I can't see either of those.
FWIW, the Irish Times said Dundalk "weren’t remotely out of their depth", the Sun says Dundalk were "marginally the better side for the remaining 112 minutes of action" (having already gone 1-0 down of course) and nowhere really says that Dundalk deserved to win after 90. "A winning goal in normal time looked more likely to come from Dundalk" is as close as either get to saying Dundalk deserved to win, but they're not remotely the same thing of course.
So all I'm saying is your suggestion that my view is "remarkable" is a long way off. It's not even unique on this thread FFS.
Bookmarks