Just something to throw in here as it relates to how the club deal with the issues in this thread.

Morton was superb at Warrington last year and was extremely impressive in Sunday. For me he keeps his place until his form drops or he is tiring physically.

Hopefully with the success of the Academy team we are entering a phase where the production line at the club is generating a crop of SL quality players. My mind moves to Jay Pitts. For me he was going well as a 'stop gap' but found himself dropped to facilitate the return of more senior players. If I recall the overall team performance dropped. Would Pitts still be with us if he were left in the first team?

We need to get this right with Morton (and Murphy) as it may have implications on the Club's continued development!

Was it last year when Kear stated that it had been agreed either by coaches or players (those in leadership positions) that if a player has been out injured and another has come in and performed admirably that the player returning from injury would play reserve footie and have to work and wait for his opportunity.

That said, if Morton continues his current form, then it's possible Blanch may well have to wait his turn!

I dont know what was over the top in my initial post.

I think too much is made of age - individuals mature physicaly and mentaly at different rates. My point is that In terms of his development Dale should be viewed and feel like a member of the first team squad. Is he better than Blanch you ask - I dont think that many in the whole of SL are - that said Dale is better than him now (as Blanch is injured), - perhaps this is one of our strengths under JK as I feel that we have a squad/group of players that are of a very high standard.

Very true, which is why JK & PB need to be careful in how the handle each individual. Some are more developed than others which is why it's hard to assess whether Morton could play 27 rounds of Super League footie. I'm not saying the lad can't handle it, but we've seen it happen with youngsters who are used as stop gaps and fade away. It should always be about the individual development and not always the teams need. That is what franchising is about right?




He is a first team member and as such will be treated as one. That doesn't mean he is immune from being dropped from the 19, or 17 like any other player. The only difference is how you handle the player because it's important not to shatter the lads confidence.



Certainly we are fortunate that under the leadership of Kear we have managed to develop a well rounded squad supplemented with potential top quality youngsters which has helped through our previous injury crisis'. It's definitely not a bad thing to be able to debate the merits of a academy product over a first team player. Five years ago, i certainly didn't think we'd be able to discuss the notion of one of many academy products over an experience pro. We've come a long way, and here's hoping it continues

Agree totally. You should not be wrapping the young players in cotton wool. See what they are made of in both success and adversity. IMO in SL young players on the verge of breaking into first team are shielded and protected too much which could have an adverse affect in the long term. Sorry to use Sean Ainscough of Wigan as an example but i hope he bounces back from being dropped then injured in the academy (i think this was the chain of events) because he looked a real prospect.

if he continues to play well and can keep his first team place on merit then he should stay in the team regardless of his age, in my opinion.

I can understand the fatigue/burn out issues for a young front rower but less of a concern with a winger where confidence is a much bigger issue