The Thurston myth

[Clintos]

All he has is a great show and go, as m1c pointed out. He can come off the bench and do that maybe, replacing one of the back rowers.

He's a liability playing the full 80.

Could Lockyer possibly be a better impact player off the bench? He's a worse defender than Thurston, and when you take into account his age and the amount of football he plays in a season could we make a case for Lockyer to come off the bench as an impact player?

I think it worked pretty well last year when the Broncos were protecting Lockyer's knee, but obviously he'll be fully fit this time.

"Lockie's on! Lockie's on! Go tell Gids that Lockie's on!"

 

[Professor47]

Prince is probably the most creative and slick halfback in the comp right now. Look, when it comes to rep selection for the test side for the ANZAC test, it is hard to tell who deserves a spot and who doesn't, obviously this time they went to the incumbents, and from a Broncos POV, I think we can't whinge because WB did something similar a few years ago - anwyay, that isn't the point.

Prince/Thurston - HAD QLD chose Prince/Lockyer combo three years ago we might not be talking about this, whatever happened, happened. Thurston was chosen and he played huge parts in the last three origin series. I dont think you can deny he's been a critical part (along with many others I might add) of QLD's success. Can't replace him for Prince imo. He doesn't deserve it. If he has three POOR games this series and we lose the series then maybe but somehow I don't see this happening.

 

[m1c]

You can't carry a 7, 6 or 9 on the bench in origin... way too hard to bring into the game. Possibly a big 6 who could play backrow ala campese, sutton, anasta... but QLD have nothing of the sorts.

I think hands down Prince is the best 7 in the comp, his skill set is just ridiculous. Thurston if you ask me is just an out and out competitor, it's just lucky for him he has been the incumbent - could easily be the other way around.

 

[rnabokov]

All he has is a great show and go, as m1c pointed out. He can come off the bench and do that maybe, replacing one of the back rowers.

He's a liability playing the full 80.

Could Lockyer possibly be a better impact player off the bench? He's a worse defender than Thurston, and when you take into account his age and the amount of football he plays in a season could we make a case for Lockyer to come off the bench as an impact player?

I think it worked pretty well last year when the Broncos were protecting Lockyer's knee, but obviously he'll be fully fit this time.

"Lockie's on! Lockie's on! Go tell Gids that Lockie's on!"

Lockyer belongs on the field as much as possible.

Apart from his leadership (and playmaking skills), just the fact here's there lifts the side.

If he's not 100%, he shouldn't be there at all. That's a lesson already learned.

As for Thurston, his reputation - deserved or otherwise, will always get him selected at 7 until Lockyer is injured or retired When they'll probably move him to 6.

My view has invariably been that Prince is the better half at all levels, and for this Origin, Thurston should be either on the bench or not there at all.

But we all know that won't happen.

 

[Hamm.0]

What I don't understand about this whole thread is;

Regardless of the performance of his club or himself (a halfback playing behind the Cowboys "pack" is never going to look in top form), JT has played extremely well in the last 9 games (3 series), and has performed single handed plays to win (or put us in the position to win) in at least 3 of those games.

Why the sudden call for his removal? Prince is a great player (the inform halfback of the comp) however why would you remove a proven performer to allow his inclusion? Furthermore, Prince lasted how long his last SoO game?

Prince will get his shot, but I wouldn't be dropping a proven competitor this game just to squeeze him in. The "flaws" in his game that have been touted in this thread make me smile, considering what we have all witnessed JT do every recent Origin games.

 

[Coxy]

Hammo, in short:
- if Thurston's team is under the pump and he's struggling, he goes to shit
- if Prince's team is under the pump, you know what you're going to get and he won't lose his head

Queensland have Inglis, Slater, Hodges, Folau - players all capable of doing something themselves. What they need is a pair of halves that will keep the motor running and allow opportunities to present themselves. Ultimately when Thurston pulls off a "match winning play" it's on his own, it's nothing to do with setting for a play, it's just his ability to read when defenders are getting tired, get on their outside and "show and go".

Prince and Lockyer have better vision, they know what's coming, they can plan for it.

