That only applies re: Kirk if one applies a ridiculously narrow view of the very subjective idea of 'talent'..... if it ain't pretty on the eye in terms of how one plays the game, you are not interested. Kirk's mix of 'talent' was every bit as substantial as your claims around your love child, it just shown through on the football field through very different attributes.
As BF pointed out, Kirk was an elite runner and athletic ability was right up there. But because it doesn't correspond with 'explosiveness' or 'dynamism' or whatever the latest 'go to' word for the week is, you have genuinely suggested he didn't have athletic ability - which couldn't be further from the truth.
Last edited by mcs; 17th May 2021 at 08:31 PM.
"You get the feeling that like Monty Python's Black Knight, the Swans would regard amputation as merely a flesh wound."
Your putting words in my mouth . I dont reckon the way Kirk played the game was pretty on the eye , his skills werent exceptional and he was never an excitement machine but i called him CHAMPION for a reason . He didnt need a highlights reel to help us win he did it all at the bottom of packs ! How you got that i was not interested from that or did you just see what you wanted to see !
Talent is natural footballing ability ! Not things you can WORK towards like tackling pressuring fighting for contested balls , i am talking about kicking skills , clearance work , goal sense etc . Kirk was many things a great leader with a heart the size of Randwick but only a galah would try to argue he was packing any of those things in spades !
Btw for someone always on my case about being negative your "love child" comment has some pretty bitter undertones to it , you dont like that i like Chad ?
You have a few posters on here reved up. To quote Danny from Big Brother “you have implanted yourself deep within the belly of the beast”.
I respect the way that you argue your position with evidence and football nous.
I think some other posters need to remember that it’s ok to have a different opinions.
You are the one who said he did not have a 'stack of talent', not me. You are now trying to backtrack to pretend you said something entirely different, by qualifying the statement with the nonsense of 'natural footballing ability'.... do tell, what football ability does have one have when they come out of the womb?
Someone may have a natural aptitude to pick up a particular skill, or to develop particular traits, but 'footballing ability' is not 'natural', no matter how you want to pretend it is. Oh and please do tell - while happy to recognise there are natural limitations on the ceiling of someone's 'ability' related to a particular skill, I am intrigued to know how you can't "work on" attributes like 'kicking skills'.....
My point more broadly was spot on and you know it - the only 'talent' you enjoy on the football field is the flashy type - you spend endless energy deriding players that have greater levels of talent in other parts of the game, and suggest players that don't have your narrow band of favourite traits as being 'talentless'.
"You get the feeling that like Monty Python's Black Knight, the Swans would regard amputation as merely a flesh wound."
I said a STACK of talent I didnt say Kirk had none !
Your 'point' could not be more wrong a team is made up of many different types of players and not everyone can have the same level of talent . You cannot deny that the very best players are the 'flashy' types ! They do the things no one else can do. Just because i rate those ones the most it doesnt mean i deride those who arent on that level ! I said Kirk was a CHAMPION and he is . Stop looking for fights that dont exist you tell me im negative yet you have taken something POSITIVE i said about Chad and are turning it into a scrap ! No interest
Bookmarks