McGregor and Thurstans

[PAfolwr]

A while ago I had a somewhat lively debate about the worth of McGregor on this board.
It eventually got pointed out to me that no matter what I thought of him, he was not only doing better than Morgan and Thurstans, but perhaps better than either of them ever would.
I reserved judgement until I got to see both of them play.

Thurstans has now played enough games, so time to reply.

Morgan- I still cannot judge as playing his first game at the SGG was not exactly a good thing to happen to him, and earlier this year I was critical of him, only to find out he was actually injured. Hopefully he will make me eat my own words.

Having seen Thurstans a few times, I believe he is a late developer like Bishop, but will be better than Bishop.
If I had to choose between McGregor or Thurstans as the last spot on a list, I wouldn't hesitate and go for Thurstans.

Opinions?

No trolls please.

 

[DaveW]

McGregor did a sterling job at centre half back on Friday night and looks to be re-finding his form of 2002, maybe even taking a step up. I wouldn't want to get rid of him.

 

[tribey]

I believe Ken McGregor is about as useful as a chocolate teapot, but aye he did play well on Friday night... but having said that with no Sav or Digby in the Roos forward line his opposition wasn't much.

As for Thurstans, haven't seen enough of him to comment.

 

[macca23]

The debate over the relative values of McGregor and Thurstans is an interesting one but too early too call, because of the different stages of their development.

It was fair game to get stuck into Mcgregor about his inconsistent performances until 2001. I'm more than happy with his form in 2002 and this year at CHB. In other words he has developed into a consistent performer at AFL level after being given ample opportunity to do so.

Thurstans development has been somewhat held back by being on the list for 4 years without opportunity until this year. However, while he hasn't been a dominant player at this early stage, there is definitely something to like about the way he plays.

If the selection had to be made today, I would definitely take McGregor. That could well alter once Thurstans has played more games and gained more experience at this higher level.

As for Thurstans being another Bishop, I don't know about that. Bishop has developed into a very good player since coming to Port - very good.

 

[Stiffy_18]

Originally posted by macca23
Bishop has developed into a very good player since coming to Port - very good.

Hasn't he turned into a bargain pick up for the mob down the road?????? I am sure Melbourne would kill for a defender of Bishop's ability.

 

[Kane McGoodwin]

I had been calling for the Power to play Thurstans years ago ahead of Meady when he was struggling in his final year. His development has been held up unnecesarily. The guy has shown that he can play, but still is not settled in the Port team (unlike say Bishop).

Unlike Thurstans (yet), Kenny has established himself as a solid negating CHB (mainly due to more opportunities). So if I had a choice now I would select McGregor. However, Thurstans may become the better player, but who knows!

 

[PAfolwr]

Might try and clarify a few things from my post.

Bishop IMO is a very good player and would get a spot in almost any team. One of the few, if not the only one where he might have a hard time could be Brisbane.
He was a late developer, and took him a while to find his niche at Port. He has now found it in spades.
Thurstans appears to have even more natural ability than Bishop, and is very athletic for a big man. This athleticism means that he will be useful in a variety of jobs, and will be able to be used as a match up to a variety of forwards if and when required.
As he also appears to be a hard worker, the future looks very promising at this early stage. Not necessarily talking about near future here.

McGregor IMO is limited in the roles he is capable of. If he is matched up against the "right" forward, he will play a good game, however as soon as he is not, he will not necessarily get flogged, but not contribute much to the team.
This appears to happen a fair bit in the games I have watched. I am sure you lot have seen him play more often than I have.

Using analogies is not a good way to debate, but I'll give it a go.
As a rough analogy, in the soccer World Cups, you get teams that absolutely flog the living daylights out of lesser teams, but as soon as they come up against another team of equal or higher standard, they do not amount to much. They always seem to lack that "something".
McGregor IMO also seems to lack that something, and it ain't experience, as he now has plenty of that.
His only possible area of improvement, IMO, is consistency

By last spot on the list, I wasn't talking about the starting 22 at present, but rather the last player to be chosen on a complete list before the start of a season. If that makes sense.

 

[noddy]

My opinion like many other crow supporters on Kenny has changed some what on what it used to be from one of "despair & why why why" to "well the guy is really trying to improve his game & make the most of his opportunities" i don't think he will be a Hart or Smart for us in the back-lines but if he can hold down chb & negate an opposition kf i'll be happy with that,
plus i really admire Ken for his perseverance & dedication in making himself into a regular starter for a top 4 club such as the AFC,

on Toby Thurstans well from what i have seen of him & that is not to much he looks to have some natural ability & is a good size for an AFL footballer but at the moment i still would prefer Ken McGregor,