How to choose the INITIAL SQUAD

I already dropped a couple of short preliminary posts on this topic of choosing the initial squad yesterday: one on the constrants of the budget, and one on the need to abandon any thought of trying to pick a team that would be balanced and workable in real life (all left-footers, all wide players, all short and cross-eyed.... it's all good: the only thing you're interested in is their Fantasy points return, not how thay might gel together on the pitch in reality).

Now, here's the complete 'How to....'.    (Well, as near as I can manage. I'll try to be concise!)

[Sorry - it did get a bit LONG....  Pace yourselves!  I put in bolded headings to make it easier for you to find the topics that might be particularly interesting to you.]

Some basic principles....

Focus on midfield

Midifielders get a point more than 'forwards' (5, rather than 4) for every goal scored. They also tend to be rather more likely than most of the game's 'forwards' to register assists.... and pick up bonus points. And, unlike 'forwards', they get free extra points for clean-sheet bonuses (only 1 per game; but that can add up nicely over the season, especially in teams with stronger defences). And, outside of the top handful of high-priced players, they tend to be rather cheaper than the 'forwards', sometimes quite a lot cheaper. So, attacking midfielders with exactly the same number of attacking contributions as the leading 'forwards' tend to get 20 or 30 or 40 pts per season more! The best midfield options in the game usually offer you more total points, and certainly more points-per-pound, than 'forwards'. (There are rarely more than 3 forwards in the top 10 or 12 overall FPL points scorers; often, only 1....)

And the formation rules only allow you to play a maximum of 7 midfielders and forwards. So... you really want to play 5 goalscoring midfielders as often as you can (and thus only 2 forwards; sometimes only 1 forward!).

The game generously classifies a lot of outright forwards as 'midfielders' (they claim they do this on the basis of last season's 'heat maps' for the players, but I'm not convinced...): Salah, Diaz, Son, Bowen, Mbeumo, Nkunku, Hwang, Semenyo, Rashford, etc. (and last season, Richarlison, Gakpo, and Havertz too!). There are also a lot of wingers who may score - and assist - almost as much as (or even more than) most of the game's 'forwards': Gordon, Barnes, Saka, Martinelli, Kulusevski, Johnson, Neto, Sarabia, Mitoma, Rogers, Bailey, Garnacho, Diallo, Hudson-Odoi, Elanga, Doku, Bobb, Kluivert, Harrison, etc., etc.  And then there are some highly creative midfielders who also offer a very strong goal threat: Palmer, DeBruyne, Foden, Bernardo Silva, Odegaard, Eze, Bruno Fernandes, Maddison, Kudus, Gibbs-White, etc.

Usually only a few of the very best 'forwards' will outscore any of these attacking midfield options. So, the midfield is where you need to focus most of your attention - and most of your budget.

Two playing goalkeepers, but not too expensive

Now, some people favour the strategy of taking a main keeper and a back-up keeper from the same club, to save a little money (a lot of the second-string keepers are only 4.0 million); the thinking being that you'll have a guaranteed instant replacement if your first choice should get injured or dropped.

There's something to be said for that. But many of the second strings aren't actually that good; and having a keeper change forced on you in the middle of the season naturally disrupts the rest of the team a bit, especially the defence; so, you might well get significantly weaker returns from that back-up keeper.

And more importantly, you probably want to try to keep even the best keepers away from the toughest fixtures: anyone could ship a ton of goals away to Liverpool or City or Arsenal, or maybe Newcastle and Spurs and Villa too... or any team that's currently in a hot run of scoring form. So, having two decent keepers that you can rotate around the most daunting fixtures can be very valuable. 

Almost all defences do much better in home games as well. So, it's worth considering a pair of keepers who largely alternate their home and away fixtures. This page on the FPL site shows you which teams are exactly fixture-matched in this way. But there are other combinations that work pretty well most of the time - for fixture difficulty as well as home/away advantage. Last year the Leno/Areola pairing fitted together very nicely.

So, I think trying to save money with a non-playing second keeper is a dangerous ploy, a false economy. But you also don't want to spend too much money on keepers. They don't score that many points overall (Jordan Pickford was the only one who made it into the 'Top 25' overall points-scorers in FPL last season; often there are no keepers that high up the ranking...). And there tends to be less of a differential points spread between keepers: Pickford ended up quite a way ahead of the pack last year (that's unusual), but there were only 20 points separating the next 6 - and then there were a few others who didn't play the whole season but were nearly as good as Pickford on their points-per-game return. Hence, it's difficult to justify paying a 'premium' price for one of the very best keepers, when some of the 4.5-million-pound options will probably do almost as well (and maybe, if you're lucky, even a little better). [That holds for the start of the season, at least. In the last few months, you might have some more budget to spare - because you've grown your squad value, or because some of the premium players you started with have lost form or got injured - and you can then consider upgrading to one of the top-scoring goalkeepers.]

