Review What Daniel Jackson Does

[Haggard H]

Here's a stat - we only took a mark from 7% of Daniel Jacksons kicks into the forward 50 while Dayne Beams lead the AFL in this stat with 62% - AFL Prospectus.

Oh and Barnzy, this isn't quite true anyway, is it? Collingwood "retained possession 61% of the time" (AFL Prospectus) from Beams' entries - a totally different stat to the one you're quoting against Jackson.



... but then I have a feeling you knew that already ...

 

[Truetiger]

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.

Madtiger Good judge

 

["The Roar Is Back"]

D. Jackson - 7 seasons, 188cm , 91kg , 3 goals in 2010, total goals 22
D. Beams - 2 seasons , 186cm, 83 kg, 26 goals in 2010, total goals 40

Got an idea lets compare Conca with Mathew Pavlich ?

 

[_RT_]

D. Jackson - 7 seasons, 188cm , 91kg , 3 goals in 2010, total goals 22
D. Beams - 2 seasons , 186cm, 83 kg, 26 goals in 2010, total goals 40

Got an idea lets compare Conca with Mathew Pavlich ?

Care to remind us how well the Pies have performed as a team over the last couple of season? While you're at it can you also remind us how poorly we've performed over the last 7 seasons?

Also it might just be worth pointing out that Beams is an attacking goal kicking midfielder, while Jackson has primarily been played as a negating midfielder.

 

["The Roar Is Back"]

Care to remind us how well the Pies have performed as a team over the last couple of season? While you're at it can you also remind us how poorly we've performed over the last 7 seasons?

Also it might just be worth pointing out that Beams is an attacking goal kicking midfielder, while Jackson has primarily been played as a negating midfielder.

Spot on RT, furthermore reasons why it's quite silly to be comparing the two, and also that stats don't paint the whole picture, wouldn't you think ?

 

[nineteen eighty]

I was going to reply to Santa Claws post but then decided that life is too short to continually discuss a topic with a person who is probably one of the most negative I have ever come across. I'm far from one of those blokes who looks at things through rose colored glasses but I don't continually look for the negative in things.

Getting back onto the topic at hand, I posted this in another thread and stand by it...

When fit, I have absolutely no hesitation whatsoever to say that Jackson would be in our best 22. Tough, hard, runs all day, may make the occasional mistake but an absolute necessity in the team with so many young kids learning the ropes in the seniors.

I do believe that having both Tuck and Jackson in the team at the one time is not a good thing but I would rate Jackson ahead of Tuck.

 

[JAKLAUGHING]

I was going to reply to Santa Claws post but then decided that life is too short to continually discuss a topic with a person who is probably one of the most negative I have ever come across. I'm far from one of those blokes who looks at things through rose colored glasses but I don't continually look for the negative in things.

Getting back onto the topic at hand, I posted this in another thread and stand by it...




I do believe that having both Tuck and Jackson in the team at the one time is not a good thing but I would rate Jackson ahead of Tuck.

I know SC is not the easiest poster to deal with at times...their are worst(and that includes myself!)......

All due respects to SC he is a tiger supporter and part of the richmond family...love him or hate him...and as such he is entitled to his opinion on tiger matters as you and i are......

It would be fair to say that SC sees RFC issues from a different perspective to most of here. Call it what you like, whether its...negative, old school, hard nosed or just plain contrary and whether you like it or not he manages to raise /contest RFC issues that galvanise the rest of us into apoplectic response.......

Life here on BF would be a lot duller without SC......

PS...personally i think you can have both tucky/jacko on the field at the same time...but i suspect SC has other ideas on that matter!......

 

[Barnzy]

Here's a stat for you:

Jackson 2010 Champion Data average rating - 86.5
Beams 2010 Champion Data average rating - 84.9

At this point in his career Beams must be pretty damn average at the things Jackson does well considering he can't out-rate him despite all those goal assists, similar stats, playing in the no.1 side etc., right?

SC rating lol. Pretty irrelevant stat considering what I was talking about (Jackson's long blind bombs into the F50 and his inability to spot up short- medium range targets which is crucial in the modern game with zones, etc. Even Tuck is more capable of this). I wasn't really comparing him to Beams, it was just a direct quote from the AFL prospectus to show the difference between a smart ball user and a dumb ball user considering Beams is at the top and I'm guessing Jackson is down the bottom.

Besides, Beams has only played 2 years and 25 games and is already a better player than Jackson.

