Originally Posted by molloyjh
Substantially more!? When was he last banned and how many times in his career has he been banned. From recollection he received 2 bans in 2016 for a reckless high hit and a reckless stamp. Neither were malicious. I dont recall a ban since and have no recollection of any bans prior to that. If I'm wrong then by all means let me know, but having watched Ferg for 10 years now hes not someone I'd ever describe as dirty.
He's been banned for six weeks for foul play, not including anything that might come of this.
That's a month more than Earls has been banned, a month and a half more than Bowe was ever banned, a month and a half more than Trimble was ever banned, and a month and a half more than Gilroy has ever been banned. I think it's a month and a half more than Fitzgerald has been banned, and a month and a half more than Dave Kearney has ever been banned.It's a month and a half more than Stockdale has ever been banned, but that's hardly a fair comparison, given the stages they're at in their careers.
You are aware "more" is a term than necessitates relativism? Do I think those comparisons merit McFadden being described as being "substantially more" likely to be banned than any of those players? Yes, I 100% stand by "substantially more" (not withstanding three of them have retired...)
And why are we having this conversation? Because he's been cited again. Look at the figures and the facts. Being cited three times, for a winger, is A LOT. If he's banned, that'll be three bans, which, for a winger, is A LOT.
I'm talking about verifiable numbers, you're inside Fergus' head, saying you don't think his foul play can be described as "malicious", but "reckless".