Scape Goat Daniel Jackson

[I'm the Juggernaut]

Jacko is a smart bloke, he knows exactly what he has to work on over the off-season to be a better contributor next year. He had a very limited pre-season this year and still blitzed the first few games, if he can get a full pre-season under his belt and keep the niggles at bay a bit longer next year, he'll be right amongst our most important players again.

Let him do all that in Sydney as far as I'm concerned

 

[Goldust]

Back at the beginning of the year at full fitness, Jackson was in tremendous form, a massive asset to a young midfield and his detractors were all in hiding or reversing their opinions in public. He very obviously had some injury problems through at least the last half of the year, if not last three quarters, he very obviously wasn't anywhere near right on Sunday - on top of what he carried into the game, another incident had him down in the rooms through the match.

The times we were humiliated on the field this year, were games when we loaded our midfield with 'champion ball winners' - i.e. Cotchin, Martin, Foley, Deledio - and/or went with Grigg/Conca/Edwards as one of our three centre square onballers, then watched the opposition stroll out of the centre square and away from stoppages so easily it was embarrassing at the best of times and club wrecking at the worst.

So which part of trading/giving away the only senior defensive midfielder we have seems like a brilliant idea to you people? Doesn't the first core principle of list management involve not giving away things you need and have no replacement for? And therefore it would be prudent to have at least two players more capable than Jackson at doing his role before you gave him away in the prime of his career based on his form when injured? Make sense?

There were games this year where without the tackling contribution of Jackson and Graham and perhaps another individual like Nahas at times (or Tuck in the handful he played), we would have come away with stats that very damningly demonstrated that the rest of the side had been playing non-contact netball compared to our opponents. Without a handful of players (ironically, most of them on the chopping block if you listen to idiot consenus), Hardwick's game plan and the side as a whole would be RENOWNED for a complete absence of hardness and tackling pressure - we would have been grilled to death by the media as the softest team in living memory.

Of course Jackson has way more frees against, he's more often than not tagging and that's what taggers do - harrass their opponents to within an inch of the law and past it. Of course he's going to look ordinary at times when he's going around injured, has virtually no strong bodied support in the centre square and can't be rested for a week or two because we have absolutely nobody who can realistically replace him.

Of the mostly full-time taggers going round in the league, he's easily amongst the most damaging for hurting the opposition going the other way. Half the reason he's still getting potted is that instead of being an anonymous 'cape tagger' on the back of his opponent who is seldom noticed, he regularly puts himself in positions where the outcome of the game is riding on his offensive output. One day when we have more than a handful of players who can genuinely play four hard quarters, he'll be able to dish off to them more often and won't be obliged to take as much personal responsibility for our offensive fortunes as he has in the last two years.

He had a few games which were among the best of his career this year and showed clear improvement on several deficiencies from 2010 (as even MT has indicated), he had more games where he wouldn't be happy with his performance. I'd venture to say that we wouldn't have a single player who wouldn't also feel that way about their season.

Jacko is a smart bloke, he knows exactly what he has to work on over the off-season to be a better contributor next year. He had a very limited pre-season this year and still blitzed the first few games, if he can get a full pre-season under his belt and keep the niggles at bay a bit longer next year, he'll be right amongst our most important players again.

Can’t have your cake and eat it too, Rayzor! Put simply, if Jackson was injured, ‘banged up’, whatever, he’s a liability taking the field. None of this bleeding heart, bleeds for the jumper crap, so he goes the extra mile. If he’s injured he should do the TEAM thing and miss a week.
Once he takes the field of battle and declares himself fit, he’s fit and accountable. Geez, Richo got roasted on here a few years ago for taking the field injured and was branded selfish. Yet a hack like Jackson can do this???
His frees against are diabolical …. Nothing to do with tagging … most are sheer stupidity like the late one on Sunday that cost us a goal.
You talk about character … the character of the man is tarnished by his demand for a pay increase after a largely ordinary season. Poor performance never earned me a pay rise.

 

[Goldust]

Let him do all that in Sydney as far as I'm concerned

He'd do well at Sydney ... reading Rayzor's summary of Jackson, I thought I wa sreading about Brett Kirk or Paul Kelly!

 

[TigerBlood87]

I don't buy what Rayzorwire said about Jackson for one second. He turns like a truck, is a terribly slow decision maker that often puts others under pressure by telegraphing is handballs and poor disposals, and gives away stupid free kicks all the time. I can't even count the amount of times there has been a centre bounce and he has given away an undisciplined free kick before play has even started. About the only thing he has going for him is he can kick the ball long and doesn't let our kids get bullied, but that's it. Dud, delist or trade.

