I like the way the debate continues as if it's now established fact that Sykes is an average player.

FWIW, IMO, he isn't. He's a very good player. Very solid. Does a decent job at half back and if he had another proper half alongside him he'd be doing very well, just like he did in the final dozen or so games for the Bulls last year. Like Pryce at Saints, he needs a proper play making half along side him.

Because of the struggles at the Bulls recently the focus is on him, as a lad out of position, doing his utmost to guide a struggling team around the park. A bit like the negative focus our know nowts were putting on Burrow early season.

I'd imagine the Bulls officials recognize the effort and job he's doing at the moment and the quality of the player. If anyone thinks that the struggles of the Bulls are down to Paul Sykes at stand off they should think again. The Bulls do not concede nearly 100 points to crusaders and Gnats because of who is playing stand off.

In Tony Smith's judgment Sykes was good enough to play international football and that speaks volumes to me.

Witty thread title mind you.

If Kirke every gets a sniff of an international jersey I will buy a Leeds carnegie season ticket.

Am i correct in thinkng you agreed with me that he should of been nowhere near the national set up when he was selected for the WC and last year?
Just to add i don't see anyone blaming Sykes for the Bulls troubles just offering opinion on him as a player we'll have to agree to disagree.

I doubt very much I would've used those terms. I can't recall specifically but I wouldn't have been too enamoured with his selection, especially if Smith was selecting him as a half back, which was where he finished the year at the Bulls.

I still don't think he's average and possesses exactly the kind of qualities that a soft cock like Kirke could desperately use.

I like how you persistently call Kirke a soft cock when anybody in the game that plays at SL level, especially in a champion pack, is clearly not a soft cock. You have to be a pretty hard barsteward.

Thanks. I was hoping to impress you.

I have respect for anyone who laces up the boots to play the game at any level. That said, he's still a soft cock. I once took the out of him in a bar for wearing tights (you know, those training things). Do you think I'd do that to Morley or McDermott?

I call him a soft cock not because I think he's soft but because he plays without aggression, heart or passion. He's one of those frustration physical specimens like McDonald and Feather before him with the body of George Foreman and the aggression of George Formby.

Glad you cleared that up.

Add Neil Harmon to that group and arguably....puts on his suit of armour...big Roy.

Oh no she didn't.

Not having that. Firstly, his work rate alone puts him in a different echelon to someone like Kirke. Big Roy played in 20+ GB tests and was a cornerstone of the GB packs to record historic wins against previously unbeaten Aussie legends. He tackled all day and whatever came at him and took the ball up all day. This was in the days of 2 subs and when you were off you were off so he regularly did 80 mins.

Plus, Big Roy was hard. I once saw him punch out David Gillespie playing for Hunslet. It was so unlike Big Roy I had to ask him why he'd done it in the Loiners Guild bar afterwards. He said Gillespie called him a black b***ard.

Dougie's decision to release Roy was because he didn't hurt anyone in the tackle. One of his last games for leeds was away at Hull and he made 50+ tackles with, probably, no misses. I bet kirke will barely make 50 tackles a season.

Not that I want to take you away from your player bashing there . And in general I actually agree with you on the above subject, and certainly in big Roy's case.

But I would say, taking Peacock out of the equation, there is a strong argument to say that Kirke has been our form forward over the last 6 or 7 weeks, and he's actually made 60 tackles over the last 3 matches, with obviously a lot less game time than what you mentioned above.

You miss my point.

Not saying Roy didn't graft, achieve or wasn't hard. I originally typed 'but he adapted his game to suit his strengths and weaknesses' but thought that was over labouring the point.

What I was saying was a direct response to your comment on players whose aggression doesn't match their physical capabilities. I'd have said with Roy's physique he could have hurt people more in the tackle as well as made more yards but don't think he mentally had enough of the mongrel in him so he adapted his game to become a workhorse.

It wouldn't be unreasonable to assume that had he carried greater aggression his work rate would have fallen.

Fair enough.

I'd described Kirke as playing "without aggression, heart or passion". I thought you were linking those descriptions to Roy. Agression maybe, but he had plenty of heart and passion.

Mebbe, but he's still a soft cock.

Had you mentioned heart and passion I'd not have mentioned the big fella, but in aggression alone I think the point stands - certainly I felt that way at the time that what he was was great but always felt there could be more if he could get some more anger in him.

Mind you, I wouldn't have said Harmon lacked heart or passion either - just that he was too 'nice'.

I know Harmon was a lancastrian, but does anyone know if he still lives around these parts?

I only ask because I have seen him twice now in the last 3 months on Garforth main street.