3-2-1 v Raiders

[Penrose Warrior]

Quite simply, I didn't think he was the best on ground either week (definitely played well though) and then you have to also put that in the context of Dally M points invariably going to spine players and "name" players.

I absolutely agree that Dally M points should go to the actual best player on the field and not the best "name" player on the field, but as it stands Ford getting MOTM twice in a row is an outlier. It's unusual for a high work rate role player to get max points once, let alone twice in a row.

As for "most overrated in the world", well it's a pretty small world and he's leading the race for the biggest individual award within that small world and yet he's not a top-50 player, so I think there's a logic to that claim.

Can't believe we're actually having this conversation tbh, the only situation in which this would ever arise is the almost unfathomable situation of JACKSON FORD LEADING THE DALLY Ms....but here we are. Reality is stranger than fiction.

Yeah so isn’t it so f**king hard to imagine a non big name bookend getting six points two weeks in a row? The odds are astronomical.

At the ground I definitely had him as MOM v the Roosters. He was immense. Boyd had huge moments but also a few dicey ones. The Raiders, I could maybe buy that Ford wasn’t best on ground but gee he was close.

It wasn’t just high work rate. He is running great lines, forcing errors, backing up and scoring tries. Every single great team needs a Jackson Ford in the form he’s in now

 

[Manu Vatuvei]

Echo chamber probably the wrong term, although there are a few Ford haters on here. Cognitive bias? Whatever it is, do you think you can get to a point to praise Ford if he deserves it? Because to me if Barnett, Fish etc bust out those two weeks of output, they’d be universally lauded

yeah echo chamber implies I'm surrounded by Ford haters but the whole point is I'm surrounded by Ford lovers (including the Dally M judges!)

My criticism of Ford I think is a little bit different from why 1 or 2 others here criticise him - I think some others are more focused on his errors while for me it's just sheer lack of ability. No doubt there are layers of "bias" behind why some of us perceive more "ability" in some players than others but I don't even know how to measure that. To me, most of rugby league is not very well captured by statistics - the stats used to measure which players have an eye for a gap, which players have the ability to put a teammate into a gap, which players are strong in contact and suck in extra defenders, which players threaten to make a linebreak and therefore disrupt the defensive line....stats for these things are imo all pretty rudimentary. Ford has a lot of "output" and a lot of it to my eyes is just not threatening or constructive and frankly we'd be better off if someone else had the ball. There isn't really a way to measure that beyond the eye test. Unless he somehow increases the ceiling of his physical abilities in his late 20s, he's probably always going to be this sort of player.

And yes, that's a very heavy-handed explanation of what a "journeyman workhorse" is, but I've been pushed into this position, because I'm being asked to explain why a plodder is a plodder in the context of cognitive distortions or some sort of Jackson Ford Derangement Syndrome? Like, he's just a plodder who's leading the Dally Ms.

 

[Manu Vatuvei]

It wasn’t just high work rate. He is running great lines, forcing errors, backing up and scoring tries.

To an extent I agree. Will be intrigued to see if he can keep it up. His fitness is immense but I struggle to see how he can continue to physically match it with other props. Maybe with the sped up game he will be able to keep doing it on fitness alone.

 

[Meth]

Whatever it is, do you think you can get to a point to praise Ford if he deserves it?

see post 9, this thread

 

[JJ]

Exactly, and he's leading the Dally Ms. Can't get much more overhyped than being a modestly gifted honest trier currently ranked the best player in the comp according to the official "best player in the comp" award standings.

Didn’t realise that, won’t last imo because, well, he’s not Payne Haas and what he’s doing is f**king tough

 

[SpaceMonkey]

Didn’t realise that, won’t last imo because, well, he’s not Payne Haas and what he’s doing is f**king tough

He’s not Payne Haas, but there really no reason he can’t be another Paul Gallen. Might need a good “nutritionist” though…

 

[Wheeled Warrior]

To go from being a bog average second rower when he came to the club, to a guy who can match up with any pack in the comp, play more minutes than them and punch out more metres, more post contact metres and more tackles, is a hell of a thing

Agreed.

Ford was told he wouldn't make it far in the NRL when at the Dragons. Kudos to Webby for his faith and vision by giving Jackson a chance at the Warriors.

 

[Campion]

It makes me wonder what is it that Webster saw in him that other coaches seemingly didn't. Is it 'this guy can train well and is adaptable' or 'there is a niche he can fill that others havent though of' etc. Or maybe you just take punts at 5 people and hope one sticks.

 

[Big Marn]

I think his greatest asset is the motor. If you are on the field for 75 minutes a game, then of course the stats will look good compared to someone who gets 50mins.
He basically is giving Webby a free interchange, which might be more important tactically than his ability.

 

[Penrose Warrior]

To an extent I agree. Will be intrigued to see if he can keep it up. His fitness is immense but I struggle to see how he can continue to physically match it with other props. Maybe with the sped up game he will be able to keep doing it on fitness alone.

Absolutely it's dependent on him keeping up the form for more than 2 weeks.

I dunno, I saw him physically match it - and more - with a pretty formidable Roosters pack in round 1. He bent the line, he hits well in defense, and he did it against guys who were playing less minutes than him. Lindsay Collins is meant to be a SOO hardman and Ford played him off the park.

He’s not Payne Haas, but there really no reason he can’t be another Paul Gallen. Might need a good “nutritionist” though…

I don't think he'd want to get bigger, might take away his motor to some degree

I think the thing with modern day NRL is that there are those big bopper freaks like Haas, Tino, AFB who can play big minutes and genuinely bruise the opposition D line...but they're rare. Being more prevalent are the Barnett prototype, a guy who might have played 2nd row but now plays in the middle and has better leg speed, big motor and footwork at the line. Even someone like Reuben Cotter has/does play through the middle. Feels like to me there's less guys playing 40-45 mins and the preference for coaches are middles who play 60-70, and maybe that allows you to make an interchange somewhere else - play two hookers, rotate a back rower etc?

