OT: Arsenal Undefeated?

[CraigSca]

It's my understanding that Arsenal has a chance today to be the first team since the 19th century to go the entire Premiership season without a loss.

Is it only because I live in the States that I don't hear a buzz about this? What's the mood like in England? Why isn't there talk about this being perhaps one of the best teams of all time?

I mean, if an NFL team or NBA team went undefeated in the US, that's probably all we would be talking about. Is it the same in other countries? I'm just surprised people aren't going nutso about this, or maybe I'm just not seeing it from this side of the pond.

[Poli]

I look at this, and I read, "OT: Ardent Undefeated?"

I've really got to fix my eyes. :)

[Desnudo]

It's my understanding that Arsenal has a chance today to be the first team since the 19th century to go the entire Premiership season without a loss.

Is it only because I live in the States that I don't hear a buzz about this? What's the mood like in England? Why isn't there talk about this being perhaps one of the best teams of all time?

I mean, if an NFL team or NBA team went undefeated in the US, that's probably all we would be talking about. Is it the same in other countries? I'm just surprised people aren't going nutso about this, or maybe I'm just not seeing it from this side of the pond.

They are losing to Leicester 0-1 right now. And I'm sure Arsenal fans are going nutso. I don't think you'll Man U. fans getting very excited about it though.

[Eaglesfan27]

Go Leicester! I'm now a Man U fan thanks to my CM career ;)

[davidlando1]

yep, it's official Arsenal 2 Leicester 1 . Now we have to put up with Larry Czonka, Bob Griese et al. getting together to celebrate when the last team loses in the English Premier League...bastards!!! :D

[B & B]

I was sweating the total over 2'

[Eaglesfan27]

I'm watching the game on Fox sports tape delay presentation while playing CM. I can't wait to see how the scoring actually occurs.

[WussGawd]

Maybe the English FOFC denizens can tell. Has this happened before in any division of English Football?

[Mr. Wednesday]

Preston North End did it in the first division (then the top level of English football) back in the late 1800's, I believe.

[BreizhManu]

Arsenal join Invincibles in record book

LONDON (Reuters) - Arsenal have capped an astonishing league season by becoming the first team in 115 years to remain unbeaten in the top flight after a 2-1 win over Leicester City.

The champions matched the achievement of Preston North End, known as the Invincibles, in 1888/9. Preston played 22 matches while Arsenal -- two world wars and five monarchs later -- have played 38 in the premier league, winning 26.

[bhlloy]

It's very impressive and it's getting a decent amount of coverage over here... I'm sure plenty of teams have come close but being the first team to do it in the modern era is something special. AC Milan did it in Italy in the 1990's I believe but apart from that it's unprecedented.

A few jitters over the last few games though when it was clear what they were going for - 2-1 at home against Leicester isn't a great result and they were lucky to get out of Portsmouth with a 1-1 draw a few weeks ago.

[MIJB#19]

Ajax went undefeated in the 1994/1995 season in both the Dutch league and the UEFA Champions' League. Only in the Dutch cup they lost a game that season.

EDIT: I failed to mention that they won both the league and Champions' League.

[MrBug708]

It's my understanding that Arsenal has a chance today to be the first team since the 19th century to go the entire Premiership season without a loss.

The LA Times had a pretty great article about this. Sir Alex accused Arsenal of being too arrogant

[Katon]

It's my understanding that Arsenal has a chance today to be the first team since the 19th century to go the entire Premiership season without a loss.

Is it only because I live in the States that I don't hear a buzz about this? What's the mood like in England? Why isn't there talk about this being perhaps one of the best teams of all time?


Well, Arsenal are having one of the best league seasons ever, but on the other hand this year's Premiership is the only trophy they've won in the past two years and they've never been past the Champion's League quarter-finals and historic teams tend to have a bit more sustained dominance both at home and in Europe than Arsenal have managed.

[mordhiem]

It's the lead story on Sky Sports News at the moment. However the reaction is somewhat subdued as it has seemed almost inevitable they would do it. It is a truly incredible achievement, but I think that their failure (again) in Europe will haunt them. They have been the best team in Europe by a very large distance this year with Real, Man Utd, Milan, Juve et al showing big weaknesses either domestically or on a european scale. Realistically, they should've cleaned up.

[tucker342]

wow.... 38 games, 26 wins and 12 ties. That's incredible.

[Desnudo]

The LA Times had a pretty great article about this. Sir Alex accused Arsenal of being too arrogant

Mr. Pot calling out the kettle.

