Poll for the best 5 Football club teams in history:

[Matt]

Yeah but the Egyptian league isn't really the same as the Premier League, is it?

[-A-]

This doesn't really prove much, but I was looking for other unbeaten season in domestic leagues and found this really interesting:

[Dynamite]

Fram Reykjavik 1913-1918 really deserve to be in this list. Phenomenal unbeaten streak.

Edited March 15, 2009 by Dynamite

[HailtotheYo]

No, because that's one season of success. I'm pretty much entirely discounting domestic cups and domestic leagues aren't nearly as significant as the European Cup/CL. Yes, United won 3 Premierships in a row, but the league simply wasn't as good as it is now. Liverpool were worse (relatively speaking) than they are now, Arsenal were miles away from becoming the Invincibles and Chelsea weren't remotely the force they are now. Compare the 1999 Premier League to the present one - until 1999, United struggled to achieve anything in Europe despite being the dominant force in English football. Nowadays, the 5th places team in the Premier League can win the Champions League. That's because English football was far, far worse back then.

We've pretty much entirely discounted the Torino team that won 5 scudettos in a row and only faltered after that because almost all of their players were killed in a plane crash. We're ignoring a Nottingham Forest team that retained the European Cup. We're ignoring the Bayern team that won 3 European Cups in a row. We're ignoring every team in the history of South America.

EDIT:

After all, it seems this debate is nothing to do with actual FOOTBALL, and more to do with silverware (seeing as that is exactly how the list above came into existance).

No, you're right, the Invincibles were the better team despite losing cup matches and European matches over the 3 year period. They were the better side, they just lost more meaningful matches.

So where do you draw that line of shitty/dominant with the EPL then ? I mean if the fifth place team could win the CL, wouldn't a team that went through that league undefeated merit "best ever" kind of consideration ? During 03/04 they went to the semifinals of both domestic cups and made the quarters of the European Cup. As far as a single season goes, yeah they're easily in the discussion.

However, since apparently the only correct way to judge it is by silverware. They had the League trophy and that's it. Middlesborough though, despite finishing 11th in the table and 40 points behind them was clearly just as good.

Dynasties, or the greates teams over the course of soccer history are another discussion. Which one is this ? If it's about single seasons then Arsenal is in the conversation.

[Jam]

Munich 2001 don't deserve to be on there, as I think Leeds would of beat them in the final that year. Didn't they only win Champions League on pens that year.

What bout Old Etonians 1870-1900? They seemed to win shit loads of FA Cups

[-A-]

So where do you draw that line of shitty/dominant with the EPL then ? I mean if the fifth place team could win the CL, wouldn't a team that went through that league undefeated merit "best ever" kind of consideration ? During 03/04 they went to the semifinals of both domestic cups and made the quarters of the European Cup. As far as a single season goes, yeah they're easily in the discussion.

Single season performance? Yes. Top 5 teams of all time? No. There are many teams that have equally good seasons and they've won consecutive European Cups which is a far better indicator a good team than an unbeaten season in a domestic league. Let's be honest, if a team wins the European cup but loses a couple of matches in the league, are they better than a team that makes it to the quarters of the CL, loses in both cup competitions and goes unbeaten? To win the league unbeaten involves a vast number of matches against weaker opponents than matches in the CL. There are multiple teams that have won consecutive European Cups, I judge that to be an inherently more impressive achievement than an unbeaten season domestically.

However, since apparently the only correct way to judge it is by silverware. They had the League trophy and that's it. Middlesborough though, despite finishing 11th in the table and 40 points behind them was clearly just as good.

No, Middlesbrough were much worse, that is a terrible point.

Dynasties, or the greates teams over the course of soccer history are another discussion. Which one is this ? If it's about single seasons then Arsenal is in the conversation.

But this isn't a single season performance. And if we're judging single season performances, remember that Arsenal were thrashed at home to Inter as part of the 'unbeaten season' and lost in both cup competitions. If you're saying that their football was prettier, that's really pretty pointless. They didn't win as many competitions as any of the teams on this list, so they shouldn't be included.

[J-Rod]

Absolute joke that there isn't a Man Utd squad on that list

How does the treble winning squad not "deserve" to be on it but the Bayern Munich team of 2001 does? And Torino? Has anybody actually seen Torino play in the 1940's? They won something like 5 Serie A titles but had no success in Europe watsoever. Even the Lisbon Lions deserves a mention as well.

