- Thread starter
- #1,626
So Richmond having the most dominant finals this century = weakest
Richmond having to compete against 17 other teams = weakest.
Geelong, Stephen Dank and, as you insist, only competing against a couple of other genuine contenders = strongest.
I think you know the truth but are so utterly envious and triggerred that you can't admit it to yourself.
Your little club can only compete when it's playing with advantages not afforded to other teams.
Take yesterday for example. It took a amazing umpiring performance for your mob to compete. Even with the umpires desperately trying to get you over the line, you still lost, at a neutral venue.
What dominant finals performance?? You played weaker sides for the reasons and evidence I have already given throughout the thread: watered down weaker sides due to expansion of two clubs with no added talent to the pipeline, as well as spending caps that shot down quality of clubs.
Your performances were not even a high standard in the finals anyway. To say you where dominant in the finals would only be true if you won by margins nobody else did in that finals series, which you didn’t. You didn’t even record the largest or second largest win of the finals. How is that dominant?? Everyone was winning by big margins. It was just a reflection of the way the game was being played.
To suggest you had a dominant finals series when you didn’t even have the biggest or second biggest winning margin out of your own finals series is quite laughable really.
Combine everything including the watered down weak competition, the average top four sides you played, the average home away season you had, the average finals series you played also. It’s all proof of the second worst premiership team of all time.
I have officially given worst to bulldogs for now, your off the hook on that one.