Last Monday at U-Pundit, Anthony from Chippendale gently chiacked Patrick Smith over an apparent inconsistency in that Smith first said James Hird should be suspended then, after Hird's Anzac Day B.O.G, legendized him.
10. No wonder people hate Patrick Smith. Today he pours truckloads of praise on James Hird. No problem with that. Hird played a great game. But if Smith had had his way the Bomber Skipper wouldn't have even been playing.
Tuesday night on Talking Footy, Steve Price -- no doubt smarting over other recent criticisms -- did the same thing.
By the way, is there some connection between Price and Anthony? Anthony? A little help here?
Anyhoo, far as I'm concerned, Smith operated well within his purview when he criticized Hird's Footy Show comments and called for a suspension. On the flip side, he was justly laudative about the quality of Hird's Anzac Day performance, which, let's face it, was a belter.
Most importantly, there's no reason he shouldn't do both.
There's no doubt had Hird been suspended, he'd have missed the Anzac Day game, and so Smith wouldn't have been able to talk up his game. But he'd have had plenty of opportunities to strut his stuff at a later date. He'd also have had some time to reflect on his wayward comments.
The unacceptable extension of both Anthony's and Price's criticisms -- Mild as they were. OR. Was that a sneer in Price's "Four weeks to two" comment? -- is that the prospect of Hird playing a brilliant game means he shouldn't be suspended for doing something wrong.
Smith can be unjustifiably personal in his criticisms, and people may indeed hate him, but mostly that's their problem, not Smith's. In this instance he was right to call it as he saw it, and neither of his articles compromised the other.