 

[JAKLAUGHING]

Beams has only played 2 years and 25 games and is already a better player than Jackson.

No way can i accept that that walking bill board is a better player than jackson...

The question ought to be... who out of the two would be the more damaging player...

Beams to me seems to surface after the game is won...

Jacko is there from the first bounce...

 

[Barnzy]

No way can i accept that that walking bill board is a better player than jackson...

Just my opinion. I rate Beams pretty highly. 20+ disposal a game, 20+ goal a year HFF/mids are hard to find and he achieved all this in his 2nd season. Would take him in a heartbeat over Jackson.

 

[Madtiger2006]

Jacko may be able to do 1%'s but so can any player. Would prefer we give Grigg tagging duties while we use Cotchin, Martin, Deledio, Foley, Morton, Conca, Houli and Contin to attack and attack some more

 

[_RT_]

Just my opinion. I rate Beams pretty highly. 20+ disposal a game, 20+ goal a year HFF/mids are hard to find and he achieved all this in his 2nd season. Would take him in a heartbeat over Jackson.

Just wondering it you aware that Beams plays as an attacking goal kicking half forward/midfielder while Jackson plays full time as a negating tagging midfielder.

 

[Barnzy]

Just wondering it you aware that Beams plays as an attacking goal kicking half forward/midfielder while Jackson plays full time as a negating tagging midfielder.

I'm aware they play different roles. Would've that was plainly obvious when I said Beams was a HFF/mid in my post.

Also, Jackson does not play as a full time "negative tagging midfielder" anymore. Miss the 2010 season?

 

[JAKLAUGHING]

Just my opinion. I rate Beams pretty highly. 20+ disposal a game, 20+ goal a year HFF/mids are hard to find and he achieved all this in his 2nd season. Would take him in a heartbeat over Jackson.

Well in my opinion...getting one goal a game out of a so called highly rated HFF/mid in a premiership side...is a poor return.......

Just to put it in context nahas has returned 34 goals from 33 games...

 

[Barnzy]

Well in my opinion...getting one goal a game out of a so called highly rated HFF/mid in a premiership side...is a poor return.......

Then you have no clue. He also averaged over 20 touches a game and rotated through the midfield and it was only his 2nd year. 26 goals would be enough for clear 2nd in our goal kicking.

Just to put it in context nahas has returned 34 goals from 33 games...

Nahas is a forward pocket who's only job is to tackle and crumb goals. Why compare them? He averaged 12.5 touches a game and 0.9 goals (13 goals). Not even close.

 

[JAKLAUGHING]

Then you have no clue. He also averaged over 20 touches a game and rotated through the midfield and it was only his 2nd year.




Nahas is a forward pocket who's only job is to tackle and crumb goals. Why compare them?

So let me get this straight.......

You can compare beams and jacko who play different type games......

But i cant compare beams and nahas because they play different type games......

 

[Barnzy]

So let me get this straight.......

You can compare beams and jacko who play different type games......

But i cant compare beams and nahas because they play different type games......

I never compared Beams and Jackson. I was just quoting something out of the AFL prospectus to emphasis how poor Jackson's ball use going inside forward 50 is that also happened to include Beams because he led the AFL. Then people started whinging and went on rants about Beams.

 

["The Roar Is Back"]

So let me get this straight.......

You can compare beams and jacko who play different type games......

But i cant compare beams and nahas because they play different type games......

Do you really think Nahas > Beams ?

 

[JAKLAUGHING]

I never compared Beams and Jackson. I was just quoting something out of the AFL prospectus to emphasis how poor Jackson's ball use going inside forward 50 is that also happened to include Beams because he led the AFL. Then people started whinging and went on rants about Beams.

Well i beg to differ...and say that you have compared the two...

 

[_RT_]

I'm aware they play different roles. Would've that was plainly obvious when I said Beams was a HFF/mid in my post.

Also, Jackson does not play as a full time "negative tagging midfielder" anymore. Miss the 2010 season?

I never compared Beams and Jackson. I was just quoting something out of the AFL prospectus to emphasis how poor Jackson's ball use going inside forward 50 is that also happened to include Beams because he led the AFL. Then people started whinging and went on rants about Beams.

So you're aware that Beams and Jackson play different roles and yet you throw up a stat comparing their delivery into the F50. You would expect the more outside player to have much better delivery into the F50 seeing as they have a lot more time to steady and spot up an option than Jackson would given that he is playing predominately in heavy traffic and is more often than not having to bang the ball onto his boot blindly.

