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?

But this is the point ... one drive from Bailey is actually worth 1.84 metres less than one from Kirke this year and 1.19 metres less last year. Kirke has upped his metres per carry over the last few seasons. He has also made more carries, metres and tackles to date than he did for the whole of last season. That in the Warrington game Kirke fell back to his old ways is true but he has shown great improvement over the last couple of years and is maintaining it with more game time so it is quite wrong to suggest he is lazy. Like many big men his style appears to be slow and easy but in fact he is quietly doing the business without the histrionics that others use to disguise a lack of performance.

Do you have tomorrow's lottery numbers?

1.84 to 1.19. Deary, deary me. Is that how we're measuring forwards these days.

The Eagle, it will come as no shock to know that I would prefer Bailey for a myriad of reasons.

1. He's younger
2. He's reached a far higher level than Kirke ever has
3. he plays at a higher level than Kirke does, IMO.
4. His offensive work rate is better than Kirke's (though it could be better)
5. He is far more aggressive with his carries and his tackles.
6. He is more likely to intimdate an opponent than Kirke who could not initidate the skin of a rice pudding
7. His defence is very good.

the problem with that stat, is that all it takes is for the oppo to kick towards kirke once more than bailey and all of a sudden kirke has an extra 10m+ drive to his stats.
not really a true reflection on work effort. if anything maybe it proves how average he is by the fact oppos prefer to kick to him and not big bad bails.....

for those that are slow to grasp it. my above post is the perfect example of how any stat can be twisted in to the favour of the person using it.

Bailey is making 10 carries a game (rounding up). Kirke is making 8 carries a game (rounding up). Peacock is making 24 (rounding up).

In an ideal world, it would be great to see Kirke emulating Peacock's offensive work rate. I accept that is setting bar high but emulating Bailey's might be an easier start.

So near as dam it Peacock does a third more carries than their combined totals.
Does not say much for either Kirke or Bailey.
When Peacock retires lets hope we don't have to depend upon either of these two to take us forward and that we find a replacement for Peacock quickly.

Thats fair enough. How far apart do you rate the 2 in contribution?

My viewpoint has them about even.

With the ball, their contribution is about the same.

I think Bailey has better aggression in collission, but I think this has a good side and bad side. Good because it can get the blood rushing. Bad because of penalties conceded, and cards received. The negative affect of these can't be underestimated, as momentum changes, and yardage conceded. With the liks of Peacock and JJB, they graft hard for their metres, so high penalty counts generally at least leave them with a positive yardage for a game. With Bailey he doesn't make so much ground but concedes a large amount. Not to mention time he's off the pitch.

Bailey has reached a higher level, and to me thats the most frustrating thing about him. He is capable of much more. Kirke at least is average and generally consistent at it.

For me, both bring different things to the table and are fairly limited, but not that far apart in actual output.

The biggest 'problem' here is Peacock. He is hard to compare with even the best props in the league. He's the complete forward. And without him we wouldn't have had the success we have. When he retires, our whole front row will need to be re-shaped because the whole set up is geared around Peacock being a super human machine

This is only meaningful if you can compare the respective minutes per game for each player. My guess is Bailey usually plays more minutes per game which could explain the difference. However you can fairly compare the metres per carry for each player and Kirke is up at 7.4m per carry (same as last year) while Bailey averages 5.56 this year and 6.2 last year. So despite the aggression you speak of it would appear to disguise the fact that he is more easily tackled than Kirke and most of the other props.