be acknowledged, it is not unprecedented. So for this reason, another club has to come into contention. Preston North End not only went a league campaign unbeaten back in 1898-99, but they also went unbeaten in the FA Cup. So for that reason do they usurp Arsenal 2003/04 from this discussion as to who can be regarded to be the best English team ever?
Of course, going back to 1898 really opens up this discussion. So far I've mentioned 5 teams - United 99, United 07, Arsenal 04, Chelsea 05, and Preston 1899! But what about Liverpool? How many of their teams from their period of dominance in the 70s and 80s should be considered? How about United in the late 60s (winning the league and European Cup in consecutive seasons)? How about Huddersfield in the 1920s and Arsenal in the 1930s winning 3 league titles in a row (which has never been bettered, only matched)?
For me, I would have to go with United's 1999 team as the best team in English history. For what they achieved across all competitions that they took part in. Doubles, especially League and CL doubles, and indeed League and FA Cup doubles, are rightfully acknowledged as being special, so to win a League, Champions League, and FA Cup treble, is simply an extraordinary achievement.
I do however think that all teams mentioned in this thread can be regarded as great teams. If City fail to win anything next season, then that, for me, doesn't impinge upon what they achieved this season. City this season simply have to go down as being a great team for what it has actually achieved. And that, rather like Arsenal's invincibles, shouldn't be negated should they fail to maintain success.
Best English team of all time
posted on 21/5/18
Giggs
https://www.premierleague.com/matchweek/258/table
That’s the PL table at the halfway stage of 98/99 season. Debunks your claim that CL and FA cup progress hindered your chances at a record points haul.
posted on 21/5/18
comment by Ledders the King - 2017/18 FF Enders league champion 🏆 (U20121)
posted 21 seconds ago
Giggs
https://www.premierleague.com/matchweek/258/table
That’s the PL table at the halfway stage of 98/99 season. Debunks your claim that CL and FA cup progress hindered your chances at a record points haul.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Well that's fair enough. I haven't read all the comments but would you seriously put any of the sides mentioned above the 99 side? Even the 08 team? Trophies mean a lot more to me than goal/points/unbeaten records. As I said I think a better debate would be who is better out of the Arsenal and City sides.
posted on 21/5/18
comment by Ledders the King - 2017/18 FF Enders league champion 🏆 (U20121)
posted 17 minutes ago
comment by Giggs#11 (U19135)
posted 1 minute ago
It's not really a debate is it? 99 team definitely, they fought on three fronts all season and won the lot, if they had gone out early in the other comps like the rest who's to say they wouldn't have amassed a record points total too. A far better debate would be to argue who are better out of the Arsenal Invincibles and the current City side.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You got 79 points that season. Bit of a stretch to say champs league and fa cup progress cost you 21 points.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Of course it's debatable. You had a low points total then and the main threat was Arsenal and only really Arsenal. That's why I'm tilting towards the United team of 07/08 because the PL was the strongest it's been, as shown with European performances. United reached 2 successive CL finals then, and Chelsea very nearly did too, while both got over 80 points in the league in both seasons. It was Liverpool's strongest team to date as well.
posted on 21/5/18
comment by Giggs#11 (U19135)
posted 5 minutes ago
comment by Ledders the King - 2017/18 FF Enders league champion 🏆 (U20121)
posted 21 seconds ago
Giggs
https://www.premierleague.com/matchweek/258/table
That’s the PL table at the halfway stage of 98/99 season. Debunks your claim that CL and FA cup progress hindered your chances at a record points haul.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Well that's fair enough. I haven't read all the comments but would you seriously put any of the sides mentioned above the 99 side? Even the 08 team? Trophies mean a lot more to me than goal/points/unbeaten records. As I said I think a better debate would be who is better out of the Arsenal and City sides.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I said I thought the treble is the best achievement but the best team out of the lot of them is City this season.
