Nobody gets a double-digit haul FOUR times in a row!!

Well, OK, Phil Foden just did! But it almost never happens.

Even really exceptional players won't often manage a double-digit return more than 4 or 5 times a season. To get even 2 such big hauls back-to-back is fairly uncommon; a string of 3 is very rare; 4 or 5 in a row is possible, it will happen occasionally, but... it's a real 'Black Swan Event', incredibly unlikely. [Actually, I'm not sure it has ever happened before. FPL put up a post on their Facebook page on Monday suggesting that Foden's 4-in-a-row was a "first time in history" feat; but they neglected to specify if this was a first just for him, or for anyone.]

Basically,... the longer a sequence of big hauls extends, the less likely it is to continue. You could, with relative safety, bet a large amount of money that Foden will get a more modest return in Gameweek 17 (even though he's at home, against West Ham!); and if, by some freak of nature, he does manage another 10+ points haul in that game, you can bet your house that he won't do it again in Gameweek 18.

That's not at all to say that Phil Foden (or Harry Wilson, who's also just racked up 4 good hauls back-to-back - although the 2nd and 3rd were only 8-pointers; or Bruno Fernandes, who's posted 3 double-digit returns in his last 4 games) would be a bad pick at the moment; far from it. 

But you should be realistic in your expectations. When you buy in a player because he's just had 1 or 2 (or 3, or 4....) really good hauls in a short space of time, you shouldn't be counting on him doing it again immediately, this week. That is statistically very unlikely. You should accept that he's probably 'due' a blank or two now; and you shouldn't quickly get impatient with your new purchase if that happens. You should be buying players for a run of games - at least the next 3 or 4 fixtures, hopefully more like twice that many - not just the next game. And you should be happy if he averages a decent points-return over that run.

Being unreasonably greedy in your points-expectations of a player is a recipe for disappointment, frustration,.... and further rash, impulsive transfers to try to 'put things right' (when there's probably nothing actually wrong - apart from the fact you were hoping for something absurd).

If a player can bring you, say, 3 returns of 6-8 points over the next 5 games, that's a very good result. You should be more than satisfied with that - not fretting that his little sequence of 12 or 15-pointers suddenly dried up as soon as you bought him.

Just because you CAN, it doesn't mean you SHOULD

 

This applies particularly to transfer decisions in FPL: even if you feel there's a really pressing need to use a transfer to make a change right now, there's very likely to be an even more valuable use of it a little later on. Being able to use 2 or more transfers at once can be enormously powerful in expanding the scope of your possible changes and allowing major reallocations of budget.

But this doesn't apply only when using 1 or 2 transfers; it's just as true when making multiple changes at once. You need to be really, really sure that they are all immediately essential - because they're almost certainly not! The possibility of saving some of them for a further multiple change a little later on should not be overlooked.

We are seeing a particularly striking instance of this phenomenon just at the moment, because of the FPL Gnomes' over-generous - pointless - Early Christmas Gift of extra free transfers (supposedly to help tide us over AFCON: a very minor problem for which such additional help is completely unnecessary), so that we all now have a full complement of 5 saved transfers.

Many FPL managers have immediately blown the whole lot in one fell swoop. As I have commented recently on a few of the forums: Some of these extra transfers will almost certainly be more useful at some point in the future. Unlike the first Wildcard (and the extra Free Hit we've been given for the first time this year), this AFCON 'mini-Wildcard' has no time-limit, it can be rolled forward indefinitely... into the next half of the season. 

And keeping at least 1 or 2 of these transfers short-term, to cover a possible winter injury crisis or bad weather postponement, would be more valuable than an immediate splurge of impulse shopping. The thing that saves most people from over-indulging in chasing last week's points through silly 'sheep picks' is that they only have 1 or 2 transfers to use at a time. Doling out 5 at once was an especially inventive piece of cruelty from the FPL Gnomes, a damaging temptation that will just lead a lot of people into making rash and needless changes.

Using up 2 or 3, or maybe even 4 of these windfall transfers straight away would have been fine; but not keeping at least 1 or 2 of them in hand for a rainy day (or a snowy one, or a windy one...), literal or metaphorical, is likely to end in regrets.

And of course, the problem with choosing instant gratification over the delayed alternative is that we know rationally that the delayed gratification will be better for us,... but we can't resist the emotional satisfaction of indulging ourselves right now.

