When the next generation read about this period of glory in years to come they will take note of his 5 rings etc.

I'm not sure he will be remembered. People will remember Burrow, mcguire, sin field, peacock. I would doubt people will remember kirke as a great, even if he wins another 5 rings

You aint the boss o me

I'm not talking about him being remembered by people who have seen him play.Most of us have read the Headingley story and seen names of players we have not seen.Players who's names are not legendary.Arthur Clues for instance club legend only won a yorkshire championship medal.It ain't fair

This stat shows a big fall from his previous 2 years, however taken on its own it is misleading (no surprise G1 has already accepted this without question) Before a judgement is made it should be put into context by taking into consideration other factors for example the number of tackles each player has made. Also comparisons with his team mates percentage misses.

Both the Eagle and myself have made the point that positional play should no longer be judged in the traditional sense. Coaches have been using players so that they concentrate on their best attributes without the restrictions of the numbers on their backs. eg

This point fails to understand that Kirke is in to do a defensive job around the ruck and when he does make a carry he makes more metres per carry than any of our other forwards. We do not use Kirke, Bailey or Clarkson for impact but rather to allow first choices a rest.

Having said all this Kirke has been dissappointing and making him a less reliable defender this year.

I would have assumed that most of the time backs will have a worse miss ratio than forwards simply because of the where and the type of play they are defending.

especially at FB

Tomkins for instance is at 21.7%, Kearney 26.9% Lomax is at 23.25%, Grix is 30.83%, Escare at 29.57%

Ahh the good old "he's the biggest player in the team but we don't use him as a go forward Prop".
Se when "others" JP included are having a breather and our 6ft 5" 17.5 stone Prop is just on to defend around the ruck WHO should be doing the "Hard yards" and actualy going forward as ANY Prop should be able to do??
To have 3 forwards selected for "Breather stand ins" is at the very least far fetched especially one as big as IK.
So when Coaches are talking about their subs "making an impact" and either maintaining momentum or "Changing momentum" if its Bailey ,Clarkson or Kirke it doesn't apply?

Interesting take on things, as Bailey has this year vastly started alot more games than he's appeared from the bench.

So I'm not sure who you think he's relieving.

So, some forwards are workhorses, like Peacock. Some are impact players (like Lauiti'iti), and some are just fillers. THere are very few genuine impact players out there who can come on and make a difference, also they usually come with some risks (poor defence, or silly offloads). Leeds are both blessed and cursed with Peacock. Blessed because he is one of a kind, a man who would get into the team on attack or defence alone. We suffer because when he's off there is no-one who can fill the void.

There is an old saying in rugby, and probably most team sports, that it takes 80 minutes to win a game, but you can lose it in 5. Here is where I think the rationale is behind the solid unspectacular interchnages. It takes 0 minutes to win a match, and having Peacock on for 65-70 minutes gives you a pretty good chance of doing that. More than that and I think he loses much of his effectiveness. So you have to weaken yourself for 10-15 minutes a game. there is no Peacock, and the salary cap (and Leeds implementation of it) wouldn't allow someone of similar stature. So while he's off do you stick on someone who is medicore at both attack and defence (eg Moore), who wouldn't provide massive go forward, and would be weak defensively. Or do you go with someone with great attack, but poor defense (like Pa'aliasina). IMO, both of those leave you open to losing the game in the 10 minutes your are without Peacock. The third option is that you consolidate in that period. Take 10 minutes when you stay tight, and give away very little. You give players limited time to make a nuisence of themselves in defence, and keep us in the game. You weather the storm, then bring on a fresh Peacock to continue the effort of winning the game.

Without a Peacock, or maybe with a different spread of premium players, we would have a different plan. Would you swap a Watkins, or a Sinfield for a Graham or a Sam Burgess? Maybe you would but we have a tightknit squad, where our forwards give us a pretty good balance over our 17. If Peacock is not there, it starts to unravel. At the time we replace Peacock, I would say that 2 or maybe even 3 of the other props will need to go, or change their game for us to continue to compete

If Peacock is not there, it starts to unravel. At the time we replace Peacock, I would say that 2 or maybe even 3 of the other props will need to go, or change their game for us to continue to compete

That time is now imo which is exactly a point me ,Gotcha ,Tad and many others have made since last year.
We cannot keep relying on JP alone to do what he does then have the whole thing go t!t$ up when he's either injured ,suspended or retires.
Here and now that kind of approach with the likes of Kirke and Moore just does very little or nothing for us going forward yet both and even Kylie are here for next year and in IK's case a further year.
I see yer point perfectly but do you really need a 32yr old plodder to achieve that and even now he isn't even doing that to great effect anymore and was awful when the injuries bit.
I wouldn't be surprised if we won another GF but id still call for an over-haul in the pack and i honestly dont see how or even we'd ask/select a forward as big as IK and ask him not to go forward but "stand in" for 10 minutes.
To me its an excuse to try and justify his selection because elsewhere he offers very little!

I simply never cease to be astonished at the lenghts some will go to to excuse four or five drives a game from a prop.

Why can't all of the above be true but Kirke just, you know, puts a bit more effort in with the ball? Do you think he would earn £60k a year more if he took, say 8-10 drives a game? Do you think Peacock would be any less rested if Kirke took, say 8-10 drives a game?

The only time I've seen a player happy to be quoted that he sees his function is to give a team mate a breather is Ian Kirke. If he had testicles beneath that huge but gentle frame he'd never accept such a set of circumstances. He doesn't even have to be as good as Peacock. He doesn't have to be good. He just has to be willing to put his hand up and help his team mates out by carrying the ball, like any self respecting prop should.

Would certainly agree with this.Only Singleton of our current batch of front rowers has shown any glimpse of being able to shoulder the burden when they are not there, and he is still maturing as a player.Moore, although i do not rate him too highly at least looks willing to roll his sleeves up and take the ball up but he gets limited game time.The plain facts are that Our go forward diminishes significantly when JP is not there,we rely on him way too much in that department and god knows how we will go about replacing him after next year.

You seem fixated by Kirke's size rhinoms. Do you realise how many times you have refered to this in recent posts? Why cannot you accept that Kirke has never been picked for his go forward and neither has Bailey. Not only are you a sizeist but also you seem stuck in traditional positions having to be played in a traditional way only. eg Burrow not a proper hooker, Sinfield not a proper SO and Kirke not a proper prop. You still don't seem to see how the game is being played these days with backs packing down in the pack and backrowers carting the ball up. Surely it is obvious to you the role Kirke (and Bailey) are asked to play. So why keep banging on about them taking on a different role when it has been explained to you that our back rowers take on the go forward role at Leeds in addition to JP and Kylie. And we often play a defensive prop at LF

Despite all this talk of Kirke's giant size you fail to even consider that this year he is having to play extra minutes due to injuries (he has only missed one game I think) and will no doubt experience some extra fatigue in lugging about all this extra bulk about which could account for the extra missed tackles this year. He has made the 4th highest number of tackles for a forward and as I have pointed out he has the best metres per carry of all our forwards. JP excepted none of our other forwards have a hugely better overall performance. He also does attract several defenders to bring him down which because of his size will help to wear them down as does his weight in the tackle.

Kirke, Bailey and Clarkson do not have great go forward impact whether they start or come off the bench. For a long time now all three have been used as benchmen in reality and if they do start it is more than likley to rest a first choice like Kylie who offers some impact off the bench or to replace an injured first choice.

Not conclusive as he has been on a sick note/suspended for most of the year and we have had injuries which have effected the starting selections

Using your own logic, wouldn't that make your initial point..... 'not conclusive'?