Hastings - Reasons for leaving

[cktiger]

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?

Problem is when he played lock he was also playing halfback in attack.
Personally think he was much better as a halfback than Brooks has ever, or ever, will be based on giving the team direction and possessing footy smarts.
Those spouting losing stats are the same blokes making every excuse in the world that it isn’t Brooks fault whenever the same thing comes up in relation to him.
It’s obvious Sheens didn’t want Hastings and gave him an out to play in a position he preferred for a lot more money.
We’ll soon see if that was the correct decision.

 

[Tucker]

They might bust their asses..but they won't win shite

Not true, when the whole side applied themselves, they beat some high flying sides and narrowly lost to the Cowboys. We have bought some talent in that will bust their arses that would have aided those already doing so. Getting rid of that type of player is madness at this stage of the re-build.

 

[Tucker]

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?

I do not include the two games at 5/8th because he was clearly not steering the team in those games. That was all Brooks. Hastings took over from Round 6.
I am not arguing that Hastings was our saviour or even our best player. What he brought was a cool head that knew how the game is played. We havent had that since Prince.
You can make the claim that the team won the spoon due to Brooks and Doueihi and Laurie...et al. and that they should all be replaced and thats fine. Except thats not what has occured. We got rid of the only guy out of that group who actually knows how to play football.

 

[happy_tiger]

Not true, when the whole side applied themselves, they beat some high flying sides and narrowly lost to the Cowboys. We have bought some talent in that will bust their arses that would have aided those already doing so. Getting rid of that type of player is madness at this stage of the re-build.

But if that player is having a detrimental effect on the roster ...you don't keep him ....something isn't right ...you don't have as many clubs as he has had in such a short time without reason

 

[Snidest 0]

Problem is when he played lock he was also playing halfback in attack.
Personally think he was much better as a halfback than Brooks has ever, or ever, will be based on giving the team direction and possessing footy smarts.
Those spouting losing stats are the same blokes making every excuse in the world that it isn’t Brooks fault whenever the same thing comes up in relation to him.
It’s obvious Sheens didn’t want Hastings and gave him an out to play in a position he preferred for a lot more money.
We’ll soon see if that was the correct decision.

What garbage!

He was playing halfback while in the 13 as much as Yeo plays half for Penrith!

First receiver ball distributing lock is not a new concept - and it does not make Cleary as the real 7 obsolete as you seem to suggest with this nonsense.

 

[batboy]

What garbage!

He was playing halfback while in the 13 as much as Yeo plays half for Penrith!

First receiver ball distributing lock is not a new concept - and it does not make Cleary as the real 7 obsolete as you seem to suggest with this nonsense.

Some also seem to forget he was touted as the lock by Sheens before either were even in the country…

Surely him playing 13 didn’t surprise anyone?

 

[earl]

Surely him playing 13 didn’t surprise anyone?

It surprised me but that probably says more about me. I was sure the lock comments were a smoke screen.

 

[cktiger]

What garbage!

He was playing halfback while in the 13 as much as Yeo plays half for Penrith!

First receiver ball distributing lock is not a new concept - and it does not make Cleary as the real 7 obsolete as you seem to suggest with this nonsense.

Sorry … but nah.
Brooks played as a five eighth in attack and Hastings as the organiser… totally unlike Yeo does at Penrith.
Brooks actually went ok in this role … because he’s not a halfback.

 

[Spartan117]

Newcastle got the Better organising halfback for half the money.

 

[earl]

Newcastle got the Better organising halfback for half the money.

I bet you are wrong on the money part.

 

[earl]

Brooks actually went ok in this role … because he’s not a halfback.

He can do this job and do it reasonably well. The problem is he'll be our halfback next season because he is better at that role than Doueihi.

 

[Demps]

Hastings coming back from a serious leg break....

Not sure he's going to light it up on return - I think in his mind he will though.

Very confident young man.

 

[cktiger]

He can do this job and do it reasonably well. The problem is he'll be our halfback next season because he is better at that role than Doueihi.

At the moment there are no other options anyway…we got rid of both the other blokes who could play halfback.

 

[Mighty_Tiger]

What silly revisionism.

Hastings played halves for 13 matches and missed 3 suspended, the latter being his own dumb fault. 3 matches at lock.

He was not shifted to lock until Round 18 and at that time not only was Doueihi returning (established star player pre-Hastings) but we were 3 W 10 L with Hastings as half. It's exceptionally justified to make team changes at this time. We win 1 of the 3 matches with Hastings at lock.

I struggle to understand how we "preferred to play lesser players" when he played most of the season in the halves.

Hastings didn't get results. We won 4 games all season and came last. Never come last before. Not even Luke Brooks had been part of a wooden spoon Tigers team before. Hastings achieves it in his first season back.

There are all these Hastings fanboys who get their back up because Hastings tried hard, wore his heart on his sleeve and was good at social media. But we sucked as a team and he was supposed to be one of our leaders.

You have no concept of whether or not Tigers fought to keep Brooks (hard or otherwise). There is every chance we just couldn't offload Brooks for the right price or that opponents were only willing to take him cheap if Tigers footed the bill.

You bring up line engagements, but unfortunately that's just an argument against Hastings. He was COMFORTABLY out-pointed by Brooks in line break assists and try assists. Average fantasy points for Hastings was 45.1 and Brooks 42.9.

And so if Brooks is indeed rubbish, let's all agree he is, I am not sure what it really says about Hastings when he touches the ball a million times, engages the line more than anyone in the comp and only comes away with 11 attack assists and 0 tries the entire season (Brooks ended up with 22 attack assists and 2 tries, in 1 appearance more than Hastings).

No argument that Hastings tried hard all year, but Tigers came stone last and nobody in our roster is beyond being traded to ensure we don't come 16th again.

Oh cmon dude... You should know better than to use common sense & provide rationale here

 

[pawsandclaws1]

I bet you are wrong on the money part.

Marshall and Sheens decided they did not wnat to keep him. Marshall would know a little about good halves. It suggests the club has a plan.

 

[getagrip]

He can do this job and do it reasonably well. The problem is he'll be our halfback next season because he is better at that role than Doueihi.

Agreed. I am concerned we are going into 2023 without an organising half back. I would be surprised if Sheens allows this to happen.

 

[Jedi_Tiger]

Newcastle got the Better organising halfback for half the money.

we will see in 2023 can't make that call yet

 

[earl]

Marshall and Sheens decided they did not wnat to keep him. Marshall would know a little about good halves. It suggests the club has a plan.

I'm sure they have a plan. The question is will it work out. I'm looking forward to the season starting and hopefully we perform.

 

[earl]

At the moment there are no other options anyway…we got rid of both the other blokes who could play halfback.

Exactly. We don't have a choice.

 

[earl]

we will see in 2023 can't make that call yet

I think it's pretty unlikely that Brooks will be a better organizing halfback than Hastings. I suppose it doesn't matter unless that is the difference between the two sides.

Just to be clear what matters is us being a better team than the Knights. They have some class in their team. We don't have a player at the same level of Ponga.

I don't know why the Knights under perform so often.