So that just leaves JP, did he get some stick during 2006?

Yes, there were many on here disgruntled that he wasn't as good as when he was at bradford when he's simply done the same as he always has, wherever he's been.

Our fans are easily the least knowledgeable in the league, or certainly the proportion of them that post on here are.

Fair point.

My take on it is that you can't have an international in each position, and he give a certain level of effort and skill, but at low cost. It used to be the role of JJB, but he has now progressed to one of the best 2nd rows in this country, and will be on a fair whack more now.

A decent re-sign. Just hope that we have some new faces in the pipeline, as most of the other clubs are getting their signings sorted for next year too. I don't want us to miss out

There was also the argument that JP wasn't a prop.

It's all flooding back now, well thats a full house BINGO

Not one of our back to back championship winning squad is fit to play for Leeds

Seriously? and I dont mean this disrespectful, so apologies if taken, but i take it you don't go often?

Leeds last 7 games.

the starting pack was

Hull: Kylie, Buderus, Peacock, JJB, Kirke, Ablett
Cas: Kylie, Buderus, Peacock, JJB, Kirke, Sinfield
Catalans: Kylie, Buderus, Peacock, Kirke, JJB, Ablett
Harlequins: Kylie, Diskin, Peacock, Kirke, JJB, Sinfield
Huddersfield: Kirke, Diskin, Peacock, JJB, Ablett, Sinfield
Salford: Burgess, Diskin, Bailey, Kirke, JJB, Sinfield
Bradford: Kylie, Diskin, Peacock, Kirke, JJB, Sinfield

Perhaps me and you have a different interpretation of what the word current means. Or anybody can pick me up if the teams are wrong. But either way I am correct on this.

Without having had a serious look at the stats the comparison of JP 2006 with JP in each of 2003, 2004 and 2005 is interesting.

JP the Bradford prop from 2005 looks to have performed better in most areas to the 2006 Leeds model - more yards, more carries, more breaks, more busts, more tries, more offloads, more marker tackles, more tackles generally, fewer misses. Even if you weight it for him having played more games for Bradford the difference is still very marked.

Its difficult to compare a player playing in a different side in a different year but I'd have thought the naysayers had a fair bit of evidence to support their comments in 2006.

I suspect though the fekwit angle really comes into play as most fans' memories will be of JP the second row playing as part of a big pack and his busts and long range breaks, rather than the JP playing down the middle in 2006. Look at acomparison with 2003 for that - more yards off fewer carries, loads more breaks and busts but nowhere near the often unnoticed defensive stint that 2006 contained.

They could also be spending their cap on a backrow of: Pelutua, Wilkin and Flannery - wonder where that backrow currently sits in the table?

Kirke may be starting but that doesn't necessarily make him part of the first choice 13. What it means is that with the 17 selected the best option is to play Kirke from the start with other players coming on as impact players.

You will also note that Ablett played Centre for the Bradford and Salford games, Leuluai missed the Hudds game, Burgess was banned for the Harlequins game, Bailey was injured for the Cas game and Sinfield played Stand Off for the Catalans and Hull games.

Given that each game had players missing and that Leeds are already a forward down (Eastwood) I believe that it would have been Kirke or Burgess who would have dropped out of the 17 had these players been available to play and that both would have dropped out of the 17 had Eastwood also been there. On that basis I don't believe he is a first 13 choice player. I do accept that given he is in the 17 he will generally start the game, allowing Ali to come on as an impact player which is the role that best suits him.

A whole two points better off.

Rather have Flannery than Sinfield, David? Silly question, you'd rather have just about anyone than the multiple title winning Leeds captain.

I think he'll also find puletua has played a fair bit at prop!!!

You beat me too it. Very good squad player with (from the outside anyway) a top mentality. He'll offer alot of bang for the buck. But he's not what his current role demands. He's jumped way up in the pecking order from a pitch hitter to a front liner this season and his forms suffered as a result.

Good signing for the team.

Leeds have played 16 games this season, Ian Kirke has started 11 and been on the bench for 3, only missing the away games at Warrington and St Helens after picking up injuries the game before.

2009: SL Reg Rounds Only

Metres - Carries (MT/Carry) - Tackles - Misses (Efficiency %) - Errors - Penalties - Try Assists

741 - 107 (6.93) - 306 - 17 (95%) - 4 - 6 - 0

That averages out as 61.75 metres from 8.91 carries while making 25.5 tackles per game.

Who should we compare him to in the Leeds side?

For my mind Kirke is expected to carry the ball like a prop as opposed to a second row ie straight up the middle. Given that he is starting and being replaced after 18-20 minutes he is on the pitch at the same time as Kylie and Peacock (or other starting prop combination) and to me this is part of the reason for both him and Kylie having low carry stats.

Hmmm by your thinking what does this say about Ali?

Or James Roby

Two comparisons/analysis are necessary. Those games he propper he needs comparing with the other props in the 17 and those he played in 2nd row he should be compared with the other 2nd rowers in the 17.

The statistics,whilst a good barometer, don't tell the whole story as many games he will swicth between 2nd row and prop.

Ah, fekk it compare him with Kylie, Peacock, Bailey, Burgess, JJB, Ali, Ablett (when not in the centres - getting complicated isn't it).

Lee Smith announcement of leaving shouldnt be that far off now.

If he does expect the signing of Atkins soon.

I don't think that back 3 is any better than

JJB, Ali, Sinfield.

Didn't 'Kallum Watkins Left Boot' declare that Lee Smith would never play for Leeds again? One for one so far.

Don't bother. The stats give some good insights, but would be no good for deciding whether a player is good or not, especially when gametime is not one of the stats published

Indeed but they are helpful when showing Kirke has no appetite for the ball.

I mentioned this (offline) to another poster after a recent game and his 7 carries in the Hull game (when he received significant game time due to JJB's injury) show my impression was correct.

Not to mention time consuming so hopefully all the b[iitchin[/ig will die down soon.

I have no problem in Kirke's retention at this stage as long as at some point suitable replacements for Toopi, Ellis, Scruton, and Eastwood can be found.

If that pattern is repeated over a number of games your right. In a one off game it could mean anything though really.