7 hours ago, Gordon Bennett said:

Can't believe the abuse this guy gets. He's a really good player who needs time to mature into the role.

Players, especially strikers, usually need a few seasons to hone their game. That's what's happening with Jackson. Really good player, needs time and games. Get behind him.

Obviously I dont agree.... but for sh*ts and giggles, what is it that you think he does that qualifies him as a "really good" football player?

- We have seen that is isnt a consistent finisher when inside the box - he misses huge numbers of chances.

- He isnt regular scorer of goals from outside the box (has he ever scored for us from outside 18yrd?)

- He isnt a productive assist machine.

- He doesnt appear to understand the offside rule - regularly thwarting our attacks by getting caught offside.

- His heading is poor to average (being generous)

- He isnt very good at winning physical duels with defenders.

- He doesnt have a reliable temperament, losing his head easily and getting booked regularly for stupid things.

- He doesnt appear to have much of a football brain.

- He isnt a skillful dribbler who can regularly beat his man with a turn of pace or flick of skill.

 

All of these things above are true and have been well evidenced..... So what qualifies him as a "really good player"?  For clarity and to get you started, I think the one thing he is better than average at is getting the ball deep (on.around the half way line), turning and running forward with it.  But really keen to hear how else he is "really good"

 

Please be honest with us all, and explain/enlighten (without resorting to hyperboles and vague mentions of potential) on how this player is really good (synonyms for really good include: Superb, outstanding and terrific).

Look forward to it.

 

2 hours ago, nonotnowjim said:

Obviously I dont agree.... but for sh*ts and giggles, what is it that you think he does that qualifies him as a "really good" football player?

- We have seen that is isnt a consistent finisher when inside the box - he misses huge numbers of chances.

- He isnt regular scorer of goals from outside the box (has he ever scored for us from outside 18yrd?)

- He isnt a productive assist machine.

- He doesnt appear to understand the offside rule - regularly thwarting our attacks by getting caught offside.

- His heading is poor to average (being generous)

- He isnt very good at winning physical duels with defenders.

- He doesnt have a reliable temperament, losing his head easily and getting booked regularly for stupid things.

- He doesnt appear to have much of a football brain.

- He isnt a skillful dribbler who can regularly beat his man with a turn of pace or flick of skill.

 

All of these things above are true and have been well evidenced..... So what qualifies him as a "really good player"?  For clarity and to get you started, I think the one thing he is better than average at is getting the ball deep (on.around the half way line), turning and running forward with it.  But really keen to hear how else he is "really good"

 

Please be honest with us all, and explain/enlighten (without resorting to hyperboles and vague mentions of potential) on how this player is really good (synonyms for really good include: Superb, outstanding and terrific).

Look forward to it.

 

 

You say this but he's really not underperofming his XG by all that much, much better then some of the other "big names" 

In terms of assists he's out on his own and even goals hes very competative with the leagues top strikers. I actully don't mind the argument that he's not good enough, I think he's improving all the time and needs to bring some consitency but has all the makings of a very good player (yesterday was a quite game for him) 

But what i'd ask (and maybe I missed this on one of the few posts you have made on the subject) who in world football would you be buying to replace him? 

 

 

1 hour ago, theGreenBaron said:

 

You say this but he's really not underperofming his XG by all that much, much better then some of the other "big names" 

In terms of assists he's out on his own and even goals hes very competative with the leagues top strikers. I actully don't mind the argument that he's not good enough, I think he's improving all the time and needs to bring some consitency but has all the makings of a very good player (yesterday was a quite game for him) 

But what i'd ask (and maybe I missed this on one of the few posts you have made on the subject) who in world football would you be buying to replace him? 

 

 

Let’s not hide behind semi stats - because for every mention of xG, I can show you videos of cringeworthy misses. 

I gave a list of traits - and honestly appraised them, detailing why I do not agree with him being “very good”. I would love to see those defending him do the same.

3 hours ago, nonotnowjim said:

Let’s not hide behind semi stats - because for every mention of xG, I can show you videos of cringeworthy misses. 

I gave a list of traits - and honestly appraised them, detailing why I do not agree with him being “very good”. I would love to see those defending him do the same.

