70s/80s Liverpool V 90s United V 00 Chelsea

Which team was/is the strongest in your opinion?

  • 70s/80s Liverpool

    Votes: 27 55.1%

  • 90s Manchester United

    Votes: 16 32.7%

  • 00 - Present Day Chelsea

    Votes: 6 12.2%
  • Total voters
    49
Why are trophies not to be "brought into the equation"? :eh:

Liverpool, easily.

I'd have a lot more respect for Chelsea if they had Mourinho but no Abramovich, that'd be more interesting.
 
bradley1886 said:
how can you compliment them on finding a guy with a load of cash?
Click to expand...

It's not like they went out and bought all the best players in the world. You can find a better player in every position somewhere else except maybe Makalele, and he was already there before Mourinho. They pay over the odds for players because they are rich, nuch like Man Utd do. Always held to ransom by smaller clubs.
 
marukomu said:
It's not like they went out and bought all the best players in the world. You can find a better player in every position somewhere else except maybe Makalele, and he was already there before Mourinho. They pay over the odds for players because they are rich, nuch like Man Utd do. Always held to ransom by smaller clubs.
Click to expand...

The difference being that it is of little to no consequence whether Chel$ki are held to ransom or not as they have limitless cash.
 
So if the teams YOU supported (Celtic, Arsenal etc) had access to 'limitless cash' would you start hating your club? The green-eyed monster is at large it seems, guys.
 
Joystick said:
The difference being that it is of little to no consequence whether Chel$ki are held to ransom or not as they have limitless cash.
Click to expand...

They could have alot of ca$h, but isn't the money who made's the teams. Look at FC Porto in 03/04, without superstars and "galáticos".

Chelsea have a lot of money, thanks to Roman, but they're the most regular team in PremierLeague.

They can lost one game, but they can win ten too.
 
ninjabreakz said:
So if the teams YOU supported (Celtic, Arsenal etc) had access to 'limitless cash' would you start hating your club? The green-eyed monster is at large it seems, guys.
Click to expand...
Of course not, I'd be chuffed to bits, but I'd understand if fans of every other team suddenly hated mine a few notches more. People like Abramovich aren't good for the game.
 
I would even say more Classic...people like Abramovich are in the long term not good for Chelsea too...One day Roman has enough of his London toy and he will leave then...Chelsea will have lots of problems then...
 
He will never get sick of his 'London toy' though. It will soon become a profit making organistion for the Russian deeming it successful - he would never give up something that made him money. As boring as it seems, get used to Chelsea dominating English football for a while, guys - I would say a decade at least.
 
They will dominate as long as Mourinho remains there, he is the key, not Abramovich although he obviously helps. As for making money, you'll find 9 out of 10 club owners lose money on their football clubs, they're not an ideal way to make cash at all and he's there for kicks just now.
 
Classic D is right - you can have all the best players in the world, but if they don't gel then you get.....Real Madrid.:lmao:
 
Interesting points, Classic. Thing is, they got in Kenyon because he is very commercially aware - if they can make Chelsea into a club like Man United was (before we let the Glazers take over) then Roman will be smiling all the way to the bank. I agree about Mourinho making it happen. He makes the team work hard and play as a unit. I can't see him going anywhere in a hurry: £10 million a year salary/advertising royalties, a gorgeous house in the nicest part of London and his family (who are most important to him) LOVE where they live and go to school.

It's an interesting debate though.
 
but mourinho not join because he has limitless cash? would he have joined them if they still had the crappy bunch of players and no cash? money got him in too. i'm not jealous at all, i'd much rather support arsenal with no cash than them with it all. we'll get what we ant eventually and do it the right way. arsenal are a very classy club, something money just can't buy.
 
Chelsea, United, Liverpool and Arsenal all do things differently - that is what I love about the Premiership. At the end of the day, cash or no cash, you still gotta make your team perform and win games. Allardyce does it with limited funds just as Curbishley does.
 
Mourinho can do it with limited funds too...Porto has the same budget as Anderlecht and i know that in Europe are around the 150th place concerning budget...well to win the CL with such limited funds is a big achievement...
As for Abramovich and Chelsea...sure he will get tired of Chelsea, because he's loosing money with Chelsea (record loss for a football cluhb in 2005)...unless he's using Chelsea to launder "black money" ...which he does IMHO...but even then...he will use Russian clubs to do that after a while...
 
this is not difficult for me in terms of who played the best football...

United in the 90's and early 00's

I challenge anyone to watch the football from the lfc "glory years" and not find it a snooze fest.

the biggest misconception is that lfc played great football, they didnt, okay in terms of defensive football, going 1-0 up and defending it, they had that down to a tee, remember you could pass the ball back to the keeper in those days, god knows how many pairs of boots the lfc defense wore out doing this....

but in saying all that, although they strangled the life out of the game they won everything, and with aston villa and notts forest they dominted european football for a long period....

but yet still the 70's and early 80's are considered to be a very bad era for the game in this country.

I think arsenal deserve a mention, they played good football and won the odd trophy, they just didnt have enough bottle....

as for chelsea, only time will tell...
 
Vannizzlefashizzal said:
but in saying all that, although they strangled the life out of the game they won everything, and with aston villa and notts forest they dominted european football for a long period....

but yet still the 70's and early 80's are considered to be a very bad era for the game in this country.
Click to expand...

