Problem is when he played lock he was also playing halfback in attack.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?
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.