Meus Renaissance
Member
Christ....
If you look at our results that year and compare it to United's, there is little difference throughout. That is except a three week period beginning late Feb where we uncharacteristically dropped points consecutively four times to lower league opposition; the only side out of the top three to manage this. Our form after that was good. In fact, in the last 8 games played, we dropped only two more points than United did in their last 8 games (we played Liverpool, United and Chelsea in that period), so no, contrary to Clegg's comments, I am not ignoring post-March results. They were fine.
I made two points thus.
In quality, there wasn't much to separate the top sides that year as the table showed.
Were our form not to have imploded so oddly during that 3 week period, it would have taken us to the title.
Second point is of course subjective. So why did I feel we would have been deserved winners if there was not much to divide the top sides? This is where my 'best football' remark comes in. I felt we were the best footballing side.
Clegg also brought up this "shut up, accept you were third best because you finished third". Granted, we finished third, but merely describing it as such wasn't an accurate reflection. Why? Because in the context of finishing third often means finishing 19 points, or +10 behind the leaders; a substantial gap. But as highlighting the quality of our side was a key element in my point, I felt the connotations that came with "third" were misleading in the context of that Arsenal side. I don't feel he actually understood the angle I was coming from in regards to my argument(s) because he kept repeating his assertions without addressing any of mine beyond "you're talking shit".
