Mate in 2005 we started with Burt, Morris, Smith and Riddell. Then Burt was swapping between fullback and wing and had not settled in any position. Morris played on the wing for the dragons and previously at hooker while smith was untired. Our only real experiance was Riddell and Marsh and yet the halves played very well.
I am not saying that Kearney will pick Humble and Murray, but simply if he comes here and saids it a clean slate and positions are pretty much open bar the obvious ones then Mortimer and Robson in the halves is not set in stone.
This is a big if, but IF Murray and Humble play well in the trials and they have a better kicking game then Mortimer or Robson then why not. Remember that Mortimer is about 35-40 first grade games into the NRL, he is not an established half so the risk of playing humble or Murray is not much different. I would prefer we play the best players in every position and then Hayne chime in as he needs to, Murray and Humble would have the same level of support that Smith and Morris did in the halves in 05.
I thinks it navie to believe that Robson and Mortimer will magically improve in the NRL, IMO neither are of first grade standard. I mentioned last year that Mortimer will always be over paid because of his name and that KK had shown just as much as he had. In 2009 he didnt play that well it was just hype, most of what he did was on the back of a roling forward pack and our ad-hoc second phase play rather then him actually creating anything.
If I evaluate the skills of our halves:
Mortimer: can not throw a spiral pass, can not kick under pressure and has limited vision, is nippy and supports his forwards well.
Humble: can throw a spiral pass (nothing to write home about, i can do this thou), has an average kicking game,decent vision, knows how to runs lines and supports his man well.
Robson: can defend well, kicking game is non-existant, throws to many hospital balls (no vision) but can organise a team better then the other two.
Murray: by all reports has a good kicking game and good passing game (compared to T. smith BY OTHER - who had the best kicking game and passing game of any 7 in his first year of RL I have ever seen.)
plan and simple, on that comparison Humble > Mortimer and Murray > Robson. They pick themselves.
NOW I HAVE TO STRESS: this is assuming Murray and Humble perform in the trials as expected. I do not condon throwing a jnr in because the players above arnt performing, you pick the best players and put them in your team. If Murray or Humble are no better then Robson or Mortimer then dont waste your time, Id prefer to have MaGuire and Matuia in the halves if you want to pick an experianed pair.
I still disagree with a lot of that mate, it's nothing against you, it's just my opinion. I think Mortimer was not over-payed at all, and deserved the salary he was put on when we signed him (we expected him to play well this year like 2009), as his individual form of 2009 was brilliant. That's one of a few things though.
Mate if we sign a halfback such as Gower, Orford or Cronk then I would play Humble at 5-8 and Murray at 14 no questions asked. I personally would prefer it if they were introduced slowy without all the pressure.
If we cant though so you think playing Humble with Robson or Murray with Mortimer is any better then playing Murray and Humble.
I look at it this way, If you play:
Mortimer with Murray --> then Mortimer will try and ball play because he thinks he is senior and tbh he has no ball playing skills
Humble and Robson --> will add extra pressure on Humble because Robson throws to many hospital balls. This would be better then the above senario thou because Robson is an organiser and can throw a spiral pass.
Humble and Mortimer --> both 5-8s, i would ask... have we not learnt yet.
Murray and Humble --> both unknows, wont try and out call eachother just play within themselves and play together. Hayne may drift out wide more often if he isnt having to ball play because there would be two genuine ball players.
Tom Humble is a halfback, he isn't a specialist five-eighth. He has played halfback most of his playing career; he was the second best halfback in the QLD Cup in 2009.
Mortimer does have some ball playing skills, but he is not selfish like you are trying to make out he is. Mortimer will do whatever is necessary for the team, he will do whatever he is told; if he is told to merely run off Murray's kicking and passing then he will do that. He has an attitude that is far better than anyone else's at the club, I don't understand the sentiment that he will be selfish with the ball.
Humble and Robson could well be the best combination of all of them, one thing Robson does well is settle the team, but if I was to play either one of them at halfback it would be Humble. Humble is a genuine playmaker, and if Robson pairs him, even as a five-eighth, it can help settle Humble into the role-more of a short term thing to help Humble develop easier.
Mortimer is a five-eighth, Humble can play halfback very well. However, the most experienced of the two has less than fifty games to his name, which of course is not a good idea with any halves combination.
On Murray and Humble, I think a lot of that is assumptions they can handle first grade. Murray has never played first grade before, and Humble has only played six games. As many people on here point out, and as the coach will decide, you cannot play two halves in first-grade with less than 10 games between them, it would be political and playing suicide by Kearney. The only possible reason Kearney would do it is if he had Casey Mcguire as starting hooker for most of the game. Most halves combinations have at least 100 games between them, the exceptions of course being combos like Hodgkinson and Foran at Manly (but they had a poor season overall).
There are other combinations too, as well as when you factor in Casey Mcguire;
Humble and Mcguire - a genuine combination, either can play halfback and five-eighth well, with Mcguire and Humble both being good runners of the ball. Mcguire would be the better halfback to settle the team and also is fully developed and experienced as a player, whilst Humble can ease into the role of a playmaker and feed off Mcguire.
Mortimer and Mcguire - different to the above combination, this combo would see a distinct pairing of runner and organiser rather than dual roles like the previous one; Mortimer's great support play allows him to feed off everything that happens if he has a true organiser paired with him, which Mcguire can fill the role of.
Mcguire and Murray - a complex one, Murray is a good runner but needs to be told to take the line on and is a brilliant organiser, this combo would see Murray at halfback and Mcguire more into the running role as he prefers.
Each of them have their own merits, it's up to Stephen Kearney to decide which is best. I believe however that Casey Mcguire will be our hooker next year, Anthony Mitchell off the bench to interchange with Mcguire, and a combo of the four (if we don't sign Orford)-Murray, Mortimer, Humble, Robson. Have to wait and see I guess.
Again, nothing against you mate, we just disagree is all