This is a hazard in FPL with playing the Bonus Chips as well: it is very easy to drop them on the first vaguely promising fixture that comes along. But the further into the season you get, the surer you can feel about your players' form and prospects (whether your preferred Triple Captain candidate, or your entire team/squad for the Bench Boost), and about the likely form of all the clubs and the likely outcome of their fixtures. And the nearer you get to the end of the window of availability of use for a chip, the more confident you can be that there are unlikely now to be many - or any - better options in which to play it in the future. Picking an optimum gameweek in which to use a Bonus Chip is very, very difficult; but it's almost never going to be in the opening month or two of the season.

Try to learn the value of waiting....

A bad outcome does not mean it was a BAD DECISION

 

FPL managers have an unfortunate tendency to judge their decisions - and everyone else's - only by the points outcomes that follow from them.

But exact points outcomes are unpredictable, very largely a matter of luck: unknowable before the event.

Therefore, they offer no help to you in refining your decision-making process. And only by doing that, can you hope to improve at the game - and gain more satisfaction in it.

If you were careful, thorough, open-minded and self-aware, and above all well-informed in your deliberations about a selection decision - then it was a good decision, the best decision you could have made in the circumstances.... regardless of the outcome. THAT is all that matters.

Some 'good decisions' in FPL don't pay off; some can turn out wretchedly badly. It doesn't mean they were 'bad decisions'. Whereas many selections that are made hastily, impulsively, based on sentiment or superstition, made in disregard of contrary data or more promising alternative options,.... can produce big points returns: that does not retroactively make them 'good' decisions. They were terrible decisions.... that got undeservedly LUCKY.

It is the quality of the decision-making process, not its ultimate outcome, that is important.

Many will object, "But, oh, how can you say the outcomes are not important? The game is all about how many points you get!"  Yes, indeed. But the thing here is that we have to believe there is ultimately some justice in the game (and there is; not as much as we'd like, but some) and that good decision-making will, over the long run, be more rewarded than bad, impulsive, ill-informed decision-making.

So, you should concentrate on the process. If you become more self-aware about how you make your decisions, you start making better decisions. And better decisions, over time, mostly will produce better results.

If you just make wild bets, chase hunches, follow 'sheep' trends, back your favourite player even when their form has tanked, or succumb to believing in daft superstitions like "Haaland always scores on a Tuesday!" or whatever,.... you might do well occasionally; but you'll never get any better.

In fact, letting yourself get over-excited about poor decisions that brought improbably good results can lead you into further bad habits. That is something you need to be very wary of. All superstitions grow out of doing something dumb that worked once. And all superstitions are ultimately BAD.

It's NEVER a binary

 

Well, almost never.

Any time you think a selection decision comes down to a straight EITHER/OR choice - you're almost certainly being naive, superficial, way oversimplifying things.

You're probably missing something important - and perhaps relatively obvious; but you've somehow developed a blind spot for it!

Even if you think you've narrowed down the final decision to a choice between two alternatives, starting from a larger pool of options, there's a danger that you've dismissed some of those other options too easily, without giving them full consideration. And you've very likely to have overlooked some possibilities altogether.

We see this most commonly with the captaincy pick: people very often ask on online forums, "Should I give the armband to x or y this week?" And it should never be that simple. Even over the past few years, when Salah and Haaland have been so dominant, and mostly so consistent, that they have offered a strong captaincy option in almost every gameweek,.... they've actually fairly seldom been the best one. If you have a decent squad, there should almost always be at least 4 or 5 possibilities for your captaincy, often more; don't narrow your focus down to the 'big names' too quickly!

The field is usually even broader with transfers: there are almost always several members of your squad you might consider swapping out, and several new players you might consider to replace any of them. By all means, winnow these options down to a more manageable number; but don't be in a mad rush to do so. Keep your mind as open as possible, for as long as possible.

[Now, at the start of this season, we did seem to be faced with one clear binary choice: Haaland and Salah were the only two super-premium players in the game this year, but priced way too high for us to reasonably afford both of them (at least, at the very start of the season, when budget is a bit tight - and we all thought we'd want Saka, Palmer, Cunha as well,... and maybe even Watkins or Gyokeres,... and perhaps Isak too, before long....). But, given their propensity to both start the season really hot, we probably did regard having one of them as essential; and we had to choose between them.

