To Haaland, or not to Haaland...

That is the question.

The BIG, HUGE, overwhelming question of the moment for FPL managers everwhere. Many have been obsessing about it for weeks already.

The FPL gnomes have priced him at a staggering 15 million pounds for the start of this season - a new record for the game. Pricing him at 14.0 million last season (a level only previously reached by Thierry Henry [twice], Cristiano Ronaldo [just the once, in his youthful heyday a decade-and-a-half ago], and Robin van Persie [also just the once]) did nothing to diminish his massive ownership levels from the previous year,.... so they've gone one better this time; or one worse. Will that have the desired impact, in forcing people to consider going without him?

Well, partly. Most people are at least having a good long think about the conundrum. And at this point, his ownership is still just a shade under 45% - far lower than it was at the outset of last season.

But those ownership numbers are creeping up all the time, and it wouldn't surprise me if he's above 50% before the opening weekend kicks off.

In most of the online ponderings I've seen, three main levels of over-simplification can be found:

1) The most superficial argument is just to compere Haaland to his closest position competitor, and say 'Oh, Ollie Watkins (or Alexander Isak or....) is better.... or at least better points-per-pound value.'

2) The second level recognises that, because Haaland is so much more expensive than every other player this year, it's not fair to compare him simply with the forward you might replace him with; you also have to throw into the scales at least one other player that you're able to buy as an  upgrade with the money you save on the Viking. And so these folks offer up some example comparison pairings...: Haaland AND Nkunku... OR... Isak AND Palmer, for example.  But that doesn't work too well either, because even the most expensive midfielder (Salah) and the second most expensive forward (Watkins) still cost the same as or less than around 20% of the 250+ possible Haaland-plus-a-midfielder combinations. You're not just comparing Haaland to his replacement forward PLUS 1 other player, but probably to his replacement PLUS at least 2 or 3 other players.

3) The third level of superficiality changes tack, and simply asserts that Haaland can't be justified on a value-for-money basis. But as I briefly outlined in my post yesterday on the relationship between pounds and points, there are other factors (a high confidence of reaching an exceptionally high total, and of delivering consistently throughout the season with few serious fallow spells...), which can justify choosing a high-priced player, even if their points-per-pound return is very weak.

The fact is, if you omit Haaland and downgrade his forward spot to Watkins (9.0), Isak (8.5), Havertz (8.0), or one of the dozen or so other contenders priced a little lower at 7.5 or 7.0, you have so much extra money to spare that you can afford 2 or 3 major upgrades (to premium-price players), or perhaps 6 or 7 or 8 or so  more modest but nevertheless significant upgrades in other positions. (Actually, since many people seem to have been going for two other premium or semi-premium strikers - as well as Haaland! - anyway, you might in fact be talking about the possibility of a downgrade from 15.0 to only 5.5 or 6.0 million: that's a HUGE wodge of cash to redistribute.)

And there is just no way to know if that many squad changes will outweigh the very large number of points that Haaland is likely to bring.

Including Haaland is probably the safer path, because his points returns are very reliable: he will play every game he's fit; he's one of the best finishers the game has ever seen, and he plays for one of the best attacking teams; he'll almost certainly get 5 or 6 or 7 really big hauls during the season (braces or hattricks yielding well into double-digit points); he probably won't have many long fallow spells.

If he stays fit all season, he could well get close to, or even surpass 300 points. Perhaps no-one else will get above 250 this year; probably only a few will get even a little above 200. Haaland's advantage - if all turns out well for him this year - could be 50-100 points over any other player.

If that happens, he would be worth paying even this ridiculous 15 million pounds for.

But that is the optimistic end of his possible range. Maybe he won't do nearly that well, maybe he'll have a little bit of an 'off' season... and maybe several other players (including perhaps some surprising ones - like Palmer last season) will get very high totals, similar to or better than his.

And even if he does have a pretty good season.... having 6 or 7 'better' players in the rest of your side than most squads-with-Haaland can afford should be able to keep you on terms. If only half of those players get an extra few points more than most of the Haaland-squad players every week, it will almost wipe out the advantage of Haaland's very big weeks... and could - should? - start to open a little bit of a lead on those Haaland squads, bit by bit, whenever he returns a few blanks.

On paper, it really looks as if the No-Haaland option should work out better. 

But it's more of a risk, because Haaland is a set-and-forget player: he's so dependable that you can just put him in your squad for GW1 and leave him there for the whole season. If you choose to try to go without him, you absolutely have to make the most of every pound of your budget: those 5 ot 6 or 7 'better' players that you bring in with the money you save on him have got to produce every week. Some weeks  they won't; and sometimes one or two - or all! - of them will hit a run of poor form. With someone like Haaland, you usually feel safe riding out a run of a few bad games, because you're confident in how many points he can bring you overall. With lesser players, you are constantly assailed by doubts about whether they're going to work. And you'll have to constantly be searching for better, more in-form alternatives you can switch in for them.

Going without Haaland will be a lot of stress and hard work; but it could certainly bring success.  But you have to be prepared to endure the intense pain of remorse and doubt you will suffer every time he has a big week.....

And I tip my hat to the FPL gnomes for once; I think they have got the game's pricing structure very finely judged this year - it really is coming down to a 50-50 choice of whether to take Haaland or to leave him.

As I advised in one of my earliest posts here, I think the best approach is to draft a Haaland squad and a No-Haaland squad. Then take a long hard look at the two drafts side by side.... and go with whichever one calls to you more.

Ultimately, I think this choice, though it may be definitive for each of us individually, is not going to be a clear binary split that determines the shape of the season for the FPL community overall. Just as it is essentially a toss-up whether to include Haaland or not, so too I think it is a toss-up whether this year's global champion will have taken the Haaland or No-Haaland route. It's quite possible that both options will enjoy broadly equal success - and it is surely likely that our outcomes will be determined not by whether we had Haaland or not, but by who else we had in our squads.

[Also, of course, it is possible to change horses in mid-stream. Last year Haaland's price dipped a little during a lengthy spell of injury. Palmer established himself as the season's only true 'must-have' - at a ridiculously cheap price. And in the latter part of the season, the other two leading premium-price players, Salah and Son, both had a bit of a crash in form; so, we were able to ditch them, and have plenty of money in the kitty. Hence, it was actually quite easy to do without Haaland for large chunks of last season, but have him back in for the final run-in when he started producing again.]