Absolutely the stopping of the aircraft should be done by
the brakes,...then there is the potential added benefit of
using reverse thrust. this use may not always be wise, such
as when the a/c has a bit of drift angle on a slippery surface,
or when a very long stopping dstance is available, in which
case a low brake usage will not always benefit carbon
brakes which perform and last better with strong use. Brakes
are designed to stop the plane under the most adverse and
extreme conditions, that's their job. Of course on a slippery
runway (no cross wind) reverse thrust is a major added benefit.
That comes with a weight/maintenance/stressful use price.
(The A380 dose not have it outboard as the FOD risk is not
worth that price) Brakes are designed to stop planes and are
a mature successful device. Thrust reversers are complex,
maintenance heavy, and engine sress cycle cause. What's
good about using no brakes and using reverse? Ask your
engineer. Brakes are simple, reliable and easy to replace.Tires too.
RR Trent operators will well know the fan duct damage that can
occur with harsh use of reverse...very expensive!
(Note, I've written this as a long haul heavy operator, when auto
brakes are an important SOP. Narrow bodies at most airports
may well never need their brakes, so lucky them!)