 

[In the Jungle]

Yup

The game against North was an absolute shocker for him, but he's had a poor year. Just hasn't improved.

Now lets see if Hardwick has the balls to delist him.

Daniel Jackson: guys you failed to mention the following;

He kicked 7 -20 , in which l guess 18 of the points were set shots , most of them a crucial time in the game. *At this time "a leader" stands up. Mr. Jackson you failed every single time; Also have we forgoten, he directly costs us 3 -4 games over the last 2 seasons; This has even been pointed out by Hardwick. If thats not enough, he continues to show no decipline, no leadership qualities, in fact he show no "RESPECT TO HIS FELLOW TEAM MATES".

In closing, l hope & pray Mr. Jackson you read this so you can ask to be traded (hopefully someone wants you), as you have no place with your team mates.
Take a good look at some of your team mates half your size, but twice the heart you have. Bye, bye .

 

[nikolasmia]

we need to protect cotchin i want 2 big bodies to do that. they will try and uograde jackson, but if they cant it looks like he stays. hell be shopped around though

 

[sante]

Single handedly lost us the game on the weekend.

 

[TheProwler]

I recall him with a set shot on sunday, 7 points down into red time in the last qtr and 40mts out slight angle and we had the perfect view from where we sat, my young bloke was cheering and I said whoaaaa lad this could go anywhere including hit the man on the marks kneecaps, sure enough it never looked a chance. A bloke with his experience should have made that and the ball goes back to the centre with us down by 1 but I believe the pressure got to him. He is a depth player at best next year if he is still on the list.

Jacko may have been in our best 22 in previous years but with young blokes like Cotch, Dusty, Conca all part of our midfield future sadly Jacko is not. This is perhaps our last chance to offload him to GWS as I dont believe another club out there would give us much for a trade for him??

 

[tigerT]

Back at the beginning of the year at full fitness, Jackson was in tremendous form, a massive asset to a young midfield and his detractors were all in hiding or reversing their opinions in public. He very obviously had some injury problems through at least the last half of the year, if not last three quarters, he very obviously wasn't anywhere near right on Sunday - on top of what he carried into the game, another incident had him down in the rooms through the match.

The times we were humiliated on the field this year, were games when we loaded our midfield with 'champion ball winners' - i.e. Cotchin, Martin, Foley, Deledio - and/or went with Grigg/Conca/Edwards as one of our three centre square onballers, then watched the opposition stroll out of the centre square and away from stoppages so easily it was embarrassing at the best of times and club wrecking at the worst.

So which part of trading/giving away the only senior defensive midfielder we have seems like a brilliant idea to you people? Doesn't the first core principle of list management involve not giving away things you need and have no replacement for? And therefore it would be prudent to have at least two players more capable than Jackson at doing his role before you gave him away in the prime of his career based on his form when injured? Make sense?

There were games this year where without the tackling contribution of Jackson and Graham and perhaps another individual like Nahas at times (or Tuck in the handful he played), we would have come away with stats that very damningly demonstrated that the rest of the side had been playing non-contact netball compared to our opponents. Without a handful of players (ironically, most of them on the chopping block if you listen to idiot consenus), Hardwick's game plan and the side as a whole would be RENOWNED for a complete absence of hardness and tackling pressure - we would have been grilled to death by the media as the softest team in living memory.

Of course Jackson has way more frees against, he's more often than not tagging and that's what taggers do - harrass their opponents to within an inch of the law and past it. Of course he's going to look ordinary at times when he's going around injured, has virtually no strong bodied support in the centre square and can't be rested for a week or two because we have absolutely nobody who can realistically replace him.

Of the mostly full-time taggers going round in the league, he's easily amongst the most damaging for hurting the opposition going the other way. Half the reason he's still getting potted is that instead of being an anonymous 'cape tagger' on the back of his opponent who is seldom noticed, he regularly puts himself in positions where the outcome of the game is riding on his offensive output. One day when we have more than a handful of players who can genuinely play four hard quarters, he'll be able to dish off to them more often and won't be obliged to take as much personal responsibility for our offensive fortunes as he has in the last two years.

He had a few games which were among the best of his career this year and showed clear improvement on several deficiencies from 2010 (as even MT has indicated), he had more games where he wouldn't be happy with his performance. I'd venture to say that we wouldn't have a single player who wouldn't also feel that way about their season.

