I never said Chelsea are or were weak under Mourinho or Ancelloti. I am merely pointing out the fact that United usually come out on top when they have a squad comparable to Chelsea's.
The 3 titles won by Chelsea came when United were passing through a phase of losing key world class players leaving them with a team lacking First Team Quality and Depth which definitely causes a significant decrease in overall performance.
Before Chelsea became a title challenging world-class team, UTD used to get away with having a squad like the one they have now in the league but rarely kicked ass in Europe. Chelsea did force them to be a better team and I completely agree with that.
By the end of Ranieri's term, Chelsea had created and gelled a world class team finishing second in the premier league. Mourinho added character to an already dream squad that Chelsea continue to reap the benefits of to this day. This was around the same time UTD lost two Legendary players which aided Mourinho's job no doubt about it.
Last year's UTD was mostly a one man team led by Rooney... their current squad is full of holes and the weaknesses will be more apparent this season as I doubt that Rooney will replicate last year's form. I wont be surprised if Arsenal gets the second spot or if Chelsea wins the league by a huge margin. Chelsea continues to have a complete world class first team with very good depth.
In short, Chelsea are very good now no doubt about that but the UTD team that had Ronaldo and Tevez or the team that had Nistelrooy and Beckham are superior to the winning Chelsea teams.
The fact that Chelsea continues to have almost the same squad (With no major losses or additions) since Mourinho's days show this.
Grant's Chelsea is not very different from Hiddink's, Mou's or Ancelloti's.
I respect Chelsea for maintaining their level throughout the years... even if United's peak level is higher than theirs.
So Chelsea were weak before Mourinho & Ancelloti?
Once again you're spewing rubbish. I openly hate manure but one thing i really like about sir alex is that he has no fear for any player, no matter how big they are. He's disposed of many big names during his tenure & he's even won the league with inferior players(in terms of individual skill) but he's had a good mixture of youth/experience coupled with excellent squad depth.
Chelsea had won honors before Abramovic was around.If im not mistaken, the won the fa cup during gullits tenure.Under Vialli they won the european super cup & then won the fa cup in 2000.So don't make it seem like Chelsea hadn't won a damn thing before.
Chelsea had super talented players like Vialli, Zola, Di Matteo, Ed De Goey, Graeme Le Saux & Dennis Wise. In fact Chelsea had a better team than manure player for player, skill wise but they lacked team ethic & unity.Whereas manure's players were a mixture of youth talents that grew up player together bonding, with star names like Eric Cantona, Mark Huges, Paul Ince & Andre Kanchelskis.So how exactly did they manage to dominate the epl & become a force in the CL when they sold all of those players?
Chelsea have already proven they're more than just a team bank rolled by a billionaire.How many millions did morratti pump into inter before they were handed the scudetto? How many times have real spent huge only to gain zero in the end & its been two seasons that man city & spent like absolute morons with no trophies to back it all up.
Buy on AliExpress.com
