Quote: G1 "Ian Kirke was a different player up to the start of 2010. That his when his pathetic laziness first came to my attention.'" www.superleague.co.uk/statistics ... on=2011Iam not sure the stats back that up. I tried to do a comparision from 2007 to 2011 if it has worked.

Quote: G1 "Ian Kirke was a different player up to the start of 2010. That his when his pathetic laziness first came to my attention.'" www.superleague.co.uk/statistics ... on=2011Iam not sure the stats back that up. I tried to do a comparision from 2007 to 2011 if it has worked.

Is there?

Is there going to be another Leeds forward who regularly makes so few carries a game?

A quick glance at this year's stats, roudning up to a full carry showis us the following per carry average per game from Leeds forwards whether they be forwards still on the books, loaned out or binned off.

Player Average Carry per game (rounded up)

Kirke 8
Bailey 12
Peacock 19
Kylie 12
Amor 14
Ambler 11
Cross 9
Burgess 15

Lets cheucked in the young Singleton kid in his one short cameo as well shall we? He made 9 carries.

I have know idea about the second sentence in this post but I would argue that the first one is wrong


It's easier to go under the radar as part of a winning, dominant pack

What's the point of Ian Kirke? !! He is such a lucky lucky boy! Perhaps I'll get signed up next..I'm a clapped out old pensioner with joint replacements, overweight and crippled with arthritis but one thing I am not is a lazy lump! If he makes more that a metre when he carries the ball or hits the opposition before his knees hit the deck it is a bonus! I'm with Tad...I shall be saving my money next year I think!

He appears to have offered very little. 5 carries and 5 tackles in a game? Seriously?

Not impressed. Ian Kirke can be an effective rugby player if he so chooses, which makes it all the more frustrating that he seems to choose not to be more often than not.

He has been pretty consistent though, to be fair....

8 a game is the same as Chris Clarkson.

Is he also a lazy sod, or do we not count him for some obscure reason known only to your agendas?

What about the lazy sods going through the motions in the backs - or are we only highlighting props for a reason?

I'm not sure most of you lot understand the nuances of salary capped sports teams. Basically for everyone other than Saints, Wigan and Bulls it means you can't spend over £x.

Kirke has and always will be a squad player. If he is on anything other than squad playing money you might have a legit gripe, but a modicum of common sense would suggest otherwise.

The serial underperformers on the biggest deals should be cut or signed on deals reflecting performances. 3/4 line needs retooling asap and the halves at least need looking at and questions asked.

Well, the first reason I would differentiate between the two is that kirke has been part and parcel of the 17 for 6 season's. Clarkson was a part time player until the middle of last year and is a young lad making his way into the team.
Perhaps the same reason I wasn't so harsh on Kirke four years back but why we have every reason to expect more now?

Perhaps because Clarkson has not been playing front row so the emphasis on his hit ups is not as important.

Perhaps because Clarkson makes more tackles a game, misses fewer tackles per game, makes more tackle busts per game, makes more marker tackles per game, makes more clean breaks per game.

Oh, and using the rounding up process I applied he (Clarkson) actually would make 9 carries per game.

Perhaps because one can see a promising young player with room for improvement with Clarkson I look at Kirke, 30 years, and think, this is what he is, has been and will be.

What's a squad player? Could you define please?

Because I am not sure most of you lot understand Kirke is actually a player who is in the 1st 17 week after week after week season after season.

BTW, how do you know what he is being paid after 6 season's as a 1st team regular?

Finally, what point does it represent value for money when compared to his work rate.

I understand the value of squad players. Players that would not usually be within your 17 at season's start when everyone is fit. They should be hungry, ambitious young players who, if given an opportunity, will rise to the occasion and, perhaps, give the coach another option and put pressure on the incumbent player in their position. Kirke brings none of that.

Really? How many games has he missed this season? What squad number is he wearing? How much value did his 10 total contributions to the match add on Friday? I can cope with him not being a world-beater, but surely whatever money he's on he can put his hand up and run the ball in a bit more often? Every squad needs lower-paid steady Eddies, and I've been happy for Kirke to be one of those. But if he isn't putting a shift in week in, week out, why waste any of said salary cap on him?

If he would like to prove his doubters wrong, he could always string together 3 or 4 weeks where he reaches double figures for carries and tackles.

Maybe the plan is to turn him into a hooker he sure has the vision and handling skills to do so............what a joke.

I've said this a few times now but GH and BMc cant be watching the same games as us.

I couldn't believe it when I heard this news this morning.

Part of me thought I must be asleep and it was all a nightmare.

I'm still in shock and dare not even start to think about the implications for what this means for next year.

Of all the out of contract players this season Kirke was the one that I thought was bottom of the list and guaranteed to go. If we're keeping him then there would be stronger justifications for keeping Senior and Bailey and Ali meaning that there must now be a chance that all our out of contract players will be retained again in which case we have learnt nothing from last seasons mistake.

There is no doubting that our period of dominance is over and we are on a downward spiral at the moment and how long that goes on for and how steep the slope is is upto GH.

This squad is in need of an overhaul of some kind and the resigning of players like Kirke and maybe others is not the way to go IMHO

Every day we hear of a new contract extension is seriously affecting our chances of overhauling our squad with quality replacements.

Yes we've lost Cross and Burgess but you have to factor in that presumably we will have Amor and Ambler in our top 20 Squad numbers next year?

Both of those and players like Pitts should IMO be given their chance in front of the likes of Kirke.

Does this re-signing lessen the chances of Bailey getting an extension (given we have Griffin, Amor and Ambler to add to our first choice squad of props,along with Kirke now?)

I'm no fan of Bailey and if left to me i'd have got rid before now but I would take Bailey in front of Kirke every time.

The way things are going I can see there being only one new face in addition to Griffin for next year.

I think Buderus is going back to Newcastle as their current number 1 hooker (De Gois) has just signed a 3 year deal for Cronulla Sharks) so that should free up a good deal of cap space.

I think/hope that we will not offer new deals to Senior or Ali as that will mean that we should have a lot of room to bring in 2/3 new signings of the quality we will require.

I thought last off season's player retention/recruitment was of paramount importance but this years is now even more important as it will help determine how long our recovery is going to take.

if he's on half what Ben Westwoods on then its not a bad deal for us.

To be fair it's not about the £££ he's on imo its about players like Ambler ,Singleton and possibly Amor not getting the chances to play more 1st team games.