Jacko is a smart bloke, he knows exactly what he has to work on over the off-season to be a better contributor next year. He had a very limited pre-season this year and still blitzed the first few games, if he can get a full pre-season under his belt and keep the niggles at bay a bit longer next year, he'll be right amongst our most important players again.

.

lol

 

[THE THIN MAN]

Why does Jackson get suspended so often?

Is it because he has no self control?

RFC can not afford to have such an undisciplined senior player on its list.

Despite numerous warnings from the coaching staff he fails to learn or curb his on field behaviour.

http://www.sportsnewsfirst.com.au/articles/2011/05/03/jackson-lucky-to-get-one-says-hardwick/


Daniel Jackson, Richmond, has been charged with a Level Two striking offence against Scott Thompson, North Melbourne, during the fourth quarter of the Round Five match between Richmond and North Melbourne, played at Etihad Stadium on Sunday April 24, 2011

In summary, his previous poor record means that his one-game sanction must remain at one-game, even with an early plea.

The incident was assessed as reckless conduct (two points), low impact (one point) and high contact (two points). This is a total of five activation points, resulting in a classification of a Level Two offence, drawing 125 demerit points and a one-match sanction. He has an existing bad record of five matches suspended within the last three years, increasing the penalty by 50 per cent to 187.50 points. He also has 41.88 demerit points carried over from within the last 12 months, increasing the penalty to 229.38 points and a two-match sanction. An early plea reduces the sanction by 25 per cent to 172.04 points and a one-match sanction.

 

[Dave Stevens]

Single handedly lost us the game on the weekend.

 

[Rayzorwire]

If he’s injured he should do the TEAM thing and miss a week.

Clearly you missed one of the key underlined points of my post Goldie. He played because he was asked to play and he had to play for us not to be smashed, the same way Tuck battled through 2007 kicking on his wrong foot - because him at 60% was better than anything else we could muster.

What some, perhaps even most of you blokes completely fail to appreciate, is the fact that every week we send *some* players out with the most difficult jobs in the league and scrutinise their every movement for most minutes of every game, and we send other players out there with the right to be anonymous for a quarter or two, or half a season or more if the truth be told.

Daniel Jackson's opponent each week is highly likely to be one of the best mids in the game. Only a handful of our players get given such important tasks, because only a few have even a remote chance of winning similarly important match-ups. Chris Newman gets to walk off the ground our most respected player with 15 possession performances playing on nobody...all Jackson has to do is strangle the best players in the land AND beat their offensive output more often than not, to even get a pass mark. If Newman got held to such lofty ideals, the number of games he'd have earned a pass mark in is zero.

Angus Graham has to beat Goldstein, not just put up a bloody good fight for 103 contests out of 115 instead of the 75 he could manage last year, he must eradicate his 12 glaring, horrible errors, preferably yesterday.

Martin and Cotchin can go missing for half a game and everyone's still perfectly happy with them, as long as they have *some* influence at *some* stage. When we lose to Gold Coast and Port, people don't ask why these blokes failed in the midfield all game against comparably miserable opposition, they wander off onto tangents and wax lyrical about sold home games and travel times. Reiwoldt can get a dozen chances, convert two, let eight straight back out of the forward line like they'd hit a rubber wall instead of a key forward, and be still considered the greatest FF on earth at game's end regardless. Grigg and Edwards fly under people's radar kicking worse than Jackson and offering almost none of his redeeming footballing qualities, but because they're almost never key players in a game and mostly get stuck on a flank rather than the midfield because they're simply nowhere near as good as Jackson, who really notices and who really cares how they play week to week?

Some players don't get afforded the same luxuries.

You talk about character … the character of the man is tarnished by his demand for a pay increase after a largely ordinary season. Poor performance never earned me a pay rise.

If he's coming off a two or three year contract, then when he signed on for that he wasn't even a regular best-22 player and barely a 50-game player, let alone part of the leadership group and among the first players picked, so you look at where he's come from over the last 2-3 years and where he's headed over the next when you evaluate his worth. We should really have hardly any players who are on the wage of decent senior players and Jackson should be comfortably among them.

And finally, must I point out that this supposedly unreasonable demand for more money you and others have seized upon so readily as a means to paint him in a bad light, amounts to pure speculation and nothing more?