[HailtotheYo]

Single season performance? Yes. Top 5 teams of all time? No. There are many teams that have equally good seasons and they've won consecutive European Cups which is a far better indicator a good team than an unbeaten season in a domestic league. Let's be honest, if a team wins the European cup but loses a couple of matches in the league, are they better than a team that makes it to the quarters of the CL, loses in both cup competitions and goes unbeaten? To win the league unbeaten involves a vast number of matches against weaker opponents than matches in the CL. There are multiple teams that have won consecutive European Cups, I judge that to be an inherently more impressive achievement than an unbeaten season domestically.

Consecutive European Cups would mean more than one season right ? I'm qualifying the season, not Arsenal as one of the five top clubs in soccer history. You're bringing in much more subjectivity into this. First of all, the teams in the Euro Cup are based on the year prior. So, in actuality the team that wins the Euro Cup may not be the best team in their league in the year in which they win the cup. A team that wins the Euro Cup can also come from a league that isn't as good as another. In '04, Porto won it. They had to deal with the Portuguese League all year as opposed to the EPL, La Liga, etc. But, since they won the CL, you're saying that you crown them the best team of that year ? What about Liverpool, who won the CL in '05 but didn't finish better than 3rd in the 04-05/05-06 ? They were really better right ? I mean they beat the better teams despite not being able to fully overcome that vast number of matches against the weaker opponents.

I know how this is probably coming off, but I'm doing it merely to illustrate the point. Using a single thing to qualify an entire season for multiple teams/leagues isn't exactly a good way to do it, especially when the qualification for it isn't based on that year at all.

No, Middlesbrough were much worse, that is a terrible point.

How so ? They had just as much silverware as Arsenal did, and their silverware came against the teams that were playing the best during that season.

But this isn't a single season performance. And if we're judging single season performances, remember that Arsenal were thrashed at home to Inter as part of the 'unbeaten season' and lost in both cup competitions. If you're saying that their football was prettier, that's really pretty pointless. They didn't win as many competitions as any of the teams on this list, so they shouldn't be included.

Who said anyting about how the football looked ? I didn't. I'm merely talking about the fact that they went as far as the Quarters in EVERY competition that year all the while they managed not to lose in the league. I'm curious as to what the list looks like for other teams in regards to those peramiters.

[Guest Mr. Potato Head]

When I was in elementary school, we'd sometimes play soccer at recess. I remember one time, Steve Kuntz, Kyle McCabe and Brian Burton were all on the same team (as was I, but I was keeper and I sucked). I think we even had Bryan Germann and Kyle Bauman even though they're a year younger than us. We were fucking dominant. We should be in that poll.

[-A-]

Consecutive European Cups would mean more than one season right ? I'm qualifying the season, not Arsenal as one of the five top clubs in soccer history

This thread is about the top 5 teams in history, the only person talking about best single season is you. If you want to have that discussion, then I think it merits its own thread because it's a clearly different discussion than this one. My point is simple - I think winning back-to-back European Cups is a bigger achievement than winning a domestic league unbeaten (particularly because the back-to-back winners tended to win their league as well.) Arsenal went undefeated against the weakest United team of the last 10 years, the weakest Liverpool team of the last 30 years and the league had yet to see the full force of Abrahmovic's Chelsea.

First of all, the teams in the Euro Cup are based on the year prior. So, in actuality the team that wins the Euro Cup may not be the best team in their league in the year in which they win the cup. A team that wins the Euro Cup can also come from a league that isn't as good as another. In '04, Porto won it. They had to deal with the Portuguese League all year as opposed to the EPL, La Liga, etc. But, since they won the CL, you're saying that you crown them the best team of that year?

Am I? I must have missed that post. I'm saying that I believe the CL is a better indicator of a good team than a domestic league. There have been upset winners of the league. There have been upset winner of the CL. There have been upset winners of every sports competition in the history of time, what point are you trying to prove? I say that the European Cup is better than a domestic league in determining a better team, barring exceptional circumstances like the current situation where 4 of the 5 best teams in Europe play in England. Oh shit, Blackburn won the Premiership, suddenly the league is worthless!

What about Liverpool, who won the CL in '05 but didn't finish better than 3rd in the 04-05/05-06 ? They were really better right ? I mean they beat the better teams despite not being able to fully overcome that vast number of matches against the weaker opponents.

Where has this come from? I say that multiple-time winners of the Champions League are better than a team that won their domestic league unbeaten and lost in the 3 other competitions and you think you can disprove this by saying that a one-off winner of the competition is worse than someone? I do not care about single season performance when judging the top 5 teams in history, how many times do you have to be told this?

No, Middlesbrough were much worse, that is a terrible point.

How so ? They had just as much silverware as Arsenal did, and their silverware came against the teams that were playing the best during that season.

