Review What Daniel Jackson Does

[Rayzorwire]

Despite two very solid seasons where in many people's mind he's firmly established himself as a player, Jackson is still amongst our most heavily criticised players - 'horrible kick...bad decision maker...easily replaceable in the middle...not in our best-22 going forward' etc..

The divide between those who believe he's an integral part of our midfield mix and those who believe he's worthless begs three questions: what do people *see* when they watch a game of football?; what do people *remember* after they've watched a game of football?; and how can people watching the same games come to such different conclusions about a player?

So I chose what I considered to be a memorable game for all of us and a good one to briefly examine again before the new season - our victory over Sydney last year - and decided to look at what he does for us in an average game (he had much better games last year if I wanted to cherry pick one, I just found this game most instructional on many levels and the best for discussion).

Sit back and watch Jackson does in a game instead of being fully involved in the wider contest and the games of 43 other players - I think it's a fine example of why he's a very important player for us and a fine example of how easy it is to overlook the importance of the work done by players like him in favour of the more glorious and spectacular contributions from teammates.

There's a hell of a lot to see in these brief clips (this may well spill over into discussions of other players as well when people see Graham and Vickery competing so well against Mumford, White and King playing vital roles etc. ), but one thing to look out for on the first watch - how often Jackson is a major player in our scoring and the fast, penetrating ball movement which gives good opportunities to score.

[youtube]pngyIRMG51Q[/youtube]

 

[Infamy]

Only problem is there is nothing showing the times he holds the ball up.
There was also a few handballs to players feet and long bombs that are just to a contest and come off our way. If you want to argue the players merits you can't just show highlights as any player looks good on the highlight reel. You need to see every touch, warts and all to be able to be objective. A lot of the plays highlighted showed Jackson disposing of the ball but not what happens next, that is important for context.

I don't mind Jackson, he definitely does some good things out on the field, but he still has some pretty major things to work on and I don't think we can carry both him and Tuck in the same side.

 

[freezer]

I think we're all a pretty good judge of who in the AFL is a gun, and who by their overall performance fails to excite for whatever reason regardless of what their stats say.

Jackson seems to tick along hitting a standard that makes it hard to write him off completely, but never really tearing a game a new one....

Why?

I reckon its got something to do with him thinking that he's a bit too much of an itellectual/higher thinker and trying to think his way through a game rather than just going with the flow and commiting himself 100% to the contest.

Has definitely got talent. Just needs to convince himself, without a shadow of a doubt, that he desrves to be in the the starting 18 of a side that should and will play in a successful finals campaign, and bring his A game everytime he steps up.

Not writing him off in anyway, just think we need to be realistic as to where he is in comparison to other high qualitydefensive/attacking mids out there

 

[Rayzorwire]

There was also a few handballs to players feet...

This would be the one handball where he uses his left hand and Farmer receives at mid thigh without needing to break stride, giving him some chance to keep the flow going and break his tackler? You clearly have no idea how difficult it is to pull off a handball on your non-preferred when you and the recipient are running full-tilt in opposite directions.

I see skill, you don't begin to appreciate the skill nor how well executed it was.

The 60m pass to Moore which hits him on the chest without him breaking stride is an absolutely elite kick, very few players can do it, the pass which hits Reiwoldt in the dying stages of the last quarter is one of the best from any player all season given the circumstances.

But instead of those you chose to focus on reaffirming your opinion in any way possible (or impossible as the case may be ).

...and long bombs that are just to a contest and come off our way.

You see 'just a contest that happens to go our way', I see quick ball movement that allows our forwards open space and contests they can win, and allows us to attack the opposition defence in enough space to cause scoring opportunities through pressure.

The first goal of the video is a perfect example of the latter. Jackson's 'poor' kick travels 55m off a step, bounces a further 10m over heads and leaves the Swans defenders heavily under pressure and at the mercy of our small forwards. It's not pretty, but it's effective and that's the way football is played now by the best sides - get it in there fast to beat the flooding, keep it in there, squeeze 'em 'til they pop. It's a brand of football which stands up in finals and players like Jackson, Tuck and King are crucial to pulling it off.

