Please explain this for me......................

[Islandman]

LOL...nice moving of the goalposts. Well done!

if you FAIL to EXECUTE (converting your chances) & LOSE I cannot call you the BETTER TEAM........PERIOD......No IFs, ANDs or BUTs.

Sorry but this nonsensical statement supports EXACTLY what I said in my previous post. You would NOT consider the team that wins 9 straight then has a bad game and loses to be the better team.

I guess you now realize how ridiculous it sounds now when it comes under some scrutiny.

[USAF]

In a series, obviously the TEAM that wins the 9 times is BETTER.

[USAF]

Moving the goal posts??? Show me where my posts have changed.
You, and others chose to use teams playing in a series of games to make a point, when that had NOTHING to do with my posts.

[Islandman]

islandman:

If you win game one of a best of 7 series and then lose the next 4 were you the better team 2 weeks before or just better on that day?

USAF

If you FAIL to EXECUTE (converting your chances) & LOSE I cannot call you the BETTER TEAM........PERIOD......No IFs, ANDs or BUTs.
Regardless how dominant & skillful the team is, what is needed & expected is a WIN, so if you LOSE you're not the BETTER TEAM.

But hey, nothing wrong with changing your view when presented with sound arguments. That is called growth my friend

[USAF]

NO it's not GROWTH. I made a straight forward/specific post, let's debate the post based on what was said. After that, then we can discuss hypothetical situations/instances.

[Islandman]

No need to debate anything further. You have conceded that a team can lose a game and still be the better team in certain situations.

We already agree on what I think is your fundamental point (I am assuming again, sorry ) , which is that dominance & skill by itself do not make you the better team, you have to execute and produce results.

[USAF]

Execution/scoring, Execution/scoring!!!

[Gamma]

karl? can you shed some light on this....how a side playing TEAM can lose?

[HL]

oh no......!!!