But those attributes are subjective. I could argue that he is in fact better at all those areas of the game, bring you similar, terrible misses on YouTube from other top strikers, and then claim that my understanding of football is greater than yours because once upon a time, I had an outing in Bucks County, and someone said I had talent (I didn’t).

The point is that I don’t think Jackson is as bad as you say, and probably not as great as others claim… but even that is subjective. This ultimately is why I’d fall back on the stats. But again, if your argument is that there is room to upgrade there, I’d probably agree. What frustrates me, though, is that there’s only really room to upgrade if a suitable upgrade is identified.

23 minutes ago, theGreenBaron said:

But those attributes are subjective. I could argue that he is in fact better at all those areas of the game, bring you similar, terrible misses on YouTube from other top strikers, and then claim that my understanding of football is greater than yours because once upon a time, I had an outing in Bucks County, and someone said I had talent (I didn’t).

The point is that I don’t think Jackson is as bad as you say, and probably not as great as others claim… but even that is subjective. This ultimately is why I’d fall back on the stats. But again, if your argument is that there is room to upgrade there, I’d probably agree. What frustrates me, though, is that there’s only really room to upgrade if a suitable upgrade is identified.

I am asking your opinion. My opinion is:

-  We have seen that is isnt a consistent finisher when inside the box - he misses huge numbers of chances.

- He isnt regular scorer of goals from outside the box (has he ever scored for us from outside 18yrd?)

 

- He isnt a productive assist machine.

- He doesnt appear to understand the offside rule - regularly thwarting our attacks by getting caught offside.

- His heading is poor to average (being generous)

- He isnt very good at winning physical duels with defenders.

- He doesnt have a reliable temperament, losing his head easily and getting booked regularly for stupid things.

- He doesnt appear to have much of a football brain.

- He isnt a skillful dribbler who can regularly beat his man with a turn of pace or flick of skill.

 

I would love to hear from others, particularly those who think he is "really good"  - which bits of the above they disagree with and why. 

Comparing to other players is irrelevant. I care about what we have, and how good/bad our players are. And Jackson is rubbish (as he showed again yesterday)

Edited November 4, 20241 yr by nonotnowjim

@nonotnowjim I quit this forum the fist time around because it was consuming far more of my time then it should have been and now here I am...

 

Ill try and give my counters to your points 

 

I am asking your opinion. My opinion is:

-  We have seen that is isnt a consistent finisher when inside the box - he misses huge numbers of chances.

This has been improving, lets not forget this is his second full season as a striker, When he went out to the wing last season against luton you could see that he'd been playing the left for quite a while. But to say his finisihing has not been improving, this season over last would be disingenuous. The finish agasint liverpool, agasint West ham, both well taken 

- He isnt regular scorer of goals from outside the box (has he ever scored for us from outside 18yrd?)

Dont think many our these days. Drvies me nuts, I wonder if we looked at defelected goals now vs 20 years ago (when we won the league under Jose) would there a huge reduction? have a pop people. 

- He isnt a productive assist machine.

5 assists last season, 3 so far this season. I think he brings players in to the game really way, opens space up for players around him and when he's on it really streches deffences, all wich help lead to goals. 

- He doesnt appear to understand the offside rule - regularly thwarting our attacks by getting caught offside.

Again somthing that has imprved greatly in recent time and I dont tink we can have a huge go at razzor thin var decisions 

- His heading is poor to average (being generous)

Yet he has a couple of headed goals this season. he couldn't head for toffe when he turned up and now again is looking to imprved this part of his game and will probably continue to  

- He isnt very good at winning physical duels with defenders.

This is undeture, in the air yes but ball in to his feet back to goal he has been excellent and bringing othes in to play and turning his man. Is he drogba, no, very few are. 

- He doesnt have a reliable temperament, losing his head easily and getting booked regularly for stupid things.

Young again will mature. Id rathe that then some one that goes hiding and doesn't care

- He doesnt appear to have much of a football brain.

Not sure what this means, could be better but could be worse, his runs are decent he picks a good pass. 

- He isnt a skillful dribbler who can regularly beat his man with a turn of pace or flick of skill.

I mean we have seen many examples of him having very good close control, going round players. And he's no slouch. 