For all you or most anyone else here knows, he may well be asking for a 20% increase on what he got last contract, which although being a case of getting more money than long ago when he signed his last deal, would quite probably also be tantamount to ripping himself off if the bald figures were known to all and league comparisons were made. I think he's worth a couple, probably several Ryan Crowley's and about a dozen Andrew Raines', but you can bet his pay doesn't work out like that.

 

[Rayzorwire]

Funny, I thought I saw a game earlier this year where we lost to Port Adelaide by the amount of points (3) Cotchin kicked instead of goals (0). I also could have sworn I watched him kick three points and no goals against Brisbane, and have seen him miss at least a dozen really easy, really important shots on goal this year, to finish up with 18:18 for the year. If we look closely at the 18 points, there's quite a few that could very readily be described as 'costly shockers' amongst them.

But it would be wrong to hold Cotchin up individually as a bloke who cost us games, wouldn't it? I certainly wouldn't - only an idiot misses the fact that the only reason he blew those chances was because he worked his arse off to get them in the first place. You reward the work ethic which got them the chance in the first place, you lament the miss, but you don't hang them for it.

Honestly, if you blokes think that one of the biggest things we have to worry about is the fact that our tagger isn't helping us win games well enough, then I'd say you've missed a hell of a lot of other, much bigger and more important areas we need to improve in.

 

[Morro]

I have to say that whilst I still think we need an upgrade on Jacko, you have turned me around rayzor with some really well thought responses. Whilst I dont agree with everything you have said, some of it is very thought provoking. Well played sir

 

[tigerdan]

Here we go again, Rayzor using the straw man argument to defend a dud player.

All this stuff about Cotchin and Newman playing by a set of different rules is just a diversion to the fact that Rayzor's favourite is actually not any bloody good. Rayzor is just putting words into peoples mouths to try and avoid discussing the topic at hand, which is that Jackson played another crap game.

I wont criticise Rayzor for sticking up for his favourite though. For years I thought Fiora was going to come good. But eventually you have to realise that people are criticising him for a reason - that he's simply not up to it.

Time to accept that he's not any good Rayzor, and move on. Otherwise you run the risk of looking like a crack pot.

 

[Tzatziki_Man]

Jackson does have brain fades, but he is in our starting 22, and he is another hard body to help the kids on field, and he is smart off field.

Unless Richmond trade him for something worthwhile, it's worth keeping him because he is good.

The funny thing is, some of you guys want to trade him, yet you call him the biggest dud and outline his faults. How much leverage will Richmond get if they want to trade him when the opposition can claim he isn't worth what we're asking for. Word of mouth spreads, let's spread the real message.

DAN JACKSON IS A JET

DAN JACKSON IS A GUN

DAN JACKSON TO TAKE HOME CHARLIE.

WORTH TWO FIRST ROUNDERS

 

[Dave Stevens]

Clearly you missed one of the key underlined points of my post Goldie. He played because he was asked to play and he had to play for us not to be smashed, the same way Tuck battled through 2007 kicking on his wrong foot - because him at 60% was better than anything else we could muster.

What some, perhaps even most of you blokes completely fail to appreciate, is the fact that every week we send *some* players out with the most difficult jobs in the league and scrutinise their every movement for most minutes of every game, and we send other players out there with the right to be anonymous for a quarter or two, or half a season or more if the truth be told.

Daniel Jackson's opponent each week is highly likely to be one of the best mids in the game. Only a handful of our players get given such important tasks, because only a few have even a remote chance of winning similarly important match-ups. Chris Newman gets to walk off the ground our most respected player with 15 possession performances playing on nobody...all Jackson has to do is strangle the best players in the land AND beat their offensive output more often than not, to even get a pass mark. If Newman got held to such lofty ideals, the number of games he'd have earned a pass mark in is zero.

Angus Graham has to beat Goldstein, not just put up a bloody good fight for 103 contests out of 115 instead of the 75 he could manage last year, he must eradicate his 12 glaring, horrible errors, preferably yesterday.

Martin and Cotchin can go missing for half a game and everyone's still perfectly happy with them, as long as they have *some* influence at *some* stage. When we lose to Gold Coast and Port, people don't ask why these blokes failed in the midfield all game against comparably miserable opposition, they wander off onto tangents and wax lyrical about sold home games and travel times. Reiwoldt can get a dozen chances, convert two, let eight straight back out of the forward line like they'd hit a rubber wall instead of a key forward, and be still considered the greatest FF on earth at game's end regardless. Grigg and Edwards fly under people's radar kicking worse than Jackson and offering almost none of his redeeming footballing qualities, but because they're almost never key players in a game and mostly get stuck on a flank rather than the midfield because they're simply nowhere near as good as Jackson, who really notices and who really cares how they play week to week?

