Or lets just pretend everythings fine he's playing great ,mentally switched on and behind the scenes had already signed a new 5yr deal!
Whatever "equation" you post his form has been poor and he's OOC!

Not all true.

Showed 2 examples of great agility.

Once from the first kick off with the flick back, then at marker when he pounced on the ball first, from the play the ball.

It was a hit out that he needed, that monkey is off his back.

In what way did we blow it? I thought he pretty much set his heart on heading down under?

I have been the first to criticise for the loss of young forwards (Ambler, Amor, D.Smith and Baldwinson) in favour of the pensioners and the pathetic....BUT that's what I remember here too.

Not in my opinion, or indeed the interview he did with the YEP a couple of months before announcing he was leaving where he expressed his desire for a new contract. He was messed about by the coach, and quickly changed his views. We blew it, as I put above. Not to mention the know nowt posters on this board, who could just not see how good a player he actually was, and made up difficiencies in his game.

Now if only he (and the rest of the team) could shake off that hefty but hopeless pest from their backs.



Without a doubt Bailey (for me) is an integral part of the first 17 when fit...although I still don't think he's a prop.

Bailey rarely puts any one off other than the spectators. When he does he picks on a winger....your idea of a pivotal player is it? Good game plan eh! Doesn't work for me.

Your roughhouse forward made just 5 carries, 27 metres (average 5 metres per carry) 13 tackles, 2 errors, zero busts
Softy Kirke also made 5 carries, 31 metres (average 6 metres per carry) 22 tackles, zero errors and 1 bust

While Achurch showed impact from the bench with 6 tackles, 2 marker, 1 Bust, 1 clean break, 3 carries, 34 metres (av 11 metres) 1 try.

No, actually, it's not my idea of a pivotal player. I was responding to your point. But, that aside, it actually worked quite well on Friday night.

Bailey was below par but he was coming back into the team after a lengthy lay off. The BFG was just consitently doing what he consistly does, which is not much at all.

Did you see the incident?

'picks on'? Awww bless.

Mac bled Bails into Catalans game, and will probably do the same against Wigan, to get his match fitness back on track for the play-offs. In that time we should expect a 'drop off' in terms of his performance. Seems fair. Let's remember the facts that he hasn't been allowed to train over the last month, he's better to work off the rust sooner rather than later.

JC-Bailey didn't start at prop nor was he the first carrier from a restart things that are easily ignored when you big up/defend BFG!
As for friday i thought RB was clearly not at his best whereas BFG after 2 reasonable carrys reverted to his pointless best.

Which point?

Only worked out by great slice of fortune. Bailey could well have been sent off on his own for the intimidation and then a punch while Blanche may not have been sinbinned for her face slap. If Bailey were to be suspended would you still think it worked out quite well?




Excuses for Bailey. Sick note was off this time with a broken thumb which should not have effected his fitness. Achurch had also been out for some time with a dislocated knee which would have effected his fitness, yet he came on with great impact. Kirke was on for not much longer than Bailey but worked so much harder. This is not a defence of Kirke but clearly shows how bad Bailey was. As I have said though Kirke shouldn't make the team either for next week.

Bailey needed to get as much game time as possible in order to get match fit for the playoffs. He showed nothing physically or mentally to suggest he should make the 17

Little do you know it seems.

In theory you would think so.

But Brian Mac announced that will Bails' infection he has not been allowed to even sweat, let alone train, for the past 4 weeks.

We can deal with what we know (see above) or we can live in you simple bubble which suits your agenda but regardless of facts and circumstance.

Kirke didn't play prop the majority of time he was on the field on Friday. Peacock and Kylie were both on the field when he came on.

2 of kirkes carries were from restarts and what little he did was through the middle!

You appear to be very ill informed.

You obviously have an agenda against Bailey if you;re not willing to allow any kind of dispensation for a return after an injury lay off.

Seems little point continuing the discussion.

..but I will anyway.

