Seriously...I give up.

If you (and others) can consider Kirke a better option than even "the pale imitation of the 2007 version Ali" who is still more than capable of better fulfilling the impact prop role , then I can do no more than despair at my apparent myopia.

Probably depends (yet again) on how fit Ali is. If he is, and is raring to go even for 15-20 minutes, I'd have him in the squad ahead of Hauraki. I suspect his general fitness is probably behind his non-selection recently, rather than anything tactical.

As for Kirke, right now I don't see anyone in the squad who would do a better job as a prop in the GF - i.e. solid, likely to not make mistakes. Ali is not a prop. His strength is running out wide at centres, not straight at opposition forwards. Even if he was fit, I wouldn't ask him to play that role.

I think Lauitiiti has in the past and could still fulfil the role Kirke is currently being tasked with if asked to do so and offer more energy, urgency and threat while he's out there.

I've seen no evidence this season that Lauitiiti would be unable to cover the 10 to 15 minute spell Leeds are requiring to re-charge Peacock's duracells.

Quite. I suspect even I could manage those 5 hit ups over 80 mins we'll see Saturday,

because attack is the only facet of the game that matters

I expect better from you, even if you are trolling

In the pub last Sunday afternoon, I was talking with Roger Millward, Paul Orr, and Pete Astbury, all former players in differing eras.

All three of them were nothing but complimentary of Kirke and the role he plays. All of them said he was under rated, and does a "cracking job" for Leeds.

Of course like the majority on here I am not so impressed, so argued the point. Roger inparticular was talking about Kirkes movement off the ball, and when we defend where he positions himself. Can't say I have noticed too much, but he said you can tell by the movement of the oppossition attacker that they do not run at Kirke.

Edit: I shoudl have added before anyone starts getting sarcastic. We all usually go back to local pub after the kids football sides have played. Roger's grandson plays for under 12's, Paul's grandson plays for under 10's, and Pete, well Pete's just in there drinking.

ok, but your opinions on him don't balance the good work he does in defence, with the low rate of work he does in attack.

My opinion of him has always been that he's someone to come on for 20mins whilst peacock is off. As Peacock is so core to what we do we need to try to get the best out of him, which these days means taking a break.

Now when he's off, we're unlikely to win the game, but we could certainly lose it. Kirke plugs that gap. Im (sort of) happy for him to come on, make plenty of tackles, make hardly any errors and give away very few penalties. I'd certainly have him over many of the other props we've had in our squad over the years.

He's no world beater, but you can't have a star in all positions.

Out of interest. How do you rate him in this list of props, who I'd say all represent a similar position within their respective squads?

Cross
Burgess
Kirke
Feather
McDonald
Thackray
O'Neill
Mathiou

I've stated previously his work rate in defence is better than his work rate in attack. However, I wouldn't agree that he does "good work" in defence. He's no Clarkson or JJB. That his work rate in defence is slightly better than his work rate in attack is like saying Peter Sutcliffe was slightly less unpleasant than Moira Hindly.

His defensive work, IMO, is a little above average in quantity and soft in quality.

None of this disguises the fact that his work rate with the ball is nothing short of lazy.

None of us know if the coaches tell him not to take the ball up. However, I've never come across a coach at any level who did not want his forwards to carry the ball.

Is that 20 mins a half or whole game? More like the latter.

Or perhaps reducing his work load by getting the other forwards to make their fair share of carries eh?

I think he make no impact on the games whatsoever.

Agreed.

Cross = Difficult to judge in the limited time I've seen him. Better aggression in the work he does but too prone to penalties. Probably Cross, but only just.
Burgess =- Burgess hands down. Better quality of work. Doubt Kirke would interest any team down under.
Feather = He's Ian Kirke MKIA
McDonald = He's Ian Kirke MKI
Thackray = Streets ahead of Kirke in terms of talent and on field attitude. Streets behind with off field attitude. I doubt Kirke will ever stretch a GB?England jersey unless he buys it from JJB Sports.
O'Neill = No strong opinions. Didn't play enough.
Mathiou = Useless fat lump whose introduction from the bench for Barrie usually coincided with a lull in our tempo and aggression.

The one attribute Kirke possesses that the rogues gallery above doesn't is the luxury of being part of a very, very talented team that Ian has tagged along with for four Grand Finals.

So, to summarise, there must be a reason he gets picked because, well, he gets picked. We're all struggling to see the reason, even his advocates, but he gets picked so there must be one.

Whilst ever he looks like Tarzan and plays like Jane I'll continue to rail about it on here regardless of those better qualified to judge him being in place to do so because, after all, that is what the internet was invented for.

attributes = big lump
contributes = bugger all