Official: Chelsea sign Nicolas Jackson on an 8 Year Contract

[Ham]

26 minutes ago, Bison said:

Been denied a few assists by the worst player in the squad:

Hopefully he'll start putting those away in about four years time as everybody believes. 

You're obsessed.  Move on. We get it. 

Where's the compilation of all of the other misses by other squad members which has our XG at 3rd in the league?

 

[Chelsea_Matt]

8 hours ago, martin1905 said:

Didier Drogba certainly wasn't doing the things Jackson is doing at the age of 22, he was playing in the second tier in France so who knows?

If Jackson goes on to achieve half of what the great man did then he will prove to be a bargain, although he already is in my book. He averages a goal contribution every other game in the league and across all competitions.

£35m for a 22 year old striker who scores or assists  every other game, at the highest level,  in his first season in a new country is ridiculous. 

Funny how we are always crying out for this exact type of signing and when we do it people moan. Crazy.

 

 

And while I’ve been very critical, he has improved, and was a winger in Spain. I’m very angry and disappointed about Jackson’s attitude with the penalty but he took his goal very well, and set up Palmer superbly. 

[xceleryx]

11 hours ago, Bison said:

Been denied a few assists by the worst player in the squad:

Hopefully he'll start putting those away in about four years time as everybody believes. 

Don't see you having this same energy with Enzo do we? He's served up numerous chances during the season that've been squandered, with ironically Jackson being one of the regular offenders.

The hate boner for Mudryk is insane. 

[johnnybozo]

Y'all are tripping if you think the offside machine has any potential. Watch us flog him to Fulham for 5m in two years' time. Or he'll pull a Bogarde and leech away at the club because we're stupidly giving donkeys lifetime contracts when they're unproven and substandard.

[Chelsea_Matt]

On 18/04/2024 at 01:27, xceleryx said:

Don't see you having this same energy with Enzo do we? He's served up numerous chances during the season that've been squandered, with ironically Jackson being one of the regular offenders.

The hate boner for Mudryk is insane. 

“Hate boner” 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣

[Bison]

 

[My Blood Is Blue]

Massive moment for Jackson over these next few weeks. How does he react?

I think he’s mentally strong enough to deal with what happened at the weekend and will come back fighting. 

[xceleryx]

5 minutes ago, My Blood Is Blue said:

Massive moment for Jackson over these next few weeks. How does he react?

I think he’s mentally strong enough to deal with what happened at the weekend and will come back fighting. 

I'm sure the effort will be there as has been the case in most of his performances, the question is more about if he can finish his chances when they do pop up - that I'm less so sure of. 

Does a lot of good things but fumbles the bag at the backend of things more than what's ideal.

[Ham]

2 hours ago, My Blood Is Blue said:

Massive moment for Jackson over these next few weeks. How does he react?

I think he’s mentally strong enough to deal with what happened at the weekend and will come back fighting. 

I'd hope to see a lot of love from the stands in the short term to show support and demonstrate that the stupid racist emojis didn't come from Chelsea fans but from the usual mischievous overseas antagonists who surface every time to stoke up trouble.

[My Blood Is Blue]

17 minutes ago, Ham said:

I'd hope to see a lot of love from the stands in the short term to show support and demonstrate that the stupid racist emojis didn't come from Chelsea fans but from the usual mischievous overseas antagonists who surface every time to stoke up trouble.

Yep, me too. Obviously, fully against any racist comments and wholly condemn anything like that from anywhere, but I also really don't think he deserves too much criticism from the fans about his performances either. Yes, he should have scored at the weekend and yes he's missed other chances throughout the season, but we have to remember this is a young man, in a new country and league, who has had minimal first-team experience and is trying his absolute best every game he plays. He never hides, he always fights and works so hard for the team. I genuinely think, with the right coaching, he can become a really good player for Chelsea, but he also needs the backing of the fans to help keep his head and confidence up.

We have players performing far worse than Jackson and players putting in far less effort than him each week and so IMO, yes moan about the missed chances, but we as fans should have his back.

[Mark Kelly]

I don't understand the Jackson hate , he has proven his worth already , scored goals , linked the play and has even gone full Pogba and dyed his hair for the cause . He's a good team player and ties things together in attack , give him a half decent foil to play off next season and he'll do even better . 

