deacvision7
Mod Emeritus
Lol at Micah saying things weren't going Man City's way and using Kyle Walker not starting as an example
Wut
Wut
Yeah. Give Inter a lot of credit. Worked their collective asses off and were absolutely in that game.i think he was talking about how the first half wasn't exactly being played in a style to City's liking
Ummm the Prem was very good in the late 90s. This was an undereducated comment you madePep won 14 titles in 4 years at Barcelona. He just won a fucking treble in a league that is a lot deeper than it was the last time an English team managed to do it. I don't care who is on your team. That's insane.
Last point aside as it’s correct, the Prem is absolutely deeper and better overall today than it was in the 90s. The money that even relegation candidates can spend rivals the best teams in most other European leagues other than Madrid/Bayern/PSG. Every single Prem team sent multiple players to the WC, I believe. The treble means more as a pure sporting exercise because winning the Prem/UCL now is harder, but it means less because City is state-backed and also likely cheated.Ummm the Prem was very good in the late 90s. This was an undereducated comment you made
Arsenal then was better than Arsenal today
Chelsea was miles better
Leeds was damn good in the late 90s/early 2000s
There is a reason 79 points won the league in 1998/99. The Prem was far more balanced back then.
And United did it without cooking their financial books and using players that they developed through their academy
The 2008 Man United team does not beat this City team in a best of 7. As good as they were, this City team has a level of depth quality that would win over a series, IMO.That said
Gun to my head and with the use of a time machine...
I think this Man City team win a best of 7 series against the 99 team in 6 or 7
The 2008 Man United team beats both in 5 or 6
Don't mistake winning the league with 79 points for the league being deeper or better in 1999. A grand total of SIX teams had a positive goal differential that season. One of them barely managed to get there.Ummm the Prem was very good in the late 90s. This was an undereducated comment you made
Arsenal then was better than Arsenal today
Chelsea was miles better
Leeds was damn good in the late 90s/early 2000s
There is a reason 79 points won the league in 1998/99. The Prem was far more balanced back then.
And United did it without cooking their financial books and using players that they developed through their academy
Doesn’t that by definition mean more parity?Don't mistake winning the league with 79 points for the league being deeper or better in 1999. A grand total of SIX teams had a positive goal differential that season. One of them barely managed to get there.
But yeah, the next two lines of your next post were accurate.
All the extra money to the Prem now is great but the Haves have a lot more today than the Have Nots compared to the late 1990s. Even if the Have Nots have more now than they did then the Haves have more comparativelyLast point aside as it’s correct, the Prem is absolutely deeper and better overall today than it was in the 90s. The money that even relegation candidates can spend rivals the best teams in most other European leagues other than Madrid/Bayern/PSG. Every single Prem team sent multiple players to the WC, I believe. The treble means more as a pure sporting exercise because winning the Prem/UCL now is harder, but it means less because City is state-backed and also likely cheated.
No. 10 teams had positive goal differentials this year. There is no doubt there are more "good" teams in the EPL now than there were 20 years ago. The league is full of cash. Far superior position to where it was 25 years ago. Let's be clear, winning a treble was still and amazing thing back then. But absolutely harder to do today.Doesn’t that by definition mean more parity?