[Katon]

It's the lead story on Sky Sports News at the moment. However the reaction is somewhat subdued as it has seemed almost inevitable they would do it. It is a truly incredible achievement, but I think that their failure (again) in Europe will haunt them. They have been the best team in Europe by a very large distance this year with Real, Man Utd, Milan, Juve et al showing big weaknesses either domestically or on a european scale. Realistically, they should've cleaned up.

But they weren't the best team in Europe this year. They scraped through the group phase of the competition, won a second-round tie against a team struggling against relegation, and were outplayed and eliminated in the quarter-final. There was only one match in the competition where they really looked like a truly elite team, and that came against the Italian equivalent of Liverpool. There are half a dozen teams who played better than Arsenal in the Champions' League this year; that's not the best team in Europe by any distance.

To pick a specific example, let's look at Milan. Milan's "big weakness" was one unbelievably poor performance away to Deportivo. That was probably the worst single performance by any of the tournament's big shots, but every team in the tournament had at least one performance of the type. Arsenal being humiliated at home to Inter Milan, Chelsea being shut out by Besiktas, and Deportivo shipping eight against Monaco are all from the same category. If this is a weakness, it's one that is shared by most of Europe.

[Mac Howard]

Well, the reason we Man Utd fans are not that impressed is that the record of won 26 drawn 12 lost 0 doesn't compare with Utd's performance in 1999/2000.

Arsenal 2003/2004 - points 90, goals scored 73 (won 26 drawn 12 lost 0)

Man Utd 1999/2000 - points 91, goals scored 97 (won 28 drawn 7 lost 2)

Note in particular the goals scored comparison achieving these ;)

[RPI-Fan]

Well, the reason we Man Utd fans are not that impressed is that the record of won 26 drawn 12 lost 0 doesn't compare with Utd's performance in 1999/2000.

Arsenal 2003/2004 - points 90, goals scored 73 (won 26 drawn 12 lost 0)

Man Utd 1999/2000 - points 91, goals scored 97 (won 28 drawn 7 lost 2)

Note in particular the goals scored comparison achieving these ;)
C'mon, boss, you can do better than that. For one thing, the ManU totals add up to 37 games. Secondly, "this doesn't <b>compare</b>"?!?!?! Give me a break! Whether or not you think ManU did better, the two are CERTAINLY comparable.

[Mac Howard]

Just a typo, RPI-Fan - it's lost 3.

>Whether or not you think ManU did better, the two are CERTAINLY comparable.

I suppose 73 compares with 97 :rolleyes:

Just mild trolling, RPI-fan, and explaining why Man Utd fans don't see it as exceptional ;)

But I'm with you on "go red" :cool:

[MIJB#19]

Man Utd fans can't see that going all season unbeaten is a big accomplishment because they never saw their own team do the same trick. ;)

[Mac Howard]

Well if you draw all 38 matches you'll still go unbeaten but probably be (justifiably) relegated ;)

And we must remember that they've also lost to both Man Utd (FA Cup) and Chelsea (Champions League) and presumably in the Worthington Cup (but I can't remember to whom) so it's all a bit of a furphy really :)

And, being a Dutchman, MIJB, you'll probably realise that it was only thanks to Ruud van Nistelrooy blasting that penalty against the bar with minutes to go at Old Trafford that allowed them to go through the league season undefeated. So they can even thank Man Utd for this "undefeated" record - and then look at the way the ungrateful @#&%#@s treated Ruud for that favour :rolleyes:

In fact the more I'm caused to think about this the more unimpressive it becomes :p

[MIJB#19]

Well if you draw all 38 matches you'll still go unbeaten but probably be (justifiably) relegated ;)Belgium, Euro 2000, 3 draws, knocked out in the group stages. Team who can't win don't deserve anything. Still, not losing is arguably the harder accomplishment.

And, being a Dutchman, MIJB, you'll probably realise that it was only thanks to Ruud van Nistelrooy blasting that penalty against the bar with minutes to go at Old Trafford that allowed them to go through the league season undefeated. So they can even thank Man Utd for this "undefeated" record - and then look at the way the ungrateful @#&%#@s treated Ruud for that favour :rolleyes:I can't remember that game really, I have to confess I only follow English football through news papers, which don't give you eye candy like penalties on the bar.
Overhere in the NLs, people tend to call it luck of the better team. It's this kind of luck the Dutch top teams have about 5 times a year against smaller teams, yet they are unlucky twice in European games.
Dutch football fans quote Johan Cruijff's "Geluk dwing je af" very often, free translated "luck is like getting what you deserve for your effort".

