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

Well yes actually! IMO it is sound business sense to value, seasoned, proven under pressure at the highest level, reliable squad members (one of whom is still showing improvement) who have committed to Leeds. They are a better short term bet than some unproven promising youngsters who have not shown the same commitment to the club that developed them. Particularly as there are other promising youngsters who have shown a desire to comit to Leeds!

Absolutely! All successful businessmen and businesses take the safe sensible option of the plodding option and never ever take that risk/gamble on the unknown, untested or unproven potential dynamic future option

personally i wouldn't have re-signed kirke and kylie. one or the other for me.
with peacock its a pretty old front row. i would have tried to keep one and bring in a real top class prop to supplement what we have

I wouldn't have re-signed Kirke. He, Leuluai and Peacock will need replacing in two years at the absolute max. Most likely Leuluai at least by the end of next year. I wouldn't have re-signed him and looked to replace him from within the squad next season.

As it is Leeds are in serious danger of having two or even three past-it players on their books, and having to replace a legend of the game at the same time as a quality first team player and a squad player, all in the same position. IMO its unnecessary to delay the replacement of the squad player for so long - I'd rather put his position up for grabs and get it sorted out next season.

It could be said that from his early seasons Bailey regressed as a prop (but not as much as Danny Ward)

Kirke has never reached the heights bailey regressed from.

He was a back row player for when people were tired, and I too think it was the 2011 final he was quoted as saying happy to stand in for jp for 10 minutes. Hardly going to demoralise the opposition seeing him warm up.

In cricket terms it would be a batsman knowing he'd nearly seen off the opener and the trundler with long hops coming on.