Kirk Out: Spriggs In

[WASwansFanatic]

Originally posted by PerthSwannie
I put Kirky in the same barrel as Cousins(Booze Bus Boy). A leader and a hard nut. Leave him out of the team and the team WILL faulter.

Just like they did against the wobbles on Saturday!?!?!

[Chow-Chicker]

Originally posted by NMWBloods
Is he above criticism?

No, but you think that peanut Davis is.

[elroy67]

Originally posted by eirinn
For once and all, can a Kirk defender tell me what concrete things he is contributing to the team at the moment (and that does not include abstracts like "leadership" and "inspiration"), and how do these contributions outweight his poor disposal?

What is he doing to justify his place in the team?

He is 3rd in the league for tackles (90) behind Macdonald (99) and Jude (92).

It would be nice if he could kick better than me though....

[liz]

Kirk is not having a great season by any measure, let alone the standard he set himself last year or the year before.

However, I don't believe the Swans have any realistic chance of mounting a serious challenge for the premiership unless Kirk comes some way close to regaining his form from last season. Notwithstanding the fact that his disposal isn't the best in the league, he has usually managed to still be effective with it, working within his limitations.

Some of the quarters - and games - he has pulled out of the bag over the past couple of years, often when he was needed the most, were absolutely awesome. Not awesome in a Judd-like way; but awesome in a Kirk-way and that was just as inspiring.

While a Spriggs or maybe even a Schmidt could maybe deliver at the level Kirk currently is, I don't believe for one moment that they are capable - this year - of delivering anything like the best level of performance that Kirk has shown over several years. Granted, Kirk isn't doing it at the moment, but I very much doubt the Swans will go far in September unless Kirk plays a pretty big part in it.

That's why - IMO - he should unquestionably stay in the team.

Double standards? Maybe. But whatever one's personal view of the talents or relative values of a Kirk vs a Davis, there is ample evidence that one has worked his butt off to make the most of his talents, while the other - by his own, frequent admissions - hasn't. So if what Davis is currently experiencing is an attempted kick up the backside in an attempt to get him to perform close to his potential, rather than evidence of a more fundamental rift, it is unlikely to be a tactic that would help Kirk recapture the same form.

If the Swans were out of contention, maybe one could mount an argument for applying the "rules" differently. (Although personally I consider that Kirk has enough bloody-hard-work credits in the bank to last him a fair while yet.) But the premiership defence still has a flicker of life in it yet and as such the coaching staff need to treat all their most likely matchwinners - and that includes both Kirk and Davis - in the way they think is going to get them contributing at their best when it really matters.

[ROK Lobster]

Originally posted by liz
it is unlikely to be a tactic that would help Kirk recapture the same form.

I agree with all that you say, except maybe the bit quoted. Personally, I'm not inclined to think that the "kick-up-the-arse" is much of a motivator long term - for anyone. I am also not inclined to think that everyone has the ability to work as hard as anyone else. I see people in all walks of life who work their guts out. I also see others who try to work their guts out but can never quite make it. It is apparently OK for people to be born with different levels of "skill" but not different levels of "work ethic". And quite often, more is expected of those with the skill because they are considered to be wasting their talent. Unless Kirk is carrying an injury - and there is nothing obvious at the moment - his lack of form can be attributed to his head. I am sure that the club has been doing its darndest to work out why, but after 16 rounds little has changed. Maybe he needs a rest, to freshen up. Or a run around in the two, to get a bit of the ball, to build some confidence. Horses for courses, yes. Special treatment, no. He can't simply look to get his head kicked every week, it's not healthy.

[bigswan]

Spriggs for Kirk. Utterly ridiculous. Dropping the captain for a guy who can't kick a football. Why all the criticism of the players? We're winning and we've got a fair hope of still finishing top 4. Even without a top 4 finish we will have a home final. what do you people want. It is sad that Schmidt and Willoughby can't get a game but that is what happens when there are only 22 spots.

[NMWBloods]

Originally posted by Chow-Chicker
No, but you think that peanut Davis is.

I don't think you read too well...

[NMWBloods]

Originally posted by liz
Kirk is not having a great season by any measure, let alone the standard he set himself last year or the year before.

However, I don't believe the Swans have any realistic chance of mounting a serious challenge for the premiership unless Kirk comes some way close to regaining his form from last season. Notwithstanding the fact that his disposal isn't the best in the league, he has usually managed to still be effective with it, working within his limitations.

