If u mean they dominated the 9ers in the first game then I can agree
But in that NFC championship game that was some bullshyt
Even the announcers called bullshyt on those referee cals
When the refs called running into the kicker instead of roughing the kicker, that cost 49ers a possession that would have started on 1st down around midfield and that was a scoring drive for the Seahawks
That changed the whole scope of the game, there is no way you watched that whole game and missed that play where even the announcers were like WTF
you move on to the next play and stop the seahawks if you are that good.
it just so happened the seahawks ramped up.
plus, had the niners number.
having someone's number is dominating them.
to the point, the niners needed a call to go their way.
when, real talk...
the niners should have been dominant and should have still competed to win.
bad plays happen all the time.
the bulls lost to the knicks after the phantom call.
yet, they had a chance to actually still close and did not.
saying that,..
you would have a point.
if the niners did not lose a close superbowl, previously.
yet, the niners lost a close superbowl.
then, lost in close circumstances again the next year, as well.
the way they lost and how they lost is being dominated.
as those teams that beat them the seahawks, and the ravens beat them in close situations.
a team that was not dominated.
would have closed in those similar situations with similar conditions.
yet, the niners did not, and that is why they were dominated.
as only a short gap separates teams of that high quality from one another.
yet, if you continually lose in those same situations.
then, every team in those situations always capitalizes.
then, you were dominated.
as your weakness and shortcomings were consistently exposed.
which is what being dominated is.
at that level of play, between two teams at those high level of play on those types of stages.
it is just like I am an andre Agassi fan...
andre, is dominant in general skill off the ground to pete sampras.
regardless i have to say andre was dominated by sampras careerwise, in head to head meetings.
as andre, if I remember right.
only won three matches, that enabled him to have some science to combat Sampras's dominance over him.
which were the quarters of the French open in like 93, aussie in 95, and i wanna say indian wells in 95.
while being dominated in every incarnation of his play, in general versus Sampras.
just like jim courier dominated andre, and andre only has one win against courier to save face.
that created a rubrick to break courier's every match dominance of andre.
which was, after courier was losing arm strength in 95.
before that, even though andre had better visually appealing strokes.
courier learned to dominate andre from familiarity and past losses as a teen.
evident as early as andre as a repeat final loser at the French open.
then, after andre won Wimbledon.
courier dispatched andre striking the ball on unbelieveable levels at the us open that same year.
being dominated is more than just a squash.
art barr