As for Jackson not being a negative tagging midfielder, given his role was to go head to head with the oppositions most prolific midfielder it would be fair to assume that his role was to negate their impact on the game.

 

[Barnzy]

So you're aware that Beams and Jackson play different roles and yet you throw up a stat comparing their delivery into the F50. You would expect the more outside player to have much better delivery into the F50 seeing as they have a lot more time to steady and spot up an option than Jackson would given that he is playing predominately in heavy traffic and is more often than not having to bang the ball onto his boot blindly.

My intention was never really to bring Beams into the discussion. Don't know why people are banging on about it. I saw the quote posted somewhere and was quite interested by it. It backed up my thoughts that from watching him, Jackson's ball use going inside 50 was often dumb and very poor (mostly involves long bombs that are not to advantage and if he tries to hit up a shorter target he will miss even in open space). 7% is a very low number no matter how many factors come into it. Would be good if we could get a comparison to our other midfielders but I don't have that stat.

As for Jackson not being a negative tagging midfielder, given his role was to go head to head with the oppositions most prolific midfielder it would be fair to assume that his role was to negate their impact on the game.

You said "plays full time as a negating tagging midfielder". This is blatantly incorrect. Jackson tagged here and there but some games not at all, some games only a little bit. He was obviously purposely reduced in this role from previous year for one reason or another. Unless you missed the whole 2010 season you should know he played more as an attacking midfielder. The fact he lead us on average for inside 50's should tell you this. No way he should be leading this stat for obvious reasons.

 

[_RT_]

My intention was never really to bring Beams into the discussion. Don't know why people are banging on about it. I saw the quote posted somewhere and was quite interested by it. It backed up my thoughts that from watching him, Jackson's ball use going inside 50 was often dumb and very poor (mostly involves long bombs that are not to advantage and if he tries to hit up a shorter target he will miss even in open space). 7% is a very low number no matter how many factors come into it. Would be good if we could get a comparison to our other midfielders but I don't have that stat.

There is a major difference between the Jackson stat and the Beams stat that you seemed to have overlooked. We managed to mark only 7% of Jacksons F50 enteries, the Pies managed to maintain possession of 60% of Beams' enteries into the F50.

You said "plays full time as a negating tagging midfielder". This is blatantly incorrect. Jackson tagged here and there but some games not at all, some games only a little bit. He was obviously purposely reduced in this role from previous year for one reason or another. Unless you missed the whole 2010 season you should know he played more as an attacking midfielder. The fact he lead us on average for inside 50's should tell you this. No way he should be leading this stat for obvious reasons.

Its not blatantly incorrect, Jacksons role was to go head to head against the oppositions most prolific midfielder. As he is also widely regarded as our first choice tagger then I'd suggest that his role was to play as a negating tagger. The fact that he was able to go out and win his own footy when we had to ball would suggest that he was working his arse off to be an attacking option for us.

 

[Barnzy]

Its not blatantly incorrect

Yes it is.

Jacksons role was to go head to head against the oppositions most prolific midfielder. As he is also widely regarded as our first choice tagger then I'd suggest that his role was to play as a negating tagger. The fact that he was able to go out and win his own footy when we had to ball would suggest that he was working his arse off to be an attacking option for us.

Do you honestly believe what you're typing? He might regarded as our best tagging option but that doesn't mean he played that role "full time" last year.

I don't even see how this is debatable. As I said, you must've missed most of the 2010 season if you believe that. I even remember Jackson himself doing an interview on a radio station either near the end of the season or not that long ago (3AW or MMM IIRC) which he stated he's not tagging as much as he used to.

 

[_RT_]

Yes it is.



Do you honestly believe what you're typing? He might regarded as our best tagging option but that doesn't mean he played that role "full time" last year.

I don't even see how this is debatable. As I said, you must've missed most of the 2010 season if you believe that. I even remember Jackson himself doing an interview on a radio station either near the end of the season or not that long ago (3AW or MMM IIRC) which he stated he's not tagging as much as he used to.

So he wasn't playing a full time negating role, but his role was vastly different to that of Beams.

BTW not going to bother addressing the difference between taking marks and maintaining possession?

 

[Barnzy]

So he wasn't playing a full time negating role

No.

but his role was vastly different to that of Beams.

Yes.

You're giving me a headache. We've alread established this numerous times.

BTW not going to bother addressing the difference between taking marks and maintaining possession?

I don't get the context of that stat. What's the point you're trying to make? Serious question.