Besides, letting a Dutchman take a penalty in a big game is asking for trouble. That's one of football's laws: "A Dutchman will miss a penalty kick in the most important game of his career". Ferguson should have known that, Jaap Stam was a Mancunian when he missed against Italy in Euro2000.

It's good to know I'm not an Arsenal or United fan, or else I'd lose my credibility.:)

[Mac Howard]

>It's good to know I'm not an Arsenal or United fan, or else I'd lose my credibility

Yes indeed. It was quite the most controversial game of the whole EPL season. Five or six Arsenal players were disciplined for the enthusiastic way they "thanked" van Nistelrooy for missing the penalty :)

[MIJB#19]

Yes indeed. It was quite the most controversial game of the whole EPL season. Five or six Arsenal players were disciplined for the enthusiastic way they "thanked" van Nistelrooy for missing the penalty :)Ah, I remember that! ;)

[RPI-Fan]

I suppose 73 compares with 97 http://dynamic2.gamespy.com/%7Efof/forums/images/smilies/rolleyes.gif

Ah - so the new system for determining league champions is total goals? I guess I missed that change.

[Mac Howard]

Well, not league champions - that is merely comparing performance over one season. But when it comes to breaking records (which is what the fuss is all about) then we need to compare the stats between seasons and one of those would be goals scored - 97 by Utd in 2000 and 73 by Arsenal in 2004. Another, of course, is matches won - 28 by Utd in 2000 and 26 by Arsenal in 2004. Another would be total points - 91 by Utd in 2000 and 90 by Arsenal in 2004.

Of course another factor in this comparison is the principle of the "repeat". Every sports fan that's worth his salt knows that it's much more difficult to REPEAT a championship than it is to win the first. That's because the champions are seen by all the others as the one to beat. As we say in soccer - for the champions "every match is a Cup Final" because of the increased motivation of the opposition teams to beat the champions.

Arsenal, of course, were not champions last year. But Utd were not only champions in 1999 they were in fact TRIPLE champions - winning the Premiership, the FA Cup and the pinnacle of European soccer the Champions League. So Utd's superior performance was achieved in the REPEAT year.

As I said, the more I think about all this the more unimpressive the Arsenal feat becomes - well, for Utd fans that is, as they're used to a much higher level of achievement than other mere mortals ;)

[Francis_Cole]

I think most fans in england do agree that arsenal this year have been amazing. Even man utd fans praise arsenal for being unbeaten.
The media certainly have been non-stop talking about it.

[CraigSca]

Another question...

In England, is your favorite football team usually the one that represents your hometown or where you live? I know in the US the majority of fans root for their hometeam - I'm wondering if it's the same in Europe.

Mac, are you from Manchester?

[Mac Howard]

Yep! Born and bred just 15 miles from Old Trafford and spent 4 wasted years at Manchester University (they'd be gutted if they knew I design computer games for a living - "All that education and you're doing whaaat?" :D ). I can even claim to have played for the Man U premier eleven ;)

[andy m]

it does indeed appear that arrogance and lack of chivalry is a key factor in being a manchester united fan.

[CraigSca]

Comp. Sci at Man University - isn't that were the forebearer of UNIX came from? Was it Multics? the first file system-based operating system? But I digress...

Since you came from Manchester, I won't give you grief :). It just seems like Man U. are the Yankees or Cowboys of English football. Is Man U. as hated as their American equivalents?

[Mac Howard]

>it does indeed appear that arrogance and lack of chivalry is a key factor in being a manchester united fan.


Irony, andy m. Just making sure these Arsenal fans don't get above themselves ;)

[Mac Howard]

>Comp. Sci at Man University - isn't that were the forebearer of UNIX came from?

Not sure. They do claim the very first electronic computer - prior to the ENIAC.

>Is Man U. as hated as their American equivalents?

It's a cross that all successful teams have to bear :)

[bhlloy]

It just seems like Man U. are the Yankees or Cowboys of English football. Is Man U. as hated as their American equivalents?

Yes.

And Mac, you must be the first Man U fan I've met that is actually from Manchester. I don't think I'm kidding, I honestly can't think of one. Most of them seem to be City fans.

[Francis_Cole]

A man utd fan from manchester? Is there a catch? :D

[Samdari]

Just mild trolling, RPI-fan, and explaining why Man Utd fans don't see it as exceptional ;)


It has nothing to do with the fact that its your arch-rival, rather than truly being unimpressive? Laughable.

