Very true ArturiusX, look at people like Anasta and Hunt, other teams tend to figure them out and they struggle to live up to the expectation generated from their 'boom' year. It must be said that even Kidley was very impressive in late 2003/first half of 2004 for mine, dominated a few games with some smart running and had a very dangerous step close to the line, and that was behind a pack most consider to be inferior to the one we currently have as it was full of young rookies that have now grown up. Now look at him, it is very easy to shut him down and it consistently happens.
The problem with Mullen is, we've had a few pretty devastating years and we've been looking to the juniors for some kind of saviour. We see some talent and latch onto it, sometimes putting all the eggs into the one basket; if Mullen doesn't live up to the expectation laid upon him then we'll be in trouble until we find someone else to look towards.
Remember that Kidley was blooded at a time when we really weren't short of talent or form, so in a way he was just a fella we fancied using for the sake of possibly turning him into something special on the back of the rest of the team's success; he wasn't touted as the future of the club as Mullen is now. We didn't need him, as evidenced by us using him in pretty much every position in the backline just so he could be there, otherwise we would have groomed him for a position straight away instead of fooling around with him at fullback.
However, now that we've used Mullen in a few games, and that we're in the precarious position of getting ready for a Johns-less Knights, we feel the need to consolidate his position in the club by putting perhaps higher than normal faith in him and giving him as much game time with Johns to give him the best opportunity to develop into something special for the benefit of the Knights. Especially since other clubs have shown interest in him, which we've solved by signing him long-term. However we still need to keep him happy so right now we're treating him like royalty and pushing for him to be included in the full time run-on team in case he gets discouraged and wants to leave.
I agree that the best time for someone like Mullen to become a full-time first grader is when he's a few years older than now, as we would do in normal circumstances. But given the Johns situation, our recent form, and desperation to keep him wanting to play for us, we're probably disrupting the natural progression of his maturation. The kid is good enough, and I'll believe that until I'm proven wrong, but they really are less than favourable circumstances for him to be in at this stage of his career and we really don't want to damage him for the sake of a quick fix and a sense of security.
The response being: what else can we do?
As an aside, there's also the case of Newcastle's proud history of junior development and success. There's no doubt we all prefer the idea of one of our local boys being a star over a player we have bought from somewhere else (look at the Roosters...), that's been the case for a long time; we pride ourselves on our juniors. It's exciting to watch a young fella's development. I personally am guilty of really wanting a talent like Mullen to debut young, play with us for over a decade at a high level, represent state and country and retire a club stalwart as a credit to the red and blue, and I'm sure I'm not the only one. But then I'm forgetting patience.
Basically, I just hope people see Mullen as more than an idea.
(Sorry bout the rant ;-))