I also though McGuire was dreadful but am not going to lambast him for call for him to be dropped. Clearly, he will need some time to get sharp again.

Come on now rhinoms, the fact is Bailey's contribution was way below Kirke's and his sinbinning shows he was not mentally fit either. The discussion was team selection for next week at Wigan assuming JJB and Delaney take the 2nd row and Ablett the LF.

My preference is for a bench of Singleton, Achurch, Sutcliffe and McShane to provide potential impact and cover for pivotal positions in both backs and forwards. So I was proposing we drop Kirke and play Achurch before Bailey. Clarkson and Bailey (if fit physically and mentally) would make up the 19

I have not noted you make many points to show how well informed you are.

I had proposed a selection of Achurch before Bailey for a bench spot assuming back rowers of JJB, Delaney and Ablett started. The rest of my bench was Singleton, Sutcliffe and McShane. So obviously Kirke was dropped. However your response was to state Bailey should be selected instead of Kirke...! Now that rather shows your agenda driven obsession with Mr Kirke

If I have an agenda against Bailey it is to balance the nonsense comments that hype him up to be more than just the usually reliable defender that he is IMO. I have consistently praised him when he does perform well and commented when he doesn't perform well. Both Bailey and Kirke have been reliable defenders over many years but both have lacked a decent go forward game and neither are natural props. They offer experience and perhaps salary cap economy have both been useful squad members.

Now if we are talking of agenda then we should look at your Kirke complex. Your comments are stuck at quoting the number of his carries. Often he is on the field for shorter periods and is obviously asked to defend rather than make a lot of carries so you disregard the number of minutes he is on the field. You were once again quick to predict that he only made 4 carries against Catalans I think you said. So when it turns out it was 5 a piece for Kirke and Bailey do we hear any criticism of Bailey. No. neither do you acknowledge the much higher tackle count from Kirke for similar minutes.

Look I am not a fan of Kirke's but his contribution for time on the field is not a lot worse than Bailey's

Achurch was also out with an arguably more serious injury and came back with much more effective impact than Bailey. I do appreciate that injured players need time to get back their form and they may lack stamina but if fit to play I still expect better effort and work rate than Bailey showed and he also showed himself to be unprepared mentally for the playoffs.

I do have an agenda with Kirke. It's to highlight the woefully inadequate performances week after week after week.

When his defenders compare his work rate to Bailey I've often said that Bailey's work rate is inadequate as well. That doesn't make Kirke's any more adequate. Plus, we've seen Bailey's ceiling is much higher than Kirke. You are guaranteed to get 3 hit ups a game from Kirke, no more, plus two he has no choice but to make on kick offs.

Oh, and Kirke gets just as many minutes on the picth as the other forwards and often more than Bailey. It's a fallacy that he's not on much. People just assume he is not on much because he does so little.

Then we do agree that both Kirke and Bailey are below par then?

With regard to time on the field, without the actual minutes neither of us can prove this point. But I believe that one of Bailey's positive points is his ability to play longer minutes and to have reached this reputation he must have done so on a regular basis. I do not have the same view of Kirke who I think runs out of juice if left on too long. So I feel sure Bailey (when fit) plays longer minutes than Kirke

Some match reports list substiutions. I watch Kirke closely during games these days (well the games are pretty dull anyway) and he gets as much if not more minutes than Bailey and Kylie.

One stat readily available is missed tackles. Kirke had two on friday, bailey had none. If I were looking for positives for Bailey over Kirke I'd highlight that.

Bailey is up before the disciplinary so there maybe no decision to make regarding the Wigan game.

if bailey cops a ban and cant regain his match fitness against wigan on thursday then could this prove selecting him much more difficult for the knock out games that follow?
i dont think that we can afford to carry too many unfit returning players into our 17 man squad for these play off games

what is everyone else's thoughts ?

We have two games before sudden death so IMO we have to play our best line up in both games just to try and get them match fit. The result in either game is not critical.