That was a very rare example of a selection decision being a genuine binary. But..... even there, perhaps there were other possibilities we should have given some more thought to: maybe we could have tried to do without either of them??  maybe we should have done without Saka, Palmer etc. instead, and beggared the squad to squeeze in both of them??  I thought not; but I did give it careful consideration.]

Always risky to play a chip after a break

 

Well, certainly one of the 'bonus' chips (and as I said yesterday, the Free Hit should really be regarded as one of these too). Though, in fact, even a Wildcard play is a bit of a shakey proposition directly after an international break, as you really want your new selections to return good points for you straight away.... and in these gameweeks, there is too much uncertainty about that.

WHY?  Because the disruption of the usual club routines for the better part of two weeks tends to have a negative impact on team and individual form, and makes game outcomes more unpredictable.

Certainty, of course, is impossible in a game like FPL; but if you're going to risk one of your valuable bonus chips, or implement a major rebuild with the Wildcard, you want to have a high degree of confidence that all of your players are likely to have good games. And you just can't have that level of confidence about likely performances in the gameweek straight after a break, just as you can't in the early weeks of the season, after the summer lay-off.

Even if players aren't physically fatigued by long-distance flights and heavy game-minutes, and haven't picked up some injury niggle that hasn't yet been publicly announced, they can often be emotionally depleted by a particularly high-stakes game (especially in this most recent break, where World Cup qualification was on the line for many teams). But more importantly, their usual routines have been broken: they've been playing with different teammates, working with different coaches, implementing different game tactics and set-piece routines to what they're used to with their clubs. And when they return, they have limited time to get back in the swing of things, with only a day or two of training before their next league match; detailed tactical preparation, in particular, can be very difficult on such a tight schedule. And even the players who stayed at their clubs, while they should be feeling fresh and well-rested, will also have missed out on full training with their regular teammates for 10 days or so.

This is why we get so many wild fluctuations in form, so many 'unexpected' results straight after a break - and thus, why it's such a big, and probably unwise, gamble to play one of your FPL chips in such a gameweek.

[I'm here trying to kick off a new series, where I aim to sum up a key idea about FPL rather more pithily than usual (though I don't have the knack of brevity, I know!), with the main point being stated in the post title. I realise at least some of the entries in my other attempt at a more concise series of posts, 'In a nutshell', may also qualify for this new category. I may have to ponder on whether there's any value in having two labels.]

Don't worry about points left on the Bench!

 

People on the FPL forums are often found fretting extravagantly about the number of points they've had unused on the Bench in this past gameweek. And many - even among the supposedly more experienced and shrewder managers in the game - often seem to fetishise the idea of minimizing your Bench points (as if it's somehow wasteful of resources, and an indicator of bad play).

Now, OK, it is bad play if you are frequently leaving a player on the Bench who returns a very good haul - in preference to a player you started whose prospects clearly weren't quite as good in that week's fixtures. 

A really good haul on the Bench is, of course, frustrating. But that's going to happen to everyone occasionally: it's a game of luck, and you can't reliably predict who's going to come up with the big points in any given week; occasionally you'll be taken by surprise. But if you find you're quite regularly having one of your best returns from a player on the Bench, then you might be having a few problems with your decision-making.

However, the Bench is also part of your team - and you will occasionally (quite often!) have to draw on your Bench through auto-substitutions to fill out your starting lineup. So, consistently getting pretty decent points out of your Bench collectively, and out of each of its individual members, is actually a very good thing - a sign of a well-balanced squad.

Moreover, you should look to have a pretty competent back-up goalkeeper, and at least one strong back-up defender - to enable you to rotate those positions around difficult fixtures. And so, sometimes, you're actually going to have a first-choice keeper or defender on your bench - who might surprise you with a good return, despite having been in a very unpromising fixture.

There are also going to be occasions when you might choose to omit one of your top players, in any position, either because of a tough fixture, or because they're a doubtful starter due to a yellow-flagged injury problem or a likely rest before or after a big European game, or on returning from international duty (South American players are typically omitted in the first weekend after an international break because they've had to fly such a long way only a couple of days before the game). And then those players may play anyway, and have a big game. 

