Rankings of the greatest Premier League Champions since 1992/93

[apollo_creed]

1 Chelsea 38 29 8 1 72 15 – 95 - 04/05
1 Manchester United 38 28 7 3 97 45 – 91 - 99/00
1 Manchester United 38 27 6 5 80 22 – 87 - 07/08
1 Arsenal 38 26 12 0 73 26 – 90 - 03/04
1 Chelsea 38 29 4 5 72 22 – 91 - 05/06
1 Blackburn Rovers 42 27 8 7 80 39 – 89 - 94/95
1 Manchester United 38 28 5 5 83 27 – 89 - 06/07
1 Manchester United 42 27 11 4 80 38 – 92 - 93/94
1 Arsenal 38 26 9 3 79 36 – 87 - 01/02
1 Manchester United 38 24 8 6 79 31 – 80 - 00/01
1 Manchester United 38 25 8 5 74 34 – 83 - 02/03
1 Manchester United 38 25 7 6 73 35 – 82 - 95/96
1 Manchester United 42 24 12 6 67 31 – 84 - 92/93
1 Arsenal 38 23 9 6 68 33 - 78 - 97/98
1 Manchester United 38 22 13 3 80 37 – 79 - 98/99
1 Manchester United 38 28 6 4 68 24 – 90 - 08/09
1 Manchester United 38 21 12 5 76 44 – 75 - 96/97

Thoughts?

Probably be easier and more accurate to rank them on the decade rather than going too far back when there fewer games shown, and most of us wouldn't have seen much - nonetheless.

It's very difficult to do this. I tried to consider a few other factors but I mean seriously apart from statistics what really counts?
Quality of contenders maybe but going too far back is difficult and the general standard is much higher now than it was in 92/93.

So basically - don't abuse me because this isn't an exact science and I can only really accurately rate the one's of this decade (and even the one's at the start require a good memory and trying to remember the definitive moments and quality of football in that year - it's near impossible)

I'll probably try and rate the 10 winners for this decade and we can all probably debate that with more flow and accuracy.

 

[smiddaz123]

Needs more Manchester United.....

In all honesty though, this is one for the older football fans. Wouldn't have a clue about the earlier sides.

 

[that_dood]

I would have thought any team that doesn't lose would have to be at the top of the list.

The Invincibles are miles ahead of any other champions IMO.

 

[apollo_creed]

I would have thought any team that doesn't lose would have to be at the top of the list.

The Invincibles are miles ahead of any other champions IMO.

You mean the Chelsea side who won 3 more games, finished with 5 more points, lost one game (1-0 to a penalty), conceded 15 goals in a season and finished with a goal difference +10 better than your side.

err yeah.

keep the bias to yourself please.

 

[apollo_creed]

Manchester United of 99/00, when they were at the peak of their powers scoring 97 goals is ridiculous.

The defence obviously suffered (or wasn't great - I didn't watch football regularly/at all aside from highlights then) but that is an incredible effort.

 

[apollo_creed]

95
92
91
91
90 (Arsenal's 'invincible's - equal fifth place - statistically)
90
89
89
87
87
84
83
82
80
79
78
75

 

[that_dood]

keep the bias to yourself please.

I did say in my opinion.

But any team that can go through a season undefeated deserves to be the best.

The Chelsea team did get more points and more wins, but they did lose a game and showed they were beatable.

The Arsenal team was not beatable over 38 games.

 

[apollo_creed]

I did say in my opinion.

But any team that can go through a season undefeated deserves to be the best.

The Chelsea team did get more points and more wins, but they did lose a game and showed they were beatable.

The Arsenal team was not beatable over 38 games.

there we have it.

from now on the winner of the premier league will be the team who loses the least games.

champions win mate. not draw alot.

 

[apollo_creed]

and that also means liverpool won the title last year.

take that manchester united.

 

[smiddaz123]

I did say in my opinion.

But any team that can go through a season undefeated deserves to be the best.

The Chelsea team did get more points and more wins, but they did lose a game and showed they were beatable.

The Arsenal team was not beatable over 38 games.

How about we order them from least games lost to most games lost, and that can be the order in how good they are. Sound good?

 

[smiddaz123]

and that also means liverpool won the title last year.

take that manchester united.

His statistic making Liverpool the best should be enough to tell him it shouldn't be used.

 

[that_dood]

Well not only did they not lose a game, they got more points than anyone else. They also won more games than everyone else that season and they finsihed miles ahead on points that the second placed team.

I can see I won't win this though argument though.

 

[apollo_creed]

lack of competition doesn't make you better.

 

[that_dood]

lack of competition doesn't make you better.

There was competition. It is just Arsenal were miles above that season.

Also I rate the Chelsea team that scored all those points as on par with the Invinclibles, it is just they lost a game.

 

[ShearMagic9]

But won more games too

 

[Duncan Disorderly]

The only ranking that sticks out for me is Blackburn. I think looking at purely statistics makes that side seem greater than it actually was. From memory they went out in straight sets in the Uefa, League and FA Cups which meant they could put all their energy into the league, while other clubs in the list didn't have the luxery of focusing only on the league and were good enough to proceed further in all competitions. Another criticism would be how heavily reliant Blackburn were on SAS up front and it probably masked other weaknesses in the squad such as Robbie Slater, Mike Newell and Bobby Mimms. I may sound like i'm bashing them so i'll mention some of the other good players they had with Batty, Hendry, Berg, Sherwood and Gallacher. Overall though It's a very good effort .