Some players don't get afforded the same luxuries.



If he's coming off a two or three year contract, then when he signed on for that he wasn't even a regular best-22 player and barely a 50-game player, let alone part of the leadership group and among the first players picked, so you look at where he's come from over the last 2-3 years and where he's headed over the next when you evaluate his worth. We should really have hardly any players who are on the wage of decent senior players and Jackson should be comfortably among them.

And finally, must I point out that this supposedly unreasonable demand for more money you and others have seized upon so readily as a means to paint him in a bad light, amounts to pure speculation and nothing more?

For all you or most anyone else here knows, he may well be asking for a 20% increase on what he got last contract, which although being a case of getting more money than long ago when he signed his last deal, would quite probably also be tantamount to ripping himself off if the bald figures were known to all and league comparisons were made. I think he's worth a couple, probably several Ryan Crowley's and about a dozen Andrew Raines', but you can bet his pay doesn't work out like that.

Try to defend his repeated lack of discipline and inability to keep his cool despite repeated assurances that he's changing.

I can cop his lower skill level if he plays his role effectively. Fact is, he gives away too many undisciplined free kicks, and with the game increasing in speed by the year, he'd be lucky to effectively tag an abandoned train station by 2012. I've done my tax return in the time it takes him to wind up for a (clanger) kick.

Plus, if you're criticising Dusty and Cotchin for 'going missing', isn't the role of a so-called bigger bodied midfielder to allow these guys to get into the game? If Dusty and Cotch (with half the games played of Jackson) struggle, isn't that partially Jackson's responsibility?

We're not going to reach consensus here, but from my angle he's worse than ineffective, he's often damaging...for us. Can't have that...and I'm ignoring any pleas of a new self discipline that I'm sure he'll trot out in upcoming interviews. Telling people you've changed don't mean nuttin'.

Is it possible he's on the list due to his off field intellect?

 

[Goldust]

Funny, I thought I saw a game earlier this year where we lost to Port Adelaide by the amount of points (3) Cotchin kicked instead of goals (0). I also could have sworn I watched him kick three points and no goals against Brisbane, and have seen him miss at least a dozen really easy, really important shots on goal this year, to finish up with 18:18 for the year. If we look closely at the 18 points, there's quite a few that could very readily be described as 'costly shockers' amongst them.

But it would be wrong to hold Cotchin up individually as a bloke who cost us games, wouldn't it? I certainly wouldn't - only an idiot misses the fact that the only reason he blew those chances was because he worked his arse off to get them in the first place. You reward the work ethic which got them the chance in the first place, you lament the miss, but you don't hang them for it.

Honestly, if you blokes think that one of the biggest things we have to worry about is the fact that our tagger isn't helping us win games well enough, then I'd say you've missed a hell of a lot of other, much bigger and more important areas we need to improve in.

Didn't we lose by 15 points to Port?

 

[Goldust]

And finally, must I point out that this supposedly unreasonable demand for more money you and others have seized upon so readily as a means to paint him in a bad light, amounts to pure speculation and nothing more?

For all you or most anyone else here knows, he may well be asking for a 20% increase on what he got last contract, which although being a case of getting more money than long ago when he signed his last deal, would quite probably also be tantamount to ripping himself off if the bald figures were known to all and league comparisons were made. I think he's worth a couple, probably several Ryan Crowley's and about a dozen Andrew Raines', but you can bet his pay doesn't work out like that.

I don’t know how much he’s getting or what percentage pay rise he’s asking for … maybe you could enlighten me. Reading your spirited defence of Daniel Jackson and your attempt to elevate him above the likes of Cotchin, I am near convinced you are Daniel Jackson!!!
Seriously baffling that you continue to overlook and make excuses for his errant skills and continuous lack of discipline to the point of stupidity.
How his misdemeanour in the last quarter, giving away that free kick, can be defended as the ‘team thing’ is plain absurd!

 

[Heisenberg_]

Daniel Jackson playing as a tagged still is a myth almost, has barely played that role since Hardwick came in, when he has tagged he hasn't done a very good job either.
The only thing Rayzor said which is true is that we shouldn't and can't expect him to win games for us, at the same time he can't cost us games either giving away goals from his trademark undisciplined free kicks and cutting off passes that are directed to stars of the team like Martin and then missing the goal 30 out directly in front.
Is a liability, any positives he brings are far outweighed by his I'll discipline, bad decision making, slowing down the play and complete lack of basic skills.
Not a single **** will be given if he is gone end of the year.

