Fitness and the ability to usually finish a game without limping off springs to mind .

Not surprising though is it when he only plays ten minutes and makes a couple of ineffective drives

I'm probably not the best person to educate you. But if you ever get the chance to speak to our previous 2 Grand Final winning coaches, be sure to ask them what Kirke offers.

I dread to think

Kirke should not be compared to Ali. Completely different players, playing different positions.

Kirke over Amor? A decent track record of being steady & reliable. He's not there to make huge meters. he's there to be a body in defence (usually for a short time whilst peacock is off). A job he does pretty well. People (rightly) criticise his work in attack, but seem to forget that defence is arguably a more important part to the game

But what does Ali offer now? He is a pale imitation of the 2007 version, and if this season had been his first at the club, he wouldn't get a second season, thats for sure.

He's been probably our best ever overseas player, and will leave with our very best wishes, but McDermott's job is to win on Saturday. Based upon what I've seen this year, I can't see Ali contributing to that goal.

Seriously...I give up.

If you (and others) can consider Kirke a better option than even "the pale imitation of the 2007 version Ali" who is still more than capable of better fulfilling the impact prop role , then I can do no more than despair at my apparent myopia.

Probably depends (yet again) on how fit Ali is. If he is, and is raring to go even for 15-20 minutes, I'd have him in the squad ahead of Hauraki. I suspect his general fitness is probably behind his non-selection recently, rather than anything tactical.

As for Kirke, right now I don't see anyone in the squad who would do a better job as a prop in the GF - i.e. solid, likely to not make mistakes. Ali is not a prop. His strength is running out wide at centres, not straight at opposition forwards. Even if he was fit, I wouldn't ask him to play that role.

I think Lauitiiti has in the past and could still fulfil the role Kirke is currently being tasked with if asked to do so and offer more energy, urgency and threat while he's out there.

I've seen no evidence this season that Lauitiiti would be unable to cover the 10 to 15 minute spell Leeds are requiring to re-charge Peacock's duracells.

If you can't or won't see that Ali has transformed from a huge asset into a liability, then seriously...I give up.

Quite. I suspect even I could manage those 5 hit ups over 80 mins we'll see Saturday,

because attack is the only facet of the game that matters



I expect better from you, even if you are trolling

In the pub last Sunday afternoon, I was talking with Roger Millward, Paul Orr, and Pete Astbury, all former players in differing eras.

All three of them were nothing but complimentary of Kirke and the role he plays. All of them said he was under rated, and does a "cracking job" for Leeds.

Of course like the majority on here I am not so impressed, so argued the point. Roger inparticular was talking about Kirkes movement off the ball, and when we defend where he positions himself. Can't say I have noticed too much, but he said you can tell by the movement of the oppossition attacker that they do not run at Kirke.

Edit: I shoudl have added before anyone starts getting sarcastic. We all usually go back to local pub after the kids football sides have played. Roger's grandson plays for under 12's, Paul's grandson plays for under 10's, and Pete, well Pete's just in there drinking.

Because I've never said that.

I expect better from you.

ok, but your opinions on him don't balance the good work he does in defence, with the low rate of work he does in attack.

My opinion of him has always been that he's someone to come on for 20mins whilst peacock is off. As Peacock is so core to what we do we need to try to get the best out of him, which these days means taking a break.

Now when he's off, we're unlikely to win the game, but we could certainly lose it. Kirke plugs that gap. Im (sort of) happy for him to come on, make plenty of tackles, make hardly any errors and give away very few penalties. I'd certainly have him over many of the other props we've had in our squad over the years.

He's no world beater, but you can't have a star in all positions.

Out of interest. How do you rate him in this list of props, who I'd say all represent a similar position within their respective squads?

Cross
Burgess
Kirke
Feather
McDonald
Thackray
O'Neill
Mathiou

I've stated previously his work rate in defence is better than his work rate in attack. However, I wouldn't agree that he does "good work" in defence. He's no Clarkson or JJB. That his work rate in defence is slightly better than his work rate in attack is like saying Peter Sutcliffe was slightly less unpleasant than Moira Hindly.

