I have not noted you make many points to show how well informed you are.

I had proposed a selection of Achurch before Bailey for a bench spot assuming back rowers of JJB, Delaney and Ablett started. The rest of my bench was Singleton, Sutcliffe and McShane. So obviously Kirke was dropped. However your response was to state Bailey should be selected instead of Kirke...! Now that rather shows your agenda driven obsession with Mr Kirke

If I have an agenda against Bailey it is to balance the nonsense comments that hype him up to be more than just the usually reliable defender that he is IMO. I have consistently praised him when he does perform well and commented when he doesn't perform well. Both Bailey and Kirke have been reliable defenders over many years but both have lacked a decent go forward game and neither are natural props. They offer experience and perhaps salary cap economy have both been useful squad members.

Now if we are talking of agenda then we should look at your Kirke complex. Your comments are stuck at quoting the number of his carries. Often he is on the field for shorter periods and is obviously asked to defend rather than make a lot of carries so you disregard the number of minutes he is on the field. You were once again quick to predict that he only made 4 carries against Catalans I think you said. So when it turns out it was 5 a piece for Kirke and Bailey do we hear any criticism of Bailey. No. neither do you acknowledge the much higher tackle count from Kirke for similar minutes.

Look I am not a fan of Kirke's but his contribution for time on the field is not a lot worse than Bailey's

Achurch was also out with an arguably more serious injury and came back with much more effective impact than Bailey. I do appreciate that injured players need time to get back their form and they may lack stamina but if fit to play I still expect better effort and work rate than Bailey showed and he also showed himself to be unprepared mentally for the playoffs.

I do have an agenda with Kirke. It's to highlight the woefully inadequate performances week after week after week.

When his defenders compare his work rate to Bailey I've often said that Bailey's work rate is inadequate as well. That doesn't make Kirke's any more adequate. Plus, we've seen Bailey's ceiling is much higher than Kirke. You are guaranteed to get 3 hit ups a game from Kirke, no more, plus two he has no choice but to make on kick offs.

Oh, and Kirke gets just as many minutes on the picth as the other forwards and often more than Bailey. It's a fallacy that he's not on much. People just assume he is not on much because he does so little.

Then we do agree that both Kirke and Bailey are below par then?

With regard to time on the field, without the actual minutes neither of us can prove this point. But I believe that one of Bailey's positive points is his ability to play longer minutes and to have reached this reputation he must have done so on a regular basis. I do not have the same view of Kirke who I think runs out of juice if left on too long. So I feel sure Bailey (when fit) plays longer minutes than Kirke

Some match reports list substiutions. I watch Kirke closely during games these days (well the games are pretty dull anyway) and he gets as much if not more minutes than Bailey and Kylie.

One stat readily available is missed tackles. Kirke had two on friday, bailey had none. If I were looking for positives for Bailey over Kirke I'd highlight that.

Bailey is up before the disciplinary so there maybe no decision to make regarding the Wigan game.

if bailey cops a ban and cant regain his match fitness against wigan on thursday then could this prove selecting him much more difficult for the knock out games that follow?
i dont think that we can afford to carry too many unfit returning players into our 17 man squad for these play off games

what is everyone else's thoughts ?

We have two games before sudden death so IMO we have to play our best line up in both games just to try and get them match fit. The result in either game is not critical.

The reports rarely give all the interchanges.

Kirke has played more minutes recently but only because of the injuries and Bailey until Friday has played zero minutes since mid June. Prior to this Kirke I believe tended to play less minutes than Bailey who in turn had earned a reputation for being able to play longer minutes. For this to happen he would have to have regularly done just this.




Well you would have to cling to the only Bailey positive on Friday. You have already claimed a try assist for sick note even though he was not on the field.

Until recently to be fair Kirke had a good record in defence with few errors. Last season your same readily available stats show he made the same metres as Bailey in fewer carries, with 40% fewer missed tackles, more busts, fewer errors, fewer penalties and 100% more clean breaks (1 against zero!) This season he has made a significant improvement in his metres per carry and is top of the regular forwards with 7.4 m/c

In the game last Friday Kirke's defensive performance was no worse than the other forwards (JP excepted) as you should well know having stangely confessed that you "watch Kirke closely these days" Perhaps in watching him so closely you missed how poor some of the other were.

Kylie missed 3 tackles and made 11
Singo missed 3 and made 16
Sutcliffe missed 3 and made 23
Kirke missed 2 and made 22
Foster missed 1 and made 19
Clarkson missed 1 and made 23
Ablett missed 1 and made 25
Bailey missed 0 and made 13
Achurch missed 0 and made 6

JP missed 4 and made34
Sinny missed 2 and made 34
Both these last two can be excused the misses as they were joint top tacklers and JP was to metre maker with 200m

With the exception of the outstanding JP and Ablett with perhaps Kylie our go forward was not good enough from any of the rest of the pack. Bailey, Clarkson, McGuire, Sutcliffe and Foster were all worse than Kirke for go forward and Singleton was about the same.

