The Chelsea team of 2004-05 are the Greatest Football team from England since the Premiership began

They only lost 4 games over the whole year." They lost to FC Porto in the Champion's League group stages, 2-1, no red cards or penalties, full team strength.(1) Probably more importantly losing when you have 10 men due to a red card or losing by penalty is not any better than losing purely. Drogba got two yellows for first tackling Abidal badly from behind and then for stomping Valdez. (2) That was a deserved red card and Chelsea deserved to lose that match. As for the Newcastle game, Newcastle scored in the the minute, the Chelsea red card was in the 90th, as well as the fact Lampard came on as a substitute and played for 40 minutes. Your own source states that,"if Liverpool hadn't scored, they'd almost certainly have got a penalty and seen Petr Cech get sent off. Which would have been better for them, really." so as you are using this as reliable evidence for the Match it's clear that Liverpool did not win undeservedly. Yet again another one of your sources states concerning the Man City game,"Anelka stroked home a penalty after being brought down by Paulo Ferreira, who was fortunate not to be sent off." showing that yet again Chelsea deserved to lose being by your own evidence. Chelsea also won the league cup that year You talk by how Chelsea were hard done by in their losses( I've proved that they were not) yet don't mention their luck. How about the luck they had in the final of that Gerrard own goal(3), 10 more minutes they would have lost that game. Or the luck they had in the semis of Damien Duffs goal going in due to poor keeping. Or the many late game winners in the premiership. At the end these "lucky" arguments usually go nowhere. Now for a team that is truly superior to Chelsea's: Manchester United in 1999. Manchester United won the league with 91 points(4). Now before you say 95 is better than 91 there are a few things to consider. a. Second place was 73 points. Chelsea won the league by 12 points and Man U won the league by 18 points. b. Over 38 games a league can tell you who is better at the time, so Chelsea were the best in 2005 as Man U were in 1999. But it is very hard to compare the teams over the years, as it would require that every other team in the league would be of the same strength as they were before which they obviously would not be. This Manchester United team won the FA cup, which is a more prestigious competition than the League Cup. This is not only because it is older and contains more teams but also because as can be seen as the top teams usually field weaker teams as Arsenal even did in the 2008 finals(5). They also won the more more prestigious completion in a more authoritarian way not needing a fluky own goal in the 80th minute but rather winning the final a comfortable 2-0. "Chelsea also did extremely well in Europe that year" You know what's even better than losing justifiably in the semi final? Winning the competition in the same year you win the Premiership and the FA cup. Beating Inter, Juventus(Seria A champions) and Bayern Munich(Bundesleague champions) to do it. Not losing a single game in the competition in the process. By the way you can count the fact that Manchester only lost 4 games that season to- Arsenal, Tottenham, Sheffield's Wednesday and Middlesborough in all competitions. The Chelsea team of 04/05 are not even superior to Arsenal invincibles that went 49 games undefeated or the Manchester United team of 07-09 that won 3 league titles in a row and went to a champions league semi final and two consecutive finals winning one. (1) http://news.bbc.co.uk... (2) http://www.youtube.com... (3) http://www.youtube.com... (4)http://en.wikipedia.org... (5) http://news.bbc.co.uk...