Also... Beware of keepers from the top sides! It is paradoxical, but... City and Arsenal in particular are so good defensively that their keepers rarely get called upon to make saves. And the 'saves' points can actually be as important - or even more important - to a goalkeeper's points total as his clean sheets. Teams down in the relegation zone often have keepers who produce very good points, even if they hardly ever manage to keep a clean sheet.

Beware of central defenders

Clean sheets are, of course, hugely valuable. Although in recent seasons, with Liverpool and even City losing a bit of their defensive solidity, there haven't been as many of them. Maybe only one or two teams will post really good numbers for that. Last year, Arsenal were way out in front with 18 (which made everyone want to 'double up' on their defenders). The year before, somewhat surprisingly, it was Man Utd.  But some lower-ranked teams can be unexpectedly resilient: last year, relegation-battling Everton were actually one of the best defences in the League; the year before, Brighton and Brentford were well up towards the top of the heap, alongside Newcastle and Villa.

However, all members of a defence get the same points for a clean sheet - regardless of how good a defender they are. (Most people would agree that William Saliba is Arsenal's best defender, and maybe the best defender in the League now - but he doesn't get any more points for that!)  So, the top-scoring defenders are almost always full-backs, especially very advanced full-backs (or outright wing-backs), because they offer a better prospect of some attacking returns - assists, and maybe even the occasional goal - as well as defensive actions.

There are exceptions to this. There have been some defenders who mysteriously hoover up the bonus points every week (even when their side has lost!), because they get on the ball and play a lot of passes in addition to completing a lot of defensive actions: Cristian Romero was a prime example of that in the early part of last season. (But NB: changes to the system for allocating bonus points this year, with defenders and keepers much more heavily penalised for conceding, will likely mean that they get far fewer bonus points in games where they don't keep a clean sheet.)  Some central defenders don't just step up into deep midfield occasionally, but go marauding all the way forward and contribute around the edge of the opposition box too (Antonio Rudiger was a monster for this at Chelsea a few seasons ago!). Some are so aerially dominant that they become 'agents of chaos' in attacking set-pieces and pick up a surprisingly large number of assists and goals that way (the late, great Tyrone Mings was a prime exponent). And of course, most central defenders can occasionally be a goal-threat at set pieces (but you shouldn't get too carried away by that; very few defenders score more than 2 or 3 goals in a season; and even fewer do that in successive seasons; when defenders score 2 or 3 goals in a short space of time, it's almost always a transient streak.... not an emerging trend!).

Finally, as with keepers, there isn't usually that much of a differential points-spread between defenders (so, to some extent, it barely matters who you pick!). There are often a few players who are well ahead of the pack: we've seen some exceptional returns in recent years from Cancelo, Alexander-Arnold, and Trippier. But there's not usually all that much to choose between the best of the rest: last year Ben White ended up well out in front, but there were 14 other players who averaged between 3.5 and 4.5 points per game. Hence, it's very difficult to justify spending a premium price for a defender. You might go for one or two of them - people like White or Trippier, if they look likely to be fit and in-form (and playing on their favoured flank: White was switched back to the centre for a little while at the start of last season, and Trippier was moved over to the left for a few games). But there are a lot of good options at the 5.0 and 4.5 price points - and even a few likely starters at only 4.0 million.

Beware of central midfielders (BUT.. they may have their place!)

Rodri and Caicedo and Rice are fantastic players, yes, fan favourites, and crucial to the way their teams play.... but they're not likely to get anywhere near the top of the FPL scoring charts.

You only get 5 midfield picks; and, as I outlined above, there are 20 or 30 possibilities who are regular goal-scorers - most of these should comfortably out-point even the best central defensive midfielders (if they stay fit and in-form...).

Ah, but there might be exceptions.... (There are always some exceptions!)  There are some central midfielders who are more box-to-box, and get involved in the attacking third as well quite a bit (e.g., Bruno Guimaraes). There are some who at least sometimes play a much more advanced role - and/or may be on set-pieces or penalties (e.g., Pascal Gross, James Ward-Prowse). There may be others who are transitioning into a more progressive role where they will sometimes go on a bit of a scoring streak (e.g., Declan Rice). And there are some who have the happy knack of coming up with just a few goals a season, but somehow always in the most crucial games (Rodri!). Now, none of these are usually likely to be anywhere near the 'Top 10' FPL points-scorers in midfield (well, Rodri and Rice actually finished around 10th last season, but that is unusually high for a player of this type; and I doubt if they'll do quite that well again; an awful lot of the more attacking midfielders missed big chunks of last season with injuries), but... if you look at the points-per-pound return  (select the 'Value (season)' option for the display on the FPL stats page), you find that Rice and Rodri were the TOP TWO midfielders last season... and Guimaraes, Gross, Tomas Soucek and Andreas Perreira also got into the 'Top 10' or thereabouts.

