Brooks Why????

[Telltails]

You dont let good players go. Its that simple. You put better ones around them. Despite his limitations Brooks is still one of our best by a long way. Give him something better to work with.

 

[kiwitiger]

You dont let good players go. Its that simple. You put better ones around them. Despite his limitations Brooks is still one of our best by a long way. Give him something better to work with.

Exactly. This buzzword "game management"...I presume means controlling a game...running the cutter...he plays behind a beaten pack most weeks but is supposed to control a game and win it for us. That has been unrealistic since 1908. Unless I have the meaning of the buzzword wrong

 

[Telltails]

You dont let good players go. Its that simple. You put better ones around them. Despite his limitations Brooks is still one of our best by a long way. Give him something better to work with.

Exactly. This buzzword "game management"...I presume means controlling a game...running the cutter...he plays behind a beaten pack most weeks but is supposed to control a game and win it for us. That has been unrealistic since 1908. Unless I have the meaning of the buzzword wrong

Seen enough of our good players that we have let go improve at other clubs with stronger rosters.

 

[Geo]

You dont let good players go. Its that simple. You put better ones around them. Despite his limitations Brooks is still one of our best by a long way. Give him something better to work with.

Exactly. This buzzword "game management"...I presume means controlling a game...running the cutter...he plays behind a beaten pack most weeks but is supposed to control a game and win it for us. That has been unrealistic since 1908. Unless I have the meaning of the buzzword wrong

This is my favourite post since 1908..thank you

 

[The_Patriot]

You dont let good players go. Its that simple. You put better ones around them. Despite his limitations Brooks is still one of our best by a long way. Give him something better to work with.

Exactly. This buzzword "game management"...I presume means controlling a game...running the cutter...he plays behind a beaten pack most weeks but is supposed to control a game and win it for us. That has been unrealistic since 1908. Unless I have the meaning of the buzzword wrong

This is my favourite post since 1908..thank you

Serious question. Do you think Luke Brooks handles the pressure when he is left as the main play maker responsible for winning the game for us.

 

[mike]

You dont let good players go. Its that simple. You put better ones around them. Despite his limitations Brooks is still one of our best by a long way. Give him something better to work with.

Exactly. This buzzword "game management"...I presume means controlling a game...running the cutter...he plays behind a beaten pack most weeks but is supposed to control a game and win it for us. That has been unrealistic since 1908. Unless I have the meaning of the buzzword wrong

This is my favourite post since 1908..thank you

Gees are you that old?

 

[bigsiro]

You dont let good players go. Its that simple. You put better ones around them. Despite his limitations Brooks is still one of our best by a long way. Give him something better to work with.

Exactly. This buzzword "game management"...I presume means controlling a game...running the cutter...he plays behind a beaten pack most weeks but is supposed to control a game and win it for us. That has been unrealistic since 1908. Unless I have the meaning of the buzzword wrong

This is my favourite post since 1908..thank you



Serious question. Do you think Luke Brooks handles the pressure when he is left as the main play maker responsible for winning the game for us.

@The_Patriot - Brooks loyal fanboys will defend him and blame every other player for his ineptitude. We have rarely seen a Brooks fanboy admit to Brooks having even a “weak” game. Many of us have seen the light, or are starting to see it (admittedly most of us were also once Brooks fanboys).
Those that cling to the notion that Brooks is a worthy halfback do so out of choice supportive bias; completely clouding rational judgment.

 

[Geo]

You dont let good players go. Its that simple. You put better ones around them. Despite his limitations Brooks is still one of our best by a long way. Give him something better to work with.

Exactly. This buzzword "game management"...I presume means controlling a game...running the cutter...he plays behind a beaten pack most weeks but is supposed to control a game and win it for us. That has been unrealistic since 1908. Unless I have the meaning of the buzzword wrong

This is my favourite post since 1908..thank you



Serious question. Do you think Luke Brooks handles the pressure when he is left as the main play maker responsible for winning the game for us.

