I'd blame the coach for selecting him, he may well be a future star but this wasn't a game for throwing in a young inexperienced player and certainly not at full back.

Pat Richards could have gone to No1 with Thornley or Gelling coming onto the wing, you could even have put Charnley at the back.

Young Murphy was solid for the most part and looked likely to break the line on a few occasions, he wasn't anywhere near to blame for spilling a bomb, that's happened to the best of them.

I see cherry pie has kept well away from this thread after bigging murphys defence up earlier last week and his fantastic positioning, thats sounds like im having a dig at jack too but im not because the lad played awesome in parts of the game in attack, but i did try to tell Cherry pie that Murphy wasnt ready yet, big shame for that to happen to a young lad like that thrown into a situation at the last minute, i think russell even through he also showed some defensive weakness when playing in super league should have been selected purely on the fact he has more super league experience, whats done is done now!

I did post on page 3 but never mind. I'm also pretty sure we were discussing why Murphy deserved to be playing at fullback for the under 20's ahead of Russell rather than who should replace Tomkins on Friday night.

Although I presume that means Brett Hodgson wasn't ready yet because he dropped the ball? And presumably Billy Slater and Ben Barba also aren't ready yet because they dropped the ball in the NRL Grand Final?

Hodgson isn't suddenly a poor defensive player or a weak link because he dropped the ball so I don't see why that should be the case with Murphy either. He was preferred at fullback for the under 20's all year because he was in good form and was proving to be incredibly reliable defensively, particularly under the high ball.

If a good kicker is allowed the time to put a good kick exactly where he wants it to go then it's going to trouble the fullback and that's why it's so important for the defence to put pressure on the kicker.

Some highly rated and very experienced fullbacks have made the same sort of error and that suggests quite strongly that a player's inexperience is not necessarily the reason that they don't deal with a kick and that it might just be the quality of the kick itself.

While Russell is undoubtedly the player with the most potential I fail to see how he would have been significantly better than Murphy. You're suggesting experience is more important than ability but that's not true. The tactics would have been the same for Russell as they would have been for Murphy and the key factor in deciding which of those two would be the safer option would be which is more confident defensively and that would be Murphy.

You have really latched onto this excuse you dreamt up haven't you?

Look at the kick again. Murphy was not being pressurised by any chasers. An experienced player would have been far more aware of where the chasers were and may well have let it bounce as a result not having to risk a catch.

As to the idea Wigan didn't pressurise the kicker enough anyway it is unrealistic to expect the team to be able to protect the full back in this way all game. He was bound to face kicks at some point and as he is a rookie bound to face more kicks than a more experienced player would as he was a target. As soon as it became apparent to Leeds that Wigan were moving up fast to close the kicker down every time they would have tried to exploit it. You don't get a free ride by pressuring the kicker all the time and having to do so because we had a rookie full back is just another reason not to have picked one at FB.

And what would have happened had he let the ball bounce? The answer to that is no one knows. That's why fullbacks are told not to let the ball bounce because they have absolutely no control over what would happen. You can't rely on the ball just sitting up nicely bouncing into the fullbacks hands or happily landing right on the floor for him to pick up. You have to go for the ball and attempt to make it safe which is what he did.

The team were poor at closing down Sinfield and that increases the chances of him being able to put up some very good kicks.

The fact that Murphy made a mistake does not automatically mean he made a mistake because he's inexperienced.

I think you make your point well, but I do think Jack’s lack of experience was the main reason for what happened. I do not blame the lad, and he would have learned a great deal from the game, it was a lot for SW to expect the pressure of such a big game not to get to a young lad at some stage. I know it’s always said never let a ball bounce, and I for one have always believed it, but maybe this game makes a point that disproves this saying. After all as you say we’ll never know what would have happened if he had let it bounce, but one thing’s for sure, at worst the outcome would only have been the same!