To quote Aristotle, "The whole is greater than the sum of it's parts". I think that just about sums the kirke situation up. Many people,including myself, often wonder what kirke adds to the team. As stated previously he very rarely coughs the ball up, he obviously adapts well to many different team structures, and he maybe does more of an efficient tackling stint than maybe many of us realise. It speaks volumes that kirke has kept many players out of Grand final teams under different coaches. Tony smith, Brian Mclennan and now Brian Mcdermott obviously see something in kirke that makes him the favoured option for the biggest games. With four grand Final wins in five years i ain't gonna question kirkes inclusion when we need to win the biggest matches.

Here's a crazy thought. Perhaps whilst Kirke is on the field giving Peacock a rest he can actually DO SOMETHING. The two are not mutually exclusive.

Maybe then, he would be more effective and his minutes on the pitch would increase, thus keeping JP even fresher. Might also give Kirke a role other than a tachograph. Might also enhance Kirke's career. Sums up his lack of heart that he sees that as his role and accepts it. You think JP would accept such limitations?

Nor do I get this nonsense that because he makes a few tackles he's excused from taking the ball in. As much as I like the sport, this is not American Football and Rugby League players are required to do both tackling and carries.

Tackle counts are sometimes misleading. If the defence runs at your channel a lot, you'll make a lot of tackles. If they don't, you won't. Hit ups is one stat that is what it is and he doesn't make any.

In the GF he made 1 whilst the game was in the balance, from a kick off so not even by choice.

He's soft, there's no other way of dressing it up. Looks like tarzan, plays like Jane.

What if they don't run at your channel, but you still end up with a high tackle count?

Ideally Gary Hetherington would have a team of top surgeons in over the close season to oversee a heart transplant for Kirke thus swapping his, the size of an orange pip, for one the size of a lion. If that unlikely event doesn't take place you might have to put up with a 5th winners ring for kirke next season. Alternatively the signings of Griffin and Moore mean kirke may have to stock up on Duraglit while he sits in the stand polishing his rings.

Or the competition for places will inspire him and bring out the desired improvements.

Then you're an idiot for leaving gaps in the defensive line or a hard working genius who covers for his lazy team mates a lot.

One of the times I re-watched the GF, I paid specific attention to Kirke whilst he was on, especially after something Gotcha said about someone highly regarded in the game saying that people didn't want to run at Kirke.

Whilst I don't think he hurts anyone particularly in defence, what I saw was that he was controlling the ball/torso of the tackled player, and keeping him upright & away from the floor. May not sound much to the uneducated amongst you, but actually, in a big game, and against St Helens especially, if you can slow the tackle / PTB down sufficiently, and prevent them getting a quick play the ball, and a roll on, then you give yourself a pretty good chance.

I saw Kikre do this when he was first man in, as well as when he joined in as second / third / forth man in the tackle.

I would love to see him take the ball in more, but clearly McDermott & heatherington (along with McClennan and Smith) are happy with his ball work, whilst he is steadying the defence up so well.

Also, whilst we are not American football, where people only have 1 role, people should definitely play to their strengths, as well as play to the game plan, given by the coach, or do people on here think they know how to win major honours better than those paid to do it?

Are you softening?

The only way I can see Kirke being valuable to the team is if he is cheap, but with 4 GF rings to his name, and a number of contracts for Leeds, I don't expect him to be cheap. He won't be the most expensive prop on the books, probably not even top 4, but I suspect given his longevity at Leeds his financial reward is greater than his impact on the field.

Last season he was taking up a spot that could have been used on a promising younger player, next season with the signing of Griffin, I suspect that will no longer be the case.

Generally, people on here know nothing. On the other hand, I know everything.

Yes. Got any blue pills?

And yet when I mentioned Buderus's high salary in conjunction with criticism you said performance on the field was all that mattered and salary was irrelevant.

So, which is it? Is salary relative to the value a player offers or not?