The Chelsea team of 2004-05 are the Greatest Football team from England since the Premiership began
Debate Rounds (4)
Round 1 Acceptance
Rounds 2-3 Arguments and rebuttal
Round 4 Rebuttal only
1. Chelsea finished that year with 95 points in the Premiership, the highest point total ever for a team.(1) As well as 29 wins which is a record. Conceded only 15 goals in a whole season which is the lowest amount a team has conceded since the 38 game premiership was introduced. Losing only one game the whole season, an away game to Manchester City which was due to a penalty(2). Simply put no team has ever dominated the domestic league as strongly.
2. Chelsea also won the league cup that year beating Manchester United over two legs in the semis as well as beating Liverpool for the trophy in the final. They only lost in the FA Cup Round 5 1-0 to Newcastle away(a team they had beaten 6-0 on aggregate during the season) with a weak team they had fielded which did not contain Cech or Lampard or Terry or Drogba on the starting team(3). That Chelsea team also were down to 9 men by the end of the game due to a red card and an unfortunate injury for Wayne Bridge.
3. Chelsea also did extremely well in Europe that year finishing top of their Champions league group. Chelsea lost their third game of the season away to Barcelona at the Nou Camp, a game they were winning 1-0 until Drogba was sent off, they avenged the 2-1 loss by beating them 4-2 at Stamford Bridge.(4) This was the Ronaldinho Deco team that was favoured to win the whole contest and won it a year later. After advancing they dismantled Bayern Munich before losing to Liverpool by 1-0 over two legs due to a very controversial goal with many feeling it did not cross the line.(5)
To conclude the Chelsea team of that year dominated the League and also won the league cup. They only lost 4 games over the whole year. None by more than goal. One to a very strong Barcelona in Spain in a game they were winning until Drogba got red carded. One to Liverpool in a goal which did not cross the line. One to Manchester city due to a penalty and one to Newcastle where they played a weak side and were down to 9 men by the end.
They lost to FC Porto in the Champion's League group stages, 2-1, no red cards or penalties, full team strength.(1) Probably more importantly losing when you have 10 men due to a red card or losing by penalty is not any better than losing purely. Drogba got two yellows for first tackling Abidal badly from behind and then for stomping Valdez. (2) That was a deserved red card and Chelsea deserved to lose that match. As for the Newcastle game, Newcastle scored in the the minute, the Chelsea red card was in the 90th, as well as the fact Lampard came on as a substitute and played for 40 minutes. Your own source states that,"if Liverpool hadn't scored, they'd almost certainly have got a penalty and seen Petr Cech get sent off. Which would have been better for them, really." so as you are using this as reliable evidence for the Match it's clear that Liverpool did not win undeservedly. Yet again another one of your sources states concerning the Man City game,"Anelka stroked home a penalty after being brought down by Paulo Ferreira, who was fortunate not to be sent off." showing that yet again Chelsea deserved to lose being by your own evidence.
Chelsea also won the league cup that year
You talk by how Chelsea were hard done by in their losses( I've proved that they were not) yet don't mention their luck. How about the luck they had in the final of that Gerrard own goal(3), 10 more minutes they would have lost that game. Or the luck they had in the semis of Damien Duffs goal going in due to poor keeping. Or the many late game winners in the premiership. At the end these "lucky" arguments usually go nowhere.
Now for a team that is truly superior to Chelsea's: Manchester United in 1999. Manchester United won the league with 91 points(4). Now before you say 95 is better than 91 there are a few things to consider.
a. Second place was 73 points. Chelsea won the league by 12 points and Man U won the league by 18 points.
b. Over 38 games a league can tell you who is better at the time, so Chelsea were the best in 2005 as Man U were in 1999. But it is very hard to compare the teams over the years, as it would require that every other team in the league would be of the same strength as they were before which they obviously would not be.
This Manchester United team won the FA cup, which is a more prestigious competition than the League Cup. This is not only because it is older and contains more teams but also because as can be seen as the top teams usually field weaker teams as Arsenal even did in the 2008 finals(5). They also won the more more prestigious completion in a more authoritarian way not needing a fluky own goal in the 80th minute but rather winning the final a comfortable 2-0.
"Chelsea also did extremely well in Europe that year"
You know what's even better than losing justifiably in the semi final? Winning the competition in the same year you win the Premiership and the FA cup. Beating Inter, Juventus(Seria A champions) and Bayern Munich(Bundesleague champions) to do it. Not losing a single game in the competition in the process. By the way you can count the fact that Manchester only lost 4 games that season to- Arsenal, Tottenham, Sheffield's Wednesday and Middlesborough in all competitions.