The serious answer is No..he doesn't handle it well

However..That’s the thing…Brooks doesn’t need to step in and win games on his own which is what I keep hearing from his distractors…very few players in the game could do that regularly …they are immortals…there are very few if any in the game that do it presently and regularly on their own…

You say that Brooks has no leadership role on the field yet Farah came out in an article and said he often gets a bake from Brooks for not giving him the ball how and when he wants it …he is also very vocal in game reviews and video sessions…

it’s a team game…Brooks just needs to continue to improve the parts of his game that need improvement and build on the parts that are working well for him…contribute with his team mates around him to win games…which is what he did last year and has done again this year…he has contributed to every win…and tried in every loss…

If your expecting an Andrew Johns, Peter Sterling or Johnathon Thurston you will be dissapointed …they don’t come around everyday…but you will get a 1st Grade half who is prepared to work very hard on improving his game and the team …

I like the fanboys comment Siro...up there with happy finishing 9th

 

[Geo]

You dont let good players go. Its that simple. You put better ones around them. Despite his limitations Brooks is still one of our best by a long way. Give him something better to work with.

Exactly. This buzzword "game management"...I presume means controlling a game...running the cutter...he plays behind a beaten pack most weeks but is supposed to control a game and win it for us. That has been unrealistic since 1908. Unless I have the meaning of the buzzword wrong

This is my favourite post since 1908..thank you


Gees are you that old?

I prefer the term wise..

 

[The_Patriot]

You dont let good players go. Its that simple. You put better ones around them. Despite his limitations Brooks is still one of our best by a long way. Give him something better to work with.

Exactly. This buzzword "game management"...I presume means controlling a game...running the cutter...he plays behind a beaten pack most weeks but is supposed to control a game and win it for us. That has been unrealistic since 1908. Unless I have the meaning of the buzzword wrong

This is my favourite post since 1908..thank you



Serious question. Do you think Luke Brooks handles the pressure when he is left as the main play maker responsible for winning the game for us.


@The_Patriot - Brooks loyal fanboys will defend him and blame every other player for his ineptitude. We have rarely seen a Brooks fanboy admit to Brooks having even a “weak” game. Many of us have seen the light, or are starting to see it (admittedly most of us were also once Brooks fanboys).
Those that cling to the notion that Brooks is a worthy halfback do so out of choice supportive bias; completely clouding rational judgment.

Sad but true

 

[851]

I still hold on to hope that he will come of age and realise the potential that he has... last night was a "what the heck are you doing Brooks?" kinda game

and I still think that Benji does not help with Brooks' growth as a leader... you can't take control of a team when someone over calls you, this is where the coach comes in... he should tell the senior players that when Brooks demands it you give it to him plus again Benji should retire and let Talau run the show with Brooks... it is time.

I have been saying this all year, Benji detracts from Brooks game, and on account as we have Brooks signed for another 4 years, Benji needs to go, I don't give a rats about how cheap Benji is, we can cover it and for the same price

 

[The_Patriot]

You dont let good players go. Its that simple. You put better ones around them. Despite his limitations Brooks is still one of our best by a long way. Give him something better to work with.

Exactly. This buzzword "game management"...I presume means controlling a game...running the cutter...he plays behind a beaten pack most weeks but is supposed to control a game and win it for us. That has been unrealistic since 1908. Unless I have the meaning of the buzzword wrong

This is my favourite post since 1908..thank you

Brooks just needs to continue to improve the parts of his game that need improvement and build on the parts that are working well for him…

And this is is the real issue. His fans think he will improve.

lol

He is what he is. We are far enough into his career to see who he is.

Unfortunately some dont realise he is our number one play maker not some rookie who may improve.

 

[bigsiro]

@The_Patriot
I think they **do** realise.
They're just too proud.

 

[Sart0ri]

In Thurston's last year the Cowboys won very few games when he was playing. They also had Michael Morgan, some good backs and the best forward pack in the game.

Do you know why they kept losing? @The_Patriot knows for a fact it was Luke Brooks' fault.

 

[851]

In Thurston's last year the Cowboys won very few games when he was playing. They also had Michael Morgan, some good backs and the best forward pack in the game.

Do you know why they kept losing? @The_Patriot knows for a fact it was Luke Brooks' fault.

That is more of a Benji comparison, and on that I agree, time for him to retire, another year will be one year too long

 

[The_Patriot]

In Thurston's last year the Cowboys won very few games when he was playing. They also had Michael Morgan, some good backs and the best forward pack in the game.

Do you know why they kept losing? @The_Patriot knows for a fact it was Luke Brooks' fault.

