Why is it so hard to believe that a coach might say that? I'm not saying he has, I'm just saying it's not what I'd call 'hard to believe'.

It's not exactly a secret that a good defence wins games. What is it with people's desire for us to score a try on every set?! You know, sometimes it's important to just get a decent solid set in, put in a decent kick, turn the FB around, follow up with a decent chase, and take stock. Whilst I appreciate that there are times in a match when we need to be utterly dominating, making massive advantage, playing the ball quickly, and pressing on to do the same again, it's unrealistic to be expecting that for 80 minutes every single week.

Kirke is not a "dynamic, game changing, hard yards" player. His job (IMO) is to keep things neutral whilst our forwards that are dynamic, game changing & hard yard making get their breath back. If the scores remain the same whilst Kirke is on the pitch, then I would suggest that's his job done.

I agree a player should play to his strengths and a coach should know what these are and ask him to play to these.

What Im saying is that I simply cant believe that Kirke has been asked/coached to not run hard. In the modern game players are suppossed to me more versatile etc... blah blah.

A player might not be that great with the ball (Biffa) but his ability run hard or not is not to do with what he is asked to do by the coach its about what fire is in his belly. Kirke doesn't have that fire (at least not on a consistent basis).

There's running hard, then there's running smart.

Putting your head down and running full tilt at two well set defenders can see you put back on your seat or held up in the wrestle while you try to drive your legs to make an extra yard.

Taking half a yard of pace off your carry and using your footwork to find a weak shoulder can enable you to find your knees and elbows and generate a quick play the ball or draw a penalty.

I'd much rather see players prepared to do the latter rather than trying to show just how much of a tough guy they are by running over people.

Yep, Gareth Ellis is a good example of this. If he ran straight and hard at 2 set props he'd more than likely get knocked to the floor. Using his footwork he gets his nose through the line and often can either get a quick play the ball or an offload away.

Brilliant - quote of the week.

Personally I want forwards who run over people. Seems odd you wouldn't.

As for the sidestep. Oh come on. People like Ali who can sidestep at pace and ghost round players like a back are very much the exception. Most forwards who run hard then try a step a few paces before the collision simply reduce their momentum and make it much easier for the tackler(s).

Im not suggesting runing head first into a wall of players is what its about. What Im saying is that when Kirke takes the ball up he lacks the fire in his belly to punch through on a regular basis. I dont have the stats but I reckon if you look at his tackle busts he would be lower doen the list than most other forwards. (Cue someone about to put egg on my face with the real stats).

I hate to keep harping back to this same issue but... salary cap!!

Our squad, and the salary cap, simply does not allow Kirke to be the player some people seem to want him to be. Look, if he made the yards of JP, with the 'fire' of Biffa (debatable!), the offloading of Ali & the tactical awareness of Buderus, he'd be the best forward in the game bar none. Salary Cap would not allow that.

It seems odd I wouldn't want my team to get a quick play the ball at the expense of being a yard closer to the opposition try line?

You have been watching the last couple of years in SL haven't you, where speed of the play the ball has become one of the dominant factors in how effective you can be in possession?

Watch James Graham for a perfect example of running smart. Not the biggest of props, but very rarely gets sat on his backside because he makes it hard for defenders to get a clean shot on him.

Doesn't need to be an outrageous Neil Hunt style sidestep, just subtle little changes of angle to expose off balance defenders.

Course if you've managed to genetically modify some sort of super prop who runs over people on a regular basis then that's great. Meanwhile back in the real world I'll settle for ball carriers who don't present defenders with a sitting target.

Why is there such a fallacy about Kirke and Salary cap?

Gareth actually posted it earlier, how do any of you know what Kirke is on?

The fact that our CEO Mr Hetherington has gone on record each season and declared that we have space available on the cap just incase something happens in the market, that would suggest bar some posters logic that we are been short changed with Kirke.

But what you have to weigh up is, is it best to have utilized the full cap with a more expensive player (assuming Kirke is on the low salary people are deeming him to be), or is it best to have room on the cap with a less talented individual in Kirke. It could probably be argued the route the club has taken was the best option, although then again things change.

Doesn't make a difference whether or not we know what Kirke is on.

