Who are the team of the decade?

[longrunsthefox]

Seriously lads, 16 pages on this? 

Seems simple to me. Kerry won five, Tyrone three, Armagh and Galway one each. Game, set and match to the Kingdom.

History doesn't give a sh1t who beat who and who didn't beat who. All that matters is who won the All-Ireland.

Good thing im not a historian then. As someone who watched Tyrone beat Kerry 3 times i'd say Tyrone were the better team, unless of course you can explain to me how the "team of the decade" never managed to beat tyrone in that decade.

Going by that theory you must think Down were the team of the 20th century?

Anyway the team of the decade are the Dublin Blue Stars as they're the only team to have won a game this decade!

Yeah, Down were the team of the 60's anyway.

Listen Tyrone and Kerry were the two best teams of the decade, following it so far?

Hence if I was asked to choose between the two teams as to which side were the best over the last ten years I would say Tyrone due to the encounters I witnessed. Still following?

If this was a quiz and I was asked "Who won the most All-Irelands in noughties?" I would say Kerry but that's not what I'm being asked. Understand?

You may think Kerry were the best team, fair dues, shove it up your whole, watever, I don't care. It's your opinion. You keep your's, I'll keep mine. Gettit?

Good job Tyrone didn't meet Kerry then in one of Tyrone's off-years. Would they have beaten Kerry in '04, '06', '07 and '09? Maybe Kerry were just unfortunate that the three times they met Tyrone were in their own off-years.

...or maybe Tyrone was the better team    was hardly off years for Kerry as they reached the All Ireland semi-final and two finals when they got beat by Tyrone.

Its all relative. All-Ireland semi is a minimum expectation in Kerry, even in a poor year.

But again, would Tyrone have beaten Kerry in '04, '06, '07 and '09 had they been drawn together in any of those years?

They probably would as they beat them any other time they met.

Assuming for the sake of argument that that is the case, what would it prove? That Tyrone are a better side or that they just come out better in a direct matchup with Kerry? As I said in an earlier post, Man United used to beat Liverpool regularly in the early 80s, yet Liverpool were overall far, far more successful. Who was the better team?

To find the best between two competitors, you would go by result between them... a no brainer that one. 

[cornafean]

This decade does not end until 31 December 2010. Until the 2010 football championship is complete, all discussion of the "team of the decade" is premature.

[ONeill]

This decade does not end until 31 December 2010. Until the 2010 football championship is complete, all discussion of the "team of the decade" is premature.

Then that rules out Kerry's in 2000.

[Zapatista]

This decade does not end until 31 December 2010. Until the 2010 football championship is complete, all discussion of the "team of the decade" is premature.

[Fear ón Srath Bán]

This decade does not end until 31 December 2010. Until the 2010 football championship is complete, all discussion of the "team of the decade" is premature.

Technically you are correct, but in reality that isn't how it works. 1930 was not a 'Roaring Twenty', 1970 was not a 'Swinging Sixty', etc. 

[Hardy]

A new decade starts every year, sure.

Why not go hexadecimal and argue over the team of the hexadecade? At least it would be better fun arguing over when it starts and ends. And we'd be in the running - apart from being champions twice in the early years we've a 50-50 record in head-to-heads with Kerry (though we're miles ahead on aggregate score) and we've walloped Tyrone any time they showed up - even as recently as year E.

[Fear ón Srath Bán]

... and we've walloped Tyrone any time they showed up - even as recently as year E.

Wouldn't disagree with you there Hardy, you are a particularly good team at the walloping 

[cornafean]

Technically you are correct, but in reality that isn't how it works. 1930 was not a 'Roaring Twenty', 1970 was not a 'Swinging Sixty', etc. 

1929 wasn't exactly a  'Roaring Twenty' either 

[Fear ón Srath Bán]

1929 wasn't exactly a  'Roaring Twenty' either 

Fond of the straw men then 

[HowAreYeGettinOn]

The level of denial among some Tyrone posters on this thread is priceless.

Kerry won more All-Irelands lads. Yes, Tyrone won the head-to-heads in the three years that they met, and deservedly so. But there were seven other years in the decade. Kerry won in five of those years. They won the first All-Ireland of the decade, and the last, and three more in between. You can't span a decade much more comprehensively than that.

Tyrone were nowhere to be seen in those seven years. The fact that they didn't play Kerry those years is irrelevant. Tyrone lost to Sligo one year for God's sake! Kerry never lost to a team with that poor of a championship record in the decade - yet strangely that kind of thing is ignored in the "debate"...

Does 'team of the decade' mean 'team of the head-to-head record'? Did the 'decade' only start in 2003 and end in 2008?

[cornafean]

If Tyrone win the AI this year, thus making it Tyrone 4 Kerry 4 for the Noughties, then I mightn't be on my own.

[GrandMasterFlash]

If Tyrone win the AI this year, thus making it Tyrone 4 Kerry 4 for the Noughties, then I mightn't be on my own.

  I think you would be on your own as the 'noughties' are over and this is in fact a new decade, the 'tensies' or 'onesies'!

[Fear ón Srath Bán]

Tyrone lost to Sligo one year for God's sake!

Not disagreeing with your general thrust there, but you do a great disservice to that Sligo team IMHO. They subsequently drew with the eventual 2002 All-Ireland Champions (Armagh), who didn't find it much easier on the second time of asking either.

That Armagh team beat Kerry in the final, and if Sligo didn't have psychological issues when playing Kerry () they'd have dumped them out of this year's championship with that penalty to seal the victory in Tralee.

[blanketattack]

Technically you are correct, but in reality that isn't how it works. 1930 was not a 'Roaring Twenty', 1970 was not a 'Swinging Sixty', etc. 

1929 wasn't exactly a  'Roaring Twenty' either 

Up until October it was the most roaring of all the 20s.

[Zapatista]

Technically you are correct, but in reality that isn't how it works. 1930 was not a 'Roaring Twenty', 1970 was not a 'Swinging Sixty', etc. 

I don't think so Fear??

The decade starts from Zero. Month and day are different. You register the current day as in 01, the current month as in 01/Jan but you don't register the year untill it is complete. The years are counted as in how many have past rather than the current year. The calender started as 01/01/00. Today/current month/No years past. It wasn't 01/01/01 as in Today/ Current Month/Current year. Years are counted as the time on a clock is. 12.45 is 12 hours have past (currently in the 13th hour) plus 45 minutes have past. Apply the theory posted earlier to the clock and 12.45 would be a time in the 12th hour when it's really a time in the 13th hour.

I think???