This board has gotten meaner. God forbid I should express some criticism, which btw, was based on direct observation from different games.
Maybe you guys don't understand what is important in defensive basketball. The casual gavone thinks if a guy blocks a shot and gets a couple of steals that he is playing good defense. Blocks and steals are small parts of great team defense. Russell was great because he and his teammates knew how to rotate as a unit, he understood positioning and when he did block a shot, he kept the ball in play - much better than sticking it in the first row.
Disagreements are not "getting meaner." However, when you attack whether or not I 'understand what is important in defensive basketball," it becomes an ad hominem attack, which is an attack against the other person, not their view.
I asserted evidence to support the idea that Kyrie is not only a decent defender this season, but is a good one too. Defensive rating, defensive plus-minus, and steals all display different aspects of his defense, from his disruptiveness, to his timeliness, to his team defense.
I've seen the anecdotal evidence that he messes up on some plays, but anecdotal evidence is not a strong argument, because we are unable to reach a conclusion. You say, "I saw such and such a play that proves he is not a good defense," and then I say, "But I saw such and such a play that proves he is good at defense." Where does that leave us?