[mordhiem]

Arsenal are not really Man Utd's arch rivals, that would be Liverpool. Arsenal and Man U are merely competitors.

[Huckleberry]

Going undefeated isn't as impressive in a league that allows draws. Going undefeated in a basketball season is an entirely superior accomplishment.

For the record, I'm a Manchester City fan. :D

[HornedFrog Purple]

I adopted Ipswich Town a few years back from playing CM. They got booted out of the premiership but they are in the playoffs in division 1 against West Ham, so go Town!

[Desnudo]

it does indeed appear that arrogance and lack of chivalry is a key factor in being a manchester united fan.

That is the common factor that Yankees fans share.

[Desnudo]

I adopted Ipswich Town a few years back from playing CM. They got booted out of the premiership but they are in the playoffs in division 1 against West Ham, so go Town!

I became a Forest Green fan after playing them a few times in CM4. How can you not like a team that plays at The Lawn? Unfortunately, or maybe fortunately, you don't see Conference games on tv and they aren't exactly perennial promotion favorites.

[Mac Howard]

Arsenal are not really Man Utd's arch rivals, that would be Liverpool. Arsenal and Man U are merely competitors.

Yes, the truly impressive performances have come from Liverpool in the 70s and 80s who not only dominated the English league but the whole European scene.

Irony over - of course the Arsenal performance is superb and they can truly be called the best in the EPL this season. Their football this season has been quite sublime. They also have, on current form, by far the best player in Europe in Thierry Henry and I can only hope, as an England fan who will watch his team play France in their opening match, that Henry doesn't bring his form along to the Euro 2004 championships. It could be embarrassing for a weakened England defence and Sol Campbell may get a taste of what Premiership defenders have experienced this season.

So congratulations Arsenal and here's hoping that the PLC board in charge of Utd allow Ferguson to bring in the three or four players they will need to challenge for the Premiership next season.

[MrBug708]

I'm a Sunderland fan due to CM

[Franklinnoble]

I've tried to keep up with this thread... but I just can't make myself care. Maybe if I bought Championship Manager, I'd be able to relate...

[Desnudo]

I've tried to keep up with this thread... but I just can't make myself care. Maybe if I bought Championship Manager, I'd be able to relate...

Actually you care or else you wouldn't have posted. What you really meant is something like "I'm a miscreant who hoped to post something witty and funny, but ended up sounding tired."

[MIJB#19]

Well, I knew this list would come in handy someday.
Here's a self made list of the teams that I think could be called dominant for a given period of time in European football, mainly the Champions' Cup/League/whatever the name was/is. The criteria were reaching the European main tournament's final at least twice within four seasons (winning it at least once) and see no other team accomplish the same number of final appearances in that period of time.

1955-1960 Real Madrid
1960-1963 Benfica
1963-1967 Internazionale
1966-1970 Celtic
1968-1973 Ajax
1973-1976 Bayern Munchen
1976-1978 Liverpool
1978-1980 Nottingham Forest
1979-1983 Hamburger SV
1980-1984 Liverpool
1985-1989 Steaua Bucuresti
1988-1990 Milan
1990-1993 Olympique Marseille
1992-1995 Milan
1994-1996 Ajax
1995-1998 Juventus
1998-2001 Bayern Munchen
1997-2002 Real Madrid

Note that this list includes teams that were top of the continent for just two seasons (Liverpool mid 70's, Nott'm Forest end 70's, Milan end 80's, Ajax mid 90's) and in some periods of time two teams would qualify as the best (Celtic & Ajax end 60's, HSV & Liverpool early 80's, Bayern & Real Madrid end 90's). Also note that with this list almost every European season is covered, except 1984-1985 and the last two seasons.

[KevinNU7]

I look at this, and I read, "OT: Ardent Undefeated?"

I've really got to fix my eyes. :)

UNDEFEATED!!!!!!!!!!!!

[CraigSca]

Well, I knew this list would come in handy someday.
Here's a self made list of the teams that I think could be called dominant for a given period of time in European football, mainly the Champions' Cup/League/whatever the name was/is. The criteria were reaching the European main tournament's final at least twice within four seasons (winning it at least once) and see no other team accomplish the same number of final appearances in that period of time.