So...  for the 4th or 5th midfield spot, when your budget's starting to get a bit thin, players like this are worth considering. But you certainly want at least 3 of your midfield picks - and, if possible, 4 or 5! - to be regular goal-scorers.

Value-for-money

That 'Value (season)' stats listing on the FPL website is one of the most valuable tools for squad selection. You always want to be thinking about getting the most bang-for-your buck from every pound of your squad budget; and this page will help you make choices to do that. If you're torn between two options, bear in mind that the one with the higher points total last season might be unreasonably priced. If his rival has only slightly fewer points, but a much better points-per-pound return - he's probably the one you should go with.

However, some of the super-premium players are worth having, regardless of their unimpressive points-per-pound. Haaland's points-per-pound figures are bound to be fairly terrible. (Last year, Watkins and Solanke were the only 'forwards' to make the 'Top 40' on this metric. The top of the rankings - apart from Cole Palmer - were almost all goalkeepers and defenders; then some defensive midfielders.)  Salah's and Son's too. But players like these offer you the prospect of a huge overall points total. Moreover, they return uncommonly reliably, 'blank' relatively infrequently (well, Son not so much...); and they usually produce quite a few really huge hauls each season - which it can be painful to miss out on.  Palmer and Foden, and perhaps a few others, now seem to have joined this elite corps of players too - players who are 'above budget': you have to consider including them regardless of how much they cost or what their points-per-pound value is.

But as you go through the selection process, the value-for-money consideration becomes more and more important. When you only have 5 or 6 or 7 slots left to fill, and your budget is down to perhaps 30 million or so, it is absolutely vital to target the players who offer you the highest points-per-pound.

Forwards??

The approach to selection here varies greatly from year to year. A few seasons back, we had a weird situation where almost none of the weaker teams had a decent forward, and just about all of the more promising options (Vardy, Bamford, Ings, Calvert-Lewin,...) missed most of the season with injuries - leaving Harry Kane as just about the only worthwhile forward pick for long periods. There happened to be a lot of high-returning attacking full-backs that year too, so we found ourselves often going with a 4-5-1, or occasionally even a 5-4-1 formation - but that's a bit of a freak.

Two years ago, it was looking like Haaland was an inevitable pick for everyone, massively ahead of any of his rivals (except perhaps for Kane, who was getting ready to depart). But then Ollie Watkins began to show that he was a significant force too; and last season he actually out-pointed Haaland (though only because the lanky Viking missed two months of the season with injury). Alexander Isak, although a big injury worry, is also looking very potent. And we now have a wealth of promising options at lower price-points too: Mateta, Cunha, Muniz, Wood, Awoniyi, Joao Pedro... maybe Evan Ferguson, when he gets fit again.

The main dichotomy in strategy this season appears to be: take Haaland and/or Watkins (+ 1 other top striker, if you opt for only one of them; I might rather have Isak than either of them...), OR take 3 more mid-priced strikers.

Since, as I explained above, it's usually not a good idea to start more than 2 of your strikers (as there are plenty of goalscoring midfielders to choose from, who give you more points for the same goal contribution - and often for slightly less money too), you can probably save money with your third striker pick and go for a promising prospect in the 5.5-6.5 range. [As it happened, there were so many good performances in this price bracket - with veterans Wood, Welbeck, Raul and Vardy suddenly showing great form again early in the season, as well as strong newcomers Delap, Strand Larsen, and Evanilson - that you could in fact take all three strikers from the cheap end of the spectrum. With so many of the usually high-scoring midfielders having a spotty start to the year, it even became attractive to start all three strikers quite often! This, again, was a real freak circumstance.]

Haaland, Watkins, and Isak are - pretty unarguably - the three strongest striker picks this year; and almost everyone will be going with TWO of those, and one other. (No, there won't be a lot of differentiation on the forward line. Don't sweat it!)

I feel that the 'mid-priced' forwards are effectively priced out of contention this year: those priced between 7.0 and 8.0 million - Solanke, Mateta, Havertz, Alvarez, Gakpo, Darwin Nunez, Jesus, Hojlund, Richarlison, Toney, Wilson, Jackson [Zirkzee might be an exception??] - just don't bear comparison with the 'Holy Trinity' of Haaland-Isak-Watkins; but they're too expensive for that third slot that you're hardly ever going to use. (And, frankly, I don't think they're as good as some of the cheaper options - Cunha, Awoniyi, Wood, Muniz, and maybe Duran, if he moves to a club that will give him a start.)