Because I'm not saying that one trophy is exactly the same in importance as every other trophy and I'm baffled as to where you think I implied that the League Cup was an indicator of success. In fact, haven't I consistently said that I think the European Cup is more important than a domestic league? Doesn't that strongly suggest I don't think that one trophy is exactly as important as any another? Middlesbrough won one trophy and performed poorly in the league, they are not in the best 5 teams in the history of football. Arsenal dominated the league, didn't make it to the final of either domestic cup and lost in the quarter final of the CL. They didn't even make it to the quarter finals of the competition in the season before or after.

Who said anyting about how the football looked ? I didn't. I'm merely talking about the fact that they went as far as the Quarters in EVERY competition that year all the while they managed not to lose in the league. I'm curious as to what the list looks like for other teams in regards to those peramiters.

I DON'T CARE ABOUT A SINGLE SEASON. That is not what this thread is about. Milan won 3 European Cups in a row and went unbeaten in Serie A during that period. Real Madrid won FIVE European Cups in a row. Ajax won 3 European Cups in a row and 2 domestic titles in those years in the early 70s. They went unbeaten in the Eredivisie AND won the European cup in 1995. Liverpool won 7 league titles in 9 years and 4 European Cups in that time. No single season can possibly put a team in the top 5 in the history of the sport (especially when it only featured one trophy out of 4.) How can you argue that a team is better without some kind of proof?

Edited March 15, 2009 by -A-

[Pesci]

Absolute joke that there isn't a Man Utd squad on that list

How does the treble winning squad not "deserve" to be on it but the Bayern Munich team of 2001 does? And Torino? Has anybody actually seen Torino play in the 1940's? They won something like 5 Serie A titles but had no success in Europe watsoever. Even the Lisbon Lions deserves a mention as well.

That's because there were no European trophies back then

[HailtotheYo]

Hey -A-

Liverpool 1977-1978

Milan 1989-1990

Santos 1962-1963

Bayern Munich 2001

Juventus 1985

Ajax 1995

Benfica 1961-1962

Those are seven of the choices in this poll. Those teams don't seem to encompass more than a single season. That's why I asked the question initially.

The Liverpool team I referenced in winning the CL is in response to your lack of importance expressed about the League, and subsequent importance placed on the CL. The two years responsible for Liverpool winning the CL (IE - the year they qualified, and the year they one it) saw them finish no better than 3rd in the league. So what does the CL title really tell about them ? Milan's 06/07 CL title came in the year that saw them fourth in their league. So it's opinion as to which is more telling.

[-A-]

Well, admittedly I know nothing about the Santos or Benfica teams, but I'm pretty sure that doron's including two years when it's two seasons. Bayern, Juventus and Ajax being one year implies that's his interpretation (one season success he uses one year, two seasons he uses two years.) The Liverpool and Milan teams had success over the course of many, many seasons despite what he's chosen to describe them as. The Ajax team went unbeaten in their league (as Arsenal did) AND won the European Cup. So they can make a good claim for achieving more than Arsenal. Added to that ... I don't really care about his nominees. We've already talked about how arbitrary they are and we've moved on from them. Benfica, Juventus and Bayern. You've picked out the three most baffling inclusions on the list and used them as justification for one season of Arsenal success getting them on the list. Isn't that justification for those nominees being flawed?

The Liverpool team I referenced in winning the CL is in response to your lack of importance expressed about the League, and subsequent importance placed on the CL. The two years responsible for Liverpool winning the CL (IE - the year they qualified, and the year they one it) saw them finish no better than 3rd in the league. So what does the CL title really tell about them ? Milan's 06/07 CL title came in the year that saw them fourth in their league. So it's opinion as to which is more telling.

What does one CL victory tell us about a team? That they aren't worthy of being in the top 5 teams in history. I agree. Nowhere have I said that a single CL victory makes you eligible for that, so why do you bring it up? I haven't said Liverpool of 2004 should be considered because I don't think they should, so what point are you proving? Yes, you have found one example of a team who could win the CL but not the league, but there are hundreds of examples of teams who could win their domestic league but not the CL. What can we prove here? It's not simply a case of CL winners are ALWAYS better than league winners and it's not a case of league winners ALWAYS being better than CL winners. Is that surprising?

If you want to discredit multiple CL-winning teams then the only real example is Nottingham Forest, who won the league in '78, then the European Cup in the next two years and never won a league title after that. They are the weakest team to defend the European Cup and they were still an excellent, excellent team.