If you want to argue the players merits you can't just show highlights as any player looks good on the highlight reel. You need to see every touch, warts and all to be able to be objective.

Sure most players can look good on a highlight reel, but this is all from one game and it clearly demonstrates that Jackson had a major role in a massive portion of our scoring (which I'm quite sure a lot of people missed). That's not flashy, selective highlights, it clear evidence of his importance.

A lot of the plays highlighted showed Jackson disposing of the ball but not what happens next, that is important for context.

If I let every play run the video becomes too long to focus on the content properly, therefore some parts are just evidence of what Jackson does and not a turnover three possessions later or whatever else which is irrelevant to the discussion and unnecessary to show.

 

[_RT_]

First off let me say that I'm a bit of a Jackson fan but even I can admit that there were some possessions in there where we were fortunate that the ball bounced our way after he failed to hit the target. There are a couple of kicks towards Riewoldt where the ball falls short and Jack does the hard work to keep the ball alive in the contest. There is also another kick where White is the target and its 3 on 1, the Swans player gets the spoil away and the ball fortunately lands in Nasons hands a good 10-12m away from the contest.

Also to claim the first goal was because Jackson had belted the ball inside 50 is a fair stretch especially when the Swans had pretty much cleared the 50 from that kick and it was only a mistake on their part on the opposite side of the ground that saw the ball get turned over. You simply can't claim that a turnover 3 possessions later from a Jackson disposal is irrelevant and then claim that our small forwards creating a turnover 30 seconds to a minute after a Jackson disposal is relevant.

Having said that I'd much rather see Jackson in the side where he can use his size and strength to help create space for the other midfielders and there were some great examples of that in the clip. There were also some great examples of his bigger body allowing him to either take the tackle and force another stoppage or lay a strong tackle and force another stoppage. These are the things that Jackson does really well and this is the reason IMO why he, along with Tuck, is such an important part of our midfield set up.

 

[CallMeAl]

....begs three questions: what do people *see* when they watch a game of football?; what do people *remember* after they've watched a game of football?; and how can people watching the same games come to such different conclusions about a player?

People see what they want to see. This is heavily influenced by preconceptions.

What people remember is heavily influenced by how much they drink, as well as what they see, due to their preconceptions.

How can different people draw different conclusions from the same game?? see above.

It is also impossible to see and notice everything from a game after seeing it only once. You also get vastly different perceptions watching a game live compared to watching a game on TV.

Lastly there has been much research into just how accurate eye witness testimony is... and it is not very accurate at all. Our minds actually play tricks on us in regards to memory and of course, this is largely influenced by preconceptions.

 

[barracoutta]

dont get me wrong cause i like jackson and i think he brings a lot to our side. my major concern with him is how reckless he can be with his disposal and his attention to his opponent. some things that do come to mind is how often his tackles end up being in the back of the opponent (king also come to mind here) and also his kicking directly out of pack to an opposition zoning defender(tuck also comes to mind here). i know that the team would have certain team rules and structures and there would be a designated spot to kick to in certain situations and maybe its the forwards fault for not being in the right position. Hopefully the team has learnt the structures over the last year and pre-season that we see at least a contest in these situations.

 

["The Roar Is Back"]

People see what they want to see. This is heavily influenced by preconceptions.

What people remember is heavily influenced by how much they drink, as well as what they see, due to their preconceptions.

How can different people draw different conclusions from the same game?? see above.

It is also impossible to see and notice everything from a game after seeing it only once. You also get vastly different perceptions watching a game live compared to watching a game on TV.

Lastly there has been much research into just how accurate eye witness testimony is... and it is not very accurate at all. Our minds actually play tricks on us in regards to memory and of course, this is largely influenced by preconceptions.

Cal , not eveyone who has a opinion, watches a game with preconceptions and is pissed on the couch ?
If eye witness testimony is not very accurate , why are so many of the key performance areas , based on eye witness assessment , and why are clubs continually looking to expand the amount of staff they have that can view prospective players ?