1955-1960 Real Madrid
1960-1963 Benfica
1963-1967 Internazionale
1966-1970 Celtic
1968-1973 Ajax
1973-1976 Bayern Munchen
1976-1978 Liverpool
1978-1980 Nottingham Forest
1979-1983 Hamburger SV
1980-1984 Liverpool
1985-1989 Steaua Bucuresti
1988-1990 Milan
1990-1993 Olympique Marseille
1992-1995 Milan
1994-1996 Ajax
1995-1998 Juventus
1998-2001 Bayern Munchen
1997-2002 Real Madrid

Note that this list includes teams that were top of the continent for just two seasons (Liverpool mid 70's, Nott'm Forest end 70's, Milan end 80's, Ajax mid 90's) and in some periods of time two teams would qualify as the best (Celtic & Ajax end 60's, HSV & Liverpool early 80's, Bayern & Real Madrid end 90's). Also note that with this list almost every European season is covered, except 1984-1985 and the last two seasons.

Hmm...I don't see Man U on this list. Maybe they're not up to the Yankees or Cowboys level.

[MIJB#19]

Hmm...I don't see Man U on this list. Maybe they're not up to the Yankees or Cowboys level.Man U is just one of many players in the European scene.
However on English turf, Man U is comparable to the Yankees.

[Francis_Cole]

Hmm...I don't see Man U on this list. Maybe they're not up to the Yankees or Cowboys level

Well up until very recently the English media perceived any English team walking away with the English league as obviously one of the best in Europe. To the point of discrediting any club in a football nation not called england/italy/spain.
For any team Manchester united faced in a European competition which wasn't a huge team (e.g. top 4 team in italy/spain/germany) it was expected that this it would be a simple formality for the English team to win. (Take the world championships for example, before-hand man utd were expected by the English media to walk the whole tournament, and then when they went out in the 1st round the media said man u didn't really want to win it anyway)
I think finally the media has realized that for any team to be truly great they need to win in Europe. So despite arsenal going unbeaten the whole season the media still realise this does not make them the best team in the world, where as if this had happened 5-7 years ago I think the English media would have automatically claimed them as the best team ever and it was just 'unlucky' they didn't win the European cup by a mile.


Fran

<edit crap grammer spelling etc>

[Franklinnoble]

Actually you care or else you wouldn't have posted. What you really meant is something like "I'm a miscreant who hoped to post something witty and funny, but ended up sounding tired."
Actually, I really TRIED to care after the first few posts, because it sounded at first like a pretty significant accomplishment; but I found my overall lack of knowledge with regards to the nature and history of the game to be too much of a crutch to keep up with the thread, so, yeah, I resorted to the sad attempt at a witty and funny exit.

Thanks for noticing. :)

[Mac Howard]

The criteria used for 'domination of Europe" is far too narrow. The truth about knockout competitions is that the dominant team not only doesn't always win they, in fact, SELDOM win. There is far too high a random luck factor involved when one match can see you out of the competition - the coincidence of injury with matches, the luck of the draw, bad refereeing decisions etc. In fact in the Champions League you can be eliminated without ever losing a game (which again makes a mess of the idea that being "undefeated" is spectacular).

The position of Arsenal this season makes the point. They certainly have dominated English football, few people (including myself) will doubt that they are the best team in England.

But will they win the FA Cup? No! They're not even in the Final. Are they in the Champion's league Final? No! (and for those who think this illustrates the English leagues inferiority, it was an English team that knocked them out). Do we decide Millwall (in this season's FA Cup Final and not even a Premiership side) are a superior team to Arsenal? Of course not!

Knockout competitions are fun but seldom tell us too much about the relative qualities of the teams.

If you look at the structure of the Champions League you can come up with a much better judgement based on the principle that the winners of a multi-game competition (ie a league competition) is a better measure of the best or dominant (not always the same) team.

On that basis Arsenal will be deemed the dominant English team not Man Utd or Millwall (whichever wins the final this weekend) and I think that is indisputable.

So entry to the Champions League, which requires you to win or come high up in a 36/38 match season, is a good starting point.

Also, the early stages of the Champions League are mini-league stages. In fact until recently there were two such stages. These remove some, though not all, of the random chance influence. It is therefore reasonable to include results in these stages.

So, if we look at the performance of European teams that reach the knockout stages of the Champions league we get an idea of how the various clubs have performed in Europe over the years.

Man Utd have reached the knockout stages of the Champions League in nine (I believe that's right) consecutive seasons. That's absolutely unique in European Football since the mini-leagues were introduced. No other club from any nation has come remotely near to that. They have also, of course, won the Champions League - in 1999 - which again the criteria above rules out as being meaningful.

