Lockyer v Thurston

[Kiwi]

Great insight.

Maybe people have a different opinion to yours amd believe what they SEE, not what they are told.

I guess like people telling me Lockyer is the best of all time. But I don't believe it because despite being a bloody good player, he was defensively suspect and needed constant protection in games for it.

To be considered even close to the best, you have to have the all round arsenal. Lockyer does not come close when you consider defence.

Johns lacked consistency, and often went missing in games, he is also a confessed drug user admitting to using banned substances throughout his career. There is no such thing as the perfect player, all players including the greats have deficiencies. When people lean a certain way they tend to view these a lot more harshly and in an over exaggerated manner, which I'm probably guilty of as well with Johns.

 

[Kiwi]

Umm no.

There's very little difference between a 6 and 7 in the modern game.

Granted Lockyer was a classic 5/8, but JT is equally effective at 6 or 7.

It's not an insult that he's been moved to accommodate Locky and Cronk. More a compliment of how great and versatile he is.

Is that why Johnson struggled in the 6 for the Warriors until he was moved back to the 7?

 

[Hutty1986]

is it because he's not that bloke from your club?

Note how i said 'next.'

 

[STORM.99/07]

JT is my pick

 

[Tommy Smith]

Johns lacked consistency, and often went missing in games, he is also a confessed drug user admitting to using banned substances throughout his career. There is no such thing as the perfect player, all players including the greats have deficiencies. When people lean a certain way they tend to view these a lot more harshly and in an over exaggerated manner, which I'm probably guilty of as well with Johns.

Johns lacked consistency?

You should do stand up comedy.

He was incredibly consistent. And he had to be to get the Knights into the top 4 basically every year from about 1997 onwards when he was fit the whole season.

 

[Last Week]

The judging panel will include Wayne Bennett, John Grant, former editors Ian Heads and Geoff Prenter, David Middleton and your columnist among others.

f**k the immortals then if this drunken f**k wit is on it. What a joke of a concept.

 

[papabear]

It's really not "half the game" for a half though is it? I mean, a half should have more influence in attack than in defence. It comes with the role.

yes and no.

You will never be a great half if you dont have an impressive attacking game. But a lot of teams run alot of plays around the spacing and decision making of defensively weaker halves.

Lockyer had to have tonie carroll baby sitting him throughout his career. Otherwise his edge got exposed.

Thurston has never had such a problem, whilst obviously not a second rower in defence, he made enough contact and used his speed in cover and in defence generally so as not to be a liability. People still run at Thurston though to tire him out mostly though not because they are expecting money like with lockyer.

In attack, its too close to call.
Ball play - thurston
pure speed - lockyer when he was fullback but about even when he goes to halves.
clutch play - lockyer
kicking - thurston
Effect on team mates - lockyer - but he as always had better team mates.
running the ball - about even, i like thurstons show and go but you cant discount lokcyers speed especially when he was younger.

thus when they are about even in attack... one player being a shitload better defender makes the choice pretty clear.

Honestly, the gulf between thurston and lockyer isnt as big as johns (goat) and anyone else. But imo there is a reasonable gulf there and the only ones really agruing for lockyer are biased bronco fans.

 

[papabear]

Is that why Johnson struggled in the 6 for the Warriors until he was moved back to the 7?

players play roles now not what number is on their back.

surely you watch enough rugby league to know that.

 

[Last Week]

yes and no.

You will never be a great half if you dont have an impressive attacking game. But a lot of teams run alot of plays around the spacing and decision making of defensively weaker halves.

Lockyer had to have tonie carroll baby sitting him throughout his career. Otherwise his edge got exposed.

Thurston has never had such a problem, whilst obviously not a second rower in defence, he made enough contact and used his speed in cover and in defence generally so as not to be a liability. People still run at Thurston though to tire him out mostly though not because they are expecting money like with lockyer.

