Being unbeaten

means absolutely dick all to me. Seriously. It's 'nice'. That's about it. Winning games is the aim of the game. It's better to win one then lose one. Draws are gay. If we lost at Spurs then went on a six game winning run, I'd be delighted. I'd swap a league defeat for a couple more away wins. More wins, more points.

This is why I've never understood the hype surrounding Arsenal's Invincibles. So you didn't lose a game in the league. Well done. Impressive, but ultimately meaningless. Did it win you anything more than the league? (not counting that cringeworthy little trophy from the PL). Not to mention being beaten in the CL, FA Cup and CC resulting in not winning any of those. At the end of the day, it's just a stat amidst the bigger picture. 49 games unbeaten in one competition or 43 games unbeaten in three competition - winning all of them - which would you prefer?
To think people actually argue the toss of which was the greater achievement: Our treble, or their unbeaten season. oh pa-leeease.

I don't want us going through the season trying not to lose. I want us to win. The side that loses the fewest doesn't always win the league, but the side who wins the most always does.

Imagine if we remained unbeaten but finished 2nd. How embarrassing would that be? We get a mini trophy while City get the proper one!!

In summary, I can't wait til we lose. Come on, You Spurs!

Doesn't mean anything.

Reminds me of the clean sheet spree. Ended up losing 4-1 at home to Liverpool shortly after it was cracked.
Shit like this breeds complacency.

Also means £#%&! all if you've lost 4-0 to West Ham in a cup.

We will lose a game this league season.

Being top with games in hand is better than being unbeaten.

Originally Posted by antonin jablonsky

Being top with games in hand is better than being unbeaten.

Both is as £#%&!

Originally Posted by antonin jablonsky

Being top with games in hand is better than being unbeaten.

Exactly. Each time we win (or draw) the headline is 'man united remain unbeaten' rather than 'man united go x points clear' You know, the bit that actually matters.

Originally Posted by dunk

Both is as £#%&!

Not that arsed about being unbeaten, for a start we have actually been beaten, hammered in fact. OK it was in the Carling thingy but still.

Winning>Not losing.

Drawing is shit.

Originally Posted by History

Winning>Not losing.

Drawing is shit.

Not as shit as losing though.

Originally Posted by antonin jablonsky

Not as shit as losing though.

Winning more and losing abit more is much better than winning less and losing less.

It may look impressive in the history book but I don't like it. Would rather 5 of the draws being wins and losing a few tbh.

Originally Posted by antonin jablonsky

Not as shit as losing though.

Erm, Bedders, I'm fairly sure we've concluded that losing is better than drawing. Now, get on board or risk not being a 'Top Red'.

Arsenal's 'invincibles' lost six games that season. I mean, well done and everything, but if they'd gone unbeaten in every competition that would have been a true achievement. But they lost six times, so it was meaningless. And unless I'm mistaken, United went on a longer unbeaten run between 1999 and 2000?

Just look how much drawing cost liverpool the other year.

Originally Posted by History

Just look how much drawing cost liverpool the other year.

Losing would've cost them more.

Originally Posted by History

Winning more and losing abit more is much better than winning less and losing less.

Yes, getting more points is better than getting less points.

Originally Posted by History

Just look how much drawing cost liverpool the other year.

But the league was a lot stronger back then. If they had their 08/09 side now we would all be in their wake.

Originally Posted by BryanRobson'sLiver

But the league was a lot stronger back then. If they had their 08/09 side now we would all be in their wake.

Yep, it was. That's why they kept drawing with most of it - and drawing is the new winning.

Originally Posted by The Return of JC

Yep, it was. That's why they kept drawing with most of it - and drawing is the new winning.

So, with losing being better than drawing and drawing being the new winning, that presumably means losing is better than winning?

Originally Posted by Zorg

Arsenal's 'invincibles' lost six games that season. I mean, well done and everything, but if they'd gone unbeaten in every competition that would have been a true achievement. But they lost six times, so it was meaningless. And unless I'm mistaken, United went on a longer unbeaten run between 1999 and 2000?

Arsenal lost 6 games in the invincible season

In The Treble season we lost 4 games


Don't forget to mention that to any gooner next time they bring it up

Originally Posted by antonin jablonsky

So, with losing being better than drawing and drawing being the new winning, that presumably means losing is better than winning?

My cat's breath smells like cat food.