You're right. I've also noticed him leaning on the pile when two or three of his team mates have effected the tackle. Machine!

Will mock me/him if you like but if you really think that's all he's doing then you dont know as much about the way this game is played than you think you do

Chillax.

We've had this discussion many times.

I find Kirke lazy, soft and infuriating. You can see certain qualities in specific aspects of his game (mainly defensive).

The truth is probably somehwere in between our views. But even such a truth makes him a very ordinary player.

....oh and by the way, I think I am well qualified to judge a lazy player, going third man in too look like I am doing something and avoiding the ball at all costs.

I'm not saying he doesn't work hard, the question is he working hard enough. I.e. is he pushing himself to his limits, which I don't believe kirke is.

kirke is a solid squad player. The likes that never get the limelight. every team has/needs theses players.

And at the end of the day, you get what you pay for. bet hes not on a lot....

see I would say that being 3rd man in its the opposite of lazy. It's in addition to his own tackles. It's helping his team mates out by giving them a second or more to get the defence sorted.
I also don't think his lack of carries is because he's lazy, I simply don't think he's very good at it. I'd much rather the people carrying the ball are good at it, like Delaney.

And this I can't get my head around. He's a prop. It should be his primary function. Take us forward. Hence prop "forward".

I like American football but I don't think there's any room in Rugby league for seperate players for attack and defence.

If this is so important to you why then have you overlooked this very same deficiency in Bailey?

Affirmative action?

I would expect that too if I'm honest. But it appears that the coach, a very successful prop in his time has other ideas.

How do we apply that to other positions? We have a hooker that can't defend the middle, or pass particularly well. We have a second row with great work rate, but gives the team lots of extra work by giving away plenty of penalties. We have a halfback with great organisation, and kicking, but offers no threat to the line. Yet, to a certain extent its successful.

The game is not black and white. To be an effective member of the squad you don't need to display all of the skills that the number on your back needs according to the Rugby League handbook. Its about getting the balance right on the pitch across the 80 mins.

FWIW I don't think McDermott has got this balance right, and I would certainly challenge his decision to use Burrow at Hooker, not give better minutes to the rest of the forwards on the bench etc. So there's not saying that the Kirke decision is a right one, but I can't ignore the fact that he's been a major part of the squad under the last 3 successful coaches

I haven't. I've stated many times that I'd like to see Bailey's work rate with the ball increase.

That said, his work rate with the ball is still better than Kirkes and there's also the quality over quantity argument. One drive from Bailey is worth three from Kirke. Which is handy because that is usually about how many you get from Kirke.

However, we're discussing Kirke. The clue is in the thread title. It's hardly a glowing endorsement to say "well he may be poop but someone else is nearly as poop".

Expect a stats burp as a reply......anytime now.

Im sure I know the answer already, but who would you rather have and why?