 

But you know what I like about him the most, sure he misses chances, some times he has a stupid booking but he doesn't hide, Morata looked great untill he missed a few 1-1's and then never surfaced as a footballer again in chelsea blue. Werner looked like a german finishing machine till he wasn't Lukauku... well I won't go there. But in each case when it didn't go right those players looked for the shadow's they hid, they didn't show for the ball. Jackson doesn't do that, he was clearly brought as a workon and I personally think the improvement is clear.

And comparing to other players is 

I would love to hear from others, particularly those who think he is "really good"  - which bits of the above they disagree with and why. 

Comparing to other players is irrelevant. I care about what we have, and how good/bad our players are. And Jackson is rubbish (as he showed again yesterday)

I can't agree its pointless, he might not be an all time reat striker right now, but if you can't go out and get one, or more to the point get better then what you have then your not going to just play with a big whole where you'd other wise have him... and he has won us games and score important goals this season 

22 minutes ago, theGreenBaron said:

@nonotnowjim I quit this forum the fist time around because it was consuming far more of my time then it should have been and now here I am...

 

Ill try and give my counters to your points 

 

I am asking your opinion. My opinion is:

-  We have seen that is isnt a consistent finisher when inside the box - he misses huge numbers of chances.

This has been improving, lets not forget this is his second full season as a striker, When he went out to the wing last season against luton you could see that he'd been playing the left for quite a while. But to say his finisihing has not been improving, this season over last would be disingenuous. The finish agasint liverpool, agasint West ham, both well taken 

- He isnt regular scorer of goals from outside the box (has he ever scored for us from outside 18yrd?)

Dont think many our these days. Drvies me nuts, I wonder if we looked at defelected goals now vs 20 years ago (when we won the league under Jose) would there a huge reduction? have a pop people. 

- He isnt a productive assist machine.

5 assists last season, 3 so far this season. I think he brings players in to the game really way, opens space up for players around him and when he's on it really streches deffences, all wich help lead to goals. 

- He doesnt appear to understand the offside rule - regularly thwarting our attacks by getting caught offside.

Again somthing that has imprved greatly in recent time and I dont tink we can have a huge go at razzor thin var decisions 

- His heading is poor to average (being generous)

Yet he has a couple of headed goals this season. he couldn't head for toffe when he turned up and now again is looking to imprved this part of his game and will probably continue to  

- He isnt very good at winning physical duels with defenders.

This is undeture, in the air yes but ball in to his feet back to goal he has been excellent and bringing othes in to play and turning his man. Is he drogba, no, very few are. 

- He doesnt have a reliable temperament, losing his head easily and getting booked regularly for stupid things.

Young again will mature. Id rathe that then some one that goes hiding and doesn't care

- He doesnt appear to have much of a football brain.

Not sure what this means, could be better but could be worse, his runs are decent he picks a good pass. 

- He isnt a skillful dribbler who can regularly beat his man with a turn of pace or flick of skill.

I mean we have seen many examples of him having very good close control, going round players. And he's no slouch. 

 

But you know what I like about him the most, sure he misses chances, some times he has a stupid booking but he doesn't hide, Morata looked great untill he missed a few 1-1's and then never surfaced as a footballer again in chelsea blue. Werner looked like a german finishing machine till he wasn't Lukauku... well I won't go there. But in each case when it didn't go right those players looked for the shadow's they hid, they didn't show for the ball. Jackson doesn't do that, he was clearly brought as a workon and I personally think the improvement is clear.

And comparing to other players is 

I would love to hear from others, particularly those who think he is "really good"  - which bits of the above they disagree with and why. 

Comparing to other players is irrelevant. I care about what we have, and how good/bad our players are. And Jackson is rubbish (as he showed again yesterday)

I can't agree its pointless, he might not be an all time reat striker right now, but if you can't go out and get one, or more to the point get better then what you have then your not going to just play with a big whole where you'd other wise have him... and he has won us games and score important goals this season 

Fair play at having a go - I respect someone coming out and explaining a position they have - albeit,  the fact that there are so many qualifiers speaks volumes. Improving, better than it was last year, still young, maturing, doesnt hide when he misses - all things that should be said about any young player playing for Chelsea. Have standards slipped so low that this is what we are judging on?

