He shys away from the ball. He shys away from impact. These are not attributes one needs on a prop forward.

As DHM says, he had a part to play in our successes but he's been awfully lazy and soft these last two seasons.

I can abide players with limited talent, I can abide players who make mistakes. I can't abide players with no heart.

Poopy poop.

Not your assessment of Kirke, just your last point. One of your favourite players had the smallest heart I have ever seen in a rugby player. Yes, Donald I am talking about.

Kirke is fullfilling a similar role to Bailey. Both are coverted 2nd rows with their main attribute being defence. Both are really only squad players and only feature more promenently now due to our lack of class at prop. Every side needs players of this sort as they are reliable and don't bust the cap.

I wish both would have a better go forward game but as I said they are picked for their defence. Kirke makes fewer carries than Bailey but shows signs of improvement and makes fewer errors, fewer missed tackles, fewer penalties, fewer yellow and red cards and is much faster.

If a prop is only on the field for 30 minutes then you cannot expect him to be actively involved much more than once each minute. If in that period you have less possession then you will not be able to make many drives particularly if you are also making a tackle every minute!

So the stats are effected by the possession and field position for a props time on the field. The starting props have the best chance to make more carries.

Neither are soft.

We'll have to agree to differ on that.

One thing I am certain of, if Scott Donald is given the half chance BJB had Saturday he scores the try and we probably lift the cup.

Even if you were right, which you are not, it's not that big a deal with a winger as it is with a prop.

Donald wouldn't have gone round Richards as easily as BJB did.

Maybe ... But do you think Donald would have scored the one BJB DID score ?

Perhaps. Donald's final try for Leeds was a strong finish against the same opponents in last year's Qualifying Play Off game at the DW Stadium.

Less convinced he'd have finished off the move that Jones-Bishop did for his 1st at the KC Stadium in the Quarter-Final though to bring Leeds back in to the match.

High quality winger's finish that one.

kirke is a pussy and a soft cock.
two sexual references in one sentence there

The only way we can know if the criticism is fair, is if we know what he is being asked to do. Therefore we can deduce that (at least) one of Kirke or McDermott is due criticism, because what Kirke regularly produces on the pitch is not of an acceptable standard for a first 17 prop at a club which aspires to winning the available trophies.

Maybe one way we can really evaluate Kirke's input is to identify which other top clubs would he regularly get a game at? Not many I would suggest.

fair or unfair he's no longer good enough if he ever really was

Kirks is a useful squad player who will look good in a good team, in a team that is playing poorly he won't look good. As has been said he's had a couple of poor seasons now. However he's hardly alone in that.

In the end it all depends how much of the salary cap he's taking up and either way, whether we keep or get rid of Kirke, it won't be the primary reason as to whether Leeds are successful or not next season.

That pretty much sums up my opinion too.

Of course it's not his fault he is continually selected....but again I ask can anybody [iplease[/i tell me what it is he offers in comparison over Amor and/or Ambler ? (and Lauititi whilst we still have him)

Put it another way: out of 8 props (Peacock, Lleulai, Moore, Bailey, Kirke, Amor, Ambler, Singleton) which 5 would you narrow it down to for a[i more than [/iadequate first team squad and why ?

[iFor me the 5 to prioritise are:[/i

Peacock: old but still much to offer (hopefully)
Moore: old but guess he should be given an opportunity (perhaps)
Amor: young, played well in SL and should be encouraged/given an opportunity to kick on.
Ambler: See Amor
Singleton: young with bags of potential

[uTo miss out:[/u

Leulai: old and shows no appetite for than 10 mins.
Kirke: old and [unever[/u going to get better than barely adequate.
Bailey: too interested in coasting/winding up opposition (which doesn't work against a good well disciplined team). Might be a better option to Moore, to scrape into the first 5, but not much of a ringing endorsement.

Actually Mr Ross might not be a bad idea after all.

If the OP has watched Kirke all season i can't see how some of the criticism isn't justified tbh.
It can get to a point where it's a "Witch hunt" but if you rate him on a game by game basis you can see past posts where his performance has been good and as such has been mentioned.
From my own POV and having seen what Amor has produced and the potential Singleton and Syron have shown i don't see how retaining Kirke helps our squad now.
He's done a job for us but at 30 and the team re-building beginning i just think we should be looking elsewhere and just to add i don't see what signing Moore brings either.

I'd like to see Singleton play a bit more next year. Not too much too soon though, I think he still has some physical development to come from what I've seen of him. Young players mature physically at different ages and you can't rush it. Some will be ready for full time Super League at 16, others will have to wait a bit longer.

Amor looks the part now, and I'd like to see him back in the fold for 2012.

Just checked the stats of Amor and Moore, and I can't see one single reason for signing Moore at all.

If you looked at the stats for Bailey, he would be lucky to play Super League, but people keep telling us (when it suits) that stats are not the be all and end all, and stats do not take account of game changing or influencing moments.

I'll wait until July next season (that's the norm isn't it?) before judging.

I agree, and if Scott had been playing in last years WCC he would have scored those two chances in the corner that young Watkins missed

If you looked at the game you'd reach the same conclusion

Maybe Batley consulted the stats on Moore and Amor because he doesn't see them play each week.

Why would he need to consult Bailey's stats? Couldn't he reach an opinion based upon, you know, watching him play rugby. Granted you can't glean the same information as you can from a spreadsheet but what the heck, I'm willing to give it a go.

People around here prefer reading spreadsheets. Soon the need to actually play the game will be rendered obsolete. The mathematicians will simply determine the outcome on a weekly basis.

Exciting eh?

As an accountant, it sounds AWESOME!

I always thought there was something a bit "wrong" with you

Absolutely what I was thinking. Which makes the next bit you said as maybe you forgot what you were typing about.




How do you make an assessment on one player by using stats and not seeing him play? Yet say stats are irrelevant with another player because you have seen him play, even though those stats portray a worse player?

Sounds like the same basis the game has always been decided in the past.

The tins in the scorer's hut may have been replaced by new fangled digital read-outs but the concept for determining the victors basically remains the same.