QuincyAbeyie I'd hear that their team wasn't as impressive as Wenger's best. If we're actually better than Wenger's best now, I guess those comments about City was probably fans coping?
I mean, the Invincibles played run and gun 4-4-2 or 4-5-1 with a side stocked with some of the most outrageous talents in the league and led by Thierry Henry, possibly the most outrageous talent in its history. But that all happened in an era when the Premier League as a whole was far, far weaker and its science of football less developed. Tons of long ball, pace merchants, cross merchants, and "parking the bus" was more an oddity than a norm, and the teams that did it mostly did a shit job of it and still didn't know how to mark or keep compact the way they do these days.
It was the era that followed when Mourinho had his spell at Chelsea that started changing things up. You could say Wenger came to the Premier League and brought it holistic management, caring about players' diets and supporting them in their private lives, tactical brio and a wealth of international transfer knowledge. Mourinho then came and brought tactical dossiers, granular preparation to attack opposition weaknesses, and a ruthless commitment to victory.
I remember during the heyday of "tiki-taka" and the Spain national team's ascendancy, we thought that was the apotheosis of football. It wasn't. These days it's very evident that training not to waste moments of opportunity to intervene, such as counter-pressing, is all important. Back in the day, Premier League sides would barely press a turnover at all, it was just about recovery into the defensive phase.
Almost any historical side would struggle with the way things are now. The best of them would clean up for a while because they weren't attending to their weaknesses the way contemporary sides do, but once they got found out, they'd have to adapt or get screwed weekly.