Another reason that the Champions League is not necessarily a measure of the best team in Europe - it takes place the year after the best performance from the individual teams when many teams have lost significant players, form etc.

How often has "the double" - a team winning the Champions League and also its own national championship - occurred? Man Utd, of course, did it in 99. I suspect it has happened before but nevertheless it is unusual. How should we decide then which is the dominant team - the one that wins the Champions League title or the one that betters that team in its own league?

No, the Champions League is a great competition and overall is probably the one with the best overall level of play. But it's not a great measure of the best team because of it's knockout structure, with its vulnerability to random chance, and it's delayed playing. And to use reaching the final in two consecutive seasons as a measure raises the element of luck to far too high a priority.

What I would like to see is a European League. I would love to see the top 20 or so championship teams go into a European league for the subsequent season. I don't know how long something like that will take but I suspect it'll come eventually :)



"Lies, damn lies and statistics"

How did that get in there? :eek:

[mordhiem]

Mac, I see where you're coming from, but Man Utd really should have more than one European Cup to their name under Fergie. I think they have underachived just as much as Arsenal have.

[Mac Howard]

I think that's true, mordhiem, but only one team can win the Champions League and there are usually at least half a dozen worthy of winning it. This season Arsenal, despite being considered the best team in Europe by many knowledgeable commentators, didn't make it beyond the quarterfinals. It happens in knockout competitions. Wenger, in my opinion a much more intelligent and innovative manager than Ferguson (by his own judgement a manager of the old school), has never won the Champions League. In fact I'm not sure that he's made it to the semi-final stages yet.

Arsenal have arguably been England's premier club for three years now. They won the Premiership three seasons ago and would have won the Premiership last season if they hadn't choked over the last few games and Man Utd hadn't hit a purple patch. That would have given them 3 Premierships in a row. This season would then have been merely a confirmation that the pecking order has changed in the Premier league and that Utd were always chasing a superior team.

Utd reached a peak in 1999/00 when they first won the "treble" - Premiership, Champions League and FA Cup followed the next season by the record breaking season that I've mentioned above. Since then their results and quality of football has diminished considerably as their squad has aged and lost a few of their best players.

They now have a few promising kids - Ronaldo being the pick of the bunch - but I hope that they open up the vaults this season and bring in two or three experienced, quality players to add to these and then make a more convincing challenge to Arsenal (and maybe Chelsea).

Talking about "the changing of the guards" to me now means Utd challenging Arsenal not the other way around. Utd are currently capable of matching Arsenal in a one-off match - as the FA Cup semi-final showed - but not competing with them over a 38 match season. They may even outperform them in the Champions League because of their ability to put out an extremely skillful team occasionally (they have 12 excellent players but nothing beyond that) but they need to expand the squad to succeed in the EPL.

But back to the point. The Champions League is not a good measure of team quality. I love the competition - ESPN show the game over here and I watch every one often at 3 in a morning. You get quality teams and quality football. But the difference between success and failure is very small. Porto are in the final this season but had a linesman not made an awful offside decision to disallow a perfectly good Paul Scholes goal then Utd might well have been in the final in their stead. It is on such small events that success/failure depend in knockout competitions :(

[Francis_Cole]

]they have 12 excellent players but nothing beyond that

I wouldn't go that far. They probably have 3 players at most which most other clubs would want. Their defence (bar rio) is above average, but I wouldn't call any of them world class.
:)

It is on such small events that success/failure depend in knockout competitions

I think that is the case in all knockout compeitions, even in a competition such as the nfl you can't say the team which wins the superbowl is the best nfl team. (thats obviously why jets don't win it ;) )

[Mac Howard]

I partially agree with you. The defence is certainly their weakest area and Rio the only world class player there. But before Rio was banned, and already more than halfway through the season, Utd had the best defensive record in the Premier league and were heading Arsenal. The lack of depth showed up, of course, when Rio was banned and a half fit Brown took over.

But their real quality is up front: Giggs, van Nistelrooy, Scholes, Saha, Ronaldo - assuming Ronaldo continues his development then that is an attack to drool over and with Keane (no longer able to maraud all over the pitch but still a very effective DM) protecting the back four they should be allowed their head.

In a debate with one of the more rational Arsenal fans over on the Big Soccer board we compared the best lineups for the two clubs. We agreed that giving the two lineups' players a rating from 1 to 10 that Utd came up with 90 against Arsenal's 89. The two "best elevens" are very well matched. The difference is that Arsenal's quality doesn't plunge when a couple of injuries occur.