For what it is worth - I accept he has improved since last season - but lets be honest,  that was an extremely low bar. And frankly, it is besides the point. Him being better than he was last season, or 2 seasons ago is not the question.

Is he good enough at the striker fundamentals (positioning, finishing, assisting, heading, intelligence) to be starting up front for Chelsea now?  I went through line by line why I didnt think so, and even in trying to be positive, it feels like the qualifications given against your answers, suggest he is not. 

As I said in the initial list, the only thing that he seems to do with a modicum of consistency and ability is get the ball deep (around the halfway line), spin, and drive at the defence. He does this pretty well some of the time. But its not enough. And it is absolutely ludicrous that we are giving him the platform to fail so spectacularly like he did again at the weekend, when the best that can be said was that he was utterly anonymous. 

 

7 hours ago, nonotnowjim said:

I am asking your opinion. My opinion is:

-  We have seen that is isnt a consistent finisher when inside the box - he misses huge numbers of chances.

- He isnt regular scorer of goals from outside the box (has he ever scored for us from outside 18yrd?)

 

- He isnt a productive assist machine.

- He doesnt appear to understand the offside rule - regularly thwarting our attacks by getting caught offside.

- His heading is poor to average (being generous)

- He isnt very good at winning physical duels with defenders.

- He doesnt have a reliable temperament, losing his head easily and getting booked regularly for stupid things.

- He doesnt appear to have much of a football brain.

- He isnt a skillful dribbler who can regularly beat his man with a turn of pace or flick of skill.

 

I would love to hear from others, particularly those who think he is "really good"  - which bits of the above they disagree with and why. 

Comparing to other players is irrelevant. I care about what we have, and how good/bad our players are. And Jackson is rubbish (as he showed again yesterday)

I disagree. For a CF, he gets quite a few assists and is very good at linking up with his team mates. His assists stats are quite good and even ignore the stats, I can't see how anyone can crticise him for not being a productive assist person, when his link up play is very impressive.

His dribbling is not great, but it is also not poor either. He regularly runs with the ball and goes past a player and gets fouled. Look at the skill last week for instance for Palmer's tight offside call against Newcastle. Because the goal was ruled out, people are forgetting the sensational play from Jackson.

Sunday he was awful and he should have come off as he was struggling but for you to continuously slate him is really bizarre. I am actually starting to think you are a relative of Astrid Wett and are fuming at Jackson for requesting nudes 😄  

Even though he was poor on Sunday, it is clear that he has made huge improvements this season. I think it was Lamps or Neville who came on Sky Sports yesterday and said in the preview, he has proved them wrong. 

All CF have bad games too. Haaland has been poor past few weeks, especially in KDB's absence and apart from when he is not scoring what does Haaland actually add? He is pretty much a goalscorer. But to hear you bang on about he is rubbish is just a weak argument, because you know he is not rubbish. That is utter nonsense. 6 goals, 3 assists in the league is good and that stat is not misleading, he generally has been good. He was poor against Liverpool and Bournemouth I give you that. But he has had more good games than bad ones and he has improvised. It is almost as you take pleasure in him having a poor performance so you can come here and gloat over it. It is truly bizarre for a Chelsea supporter to act like that to a player you should be encouraging. 

40 minutes ago, STATS said:

😄

Haaland has been poor past few weeks, especially in KDB's absence and apart from when he is not scoring what does Haaland actually add? He is pretty much a goalscorer. But to hear you bang on about he is rubbish is just a weak argument, because you know he is not rubbish. That is utter nonsense. 6 goals, 3 assists in the league is good and that stat is not misleading, he generally has been good. He was poor against Liverpool and Bournemouth I give you that. But he has had more good games than bad ones and he has improvised. It is almost as you take pleasure in him having a poor performance so you can come here and gloat over it. It is truly bizarre for a Chelsea supporter to act like that to a player you should be encouraging. 

Halaand adds a lot even when not scoring. Like Drogba he is a huge physical presence, and it's not unusual to see him holding off a couple of defenders with his strength and this allows others to play off him. He doesn't have Drogba's staggering aerial ability but he still wins a good percentage of headers, and unlike Jackson, he is always prepared to get in there and compete for them. Often just making the jump and contesting for the ball is enough.