 

[Penrose Warrior]

It makes me wonder what is it that Webster saw in him that other coaches seemingly didn't. Is it 'this guy can train well and is adaptable' or 'there is a niche he can fill that others havent though of' etc. Or maybe you just take punts at 5 people and hope one sticks.

Punt I reckon, he played second row throughout his career until 2024 (debuted in 2019) and was very bog average doing so.

But Webby is a really strong people person, and I reckon he and Cappy are getting pretty good at picking up players with the right attitude, that fit our environment. Wouldn't be surprised if Ford had a rep of being an elite trainer at the Drags and made his way here on the back of that.

 

[Manu Vatuvei]

I think his greatest asset is the motor. If you are on the field for 75 minutes a game, then of course the stats will look good compared to someone who gets 50mins.
He basically is giving Webby a free interchange, which might be more important tactically than his ability.

Exactly.

Not everyone can play those minutes and that's valuable for saving up interchanges and possibly allows others to be fresher.

It can also be extremely annoying if your least effective ball carrier is taking the most carries.

 

[Meth]

Probably the most noticeable thing about Ford’s past 2 games (aside from errors down) is that his hit ups feel more effective and he is playing the ball quicker. I have done no research into the second claim, but it feels that way.

2 games though- don’t order the statue or the marching band just yet

 

[Penrose Warrior]

But why is he the least effective ball carrier? Stats don't bear that out, and nor did the eye test for me. Raiders first, Roosters second

Ford: 16 runs for 154m, 57 post contact.
Fish: 18 runs for 151m, 52 post contact
TSS: 13 runs for 120m, 49 post contact
Clark: 12 runs for 114m, 50 post contact
Demi: 11 runs for 100m, 38 post contact

Ford: 22 runs for 218m, 112 post contact
Fish: 20 runs for 157m, 61 post contact
TSS: 14 runs for 134m, 56 post contact
Clark: 17 runs for 128m, 48 post contact
Demi (16 minutes)

 

[Penrose Warrior]

Probably the most noticeable thing about Ford’s past 2 games (aside from errors down) is that his hit ups feel more effective and he is playing the ball quicker. I have done no research into the second claim, but it feels that way.

2 games though- don’t order the statue or the marching band just yet

I dunno how solid those play the ball stats are...

Roosters: Fish (3.86), Ford (3.7), Clark (3.37), TSS (3.48)
Raiders: Fish (3.78), Ford (4.24), Clark (3.45), TSS (3.26)

 

[Thatwasnthighref]

But why is he the least effective ball carrier? Stats don't bear that out, and nor did the eye test for me. Raiders first, Roosters second

Ford: 16 runs for 154m, 57 post contact.
Fish: 18 runs for 151m, 52 post contact
TSS: 13 runs for 120m, 49 post contact
Clark: 12 runs for 114m, 50 post contact
Demi: 11 runs for 100m, 38 post contact

Ford: 22 runs for 218m, 112 post contact
Fish: 20 runs for 157m, 61 post contact
TSS: 14 runs for 134m, 56 post contact
Clark: 17 runs for 128m, 48 post contact
Demi (16 minutes)

On an average basis - to allow for the greater minutes - he tops both metres per run and pcm per run amongst all the middles too.

I agree, so far this year he's been pretty effective as a ball carrier. More so than Fish and even Clark (statistically at least).

On the play the ball speed - was having a closer look at this too.

Small sample size of only 2 games obviously, but so far his average play the ball speed of 4s is a fraction slower than last year. As a starter he averaged 3.8 last season, and 3.5 off the bench.

 

[Blair]

...I dunno, I saw him physically match it - and more - with a pretty formidable Roosters pack in round 1. He bent the line, he hits well in defense...

That's very heartening to hear. I remember being at a game and one of our props (I won't name him, retirement can be tough, and ex-players do read forums, so no need to hurt his feelings) got bent by the line. It was an important game and demoralising for a fan in the stand. He was a big boy too, just with no impact against other big boys in the opposition.

We lost.

 

[marlins2.0]

Don't worry guys. Newy away this week. Will be plenty of 50/50 and dubious 6 against against us to crow about!

 

[nswarrior]

Don't worry guys. Newy away this week. Will be plenty of 50/50 and dubious 6 against against us to crow about!

I don’t know if the calls have been going our way. Our play the ball speed was much slower than the opposition in both games.

But I agree - Newt at home will get more calls for sure

 

[Manu Vatuvei]

But why is he the least effective ball carrier? Stats don't bear that out

I just don't think you can really statistically analyse run effectiveness all that accurately. You'd need to get into the details of how many defenders committed to the tackle and who those defenders were and how the defenders around them reacted, how that effected the next play, and a million other variables.

and nor did the eye test for me. Raiders first, Roosters second

With Ford usually the eye test for me is clear albeit he was definitely way more effective in these two games. Why, I'm not entirely sure. I don't see the physical attributes in him to be consistently effective in this role. He isn't big, he isn't fast, he doesn't have sharp footwork, he's generally awkward and ungainly.

But hell who knows, some blokes are just awkward to tackle. Jazz Tevaga was a slow midget and defenders seemed to struggle to bring him down sometimes. I do think there might be a similarity between Jazz and Jackson in that defenders see them as a gimme and opt to just "contain them", letting them sneak a few more post-contact metres because it slows down the play and allows the defensive line to reset. That hasn't been as apparent in these two games for Ford though and that's why I've praised his performances.