 

[middy]

First off, great video mate, had the old blood pumping after watching this one. This video showed what I have been saying about Jackson for ages, he need a player like him in this side. Those slightly off the ball hits and bumps, hard tackles where you slam players and times when he was pushing players around are exactly what this club needs, for too long I've seen our players be bullied off the ball and there is no way to be a successful club without having a player who does this. It's not dirty, its aggressive and it's about time. Sure, he does hold the ball up every now and then, but just look at his effort in the final minutes of that game, he throws himself onto a contest from about 5 metres away, his actions inspire others to do the same.

 

[Infamy]

Rayzor - Nice to see you left out my quote saying that I actually like Jackson as a player. I'm not one of the guys writing him off, I'm just pointing out that your selective editing doesn't actually do much towards proving the doubters wrong.

 

[tigerT]

Does some things for the team very well, does other things horribly - question of balance between his 2 sides as to whether he has a good or poor game - he will always be that type of player.

I don't mind him, can be handy but can also be very frustrating

 

[Rayzorwire]

First off let me say that I'm a bit of a Jackson fan but even I can admit that there were some possessions in there where we were fortunate that the ball bounced our way after he failed to hit the target. There are a couple of kicks towards Riewoldt where the ball falls short and Jack does the hard work to keep the ball alive in the contest.

Let's examine what's happening in those incidents.

The first is at the very beginning, Jackson leaves his opponent to assist Martin, arrives with perfect timing for the receive, then looks up, sees that the zone is in place and the only way past is fast and long to a forward-50 with only five players in it. The kick off one step doesn't hit the target on the full, but what we're doing is kicking to position - so if you don't thread the eye of a needle (which, let's face it, is what that kick would have had to do) we still get a two on three contest on the edge of 50. A winnable contest with no flood in place - exactly what we want. As it happens the bounce favours Sydney, it could well have gone our way.

The important thing is that Mattner now has the ball deep inside forward-50, on his wrong foot and we can put Sydney under enough pressure to make them crack. We're in that situation because Jackson got the ball in there.

So, you're the coach now, start from the beginning where Jackson receives the ball, look at the options he has, what do you want him to do with it? I'm 100% for him going long to the contest he went to, giving us a contest we can win and a worst case scenario of turning the ball over fairly close to the boundary in no-man's land, what would you like?

While you're at it, think about what percentage chance he had of hitting Reiwoldt well enough for him to take a clean grab. I rate it about a 3-4% chance for Jackson, significantly less than 1% for the average player to hit that target off one step.

So as I see it, a player has taken the 100% right option and driven us deep into attack in the process, missed a very difficult target by a small margin, and set us up for what led to a goal.

All you can see is a missed target.

The other 'bad disposal' incident, Jackson's 'grubber' to Reiwoldt at 17:41 of the 2nd quarter.

What I see is Jackson being the only one who can stop Smith running riot through the centre, he causes the turnover, then gets a 'thanks very much' handball from Connors, jams it on the boot before he's tackled, gets it forward 60m to Reiwoldt in a one on one and we end up with a stoppage 20m from goal. From looking down the barrel of an unopposed inside-50 to there, largely through Jackson's efforts.

Sure, Jack was great, Kingy took the tackle well, Martin and Nason did well, but what I saw was that Jackson's tackling was the catalyst for the turnover after Smith had freewheeled past our other mids, Jackson's kick gained us a massive amount of territory and gave the bloke we need in as many one on one's as possible the sort of opportunity he needs. He took the perfect option and executed it very well.

You just saw a kick that couldn't hit the forward on the full to advantage, when the kick was taken from a place where that was nigh on impossible.

You're the coach, what would you have liked him to do different and/or better which would have given us an improved result?

There is also another kick where White is the target and its 3 on 1, the Swans player gets the spoil away and the ball fortunately lands in Nasons hands a good 10-12m away from the contest.

