[url=http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/850/im4iknoweverything.jpg/[/url

I think as has already been mentioned kirkes value to team now may get over looked with moore and more so griffin. i believe every player has a role, but they should all have value. giving someone a rest is a waste of a shirt, they should come on and give more than the tired player they have just replaced could.

I wouldn't bet on it

if you look at games where kirke plays he's often available to take the ball up but doesnt get the ball, does that suggest the rest of the players dont trust him or do they use him as a decoy?

his defensive qualities are well noted not just in effecting a tackle but in effecting a slow tackle without penalties
going forward he supplies solid if unspectacular metres and sometimes thats what you need just to gain ground

the ability to play the game almost mistake free and not give away penalties shouldnt be over looked as we have players that might produce moments of brilliance but are just as likely to throw a forward pass or drop a ball to kill a attacking move or defensive effort

apparently more than the people who have delivered the most successful period in the clubs history.

oh no my mistake, you feck all about how to put together a squad that consistently wins top honours, just like everyone else on here.

That's your contribution to the discussion is it? If so, I wonder why then you bother coming onto a discussion forum at all if all you can add is "the club knows best".

Being an avid supporter of the club (which I am) and not being an employee of the club doesn't prevent someone holding a perfectly valid opinion. There have been some top notch fekkwitts employed at the club over the years, on and off the field. There have also been some very knowledgeable supporters who know an awful lot about rugby league.

But hey ho.

Baaaa baaa baaaa baaaa baaa.

Is that better?

I remember a couple of years ago, when we were in the middle of our three-peat and beating anyone and everyone and people argued that in a salary cap era it was the value we got out of players like Kirke (and Bailey, Ablett, JJB et al) that set us apart as from our competitors. Lets look at Kirke for what he is a 4th rotation prop. Yes he doesnt bust tackles, offload, make masses of metres but if he did, he would cost a lot more and wouldnt be a frontline rather than 4th rotation prop. His defensive stats are good, he makes few errors, he gives away few penalties, he soaks up the pressure, is a body in the line and lays a platform for Peacock, Leuluai and Bailey to do what they do so well.

The signings of Moore and Griffin will put pressure on all the props excluding JP. If you look at the current 'pecking order', Kirke's place would seem most at risk, although it may be that BM is looking to rotating JP and Leuluai to reduce wear and tear?

FWIW I do agree with G1 that Kirke seems to not do enough, but I also don;t underestimate the lack of errors and the fact that he may simply be valued as a squad member by the rest of the team.

Thats not my only contribution to the discussion. Just a single argument, one that you have used many times in the past when it has suited your particular agenda.

I have provided reasoned analysis on many aspects of the game and where Kirke does and doesn't contribute to them. Its plain to see that Kirke's workrate in attack is not very good. I'm trying to look at why that may be, rather than just paint him as lazy, which I think is just poor attempts at trolling. If you don't think that players have strengths and weaknesses, and should be picked on their strengths, and avoid them being exposed to their weaknesses, how does that fit with someone like McGuire. With the ball, he has the ability to change a game, and do things many others can't possibly do. At plenty of times this season, he has been a liabilty in defence. His technique has been shocking, and a lot of tries have come through, or around, or over McGuire not defending well. Is there a witch hunt because he misses a few tackles, not from what I can see. People know that he's worth the occassional error in defnce because he offers something in the other part of the game that more than makes up for it. Where people have a weakness in defence they are supported, either by playing them out wide, and exposing them less, or by pairing them with better defenders on that side, as happened a few years ago when donald switched sides to help a defensive concern.

Why should these principals not apply to the other side of the game then? If someone has a weakness, or even is not as strong at that part of the game than some others in the team, why waste their energies on something which is less productive for the team, something where they can add real value. We don;t play McGuire defending in the middle, because firstly it'd be a nightmare, and secondly, it'd leave him so knackered, he'd be less effective with the ball. Exactly why pivotal players like Iestyn Harris, and Tompkins have been played at fullback, to keep them fresh for doing what they do best.

Now, you'll probably say that, its part of a prop forward's role to take the hard yards, AND make the tackles. Whilst I agree, I think this is a simplistic view. Yes, they should, and the best do both well. Kirke is not the best, and you can't always have the best. What the current managment, and the previous managements have done sucessfully is maximise the abilities of a limited player.

I agree there have been many ts employed by the club over the years. I'm not sure we could say any of the management over the last 8 years falls into that category. On the whole they've done well with the squad, and with signings, and haven't been afriad to hold their hands up and say that a player is not what they were expecting, and get rid early. Despite this approach Kirke has been a memebr of this squad for 6 seasons, and has played a part in all the championships in that time.

My argument with you Gareth isn't you critisism of the lad, but its your one sided approach to it, rarely looking beyond the obvious. Looking at how many times a player carries the ball and forming your opinion of him on that basis is only just above thinking the best player is the one who scores all the tries, in terms of tedness. I expect insight of a better standard from you

That's a very reasoned post and I can understand your argument.

However, fundamentally, it still smells of finding excuses for a front rower who simply doesn't take the ball up. I don't think there should be any room in the 17 for a player like that.

When Singleton made his debut in a spell much shorter than Kirke usually gets in each game he made 9 carries. The kid was raw and they weren't all top quality but he showed energy and commitment, something lacking in the much more illustrious Kirke.

By the way, I've never been myopic about Kirke's abilities. I've addressed his defensive contribution and his role in spelling Peacock. Let me remind you, though I think you know my feelings and they're posted earlier in the thread. He is not a machine in defence like Clarkson, Buderus, JJB. IMO, he's average in defence in terms of the quantity and the quality of his work.

As for not giving away penalties when your contribution is so minimal it's hardly surprising is it?

As I said, the biggest indictment of kirke's attitude comes from the lad himself. He sees himself as no more than a warm body whilst the proper front rowers get their breath back. His quotes do little to assuage my feelings about him but merely reinforce them.

I disagree that he's not a machine in defence. I think for the time he's on the pitch to regularly make close to 20 tackles takes some doing. He's also involved in other people's tackles helping slow the PTB down.

I think your argument about penalties & contribution is off target though. You could argue that for errors, but most penalties are given when defending. As a defensive player, you'd expect his pen stats to be higher.

I do agree with your assessment of his attitude though. I'd like to see every player make the most of their abilities, and not rest on their laurels. HOwever, maybe the reason he does have a place at Leeds is that the management and player both know he's not going to get any better, but will be that steady option, who can come in, do a job, and not cost much, with no risk of having to upgrade him to international band of wages. Even if he moved to another club, and played 60mins a game he's never going to get any rep honours, so I imagine he's chosen to do the role he's been asked to do, as well as he can, whilst being part of, and contributing to, a very sucessful side.

I think we've argued our cases Leicester and we haven't quite fully convinced one another.

What irks me is I think Kirke CAN actually do better. I think it was the start of 2008 when he was playing as an impact 2nd rower off the bench before he injured his shoulder and he was awesome. I recall one game against Wigan at home when he was unstoppable. I really thought he would kick on and become quite a destructive forward.

Sadly, he's more Chris Feather than Willy mason.