You need more exp if you disagree that red is in a good state. Direct damage cards like Seifer’s wrath, Flame burst and Groundshaker not enough? and those rats where you can boost them with gift of steel that give you 2 faeria when they attack still disagree?
Frogify being a legendary I dont think so but if you make those boost, direct damage, destroy cards legendary too then maybe it is possible but seems boring for me 
I am only level 277 so i agree i need more experience. Like I said not all of us have all the cards. If you can win the monthly cup with a total blue deck then the topic of this board seems appropriate. I have looked at many of the decks and a total red deck does not feature.
If you can show a red deck that will get to god level please share it here. I think you will find that blue and yellow are favoured.
Seifers wrath is only attack 2. What happens when your groundshakers get frogify? Game over.
But there is always A deck that wins. It’s not like at some point there will be a perfect balance and people will just say: “Ok, the tournament is over, go home people! The decks reached an equilibrium!”. Your argumentation is extremely flawed - if you were to nerf every deck that wins a tournament, you would have to nerf EVERYTHING over time.
What you are saying here is that a deck needs to be adjusted if you can win with it. Or, that with a good deck you cannot win. How come?
I have posted in the balance discussion board under the heading 'How to ‘fix’ the current meta jump/tempo ’ written by an experienced player. Are you saying his argument is extremely flawed?
The previous contributor referenced seifers wrath, flame burst and gift of steel, none of which put cards on the board. I have just played against a blue deck, guess what happened to my groundshaker? Thats right-frogify.
I do not see the point of being in denial that decks will need to be adjusted. If a mono blue can win a tournament against the best combinations from other decks, it needs to be looked at.
Are you suggesting I am not allowed to critique your argumentation, because your argumentation is the same as the OP’s one, as long as you agree to the same notion?
If OP is saying that blue is strong because [insert amazingly well thought up argumentation here], and you say blue is strong because you just lost one game - are you suggesting you both are right or both are wrong, and there is no in-between?
Please, re-think that.
You seem to have jumped on my point for some reason.I agree with the original poster regarding blue but disagree with his opinion on red. I have mentioned frogify which is also listed above.At a cost of 4 Frogify is a game changer.
Blue won the monthly cup against the top 16 players. It did not win just one game.
I am disagree w most changes shuch increase lands of requirements because it’s will do imposible play these cards into multicolored decks.