You shouldn't blame yourself for occasional misfortunes like that - only if you made a choice purely on form and/or fixtures to leave one player on the bench in favour of starting others, and you were wrong, and that is happening a lot.  Learn to distinguish cases where you made a sensible and justifiable decision to omit someone and got unlucky with it, from cases where you just badly misjudged your players' relative points prospects based on form and fixture-difficulty.

You should generally be hoping for an average of 5-6 points per game from all of your starters; but your average return from your Bench back-up players shouldn't be too far short of that, certainly not much below 4.5 points per game.

If you're often getting 16-20 points on your Bench, that's not a bad thing at all; it's a sign of good squad strength. (If you're regularly getting a lot less than that [when everyone is starting], you have a problem - and you're going to pay for it sooner or later.)

Players' season totals really DON'T MATTER

I already touched on this point quite extensively a couple of weeks back in this post on the price steps that are applicable for categorising FPL player options in different positions. However, it's such an important topic, I felt I should say a little more on it.

The problem here is that many FPL managers fall in thrall to the silly, dangerous delusion that ALL YOU HAVE TO DO in the game is identify the players who are going to get the highest totals for the season. (With the usual corollary that the players likeliest to do this are those who got the highest totals last season - which is a reasonable but not infallible guide to form.)

It seems paradoxical, unfathomable to many - but this is just NOT TRUE (not generally so, anyway; there will always be some exceptions, which I'll outline below).

The thing is, you really need to be pulling in around 200 points or so from every starting slot in your squad over the season, if you are to have a chance of finishing near the top of the rankings. In fact, since you're bound to come up short of that - perhaps well short - for many of the slots (defenders and goalkeepers just don't produce points at anything like the levels of the best midifelders and forwards), you really need to be aiming for more like 250+ points from at least a few of your highest-returning slots.

[It's very difficult, in practice, to get anything like 'optimal' returns from your captaincy picks throughout a season. But, even if we grant that you can match or slightly better the return from your top squad slot with your armband choices (Note: this might not be - probably won't be - a single player, held in the team all season.), and even if you could get a fairly good lift from all of your 'chips' (although we have double the usual number of chips this season, it's pretty unlikely they'll be collectively worth a lift of anything like an extra 100 points over the season), and even if you can get, say, 4 squad slots returning something close to 250 (whereas 2 or 3 hitting that level would be remarkable...), and even if you could hit that ideal of a 200-point average across the whole of the rest of your starting eleven (which would entail you having a very strong bench as well, since you're going to have to be drawing on those guys fairly often to fill out the main line-up),..... you'd still probably come up 50-100 points short of last year's global champion. That's how big of an ASK it is!!  But that's what we all have to aim for.....]

And 250 points is an enormous season-total for an individual player. Usually, there are only 1 or 2 players who manage that in a season; but quite often, there are none. There are only ever a handful who manage to get over 200 points each year - and usually only a little over that threshold; and again, it's possible that sometimes no-one will even crack that seemingly more modest milestone.

So, you can't usually rely on any player - even your Mo Salah, Thierry Henry, Wayne Rooney, Erling Haaland types - to deliver you the kind of points you need from your best positions in the eleven. Even the very best players don't always reach that level; occasionally, they might come up a long way short.

Even when the top players have a really outstanding season, they are very, very rarely the highest-returning player across every shorter run of games within the season. There was almost always a player who, across 4 or 5 or 6 games, was delivering more points than them once or twice over the season. That was even true of Salah in his record-breaking season last year; his returns tailed off in the latter part of the year, and there were spells when it would have been profitable to drop him for someone else. [Of course, it can seem like an unacceptable risk to swap out one of these top-performing players. As I discussed in this post, their ability to deliver some exceptionally high gameweek hauls, and their overall consistency - with few if any long runs of 'blanks' - often makes them worth holding on to for an extended period of time, and occasionally, perhaps, even the whole season. Furthermore, the fact that they're usually very high-priced players makes it much more difficult to swap them in and out of a squad at will; so, once you have them, you may feel somewhat stuck - obliged to persist with them, come what may. But that will often be a mistake: even the best players almost always hit runs of less impressive form,... while a cheaper rival is suddenly banging in goals every week. You must not let yourself become bewitched by the glamorous reputation of a top performer; if they're not the top performer right now, you need to be ready to let them go.]