The Chelsea team of 04/05 are not even superior to Arsenal invincibles that went 49 games undefeated or the Manchester United team of 07-09 that won 3 league titles in a row and went to a champions league semi final and two consecutive finals winning one.
2. Your argument is dishonest and misleading. Manchester United won the league by the record point margin in the 1999-2000 season, which is the year they won only the Premiership. The year they won the treble they beat Arsenal by one point due a comeback against Tottenham on the final day with a total of 78 points. Clearly their league campaign of the year they won the treble was extremely weak. Chelsea won the league cup beating a full strength Manchester United over two legs and beating a full strength Liverpool in the final. Manchester United got to face Newcastle in the final; how was their FA cup even slightly more prestigious. Their run in Europe was also much easier. They didn't even finish top of their Champions league group only getting wins over Br�ndby FC(?). Chelsea finished top of their group over defending champions FC Porto, then going on to beat the renowned Ronaldinho Barcelona team. It is clear to anyone who watches the video you supplied and the second one was not deserved. Chelsea still beat the current La Liga champions who would go on to win the tournament the next year. Whilst United beat Inter Milan and Juventus(who finished in 8th and 6th respectively in Seria A) who would both play in the UEFA cup the next year. Chelsea and Man U both beat Bayern Munich who were Bundesleague Champs both of the times yet it didn't take Chelsea two goals in extra time to do it. The treble winning United side are overrated, they barely won the league, faced weak competition in the Champions League and FA cup.
3. You have to either defend that United or the United of 1999-2000 that had the premiership. Of course this was the United that lost in the first round of the Champions league to Real Madrid, lost in the first round of the league cup, did not play in the FA cup, lost the community shield, lost the World Club cup in the group stages and lost the intercontinental cup of that year. Clearly the greatest English team of all time. This Man Utd team is a bit like the Arsenal invincibles, they did well because they had no other trophies to compete for. Chelsea got more points than this team, more wins, better goal difference and played better teams despite having won the majority of their other competitions which they had to focus on. The united team of 99-00 proves one thing about the treble winning side of the year before. It was lucky and undeserving and never came close to representing it self well again. The Man U team of 98-99 were overachievers, winning more than a side of that quality to have hoped for.
4. The United team of 07-09 never even proved itself as being the best team in England. It barely squeaked past Chelsea that year in the league before losing to them in the FA cup final. Chelsea also reached the Champions league semi final that year. unlike Man U who were knocked out 3-0 by AC Milan Chelsea went out on penalties. Very similar story in 2008 where Man U beat Chelsea by penalties to win the trophy. Man U beat Chelsea by two points in the league and beat them by penalties to win the community shield. Even in the next year Chelsea went out to Barcelona on the away goal rule whilst Man U got soundly beaten 2-0 in the final. Were Man U the best team in England at this point? yes, but not by much. Certainly not to the extent Chelsea were in 2004-05.
They didnt lost a sigle game. Having to play Barcelona and Bayern Munich in a single group is pretty difficult. Certainyl much harder than a group containing CSKA Moscow and FC Porto as the two best sides. "renowned Ronaldinho Barcelona team", the team which never beat an English team that had 11 men? A team which won La Liga championships against a joke of a Real Marid team and had a 12th man on their team almost their entire Champions league run. Inter Milan had Ronaldo, Robberto Baggio, Pirlo and Zanetti. By the way this is late 90's Ronaldo and Baggio, how can beating them over two legs be nothing less than impressive. That "mediocre" Juventus team had been in the previous 3 champions league finals, winning the first one. Though it did have a joke of a team consisting of world player of the year Zidane, Thierry Henry, Del Piero and Inzaghi. The teams Manchester United beat in Europe were far supieror to the ones Chelsea had beaten.
Your argument is dishonest and misleading. Manchester United won the league by the record point margin in the 1999-2000 season, which is the year they won only the Premiership
This team won a treble then dominated the league when they decided to focus on it. Man U didn't enter the FA cup that year and losing to the Champions league winners Real Madrid in the quarter finals is still a fantstic achievement. The point still remains that between 22nd of May 1999 and the 21st of May 2000 Man Utd had won the champions league beating an Inter Milan team which had Ronaldo and Baggio,a juventus team of ZIdane, del Piero, Henry and Inzahi as well as a Bayern Munich team consisting of Matthaus and Kahn. They had also won the FA cup beating Newcastle as well as a record victory in the premier league. This is all within a year.