Whether or not we can afford Haaland (plus 2 or 3 other premiums, such as Salah, Palmer or Foden) is the huge question of the moment for FPL enthusiasts... and I'll probably discuss that more in a later post.

Beware false economies - you NEED your bench!

A lot of FPL managers fall in thrall to the concept of the 'budget enabler': the idea that it's worth getting a few players at the cheapest possible price-point because it will give you a little bit more to spend on your starting eleven. Now, sure, it is useful - necessary, even - to have a few very cheap players to make the budget work for you. (This year, I'd probably go for 2 goalkeepers at only 4.5 each, 1 or perhaps even 2 defenders at 4.0, and most of the rest at 4.5; and a very cheap third forward and fifth midfielder.)

But a lot of people just grab blindly for the very cheapest options, without giving any thought to whether they bring any value to the squad. As I said above, every pound of that initial 100 million is important; every single one of them needs to be put to work. If you have a bench stacked with reserve-team players who will never get a start, you are storing up trouble for yourself!

The rate of injuries in the modern game has become insane over the last few years. Even 15 or 20 years ago, serious hamstring problems would only crop up a few times a season at any club, and ACL tears were quite a rarity across the entire League; last year, almost every single club had 3, 4, 5 players ruled out with injuries like that at any one time. I had to replace 55 players over the season because of injury (about 20 more than my previous worst season!); and that was serious injuries, not just minor knocks that might sideline someone for 2 or 3 gameweeks. You might get some sort of injury problem almost every week.... sometimes 2 or 3 or 4 in one week! And they often happen at the last-minute (even sometimes in the pre-match warm-ups!!), giving you no opportunity to transfer the affected player out. If you don't have a playing bench, sooner or later - probably sooner - you are going to find yourself putting out a team of only 10 (or 9, or 8...) men, and haemorrhaging points as a result.

And with so much pressure on the (these days, entirely inadequate) number of Free Transfers, you can't afford to waste those on short-term changes: if a player has a minor knock, or a suspension, or is likely to be rested for one weekend after some gruelling European ties, or just faces a particularly unpromising fixture next... you want to drop him to the bench, not move him out of the squad. That kind of thing also happens a lot.

So, by all means look for some ultra-cheap players to fill out the squad. But make sure they are regular starters - or at least have a decent chance of becoming so. (Valentin Barco, for example, might not be a nailed-on choice at Brighton, but does seems likely to get a few games at the start of the season because so many of their other defenders are currently injured.)  And try to get the best players you can: there are still choices to be made, even at these very low price-points. And it is worth paying just a little bit extra for a bench player who can actually give you a chance of some decent points, if you need to call on him.

Have an eye to 'investment picks'

On a related point to that last one... Another fatal drawback to choosing cheap players who don't play is that they become toxic assets. A lot of managers have probably included them because they mistakenly believe that they will play, or at least hope that they will; and they will start selling them off when they discover that they are nowhere near to getting a start (or they just discover early on how badly they need a proper bench!) - and their prices will crash.

It is essential to try to steadily boost your squad value (again, this is worth another post or two all of its own; I'll try to get around to it) - so that, after a few months, you might have an extra 2 or 3 million pounds available with which to upgrade your squad... perhaps get in one more of those coveted premium-price players that you couldn't quite afford at the start of the season.

In order to boost squad value, you need to avoid any players whose price is likely to drop (or quickly get rid of them if their price starts dropping), but seek out players whose price is likely to rise. These are what I call 'investment picks'. You might not actually fancy them for a long-term hold; you might never put them in your starting eleven, except in an emergency - but they can help you to grow your budget. The best prospects for this are usually fairly cheap. (Cheap players are usually lower-owned initially, but also more attractive as new acquisitions because of their accessibility. And price increases are mainly dependent on the percentage change in ownership - so, a relatively low-owned player who quickly gains 100,000 or 200,000 more owners is likely to shoot up in price.)  They are often conspicuously under-priced - either because they had a disappointing season last year (perhaps just because of injury absences, rather than actually playing poorly when they did turn out), or because they're new to the League (transfers in from overseas, or promoted youth team players) and no-one really knows how good they might be yet. And they're often on the brink of breaking into the first team, but it's not clear if they're quite there yet. If you can correctly anticipate that someone is going to get a run in the first team because of an injury or a crash in form for the usual starter.... you've got a good 'investment pick'. (I already mentioned Barco as an example. And Conor Bradley or Jarrell Quansah at Liverpool could be tempting to take a chance on for similar reasons - at least at some point during the season.)