posted on 21/5/18
Spurtle2
I get what you are saying that league was definitely the strongest in the prem era but I would say our European run in 99 was more impressive than the 08 we had a ridiculous group I think of Barca, Bayern and Brondby and beat a fanstastic Juve team in the semis so that for me edges it ahead of the 08.
posted on 21/5/18
Ledders
I don't really get what you mean by the best team? Surely the best team is the one who wins more is it not? Or do you mean the most attractive to watch.
posted on 21/5/18
comment by Giggs#11 (U19135)
posted 16 minutes ago
Ledders
I don't really get what you mean by the best team? Surely the best team is the one who wins more is it not? Or do you mean the most attractive to watch.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Not necessarily no, otherwise that would mean by default that the best teams in European football history are:
Celtic 66/67
Ajax 72/73
PSV 87/88
United 98/99
Barca 08/09
Inter 09/10
Barca 14/15
I’m not dismissing what it takes to win the treble at all, but there are some great teams that didn’t win trebles, such as Milan 93/94, United 07/08 and Barca 09/10 due to factors such as who they were up against and also down to luck (I recall Portsmouth pulling off the heist of the year against you in the 2008 FA cup?) so to simply say that whoever wins the most is the best is too simplistic for me.
posted on 21/5/18
Yeah agree with that, Ledders.
posted on 21/5/18
comment by Ledders the King - 2017/18 FF Enders league champion 🏆 (U20121)
posted 5 minutes ago
comment by Giggs#11 (U19135)
posted 16 minutes ago
Ledders
I don't really get what you mean by the best team? Surely the best team is the one who wins more is it not? Or do you mean the most attractive to watch.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Not necessarily no, otherwise that would mean by default that the best teams in European football history are:
Celtic 66/67
Ajax 72/73
PSV 87/88
United 98/99
Barca 08/09
Inter 09/10
Barca 14/15
I’m not dismissing what it takes to win the treble at all, but there are some great teams that didn’t win trebles, such as Milan 93/94, United 07/08 and Barca 09/10 due to factors such as who they were up against and also down to luck (I recall Portsmouth pulling off the heist of the year against you in the 2008 FA cup?) so to simply say that whoever wins the most is the best is too simplistic for me.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You haven't explained why you think City are the best team though? Are you saying it's just down to bad luck they didn't win the champs league? And I wouldn't say the had a particularly hard champs league run this year as oppposed to the 99 side.
posted on 21/5/18
comment by Giggs#11 (U19135)
posted 29 minutes ago
comment by Ledders the King - 2017/18 FF Enders league champion 🏆 (U20121)
posted 5 minutes ago
comment by Giggs#11 (U19135)
posted 16 minutes ago
Ledders
I don't really get what you mean by the best team? Surely the best team is the one who wins more is it not? Or do you mean the most attractive to watch.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Not necessarily no, otherwise that would mean by default that the best teams in European football history are:
Celtic 66/67
Ajax 72/73
PSV 87/88
United 98/99
Barca 08/09
Inter 09/10
Barca 14/15
I’m not dismissing what it takes to win the treble at all, but there are some great teams that didn’t win trebles, such as Milan 93/94, United 07/08 and Barca 09/10 due to factors such as who they were up against and also down to luck (I recall Portsmouth pulling off the heist of the year against you in the 2008 FA cup?) so to simply say that whoever wins the most is the best is too simplistic for me.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You haven't explained why you think City are the best team though? Are you saying it's just down to bad luck they didn't win the champs league? And I wouldn't say the had a particularly hard champs league run this year as oppposed to the 99 side.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
They didn’t have the best of luck against Liverpool, 1 or 2 dodgy decisions in there but ultimately they lost 5-1 on agg so it wasn’t just down to luck, they had a very bad day at Anfield.
I say City are the best because I think they had the most ability and as hard as it is to envisage fictional matches from teams in different era’s, I’d say City would win a larger share of say 10 matches against the great PL teams in the discussion. All subjective of course.