What I saw was that Jackson has - as you say - three Swans ahead of him and he manages to place the ball where White can make the contest (he gets out-bodied, that's why he can't take advantage of the front position he had), we don't turn the ball over, and we end up gaining 90m and a stoppage just outside our 50 arc because Jackson attacked the game and backed his ability to hit White well enough to at least force a contest.

In your first two example you point out that he should have hit Reiwoldt on the full to make it a quality possession, in this example he hit White on the full in amongst three Swans with what was a difficult pass, what's the difference?

You're the coach, what should Jackson have done?

The first two incidents I feel very strongly that Jackson took the 100% right option, in all three I think he executed good or excellent skills, in all three I think he showed courage and leadership by attacking the game, in all three I think he gave Hardwick exactly the kind of football he wants to see.

You saw three errors...amazing isn't it?

Having said that I'd much rather see Jackson in the side where he can use his size and strength to help create space for the other midfielders and there were some great examples of that in the clip. There were also some great examples of his bigger body allowing him to either take the tackle and force another stoppage or lay a strong tackle and force another stoppage. These are the things that Jackson does really well and this is the reason IMO why he, along with Tuck, is such an important part of our midfield set up.

Well said.

People see what they want to see. This is heavily influenced by preconceptions.

What people remember is heavily influenced by how much they drink, as well as what they see, due to their preconceptions.

How can different people draw different conclusions from the same game?? see above.

It is also impossible to see and notice everything from a game after seeing it only once. You also get vastly different perceptions watching a game live compared to watching a game on TV.

Lastly there has been much research into just how accurate eye witness testimony is... and it is not very accurate at all. Our minds actually play tricks on us in regards to memory and of course, this is largely influenced by preconceptions.

Couldn't agree more Al, pretty much what I'm driving at...very interesting situation I think.

If eye witness testimony is not very accurate , why are so many of the key performance areas , based on eye witness assessment

Eye witness assessment that gets looked at over and over again ptf, that's the key as Al pointed out. And of course, it helps if you know what you're really looking for. It's subjective, like most subjective things, doing it well is a bit of an art form, that's why those blokes are like gold.

It's very clear that the coaching staff rate Jackson highly, but some people obviously disagree. The coaching staff watch what he does each game in great detail, the sort of things I'm pointing out here are the reasons why they love him. Someone at the game might completely miss things like how magic that clearance is where he gets first hands on the ball then takes the tackle, can't dispose of it with one arm pinned so he makes sure it goes to the deck in the tackle (no incorrect disposal there) then flicks it out to Graham's clear advantage. Even seen once on TV that stuff is hard to fully pick up and appreciate.

Rayzor - Nice to see you left out my quote saying that I actually like Jackson as a player.

What's to debate about that? Why would I quote it?

I'm not one of the guys writing him off, I'm just pointing out that your selective editing doesn't actually do much towards proving the doubters wrong.

And I disagree, as I've stated.

 

[Rayzorwire]

Those slightly off the ball hits and bumps, hard tackles where you slam players and times when he was pushing players around are exactly what this club needs, for too long I've seen our players be bullied off the ball and there is no way to be a successful club without having a player who does this. It's not dirty, its aggressive and it's about time. Sure, he does hold the ball up every now and then, but just look at his effort in the final minutes of that game, he throws himself onto a contest from about 5 metres away, his actions inspire others to do the same.

Very well said middy, I thought the 'gold' comment is where Schwarz starts saying in the third quarter that we can't afford to go head to head with the Swans in a stoppage war because they'll grind us down with bigger bodies...at the exact moment where Jackson's grinding a Swan into the dirt. We ground them down as it turned out and Jackson played a huge part. There's some big hits and tackles from him in the game, people underestimate how effective they are...getting shirt-fronted by 90kg of mad ranga running at full pace is not a good thing when you're aiming to play well and run the game right out.

 

[CallMeAl]

Cal , not eveyone who has a opinion, watches a game with preconceptions and is pissed on the couch ?
If eye witness testimony is not very accurate , why are so many of the key performance areas , based on eye witness assessment , and why are clubs continually looking to expand the amount of staff they have that can view prospective players ?