Watch out for budget 'windfalls'

A lot of people seem to be grumbling at the moment that there aren't as many good options available at the lowest price-points as there have been in some previous seasons (I'd disagree with that, but...). Perhaps the main reason for that is that it's still too early. Late transfer activity usually brings in some very good new potential picks, often attractively priced down at around 5.0 million, or even 4.5 million - or, occasionally, if you're very, very lucky, at 4.0 million. The 'poster boy' for this phenomenon is, of course, Cole Palmer, who went from perpetual bench-warmer at City to Ballon d'Or fodder with Chelsea (well, you know, if they'd had any European football last year...). But last year also saw Areola's sudden promotion over Fabianski in goal for West Ham. And a couple of seasons before that, Neco Williams made an eve-of-season transfer from the Liverpool bench to a start with Nottingham Forest. So, 4.0-million pound starters, even, occasionally, quite good ones, can just drop in your lap out of nowhere right before the Big Kick-Off.  Be patient, and keep your fingers crossed.

In particular, keep an eye on low-key domestic moves. Very often 'Big Six' clubs will sell or loan out some of their surplus squad players or rising youth team stars to one of the lower-table or newly promoted sides: these can be particularly useful low-budget picks. But such moves often happen very late in the day; and they don't usually make big headlines.

And FORGET about 'differentials'!!!

This is another topic that should one day get a post all of its own (maybe a whole series of 'em!). Suffice it to say that I find this one of the most worthless, the most exasperating, the most overused and misused of all FPL jargon terms. The problem with it is that most managers seem to have a very muddled idea of what it really ought to mean: for most of them, in fact, it seems to be primarily interpreted as: 'Avoid good players because a lot of other managers will have them...'  This is, of course, self-harming nonsense. Utterly BATSHIT CRAZY, in fact.

People glance through the forums where FPL obsessives (like me, I know...) are frenziedly sharing their draft squads (already: three weeks before the season starts!), and if they see someone with several of the same players they have, they moan, "Oh, he's got ALL the same players as me." (NO, he doesn't; he might have 6 or 7 or 8 of the same players; but that's it.)  Then he finds one or two more who also seem to have some of the same players as him, and moans again, "EVERYONE has the same squad as me."  (NO, they don't. A lot of managers may have many of the same players as you.... but NOT  EVERYONE.)

Even the guys or gals who are most like you in their picks probably have no more than 7 or 8 of the same players. That means you have at least 3 unique picks in your starting eleven. And probably an entirely different bench. And maybe different captain and/or vice-captain picks as well. Your teams/squads are perfectly well differentiated. Even across the whole 10 million or so teams that will be regustered over the next few weeks, it is extremely unlikely that there will ever be more than a relatively small handful - and in many gameweeks, absolutely none at all - that are an exact match for yours. (And probably only ever for the starting eleven, not the whole squad. And that will only ever be a one-off, for one gameweek. NOBODY is going to duplicate your team for the entire season,... or even for two weeks in succession.)

Stop fretting about how many other people might be choosing a particular player. Just choose the players you think are going to bring in the most points... and see how you get on.

And finally.... just to recap on a couple of suggestions from yesterday's posts:

I recommend listing all the premium-priced players you might be interested in (if you can dismiss some from consideration right at the start, that's a big help). For all the ones you'd really like to squeeze into your squad, assign them a running-order - the order in which you'll be willing to sacrifice them if you have to.

And since deciding whether or not we can afford to do without Erling Haaland this season is a HUGE question for everyone at the moment, and one that's causing most of us a lot of difficulty, I also suggest... compiling TWO provisional draft squads: one WITH Haaland and one WITHOUT. Put them side by side, and see which one calls to you more....

OK, that's it.   SORRY it got so LONG.....

And SORRY: I really didn't want to encourage anyone to start picking their squads just yet. As I explained in this subsequent post, I think the beginning of August is WAY TOO EARLY to be giving any thought at all to your selections; you really don't want to start doing that until as late as possible before the BIG KICK-OFF.

GOOD LUCK TO EVERYONE  FOR THE SEASON AHEAD!!!

You're not picking a REAL team! (Another 'Picking the initial squad' preliminary)

This might seem very obvious - but I think it needs to be said.

A lot of people - maybe just unconsciously, not with any self-aware deliberation - fall into an idea of picking a team that could actually play: a 'balanced' team..... with a mixture of left-sided and right-sided players, centre-backs as well as full-backs, one or two solid central defensive midfielders as well as some free-spirited creatives, and a ruthless single-minded goal-poacher along with a more unselfish support striker up front. Lovely: that might well be the 'best' real team you could draw from the ranks of Premier League players, it could work beautifully on the grass.

But an FPL squad does not require you to follow any of those sensible pricniples, and they are better abandoned. Three centre-forwards, five 'No. 10s', and five left wing-backs would be awful in reality; but it's perfectly OK in Fantasy - in fact, it's probably the right way to go!