We shouldn't be happy to settle for second best. Jackson isn't a natural centre-forward and IMO his all-round game isn't nearly good enough to be leading the line for us every week. Quite happy to have him as a back up CF or left wing option, but not as our nailed on starting number 9.

21 minutes ago, just said:

Halaand adds a lot even when not scoring. Like Drogba he is a huge physical presence, and it's not unusual to see him holding off a couple of defenders with his strength and this allows others to play off him. He doesn't have Drogba's staggering aerial ability but he still wins a good percentage of headers, and unlike Jackson, he is always prepared to get in there and compete for them. Often just making the jump and contesting for the ball is enough.

We shouldn't be happy to settle for second best. Jackson isn't a natural centre-forward and IMO his all-round game isn't nearly good enough to be leading the line for us every week. Quite happy to have him as a back up CF or left wing option, but not as our nailed on starting number 9.

His hold up play is good but his dribbling ability is poor. Haaland is obviously miles ahead but he is far from a complete striker. His goals will mostly always come in the box but I would say Drogba had a lot more to his game outside from scoring than Haaland. Jackson is not world class but he is a good striker and contributes to the team.

1 hour ago, STATS said:

His hold up play is good but his dribbling ability is poor. Haaland is obviously miles ahead but he is far from a complete striker. His goals will mostly always come in the box but I would say Drogba had a lot more to his game outside from scoring than Haaland. Jackson is not world class but he is a good striker and contributes to the team.

100% on Drogba over Halaand. I said at the time he left it could be another 50 years before we found another all-round striker as complete as Drogba was. 

Also agree on the point about a lot of Haaland's goals coming inside the box. But that kinda backs up my argument.  It shows his natural strikers instinct. His movement, his power, his anticipation and his finishing ability make that happen. Jackson IMO will never be at that level. 

6 hours ago, STATS said:

I disagree. For a CF, he gets quite a few assists and is very good at linking up with his team mates. His assists stats are quite good and even ignore the stats, I can't see how anyone can crticise him for not being a productive assist person, when his link up play is very impressive.

His dribbling is not great, but it is also not poor either. He regularly runs with the ball and goes past a player and gets fouled. Look at the skill last week for instance for Palmer's tight offside call against Newcastle. Because the goal was ruled out, people are forgetting the sensational play from Jackson.

Sunday he was awful and he should have come off as he was struggling but for you to continuously slate him is really bizarre. I am actually starting to think you are a relative of Astrid Wett and are fuming at Jackson for requesting nudes 😄  

Even though he was poor on Sunday, it is clear that he has made huge improvements this season. I think it was Lamps or Neville who came on Sky Sports yesterday and said in the preview, he has proved them wrong. 

All CF have bad games too. Haaland has been poor past few weeks, especially in KDB's absence and apart from when he is not scoring what does Haaland actually add? He is pretty much a goalscorer. But to hear you bang on about he is rubbish is just a weak argument, because you know he is not rubbish. That is utter nonsense. 6 goals, 3 assists in the league is good and that stat is not misleading, he generally has been good. He was poor against Liverpool and Bournemouth I give you that. But he has had more good games than bad ones and he has improvised. It is almost as you take pleasure in him having a poor performance so you can come here and gloat over it. It is truly bizarre for a Chelsea supporter to act like that to a player you should be encouraging. 

Ok - so the TLDNR out of that was that you think he is good at getting assists, and he is good at dribbling.

For context - he has 8 assists for chelsea. So i guess our definitions of What very good mean are a bit off.

Jackson fans always go back to the MO of conflating issues by comparing to other strikers. It's a form of smoke and mirrors. Haalands good or bad performances have zero to do with Jackson's ability. 

I have said - out of a long list of traits a striker needs - that Jackson's ability isn't good enough. 

You have argued and said that I am wrong, because Jackson has 8 assists across 1.5 seasons and he is better at dribbling than I give him credit for. You say nothing against the remaining attributes - so assume you agree that he isn't good enough on those points.

 

 

It is laughable - bordering on pathetic - that the argument that Jackson fanboys give to justify his continued selection is "but Haaland hasn't been great recently either". 

