Tucker
Well-known member
I just told you, the sample data from when he was at lock is not big enough to provide an accurate result and conclusively state it was his better position.
Hastings - Reasons for leaving
- Thread starter earl
- Start date
happy_tiger
Well-known member
Simple man with simple ideas ....not Einstein but not Forrest Gump either lol
tig_prmz
Well-known member
I think it's clear that we chose Brooks over Hastings. They are both shit. It's just whether we chose right by investing in the less shit player.
Tucker
Well-known member
I think it was easier to move on Jacko and keep Brooks. Simple as that.
Tucker
Well-known member
Yes it is you clown LOL it is close to half a season.
Your arguments seem to be accompanied with a lot of foot stomping.
happy_tiger
Well-known member
Think it came down to how much money we would lose by swapping each option out ...Brooks obviously would lose the most cap space so he stays for the moment ...don't think wins and losses is part of the equation .. despite what Batty and Tucky are fighting to the death over lol
Tucker
Well-known member
My argument is centered on keeping the wrong guy. I wanted the fella who was going to bust his arse to win.
tiger_scott
Well-known member
When he was a Tiger, I supported him.
Now he's not, he's dead to me!
Now he's not, he's dead to me!
pawsandclaws1
Well-known member
This is what our Chair had to say about recruitment and retention.
“These gentlemen have devised what I would consider to be a very forensic and strategic recruitment and retention program.
“They are in the market at the moment, and they are vigorously and aggressively implementing that program.
“We came last this year and took home the wooden spoon for the first time in our history- that was unacceptable. We cannot allow it to happen again.
“I’m very confident and comfortable where we sit and where we’re heading. There has been a lot of movement in our roster and there will continue to be.”
Tim Sheens and Benji Marshall ‘aggressively implementing’ new recruitment strategy for the Wests Tigers | Sporting News Australia
Wests Tigers chairman Lee Hagipantelis has thrown his support behind Tim Sheens and Benji Marshall’s recruitment policy as Jackson Hastings’ rumoured switch to Newcastle draws closer.
www.sportingnews.com
earl
Well-known member
I like him. I can also understand his decisions to move on.
The question is have we made the right decision and only time will tell. My concern with letting Hastings go is that he was injured last season. He might have a better kicking and running game if he was fully fit.
happy_tiger
Well-known member
They might bust their asses..but they won't win shite
pawsandclaws1
Well-known member
Look at that stat about try assists posted earlier. If you want to score points, you go with the player who creates. It has been mentioned in one post that Moses wants Brooks partnering him. Both know each-others games well and keeping harmony and combinations within a team is important.
happy_tiger
Well-known member
Bugger Lee agrees ....I must be wrong then ..or maybe he has been reading my posts again lolThis is what our Chair had to say about recruitment and retention.
“These gentlemen have devised what I would consider to be a very forensic and strategic recruitment and retention program.
“They are in the market at the moment, and they are vigorously and aggressively implementing that program.
“We came last this year and took home the wooden spoon for the first time in our history- that was unacceptable. We cannot allow it to happen again.
“I’m very confident and comfortable where we sit and where we’re heading. There has been a lot of movement in our roster and there will continue to be.”
Tim Sheens and Benji Marshall ‘aggressively implementing’ new recruitment strategy for the Wests Tigers | Sporting News Australia
Wests Tigers chairman Lee Hagipantelis has thrown his support behind Tim Sheens and Benji Marshall’s recruitment policy as Jackson Hastings’ rumoured switch to Newcastle draws closer.
As i have said previously Hastings tried hard, AD tried hard, Laurie tried hard, Books tried hard.
Hastings has gone, and like the others, did not have a contract for 2024. Trying hard, or busting your arse, is good, BUT IT DOES NOT MEAN YOU ARE A GOOD PLAYER, OR THE RIGHT PLAYER FOR THAT POSITION , Effort does not equal ability. Square pegs in round holes has been our downfall in recruitment Thats why we have so many players off contract next year !
Hastings has gone, and like the others, did not have a contract for 2024. Trying hard, or busting your arse, is good, BUT IT DOES NOT MEAN YOU ARE A GOOD PLAYER, OR THE RIGHT PLAYER FOR THAT POSITION , Effort does not equal ability. Square pegs in round holes has been our downfall in recruitment Thats why we have so many players off contract next year !
jirskyr
Well-known member
When was that?
tig_prmz
Well-known member
I doubt it was about money. A couple of hundred Ks for a halfback is nothing in the current game.
happy_tiger
Well-known member
If the figure floated for Brooks is even remotely correct .... and the best trade off was 600 k you could be writing off 400 plus k .....not to be sneezed at ....compare both players at their best ....Brooks wins and Sheens must believe he can get the best out of him ...remember Lui was primarily a running half 1st ....
jirskyr
Well-known member
Honestly I think you are the one skewing stats.
We won 4 games all year and Jacko played in as many of those as Luke Brooks did. I am not making an argument for Brooks - I would have been fine if we traded Brooks to Knights.
But the argument you made was that Hastings was shafted around from his favourite positions, and that he's one of our best players, and arguably the best for "having a go". You argued that we didn't give Hastings a fair go in 2022.
Hastings was given every opportunity in 2022 and by and large he failed. So did Brooks. Yes Brooks has had many many opportunities, and actually if I had my choice I would have released Brooks and not Hastings.
But I also recognise that I have no idea what is happening behind the scenes. I have no idea how easy it is or not to actually trade Brooks. I am going go guess that other clubs wanted us to pay a very big chunk of what is allegedly a large Luke Brooks outstanding contract, and that's probably not good business. It may be that the Hastings trade was the only thing that got Klemmer across the line, and we decided to make that happen.
It may be that Hastings is a complete lunatic and actually most of the club was happy to see the back of him. He certainly has form. But that's pointless speculation. The point is he was part of a very ordinary halves group and it's fair that his position was not safe.
This is not a binary argument where it can only be Hastings or Brooks.
Re stats, even if they tell half the story, Hastings had HALF the attacking output of Brooks in 2022. And let's not forget that Brooks is rubbish, so like I said, god can only say what that makes Hastings by comparison. You can't explain that away by "standing out wide".
Last edited:
jirskyr
Well-known member
Hastings played halves 13 times - I don't think we can legitimately ignore the 5/8th appearances in Rd 1 and 2.
That equates to a 23% win rate. Again, this is not a binary argument - Brooks vs Hastings. The fact is 23% wins is not even close to good enough and certainly not an argument in favour of the ability or possible future output of a player.
You are using a 4-win season as an argument in favour of the ability of a player.
And then there's the totally separate argument, which I haven't really engaged with: were Tigers actually a better side with Hastings at lock? Lots of people seem to think so, and if not for a bad hip-drop tackle, we may have had more opportunity to find out.
Which of course then begs the question - if Tigers might actually be a better side with Hastings at lock, how are we not giving Hastings a fair opportunity if we believe he is a better lock than halfback?
Pascoes_barber
Well-known member
Agreed. Who gives a shit? He's gone now.