You can't expect to be able to hang on to any player for the whole season. You need to be trying to wring more points out of every slot in your line-up than any single player can produce. In order to achieve that, you have to seek to constantly rotate in the best current players over a short run of games.

As I explained in the post I mentioned at the top here, previous season totals are a useful guide to likely performance in the current season. But what you're really interested in is not the actual season total, but the projection of a theoretical season total from recent form - when the player you're looking at has been getting a regular run of starts and has been playing well. You will often find that that number is well over 250 points (if he's been averaging around 7 points per game in his last 3 or 4 starts) Their actual season-total won't be anywhere near that, 99 times out of a hundred; they'll get injured, get dropped, or just suffer a bit of a drought at some point - their run of high returns will come to an end sooner or later. But you need to try to have them in your side when their pro rata returns are up in that golden zone. 

If you become fixated on your Haalands and your Salahs, you risk missing out on a lot of players who could actually give you more points than them - at least for a part of the season.

In addition to this problem that even an exceptional player like Haaland or Salah will rarely guarantee you a big enough points total to make them an attractive season-long hold, there is also the - again, often perversely unacknowledged or stubbornly denied - fact that.... the game is about getting the best returns collectively from your starting eleven (backed up, on occasion, by your bench), not just from a handful of top-performing players.

Even if Haaland and Salah do outscore the next best option in their positions by a massive 50 or 80 points over the season,.... you can almost certainly more than make up that margin by being able to afford substantial upgrades in almost every other starting position with the money you save by not having them.

Players like these can be worth having, at least for certain spells of certain seasons; but they are almost never - only in the most exceptional of circumstances - worth having for the entire season.

If you think you MUST have players like these just because they seem likely to be the season's top-returning picks - you are committing a grave error. There will be certainly be other (cheaper!) players who outscore them in short spells during the season. And there will certainly be a massive opportunity cost in going without so many other top players in order to afford them.  (I may have a little more to say about this in a few days....)

Don't take a chance on uncertain starters (or new arrivals)

 

As I noted last week, I have often been guilty of taking a few too many risks in my own initial squad, and this has no doubt played its part in the fact that I have generally suffered a rather poor start to the FPL season.

With me, it's a rather specific foible of getting tempted to gamble on a fringe pick, a promising up-and-comer who isn't yet quite established as a regular starter at his club, or not at any rate as a significant force in FPL. Last year, for instance, I fancied that Jarrell Quansah was likely to get a few starts, because of a minor injury problem with Konate, and that he might prove good enough in that spell to earn a regular place; instead, Slot grew disillusioned with him very quickly, and took the almost unheard-of step of yanking him off at half-time in the very first game - wrecking the youngster's confidence, and effectively ending his Liverpool career. (Though I can understand why he did it in terms of the tactical situation on the pitch, I still feel that was a mistake on the Dutchman's part: possibly gaining a marginal advantage in the immediate game-state does not outweigh the damage done by potentially ruining a young player's career and thereby depleting the club's back-up resources in central defence.)  A year or so before that, I'd been bullish about Rico Lewis's prospects with City: and indeed, he was a regular starter, and playing very well, early in the season - but, of course, Pep being Pep, that didn't last very long. Going back a bit further, I was a huge fan of the talent of Norwich's elegant No. 10, Todd Cantwell, and was convinced he could become one of the best budget midfield picks for the season - but he too fell out of favour with his manager, and his career mysteriously tanked from that moment. (Yes, I could begin to worry that I am some kind of jinx....)

A bit later in the season, you can get away with taking one or two chances like this; bringing in a player who's not yet a proven points-provider, perhaps not even an absolutely certain starter; buying them early to get them at a low price, and carrying them on the bench for a few weeks until they start to confirm the promise you saw in them.

But in the opening weeks,... there are so many other uncertainties: players who might be displaced by new arrivals at the club, players who might be dropped because of an imminent transfer away, players who might not start or might only get short minutes because they're still short of full match-fitness, players who might go down with a last-minute injury....  Yep, at this time of year, you're quite likely to suffer at least one unexpected drop-out - perhaps even two or three, if you're a bit unlucky - from your squad every week, even among the players that you'd normally expect to be certain starters. (This is one of the key reasons why it's INSANE to consider playing a Bench Boost this early in the season.)