The United team of 07-09 never even proved itself as being the best team in England.
3 league titles, 2 champions league finals one of which they won. In the other year they lost in the semis to the evential winners taking a game at home. A fifa world club championship, winning the two community shields it appeared in, setting the all time record for most games gone without conceeding a goal and having the world player of the year win it on their team. Manchester United proved beyond a shadow of a doubt they were the top team in Britain and only Barcelona could really contend over who was the best team in the World. Chelsea never came close to proving they were the best in Europe. In Chelsea's time of 04-06 it would be either AC Milan or Barcelona.
simple fact they dominated the Arsenal team of that year.
They drew both games they played with Arsenal in the 04-05 season. THe thing is Arsenal lost 0 games in 03-04 yet lost 5 in the next season, none of which were to CHelsea. Essentially they were a weaker team than before. You cant say the arsenal team of the year before would have lost to Bolton or Birmingham city in the league.
Ran out of time
By the way this is late 90's Ronaldo and Baggio, how can beating them over two legs be nothing less than impressive.
1. In Serie A that year Inter Milan won 13 games and lost 14 games not even qualifying for the next year's champions league. (1) This is the Roberto Baggio that got 9 goals in his entire time at Inter Milan? The guy was 31 years old by the time he joined and was clearly past his prime. Ronaldo only got 15 goals in all competitons that year. Two great players but neither were good that year as clearly shown by the fact that Inter got more losses than wins in Serie A that year.
Though it did have a joke of a team consisting of world player of the year Zidane, Thierry Henry, Del Piero and Inzaghi
2. Del Piero got a knee injury at the start of the season and didnt even play in the champions league matches. Henry got 3 goals his entire time at Inter and was largly an unknown player at this time. The fact remains they finished 6th in Serie A that year and failed to qualify for the UEFA cup the previous year.
A team which won La Liga championships against a joke of a Real Marid team and had a 12th man on their team almost their entire Champions league run.
3. The previous 3 FIFA world players of the years before 2004 were Figo, Ronaldo and Zidane who were all Real Madrid players.(2) That Madrid team came second in La Liga in 2004-05 beating third place by 15 points. They lost in extra time to Juventus (the Italian Champions that year by 9 points) in the Champions league. What evidence do you have for bais for Barceona in football? At the end of the day they were La Liga champions that year and the year after won the champions league. That was a stronger squad than any Manchester United had to beat when they won the treble.
This team won a treble then dominated the league when they decided to focus on it.
4. Yet again you have to defend one of them. Either the Man U side that won the league by one point and beat Bayern Munich due to 2 stoppage time goals or the Man U team that got 93 points in the league but failed to qualify in any other tournaments as I mentioned earlier. This is a debate of which side from a specific year achieved the most.
"The point still remains that between 22nd of May 1999 and the 21st of May 2000 Man Utd had won the champions league beating an Inter Milan team which had Ronaldo and Baggio,a juventus team of ZIdane, del Piero, Henry and Inzahi as well as a Bayern Munich team consisting of Matthaus and Kahn. They had also won the FA cup beating Newcastle as well as a record victory in the premier league." Man U beat the ,"great" Italian sides before the 22nd of May 1999. By the 21st of May 2000 Man Utd had already been knocked out of the Champions league, the FA cup, the super cup, the community shield and the world club cup.
3 league titles, 2 champions league finals one of which they won. In the other year they lost in the semis to the evential winners taking a game at home.
5. Between the 07 season and the 08 season Manchester United spent 47 million and took 3 million in. (3) In the next season they spent a further 30 million bringing Berbatov in. You have to pick one year to demonstrate this team being better than the Chelsea team as it changed significantly over the years. Over the 3 years they won the premiership this Man U team won by a cumulative 12 points, which is what Chelsea won by in a single season. As proved earlier this Manchester United team never raelly proved to be the best in Britain. It did not have the level of domination that Chelsea enjoyed in the league.
1. Chelsea team of 2004-05 got 95 points. Having the most points, more wins and conceeded the fewest goals of any team in Premiership history. Basically it had the most dominat league season of all time
2. It beat Manchester United over two legs for the cup and liverpoo
buggy9999 forfeited this round.
No votes have been placed for this debate.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.