Edited March 15, 2009 by -A-

[Colossus]

Just to add, Benfica 61-62 dominated the Europe. Won 2 back-to-back CL, one against Barça, other against the King of Football ( Real Madrid). In the same decade, went to 5 CL finals, lost against Man Utd, Inter and Milan, were in the CL final 3 times in a row, were the basis for the 66' National Team (out of the Starting Eleven, 10 were from Benfica). They dominated internally as well, with only the Best Sporting Squad ever to try to dethrone them (and failing)

It had great Players: Águas (greatest scorer ever for the club), Coluna, Simões and Eusebio. Although, Eusébio wasn't really important in the team, not nearly as important as Águas.

Also, Santos had Pelé and Garrincha. It's widely considered as the best team in Brazilian football history. Dominated the Libertadores, with only Penãrol stopping their domination

Edited March 15, 2009 by Colossus

[Mr.iMPACT!]

is it just me or has this thread caused more trouble than it's really worth? The amount of arguing is phenominal. I suppose it's all a matter of oppinion. Some of the greatest teams of all time wheren't necessarily the ones that won the most trophies (or just Euro ones as it seems ). Personally a Man United team from the 60's should be classed as one of the greatest of all time along with at least one of the Leeds teams between the 60's and 90's. It's all down to personal perception of a team. Lets just all agree to disagree.

p.s Europe's a big load of bollocks if you ask me.

[-A-]

Yeah, it is a matter of opinion because I like talking about things otherwise I wouldn't bother posting. Other people's opinions are interesting and if you don't want to discuss things with other people then you don't have to.

[Colossus]

Of course it's all a matter of opinion. For example, I would put Benfica form the 60's and the 80's, Real Madrid from their domination in Europe, Man Utd 99, and possibily the Porto 02-04. It's all subjective, it's why I think there can´t be a TOP 5 or 10 in this. A team that I think it's the best, could be seen as only average or somewhat good by someone else.

It's like a TOP 10 Football Players, or Wrestlers. No one has an equal list

Edited March 16, 2009 by Colossus

[HailtotheYo]

What does one CL victory tell us about a team? That they aren't worthy of being in the top 5 teams in history. I agree. Nowhere have I said that a single CL victory makes you eligible for that, so why do you bring it up? I haven't said Liverpool of 2004 should be considered because I don't think they should, so what point are you proving? Yes, you have found one example of a team who could win the CL but not the league, but there are hundreds of examples of teams who could win their domestic league but not the CL. What can we prove here? It's not simply a case of CL winners are ALWAYS better than league winners and it's not a case of league winners ALWAYS being better than CL winners. Is that surprising?

That last part there is exactly my point. I'm not denying the impressive nature of a CL championship season. I just feel that it's HARDER to go through your own league as champion, let alone unbeaten. It is much harder in my valuation, to continually beat teams you play over and over, year in and year out. The Ajax team that won three straight CL's couldn't win the Eredivisie three straight times. The next three years Munich took the CL but only won the Bundesliga once, and even finished TENTH one of those years. My point in that, is that going undefeated in your league (and the EPL at that) is merit enough for a team to be included in a "best" conversation. I'm really pointing out about the European Cup winners that they couldn't even win their league each year, let alone get through it undefeated.

It's interesting to see how other people make their valuation of what would qualify a team.

Yeah and for those bitching about people having actual discussion on a discussion forum, I refer to -A-

Yeah, it is a matter of opinion because I like talking about things otherwise I wouldn't bother posting. Other people's opinions are interesting and if you don't want to discuss things with other people then you don't have to.

[-A-]

I'm not denying the impressive nature of a CL championship season. I just feel that it's HARDER to go through your own league as champion, let alone unbeaten. It is much harder in my valuation, to continually beat teams you play over and over, year in and year out. The Ajax team that won three straight CL's couldn't win the Eredivisie three straight times. The next three years Munich took the CL but only won the Bundesliga once, and even finished TENTH one of those years. My point in that, is that going undefeated in your league (and the EPL at that) is merit enough for a team to be included in a "best" conversation. I'm really pointing out about the European Cup winners that they couldn't even win their league each year, let alone get through it undefeated.

But you can find examples of anything. Inter have won Serie A 3 times in a row and look like getting a 4th and they've done absolutely nothing in Europe.

Yes, Ajax couldn't win the Eredivisie 3 times in a row simultaneously with winning 3 European Cups, but why does that matter? They've won more domestic titles than CL titles, as has almost every team in the history of European football except Forest (I think.)

EDIT: Arsenal went unbeaten in the league, but they couldn't get past the quarter finals of the CL. Or get to either domestic cup final. It's flawed logic.

Edited March 16, 2009 by -A-

[METALMAN]

Any team featuring Stefan Effenberg can NOT be the best in history.