so who is the answer...
Douhie let's see how he returns first of all people are hailing him as the second coming
Hastings still unproven in nrl
Neither are halfbacks
If anyone had an employee, who was put in a position of greatest influence in a company, and that person repeatedly underperformed in his role (while at the same time, there was considerable noise from stakeholders claiming he/she was having an adverse effect on progress) well, that employee would simply not last. It would not happen. Let alone 9 years of it. You would have been advised much earlier to part ways and look to fill that role, employing an interim if required.
This should have happened 5 years ago - after Brooks had been given that fair chance to assert himself as a halfback. Management's inability to wear the sunk costs even then make them most certainly accountable for the decisions that have led to him being afforded this much time. It's a travesty.
You see I don't blame Brooks. He is only as good as he can be. And sadly, he has become a predictable, one-dimensional player: monikers reserved for role players. Blame the coach, blame the structure, blame blame blame. A halfback cannot be a role player. Maybe there's a truth that because we have been so mismanaged and coached that it ruined his development. Either way, as it stands, he did not develop and is not good enough to be a first-grade halfback. And if 9 years of evidence is anything to go by, he is not suddenly going to improve out of sight.
Ultimately, it doesn't really matter who they replace him with. Keeping him in the 7 is not a decision that will breed any sort of success or successful culture. If we replaced Brooks with an interim who ultimately turned out to be an incompetent halfback, you might shout "better the devil we knew". But the bare bones truth is that there would be no discernible difference and anyway, I fail to believe they could be worse than Brooks.
You say Hastings is unproven. Maybe so. I don't know how long in a position someone needs to be before they are proven, but after 9 years of underperforming, Brooks is clearly disproven.
You might see that as tough, but if management want a winning team then it's a rather simple equation: Brooks out does not equate to greater failure (how could it?). Rather, it signals change and declares ambition.
He was just made co-captain, so this is all moot.
Still, cheers guys, I'm glad for this forum support group
🙂