 

[apollo_creed]

Manchester United's title winning side of last season is clear evidence of the deceptiveness of statistics.

they were average through much of the season - finding wins where sometimes not deserved and generally struggling.

they're supreme winners though and quality of football, and dominance aside they extract wins from closely fought situations/matches better than the rest. which is why they're champions.

they're first two (of the current three in a row) title winning teams had a fluency about them, a constant dominance and they held their rivals - closely fought title wins (relevant to all three but particularly the first two).

last seasons side just didn't do it for me. I thought Liverpool was the better team over the season but they didn't have that won about 80% of first division titles in the last fifteen years sort of quality.

 

[smiddaz123]

^^^ Somewhat agree.

United are more a solid unit that grinds results out, compared to the sides like the recent Chelsea/Arsenal winners that generally butt****ed all opposition.

Although I'd argue against thinking Liverpool were the better team over the season. They dropped points to teams like Wigan, United didn't. That was pretty much the difference.

 

[Boro]

The only ranking that sticks out for me is Blackburn. I think looking at purely statistics makes that side seem greater than it actually was. From memory they went out in straight sets in the Uefa, League and FA Cups which meant they could put all their energy into the league, while other clubs in the list didn't have the luxery of focusing only on the league and were good enough to proceed further in all competitions. Another criticism would be how heavily reliant Blackburn were on SAS up front and it probably masked other weaknesses in the squad such as Robbie Slater, Mike Newell and Bobby Mimms. I may sound like i'm bashing them so i'll mention some of the other good players they had with Batty, Hendry, Berg, Sherwood and Gallacher. Overall though It's a very good effort .

They were deserving winners that season, but you are correct, they certainly had their weaknesses. They also lost a match 5 or 6 nil that season which probably shows that they weren't brilliant.

Robbie Slater at his best was a very good player btw. Also was Tim Flowers their keeper? or Mimms? judging a side on their reserve keeper is a bit harsh if that's what he was

 

[apollo_creed]

most of United's title winning teams were reasonably-very dominant.

not much different to those Chelsea and Arsenal teams.

however, last seasons team was the most average of the three (in terms of performances) by quite a distance. the points tally doesn't tell the whole story. not even close to it.

while praising united's 97 goals in a season (I actually remember those days - I remember that season and towards the end of it really wanting them to achieve the 100 goal mark) you can't be equally complimentary to a defence conceding 15 goals over a 38 game season. that's ridiculous really.

and scoring nearly 5 times that amount.

so a goal difference ratio of 5:1.

 

[Boro]

If I were choosing the best side it wouldn't be the Chelsea team mainly because their football wasn't as pleasing to the eye as either the Arsenal side or the Unite treble winning team. In order it would be United 99/00 then Arsenal's Invincibles then the dominant Chelsea as the top 3...

 

[Crimson King]

Our title last season was based upon that defence record we set. We played a very average style of football and just got the job done week in, week out. Compared to 99-00 where we scored for fun. Perhaps we had our eyes set on the UCL last season.

Mourinho's first season as the manager of Chelsea was vintage football. They had the perfect mix of attack (outstanding wingplay I might add) and defence.

The knock on 'the invincibles' will always be that they only won the one premiership. With a consistent style and flow, though. Credit to them for that.

 

[Duncan Disorderly]

They were deserving winners that season, but you are correct, they certainly had their weaknesses. They also lost a match 5 or 6 nil that season which probably shows that they weren't brilliant.

Robbie Slater at his best was a very good player btw. Also was Tim Flowers their keeper? or Mimms? judging a side on their reserve keeper is a bit harsh if that's what he was

Flowers was number one keeper that season. I mentioned Mimms along with Slater as lesser players as there were only two or three players allowed on the bench in the mid 90's and those two seemed to be constants on Blackburn's subs bench that season. I'm also not too fond of Mimms from his time at Everton filling in for Neville Southall. He shoulders much of the blame for those across Stanley Park pipping us to the league and cup double in 1986 .

 

[ashley12]

It all comes down to what criteria you use to mark the teams down. Is the fact that a team was fighting on multiple fronts, such as 08/09 United and other teams a positive to winning the title or not accounted for. Likewise, is a team "winning ugly" a testament to a team being able to grind it out and win games, as is required in a 38 games season, or a negative because the football played wasnt good enough to give the viewer a semi...

Its a decent question, and would spark some decent debate, but unfortunately most of us either wouldnt have been football fans for the most of it or wouldnt have had access to regular foxtel until recent years to actually watch the majority of the games, so its a tricky one for the majority of the forum...

However, I think your initial list is about right, Chelsea were the sex during the early Mourinho years and IMO better then the invincibles themselves, and the rest you can make arguements one way or the other. The treble winning team IMO should be higher for actually taking the treble, Im weighing this in but if you arent, yeah, its about right...

 

[apollo_creed]

it's a good question. do you rank the team higher for other achievements?

not that you can rank them higher for other achievements but as you say - having other competitions does distract and makes it more difficult. (even though better sides, usually have larger squads)