So, you really can't afford to load the odds against yourself by including any picks who are obviously in one of those most 'at risk' categories. We knew Isak was going to be mired in a transfer wrangle - and unable to play for anyone - for weeks. We knew Eze was likely to move this week - surely too late to have any chance of turning out for his new club this weekend. We knew Sesko and Gyokeres were relatively late arrivals, and hadn't trained much over the summer, and were thus likely to get quite limited minutes over the first two or three weeks. We knew that with Marmoush, Foden, Cherki, Reijnders, Silva, Gonzalez, Kovacic and Gundogan all competing for a small number of places in the City midfield, we couldn't count on any of them being invariable starters.

It was really not smart to pick ANY of these players in the initial squad this year.

Even if new arrivals at a club do appear to be more-or-less fully fit, and have had just about enough time to start bedding in with their new teammates, they remain unknown quantities: it is likely that they may take quite a while to fully settle in to a new style of play, and it might be weeks or months before they start producing their best; some, perhaps, if they're arriving from a lower tier in England or from an overseas league, may never successfully make the step up to this most physically intense and competitive of leagues. How soon - if ever - will Eze become a starter at Arsenal, what kind of role will he play there, and can he ever have the kind of impact for them that he had for Palace?? We just don't know. Will Cunha and Mbeumo gel together at United, or are their styles and personalities too different - will they end up in fractious competition with each other rather than synergistic cooperation?? And will one of them assume the penalty-taking duties?? We just don't know. How long will it take Gyokeres, or Sesko, or Wirtz to start producing their best form in the Premier League?? We just don't know.

Players like these are watch-and-wait options. They'll probably come good at some point, maybe soon;... but they're just not good bets at the very start of the season.

Remember - it's mostly LUCK!

Oh dear, oh dear - the blowhards on the Facebook forums and such always want to try to claim that this FPL divertissement of ours is almost entirely a game of skill, you know - not really any luck in it at all; not very much, anyway. And anyone who suggests otherwise is obviously just bitter at their own lack of success, yadda, yadda, yadda....

Of course, like almost everything they hold true in relation to the game, that is complete bollocks.

Sadly, this viewpoint has a potent appeal for many people; it becomes a kind of perverse Article of Faith for legions of them. Anybody who has one good season wants to believe that it was entirely down to their superior intellectual acumen. Anyone who has a few good seasons back-to-back (though probably they've just had a few modestly good ones in a run of five or six or seven years, and exaggerate that record of success a little - to themselves, and everyone else) easily persuades themself that this uncanny consistency is proof - proof, dammit - that it wasn't just luck. Alas, no. It might not have been entirely down to luck; but luck certainly played a big part - because it always does in this game. And you can be lucky a few times in a row (try flipping a coin for speedy proof of this axiom).

Or take a look at the poker hand above. What skill is involved in getting that? And how much luck? (Yet that is almost as common an occurrence as people scoring above 2,600 in FPL.)

Consider all the possible sources of luck in each gameweek's results. How often do players get injured (sometimes, at the very last minute)? Or, even more gallingly, miss a game for some seemingly much more trivial - and utterly unforeseeable - reason: a stubbed toe or a tickly cough or a silly spat with their manager.... or their girlfriend? Or because of some perverse and unfathomable tactical switcheroo the manager suddenly wants to try out this week? How many times do great and in-form players suddenly unaccountably have a stinker,.... while a player who's been in the doldrums produces a monster haul out of nowhere? How many times do the officials somehow miss pretty clearcut-looking penalties,.... or give really soft ones,.... or send someone off mistakenly, or at least harshly,.... while others of their colleagues somehow turn a blind eye to egregious straight red-card fouls or second yellows? This kind of shit happens almost every week; often, it happens several times in the same week. [I tried to document these sorts of things through every gameweek last season, for the first time; and damn, even I was surprised by how bad it was!]

Consider the further sources of luck outside of the football itself. How often do accidents of Fate keep you from watching a match, or perhaps even make you miss an FPL deadline? How often does that damn glitchy website itself unaccountably lose supposedly 'saved' changes - leaving you without the transfers, or the captaincy selection, or the bonus chip play you thought you'd made for that week? How often have you tried to leave your weekly changes a bit too close to the deadline and found that the FPL app or website is overwhelmed by the volume of traffic and no longer working? These are all varieties of 'ill luck' too (though you should be able to avoid most of them with a little more care and caution!).

