"Appalling player management" that resulted in a win and a second in the B&F a couple of seasons later? Zero benefit? Really? You even make the point that he was dropped for 2 games when merited and came back better. Isn't that actually effective player management?
So what was your point - he should have been dropped earlier? Or again after coming back? I truly don't get what you think was appalling.
And perhaps you shouldn't have included Atley if you didn't know he finished 5th in the B&F in his second season. Or do you still maintain he shouldn't have been picked that year because he was 19?
I'm still inclined to conclude that your post was just another "gifted games" snipe that is contradicted by the facts.
Cunnington should have been dropped earlier and more often. His greatest form spike early was after being dropped, so the merit lay in doing the right thing earlier and each time he tapered off. Who knows what sort of 2016 he might have had if managed better back then (yes this is as BS as your results orientated hindsight process).
Clarke for instance was omitted late this year for being "cooked". Exhaustion and underperformance wasn't a mantra 4-6 years ago.
I don't care whether they are 18 or 38, play them on merit. I would have dropped Harvey before Wagner at 1 stage this year due to effort. I'm not remotely interested in your memes, unless there was one dropping Petrie for the last 17 rounds and playing anyone under 25? I would have been 100% in favour of playing youth ahead of Petrie to see whether they could hold the spot on
merit for a 3 week period. Who knows, Drew might have kicked a goal in the 2's.
Atley fits in the merit category. He has barely improved at all in 4 years.
tl,dr play them on merit in 17 not just because....