No... I analyse everything that happens. Good and Bad. For example: Priddis played terribly in the first half but I acknowledge he was one of the few who stood up in the second half which was crucial in winning - something anti-Priddis folks will never give him credit for. The good and the bad.
The points Keyser made were obviously atrocious errors. Whether that was Priddis or someone else is irrelevant. They need to be pointed out and rectified.
The fact that one of our main movers made multiple horrific errors does not mean we are whinging about his play. If this was the Brad Sheppard thread and we point out whatever errors he made, are we whinging about Sheppard? Or are we analysing the game in full detail?
The polarizing effect of Priddis' game makes some of you jump to his defense blindly, interpreting every post about Priddis an attack. It simply isn't.
Upping the font and boldening your reply doesn't make any less true.
The play was obvious and it was a very bad turnover. The fact that you can't acknowledge the mistake only hurts your credibility.
Good post, posted mine above before getting to yours.