Consider your own annual totals in FPL. If you're reasonably serious about the game and you've been playing it for a few years, you probably get a very similar score in most years. You can easily spot your median level, and you don't often stray from that by more than 100 points or so up and down each year - perhaps usually quite a bit less than that. And yet, occasionally, perhaps just once or twice in a run of many years - you've had a score that is way outside that normal range, hundreds of points higher (or, sometimes, lower). Did you suddenly become more skillful that year??  Did you somehow 'forget' that new level of skill you seemed to have attained, when you slumped back to your previous average sort of score again the following year??  NO, it was luck.

Consider the global champions. Most of them are just the same. Most years they score 2,200, 2,300, perhaps once or twice they've managed 2,400: very respectable and consistent, but nothing amazing. Then they suddenly come up with an extra 400 or 500 points to claim the global crown. And the next year, as often as not, they crash out of the top 100,000 again, perhaps even sometimes out of the top million; they fall back to their previous level,... perhaps even have an unusually bad year to follow.....

Once you've reached a good level of knowledge about the game, and are watching a lot of football every week, and taking care over all your decisions - there isn't that much scope for improving your decision-making any further. Of course, there's some. But my guess is that, if you're usually reaching somewhere up around 2,400 points (without being conspicuously lucky in any way!), you're pretty near maxed on the potential of the 'skill' element. [If your 'level' is only 2,300, or 2,200, or 2,100, yes, there are probably still some areas where you can improve. But I'm pretty sure that - in most years (of course, the available points pool changes from year to year; though not usually too drastically, unless there's been a rule change...) - somewhere between 2,400 and 2,500 points (and probably most often at the very lower end of that range) is where luck takes over.

At the upper end of the 'ability range', then, the scope for 'skill' to make a difference is probably not much more than 100 points per year (year after year, my two chief antagonists and I almost invariably finish within a much narrower distance of each other than that). But the scope for 'luck' to make a difference is almost unlimited. The global champ's +500 variance over his norm is unlikely to be the peak lucky score in the year (because, if he's normally getting 2,300+, he's in a relatively small group of consistently good players, no more than a few hundred thousand out of the many millions who now play the game every year). It is very likely that, at least in some years, there are a few people who register +700 or +800, purely by virtue of their exceptional good fortune. (That might put them up near the top of the rankings if they're usually half-decent players who can manage around 2,000 points; it will put them in a very good final position even if they're 'noobs' or 'casuals' whose natural score should only be something like 1,800 points!!)

Consider the consequences of this, for the distribution curves of 'luck' and 'skill', and how they interact. The iron laws of statistics, unfortunately, dictate that above about 2,400 points, there are going to be progressively more people who are only averagely skillful (or perhaps even not very skillful at all!) but exceptionally lucky,... and progressively fewer people who are exceptionally skillful and only above-averagely lucky. 

Hopefully, the handful of managers at the very top of the tree will usually have quite a high level of skill as well as an extraordinary level of luck. (Last year's champion wasn't that impressive, but he was no slouch either.)  But everyone in the top 100,000 has necessarily been extraordinarily lucky; and an awful lot of them have been more lucky than anything else.

Finally, consider this little 'thought experiment'. Imagine an FPL mini-league of 100 perfectly matched players. They might not be 'perfect' players but they are very smart and very serious about the game, and there is no discernible difference in 'skill' between any of them (an unrealistic scenario, of course; but bear with me - it's a thought experiment). Moreover, they all play the game in complete isolation from each other, and from any external sources of advice; they each make their own selections based on their knowledge of football, without trying to second-guess what their opponents may be doing. (Again, unrealistic, perhaps.... But it's how I try to live!)

At the end of the season, do they all have exactly the same score? Of course not. There is almost certainly a clear 'winner' and a clear 'wooden spoon' recpient - with probably a span of at least 100 points, maybe 200 or 300 points between them. In the middle, where the majority of competitors are clumped together, there may several places where a few of them have exactly the same score. But towards the extremes of the distribution, at the highest and lowest ends, things will be much more spread out - with often several points separating two positions.