Because Thurston hit the wall and his coach is a pretender who lived off his legend!

 

[jirskyr]

This thread has become like flogging a dead horse. We can all agree Tigers have an average roster and don't win enough - half of fans say we don't win because Brooks isn't good enough, half say we don't win because the roster doesn't support him. There seems to be no convincing the other camp.

I'll have one whip of the horse. I fall on the side of thinking Brooks is a good footballer. I think the roster fails him and I think the people who criticise his "game management" underestimate the capacity to control matches when your team is being defeated. For example, how is Brooks supposed to control the Manly game when Manly flatten our forwards and keep us pinned in our own 20 all match?

I see people say that Brooks fails to step up when it matters. I'm not really sure which matches they are referring to. Is it just the close ones? We are 4 wins 3 losses in the matches decided by 6 points or less, which is good for tight matches. Our major issue in 2019 is the losses by large margins and the inability to string wins together. Of course part of that falls on the halves, but also it reflects the roster. A halfback cannot do anything with a 32-12 scoreline like this weekend; despite things we could have done better, fundamentally we were outplayed across the entire park.

I do think that Brooks would have more to show for his efforts if he played in a better side. Mitchell Moses has been used as a comparison in another thread, but Moses played about 2 good months of footy the entire time he played for Tigers, but is playing finals 2/3 seasons for Parra. I don't think this makes Moses a better player, because he played all of 2018 and Parra bombed out. But I do think you need to give Brooks more to play with and not just expect him to direct a team of nuffies around the park to good match-winning effect.

 

[2005magic]

Perhaps, just perhaps, what both sides here are saying from different perspectives- is that Brooks is not the style / type / personality of player to play halfback position in the foreseeable future whilst WT pack remain a lesser run in terms of pack size, pack strength and pack intimidation power.

Our pack is not going to change to any marked degree for a few seasons, so why not try Brooks somewhere else in the team's positions??? He is wasted from differing perspectives staying at halfback- either he doesnt get the role on from the forwards, or he just cant make it to the next level. TRY SOMETHING DIFFERENT. 5 years fellas 5 years..................

 

[The_Patriot]

Perhaps, just perhaps, what both sides here are saying from different perspectives- is that Brooks is not the style / type / personality of player to play halfback position in the foreseeable future whilst WT pack remain a lesser run in terms of pack size, pack strength and pack intimidation power.

Our pack is not going to change to any marked degree for a few seasons, so why not try Brooks somewhere else in the team's positions??? He is wasted from differing perspectives staying at halfback- either he doesnt get the role on from the forwards, or he just cant make it to the next level. TRY SOMETHING DIFFERENT. 5 years fellas 5 years..................

No matter what the discussion Luke brooks has many friends who offer excuses for him.

 

[bigsiro]

@jirskyr
Fair points. The forwards definitely do not lay enough of a platform. But after 5 years it’s just more excuses, or rather; more of the same old excuse.
I don’t want to flog this now decomposing horse anymore either. I just want a winning team.
I also want rational discussion in these forums about how our team is going and where we need to improve.

Re Moses: well, he was petulant, divisive and a risk for us, but he had an undeniable x-factor which Brooks does not. He was very erratic, but upside seemed greater than Brooks, ie if he could get over himself. Like many of us, i doubted he could, I saw him as destructive to team unity, so I was content with Brooks at the time; the safer, more conservative of the two.

Fast forward a few years and perhaps two big problems denied us success at the halfback position (arguably the most crucial position):
(1) we stuck Brooks there without adequately building around him.
(2) he never developed his game in his own right, as we all so desperately wished. This is perhaps more evident right now (when we need him to step up most, his shortcomings are rather glaring). It is also so gutting, which is why, after 5 years, it is also fair justification why we’ve lost all faith in him. He had a fair chance to develop different aspects of his game but sadly he never did so. IMO he has become what can only be described as a role player. And a halfback cannot be a role player (like a forward or winger can).

So, while signing Brooks was a fair gamble at the time, I’m comfortable admitting that (due to whatever factors) the gamble didn’t pay off, and that our failure at halfback (for the better part of ten years) sits alongside the other failures that we and the club have had to swallow.
If we can admit that then we can talk about what we may do to move forward, which is where many of us want the discussion to be, not about defending or supporting Brooks in his tenure at 7 - we are just too far past that.