The other day, I went into some detail about why getting two good mid-price keepers is always better than getting a premium option and a non-starter (as a compensatory money-saver).
But the general principle holds good in all positions.
You tend to find the best value (and, sometimes, the unexpected gems) in the middle price segments. And going for a non-starter, or a very weak player, just to save money is a false economy.
NOTE: I'm saying to avoid 'duds' - not cheap players. Some cheaper options get regular starts; some of them are actually quite good. It's fine to go with one of them as an early season budget-enabler. But before long, you should really be looking to upgrade every member of your squad to a level where you could put them in your starting eleven without embarrassment (because having a strong Bench is important!). It's very unlikely that you'll ever find a really solid squad member at the lowest price-points: but you can find someone who won't be a liability - until you can afford to replace him with something better.
You should never, ever have a non-starter*, or a very poor player in your squad.
* The sole possible exception to that is there's an arguable case for taking a back-up keeper from the same club as your primary pick, if he only costs 4.0 million (and even then, only as a start-of-season budget-saver). It at least gives you guaranteed back-up if your primary gets a last-minute injury; but it's very unsatisfactory overall, and needs to be upgraded as soon as possible.
No comments:
Post a Comment
All viewpoints are welcome. But please have something useful and relevant to say, give clear reasons for your opinion, and try to use reasonably full and correct sentence structure. [Anything else will be deleted!]