 

[_RT_]

Martin and Cotchin can go missing for half a game and everyone's still perfectly happy with them, as long as they have *some* influence at *some* stage. When we lose to Gold Coast and Port, people don't ask why these blokes failed in the midfield all game against comparably miserable opposition, they wander off onto tangents and wax lyrical about sold home games and travel times.

Part of your arguement for why Tuck should be getting games was that guys like Cotchin & Martin can't be expected to perform for 4 quarters week after week because they just aren't capable of doing it and now you're potting them so you can defend Jackson.

 

[ize_]

We got two pretty good seasons out of Jackson. I'm happy with that. If we can ship him off and it means he's overtaken, I think that's a success. Grigg can hopefully play his role next year and I expect Tuck to play a few more games as well. Trade him to GC, see what we get.

 

[Rayzorwire]

I have to say that whilst I still think we need an upgrade on Jacko, you have turned me around rayzor with some really well thought responses. Whilst I dont agree with everything you have said, some of it is very thought provoking. Well played sir

Cheers Morro.

Here we go again, Rayzor using the straw man argument to defend a dud player.

Clearly you're about as close to understanding the definition of what a 'straw man argument' actually is, as you are to understanding our midfield dan - a million miles away. I suggest you look it up, or even better, read 97.2% of RT's responses to me for an endless source of creative examples.

What I've done is suggest that if some of you want to start appraising players honestly, then hold them all to the same standards. This thread's all about appraising a player, that's the topic, I'm asking how your (and anyone else who wants to paint Jackson as worthless) standards can flex and fluctuate so dramatically based solely on the player involved?

In a season where we're going to hold Cotchin up as clearly our best player and then instantly excuse him for getting beaten hands down by the likes of Cornes on his way to the retirement village, then maybe we should be cutting some of the mere mortals a bit of slack for their poorer moments over the course of a long year, particularly those who were injured and still asked to do more than their fair share of the heavy lifting?

Try to defend his repeated lack of discipline...

*Somebody* has to apply the physical pressure Jackson does in stationary situations Dave, that somebody is going to get done sooner or later, but clearly he's getting done too often and clearly he's got to adjust the way he attacks the man. It's a technique problem which would take a long time to explain and require dozens of visual examples, but put it this way, Jackson could learn a fair bit from Tuck when it comes to doing what he's trying to do legally and there were several examples in the periods Tuck got to play in the centre on the weekend.

I can cop his lower skill level if he plays his role effectively.

It's not a "lower skill level," it's a different skill set.

If Dusty and Cotch (with half the games played of Jackson) struggle, isn't that partially Jackson's responsibility?

His responsibility in that he was present at the time, but not beyond that IMO. The only time our midfield really worked defensively this year was when Jackson, Graham and Tuck were in there together, and the results spoke for themselves - some good wins despite playing wasteful football and some great games from our young stars where they had every opportunity to shine.

I've used the pincer example before and I'll use it again. With Tuck and Jackson in there we have both halves of the pincer and we can crush the opposition ball winner if we don't win possession ourselves. Throw Graham in and it becomes a nightmare triangle of tackling machines coming your way, all knees, elbows and hurting power. With only two, or worse, only one of them, we had a bunch of kids running around like headless chooks - it looked OK when they won the ball, when they didn't it became a Richmond midfield so defensively ugly that there was several games where I would have teleported Tim Fleming off his couch in a heartbeat and played him in thongs, just so we had one bloke out there other than Jackson who actually understood where he was supposed to be.

When you get the ball first in the middle, great, send it forward. When the opposition get it - and this is the part so many of you fail to understand about modern football - then that's when you have the legal right to physically hurt them.

The ball flies around all match, some sent pretty, some sent ugly, it goes some way toward deciding the game, but invariably not as much as which midfield can inflict more physical punishment on the other. Sides roll over in games because their ball winners and ball movers can't go on any more, whether that's for five minutes at the end of the first quarter, or the entire second half, or the last 30 seconds. So every time Jackson, or Tuck, or Graham end up in a scrap at a contest, they're getting the opportunity to win the game just as much as if they were shooting for goal - every ounce of energy they suck out of their opponents, every corkie, every bruise, every pranged finger, every muscle stretched a bit too far, is increasing our ability to make the opposition roll over and decreasing their chances to do the same to us.