Plus, if you have Thurston at halfback it puts more organisational focus on Smith and Lockyer, both of whom then struggle to come up with the plays when it counts because they focussing on the shit the halfback is meant to do.

Ergo, Thurston isn't a halfback. I really think Queensland need Prince and Lockyer if they're going to make it 4 in a row. I think with Thurston there Queensland are at real risk of being beaten by a young and desperate NSW.

 

[QUEENSLANDER]

We won last year because of Thurston. If he didnt go through that gap and find Slater, we dont win. Pure and simple. He deserves his spot

 

[Coxy]

If Queensland had had a decent halfback that could create opportunities for his outside backs it wouldn't have been required. Once Prince was gone Queensland had nobody doing the organising.

 

[OXY-351]

If we're getting rid of proven origin match winners, why don't we have a halves pairing of prince and david stagg?

 

[OXY-351]

If Queensland had had a decent halfback that could create opportunities for his outside backs it wouldn't have been required.

That's debatable. The fact is Thurston DID win the match when it was in the balance. Doesn't sound like the play of someone who goes missing when their team is in trouble to me.

I can't see how anyone could advocate dropping any member of the QLD origin squad that has been part of the past 3 winning series, before the first game. QLD origin teams have always been built on loyalty on those who have peformed in the past

 

[Coxy]

I know. That's why Queensland has lost 3 series in a row previously, because guys that used to be good kept getting picked out of loyalty.

 

[OXY-351]

I know. That's why Queensland has lost 3 series in a row previously, because guys that used to be good kept getting picked out of loyalty.

Or pehaps it's just that QLD didn't have the calibre of players to beat NSW at the time regardless.

I don't think players should continually get picked based on loyalty if the team is losing, but they should be given the first opputunity when the team is winning, as is the case with QLD at the moment.

 

[shaneomac]

prince and thurston halves. locky to fullback. drop slater to QLD cup

 

[Coxy]

Locky to fullback?

Too old, too slow.

 

[gUt]

When Lockyer retires Qld will lose nothing (well not much) with Prince at 7 and Thurston at 6.

 

[Professor47]

If Queensland had had a decent halfback that could create opportunities for his outside backs it wouldn't have been required.

That's debatable. The fact is Thurston DID win the match when it was in the balance. Doesn't sound like the play of someone who goes missing when their team is in trouble to me.

I can't see how anyone could advocate dropping any member of the QLD origin squad that has been part of the past 3 winning series, before the first game. QLD origin teams have always been built on loyalty on those who have peformed in the past

Agreed with the first point, you can't say THIS and THAT should have/would have happened. The fact of the matter was it WAS 10-all and what happened, happened. Should we have been in that position in the first place? Like someone said, probably not, but we were, simple as that.

For those calling for Thurston to be dropped for this series is a very harsh call, but thats what I think. In fact, as bad as it sounds I think it is harsher than Prince not being picked, even tough missing out is rough on Prince, unfortunately for him, he might have to wait for a series loss. (Or Locky retiring)

Locky to FB? DId someone say too old too slow? Enough said.

 

[rnabokov]

When Lockyer retires Qld will lose nothing (well not much) with Prince at 7 and Thurston at 6.

I think Lockyer's symbolic status is not to be under-estimated, aside from his leadership skills and focus in a crisis.

Qld will lose heaps when Locky retires and this stage, I can't see anyone but Thurston filling his spot. He's a natural 5/8.

Whether JT plays well at half is IMO, not the issue. For me, the issue is to pick the form half at Origin selection time.

So far, the form half backs are 1. Prince and 2. Cronk.

If Thurston is picked, it will be purely on reputation/loyalty.

 

[gUt]

Thurston has had a few ordinary games this season, probably as many as Lockyer, but despite that he has still been his team's best player most weeks. I don't think he's done anything to warrant specualtion about his spot in the side; same for Lockyer. It doesn't matter how good Prince is going if the incumbent from 3 consecutive series wins is playing solid or better. Not saying Prince doesn't deserve a spot, just that the spot he deserves is not available.

My point was basically I am really looking forward to the Prince/Thurston era. So long as Smith and these two are in rugby league, and we have any half decent fullback available, Qld will be hard to beat.