Even the No. 10s might not be necessary. There are so many outright strikers generously classified by the game as 'midfielders' that you probably want to go with as many of those as you can afford. So, you might be putting together a squad with 7 or 8 strikers and 5 full-backs. It might feel weird, wrong... but it's absolutely fine: it's the right thing to do.

My big post of tips on that tricky first squad selection will drop sometime tomorrow.

Budget is a BEAST (A 'How to pick the initial squad' preliminary)

100 million quid might look like quite a lot (wouldn't turn it down as a Lottery win!!), but.... it's really NOT.  Picking that first squad at the beginning of the football year is a real challange.

I like to start a new season (and returning managers might like to try this too) by reassembling my players from the end of last year. (all those that haven't transferred out of the League), and seeing how much they are over budget now. Since I've usually grown my squad value to at least 105 million by the end of the year, and since I have all good players, who often jump up in price by at least 0.5 or 1.0 million... it's usually somewhere in the 110-115 million range, occasionally even more.

Here's another fun little exercise you can try, just to hammer home how limiting this budget cap is. Don't look at the individual player prices, just quickly pick a full squad of 15 - all the players you instinctively feel are likely to be the best for the season. See how much that costs. It's quite likely to be at least 120 million, maybe even 130 million.

Suitably chastened? Right, now you can get started on the selection process properly.....

This year the big price change is Cole Palmer's record-shattering one-season increase from 5.0 to 10.5 million.

Though perhaps even more momentous is Erling's Haaland's 1-million pound bump up to 15 million, which, although it's a much more modest percentage increase, may shift him over a crucial threshold where - for many FPL managers - it just won't seem viable to have him any more.

However, two big price increases on the most popular players might not mean that much in isolation. You have to consider pricing in its global context - how much everyone else is priced at this time. Foden has also seen a big price rise. And, unlike last year, almost none of the other 'big name' players have seen a drop. Moreover, there are as yet very few likely starters at the extreme low end of the price scale (but that may yet change: be patient).

So, the initial budget is quite squeezed this year - in a way it hasn't really been for about the last three seasons or so. Hence, the initial squad selection is likely to be quite a disorienting ordeal even for some of the more experienced Fantasy managers; for first-timers just joining the game, it could be an especially daunting prospect. Have courage: the conundrums are soluble.

Actually, I am for once quite favourably impressed with the faceless FPL gnomes who sort out all this stuff. The aim of the overall pricing structure should be to make the first squad selection difficult-but-not-impossible, it should force you to make some really tough choices. They haven't really managed that so well in recent years. But this year. I think they have.

 

'To Haaland, or not to Haaland...' is the big question right now (and I'll probably address it in detail in a week or two).  It is looking very difficult to include him along with more than one or two of the other most coveted, high-priced players... without leaving the rest of the squad extremely weak.

I would suggest making two initial drafts, one centred on Haaland and one omitting him. Then compare the two, and go with the one that looks strongest.  (And if you really can't choose, flip A COIN!!)

But it's not just Haaland. Look at all the other players who are premium-priced. If they're at 10 million or above (6 million for defenders or goalkeepers), we might consider them super-premium. Write out a list. They might all be players that you'd really want in an ideal world. This isn't that world; this is a mean, cruel world - where you have to make tough choices.

See if there are any you can dismiss from consideration right away, as not being absolutely essential. Then assign a running-order of desirability to the others... the order in which you'll have to let them go, one by one, if the budget won't stretch.

Accept the necessity of making these sacrifices. It might be some of your favourite players, perhaps players who've served you very well in the last few years of Fantasy. Hard luck - they might have to go! It might be very vexing, frustrating, upsetting... but you've got to do it.

If you've got the list down to 4 or 5 players, you could stick them all in your provisional squad. But be warned, once you've juggled with the less expensive options elsewhere, you might find yourself still needing to consider letting one or two more of them go.

This is the dance. Get used to it.

My aims for this blog

I really don't know if my musings here will attract much attention. And I don't care very much. 'Fame and glory' are not my things.

I decided to try writing some pieces here primarily because I like writing. And I also enjoy thinking about Fantasy Premier League. So, this blog provides an opportunity for reflection, a pretext for reviewing my own learnings from playing the game over the last several years, and perhaps an aid to getting my thoughts well in order and finding some new insights for the season ahead.

Over the past year-and-a-half or so, I have dipped in and out of a number of online FPL forums, mostly on Facebook; and I have found that quite diverting, and occasionally enlightening. During lulls of no work and drab weather (rather too frequent lately!), these online forays have threatened to become a bit of an addiction for me - and I try to impose lengthy spells of abstinence on myself so that I don't fall too deep into that mire.

