Brooks has had the tools at his disposal in the past. A common misconception is that he hasn't had the talent around him in the spine to win games. This is a fallacy, he made up a spine that consisted of NSW fullback and two time premiership winner James Tedesco, a routine finals attendee and NSW origin half Mitch Moses and premiership winner and NSW origin hooker in Robbie Farah. He has also played behind forward packs that contained James Gavet, Martin Taupau, Keith Galloway and Aaron Woods, internationals and origin players among those three of those four as well. I believe that Keith Galloway holds the weird stat of being our most successful player in that he won more games at the Tigers than any other player.
He is also paid very good money to be the marquee man. It's not his fault the club has offered him good money, I'll concede that, but he obviously needs to acknowledge that for the remuneration he receives there is an expectation that a certain level of output and responsibility to lead the team. He has not lived up to that expectation. He has on occasion come up with the play, not nearly enough to justify the money or longevity of his career at the club. That's what it boils down to. He does not have what it takes to be the player that will take us to the next level. Halves are meant to make the team better around them. Penrith are markedly not as good when Cleary is not available for them. Easts have not recovered post Cronk. Brooks does not lift, or direct, the players around him.
To persist with him is a perfect example of the sunk cost fallacy. We turfed Madge after 3.5 years of poor performances which is fair enough, when is Brooks held to account for 9 years of poor performances?