In attack, its too close to call.
Ball play - thurston
pure speed - lockyer when he was fullback but about even when he goes to halves.
clutch play - lockyer
kicking - thurston
Effect on team mates - lockyer - but he as always had better team mates.
running the ball - about even, i like thurstons show and go but you cant discount lokcyers speed especially when he was younger.

thus when they are about even in attack... one player being a shitload better defender makes the choice pretty clear.

Honestly, the gulf between thurston and lockyer isnt as big as johns (goat) and anyone else. But imo there is a reasonable gulf there and the only ones really agruing for lockyer are biased bronco fans.

One thing that Locky had when he was younger and kept it for a while, was the ability to step and change direction when running, and not lose any speed or balance. His vision, clutch plays and class were fantastic.

 

[Big Pete]

I like this idea of Lockyer needing a minder when JT has Cooper and Linnett making tackles for him.

They're even defensively. Both had their moments where they came up with good reads and the right tackle, both had their moments where they were made to look silly and were an utter liability for their side. Generally both were good enough to overcome and steer their side to victory.

 

[Last Week]

I like this idea of Lockyer needing a minder when JT has Cooper and Linnett making tackles for him.

They're even defensively. Both had their moments where they came up with good reads and the right tackle, both had their moments where they were made to look silly and were an utter liability for their side. Generally both were good enough to overcome and steer their side to victory.

I think the weaknesses in their defences is vastly over stated. They weren't liabilities to their teams like a Chris Sandow.

Defensively I think Lockyer was more likely to miss a tackle than JT. When they both make their tackles, I find Lockyer to be more ineffective more often. But neither are going to make big defensive plays, ever. This is the glaring differences between both and Joey.

 

[ram raid]

Johns... is also a confessed drug user admitting to using banned substances throughout his career.

Only adds to his greatness that he knew how to party. It's not like MDMA is performance enhancing.

 

[blaza88z]

anyone who thinks Lockyer was the only half in the game who was hidden by playing next to a hard hitting second rower in defense has rocks in their head

Lockyer was the best in the world in 2 completely different positions, no other player can match that feat in today's game (and yes, many have tried)

 

[TheVelourFog]

I think the weaknesses in their defences is vastly over stated. They weren't liabilities to their teams like a Chris Sandow.

Defensively I think Lockyer was more likely to miss a tackle than JT. When they both make their tackles, I find Lockyer to be more ineffective more often. But neither are going to make big defensive plays, ever. This is the glaring differences between both and Joey.

except JT makes them all the time

especially on kick chases

 

[some11]

except JT makes them all the time

all the time

He's never missed a tackle?

 

[papabear]

I like this idea of Lockyer needing a minder when JT has Cooper and Linnett making tackles for him.

They're even defensively. Both had their moments where they came up with good reads and the right tackle, both had their moments where they were made to look silly and were an utter liability for their side. Generally both were good enough to overcome and steer their side to victory.

lol at linnett and cooper being minders...

If cooper didn't play off thurston in attack so well (the line etc that he runs) he wouldn't be in the side. He is certainly not there for his defence.

Tonie was an enforcer, who in todays game would have spent alot more time on the side line.

They were not even defensively, your broncos bias is laughable...so so laughable.

Next you will be telling me alan langer was better then peter sterling, or gordon tallis was the best second rower ever? Or has he gone down hill now that he dared criticize the deity wayne bennett.

 

[papabear]

anyone who thinks Lockyer was the only half in the game who was hidden by playing next to a hard hitting second rower in defense has rocks in their head

Lockyer was the best in the world in 2 completely different positions, no other player can match that feat in today's game (and yes, many have tried)

His first up contact was laughable.

He had a decent cover tackle on him, though he was no brett hodgson, but his first up contact was very very weak.

 

[gUt]

Allan Langer was better than Peter Sterling and Ricky Stuart and Andrew Johns

 

[TheVelourFog]

He's never missed a tackle?

Who said that?

So if any player has missed a tackle = can't defend

Got it

 

[THE CHAMP]

The Bronco hate is very strong in here.

Had no idea just how under rated locky is down south.

He sure pissed off plenty down there over his career.

Just for the record how well would johns go defending at fullback?