Jack Harrison

[777Kidnappings]

Not sure what Harrison has done to be considered one of our better signings in the Moshiri era?

As I say, feels like you’re being controversial for the sake of it.

It's a low bar. Just outperformed his cost. You show your bias when you mention lindstrom who's done less while costing more

[Escalator]

Think he had a decent game yesterday, wouldn’t single him out for criticism.

[TheRam]

It's a low bar. Just outperformed his cost. You show your bias when you mention lindstrom who's done less while costing more

Bias towards what?

[777Kidnappings]

Bias towards what?

Bias against Harrison. He's not great don't think anyone is arguing he is. You mention Walcott lindstrom bolasie and Bernard. Harrison is the only 1 who can be considered remotely a success given the cost and circumstances when they signed. In fact he was probably at least as good as anyone on your list despite being cheapest and playing for the worst version of everton.

I'm not a fan. I just think it's a bit daft when people are demanding he be subbed when he's actually playing quite well

[Toddacelli]

A good game yesterday but absolutely not a good signing.

I think the argument here is because we have two different measures. One half saying he’s played games and cost us very little = Good. The other half saying he’s taken up a place in the squad and a shirt on the pitch and produced fuck all = Bad.

I’m in the second group but he had a decent game yesterday compared to his usual standard of performance.

[AjaxAndy]

Yeah guess which angle you want to come at this one from... He's a poor player and I don't think anyone can deny that. However we've been in an awful PSR pickle and in terms of outlay he's cost us very little and filled a space that needed filling over the past 2 seasons. If we'd had to play Dobbin there instead it's fair to say Harrison has been a better player than Dobbin would have been.

The whole beggers can't be choosers scenario, we've played a championship standard player for 2 years because otherwise we'd have probably played a league one standard kid or had to neglect another area of the squad to find a wide player leaving another area badly short.

I doubt anyone will remember his time here fondly, but he's done a job and we've avoided relegation so it's been what it's been, a signing that won't live long or fondly in the memory even if it's been semi serviceable for this difficult period.

[TheRam]

Bias against Harrison. He's not great don't think anyone is arguing he is. You mention Walcott lindstrom bolasie and Bernard. Harrison is the only 1 who can be considered remotely a success given the cost and circumstances when they signed. In fact he was probably at least as good as anyone on your list despite being cheapest and playing for the worst version of everton.

I'm not a fan. I just think it's a bit daft when people are demanding he be subbed when he's actually playing quite well

What’s bias in saying a player who hasn’t been good for us hasn’t been good for us?

I mention those players because they were all a lot better than Harrison has been for us and none of those would be considered good players for us.

Lindstrom has just one assist less than Harrison. He’s only on loan so by your logic he’s been a good signing?

No bias involved. If you’re going to say Jack Harrison has been one of our better signings you’re going to get a lot of push back on that.

He has seven goal involvements in just under 60 games for us. Taking that into consideration with a general poor level of performance and you have to say he’s been a poor player for us.

Doesn’t matter if he’s been on loan or not. At best he’s been a body, nothing more.

[Cozzie]

Played well yesterday to be fair but I'd be devastated if we signed him.

[Free Agent]

He’s a nice lad.
Had one of his best games in two years in a blue shirt yesterday.
But he was up against Forest’s make-shift left back.
I don’t think he has a future here.

[Escalator]

I’m not so sure he’ll be gone, Moyes seems quite keen on him.

“Speaking in a post-match interview, Moyes made a big claim on Harrison’s showing and gave clear signs of future involvement.

“I thought Jack was very good today. He was a threat,” Moyes said.

“In many ways, it might have been one of hi

[Deano Blue Boy]

All you need to look at to find negative bias against Harrison is read yesterday's match thread.

You'd think he was playing awful.

Now it's accepted he played a good game.

[Gash]

One swallow and all that.

[Silas]

He's been fine as a loan, but this is not a situation were he's played his way into a deal. He tries hard but the quality just isn't there.

[superpull]

He's really good on the ball. Makes runs with it into the exact right position. Makes the right decision. Looks to play the perfect shot or pass or cross.

The problem is, when he pulls the trigger it's, 100% of the time, just shite and fucks up.

[777Kidnappings]

What’s bias in saying a player who hasn’t been good for us hasn’t been good for us?

I mention those players because they were all a lot better than Harrison has been for us and none of those would be considered good players for us.

Lindstrom has just one assist less than Harrison. He’s only on loan so by your logic he’s been a good signing?

No bias involved. If you’re going to say Jack Harrison has been one of our better signings you’re going to get a lot of push back on that.

He has seven goal involvements in just under 60 games for us. Taking that into consideration with a general poor level of performance and you have to say he’s been a poor player for us.

Doesn’t matter if he’s been on loan or not. At best he’s been a body, nothing more.

It does matter if he's on loan or not. Of course it matters if he cost 20m less than Walcott or if we didn't have to pay him for a year or 2 not to contribute. Harrison was a better signing with hindsight than everyone you listed. It doesn't really compare.

The bias against him in the match thread (not from you) was ridiculous. He played well yesterday and people were demanding he be subbed.