The great thing about forum users picking players like Trindall, especially to start is
- if they go well, you were right
- if they suck, no consequences
- if they don't get picked and the person who did play goes well, you don't have to say anything and no skin off your back
- if they don't get picked and the person who did play goes bad, you can claim you were right even though there is no evidence you were
If they go well you can also look back and try and get additional credit for yourself by saying the coach should have picked them ages ago, despite you having no particular evidence they were ready previously and in all likelihood the coach gave them an opportunity when they earned/deserved one.
Not saying you're not allowed to say you'd like to play Trindall or you'd like to see him given a chance, but it's easy when you're not the coach to make team changes, although you also have a minute amount of the information about the players he has.
Short memory helps as well, if Chad pulled up sore at training tomorrow and Trindall got picked for the Warriors team and went decent this forum would go crazy saying Chad should never play again, even though there is an very high chance if Trindall played against Penrith we still get smashed, and forgetting Chad also went very well against weak teams.
Half the posts at the moment are about how making too many unforced changes didn't do us any favours, and then there are a bunch saying pick Trindall.
If Chad was the single reason we lost that game, fine, but he really wasn't, we had loads of issues. (no, I'm not saying he wasn't also an issue)
Not having a crack at you specifically Martin, we all suggest player/positional changes from time to time, but it's a lot easier to do without your job on the line and there is also a very strong possibility the head coach of the team who also played 300 NRL games himself has a vague ideal of which player is actually better.
If Morris is happy to pick Trindall I am keen to see him play