 

Edited November 5, 20241 yr by nonotnowjim

For ease - the list,  which I don't think has been contested is:

- Not a good finisher.

- Not a good header of the ball.

- Rarely wins duels with defenders (lacking physically)

-Brain-dead/lacking footballing intelligence

-Regularly offside

-Collects bookings like my wife collects handbags

- Not an assist machine (8 in total for Chelsea across 1.5 yrs)

These are the realities of his play (without getting into how few of his actual goals mean anything - i.e mostly a flat track bully).

It feels like he has won some weird competition to be Chelsea Striker for a year....because he sure as hell doesn't merit a place in the team based on his game.

7 hours ago, STATS said:

It is almost as you take pleasure in him having a poor performance 

Nope - Zero pleasure. It is painful. He sucks the joy out of watching Chelsea. 

And I will not encourage him. He does not deserve support, and I wont be giving him any.  The sooner he is dropped, the better. 

The trenches are dug. 

 

16 hours ago, nonotnowjim said:

Fair play at having a go - I respect someone coming out and explaining a position they have - albeit,  the fact that there are so many qualifiers speaks volumes. Improving, better than it was last year, still young, maturing, doesnt hide when he misses - all things that should be said about any young player playing for Chelsea. Have standards slipped so low that this is what we are judging on?

For what it is worth - I accept he has improved since last season - but lets be honest,  that was an extremely low bar. And frankly, it is besides the point. Him being better than he was last season, or 2 seasons ago is not the question.

Is he good enough at the striker fundamentals (positioning, finishing, assisting, heading, intelligence) to be starting up front for Chelsea now?  I went through line by line why I didnt think so, and even in trying to be positive, it feels like the qualifications given against your answers, suggest he is not. 

As I said in the initial list, the only thing that he seems to do with a modicum of consistency and ability is get the ball deep (around the halfway line), spin, and drive at the defence. He does this pretty well some of the time. But its not enough. And it is absolutely ludicrous that we are giving him the platform to fail so spectacularly like he did again at the weekend, when the best that can be said was that he was utterly anonymous. 

 

 

If you now turned round and said, lissten you can have a prime Costa for 50 million, Jackson will bascially be a bench wamer, I bite your hand off, Prime drogba same (JFH, no btw)

But I don't see alot of those arounds. I didn't fancy the Osimhen signing at 100+. Was more interested when that fee started to come down by half.  But outside of him i'm just unaware of a number 9 that would present us with a real upgrade and minimize risk. 

I remember similar such debates in this neck of the woods 20+ years ago and the call was to go out and get Eto or Ibra when they were both at less fancied clubs. It just seems we have a lack of top strikers globaly. 

Now I think my qualifiers are valid because I don't think he's as bad as you make out, I understand you don't rate but again, my points are as follow:

 - He's raw but impvoing rapidly (IMHO)

- His stats are comparable to anyone else outside of Halland

- He Doesn't hide or go missing which is massive for me

- and prehaps most importatnly there isn't anyone else I can think of in world football (that we can get) that would be a real upgrade with limited risk

Some times you have to get behind the default 

1 hour ago, theGreenBaron said:

 

If you now turned round and said, lissten you can have a prime Costa for 50 million, Jackson will bascially be a bench wamer, I bite your hand off, Prime drogba same (JFH, no btw)

But I don't see alot of those arounds. I didn't fancy the Osimhen signing at 100+. Was more interested when that fee started to come down by half.  But outside of him i'm just unaware of a number 9 that would present us with a real upgrade and minimize risk. 

I remember similar such debates in this neck of the woods 20+ years ago and the call was to go out and get Eto or Ibra when they were both at less fancied clubs. It just seems we have a lack of top strikers globaly. 

Now I think my qualifiers are valid because I don't think he's as bad as you make out, I understand you don't rate but again, my points are as follow:

 - He's raw but impvoing rapidly (IMHO)

- His stats are comparable to anyone else outside of Halland

- He Doesn't hide or go missing which is massive for me

- and prehaps most importatnly there isn't anyone else I can think of in world football (that we can get) that would be a real upgrade with limited risk

Some times you have to get behind the default 

I am not a football scout - but I fail to believe, that in a world with a population of over 8billion people, that not one of them is a better option for us that this fraud.

