His philosophy at the Eels was to change them into the Storm. All he wanted was defence, said the attack would come once they got their defence right.
They ended up getting flogged because not only did they struggle on defense, but they had no plans in attack so couldn't build pressure or come back into a match if they got behind.
The Brooks to hooker move also shows he put no thought into what would happen to our attack when Halatau went off, kind of indicated he had no plan whatsoever with our halfback stuck at dummy half and Moses unprepared on how to steer the side around without his halfback or his captain. Just really short sighted and reminds me so much of those dour Eels years
Cant argue with that.
The Brooks at hooker thing i think is not as clear though. My take was that he doesnt want to play Cherrington. Cherrington is too young and fresh and used to playing what is in front of him, overlaps and the like. He would really struggle to stick to the five hit ups and kick structure.
No offence meant , but if Cherrington could not handle sticking to five hit ups and a kick, them what's he doing in an NRL club. It's not as if there's any complication to it.
There is nothing simpler in the game
No offence but there has been a million young players come into grade and not be able to stick to a game plan or know when to go and when to hold off.
Add how Taylor wants to play the game at the moment and it leaves even less room for individual thinking.