But quite a few of the regular posters I've encountered on those pages - many of them still relatively inexperienced in the game; or, like me, struggling with being in a distant country without ready access to good football coverage and prompt team news updates - have been very appreciative of my comments. Some  have sought me out specifically for further advice; a few have even PM'ed me, begging me to become their FPL 'mentor' (sorry, never going to happen). And, you know.... it is kind of nice to feel wanted and appreciated like that, to start to believe again that you might actually be useful to someone, just once in a while..

So, although I won't be obsessively checking my traffic stats to track the size of my 'following' (I wouldn't be surprised if it remains forever limited to two or three old buddies in my mini-league....), and although I have no goals or expectations for building a large audience here... I do have the modest hope that gradually some handfuls of people may find their way here.... and find at least some of my pieces interesting and helpful.

Let us see. Fingers crossed!

I am preparing a long-ish post (it might have to be cut into two instalments!) on 'Choosing an initial squad'' - which I hope to be able to post in a day or two.  Keep an eye out for it!  

(And if you have somehow found your way here within days of this blog's launch - WELCOME!)

Am I actually any good at FPL??

Dear Reader, I consider it impertinent of you to ask!

I don't like to brag. So, if I do well in this game, I'm generally going to keep it to myself. (Similarly, if I do badly, I prefer to crawl into a hole in the ground and sob. Quite a lot of that last season...)

However, I do have a long and varied experience in games of this sort now; and I've always done pretty well.

I played a few of the UK newspapers' games back in the mid-90s, before Fantasy Football had migrated online, and once finished in the top 1,000 in The Daily Telegraph's version (although the entry was much smaller then, so that might only be equivalent to cracking the top 50,000 or so in FPL today - still, not too shabby).

I became a little bit addicted to management sims in the late '90s and early '00s, and, of course, crushed them. My finest achievement was probably taking over Liverpool in the summer of 1998, and after two or three years of painstakingly establishing the squad and the tactics I wanted, going on to claim three successive Champions League titles with them. After that, I took on the national team job, and ended the "years of hurt" by leading England to a convincing victory in the 2006 World Cup. [I beat Germany in the semi-final and Italy in the Final - which was oddly prescient of the game, considering that it had been programmed around 8 years priot to tthat tournament! The thing I remember most from that bizarre triumph is that Steven Gerrard got himself suspended for a second booking in the semi, and I had to bring Nicky Butt off the bench to be my holding midfielder in the Final - but he played an absolute blinder. Funny old game, indeed....]

And I dove into the modern FPL game for the first time in the 2018-2019 season. So.... I've 'paid my dues', I think....

My personal goal has always been to crack 2,500 points for the season - and I haven't quite managed it yet. However, I have got fairly close a couple of times. And I've usually been well on track for it over most of the season, but been thrown off course by one unfortunate fallow spell (a couple of times a really disastrous start, and a few times an Arsenal-like dip in February-March!).  

Last season, I admit, was my worst ever: just about everything that could go wrong, did go wrong, including an eye-watering 55 non-trivial injuries (just think what that means in paid transfers, apart from anything else...). But I still managed well over 2,200. The other five seasons, I think my average has been around 2,375 - with a variance of a little less than 100.

I've made quite a study of other players' records in the game, particularly those that I have discovered to be conspicuously good - and there is a pretty common pattern.  Almost everyone takes at least 2 or 3 years to get the hang of the game, typically getting scores below, or only a very little above 2,000 pts at first. They then usually have a period of mature growth, slower but steadier, where they may continue to improve by tiny increments for another 2-3 years, perhaps as long as 5-8 years. But after that they hit a plateau, they 'find their level'; and, as with me, their scores rarely swing more than 100 pts or so one side or the other of their median. 

Occasionally, they can have a very bad year, where they may be 200 or 300 points lower than usual. Perhaps personal issues were distracting them from the game, or they got locked out of their account... Or perhaps they just got very unlucky with their picks that year (it happens!). But this was clearly an untypical aberration.  

Equally, they may have one or two years where they score significantly above what they've ever done before (and this can happen even in the early years of struggle, when they don't yet appear to be very good at the game): sometimes 200 or 300 points more - or even 400, 500, 600 pts more.

I think I'll have more - maybe a lot more - to say on the implications of this in future posts. (But SPOILER: it basically means that the game is NOT a meritocracy; the outcomes are affected by sheer luck far more than anything else.)  But... it leads me to believe that I largely skipped the initial 'learning phase' (probably because I'd got so much experience of similar games 15 or 20-odd years earlier) and jumped straight to the plateau of fairly stable competence. And I would venture, in all humility, that this level of competence is approaching fairly near the maximum possible.

