Iceman!
Brownlow Medallist
It is the bolded i strongly disagree with and people keep running with it.ultimately it showed that he was more interested in playing favourites as opposed to making the best decision for a team. should you realistically let someone who's consistently not performing in an important role keep their spot in the side, or should you take the chance with someone who may be decent enough to have a go.
just my 2 cents, obviously.
It just shows they thought a cooked David Warner was still more likely to make runs then the 3 incredibly flawed options. Now they may have been wrong, i am not totally sold either way. He averaged around the low the mid 30's from memory over his last few years and i don't really see any of those 3 doing any better.
If we had a fit and firing Puc waiting in the wings i would totally agree, but that wasn't the case. All really good players get a bit of a longer leash and Warner was no different, but i do not think it was a case of playing favourites as much as it was backing in a guy who at his best has proven he can play at that level which i don't think either of those other 3 are.