Of players that are already known, and somewhat attainable, I would prefer a number of others - with my top picks being Dovbyk, Sesko, Toney, Boniface, Vlahovic, Openda, Thuram, Gyokeres, Guirassy, Isak, Watkins, Osimmhen or even Tammy….

Gyokeres would be my priority - but any one of these are better players than The donkey.

https://x.com/whoscored/status/1853478564353527899?s=46
 

23 minutes ago, nonotnowjim said:

I am not a football scout - but I fail to believe, that in a world with a population of over 8billion people, that not one of them is a better option for us that this fraud.

Of players that are already known, and somewhat attainable, I would prefer a number of others - with my top picks being Dovbyk, Sesko, Toney, Boniface, Vlahovic, Openda, Thuram, Gyokeres, Guirassy, Isak, Watkins, Osimmhen or even Tammy….

Gyokeres would be my priority - but any one of these are better players than The donkey.

Toney Gykores Isak Watkins Osimnhen Abraham are not good enough to play in a top level Chelsea team. Jackson is fine as a second choice striker his goal return is acceptable.

Edited November 5, 20241 yr by OneTommyLangley

22 minutes ago, nonotnowjim said:

I am not a football scout - but I fail to believe, that in a world with a population of over 8billion people, that not one of them is a better option for us that this fraud.

Of players that are already known, and somewhat attainable, I would prefer a number of others - with my top picks being Dovbyk, Sesko, Toney, Boniface, Vlahovic, Openda, Thuram, Gyokeres, Guirassy, Isak, Watkins, Osimmhen or even Tammy….

Gyokeres would be my priority - but any one of these are better players than The donkey.

Good job you aren't a football scout, you'd have us battling relegation with those names. 

10 hours ago, just said:

100% on Drogba over Halaand. I said at the time he left it could be another 50 years before we found another all-round striker as complete as Drogba was. 

Also agree on the point about a lot of Haaland's goals coming inside the box. But that kinda backs up my argument.  It shows his natural strikers instinct. His movement, his power, his anticipation and his finishing ability make that happen. Jackson IMO will never be at that level. 

Yes, don't get me wrong, I am not saying Jackson is close to Haaland's level, but my opinion is even the best of strikers have limitations and compared with the viable options there is in the market right now, Jackson isn't too bad. You logic is fine but people who call him rubbish are just clueless and have an agenda.

6 hours ago, nonotnowjim said:

Ok - so the TLDNR out of that was that you think he is good at getting assists, and he is good at dribbling.

For context - he has 8 assists for chelsea. So i guess our definitions of What very good mean are a bit off.

Jackson fans always go back to the MO of conflating issues by comparing to other strikers. It's a form of smoke and mirrors. Haalands good or bad performances have zero to do with Jackson's ability. 

I have said - out of a long list of traits a striker needs - that Jackson's ability isn't good enough. 

You have argued and said that I am wrong, because Jackson has 8 assists across 1.5 seasons and he is better at dribbling than I give him credit for. You say nothing against the remaining attributes - so assume you agree that he isn't good enough on those points.

 

 

I am not stating Jackson is world class nor have I said he ever is. Yes, he picks up silly bookings which is annoying. Yes, he isn't the greatest headers of the ball. He isn't the strongest but he also isn't the weakest. Some of the names you mentioned you would prefer over him just shows your hatred and out of tune. You mentioned likes of Fulkrug, Richarlison and Awonyi you would prefer over him. When you splurt out nonsense like this, of course it shows you have an agenda. Based on what attributes would you prefer these strikers over Jackson? Please tell me because I am intrigued to know.

I just think your criticism for him is OTT. You wait for bad games he has just to come here and call him rubbish. He clearly isn't rubbish. He is an inconsistent striker which tbh, apart from a few CF, most strikers are inconsistent. People used to mention Toney but he has never really been prolific bar the one season before his ban, when I am pretty sure a huge proportion of those came from the spot. With Jackson you get the ability to run in from behind. I am a big fan of Nkunku and agreed with your assessments regarding Felix only one looking to make something happen in midweek, just gone, however it is funny how you defend these players but with Jackson you have never given him a chance, now when other players have been given the chance to show what they can do in his absence, they haven't really produced and you had every excuse under the sun, but with Jackson you call him rubbish and a fraud.  Just ridiculous. 

