Kirk's leadership lacking?

[ROK Lobster]

Why didn't he inspire the side to a win last night? Clearly (according to RWO at least) he can inspire the team to great things when he chooses to? Why did he go missing like Goodes against a top 8 team when the game was there to be won in qtr 3? I'd have a lot more respect for him if he could turn it on consistently rather than just when it suits him. He lives off the reputation of a couple of great quarters. What would he be worth at the trade table?

[Nico]

I guess the old cliche is an appropriate reply to this one ROK. " A week is a long time in footy". Very fickle indeed my friend.

[Nico]

I just noticed when I clicked out of this thread that your lady's waist beer glass stopped at half empty. But your a smart bloke so you probably do that on purpose.

[ROK Lobster]

I just noticed when I clicked out of this thread that your lady's waist beer glass stopped at half empty. But your a smart bloke so you probably do that on purpose.

Is it? It looks fine to me

The point of the thread Nico, is not to question Kirk, but to question RWO. Read through the threads - there are all sorts of reasons for loss, none say that Kirk let us down, although he was very quiet last night. Read through last week's threads. All discuss Kirk's great leadership - including myself, I thought he was outstanding against the Roos. But where does it go?

It seems to me that Kirk's leadership is considered to win us many more games than a lack of it loses us games.

When we lose it is because others go missing, or so the stroy here goes. If it is passion, commitment, heart and leadership that Kirk brings to the team (because surely it is not his probing left boot) why is he excused when he fails to turn up with it. Bolton is not given that luxury, for instance. Or Goodes when he goes AWOL. Or Hall when his head is clearly interstate and he has put his boots on the wrong feet. Kirk was MIA last night, yet he constantly escapes criticism. Why?

[Dogzbody]

Why didn't he inspire the side to a win last night? Clearly (according to RWO at least) he can inspire the team to great things when he chooses to? Why did he go missing like Goodes against a top 8 team when the game was there to be won in qtr 3? I'd have a lot more respect for him if he could turn it on consistently rather than just when it suits him. He lives off the reputation of a couple of great quarters. What would he be worth at the trade table?

....I know that you are fishing with that comment ROK, anyone else and I would flame them for being a complete goose!!

hes not worth anything to any other club, his passion and hardness is fuelled by his love for being a Swan, and I would struggle to count on one hand the number of "bad" quarters he has played for us.

[swansrule100]

i thought the hippy was handball happy last night, it made me want to scream

[ROK Lobster]

I would struggle to count on one hand the number of "bad" quarters he has played for us.

How many good quarters did he have last night?

[Dogzbody]

Well I may be mistaken, but there are 22 blokes who play, and every one of them has a role to play. We don't have the luxury of a mega-talented array, but rather hard work (sounds like a signature I once read).

I think that if you looked at each player and how they performed their individual roles last night Kirk was better than most. 20+ disposals evenly distributed between hand and foot, and he doesn't get many gimme's. The clearances at the end of the game were almost even 68-66 ( I think). He was second in tackles laid behind Mattner.

Although the AFL player ratings I reckon are a bit off sometimes, this is what they thought:

Brett Kirk - 7
Was one of few Swans to put in a four-quarter effort, but you?d expect nothing less from one of the most inspiring leaders in the AFL. His work in and under was second to none.

While I admit, he wasn't brilliant....he was a long way from bad all night. You aren't going to see a player of his makeup do what he did against Kangas every week.

And if he isn't playing a great game....you can guarantee that he will die trying.

[ROK Lobster]

Well I may be mistaken, but there are 22 blokes who play, and every one of them has a role to play. We don't have the luxury of a mega-talented array, but rather hard work (sounds like a signature I once read).

We have chosen not to have a talented list, but a list that works hard. It is no longer enough - for on field success or off field success. The numbers at our 2 finals are causes for serious concern.

Edit - I see we had 40-odd thousand last night. It looked a lot less on tele. The Sydney figure is a concern still.

You aren't going to see a player of his makeup do what he did against Kangas every week.

Why not. It is expected from others. Maybe he didn't try hard enough last night?

[Nico]

When you click on RWO Swans Chat it does go to just under half full.

On your point though, I reckon it's because he is preceived as consistent both in stringing together games and over 4 quarters. When the majority of the team has been inconsistent on all areas you can mark them on since 2006then people won't be inclined to question Kirk.

I throw Craig Bolton, Darren Jolly and Marty Mattner into that mix also. Mind you I think Kennelly and Bevan have been remarkably consistent this year but others don't.

Consistency across the board is the hallmark of Hawthorn and Geelong this year and they are the ones who have avoided injury.

[mcs]

I think its a fair question about Kirk but very harsh. He simply had a poor night last night, and Im sure he didnt leave one stone unturned trying to inspire the team. But 1 player cant be expected week in week out like some would hope to be the one to inspire and lift the rest of the team.

And ROK Lobster, if he didnt try hard enough last night, Ill walk backwards to Bourke. He might not have had the effect that we hoped for, but there is damn no way was it for a lack of trying. Sure he is probably due some criticism for a below par performance last night, but still there are few players that have a below par performance and still get 22 possessions.

[dimelb]

When you click on RWO Swans Chat it does go to just under half full.

Like the MCG last night!
Kirk has always provided the hard work and did again last night, but we do need more talent. I don't believe that we have to bottom out, but I think we have to be prepared to take that risk.
Then again, talent is not always easy to spot in a 17 y.o., which is why the draft is a bit of a lottery.

[hammo]

Maybe he was injured?

[BSA5]

ROK, against the Dogs, he wasn't uninspirational, he was just not particularly inspirational. If he was bumbling around, shirking contests, not putting in effort, basically being anti-Kirk, then people would be putting some blame on him. As it is, Kirk was solid, picking up 22 disposals and using them decently. He had his 5 tackles as well.

I get where you're coming from, but it's a weak argument. Stupid thread.

[Mogg0]

Kirk wasn't as influential last night but I thought you of ALL people would be able to read between the lines into this... he played so well last week that any drop in form would make him look like he had a poor game. This is true of any player. And how can we say he wasn't as inspirational last night as he was last week? I'm sure he did and said the same things as last week... the players simply couldn't respond to his leadership.

Not his fault.