Never going to play for England but he's not a bad keeper either. Do I think he's a better keeper than Luke Steele? Probably not. Do I think he's an adequate replacement for Steele? Very much so.
Somewhere in between has been a bit of a disappointment to me. Was expecting great things but I think he was better as a loanee all those years ago. Good enough for this league though.
Steele only had shot stopping in his locker and sometimes, he wasn't that good. Turnbull is a decent shot stopper but has everything else as well
He's the best permanent goalie we have had since Muller, but I have major concerns about his back. He appeared to be suffering more than usual through yesterdays match. 2 games in week maybe the culprit.
I sometimes feel that Turnbull's judgement let's him down. A couple of times we've conceded a goal where he seems to have completely misjudged where the ball is going. I've really only noticed because I play in goal and the same happens to me several times on a Monday night. This is the argument I never understand with Steele, the fact that he was an exceptional shot stopper, made up for the other little discrepancies in his game in my opinion. As I say, I think they're both good goalkeepers, I just think given the choice, I'd choose Steele over Turnbull, but I can't stress enough how pleased I was that we'd signed Turnbull when Luke left.
I just think he's extremely poor. His shot stopping is poor (takes him an absolute age to get down to a low shot), his kicking is as bad as Steele's, he is glued to his line except for when he needs to be on his line then he is rushing out into no mans land and his catching is poor. Just my opinion like