Not real sure what you driving at here PTF.

Perhaps i should have started with generally as i wasnt trying to say everone, just most have preconceptions.

I never suggested everyone was pissed on the couch, (some will be pissed at the game ) just that how much one drinks when watching the football affects what they remember. Im not sure how you drew that conclusion from what i wrote.
If we are talking about recruiters watching games all over the country i'm sure they are concentrating on the performance of a small number of players each game they watch not the overall picture, which will obviously give a clearer perspective on those players. How many people on BF do you think sit down and watch a game specifically only following the performance of a few players?

As for key performance indicators do you think those employed to record them do so as they happen or wait until after the game to do so? Doesn't writing something down as it happens take out the memory element? Is it silly to think that video replays could be used to help with the accuracy in collating this data?

Just curious, what do you think the answers to Razors three questions are?

By the way, you can call me Al, I get labeled as a C often enough as it is

 

[Hipster Doofus]

The bloke is our best 22 no worries....

Great vid!

 

[JAKLAUGHING]

No argument from me...jackson is in my best 22 players......

Tell me who do you think would be the better captain out of cotchin and jackson...?!?...and why?!?!......

 

[_RT_]

Let's examine what's happening in those incidents.

The first is at the very beginning, Jackson leaves his opponent to assist Martin, arrives with perfect timing for the receive, then looks up, sees that the zone is in place and the only way past is fast and long to a forward-50 with only five players in it. The kick off one step doesn't hit the target on the full, but what we're doing is kicking to position - so if you don't thread the eye of a needle (which, let's face it, is what that kick would have had to do) we still get a two on three contest on the edge of 50. A winnable contest with no flood in place - exactly what we want. As it happens the bounce favours Sydney, it could well have gone our way.

The important thing is that Mattner now has the ball deep inside forward-50, on his wrong foot and we can put Sydney under enough pressure to make them crack. We're in that situation because Jackson got the ball in there.

So, you're the coach now, start from the beginning where Jackson receives the ball, look at the options he has, what do you want him to do with it? I'm 100% for him going long to the contest he went to, giving us a contest we can win and a worst case scenario of turning the ball over fairly close to the boundary in no-man's land, what would you like?

While you're at it, think about what percentage chance he had of hitting Reiwoldt well enough for him to take a clean grab. I rate it about a 3-4% chance for Jackson, significantly less than 1% for the average player to hit that target off one step.

So as I see it, a player has taken the 100% right option and driven us deep into attack in the process, missed a very difficult target by a small margin, and set us up for what led to a goal.

All you can see is a missed target.

The other 'bad disposal' incident, Jackson's 'grubber' to Reiwoldt at 17:41 of the 2nd quarter.

What I see is Jackson being the only one who can stop Smith running riot through the centre, he causes the turnover, then gets a 'thanks very much' handball from Connors, jams it on the boot before he's tackled, gets it forward 60m to Reiwoldt in a one on one and we end up with a stoppage 20m from goal. From looking down the barrel of an unopposed inside-50 to there, largely through Jackson's efforts.

Sure, Jack was great, Kingy took the tackle well, Martin and Nason did well, but what I saw was that Jackson's tackling was the catalyst for the turnover after Smith had freewheeled past our other mids, Jackson's kick gained us a massive amount of territory and gave the bloke we need in as many one on one's as possible the sort of opportunity he needs. He took the perfect option and executed it very well.

You just saw a kick that couldn't hit the forward on the full to advantage, when the kick was taken from a place where that was nigh on impossible.

You're the coach, what would you have liked him to do different and/or better which would have given us an improved result?

What I saw was that Jackson has - as you say - three Swans ahead of him and he manages to place the ball where White can make the contest (he gets out-bodied, that's why he can't take advantage of the front position he had), we don't turn the ball over, and we end up gaining 90m and a stoppage just outside our 50 arc because Jackson attacked the game and backed his ability to hit White well enough to at least force a contest.

