Makes you want to GIVE UP, doesn't it?

 

For the past four or five years, I've been running an experimental side-team, with a severe self-imposed budget cap. I started off at just 75 million, but a couple of years ago, upped it to 80 million. (At least, at the start of the season. I allow myself to take advantage of any growth in squad value, but always keep at least 20 million of my budget unspent.) In Cole Palmer's debut season for Chelsea - when it was actually possible to afford the best player in the game, even with this severe restriction - this team actually did modestly well overall, top 2 million or so. And every season, there are at least a few gameweeks where it does spectacularly well - putting my regular selection to shame.

And so too this year: my best score of the entire season, by far, came in Gameweek 33, with a 141-point total haul for this team - including a very handy 39 points coming from my subs with the Bench Boost (a total lift of 23 points, because, on this showing, Gross and Flemming really should have been playing; I only count my 4 lowest-scoring players in assessing the impact of the BB chip).

I find this exercise is a useful reminder that it is - to some extent - possible to get by pretty well without the big-name, top-priced players. (Only to an extent: while a super-low-budget team like this can have some extraordinarily good weeks, and occasionally even an extraordinarily good month, it's unlikely to climb out of the bottom third overall. Giving up that much budget is just too constraining!)  And also as a reminder that there is almost always some excellent value to be found among the cheaper options. Players like Lewis-Potter, Aaronson, Gross, and Flemming were well worth having in any team this year, for spells when they were in a good run of form. (You just wouldn't want all of them, all season,.... and no Fernandes or Haaland...)

It is a funny old game, indeed.