3 minutes ago, Victor90 said:

Never thought I would see the day when we're just allowing blatant Christianophobia on the forum. 

Jackson is bigger and better than Jesus AND The Beatles!!

53 minutes ago, Nibs said:

Jackson is bigger and better than Jesus AND The Beatles!!

poor bubbles....

23 hours ago, abramovich said:

Massive overreaction here. He's not as good as he should be to be a regular starter for a top four side, at least as of yet, but he's not rubbish. 

If we had Mateta yesterday up top we would have won, I am sure of it. I said elsewhere because he is so sh*t it puts pressure on the other creative players and the longer we don't put games to bed then the pressure mounts. We need a presence up top that properly leads the line.

22 hours ago, just said:

He's not rubbish. He's a left winger.

Not convinced of that either. His ball distribution is rubbish.  I have seen no evidence that he could cross a ball.

22 hours ago, axman2526 said:

Just is right, only moved from the wing to up front when Villareal lost their main striker and had nobody else.

He played in the wing at Villareal and did fck all there. And it's Villareal!

51 minutes ago, WhiteWall said:

Not convinced of that either. His ball distribution is rubbish.  I have seen no evidence that he could cross a ball.

Imagine Jackson running at Premier League full backs, he's not beating anybody. Would be no different than Werner trying to run at a full back.

I can’t really defend him on his recent form. He’s been rubbish, need to pick it up ASAP.

We are suffering becuase he’s our only striker, when he’s on bad form, it affects the whole team. I can’t believe we haven’t got a back up striker.

22 hours ago, Nibs said:

Sorry, but if you really think that you are deluded.

He is better than a couple of them, no more than that. Would honestly feel more confident with majority of those wearing the No. 9  shirt than Jackson. Heck, I would even take a journeyman like Danny Wellbeck - at least he is always a threat.

Ok I'll name more than a couple.

He's better than 

Jesus

Solanke 

Kluivert 

Broja

Hoijland 

Rashford

Replace any of these strikers with Jackson and we still have at the very least the same issues. Lack of consistent finishing. If strikers are going to be named, then only those we would genuine be happy with and improve us should be named e.g Halaand and Isak.

And for the record I'm not saying Jackson is good enough to lead the line for Chelsea.

1 hour ago, KonaKai Blue said:

Ok I'll name more than a couple.

He's better than 

Jesus

Solanke 

Kluivert 

Broja

Hoijland 

Rashford

Replace any of these strikers with Jackson and we still have at the very least the same issues. Lack of consistent finishing. If strikers are going to be named, then only those we would genuine be happy with and improve us should be named e.g Halaand and Isak.

Fair enough. All about opinions, but I would take Jesus, Solanke & kluivert over Jackson right now (but agree on the other 3).

None of the 3 I would take are by any means prolific, but think they all have a better all-round game and trouble defenders more than Jackson does.

I think we're all agreed that we need better if we are seriously looking to compete.

 

On 06/12/2024 at 11:44, bluetrooper said:

Ant & Dec can keep Isak. Any player who moves to the Geordie Wastelands is a serial loser with zero ambition to win anything. 

Jackson on all the metrics is the better player than Isak this season. 

Not digging you out personally @bluetrooper - you're one of many who were suggesting Jackson is better than Isak.

But the reality is, Jackson isn't better than majority of PL strikers, let alone Isak. Isak gave the sort of performance last night against a good Arsenal defence that Jackson just isn't capable of. He's on a totally different level and the bar-codes are lucky to have him.

 

After the last three or four seasons and our current state of fighting for fourth, what makes anyone think that signing for Chelsea is driven by ambition to win things? Pretty sure Cole Palmers move from City to Chelsea wasn't a result of his desire to have a large collection of winners medals. More likely a move to play more football and then perhaps get a big move to a top team where he's a starter.

I suppose you could argue that the European competition we got into gives us a chance of winning a trophy. But the way we're playing at the moment, once we play someone better than some Kazakhstani fishermen, then we're in trouble. I'm sure I noticed that there's a couple of teams I've actually heard of playing in it.

5 hours ago, Nibs said:

Not digging you out personally @bluetrooper - you're one of many who were suggesting Jackson is better than Isak.

But the reality is, Jackson isn't better than majority of PL strikers, let alone Isak. Isak gave the sort of performance last night against a good Arsenal defence that Jackson just isn't capable of. He's on a totally different level and the bar-codes are lucky to have him.

 

Why would Isak join us though? Not fussed about him at all and Ant and dec can keep him. I dont think hed offer much that we dont already have. 

16 hours ago, Nibs said:

Not digging you out personally @bluetrooper - you're one of many who were suggesting Jackson is better than Isak.

