Many questions from a difficult paragraph

The passage below is from A History of the Index by Dennis Duncan.

Boyle against Bentley was a considerable success. By taking shots, not at the detail of Bentley’s arguments – which were both watertight and obscure – but at Bentley himself, the Christ Church faction had produced a witty and accessible piece of invective that made Bentley an object of ridicule in the taverns and coffee-houses. There was even rumoured to be more of the same should Bentley dare to respond, with one coffee-house wag offering this memorable piece of fighting talk: ‘Let the Dr. come out with his Answer as soon as he will, they are in readiness for him; to my certain knowledge … they have Rods in against him’. The metaphor comes from horse riding, and the practice of soaking riding whips in urine to preserve their suppleness.11 For all its obnoxiousness, Boyle against Bentley is an extremely entertaining read, something which could never be said for Bentley’s Dissertation itself. Macaulay thought it was a masterpiece, though only in its own way: the limited field of tag-team attacks on worthier opponents. He later expands on this view, dubbing it ‘the best book ever written by any man on the wrong side of a question of which he was profoundly ignorant’, a neatly double-edged evaluation of the Boyle group’s wit and their ability as classicists.

(Above all, I am sorry to post this long-winded string of questions.)

I cannot understand the structure of the first underlined part.

I parsed the part as best as I can as follows:

It was even rumoured that there would be more of the same (kind of ridicule) if Bentley should dare to respond,... (Does my analysis OK?)

Even if it is OK, I still have difficulty in grasping the meaning. And my guess is thatMoreover there was a rumour that if Bentley should dare to respond (to this ridicule), he would get more of the same (level of ridicule).

(Is my interpretation OK?)

Next question on the second underlined part.

Macaulay thought it was a masterpiece, though only in its own way: the

limited field of tag-team attacks on worthier opponents.

The underlined part is a real mystery to me. I guess that it has much to do with ‘a masterpiece only in its own way’. (Am I right?)

But still I’m in the dark. I can only pose questions based on the context. First, does ‘field’ means ‘field’ as in ‘playing field’? (Am I right?) But I don’t know what ‘the limited field’ means.

Another question: ‘tag-team’ is a team of duo. (Am I right?)

Then does ‘tag-team attacks’ mean ‘attacks done by the tag-team’? (Am I right? Kind of tautology, but I want to make sure.)

And ‘worthier opponents’ means ‘opponents who is much worthy of competing’. (Am I right?)

But the whole underlined part is just a mystery. Here’s my guess: In case tag-team attacks is inflicted on worthier opponents on the limited field, then it can be said to be a masterpiece. (Am I right?)

(I think ‘the limited field’ is the key to get to the meaning. But still I have nothing about that phrase.)

Last, on the last sentence.

He later expands on this view, dubbing it ‘the best book ever written by any man on the wrong side of a question of which he was profoundly ignorant’, a neatly double-edged evaluation of the Boyle group’s wit and their ability as classicists.

First, about ‘on the wrong side of a question’.

The man in this passage is ‘profoundly ignorant’ of a question. (Am I right?)

Then the man is also ‘on the wrong side of a question’ that he is ignorant of.

Here I cannot grasp the meaning of ‘on the wrong side of a question’. Can you tell me what it means in this context?

Last of the last, about ‘a neatly double-edged evaluation’.

The writer says that Macaulay’s view on Boyle against Bentley is that it is ‘the best book ever written by any man on the wrong side of a question of which he was profoundly ignorant’ is a neatly double-edged evaluation of the Boyle group’s wit and their ability as classicists.

Here I have a problem with ‘a neatly double-edged evaluation’. Does ‘double-edged’ mean that Macaulay acknowledges the book’s worth both for the Boyle group’s wit and for their ability as classicists?

Thanks in advance for just reading this far-from-neat questions. Even if posting these questions is not easy and takes me a lot of time I am happy to have the chance of learning. I hope you could also have some delight, though with much trouble, giving me replies. I would just be much obliged for any replies. Thanks.