[Ham]

2 hours ago, Mark Kelly said:

I don't understand the Jackson hate , he has proven his worth already , scored goals , linked the play and has even gone full Pogba and dyed his hair for the cause . He's a good team player and ties things together in attack , give him a half decent foil to play off next season and he'll do even better . 

I don't like the abuse online but as long as it's about his ability as a footballer and nothing else, he's fair game.

It's ok to say that he cost us the game (and likely the FA Cup and a place in the EL) with his poor finishing because his actions in the final third were truly abysmal. 

I've said it before but I don't think any actual Chelsea fans are responsible for the monkey emojis as they almost always originate from brand new accounts from other African countries or from accounts with islamic user names when you drill down into it. 

I don't know why they do it and whether it's for attention, because they're from a rival African country or to stir up racial tension but it happens every time a black PL player has a mare.  

 

[paulw66]

8 minutes ago, Ham said:

I don't like the abuse online but as long as it's about his ability as a footballer and nothing else, he's fair game.

It's ok to say that he cost us the game (and likely the FA Cup and a place in the EL) with his poor finishing because his actions in the final third were truly abysmal. 

I've said it before but I don't think any actual Chelsea fans are responsible for the monkey emojis as they almost always originate from brand new accounts from other African countries or from accounts with islamic user names when you drill down into it. 

I don't know why they do it and whether it's for attention, because they're from a rival African country or to stir up racial tension but it happens every time a black PL player has a mare.  

 

If social media companies insisted on some photo ID to open an account, these problems would disappear. 

[Ham]

55 minutes ago, paulw66 said:

If social media companies insisted on some photo ID to open an account, these problems would disappear. 

You. So easy to set up an account pretending to be a Chelsea fan , post a racist comment pretending to be upset at the player for a poor performance and then sit back and watch the fallout on Sky - "Chelsea player racially abused by fans" followed by a club announcement "Any Chelsea fans found to be involved will be banned". 

Happens every single time and ultimately, no Chelsea fans involved or banned. 

 

[Backbiter]

Anyway. To get back to how we blew the chance to beat City, win the FA cup and qualify for Europe...

Came across this tweet just now, and am a bit confused.

I might need Droy to explain things, but my understanding is that xG is determined from the likelihood of a goal being scored from a certain position. So a penalty is something like 0.9xG because about 90% of pens are converted. 

A one-on-one like the above must have an xG of a lot less than that but you'd still expect a fair proportion of such chances to be converted. So that opening would have added a certain amount to our xG that game (in which we had 1.27 to City's 0.85, apparently).

So I fail to understand the wording of the above tweet. Jackson's ineptitude saw the chance come to nothing, meaning he (as usual) underperformed his xG. But what the hell do they mean when they claim he 'accumulated 0.00xG' from that opportunity?

I know he didn't even get a shot in, but so what? Isn't the point of xG to measure the goals that should have been scored based on the chances created?

[My Blood Is Blue]

6 hours ago, Backbiter said:

Anyway. To get back to how we blew the chance to beat City, win the FA cup and qualify for Europe...

Came across this tweet just now, and am a bit confused.

I might need Droy to explain things, but my understanding is that xG is determined from the likelihood of a goal being scored from a certain position. So a penalty is something like 0.9xG because about 90% of pens are converted. 

A one-on-one like the above must have an xG of a lot less than that but you'd still expect a fair proportion of such chances to be converted. So that opening would have added a certain amount to our xG that game (in which we had 1.27 to City's 0.85, apparently).

So I fail to understand the wording of the above tweet. Jackson's ineptitude saw the chance come to nothing, meaning he (as usual) underperformed his xG. But what the hell do they mean when they claim he 'accumulated 0.00xG' from that opportunity?

I know he didn't even get a shot in, but so what? Isn't the point of xG to measure the goals that should have been scored based on the chances created?

My understanding is that it would be 0.00 because he never got a shot away. The xG is based on the chance at goal, which he never actually had.

[Backbiter]

3 hours ago, My Blood Is Blue said:

My understanding is that it would be 0.00 because he never got a shot away. The xG is based on the chance at goal, which he never actually had.

He did have a chance though. He just didn't take it. So he underperformed the xG of that opening.

