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.

So you will championing leaving JJB out given he will have little/no match fitness nefore the play offs?

I agree with your views on Baileys performance but saying that RB has shown in the past that he does bring some positives to the team whereas i dont think Kirke does.
Now in the past your defence of players has been what they've shown in the past as enough to earn "another chance" to retain their shirt for the week after!
I still dont get how you compare Kirkes go forward with Sutcliffe ,Foster and Mcguire??
I actually wouldn't be surprised to see both selected next week and the likes of Foster and Clarkson missing out if messrs Jjb and Delaney are fit.
Gotcha-I agree with you in that our succession planning seems to have gone t!t$ up but still think RB can offer something but would prefer to see IK ,RM and Kylie depart.

The one that really, really annoys me is the one I believe the club could and should have avoided.

There are three forwards in the top ten metre makers in the comp. One is Peacock, one is Crabtree and the other is Kyle Amor.

Kirke, Moore and Griffin were and are vastly inferior players to Amor.

That one was a really shocking decision.

I think we can agree on that one. Why the lad wasn't toed up I don't know

If Wakefield are in trouble then it would make sense for Leeds to move for Amor, especially given his existing connections with the club.

The concept about having to tackle someone if they run at you is about as valid as saying you can only take a hit up if someone throws you the ball. In essence they are both true but we all know that both are to do with positioning.

You can tackle whats running at you, and you maximise the opportunity if you defend around the ruck at almost all play the balls, as Kirke does. Defensively, you can also lend your weight to other people's tackles, which help prevent offloads, slow the play the ball down, and allow the defensive line to get set. This is something is key to winning a game as someone taking the ball in lots. Its not obvious but those who have played the game for a bit recently will understand that. In this area I think Kirke is probably in the top 2 or 3 at the club. It can't be measured by stats, but I would challenge anyone to watch Kirke when he's on, and see how many tackles he gets involved with as second or third man.

On his carries I think he doesn't pull his weight. I think that while I would like to see more carries from the lad, that he must be doing exactly what is asked of him.

He's been here 8 seasons, under 3 coaches, with several sets of contracts. In that time the coach / CEO has got rid of Thackray, Griffin, Cross, O'Neill in his position as they weren't up to it, on top of the likes of Ward, Feather & McDonald before him. Now those last two were softcocks, they didn't run their weight, but I don't think they did anything the other side of the ball either. Why would GH get rid of all those players before him, but not Kirke? Why would the coaches continue to pick him? Maybe, just maybe, they know more about how to win top level rugby league games than the people on here. If it was jsut one coach that selected him, in favour of apparent better players then yes, I would probably see it as favouritism. But it isn't. Its three coaches, who have all brought silverware to the club.

I don't beleive everything that the club does is right. I think they have made mistakes in recruitment, and retaining players. However, I think when mistakes have been made, and people have not been good enough they have been moved on quickly, certainly before their contract has ended.

Why has Kirke been exempt?

Eagle-I may not be a coach but i have played the game and true a number of coaches have selected Kirke and in the past he's come in and done "a job" however over the last 18mths IMO he's a passenger and should not have been retained.
Now i do watch him as i do the others and still all things considered for a Champion team and regular Challengers for trophies he isnt good enough that's my opinion and no amount of what we've dobne in the past or what respective Coaches have done will change that.