So not commenting on any perceived weakness is wrong is it? "Why point out that one of the brightest prospects we've had for years made one mistake...". By reducing Brooks' mistakes to a single error is to dismiss what comes with youth, that by getting carried away with a young player's performances too early in their career can be as damaging to their chances as being hyper-critical can be. I wrote that what is needed is "a little patience", not that he should remain amongst the younger players which would stifle his development. How is that damning of Brooks and what he may develop into? I hope the lad goes on to bigger and better things, I also know that to be able to differentiate between constructive criticism and not turning a blind eye to any weaknesses he has will also be damaging to his career. I expect Wilder will have made the same critical assessment to Brooks, something he'll have to get used to if he's to improve his game.
I watched Brooks attentively throughout Friday's game. There were a few things he needs to reflect on and work harder to improve, the same as some senior players often do, so how you consider this "damning" escapes me? It goes hand in hand with trying to make your mark in a business that is robust and ruthless, or perhaps you feel that being uncritical is the best path to take if a young player is to learn and improve?