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.

however the stats don't indicate who is more dominant in collision. I would say Bailey is and is more likely to land on his front and get a quick play the ball

You've been watching rugby long enough to know that you need to judge certain things with what you see rather than numbers on a spreadsheet.

Based upon watching them play and as you introduced Bailey into a discussion about Kirke, which do you think is the better prop?

Yes I would agree with that and Bailey also wins penalties in attempting a quick PTB. However I think he is usually brought to ground quite quickly which explains his consistent poor go forward game. Kirke used to be similar but over the last 2 seasons has improved his leg drive and metres per carry which the stats prove. Without knowing the minutes per game for each player it is not possible to make fair comparisons. But I am not the one calling Kirke lazy, nor for that matter Bailey.

I am not an anorak bean counter but I do find it useful to quote the official SL stats to prove or disprove opinions expressed. Of course stats are not a 100% exact science but they do provide coaches and spectators with useful indicators of performance or lack of.



Good question. May I first qualify my answer by repeating my opinion that both are not natural props and are better in the back row. So both are usually sound in defence with Bailey in the past producing higher tackle counts (perhaps due to more minutes per game) In attack both are below par down the middle (but better out wide) but on recent form (last 2 seasons) Kirke has the edge here. For discipline Kirke is the winner and for errors both are similar IMO. Neither is known for ball playing skills or slick handling. For aggression Bailey is the winner but that is a somewhat dubious honour.

So my answer is that neither have a compelling skill set that stands out over the other sufficientlt to create a best in show. Both are reliable, experience squad members who have never quite made the starting position their own. Final result a low scoring draw.

Good enough reason to keep both of course.....at the expense of the promising young 'uns now on their way to NZ.

I must have missed those players giving the presence of Bailey and Kirke as their reason for leaving. When did they say that?

Just an assumption