Jackson Hastings #251

jirskyr said:
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.
Click to expand...
Never said he was our saviour.
Yes we only won 3 games with him as our halfback out of 11 starts.
We also won only the 1 game without him there from 12 starts.
You can skew the stats till the cows come home. Truth is the side were hamstrung by injuries this year and had ongoing drama with coaching. We beat 2 top 4 sides and a cellar dweller with Jackson as our half. We also beat a side outside the top 8 without him there. We had a very poor year, but were more likely to win when he played halback.
Line engagement is not a negative for him. He was busting his arse without much support. A lot of the Brooks try and line break assists came when he was out wider. Hastings and others like Laurie were just as responsible, through creating the space for Luke to pass to the winger for the try. Stats never tell the full story.
 
Tucker said:
We treated Hastings pretty poorly.
Good luck to him at the Knights, they need a good year.
As for us....we'll have some decent forward battles and win some games.
Click to expand...

How was he? supposedly bought as a 13 from the get go, was thrown into the halves due to Doueihi coming back from an acl. Then is told we want him to revert back to the position he was purchased for and he throws his toys out of the pram.
I fell hook line and sinker for Hastings lip service, but thats all it was lip service he talks a good game but behind the scenes executes a different one. Im not privy to the inner working of the club and how he conducted himself privately but if its anything like his carry-on on social media we are best rid of him. Then you have all the stories of his younger days at the roosters and sea eagles maybe theres still a tinge of that immaturity left with him.
 
jirskyr said:
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.
Click to expand...
Except Brooks ... obviously.
 
Even though we came last Hastings was one of best players in 2022.
The 2023 team is looking completely different from the coaching side and also with the amount of new personnel the will slot straight into the starting side.
From the player swap Klemmer/ Hastings. If I had to choose one for season 2023 it would be Klemmer. Moving forward the WTs have reshaped the team its clear they needed to sort the pack out first. To give however plays 6 & 7 half a chance.
 
Can we all agree on this as fact

Neither Brooks ....Douehi or Hastings are going to lead us to a premiership...either assisted or as a team ...they all need replacing and upgrading

John's...Lewis or Sterling couldn't partner those three to a premiership

They all need replacing ..it doesn't matter what order it happens for Christ sake

FACT ...end rant ...drop mic
 
happy_tiger said:
Can we all agree on this as fact

Neither Brooks ....Douehi or Hastings are going to lead us to a premiership...either assisted or as a team ...they all need replacing and upgrading

John's...Lewis or Sterling couldn't partner those three to a premiership

They all need replacing ..it doesn't matter what order it happens for Christ sake

FACT ...end rant ...drop mic
Click to expand...
🙌
 
happy_tiger said:
Can we all agree on this as fact

Neither Brooks ....Douehi or Hastings are going to lead us to a premiership...either assisted or as a team ...they all need replacing and upgrading

John's...Lewis or Sterling couldn't partner those three to a premiership

They all need replacing ..it doesn't matter what order it happens for Christ sake

FACT ...end rant ...drop mic
Click to expand...
Preach
 
batboy said:
I'm no mathematician,
But 3/11 - Isn't as high as 1/3, And certainly isn't as high as 2/3.

Explain your invalid opinion all you like - The results in the games he played,
Don't support your theory.

Bang on some more though...
Click to expand...
He played halfback 11 times for 3 wins = every 3.67 games we won
Others played halfback 12 times for 1 win = every 12 games we won
We were far more likely to win when he was at halfback.
You cannot compare his games at lock as the sample size is too small to be accurate, but since you two brought it up, he was clearly sharing halfback duties from lock and had an impact on that win as well as a halfback.

Your opinion is not only invalid, its dripping in insincerity.
Also....what is 2/3? are you counting the Cowboys game as a win? Are you deluded? Sorry to break it to you....
 
Tucker said:
He played halfback 11 times for 3 wins = every 3.67 games we won
Others played halfback 12 times for 1 win = every 12 games we won
We were far more likely to win when he was at halfback.
You cannot compare his games at lock as the sample size is too small to be accurate, but since you two brought it up, he was clearly sharing halfback duties from lock and had an impact on that win as well as a halfback.

Your opinion is not only invalid, its dripping in insincerity.
Also....what is 2/3? are you counting the Cowboys game as a win? Are you deluded? Sorry to break it to you....
Click to expand...
Curb stomped.
 
Tucker said:
He played halfback 11 times for 3 wins = every 3.67 games we won
Others played halfback 12 times for 1 win = every 12 games we won
We were far more likely to win when he was at halfback.
You cannot compare his games at lock as the sample size is too small to be accurate, but since you two brought it up, he was clearly sharing halfback duties from lock and had an impact on that win as well as a halfback.

Your opinion is not only invalid, its dripping in insincerity.
Also....what is 2/3? are you counting the Cowboys game as a win? Are you deluded? Sorry to break it to you....
Click to expand...

You don't bring up the games he played at Lock - Because the stats don't favour your narrative.
You can ignore them all you like.
He won 1/3 at lock - 1 win every 3.000000000 games
That's not delusion pal - That's maths... Google Check it if you like.

Should have won 2, But the team was certainly played better in all 3...
I'll wait for your evidence that shows we not only didn't win more when he was at 13,
But also "More Likely" (Your words) or closer to winning with him at 13.

You don't have any....
 
happy_tiger said:
Can we all agree on this as fact

Neither Brooks ....Douehi or Hastings are going to lead us to a premiership...either assisted or as a team ...they all need replacing and upgrading

John's...Lewis or Sterling couldn't partner those three to a premiership

They all need replacing ..it doesn't matter what order it happens for Christ sake

FACT ...end rant ...drop mic
Click to expand...
I was getting a headache from all the stats, and just as we were edging toward theorising E=mc2, you bounced the ball in the right direction. 😂 legend!
 
batboy said:
You don't bring up the games he played at Lock - Because the stats don't favour your narrative.
You can ignore them all you like.
He won 1/3 at lock - 1 win every 3.000000000 games
That's not delusion pal - That's maths... Google Check it if you like.

Should have won 2, But the team was certainly played better in all 3...
I'll wait for your evidence that shows we not only didn't win more when he was at 13,
But also "More Likely" (Your words) or closer to winning with him at 13.

You don't have any....
Click to expand...
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.
 
tig_prmz said:
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.
Click to expand...
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
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Members online

Total: 6,489 (members: 33, guests: 6,456)
Back
Top