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.

Great post

I am getting tired of repeating that both Bailey and Kirke have been valuable members of the squad and I have agreed with both having their contracts extended because of the absence of better players being available with the important match winning experience and mental toughness. But I view them as inexpensive (probably), squad players that just make the 19 rather than starters when all are fit.



In my view all players need to go forward as it is a key object of the game. Therefore in the Catalan game it is perfectly reasonable to point out that Kirke (who was being criticised for go forward and 2 missed tackles) made more metres than Bailey, Clarkson, McGuire, Sutcliffe and Foster and at a better metre per carry too and his m/c was equal to Singleton who made 19 more metres but fewer tackles and more missed tackles. So why do you object to my presenting these facts and why have you not been equally critical of the others before I mentioned these facts?



I would agree that this is highly possible.



Kylie in his cameo minutes still makes more impact than Bailey and I will not be suprised to see him do the business in the games to come.


rlhttps://www.superleague.co.uk/report/8936rl

JC- Kirke is a big unit and plays FR or some times BR Mcguire ,Sutcliffe do not Foster is half his size very raw and finding his way in the sport the go forward comparison is wrong because they have different positions within the team and 1 is still a kid.
Onto Singleton he's shown more impact and imo work-rate and potential this few months than Kirke has in the last 18!
Again with RB its been pointed out about his lack of fitness and being unable to train but i do agree he was poor in that particular match.
As for Achurch good on him its all positive i'm chuffed he's come back and made an impact after so long out RB take note.

Don't presume Kylie was a cameo just because he was on bench, had 2 big stints and played very very well.

Playing Devil's advocate....
10 errors and 6 penalties in 25 games and he averages over 20 tackles in a game - there are not many that are that neat and tidy. He doesn't carry the ball often - but how do we know that the coach doesn't want him to?
Chris Clarkson has played 3 less games but racked up roughly twice as many errors and penalties, about the same number of tackles per game. However, he carries more often and makes more breaks - he's a straight running back rower. It's a balance.
I can see why, with the current way the cap is set up and the way teams have to assemble squads, that you would keep a player like Kirke. He doesn't f*** up very often and he is usually fit and healthy. I would also say that in the GF's that he's played in his contribution has been solid, dependable and well worth his bench spot. I can also see why other players have come and gone while he remains.

Do I think we could do better - absolutely - but the way the cap is set up the sensible, safe approach would seem to be to keep a Kirke in every squad.

DHM-Does that now extend to another 2 yrs and is "Dependable" and "Solid" good enough from a 32yr old FR with all his experience??
For me absolutely not especially when we've moved on younger and better players like Amor and not given lads like D. Smith ,Baldwinson and Tonks chances to earn a regular place.
Even taking into account those departures with a fully fit squad is he worth a new deal?
Again for me its a firm no and it was highlighted even further when the injuries hit he should be stepping up but he didn't.
Hopefully Yates can prove to be a success and we get another FR in because with another 2 yrs of Kirke as a regular in the 17 we are going backwards rapidly imo.

Not all players at Leeds end up finishing their contracts, they might as well read "another 2 years unless we decide otherwise at some point".