Thats not what I am saying. What I mean is that he is not in the squad for his ball carrying ability. Expecting him to significantly up his carrying when others are out is not feasible. He's not that player. If he could do more, then I think he would. I think that we get too hung up on very 1 dimensional views on what a player in a certain position has to do. For me, its not about props doing x carries and making y tackles, its about getting the best out of your squad. Across the squad we have enough go forward, it may not be the most conventional go forward but the game is different to the one way play at amateur level, its different to the way the game was played even 10 years ago. Once people realise that they may be able to see what a player CAN do, rather than what they can't.

I could name several other players (of a higher level) that have deficiencies in their game which they should have for their position. Why does Kirke get so much stick for his, rather than Burrow's inability to pass to someone's hands?

Innacuraccies about Kirke.

1. He's cheap. He's been a member of the first 17 for 8 years. He's had interest from Wakefield and Bradford. He won't be the highest paid but I'll wager he was on more than many junior who could have replicated his role and more than Moore, Amor and lots more.

2. His coach doesn't want him to carry the ball forward. If so, we need a new coach.

3. He's a decent defender. See TVOCs post. He makes an average number of tackles at best. I refuse to accept that he might lean into someone else's tackles every now and again as a justification for his selection.

4. Successive coaches have picked him so they must know more than us. Maybe. Maybe not. Graham West drives a taxi now. What is Brian McLennan doing? Coaches make errors of Judgment. It's why they get sacked.

He's a lanky streak of lazy softcock who doesn't earn the blue and amber jersey he steals off someone else week in week out.

That, my dear boy, is a cracking shout.

I'd deduct any transfer fee from the wages of wheoever decided to let him leave and keep Griffin, Moore and the BFG instead, whether that be Hetherington and or McDermott.

I would have amor back,i was in the camp of keeping him in the first place.paul aiton would be another i would be taking a serious interest in,a proper hooker.

Eagle-Just for balance.
Burrows deficiencies at 9 have been covered on numerous occasions as have Jjb and Abletts brain farts to concede daft soft penalties ,Sinfield's poor defence out wide ,Mcguires form loss ,Baileys antics the Coaches selections/substitutions etc etc.
After EVERY game the positives and negatives of the team and individuals performances/form etc gets discussed and opinons exchanged mate you've been on here long enough and should know and see that.

Leeds let a player they had go to Wakey then a little over 12 months later pay a transfer fee to get him back.

Oh this board would have a field day.

Amor should never have been allowed to leave the club, but the scenario of GH paying money for something he could have had for free 12 months ago seems very far-fetched. It would also involve admitting a mistake.

But the Aiton rumour has been going round for a while even before Wakefield's publicised problems.

sal we will see not only what jjb's fitness levels are like on thursday but also what brett delaney's are like too
it will be interesting to see how they both perform against wigan and more importantly whether or not they can both attain the required levels of fitness come the gf semi finals should we reach them,as this is my cut off point

i questioned whether or not ryan bailey could attain the required fitness levels should he subsequently receive a ban for his actions against blanch

i would not hesitate in leaving any of mcguire, jjb, bailey or delaney out of the squad if they are not attain match fitness and be an asset to the side come play off time by semi final footy

what would you do if you were coach in this scenario sal?

Tad told be about the Aiton rumour weeks ago personally i think he's ok going forward and pretty sharp around the ruck but very suspect defensively.

he is no major improvement of our squad if we signed him based on his present or previous form imo,although he would come cheap
he does however possess potential but is that what we are looking at recruiting to our club at hooker?
mcshane still has the potential too to be a quality sl player

we need a finished article and one that can improve us immediately

Bailey will be different to the other injured returnees. He suffered a thumb injury which should mean he was able to keep up doing plently of fitness compared to those with knee/ankle injuries. Now I know fitness & 'match' fitness are 2 different things but the fitness & conditioning at the club are excellent and when players have returned they've not looked to be struggling out on the pitch.

In my selection he'd be 4th choice prop anyway so minutes wouldn't be huge for a returnee and we know Peacock does big minutes even in 'lesser' games so you can expect him to be off the field only a tiny amount.

As for JJB & Delaney. This is why I'd have Sutcliffe on the bench being used as a back rower. He along with another sub back rower (Clarkson or Achurch) should mean we can rotate that area much better throughout playoff games. With 2 sub props a given this then means no bench spot for a substitute hooker (McShane).

With JJB, Delaney, Ablett as starters and Sutcliffe & Clarkson/Achurch on the bench that provides enough in the back row IMO.

Now Bailey has been suspended do you still think "it actually worked quite well on Friday night"?

Was it Aiton that the powerhouse BJB managed to push off twice in his full length try at Wakefield?

Well, erm, yes given that they can't go back in time and suspend him for last Friday.

D'urgh!

How much better would we be with one of the form hookers in the comp, Lunt and one of tyhe form props, Amor.

Oopsie!