Regularly getting scores of 2,300, 2,400+ over a run of years is quite an achievement. 

I just haven't had any really good luck yet. In fact, my luck has been mostly terrible: and I've still managed some very respectable scores! If I ever get one of those upward-blip years where everything goes right for me and I get 200 or 300 points more than I normally would, I could be in contention at the top of the global rankings. But it may never happen. And I don't really care if it does or not; since achievement above the top 200,000 or so depends very largely - and in some cases, almost entirely - on luck, it holds no interest for me.

I said in the previous post that I don't hold myself out to be any sort of 'EXPERT' in Fantasy Football. And I have no aspirations to finish in the top 1,000, or 10,000, or 50,000 (although I've been not too far off that last bracket a couple of times...)

I measure my performance against my assessment of my own capability, and against realistic but challenging ideals - not against other players. That is where the 'Zen' comes in....   (But compared to most other players, I am prety, pretty good!!)

What do I know about FPL?

First off, I would like to address the problem that an awful lot of FPL enthusiasts seem to fixate on the mechanics of the game itself, and largely (or entirely?) divorce it in their minds from the actual game it is derived from - the 'beautiful game', our beloved Association Football, as practised in the English Premier League. If you're going to be any good at FPL, the main thing you need is a deep understanding of football.

I don't think there's really that much to 'know' about Fantasy Premier League - the rules are pretty simple and obvious. (But that won't stop me writing about their subtleties and implications, at length, over the coming months....)

But I do know quite a lot about football. I have been passionate about the game, besotted with it, since I was a little kid. (And I'm in my late middle age now; so, we're talking about five decades or so of being a football obsessive.)  I watch as much of it as I can - ideally full games, live (bit of a practical problem for me now, since I live in East Asia, where the timezone is against me, and local TV and Internet service isn't great). I have, for example, watched very nearly every game of every World Cup since 1974.

I've had the experience of playing, refereeing and coaching the game. (Not much, and only at the very lowest level - but even so, that gives you a breadth of insight that not many people can claim.)

I've also been privileged to see some great players up close - not from the stands, but from the touchline. That is a truly eye-opening, life-changing experience. [When I was in my teens, I had the good fortune to see a practice game between a University side and a Spurs 'Reserves' eleven. This was in the great Keith Burkinshaw era of the early '80s. And it just so happened that half the usual first team had been sidelined with injury niggles for a few weeks, and needed a soft game like this to start getting 'match-fit' again. And a few others were brought along as well - just as a public relations exercise? - so in fact, it was pretty much the Spurs first team: Chris Hughton, Graham Roberts, Steve Perryman, Justin Edinburgh, Mark Falco, Steve Archibald, and..... Glenn Hoddle. Honestly, Hoddle in his early or mid-twenties was a thing of beauty; he'd just ping these 40-, 50, 60--yard chipped passes all over the field, with stunning accuracy... and often over-his-shoulder, without even looking at the intended recipient. Jaw-dropping talent.

Just over a decade later, I happened to be in Chicago during the '94 World Cup, and my host took me along to see the German team training one morning (public fields, just about no security; the American public evidently had zero interest in Die Mannschaft!). Seeing the likes of Jurgen Klinsmann at close range was utterly exhilarating for me.]

Also, I'm pretty good - very good - with numbers. I'm far from being a maths prodigy, but... I do have a very strong innate numerical aptitude, a good 'number sense'. And I've taken the trouble to master the basics, at least, in useful fields such as statistics and probability. When I look at a page of EPL/FPL stats, I can usually see instantly what they actually mean. (And also what they don't tell you - which is often even more important.)

I take a deep interest in the tactics of the game. I think it's important to understand the dynamics of a team as a whole, just as much as being able to assess the talent and form of individual players.

And YES, I have a lot of experience with Fantasy Football too. I started playing some of the early newspaper versions of the game 30 years ago; and, for a while, got very into management sims on console and desktop as well.  And this will be my seventh season playing the modern FPL online game.

Above all, I would say that I am obsessively curious, and uncommonly self-aware and self-analystical. In fact, I perhaps play this game more for insight than actual success; I am constantly exploring what most determines points outcomes, and it is the fascination of this enquiry that gives me most of my satisfaction in the game. (Again, I suspect that's not something that many people can say about their interaction with FPL.)

NB:  I make no claims to being an FPL 'expert'. (Most of those self-appointed gurus, I'm afraid, appear to me to be empty-headed charlatans who don't know any more than the majority of us regular players of the game; in fact, often - usually - far less.)  But I am a smart guy. And I really KNOW my football.

So, I think you, dear reader, might just possibly find some useful observations and insights on this blog - to help you get more out your own FPL experience. That is my modest hope....