But the reality is, Jackson isn't better than majority of PL strikers, let alone Isak. Isak gave the sort of performance last night against a good Arsenal defence that Jackson just isn't capable of. He's on a totally different level and the bar-codes are lucky to have him.

 

Isak played 100 games for Sociedad before coming to Newcastle, jackson has just started his career before coming to us. 

 

7 hours ago, Bob stark said:

Isak played 100 games for Sociedad before coming to Newcastle, jackson has just started his career before coming to us. 

 

And it shows.

My point is that posters were saying Jackson is better than Isak, which is laughable. Isak has two years on Jackson but anyone thinking that Jackson will be as good in two years is being very optimistic (bordering on delusion)!

 

Edited January 9, 20251 yr by Nibs

1 hour ago, Nibs said:

And it shows.

My point is that posters were saying Jackson is better than Isak, which is laughable. Isak has two years on Jackson but anyone thinking that Jackson will be as good in two years is being very optimistic (bordering on delusion)!

 

Do you really believe that there is such a huge difference between them? Skinny forwards that are over-confident which sometimes goes in their favor.

Isak does have better ball control and technique and is scoring more but him in our team wouldn't be that much of a difference from Jackson, people always think the grass is greener... Newcastle has made some good moves in the transfer market and their players settle in much faster than ours.

Put Isak here and he'll blend in.

32 minutes ago, Gol15 said:

Do you really believe that there is such a huge difference between them?

My eyes and footballing understanding tell me yes!

 

Edited January 9, 20251 yr by Nibs

53 minutes ago, Nibs said:

My eyes and footballing understanding tell me yes!

 

the club have spent literally a billion quid on building a side and they only signed Jackson as a striker, Washington came and went, Broja departed to everton where he's been injured and we singed Guiu. Fans can get on Jacksons back, but he is simply a scapegoat for the owners who havent helped him or the club out by bringing in soeone who can share the load or bring something different to the team. 

Moan and bitch all you like about Jackson, despite all the fan pressure, he has and does turn up and give it all. He is one of the only players I can remember that divides the fanbase. Even when he's sticking the ball in the net he gets mashed up. I think that's mad. 

 

1 hour ago, Nibs said:

My eyes and footballing understanding tell me yes!

 

The so called "eye test" has to be the biggest insignificant way of trying to make an argument though.

 

12 minutes ago, Gol15 said:

The so called "eye test" has to be the biggest insignificant way of trying to make an argument though.

 

Maybe for you. You are the sort of person though who over-analyses everything. You look for a sh*t load of stats to try and support your argument (as you used to do A LOT with Jorhinho, to give us all a good laugh!).

But for those of us who have followed and watched a lot of football for 50+ years, it is easy to spot a good footballer by watching them. Sure, the game has moved on in recent times, but the basics remain the same and if you honestly can't see that Isak is a much better footballer than Jackson, then sorry, you don't understand football.

And I honestly don't mean to be a Jackson basher (like @nonotnowjim). He has his moments and it isn't his fault he has been made our main striker when the job is too big for him.

 

9 minutes ago, Nibs said:

Maybe for you. You are the sort of person though who over-analyses everything. You look for a sh*t load of stats to try and support your argument (as you used to do A LOT with Jorhinho, to give us all a good laugh!).

But for those of us who have followed and watched a lot of football for 50+ years, it is easy to spot a good footballer by watching them. Sure, the game has moved on in recent times, but the basics remain the same and if you honestly can't see that Isak is a much better footballer than Jackson, then sorry, you don't understand football.

And I honestly don't mean to be a Jackson basher (like @nonotnowjim). He has his moments and it isn't his fault he has been made our main striker when the job is too big for him.

 

Just to have it clear, you would have given Isak that "main striker" role for our team if you could?

He doesn't have the instinct of a striker. His looks unorthodox, which sometimes benefits him, but mostly hinders him.

I would bet my house that he never goes on to be a top striker. 

I agree with Just, he should be playing on the left, as he is more of a left forward than anything else.

Before anyone says his goal scoring record is decent, it is very similar to Abrahams who also wasn't good enough  but at least was a natural striker. 

I'd take 12-15 golas a season, if the overall game was great and they could occupy centre backs and cause some disruption for the rest of the attackers to take advantage of. 

I don't believe Isak would make a huge difference as there are quite a few flaws with this team but definitely an improvement over Jackson. 

23 minutes ago, Gol15 said:

Just to have it clear, you would have given Isak that "main striker" role for our team if you could?

100% Yes.

 

4 minutes ago, Remodez said:

I don't believe Isak would make a huge difference as there are quite a few flaws with this team but definitely an improvement over Jackson. 

He would have made a big difference, simply in the runs he makes, the way he brings others into the game as a much better ball player. His decision making is leaps ahead of Jackson.