His defensive work, IMO, is a little above average in quantity and soft in quality.

None of this disguises the fact that his work rate with the ball is nothing short of lazy.

None of us know if the coaches tell him not to take the ball up. However, I've never come across a coach at any level who did not want his forwards to carry the ball.

Is that 20 mins a half or whole game? More like the latter.

Or perhaps reducing his work load by getting the other forwards to make their fair share of carries eh?

I think he make no impact on the games whatsoever.

Agreed.

Cross = Difficult to judge in the limited time I've seen him. Better aggression in the work he does but too prone to penalties. Probably Cross, but only just.
Burgess =- Burgess hands down. Better quality of work. Doubt Kirke would interest any team down under.
Feather = He's Ian Kirke MKIA
McDonald = He's Ian Kirke MKI
Thackray = Streets ahead of Kirke in terms of talent and on field attitude. Streets behind with off field attitude. I doubt Kirke will ever stretch a GB?England jersey unless he buys it from JJB Sports.
O'Neill = No strong opinions. Didn't play enough.
Mathiou = Useless fat lump whose introduction from the bench for Barrie usually coincided with a lull in our tempo and aggression.

The one attribute Kirke possesses that the rogues gallery above doesn't is the luxury of being part of a very, very talented team that Ian has tagged along with for four Grand Finals.

Many of those players had the opportunity to be part of a very sucessful team. The fact is that they weren't and were shoved out of the team by the same coaches (except Mathiou) who have continuosly picked Kirke, which says plenty about them. Burgess I can see does not fall into this category, though I note your rose tinted/attack minded view on him. For much of last year he was a weak link defensively, and had issues with ball retention.

I would say (and have shown previously) that his work rate in defence is amongst the best in the club when his minutes are taken into account.

I agree I'd like him to up his workrate in attack, but as a logical person, I can understand that there is something that means he warrants a place in the team almost every week. As you frequently say when someone disagrees with you most of us will never know as much about the as the people who are paid to make the decisions have forgotten, no matter how many years we've been a fan, or no matter how many years we've been playing amateur rugby.

2 (hopefully soon 3) grand final winning coaches (who have been successful elsewhere) have consistently chosen Kirke in their cup final teams. A chief exec who has presided over the most successful period of the clubs history has seen to retain him. I think I trust their judgement of a player than yours or anyone's on here. There must be something that keeps him in the team. Now we all joke about compromising photos of Hetherington and the like but in reality, he must add something to the team. The fact that we can't see it is probably says more about our judgement, rather than that of the professionals.

So, to summarise, there must be a reason he gets picked because, well, he gets picked. We're all struggling to see the reason, even his advocates, but he gets picked so there must be one.



Whilst ever he looks like Tarzan and plays like Jane I'll continue to rail about it on here regardless of those better qualified to judge him being in place to do so because, after all, that is what the internet was invented for.

I can see what his attributes, so if you can't, that makes me better

attributes = big lump
contributes = bugger all

Excellent post........OMG did I really say that

Pah, Leicester Rhinos has owned this thread on the pro-Kirke side

Is that a euphemism?

Do you reckon Kirke is in with a shout for the Harry Sunderland trophy ?



Any pro-Kirkers willing to back their man ?



The cake is on me if he wins it.......and I don't mean that literally G1, so no chance you can lick it off

I think I can see why the Leeds CEO has retained him.

If the mythical pay grades really do exist at Headingley then I imagine Kirke will occupy the one that comes just above 'statutory minimum wage.' He's unlikely to be in high demand elsewhere and he'll never get within several miles of representative honours - triggering an automatic upgrade - he's dedicated and doesn't cause any waves off the field, a model professional ..... I imagine.

From Kirke's side I expect he's happy with his lot and content just to fit in as a bit-part player on gameday and bask in any reflective glory that might come his way.

___________

If Gotcha's ex-coaches rate him so highly I wonder why they think he struggles to get more than twenty minutes a week on the field?