David Warner unleashes stream of abuse on Twitter

As much as I think Warner is a bit of a knob for writing it like this, it is his right, we live in a free country and there is no reason that you can't have a crack at someone. Having said that, there's nothing stopping me from thinking the guy is a colossal dill for defending a competition that's clearly corrupt......free country and all.

Apparently in Sydney the article was back page with a half page photo of Warner. That makes it a bit more understandable that he thought the bits about a young Australian player were aimed at him, whether he has been involved in said activities or not.

If not Warner who? I would think Maxwell.....The Big Show at $1m has been a No Show.

Keith Miller's wartime(WW2) exploits were to give him a greater sense of perspective when he returned to the sports field. When asked many years later by Michael Parkinson, about pressure in cricket, Miller responded with the famous quote:"pressure is a Messerschmitt up your arse, playing cricket is not".

This is not the 1800s, the fact that Warner gets 'paid' to 'play' is a result of the commercialization of sport - accompanied by the couterie of media, industry etc. Warner does not just play cricket, he represent Crickets Australia, and by extension, the nation itself. By 'shaming' Messers Conn & Craddock, he has sullied his own image, in addition to that of his employers. If one cannot take responsibility for one's behaviour, one has no place in contemporary pro sport. Australia, as a team, are sliding down the Test rankings, faced by serious issues on and off the field. Warner, among others, has under-performed in marquee series of late. CA must have considered replacing him, which is why, I assume, Rogers is in the squad for the Ashes. The two journos did not glorify themselves with their 'Warner-baiting', but David has tarnished his 'reputation', with his contemptuous vitriol. Going forward, CA needs to train their players in handling criticism on social media, especially, 'Twitter'. Some 'homework' would definitely deserved here! This Aussie cricket team is fast becoming a comedy show!!

Warner is symptomatic of Australian cricket, he has a very high opinion of himself for an average cricketer. And he is not alone, wade and Hughes are just as bad, park cricketers with massive mouths. More time practicing, less time sledging.

1. What message does it send if Khawaja, Pattinson, Watson and Johnson are suspended for not having requisite off field application and Warner is let off? Warner's form and behaviour in India wasn't great yet he was happy to talk up his own leadership credentials. Will this be Warner's Beefsteak and Bourbon moment? Given CA's recent attitude it'll be interesting to see what their response is

Hey Clavers, is that the deodorant that SW uses? I remember my elder brother sprayin' that stuff on his privates. Yep, it was 1976 and he was hoppin' around like a mad rabbit. So every time I saw that on TV I have a chuckle.

Of course sports people should be grateful to be paid a lot $. Would you not be? DW should keep quiet, he has much more to loose than the journos' . Funny thing though, if he scores heavily on tour what will they write then? Would they expect an interview? You see? When you become a star, you become the property of the public. People can and do adore you or condemn you. That's how it works. You get rewarded with $ and fame. But if YOU step out of line you usually get whacked with a big stick until you conform. The smart ones usually keep quiet unless asked.

Man this guy is as educated as a plank.

I know you're not dismissing it but some will. I disagree though. The more ludicrous the claims an opinion piece makes, and make no mistake, Conn, Craddock and co. make a living out writing opinion pieces which are subjective at best, the more it deserves an expletive laden response.

They weren't rebuttals though. They were personal attacks - he said they had no idea. Saying that in any kind of language is not a rebuttal, all it does is show a nerve has been hit. The medium of twitter demonstrates the self obsession. I doubt ca wants it's stars looking like petulant hissies.

As poor as this looks, I believe it should not have any bearing on Warner's selection or otherwise. He is a cricket player, not an English teacher, diplomat or village vicar. He has the right to have an opinion, to express it, and to spice it with vulgar language if he wishes. Players are being dropped from the test team for meeting non-attendance, failure to submit homework ... What next? Wearing an inferior brand of deodorant? Let's keep the focus on batting, bowling and fielding.

I'm not dismissing Warner's rebuttal. I just think that it comes across poorly because of the way he went about it. I'd say Warner's well within his rights to respond to anything written about him, his team, or the competition he plays in. It does however, reflect badly when he throws in half the four letter words you can think of.

So Warner is in the right then?

big flippin deal. Warner is only telling the truth, and gotta laugh at Conn's response "cricket is a real job?". You bet it is. Well, if you're one of the best in the world. The conceit of Conn is incredible. What's conn's job then? oh that's right, his job is writing about what Warner, and the others do for a job. Conn and Craddock are both worthless hacks with delusions of worth. But this attitude, that somehow sports people should be grateful to get paid a lot of money to do what they do, and that they have no rights - for example the right to a lawyer if you are a sharkies player -seems to be disturbingly prevalent. Here's a thought for you professional whingers, get yourself a hobby, I was not aware that following sport had been made compulsory yet. I for one could do without all the faux outrage, thank you very much.

It seems he just gave himself away as there was was no mention in Robert Craddock's article who the young player was.This Ashes tour will make or break this bloke,and I'm guessing with the way he likes to slash everything through point,it will be the latter.

Craddock didn't call anyone a prick or an old fart. In fact he didn't identify any person in particular at all. He was making the very obvious point that the IPL is not exactly where we want are best and brightest to spend 3 months a year.

Frankly I think those who dismiss a rebuttal or comment on the basis that there's swearing and grammatical errors are biased against that person to start with and they'll look for any excuse to claim that their comment is invalid. My point is this, if a journalist wants to use their position of power and influence to write an article taking aim at someone, then they have no right to get shocked and offended if that person returns fire in a less than inviting manner through Twitter or some other medium.

Why not? Is Warner in the wrong because his rebuttal wasn't expressed as eloquently as Conn's article?