Silly post. The Crusaders had a horrible season, playing away from home after a huge natural disaster, they had to make the return African leg before playing in the final.
Maybe the Reds were the better team on the day, but they had all the breaks, and the Crusaders had precisely none.
You
could say the Crusaders would have taken the title
but for the earthquake. Then again, you
could say they only started playing with ticker again, playing like a premiership winning side, after the earthquake. They were reasonably complacent beforehand. Yes, I know they are traditionally slow starters but they were dragging their feet more than usual at the start of 2011 - they looked like an ITM Cup side than the best team in the competition'rs history. Shit, had the earthquake not come and they had not pulled their finger out when they did they might have dropped one or two more games and not even made the top six.
At the end of the day you can speculate all you want, you can say the Reds were lucky, you can make all the excuses in the world but the trophy was in our cabinet that year. We were clearly better than thirteen of the fifteen teams that year and we were better than the Crusaders when it counted. What could have, should have or would have been counts for nothing. It's what was done that matters. It is about who produces the goods on the day not who could have if a, b and c happened.
Personally, I think people taking the shine away from the Reds premiership is poor fucking sportsmanship - but that's just me.