The glory of the Treble vs the aura of Invincibility - Who wins?

'Invincible' Arsenal of 2003-04 season

City’s defeat against Chelsea last week ensured another season where a team would not go unbeaten, and reminded people how strong and consistent the Invincibles actually were. This has lead to re-kindling of a very common debate, which of the United’s treble winning team of 1999 and Arsenal‘s Invincibles of 2004 were a greater team. There are many ways to look around this, and it is a very interesting debate, with no obvious answer. I cannot claim to be a neutral on this topic, and hence my views are obviously null and void. So I decided to list the points “for” and “against” both the teams, and will let you decide.

Since football ‘began’ in 1992, title-winning teams have otherwise, on average, lost about five games over the season. For it to be a record already out of reach for the oil-grubby mitts of the most lavishly assembled squad in history, emphasises what a monumental task it is to go the whole season undefeated. I have selected random criteria.

P. S. Let me clarify at the outset that both the achievements were miraculous and we were fortunate to witness both of them, this is only a random exercise.

The glory of the Treble

1. Which of these records can be achieved again or bettered?

Apart from Preston’s 22 match unbeaten season in 1889, Arsenal’s Invincibles have not been beaten, or even come close to. As mentioned, champion teams lose approximately 5 matches a season. Chelsea’s team of 2005 lost only 1 match all season, but they lost early in October, so they didn’t have the pressure of chasing this record. AC Milan of the 90′s has come very close, but the record stands. Apart from United, Barcelona and Internazionale have achieved the treble in the recent past, in fact Barcelona won 6 trophies last season alone (that too, in a two team league, where they would defeat Real with relative ease). From that aspect the Invincible’s seem a bigger achievement.

A record still untouched

2. What would fans prefer?

Ask any Arsenal fan if given a choice, next season would he prefer the FA Cup, EPL, and the Champions Trophy, or prefer to stay unbeaten and just win the EPL, they would choose the treble, hands down. Does that make the treble a bigger achievement?

Every fans' dream – three trophies in one season

3. Who lost more games?

Some say the Invincible’s is a misnomer, because in all competitions that season, Arsenal lost 6 games, though none of them was in the league, United on the other hand in 1999, lost only 4 games in the entire season, though 3 of them were in the league. Arsenal faithfuls argue that they lost games in the FA Cup and the League Cup, as they played second string teams there, but the fact is that they did lose.

4. Who was more lucky?

Arsenal had their slice of luck when RvN missed his penalty deep into injury time at Old Trafford, hence helping helping Arsenal to a draw. Apart from this one incident, luck wasn’t required much else. United got lucky when Bergkamp’s penalty was brilliantly saved by Schmeichel, in a match that could have turned the title race around. Also not the forget the last 2 minutes of the Champions League final, and that match in general. Fair to say, fortune played quite a role in the 98-99 treble winning season.

Lucky Winners?

5. Who had a stronger first XI?

This is the only criteria which seems reliable, considering all others fail to come to a conclusion, so let’s formulate a combined XI from the Trebles and the Invincibles.

GK: Schmeichel, the best keeper the league has ever seen, and was clearly better than Lehmann.

RB: Neville, Lauren was good, but Neville has been consistent for long, and in 98-99 he was certainly better.

CB: Stam and Campbell. Again, easy choices, one from each.

LB: Ashley Cole, he might still be amongst the top LB’s in England, at his peak he certainly was the best in the world.

RW: Beckham, I am not a fan, but in 98-99, he was too good, no competition.

CM: Keane and Vieria. Both defensive midfielders with a penchant for violence, but can’t leave either of them out.

LW: Pires, over the length of the entire career, Giggs was certainly better than Pires, but in 2003-04, Pires was at his peak, and probably better than Giggs of 98-99. This is a controversial and tough decision though.

CF: Henry and Bergkamp. I might be accused of being biased here, but none of United’s strikers in 98-99n were individually better than these two. Agreed United had a bigger squad of forwards, but player vs player, these two were unbeatable.

Best strike partnership ever?

Arsenal win this marginally 6-5, but just marginally, and Giggs vs Pires remains an open debate. Moreover United’s team certainly had more squad depth than Arsenal’s.

Hence I am where I began, as interesting as the debate is, I haven’t come to a conclusion yet. Two legendary teams, why don’t you give your views as to which is a better achievement.

P. S. Frankly, just because I think the Invincibles will never be repeated again, I think my vote goes to them. Also the Chelsea team of 2004-05 was better than both in my opinion. I mean, they lost once, amassed 95 points and conceded only 15 goals that season, now that was awesome.