I'd love to take it up with those who said it if you could let us know who said it
It's clearly not true though, so not sure what's to be gained by countering a point no-one here is making
On direct comparison, you may say Cullen now would be better than Kinsella/Holland 2002. I'm not sure I'd agree, but it's not the most outrageous suggestion ever. But the danger then is that you miss capturing the idea that standing still (Cullen v Holland) is, relatively speaking, going backwards. So I think the "weakest-ever" moniker is valid, even if it should rightly be in a relative sense
Bookmarks