Hmmmm, can get on board with the sentiment but not the logic.
You'll recall that neither fardy nor Horne were in the original squad on the basis of not being starters (and quite obviously because they were deserting). Kerevi then gets injured and Horne gets called up much to the frustration of meakes, Rona, etc supporters. The reason was though that he needed a ready made sub for TK. Rightly or wrongly he wanted an experienced player for that role, not a cleanskin.
Meanwhile, those advocating fardy's selection are crying double standards. The reality is that if an experienced back rower went down fardy would have been the first call up. Didn't happen. Period.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I fail to see the logic there, perhaps you can explain it? Slowly, for the slow people like me.
Let's bear in mind the following:
- Horne was arguably the worst performed of the Australian 13, with the lowest tackle completion rate (yes, lower than Kerevi, Horne indeed tackled worse than Kerevi this year, a guy heavily criticised for his poor defence)
- Cheika wanting a "ready made replacement" at 13 makes no sense, given he selected just Hanigan and Dempsey for development at 6 - guys with little experience, and one not having even played this year (what was wrong with Smiler?)
- Horne was drafted into the squad before it was assembled, so there's zero argument for calling into a guy who'd been there before that could settle quickly anyway
At the end of the day, wanting an experience player in a dirt tracker position covering a very experienced player for these tests makes zero sense when he chose two completely inexperienced people at blindside, and still insists on starting one when all and sundry agree he currently looks way out of his depth.
Again, can you please explain what I am missing here? Applying Occam's Razor, all I can see is crass favouritism.
