Kirke was in pretty decent form at the end of the season. If anyone was injured who didn't perform, it was JJB and Delaney. Singleton was bieng kept out by those two

Hush with your voice of reason. You know better.

And still doesn't change the point I made. One person still made a silly decision.

Singleton was one of the better forwards when he played last season. Him being dropped was a mystery. He would have been more effective than several members of our pack that night at Wigan

What actually happened IIRC was that Singleton had taken Bailey's spot in the team at Wigan in round 27 after the latter was banned for tangling with a winger in one of the least disciplined acts of the season - and that's probably saying something in his case.

Bailey returned from his one match ban and Singleton was dropped to the bench for the Warrington game and given the usual limited opportunity from there, then out of the team altogether for the final two play-off games.

The coach sent out a message there - I believe it was the wrong message though and would rather see good form and good discipline rewarded.

Kirke claims it's his 8th and 9th ribs that are the problem. There's very little muscle attached to these and they're too low down to puncture a lung. Credit to him for stepping up when asked despite being in some discomfort. It's clear that with painkillers he was capable of playing to his peak so I'd be inclined to give McDermott the benefit on this one.

Raises serious questions about the decision making of the coaching staff, especially after JJB-Gate in the playoffs.

No doubt Jamie Peacock would be sent into battle for the full 80......on his death bed........for a run of the mill game.......against london........at home..........with a position in the league already secure.

That's our Brian!

I think he probably did watch it.

You're probably right in the sense that he was present and his eyes were open.

I Still found the under use of Singleton in the play-offs a bit baffling given the quality of his performance at Wigan in Round 27 while other arguably undeserving/ill-disciplined/just plain crocked were given the opportunity in his place.

You can have endless debates and deliberations over statistics and merits of individuals if anybody is that way inclined



BUT this IS the most pertinent point.

The incumbent coach treats his team like fellow grunts in the field of battle: he prefers to be in the thick of it with those he has known the longest rather than making an impartial, detached decision as to who might be better placed to fulfill a role.

Wow. A coach who picks the players he thinks he can trust most to do a job for him.

It'll never catch on.

No it won't. Main reason that other coaches do what's best for the side and club, rather than what's best for him. Not surprising though that it would be you daft enough to come out with that.

And when one of the players (if not the actual player this mostly applies to in this particular situation) is an ill-disciplined sort that IIRC you would happily have dispensed with already you must be delighted with the coaches decision to ignore form and stick with his favourites?

Not that you've always backed the coaches call on his big men - this from early 2009 -



How right you were - he's robbed a living ever since.

I have said it before and will say it again. Look at Gilders posts, he contradicts himself so many times in his patronising arrogant manner. His views all depend on which way the wind blows, and which way posters are leaning towards.

This was not the a Gilder of previous. It's like someone else posts as him for last couple of years.

There was also the post tvoc, when Peacock got his extended contract in 2011 which he completely poo pood, telling everyone that Peacock was finished. Now the new Gilder as the nerve to have a go at posters who criticize long deals for lesser players of aged status.

Every coach, good or bad, makes decisions because they think they're the right decisions.

The successful coaches get most of those decisions right.

IMO, McDermott's decision to play an injured Kirke (leaving aside the merits of a fully fit Kirke) over a young, fit and on form Singleton was the wrong decision, whether McDermott thought it right or not.

Do you have an opinion on whether he got it right?

You mean since Peacock took himself out of the representative arena, extending his off season and rest time and thereby prolonging his club career?

Had he not done so, I'll stand by my opinion. He would have been done and dusted by now with his boots up on a shelf.

I don't think it would have made a material difference to results or performances either way. Kirke even with a busted rib was still one of the better performers in the pack at the back end of last year.

50-50 call, coach went with the player he thought he could trust to deliver the best performance. The one with the most experience of high-profile games rather than the enthusiastic youngster.

Easy to sit here in hindsight and hypothesise what Singleton might or might not have done. Much like yourself G1, most players get a lot better when they're sat in the stands



See Gotcha, this is two grown-ups having a discussion without having to result to ad hominem derogatory remarks. You really ought to try it some time, when you're grown-up. Bring tvoc along if you want an adult there to help you.

If you say so Andy. I really don't need to stoop that low to dig up your postings on the subject, and cause embarrassment. Suffice to say, there certainly was no subject to, to your post.

Just to be sure though, when did Peacock announce his retirement from representative rugby again? when he did he sign that contract extension you got so disappointed at?

Eloquent defence of McDermott's decision but I think you probably ducked the question. Do you think he made the right decision?

PS, I think the critique of Kirke's playoff performances have been somewhat overblown, you'll not be surprised to learn. They were better but better by his standards.

It's what the internet was invented for. In my defence, there's no "hindsight" from me when it comes to criticising Kirke's selection





How dare you, I resemble that remark.

While no-one (including the coaching staff) could know in advance what Singleton would have offered in the play-offs they could see what he produced in the previous match when given the opportunity. I'd have preferred to see that good form rewarded rather than the giving up of the place to a player (of dubious worth IMO) returning from a self inflicted unnecessary ban.

Do you believe that a Peacock whose footwork had gone, off-load game had gone and generally looks like he's having to make a massive effort to drag his body around the field would have been selected for international representation?

Re the Kirke/Singleton debate: if this is one of the worst decisions McD makes during his tenure he'll have done pretty well.

McDermott's worst decision (so far) was allowing Danny Buderus to leave whilst still under contract without securing an adequate replacement and then compounding that mistake by not securing the Shaun Lunt gift-horse after it fell right into his lap.

Allowing the undisciplined Bailey straight back into the side after Singleton had played a blinder in Leeds' best showing for months the game before was a minor aberration by comparison.

I'm not necessarily disagreeing with your point, but as a point of detail didn't Bailey's return come at the expense of Alex Foster?

Agree re Bailey but I'd need to know what role GH played in the Lunt/Buderus decisions before criticising McDermott for them. In any case, Lunt was under contract to Hudds. Brown might have been willing to release him but I doubt Anderson would have, given that he's picked him week in, week out since his return. Perhaps it was simply bad luck: Leeds may have thought there was ample time to sort out a deal before being wrong-footed by Brown's unexpectedly-premature departure and replacement by a coach who clearly rates Lunt more highly.