The point remains the same... in a salary capped sport, you cannot have the best player in the world in every position and need some 'fillers' that just do an 'adequate' job.

of course nobody knows how much kirke is on, and whilst made my remark about him been a cheaper squad option i made it because i would doubt he'd be in the top ten players in the squad and 1.7 million doesn't go that far over 25 players (£68k a year each) i doubt kirke is on half that (do you?) and seen as though there will be a few posters on here on around that a year for not playing rugby league i'd say he was a cheaper option squad player. and even more so if our CEO is saying that the club has space under the cap "just in case" how much does the club have spare?

Well I tried (nothing personal but we all love it when someone references a stat that does the opposite of what they claimed it would)

Unfortunately yours doesn't bearing in mind these are from 2010 - SL regular Rounds only:

Player ..... =#0000FFAppearances ..... =#FF0000Tackle Busts ..... Avg per game

Eastwood ….. =#0000FF15 ….. =#FF000038 ….. 2.53

Ablett ….. =#0000FF16 ….. =#FF000026 ….. 1.63

Peacock ….. =#0000FF17 ….. =#FF000027 ….. 1.59

Jones-Buchanan ….. =#0000FF25 ….. 38 ….. 1.52

Burgess ….. =#0000FF15 ….. =#FF000021 ….. 1.40

Lauitiiti ….. =#0000FF17 ….. =#FF000021 ….. 1.24

Bailey ….. =#0000FF22 ….. =#FF000023 ….. 1.05

Leuluai ….. =#0000FF21 ….. =#FF000018 ….. 0.86

Kirke ….. =#0000FF24 ….. =#FF000012 ….. 0.50

I miss Eastwood.

Your second point is correct. Which makes a mockery of your first point.

How do you know Kirke is not earning top money? I doubt it, but he could be for all we know. Which is why the point of him been good value in a salary capped sport is irrelevant when you don't know what he is on, especially if he is not producing the performances to go with it consistently.

So did a few defenders last season it would appear.

Look at my original post. Kirke is a very valuable member of the squad - squad being the word.

Im simply saying that he could be a better player. The same could be said of anyone.

Gotcha, you're just arguing for argument's sake! I think, given the quality of our leadership & business management team, it's a perfectly fair assumption that Kirke is not one of the top earners at our club.

If you want to argue otherwise, you're only wasting your own time & breath (or fingers in this instance).

C'mon Gotcha, everyone knows what every player at Leeds is on and even if there are a few that don't it doesn't really matter because everyone knows it's scrupilously fair. The CEO has a scale and everything that calculates annual salary to a tenth of a penny.

That particular antipodean set an unwelcome precedent for reneging on a contract which led to two members of the Magnificent Seven (Donald and Diskin) reneging on theirs

McClennan. Don't forget McClennan.

If they reneged I wonder when the court cases for breach of contract will commence?
GH does not fight shy of litigation.

He's been a 1st team player now for 6 seasons. I very much doubt he's a top earner but I also doubt he's as cheap as chips.

He doesn't offer better value in ££££s than kids we have in our Academy system and 90% of the time he doesn't offer better value on the pitch.

I also hope Mr Gilder is talking in generic terms because 90% of the time Kirke neither powers over defenders or steps them. He never wins a collision in attack (or defence either) which is frankly unacceptable for the heaviest player in the pitch and he rarely wins a quick PTB.

Now, these harsh facts have appeared on a thread praising kirke because performances like Friday's are all too rare. I hope they become more frequent.

This may be semantics, but to my mind if you're not in the 17 when everyone's fit, you're not first choice.

I did use the word "probably" to describe his relative low cost. If he's on top money then yes, he is poor value for it. As for letting youth through, that's a slightly different question. If Ambler and Manning are/were performing comparably (didn't really see much of either so wouldn't know) then I would totally agree that they would be a better bet. If everyone's fit I wouldn't have him in place of Bailey, notwithstanding that even without injuries it's no bad thing to have enough options to give your front rowers the odd break.

I'm not Ian Kirke's number 1 fan or anything, so this is about as much energy as I am likely to expend on the case for the defence, I just think he perhaps offers more than people think. I also think most of what's lacking is application, rather than aptitude, which I entertain some hope Brian Mac will either remedy or get shut. If ther former I think there's a very effective RL player in there somewe in there, who would probably be in the first choice 17.

Yet despite all of the above has managed to be a 1st team player for 6 seasons or so in a team that achieved aguabley more than all it's SL rivals.

Nah then

Although I had me tuppence worth earlier in't thread it's very disappointing to see a large number of folks berating a member of our fine Union.

Thanking you kindly.