Here's the thing.

Towards the end of the 2022 season, his form was abysmal. He should have been dropped. But he wasn't dropped because the Club was trying to convince him to stay. 

He was a total liability in the finals' matches. Would the team have performed better with him out of the side? (Please cue Twilight Zone type music.)

 

I suspect there was a tacit understanding (or not even tacit) within the club the Jackson was leaving. And from the clubs perspective, that's cool - because they're actually quite good at understanding that peoples situations change, and from a commercial perspective - Jackson was always going to get a good return... just like any person who is recruited from interstate and then chooses to go home, that is always a possibilty - but you still get the best available because you will a) get a good return typically and b) career coaches and players are not bound by supporters attachment to the colours of their team.

After all, it's just a job, for our viewing pleasure.

Edited February 27, 20232 yr by Engorged Onion

21 minutes ago, Winners at last said:

Here's the thing.

Towards the end of the 2022 season, his form was abysmal. He should have been dropped. But he wasn't dropped because the Club was trying to convince him to stay. 

He was a total liability in the finals' matches. Would the team have performed better with him out of the side? (Please cue Twilight Zone type music.)

 

We would have been better off with JVR in his spot yes.

33 minutes ago, Winners at last said:

Here's the thing.

Towards the end of the 2022 season, his form was abysmal. He should have been dropped. But he wasn't dropped because the Club was trying to convince him to stay. 

He was a total liability in the finals' matches. Would the team have performed better with him out of the side? (Please cue Twilight Zone type music.)

 

Absolutley no way they were still trying to convince him stay anywhere near the end of the season.

The decision was made mid season, and in all likelihood well before then - hence goody and key leaders talking to Grundy mid season.

They played him because we needed a second ruck. Pure and simple. 

3 hours ago, binman said:

Absolutley no way they were still trying to convince him stay anywhere near the end of the season.

The decision was made mid season, and in all likelihood well before then - hence goody and key leaders talking to Grundy mid season.

They played him because we needed a second ruck. Pure and simple. 

 Mitch Brown and Weid did a very solid job rucking in our win against Adelaide late in the season. Jackson would not have been missed if one of those two were playing second ruck. Goodwin’s IMO was far too [censored] with selections last season and wouldn’t trust his depth or developing players to step up. Only made changes when forced but kept playing injured and out of form players. 

4 minutes ago, John Crow Batty said:

 Mitch Brown and Weid did a very solid job rucking in our win against Adelaide late in the season. Jackson would not have been missed if one of those two were playing second ruck. 

Maybe, though Goody obviously doesn't agree.

Be that as it may there is no chance selecting him last in the season was about trying to convince Jackon to stay. 

8 minutes ago, John Crow Batty said:

 Mitch Brown and Weid did a very solid job rucking in our win against Adelaide late in the season. Jackson would not have been missed if one of those two were playing second ruck. Goodwin’s IMO was far too [censored] with selections last season and wouldn’t trust his depth or developing players to step up. Only made changes when forced but kept playing injured and out of form players. 

I'm not a Weideman fan, but he would have contributed significantly more than the 16 disposals, 2 marks, 0 goals and 0 [censored] that Jackson delivered in the 2022 finals series. It may even have been enough for us to win one or both of those games.

Out with a head knock for next week's game V Port.

4 hours ago, binman said:

Absolutley no way they were still trying to convince him stay anywhere near the end of the season.

The decision was made mid season, and in all likelihood well before then - hence goody and key leaders talking to Grundy mid season.

They played him because we needed a second ruck. Pure and simple. 

If that's the case binman, then I wonder how it would have played out should Jackson have sustained a significant injury. Does the club believe he won't then be traded (a la Trengove nearly going to Richmond) and see that as a beneficial outcome and continue to play him (and scupper the Grundy trade if he stays injured). Or did they just play best available 22/23 in any given week irrespective, as we're in the premiership window so any "development" of players like JVR needs to come of the back of legitimate spots available (eg TMac injury).  

I find the question fascinating, as Trengove post his foot injury was never the same player for us. Risk management wise, if you know with certainty that Jackson is going, do you have an obligation to the club to nurse him and maximise your trade value.

37 minutes ago, Bring-Back-Powell said:

Out with a head knock for next week's game V Port.

they bought him then they broke him!

4 hours ago, binman said:

Absolutley no way they were still trying to convince him stay anywhere near the end of the season.

The decision was made mid season, and in all likelihood well before then - hence goody and key leaders talking to Grundy mid season.

They played him because we needed a second ruck. Pure and simple. 

The club knew by about mid August that LJ was probably going home, but they didn’t stop trying to convince him to stay right up until the end. 
 

5 hours ago, John Crow Batty said:

The profit and loss sheet might look good but the speculation and his indifferent form last season somewhat help derail our core business which was focused on going BTB.

Lost sight of what BTB involves..

1 hour ago, binman said:

Maybe, though Goody obviously doesn't agree.

Be that as it may there is no chance selecting him last in the season was about trying to convince Jackon to stay. 

Agree. We were challenging and he gave us the best chance to win, whether people thought he was cr*p or not. 

2 hours ago, Bring-Back-Powell said:

Out with a head knock for next week's game V Port.

This is a real problem for Luke.

He had trouble passing the concussion test when he was at full fitness. He'll have to study hard if he's going to pass that test. Could take years.

Do I really need to look at this for a month?!?

5 minutes ago, Nicko said:

Do I really need to look at this for a month?!?

Do what @WalkingCivilWar did or is going to do and stick someone else over the top.

On 2/27/2023 at 12:21 PM, binman said:

Absolutley no way they were still trying to convince him stay anywhere near the end of the season.

The decision was made mid season, and in all likelihood well before then - hence goody and key leaders talking to Grundy mid season.

They played him because we needed a second ruck. Pure and simple. 

Exactly bin.  Jackson even stated in an interview shortly after being recruited by Freo, that he had decided mid-season to ‘return home’ at season’s end.

23 minutes ago, Nicko said:

Do I really need to look at this for a month?!?

I still love him.

still waiting for my pm

not happy, jan

30 minutes ago, daisycutter said:

still waiting for my pm

not happy, jan

To be fair I don't think pm's were ever offered, just asked for.

1 hour ago, AzzKikA said:

Do what @WalkingCivilWar did or is going to do and stick someone else over the top.

I was thinking Kozzie….but that’s probs for a different thread 🙊😂

and he’s Novembers photo….😳

Luke Jackson 

53 minutes ago, layzie said:

Luke Jackson 

Is he playing in this practice match?

8 minutes ago, Kick_It_To_Pickett said:

Is he playing in this practice match?

No. Concussion last week

On 2/27/2023 at 4:46 PM, In Harmes Way said:

If that's the case binman, then I wonder how it would have played out should Jackson have sustained a significant injury. Does the club believe he won't then be traded (a la Trengove nearly going to Richmond) and see that as a beneficial outcome and continue to play him (and scupper the Grundy trade if he stays injured). Or did they just play best available 22/23 in any given week irrespective, as we're in the premiership window so any "development" of players like JVR needs to come of the back of legitimate spots available (eg TMac injury).  

I find the question fascinating, as Trengove post his foot injury was never the same player for us. Risk management wise, if you know with certainty that Jackson is going, do you have an obligation to the club to nurse him and maximise your trade value.

Played best available. Goody's game plan involves two rucks. Jackson was the only alternative. 

And the chance to won a flag trumps any concerns about his trade value collapsing in the event of a injury 

@In Harmes Way

Edited March 2, 20232 yr by binman