In the first example Jackson was under next to no pressure when he disposed of the ball, at the very least he should have been able to hit Griffiths or Jack but his kick lands in between the 2 of them and into the hands of Mattner. The result is a turnover, no ifs or buts about it. Its only the hard work of others that forces the Swans to turn it over and the goal being scored. As you said yourself you can't hang a turnover that happens 3 possessions after Jackson disposes of the ball but want to credit Jacksons play with a turnover that happens 30 seconds after a Jackson disposal was itself in effect turned over.

The second one where he hacks it out of the pack I've got no issue with as he was under pressure when disposing of the ball.

The other one involving Riewoldt that I do have a problem with is at the 19min mark of the last quarter where Jackson gets the mark on the wing and again under little pressure fails to put the ball to Riewoldts advantage and as a result is turned over almost immediately.

I also have an issue with the White one. While its great that Jackson took the game and and went long to White, it must be said that the option he took isn't the greatest. Watching the replay the Swans players were in prime position for the crumb but, luckily, the ball bounced our way instead. To you it looks great because we ended up gaining possession again and Nason delivered down the ground. But what happens if the ball did bounce the Swans way? You've got 2 Swans with no Tigers in the immediate vacinity chances are very much that the Swans go forward and get a shot on goal.

Its these types of risky disposals that give ammunition for Jacksons detractors when they don't come off. For these are the type of turnovers that invariably result in a cheap goal to the opposition.

Like I said I'm happy to have him in the side every week, my problem is that he just needs to understand his limitations and not try and do the near impossible, but rather play the percentages and ensure that we're, more likely than not, going to retain possession. Because in 2010 we marked the ball only 7% of the time Jackson delivered inside 50 and when you consider he averaged the most inside 50's per game its simply not good enough.

 

[deledio7]

What did I draw from that video?

Jack Riewoldt is a ****ing freak.

 

[The Goon]

Wont add anything to the discussion, but great work Razor. Having people like you adding quality points for discussions (and vids I might add) makes our board worth visiting.

If they had gold star thingys I'd give you one, but you'll just have to settle for this:

 

[richoatthedisco]

What north said. Great work Rayzor.

 

[Barnzy]

Watch the full replay against Hawthorn. Perfect example off why we need to move away from players like Jackson if we want to improve. Was probably one of the worst on the field. Sure, he tried hard, was aggressive and got a probably got 25 touches but he just makes so many basic mistakes for an AFL player that are so costly and not all are recorded on a stats sheet. Was a typical Jackson game.

Few examples - When he gets the ball in congestion he doesn't know what to do with it because he lacks football smarts so he holds it up killing any flow in the play then basically telegraphs where he's going to handball it. Another problem in his game is every 2nd kick kick is a long, blind bomb to no one or to the opposition. Last but not least the biggest problem in his game is he struggles to hit basic short 15-30m passes. Would've had a huge amount of turnovers against Hawthorn trying to spot up short targets. Was cringeworthy everytime he got the ball.

Maybe should cut him some slack because he's coming back from injury but it's not like these problem areas aren't evident with a fully fit Jackson either. I have no doubt he will play a lot of games this year but we can't just keep ignoring these issues in his game. Unless he improves significantly which is extremely doubtful then he should be moved on ASAP or as soon as a suitable a replacement is ready. Someone like a Contin should be blooded this year to see if he has what it takes to replace him. He has better tools just needs to blooded. Might hurt in the short-term but that doesn't really matter. I said it back then but I would've traded Jackson at the end of 2009 when his value was at it's peak.

If we want to improve then we need to move on these types that have plauged our team for far too long. Slowly but surely it's starting to happen. Especially in the modern game with zones and defensive pressure, etc. If you are a poor kick or you lack football smarts you will be exposed majorly. Wouldn't play Jackson or Tuck in the same side either. Grigg can replace the other's spot. Jackson is younger but Tuck is better at hitting shorter targets and can link up in play better and not kill the flow. If Jackson played a more defensive role in the side (ie tagging) then It wouldn't matter as much. That's his most effective role IMO. Don't have many other taggers. Ie. Don't worry about racking up the ball just follow your man and try to shut him down. But he doesn't anymore, he's used as an offensive inside mid and I can't understand why. The more Jackson gets the ball the more worse off we're.