So the physical work which some players do for us is infinitely more valuable than most of you appreciate...some of you get off so hard on watching the cavalry that you entirely fail to appreciate how the gaping hole they could gallop through came to be there - the infantry. That's how all these mature sides get to the top and stay there. Sure, there's some great talent involved, but mostly it's just that they drop an extra few thousand kilo's of energy sapping mongrel onto the opposition bodies every week.

I have very little doubt that Jackson spent most of this year like any smart bloke would - wondering why he was busting his hump game in game out, playing injured, when the coaching staff couldn't even begin to get their act together. Beyond the personnel issues and the vaguely complicated stuff, I lost count of how often our 'best mids' utterly fail at the simplest of all things, the one all kids are taught in their first years of football - be goal-side of your opponent at stoppages around goal.

When things are that messed up defensively from a coaching perspective, I'm pretty sure that the bloke who was still our best defensive mid by a long way shouldn't be the first target for criticism.

Didn't we lose by 15 points to Port?

15 + 3 = 3 X 6 last I went to school Goldie.

None of your 2nd post - me 'elevating him above Cotchin' or me defending some free kick from the last quarter - actually happened.

Daniel Jackson playing as a tagged still is a myth almost, has barely played that role since Hardwick came in,

I've pointed out much the same thing myself on numerous occasions TCT, though I'd argue he's been used more as a tagger this year than I expected. I'm not a big fan of labels, but in Jackson's case, for the purposes of ease and brevity, it's a heck of a lot easier to call him our 'tagger' than our 'least offensive midfielder who sometimes gets tagging roles of varying strictness with game specific instructions and sometimes is just played as a straight ball winner on the opposition's main hard-nut extractor, and can switch back and forth between these roles at any time of any quarter.'

Would you agree?

Part of your arguement for why Tuck should be getting games was that guys like Cotchin & Martin can't be expected to perform for 4 quarters week after week because they just aren't capable of doing it and now you're potting them so you can defend Jackson.

Hmm, let's see if we can untwist this horrible piece of logic.

Tuck didn't get games, that cost us a million or three and a finals series, and how can I possibly be "potting them" (i.e. Cotchin and Martin) if I've argued strongly all year that Hardwick shouldn't have ever put them in that position? I'm not questioning either player at all, both boys did extremely well on balance this year and I've never suggested otherwise, I'm questioning the clowns who selected that side - and questioning them with very well proven reason...as it has turned out...much to your chagrin...

 

[santa claws]

hmm daniel jackson.

wont be so cruel as to say hes a dud. tempted to but wont.i will however say hes very ordinary in far too many aspects of the game and unlike shane tuck does not have an outstanding attribute to redeem himself.

if we cant find better more well rounded bigger bodied players of jacksons type we are forever doomed.
the sad thing in all of this after 8 yrs the club has failed toto do its job and properly asses him and the supporters swallow what is said.

ive said it in the past and will say it again, but first most rfc supporters ive met or spoken to including this site will say clint jones is an outright dud but hes an infinately better FOOTBALLER than jackson.
imo to improve on daniel it would not be too hard. the simple truth is if we want to get out of the bottom half of the ladder we just have to do better.

finally i have argued for a few yrs now we cannot afford to play both jackson or tuck id take the latter any day of the week that is the gulf between the two and many call for tucks head.
ive also voiced the opinion the reason both have got games in the past is a lack of big bodies i believe we are farther enough along for that to now change.

id say take your pick tuck or jackson.

 

[PUNTROADHAMMER]

Cheers Morro.


Clearly you're about as close to understanding the definition of what a 'straw man argument' actually is, as you are to understanding our midfield dan - a million miles away. I suggest you look it up, or even better, read 97.2% of RT's responses to me for an endless source of creative examples.

What I've done is suggest that if some of you want to start appraising players honestly, then hold them all to the same standards. This thread's all about appraising a player, that's the topic, I'm asking how your (and anyone else who wants to paint Jackson as worthless) standards can flex and fluctuate so dramatically based solely on the player involved?

In a season where we're going to hold Cotchin up as clearly our best player and then instantly excuse him for getting beaten hands down by the likes of Cornes on his way to the retirement village, then maybe we should be cutting some of the mere mortals a bit of slack for their poorer moments over the course of a long year, particularly those who were injured and still asked to do more than their fair share of the heavy lifting?