According to Manc fans I presume? :roll: :D

Arsenal and Manc played some beautiful football in their times. I have been watching a few videos of Liverpool lately (a few vids from ebay) - the way to perhaps describe their play was their ruthlessness. Precision passing with patient play like an efficient machine. They worked extremely well as a unit with the ability to up their gear if necessary.

That is what is gonna win you cups and leagues. That doesn't mean u can do it without flair, but a balance is needed - and I felt Liverpool had done that imo. I reckon they can beat any team cos they worked so well as a team and had such a simple yet effective work ethic.

However, having said that, the passing play that Arsenal were playing was absolutely sublime. That flair, imo, was the best I've seen in the Premiership since it started.
 
Vannizzlefashizzal said:
ahhh I remember when Muhren joined United, what a player!! I was so excited as a kid when he joined, shame a bad injury got in the way...
Click to expand...

I was talking baout Gerrie Muhren Vann...
Gerrie never played for Man Utd...
Arnold Muhren, his younger brother played in England for Ipswich and then Man Utd (and yes he was a superb player too, i absolutely loved that United team, but Gerrie was better than his brothr Arnold).
 
rockykabir said:
According to Manc fans I presume? :roll: :D

Arsenal and Manc played some beautiful football in their times. I have been watching a few videos of Liverpool lately (a few vids from ebay) - the way to perhaps describe their play was their ruthlessness. Precision passing with patient play like an efficient machine. They worked extremely well as a unit with the ability to up their gear if necessary.

That is what is gonna win you cups and leagues. That doesn't mean u can do it without flair, but a balance is needed - and I felt Liverpool had done that imo. I reckon they can beat any team cos they worked so well as a team and had such a simple yet effective work ethic.

However, having said that, the passing play that Arsenal were playing was absolutely sublime. That flair, imo, was the best I've seen in the Premiership since it started.
Click to expand...

well the way you described lfc playing football was how I saw it as a kid, effective, most def, good to watch, not really, and like I said no suprise that they we're winning european cups the same time as villa and forest,

it was a dark time in english football, it sure wasnt pretty....

your right though, you do need the balance, thats what arsenal lack IMO, they have the pretty stuff when its going well but cant switch it up when things are against them....
 
Last edited:
Stan said:
I was talking baout Gerrie Muhren Vann...
Gerrie never played for Man Utd...
Arnold Muhren, his younger brother played in England for Ipswich and then Man Utd (and yes he was a superb player too, i absolutely loved that United team, but Gerrie was better than his brothr Arnold).
Click to expand...

I stand corrected gerd mate....

it wasnt my fave united team ever but we it was better than alot of our supporters make out...
 
Vannizzlefashizzal said:
it was a dark time in english football, it sure wasnt pretty....
Click to expand...
Dark time fo United maybe....was it 25 or 26 years without winning the league? A lot of fans seem to forget Utd only really took off from 92.
 
The Liverpool team by a mile. They'd scuttle a mix of those Chelsea and Man Utd every single game, also George Graham's Arsenal was a helluva team also.


FD
 
Watching George Grahams Arsenal was like watching paint dry, though. 1-0 to the Arsenal anyone?
 
Jeez, you said Strongest you fool, if that's not what you mean then try and stick threads that people can understand, use your brain before your mouth (or fingers in this case). :roll:


FD
 
crayon said:
Dark time fo United maybe....was it 25 or 26 years without winning the league? A lot of fans seem to forget Utd only really took off from 92.
Click to expand...

in terms of success it was englands best period in europe, but ask anyone who followed and went to the games during that time, it wasnt a good time, remember it bred the atmosphere that led us to two stadium disasters.
 
Vannizzlefashizzal said:
in terms of success it was englands best period in europe, but ask anyone who followed and went to the games during that time, it wasnt a good time, remember it bred the atmosphere that led us to two stadium disasters.
Click to expand...

aah...got you now :)

yea...totally agree, the times were messed up when they had the terraces - proper racist too. You had to be a real headcase into wanting to go to a game back then.

My parents have got the same mentality...they wouldn't ever allow me to go to a game (fair play to their reasonings tho)...but thankfully things have changed.
 
Last edited:
rockykabir said:
aah...got you now :)

yea...totally agree, the times were messed up when they had the terraces - proper racist too. You had to be a real headcase into wanting to go to a game back then.

My parents have got the same mentality...they wouldn't ever allow me to go to a game (fair play to their reasonings tho)...but thankfully things have changed.
Click to expand...

What, your parents now let you watch Sky Sports as a treat!? :lol:
 
I don't think they were dark days. I went to matches throughout the late 70's and 80's and never got beaten up once. Going to Old Trafford (and Edgeley Park on a friday) was the best footie experiences I've had. The atmosphere was incredible. People mention Liverpool from that era, but I remember a fantastic Ipswich Town side that finished in the top 5 for 8 seasons. They were a really good side to watch. The had Muhren, Thijsen, Gates, Brazil, Mariner, Wark, etc. I remeber them beating Man Utd 6-0 and Gary Bailey saving 2 penalties. Then there was Ron Atkinsons West Brom...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom