Brooks & Moses Theory

T

The_Tooth

New member
Heaps of talk on this forum, and even from the coaches, that both Brooks and Moses play better without each other. Whilst there is evidence of this this year and even in Brooks debut, I'm not convinced.

I think it has a lot more to do with the forwards running hard and getting quick play the balls. In both the Warriors game and the Souths game this year the forwards were getting a roll on and giving the halves plenty of time. This is crucial to any half or halves combination. I think they just need that extra time with the ball before the defense is up on them. When the defense is on the back foot and retreating they both shine, together or alone. I think Hunt and Milford would struggle without their forwards dominating at the Broncos. Look how good Chad Townsend looks this year with his forwards giving him time and space at Cronulla.

The only positive from them both not being in the same team is the option of a better defender at 5/8 imo.

Also, I haven't posted in regards to all the talk of dropping either of them, or letting one of them go to another club, etc. These boys have proven they can play and I believe their inconsistency is just a part of their young age and ongoing development and even more-so the forwards not consistently laying a good platform for them. I am still as excited about their potential as ever and hope they can play together at the Tigers for their whole careers.

I will say though the money they are both after is overs and I'm not sure our club could handle such an investment and still keep or attract other rep players. It may be too much money heavily stacked into the halves. They will want even more next contract too.

Time will tell, but don't be so quick to buy into this theory of them playing better without the other.
 
I know stats don't speak for everything, but Brooks is outperforming Moses in most facets. I agree that until the forwards start providing momentum for the halves we're not going to see this pair perform at their best. What was interesting was that Brooks looked like he was in control against Souths. Granted they're not playing well either it was definitely a game that we'd ordinarily get towelled in and they can only play whoever shows up on the day.

Perhaps Moses should be instructed to take a back seat somewhat and inject himself as needed. I don't necessarily think that they cannot play together and while correlation does not equal causation, perhaps Moses is cramping Brooks a little.
 
@The Tooth said:
Heaps of talk on this forum, and even from the coaches, that both Brooks and Moses play better without each other. Whilst there is evidence of this this year and even in Brooks debut, I'm not convinced.

I think it has a lot more to do with the forwards running hard and getting quick play the balls. In both the Warriors game and the Souths game this year the forwards were getting a roll on and giving the halves plenty of time. This is crucial to any half or halves combination. I think they just need that extra time with the ball before the defense is up on them. When the defense is on the back foot and retreating they both shine, together or alone. I think Hunt and Milford would struggle without their forwards dominating at the Broncos. Look how good Chad Townsend looks this year with his forwards giving him time and space at Cronulla.

The only positive from them both not being in the same team is the option of a better defender at 5/8 imo.

Also, I haven't posted in regards to all the talk of dropping either of them, or letting one of them go to another club, etc. These boys have proven they can play and I believe their inconsistency is just a part of their young age and ongoing development and even more-so the forwards not consistently laying a good platform for them. I am still as excited about their potential as ever and hope they can play together at the Tigers for their whole careers.

I will say though the money they are both after is overs and I'm not sure our club could handle such an investment and still keep or attract other rep players. It may be too much money heavily stacked into the halves. They will want even more next contract too.

Time will tell, but don't be so quick to buy into this theory of them playing better without the other.
Click to expand...

The club is blessed to have these two young and talented individuals,what garbage they play better when the other is not playing .What Should be talked of is the coaching staff being able to get the best structure to fit both individuals while BOTH are on the paddock ,this is a coaching issue and at present Talyor is failing with this .
 
Souths were diabolical and our forwards were good. Moses would also have had a day out. Room for both, but they are still on a massive learning curve and they will only get better by playing together and preferably in the top grade
 
Doesn't pay not to take the field.

Basically Brooks has one good game on his own and it's "let's drop Moses until he gets it together."

Moses has outplayed Brooks in just about every game this year.

I am happy for both to be kept and play together as they have for most of their footballing life. However Moses needs to be the play maker as he has been in all those previous years. Brooks is better taking on the line and trying not to take silly intercepts that can cost us a game. Their defence is improving and both need to improve their kicking game.
 
They've both been aweful.
Even in the games where they played individually - Warriors and Souths, the wins were achieved through unsatisfying means.
Against Warriors, Mitch lead the team to a huge halftime result only to lose his head in the second half and almost lead us to an unlikely loss.
Against Souths, Luke lead the team to a 20 nil scoreline after 20 minutes yet struggled to keep the foot on the throat and for a while that game was looking like a loss until, he regained control of his kicking game and we got home.
 
They both look to me like that have a tonne of talent but I agree with stryker that they've both been terrible this year. They've been bombing chances everywhere and coming up with dumb options consistently. They are also overpaid.

I'd still keep both of them and probably keep playing both of them because they are young and may kick on. At some point though the club will need to make a decision on whether we continue to offer them big money or retain them on less money or let them go.
 
Both lads need to take their game down a notch. Brooks had a good game last week by not hitting trick shots at every opportunity. One thing that being the solo half does is force them to be a bit more sensible, a bit more judicious in their play selection, because the other guy isn't there to cover your mistakes.

So Brooks was kicking to the corners, taking the odd run, giving early ball to the runners that were bending the line.

Sure the forwards laid a platform, but it was just a much more mature performance. Problem with Broses is these mature performances are usually several rounds apart. And I know they are still only kids, but they ain't being paid like kids.
 
@sideline eye said:
Maybe they're trying to outdo one another with the spectacular but low percentage trick shots.
Click to expand...

It's part of the problem with the club having handed everything to them on a platter. If they were playing for their immediate futures they might be taking a more responsible approach.
 
Its more than coincidence that Moses' best game was when Brooks was ruled out….and Brooks' best game was when Moses was injured...I wonder what they think about that?
 
They both can't be dominant playmakers. I think Moses should take that role as he seems to be able to play to a structure. Brooks seems more instinctive and should "play what he sees" and demand the ball when there is an opportunity to play more razzke dazzle footy.

From a defensive point of view, we cannot afford to have them both in the team at this point. I think we may be able cover one liability on one side of the ruck but two is too difficult.
 
@The Tooth said:
Time will tell, but don't be so quick to buy into this theory of them playing better without the other.
Click to expand...

The only theory I buy into is that they are very average players on big pay packets.
But wait they are only 21\. Wasn't that the same age Foran was when he played in a Grand Final for Manly.
How about playing more than one good game each per season that would be a great start.
 
@jirskyr said:
Both lads need to take their game down a notch. Brooks had a good game last week by not hitting trick shots at every opportunity. One thing that being the solo half does is force them to be a bit more sensible, a bit more judicious in their play selection, because the other guy isn't there to cover your mistakes.

So Brooks was kicking to the corners, taking the odd run, giving early ball to the runners that were bending the line.

Sure the forwards laid a platform, but it was just a much more mature performance. Problem with Broses is these mature performances are usually several rounds apart. And I know they are still only kids, but they ain't being paid like kids.
Click to expand...

To me it is communication. They need to understand each other's games better so when one calls for the ball, the other understands why and goes with the flow. They may need to sit and pour over hours of video of each other's games and discuss why each has made this or that decision. That's my guess, but if they get it together they could be very dangerous.
 
To me they need to cut out the rubbish of always going for the hero play. They're not and never will be Benji Marshall at his peak.
 
Said it before they are on a massive learning curve . At the moment they are rolling the dice every second play. I can not remember but I guess Thurston probably did the same in his early days at the dogs. Anyway you can look at it another way, at least we have a player who has the skills to go for the big plays. You can not teach a player to temper his skills if he doesn't have the skills in the first place.

Come 2017 I will be a lot more harsh on both them if they fail to deliver but 2016 I am still willing to give them plenty of slack
 
The difference is Farah. He was allowed to play his natural game against Souths. He kept their forwards back peddaling and it gave Brooks time and space while also taking some pressure off him.

I understand why JT wanted Farah to take a back seat and let the halves run the show, but you can just throw a rookie halves pairing with a rookie Fullback and tell the experienced hooker to let them sink or swim. Its mindless.

Year 1 should have allowed Farah to play his natural game mostly, but letting thr halves take control close to the line.

This year should've been Farah doing his natural game for 3 tackles and the halves control two, one being the last. Next year should be Ballin at rake distributing to the halves.
 
@madunit said:
The difference is Farah. He was allowed to play his natural game against Souths. He kept their forwards back peddaling and it gave Brooks time and space while also taking some pressure off him.

I understand why JT wanted Farah to take a back seat and let the halves run the show, but you can just throw a rookie halves pairing with a rookie Fullback and tell the experienced hooker to let them sink or swim. Its mindless.

Year 1 should have allowed Farah to play his natural game mostly, but letting thr halves take control close to the line.

This year should've been Farah doing his natural game for 3 tackles and the halves control two, one being the last. Next year should be Ballin at rake distributing to the halves.
Click to expand...

Just seemed Farah looked relaxed for the first time this season , that seemed to help
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Members online

Total: 430 (members: 9, guests: 421)
Back
Top