My point is simply that, while I understand the idea of xG as a way of measuring how many chances a team creates and how efficient the team and the  individuals in it are at converting chances into goals, and at restricting the opposition's chances to score,  I really don't understand how a player's ineptitude reduces the xG of a situation to zero. The xG comes from the situation, not the player's ineptitude. 

Unless, of course, the people behind xG have a different formula according to who the chance falls to e.g.Haaland one on one 0.8, Sterling 0.0.

 

Edited April 24 by Backbiter

[My Blood Is Blue]

10 minutes ago, Backbiter said:

He did have a chance though. He just didn't take it. So he underperformed the xG of that opening.

He had a chance to shoot but never shot, therefore it doesn't register as a shot at goal and therefore the chance of him scoring is zero. Don't shoot, you can't score.

[Mark Kelly]

20 minutes ago, My Blood Is Blue said:

He had a chance to shoot but never shot, therefore it doesn't register as a shot at goal and therefore the chance of him scoring is zero. Don't shoot, you can't score.

I did feel for him in this instance as when he'd gone around the keeper the angle was very tight and I guess he knew that should he attempt a shot and ignore his better placed team mates then he'd be lambasted for that too so he tried to do what he thought was "the right thing" and looked a wally as nobody had really kept up with play so his pass when it came wasn't good enough . 

There is definitely a player there , if he went to a club with a coach he'd probably do very well , unfortunately for him he isn't . 

[CarefreeMuratcan]

30 minutes ago, Mark Kelly said:

I did feel for him in this instance as when he'd gone around the keeper the angle was very tight and I guess he knew that should he attempt a shot and ignore his better placed team mates then he'd be lambasted for that too so he tried to do what he thought was "the right thing" and looked a wally as nobody had really kept up with play so his pass when it came wasn't good enough . 

There is definitely a player there , if he went to a club with a coach he'd probably do very well , unfortunately for him he isn't . 

Other than not scoring, he has had a phenomenal last 2 games genuinely. The way he has run in behind and down the flanks, leaving City and Arsenal defenders in the dust. Including Kyle Walker. We are talking the top PL defences here.

[Floyd25]

52 minutes ago, CarefreeMuratcan said:

Other than not scoring, he has had a phenomenal last 2 games genuinely. The way he has run in behind and down the flanks, leaving City and Arsenal defenders in the dust. Including Kyle Walker. We are talking the top PL defences here.

He’s got a bright future as a winger/second striker, shouldn’t be leading the line by himself.

[Backbiter]

1 hour ago, My Blood Is Blue said:

He had a chance to shoot but never shot, therefore it doesn't register as a shot at goal and therefore the chance of him scoring is zero. Don't shoot, you can't score.

I know what you are saying and do not doubt that you're correct. I just don't think a situation  where a player who blows a one on one because he fails to shoot should register as zero xG, when you would expect a goal pretty often in that situation.

[Ham]

5 hours ago, My Blood Is Blue said:

My understanding is that it would be 0.00 because he never got a shot away. The xG is based on the chance at goal, which he never actually had.

My understanding is that Jackson had the ball in a one on one and so the algorithm on XG has made a well informed call.

 

[JaneB]

21 hours ago, Backbiter said:

Anyway. To get back to how we blew the chance to beat City, win the FA cup and qualify for Europe...

Came across this tweet just now, and am a bit confused.

I might need Droy to explain things, but my understanding is that xG is determined from the likelihood of a goal being scored from a certain position. So a penalty is something like 0.9xG because about 90% of pens are converted. 

A one-on-one like the above must have an xG of a lot less than that but you'd still expect a fair proportion of such chances to be converted. So that opening would have added a certain amount to our xG that game (in which we had 1.27 to City's 0.85, apparently).

So I fail to understand the wording of the above tweet. Jackson's ineptitude saw the chance come to nothing, meaning he (as usual) underperformed his xG. But what the hell do they mean when they claim he 'accumulated 0.00xG' from that opportunity?

I know he didn't even get a shot in, but so what? Isn't the point of xG to measure the goals that should have been scored based on the chances created?

Droy is long gone I'm afraid.

[Backbiter]

3 minutes ago, JaneB said:

Droy is long gone I'm afraid.

I noticed he wasn't posting. What did I miss?