 

[Tiger_Stripes]

Funny you started this thread, sat down with dad last night to watch the replay with the express intent of scrutinizing Jackson. Same conclusion as before yet reaffirmed: We're crap without Jackson.

Whilst his disposal is at times questionable this can, just like all our players, be largely rectified by adhering to structures. Our players don't RUN therefore we never have anyone to kick to, cue ball hold up. Jackson isn't the only one who gets stuck waiting.

That said, if he didn't get a kick in a game I wouldn't mind, the reason I'd place him in our top 5 integral players to winning is his pressure and intensity. He actually sticks tackles unlike 90% of our list and he provides protection and grunt off the ball. Those games he was suspended last year we went to shit for a reason.

 

[fred swift]

Watch the full replay against Hawthorn. Perfect example off why we need to move away from players like Jackson if we want to improve. Was probably one of the worst on the field. Sure, he tried hard, was aggressive and got a probably got 25 touches but he just makes so many basic mistakes for an AFL player that are so costly and not all are recorded on a stats sheet. Was a typical Jackson game.

Few examples - When he gets the ball in congestion he doesn't know what to do with it because he lacks football smarts so he holds it up killing any flow in the play then basically telegraphs where he's going to handball it. Another problem in his game is every 2nd kick kick is a long, blind bomb to no one or to the opposition. Last but not least the biggest problem in his game is he struggles to hit basic short 15-30m passes. Would've had a huge amount of turnovers against Hawthorn trying to spot up short targets. Was cringeworthy everytime he got the ball.

Maybe should cut him some slack because he's coming back from injury but it's not like these problem areas aren't evident with a fully fit Jackson either. I have no doubt he will play a lot of games this year but we can't just keep ignoring these issues in his game. Unless he improves significantly which is extremely doubtful then he should be moved on ASAP or as soon as a suitable a replacement is ready. Someone like a Contin should be blooded this year to see if he has what it takes to replace him. He has better tools just needs to blooded. Might hurt in the short-term but that doesn't really matter. I said it back then but I would've traded Jackson at the end of 2009 when his value was at it's peak.

If we want to improve then we need to move on these types that have plauged our team for far too long. Slowly but surely it's starting to happen. Especially in the modern game with zones and defensive pressure, etc. If you are a poor kick or you lack football smarts you will be exposed majorly. Wouldn't play Jackson or Tuck in the same side either. Grigg can replace the other's spot. Jackson is younger but Tuck is better at hitting shorter targets and can link up in play better and not kill the flow. If Jackson played a more defensive role in the side (ie tagging) then It wouldn't matter as much. That's his most effective role IMO. Don't have many other taggers. Ie. Don't worry about racking up the ball just follow your man and try to shut him down. But he doesn't anymore, he's used as an offensive inside mid and I can't understand why. The more Jackson gets the ball the more worse off we're.

spot on jackson is a spud no wonder we r f----- wont play finals if spuds r in best 22 for another 3 years

 

[Cathal Brugha]

Whilst Jacko is in our 22, our 22 wont be good enough to contest finals. The same goes for Tuck, Nahas and White. They are, however, necessary for the build-up to our finals side. Jacko would be the last of that group I would let go.

 

[TJTIGER]

The bloke is our best 22 no worries....

Great vid!

Agree! it's hard to gauge his value at times for some but I've always liked the D.J . He does his best work in the clinches.
. He's hard in tight and is'nt afraid to throw his weight around. Provides a great example to the younger blokes re hardness and desire. Especially in the current stage of development of our younger blokes. D.J takes a lot of the heat off them, which is great. I know it's a contact sport for "Men" , but when your talking about 18/19 year olds whose bodies are still growing and developing there is a fine line between developing & getting smashed the s-it out of until your body starts falling apart & confidence to compete is shattered. When up against 25-30 yr olds with fully developed bodies.