@Spud_Murphy said in [Tigers tell Reynolds he's free to find a new club](/post/1038163) said:
Why is Luke Brooks’ inability to become a good, consistent halfback always everyone else’s fault?
Brooks is top in the NRL for line engagements.
He’s third in support play.
He’s ninth for try assists (5th among halfbacks).
He’s top 10 for number of runs (top half or 5/8 by an absolute street).
He’s outside the top 50 in errors (in the top 50: Moses, Croft, Nikorima, Townsend, Keary, Pearce, Milford).
He might not be the type of player you were expecting and he almost certainly isn’t the new Andrew Johns, but he definitively is a good player. I’m sorry you can’t see that, but there’s not an argument to be had here: there’s facts, and there’s what you believe.
Notice I'm not blaming anyone for anything, apart from possibly you for not seeing what's in front of your eyes. The grass is always greener I guess.
My criticism of Brooks isn't that he's not a good player. I think he's very talented. My issue with him is that when we need him to be good, he isn't. He has no killer instinct.
It's interesting that criticism of Brooks always seems to come down to things that are conveniently hard to prove or disprove objectively. There's no data for "killer instinct", is there - just what you think.
Last year someone on here said one of Brooks' failings was that he's never evident in support - a season in which he literally led the NRL in the "player in support" statistic. I'm not saying that's you, but whenever there's actual statistical evidence it almost always tends to suggest that Brooks is a very good half.
On the side of people who think Brooks is a good player is plenty of evidence. On the side of people who think he's rubbish is impressions and opinion.