I haven't just used the assist stats to say Jackson is a good dribbler. When watching him play, he is very good at dropping deep and winning fouls and combining with Palmer. He regularly is fouled because of his dribbling and turn of pace. Anyway from time you mentioned some of the names you prefer over Jackson, just proved to me you haven't probably watched any of these other teams play for a while. I think you even mentioned Calvert-Lewin ffs 😄 

 

5 minutes ago, STATS said:

Yes, don't get me wrong, I am not saying Jackson is close to Haaland's level, but my opinion is even the best of strikers have limitations and compared with the viable options there is in the market right now, Jackson isn't too bad. You logic is fine but people who call him rubbish are just clueless and have an agenda.

I am not stating Jackson is world class nor have I said he ever is. Yes, he picks up silly bookings which is annoying. Yes, he isn't the greatest headers of the ball. He isn't the strongest but he also isn't the weakest. Some of the names you mentioned you would prefer over him just shows your hatred and out of tune. You mentioned likes of Fulkrug, Richarlison and Awonyi you would prefer over him. When you splurt out nonsense like this, of course it shows you have an agenda. Based on what attributes would you prefer these strikers over Jackson? Please tell me because I am intrigued to know.

I just think your criticism for him is OTT. You wait for bad games he has just to come here and call him rubbish. He clearly isn't rubbish. He is an inconsistent striker which tbh, apart from a few CF, most strikers are inconsistent. People used to mention Toney but he has never really been prolific bar the one season before his ban, when I am pretty sure a huge proportion of those came from the spot. With Jackson you get the ability to run in from behind. I am a big fan of Nkunku and agreed with your assessments regarding Felix only one looking to make something happen in midweek, just gone, however it is funny how you defend these players but with Jackson you have never given him a chance, now when other players have been given the chance to show what they can do in his absence, they haven't really produced and you had every excuse under the sun, but with Jackson you call him rubbish and a fraud.  Just ridiculous. 

I haven't just used the assist stats to say Jackson is a good dribbler. When watching him play, he is very good at dropping deep and winning fouls and combining with Palmer. He regularly is fouled because of his dribbling and turn of pace. Anyway from time you mentioned some of the names you prefer over Jackson, just proved to me you haven't probably watched any of these other teams play for a while. I think you even mentioned Calvert-Lewin ffs 😄 

 

probably ought to add Chris Wood and Charlie Austin to that list😂

28 minutes ago, STATS said:

now when other players have been given the chance to show what they can do in his absence, they haven't really produced and you had every excuse under the sun

oh - must be getting old, because I have missed the run of games that others have been given.  In fact, I don’t recall any other player being given a significant length of time, with the first team, to lead the line for us - other than an odd sub appearance here and there. 
 

Wacko the rubbish donkey fraud however gets game after game, minute after minute, and despite a string of completely anonymous performances he continues to get a run of games. Man City, Servette, Bournemouth, Brighton, Forest, Man Utd. All absolutely horrendous / anonymous performances.

He is rubbish and he needs to be dropped.

 

36 minutes ago, OneTommyLangley said:

Toney Gykores Isak Watkins Osimnhen Abraham are not good enough to play in a top level Chelsea team. Jackson is fine as a second choice striker his goal return is acceptable.

And yet they are all much better than Wacko….

The fanboys continue to defend this fraud and deflect criticism with broad comments like “he is improving “, “Haaland also not great recently” and “who else is there”…

…but can someone please be brave, and tell us, in a clear, concise and succinct manner, what he is good at?
 

What striker traits does he possess that justifies him playing up front for Chelsea:

- Close finishing? Nope!  he misses loads.

- Long shots? Nope! Don’t think he has ever scored for us from outside the box.

- Heading? Nope! Generally accepted to be a poor header of the ball.

- Winning physical duels? Nope! Generally accepted that this area of his game is severely lacking.

- large number of assists? Nope! Just 8 for Chelsea, so he isn’t an assisting monster.

-Footballing intelligence? Nope! Even most of the fan boys on here admit his temperament and footballing IQ is lacking - often making him a liability with unnecessary bookings.

So What is he good at? 

Be specific