*Somebody* has to apply the physical pressure Jackson does in stationary situations Dave, that somebody is going to get done sooner or later, but clearly he's getting done too often and clearly he's got to adjust the way he attacks the man. It's a technique problem which would take a long time to explain and require dozens of visual examples, but put it this way, Jackson could learn a fair bit from Tuck when it comes to doing what he's trying to do legally and there were several examples in the periods Tuck got to play in the centre on the weekend.



It's not a "lower skill level," it's a different skill set.



His responsibility in that he was present at the time, but not beyond that IMO. The only time our midfield really worked defensively this year was when Jackson, Graham and Tuck were in there together, and the results spoke for themselves - some good wins despite playing wasteful football and some great games from our young stars where they had every opportunity to shine.

I've used the pincer example before and I'll use it again. With Tuck and Jackson in there we have both halves of the pincer and we can crush the opposition ball winner if we don't win possession ourselves. Throw Graham in and it becomes a nightmare triangle of tackling machines coming your way, all knees, elbows and hurting power. With only two, or worse, only one of them, we had a bunch of kids running around like headless chooks - it looked OK when they won the ball, when they didn't it became a Richmond midfield so defensively ugly that there was several games where I would have teleported Tim Fleming off his couch in a heartbeat and played him in thongs, just so we had one bloke out there other than Jackson who actually understood where he was supposed to be.

When you get the ball first in the middle, great, send it forward. When the opposition get it - and this is the part so many of you fail to understand about modern football - then that's when you have the legal right to physically hurt them.

The ball flies around all match, some sent pretty, some sent ugly, it goes some way toward deciding the game, but invariably not as much as which midfield can inflict more physical punishment on the other. Sides roll over in games because their ball winners and ball movers can't go on any more, whether that's for five minutes at the end of the first quarter, or the entire second half, or the last 30 seconds. So every time Jackson, or Tuck, or Graham end up in a scrap at a contest, they're getting the opportunity to win the game just as much as if they were shooting for goal - every ounce of energy they suck out of their opponents, every corkie, every bruise, every pranged finger, every muscle stretched a bit too far, is increasing our ability to make the opposition roll over and decreasing their chances to do the same to us.

So the physical work which some players do for us is infinitely more valuable than most of you appreciate...some of you get off so hard on watching the cavalry that you entirely fail to appreciate how the gaping hole they could gallop through came to be there - the infantry. That's how all these mature sides get to the top and stay there. Sure, there's some great talent involved, but mostly it's just that they drop an extra few thousand kilo's of energy sapping mongrel onto the opposition bodies every week.

I have very little doubt that Jackson spent most of this year like any smart bloke would - wondering why he was busting his hump game in game out, playing injured, when the coaching staff couldn't even begin to get their act together. Beyond the personnel issues and the vaguely complicated stuff, I lost count of how often our 'best mids' utterly fail at the simplest of all things, the one all kids are taught in their first years of football - be goal-side of your opponent at stoppages around goal.

When things are that messed up defensively from a coaching perspective, I'm pretty sure that the bloke who was still our best defensive mid by a long way shouldn't be the first target for criticism.



15 + 3 = 3 X 6 last I went to school Goldie.

None of your 2nd post - me 'elevating him above Cotchin' or me defending some free kick from the last quarter - actually happened.



I've pointed out much the same thing myself on numerous occasions TCT, though I'd argue he's been used more as a tagger this year than I expected. I'm not a big fan of labels, but in Jackson's case, for the purposes of ease and brevity, it's a heck of a lot easier to call him our 'tagger' than our 'least offensive midfielder who sometimes gets tagging roles of varying strictness with game specific instructions and sometimes is just played as a straight ball winner on the opposition's main hard-nut extractor, and can switch back and forth between these roles at any time of any quarter.'

Would you agree?



Hmm, let's see if we can untwist this horrible piece of logic.

Tuck didn't get games, that cost us a million or three and a finals series, and how can I possibly be "potting them" (i.e. Cotchin and Martin) if I've argued strongly all year that Hardwick shouldn't have ever put them in that position? I'm not questioning either player at all, both boys did extremely well on balance this year and I've never suggested otherwise, I'm questioning the clowns who selected that side - and questioning them with very well proven reason...as it has turned out...much to your chagrin...

You can micro analyse this as often as you feel the need but when it's filtered right down Jacko's negatives outweigh the positives therefore, by definition, he is a liability - it's that simple.