Im a Brooks fan, but tonight he was poor. But he wasnt on his own, REynolds, Mbye, Hoffman, MCK, Clarke, all poor
Wow I think you are being harsh on Hoffman. They sent a lot of traffic and kicks his way. He defused all bombs and scored a good try. If his centre had of helped him a little in defence then they may have been able to withstand some of the attack down that side.
If Hoffman wasnt 10m out of position all night, Mbye wouldnt have had to rush up to try to stop the play. Its ok to give your opponent 10m of sideline if you are blinding fast, otherwise, if the 5/8 gets the winger the ball, its a try every time. Mbye was trying to cut it off each time
I don’t think that was the case Hoffman’s spacing seemed fine to me on most occasions the whole left edge malfunctioned last night …that starts further in…had Hoffman held his wing there would have been a 15m gap between himself and Mbye for a centre to stroll through…
I don’t think the whole side communicated well enough …they were all on a different page…some rushing up some attempting to slide all at the same time…it’s on them all added to that the trend for the Fullback to defend in the line…rather than sweeping up the mess
Roberts TRY was the most disappointing …you could see it coming and Brooks still had a chance to stop it but fell off the tackle badly on the touchline …which has been unlike him…
Last try was the worst easily
How do you rate Brooks game last night
Kicking game F
Game organization E minus
Running game D minus
That was unacceptable last night
…not getting one tackle in our opposition 20 for 40 minutes …Brooks and the forwards have to own that
It’s a fair assessment. He was really bad.
He also won the Tigers player of the year for the last 2 years and was recently re-signed on a long contract. Some people who should know what they are talking about seem to think he is performing his role quite well.
I guess they are the same geniuses that havent seen a Tigers team make the finals in a decade. Yep, real solid knowing what they are talking about.
You cant make the finals without a half decent half back and Brooks is scraping the bottom of the barrel.
The point is some of us view him as close to the best halfback in the comp. I mean he isn’t a stand out but who is better than him. Cleary and Keary are both good players. If Moses is on he is a good player. Are these guys better than Brooks and more to the point significantly better than Brooks ? I don’t think they are. I watched the game on the weekend and Cleary is a good defender and a pretty good kicker but I don’t think he offers anywhere near the ability to create and set-up plays compared to Brooks.
I was there, right on the half-way line and few rows from the front, and I had a very close look at Brooksy, as I am far from convinced about him, but, I thought Brooks was better than ok last night. I don’t think he deserves the criticism this week. He was solid.
It’s not his job to be solid. It’s his job to get us home.
His fans just don’t get this
His job is to win us those games.
I’m a fan and I hear what you are stating. He has to win us games to be a great player. He isn’t there yet. He still contributes significantly to the team and is a quality first grade half back. Hopefully he gets there but even if he doesn’t we have other spine positions to fill prior to worrying about getting rid of Brooks. We can become a better team with Brooks in the 7 role.
I think it just frustrates people Nathan is better than him.
Is he ? I thought Brooks was the standout half in the first half and he wasn’t bad in the second. He did make some mistakes but I think he was better than Cleary. Luiai was better than Cleary as well.
He starts with an established good side, containing some of the GOATs, then leaves for the only other team that has a strike rate anywhere near as good as Melbourne’s. I can understand that but can’t respect it, nor can I respect his comments.
My interpretation is that Cronk is basically saying that he was a decent half back only, and that he had to play in great teams in order to make him look good.
Accordingly, if he played in a struggle-street team like the Tigers, his career would probably have lasted only 100 games or so.
Which means, that if he had joined the WT instead of Easts a few years back, his lack of greatness would have been obvious to all and his reputation would have been tarnished.
In providing his self-serving advice to Grant (which he dresses up as “fatherly” advice to a rookie) he not only denigrates our club and our coach, he also denigrates himself as a player.
However, Harry Grant is more than just a decent dummy half. Rather, he appears destined for greatness, and I would back him to shine in any company. Unlike Cronk, he doesn’t need great players around him to make him look good.
Think you’re being a bit harsh on Cronks ability he was a terrific halfback. His career would’ve been different if we was at a weaker club no doubt but he was still fantastic as a player, showed it at origin level and Australian level too.
He took the easy road when he left Melbourne
A great player can shine at any club
He wasn’t a great player. I can see the point of his argument. If you are an average player and you become an automatic selection with a top quality team who rort the salary cap your career may in appearances be better than it could have been at a different club.
A great player though is a completely different story.