As I have said I am not happy with Kirke and would drop him for the Wigan match but is only fair to point out he is not as bad as some would believe.

Correct. It is all about momentum now.

JC-Are you seriously comparing the go forward of a 6ft 5" 17.5 stone Prop to that of the likes of Mcguire ,Foster ,Clarkson and Sutcliffe??
Also Mcguire and Sutcliffe were'nt even playing in the pack!

Even the laziest, softest players have to make tackles if the opposition run at them. As Mick Harrison said once, when the coaches criticised him for a low tackle count, "would you fekkin run at me?"

I doubt anyone would be worried about running at the BFG.

You cannot argue with carries as an indication of a players heart and desire, two things lacking in the BFG.

I am seriously pointing out the facts. Backs normally make the most and perhaps easyier yards than the hard forward yards so it is reasonable to state those of all positions who were worse than Kirke. It should be obvious, even for those with a closed mind on this isuue, that Kirke's role in the side, like Bailey's is defence rather than go forward.

Leeds have for some time have not been hampered with traditional positional roles. With the exception of JP it is our back rowers who often produce a better go forward than our props. In this match Kirke played at the same time as our first choice 2 props, so it is right to compare him with other back rowers too.

In this last match Kirke may not have been as good as we all would like but as I have shown he was no worse on defence or go forward than most of his team mates and he was better than say Bailey and Clarkson and as good as Singleton. So why pick on him?

It's clear why kirke is targetted his size and his position mainly and the week in week out poor showings.
What the backs achieve in comparison with go forward is completely irrellevant G1 rightly pointed out Mags and Suttcliffes below par performance yet Mags scored the decisive try whereas the Kirke cost us one with a pathetic Andy Hay esque attempt on Elima.
All this he's selected for defence is BS look at the size of him?
Looking at ALL the other players you hold up as some sort of example of him having worth EVERY one have had much better games than Kirke in the past more consistently aswell.
He's been 1st choice 17 for years and whilst its apparent not 1-17 can all be top class players he brings nothing of note that says he's a 1st 17 player for a Champion team.
The youngsters selected in the pack have had more positive impact than he has during the injury hit run we've had at a time when we needed him to stand up and be counted aswell.
I agree Bailey hasnt been at his best either but to compare them when RB is just back from injury and clearly not match fit is clearly an unreasonable comparison.
Its not about scapegoating ,picking on whatever you want to label it ,it's about what he offers as a 1st choice 17 6ft 5" 17.5 stone forward and its very little.

It shows how disappointing our succession planning has been, when a poor cart horse like Kirke is playing every week, and he's along side an equally poor cart horse in Bailey, as JC has been pointing out.

Both should never have had new contracts based on this seasons form, which is all we should be judging on. God help us without Peacock, he single handedly carries that pack.

The discussion was about my proposed selection of Achurch over Bailey. Both have been out with injury but it was Achurch who came on with great impact after a serious knee injury whereas Bailey showed little positive impact with a poor work rate for someone out sucking his thumb for 10 weeks. If his passenger performance weren't bad enough he had to totally lose the plot and get sinbinned for non rugby violence.

He let his team mates down by making their job harder and he let his coach and supporters down by failing to use this opportunity to get match fit and offer his experience to our title defence. I would have expected a professional rugby player who has been unavailable for so much of this season through injury and suspension, for previous poor discipline, to have had more resolve to control himself and keep his eye on what is most important to his club.

Although my selections did not include Kirke in the squad (I had dropped him) G1 oddly chose to introduce him into the discussion by saying he preferred Bailey to Kirke in his reply to me. This tangent perhaps was driven by his obsessive agenda against Kirke.

Now I do not want to continue having to be a Kirke apologist. But he has become a target for the critics which in part is justified but as happens so often in these cases it becomes OTT and loses all reality. To be critical of Kirke's go forward (which has improved this season and is better than most forwards in metres per carry) is wrong when it does not take into consideration that he is picked for defence. To be critical of his lack of carries is fair but again only if it takes into consideration his time on the field and number of tackles made in that time. To be critical of missed tackle is quite right as this is his main role. But as I pointed out in the stats for the last match, he was no worse than the other forwards, JP apart.

I do think Kirke's recent defensive performances have been below par which I guess is due to him playing more minutes due to our injuries. I think the same can be said of the youngsters like Singleton who has lost a bit of spark too.

So to summarise. For this last match it is Bailey who you should target as enemy No1 and not Kirke and neither should play against Wigan.