The Chelsea treble-up??

 

I am very wary about trebling up on one club at any time, for any reason - but especially early in the season (when we really don't know how anyone's form is settling down yet).

And I would almost always avoid even doubling up on one club in the same area of the pitch; trebling up in the same area always seems simply crazy to me.

At the back, where you're generally only starting three defenders anyway, if you take all, or almost all of that regular starting three from one club - you leave yourself screwed if that club has a fixture postponed for any reason (foul weather, food poisoning outbreak, faulty floodlights, bomb scare, or reaching the League Cup Final....), as well as whenever they're facing a really tough opponent where you can't fancy their chances of getting a clean sheet too highly,... and in those unfortunate occasional games where they somehow just don't 'show up', or suffer some bad breaks (an early penalty conceded or an early sending-off can scupper even the strongest team's chances in a match). It's tempting to go in heavy for the defence of an exceptional team like Arsenal who are keeping clean sheets every other week; but even Arsenal, in their extraordinary season last year, failed to keep clean sheets in half their games - while many other teams did. Last year, there was a case for taking 2 from the back at Arsenal (2 defenders, or a defender and Raya), especially in the latter part of the season when they rallied from a slight 'wobble' to grind out an extraordinary succession of back-to-back clean sheets. But going for 3 would not have brought any additional value; it would have limited your rotation options too much (as well as leaving you without any room to bring in any more advanced players from the club).

In attack, few teams ever manage to be sufficiently prolific, or to share their attacking contributions around evenly enough, to make it worth getting 3 players from them. There is essentially a finite pool of attacking points which is shared between the goalscoring midfielders and forwards; and if 1 or 2 of them have a really good week, usually none of the others will. 

Plus, of course, the same points apply as above for the defence: you're leaving yourself vulnerable to catastrophic disruption from (possibly unexpected) blank gameweeks, and you're denying yourself the opportunity to take a defender or keeper from that club.  So, it's generally not even worth thinking about to treble up on one club in attack.

However,.... might the current Chelsea case be an exception??

They are currently looking so prolific in attack that the pool of points they generate in most weeks could be very large. Thus far, these attacking points are being shared almost exclusively between Joao Pedro, Rogers, and Palmer; and they are being shared fairly evenly and consistently between the three of them (Joao Pedro: 3 goals, 3 assists; Morgan Rogers: 3 goals, 1 assist; Cole Palmer: 2 goals, 2 assists).

And at the moment, the Chelsea defence is dreadful, conceding almost as many goals as their rampant attack is scoring; so, no-one wants their keeper or any of their defenders.

So, my two usual key arguments against such a treble-up might not apply here. And the misgiving about the possible impact of 'off days' or Acts of God might be exaggerated: we do sometimes see teams going for long spells - occasionally, perhaps, even a whole season - without suffering any such misfortunes.

However, I think there's still a problem of opportunity cost in putting all your eggs in one basket like this. Sure, Joao Pedro is on fire at the moment, and is looking as if he might possibly be able to challenge Haaland for the Golden Boot. But Palmer and Rogers are not currently in the Top 5 midfielders; there are other choices, possibly better choices out there. And if Chelsea were to suffer a sudden downturn in form - or just hit a little cluster of tougher fixtures - it's more awkward to ditch 2 or 3 players in a hurry, rather than just a single one. This is why you avoid double-ups and treble-ups: it doesn't spread risk - it makes things unduly difficult for you when you want to pivot away from that club, short- or long-term. You're almost always much better off spreading your midfield and forward selections across as many different clubs as possible.

Moreover, these are expensive picks: Palmer, despite a season ruined by injuries last year, was the most expensive midfielder after Bruno Fernandes - at 9.5 million; Joao Pedro and Morgan Rogers were both 7.5 million, and are rapidly climbing towards 8.0 (and although that price-point isn't usually quite 'premium', this year, when there are fairly few players placed in the upper price-brackets, it feels like it: for that 17 million that Palmer and Rogers originally cost, you could afford, for example, Bruno Fernandes and Pascal Gross,.... or three high-performing 'budget' picks!!).

My feeling is that, however well Palmer and Rogers are currently doing, there are still other midfield options who are doing about as well or a little better; and the benefits of spreading risk outweigh a slight short-term deficit anyway (go for Mbeumo or Gakpo or Cherki or Gibbs-White or Odegaard or Tavernier or Hinshelwood or Gross, etc., etc. - they'll surely work out in the longer-term, even if they don't quite over a short run of games). Personally, I would probably only go for Palmer or Rogers if I didn't have Joao Pedro up front. Saka is looking at least as promising as Palmer at the top of the price spectrum; and there are several rival options at or below Rogers's price-point. And if you do believe that Chelsea's attack are going to continue to massively out-perform any other team's, against all opposition, and you want further representation from them in addition to JP, then.... pick one of them, don't plunge in for both.

So, yes, I see the temptation of the treble Chelsea attack. But I am not finding it hard to resist it.