Some of the quarters - and games - he has pulled out of the bag over the past couple of years, often when he was needed the most, were absolutely awesome. Not awesome in a Judd-like way; but awesome in a Kirk-way and that was just as inspiring.

While a Spriggs or maybe even a Schmidt could maybe deliver at the level Kirk currently is, I don't believe for one moment that they are capable - this year - of delivering anything like the best level of performance that Kirk has shown over several years. Granted, Kirk isn't doing it at the moment, but I very much doubt the Swans will go far in September unless Kirk plays a pretty big part in it.

That's why - IMO - he should unquestionably stay in the team.

Yes. I don't think dropping Kirk is a realistic or serious suggestion. He has been one of our most important players in the past few years. He is one of those players that you leave in the side in the hope that he regains at least some of his form as he is so important to our chances.

However, at some point though they will need to have a closer look at him and his performance. He has still played pretty crap this year and there have been double standards on the treatment and views of different players.

(BTW - in the locked thread, my 1 in 4 hitting the target comment was tongue in cheek. The difference in his disposal this year to prior is that previously he was getting very good handball clearances and finding players, whereas this year he has not. Additionally, although his kicking has limitations, he recognised them and was able to find short-range targets in past years - this year he is missing them).

[Sanecow]

Originally posted by Richard Davis
We're winning

[barry]

Kirk needs to just go back to being a tagger.

[Mike_B]

Originally posted by barry
Kirk needs to just go back to being a tagger.

That's what I reckon as well, but also have the concern he isn't quick enough to keep up any longer.

[NMWBloods]

He really struggled to keep up with Kane Johnson on Saturday.

How many taggers/defensive midfielders do we need though?

[Mel]

Originally posted by Slick Swans
this guy wanted to play within 10 minutes of being knocked out!!

So was his brain addled more than believed or was he trying to prove how tough he was? What did he hope to achieve by saying that he wanted to go back on? It was never going to happen since he didn't go off the field in the interchange area.

I don't think that Kirk should be dropped (although I yelled at the tele that he should be a few times in the WC game), but I still don't like the way that players are treated differently.

[barry]

Originally posted by NMWBloods
He really struggled to keep up with Kane Johnson on Saturday.

How many taggers/defensive midfielders do we need though?

One. Kirk. To go on the washed up slow offensive midfielder. ie Buckley types.

The rest can be offensive. Hows that for a new concept ?

[stellation]

Originally posted by liz
Kirk is not having a great season by any measure, let alone the standard he set himself last year or the year before.

However, I don't believe the Swans have any realistic chance of mounting a serious challenge for the premiership unless Kirk comes some way close to regaining his form from last season. Notwithstanding the fact that his disposal isn't the best in the league, he has usually managed to still be effective with it, working within his limitations.

Some of the quarters - and games - he has pulled out of the bag over the past couple of years, often when he was needed the most, were absolutely awesome. Not awesome in a Judd-like way; but awesome in a Kirk-way and that was just as inspiring.

While a Spriggs or maybe even a Schmidt could maybe deliver at the level Kirk currently is, I don't believe for one moment that they are capable - this year - of delivering anything like the best level of performance that Kirk has shown over several years. Granted, Kirk isn't doing it at the moment, but I very much doubt the Swans will go far in September unless Kirk plays a pretty big part in it.

That's why - IMO - he should unquestionably stay in the team.

Double standards? Maybe. But whatever one's personal view of the talents or relative values of a Kirk vs a Davis, there is ample evidence that one has worked his butt off to make the most of his talents, while the other - by his own, frequent admissions - hasn't. So if what Davis is currently experiencing is an attempted kick up the backside in an attempt to get him to perform close to his potential, rather than evidence of a more fundamental rift, it is unlikely to be a tactic that would help Kirk recapture the same form.

If the Swans were out of contention, maybe one could mount an argument for applying the "rules" differently. (Although personally I consider that Kirk has enough bloody-hard-work credits in the bank to last him a fair while yet.) But the premiership defence still has a flicker of life in it yet and as such the coaching staff need to treat all their most likely matchwinners - and that includes both Kirk and Davis - in the way they think is going to get them contributing at their best when it really matters.

I don't think that your justification for the double standards is adequate. Having the "bloody-hard-work" ethic is surely just as much about genetics and environment as being natuarlly gifted- if both of these are required in sport then why value one so highly over the other, is that not unfair on the individuals who are disposed one way?

Edit: Why on earth did I quote the whole thing? Why? 'cause I'm an idiot, that's why!