How to account for this divergence of results, if they're all equally skillful? Well, you have to accept a few premises here (but I hope they're all pretty straightforward and indisputable): a) There are no 'right' selection solutions in a game like FPL (because no-one can see the future); b) There are only 'most likely to be successful' solutions in FPL; c) 'Mostly likely to be successful' solutions in FPL are rarely unique; for most selection conundra there are several possible alternatives which are equally valid; d) 'Most likely to be successful' solutions in FPL do not always succeed; very often, in fact, some of the 'least likely to be successful' solutions do!

Therefore, presented with the same challenges every week, a group of people with identical skills in the game will make some of the same decisions as everybody else, but some different ones (though all seem to have equally valid chances of success, before the event). Some of those different choices work out well, and some work out badly. Aggregated over the season, a few players have done very, very well, and some - with exactly the same input of knowledge and skill - have done pretty badly.

Now, multiply that tiny sample by 100,000, and allow for much greater variation in both luck and skill (because - shock, horror! - bad decisions have a greater chance of being 'lucky'; or rather of having a 'lucky impact' on the overall competitive landscape, because although the chance of a successful outcome for a poor choice may be very small, it will happen sometimes - and when it does, its impact can be very large).

That is the game of Fantasy Premier League.

It is NOT a pure meritocracy. Don't try to kid yourselves that it is.

NO-ONE is a 'set-and-forget'

 

It is common in FPL for managers to suppose that their best players can be relied on for the entire season.  Indeed, many of the more naive FPL managers seem to expect that almost their entire squad should be able to be relied upon for the entire season!  Newsflash: it ain't so.

Now, if we go for a super-premium player like Salah or Haaland or Palmer, then, yes, we hope they're going to stay fit and in-form all season.

As I outlined the other day, in order to even approach justifying their enormous price-tags, players like these have to satisfy some extraordinarily demanding criteria - and, really, almost none ever do; not over the season as a whole.

Last year, Mo Salah enjoyed a freakishly good season, even by his freakisly high standards, and shattered the record for total FPL points in a season. But that was a real outlier of a performance, an order-of-magnitude better than even he has managed previously. That might be the only occasion in FPL history when a player has unequivocally been worth owning - and starting - in every single game. (And even then, he had a bit of a tailing-off in the latter part of the season that, really, made him no longer essential....)

In most seasons, Salah has suffered the odd little injury niggle, or a few fallow spells here and there; and every other year, he goes missing mid-season to take part in the African Cup of Nations. Last year, Haaland suffered a long run of poor returns as City's form began to crumble, and then had a couple of injury absences. At the very beginning of the season he was outstanding, and he started to do quite well again in the closing months; but for a long run in the middle, it was sheer madness to have hung on to him. Likewise, Palmer started the year very hot, but... his points returns tanked after Christmas, and it proved unwise to have retained him too far into the New Year.

Those are somewhat extreme examples. admittedly. But the general point holds: even the very best players rarely escape injuries or major dips in form in some phase of the season.

And even if they maintain modestly consistent performances and points returns, the competitive landscape around them constantly shifts: there may be other players who come into such hot form for a while that they're worth bringing in at the expense of your 'best' current players - even, perhaps, a Salah or a Haaland.

It is unwise to allow yourself to get wedded to the idea of set-and-forget players, picks from your initial squad that can be left in place all season. You never know who's going to suffer an injury or a loss of form, fleeting or long-term.  Some players may end up staying fit and being consistent enough to be worth keeping all season; but you can't predict that before the season starts - it's just a pleasant surprise, not something you should expect to rely on.

Although FPL managers tend to most often dream about their key attacking players having a dream season where they could be a set-and-forget, in fact it's usually only defenders or goalkeepers who wind up sticking in your squad for all 38 gameweeks.

This is partly because they tend to get injured rather less often than attacking players who have to run around a lot more. But it's more down to the fact that there isn't really a lot to choose between them: the differential points spread between the 'best' and 'second best' defenders (and keepers) is usually relatively small. And the best returners will usually be fairly consistent across the season; so, you can't often obtain much benefit by rotating in fresh players who've hit better form (as you most definitely can in the 'midfield' and 'forward' positions!).

But even here, injuries - and suspensions (far more common for defenders) - are a factor; and, even more so, shifts in fixture difficulty, since the attacking strength of opponents is a main determinant of defensive returns. Often you'll be able to hang on to one of your keepers and one or two defenders for the whole season; but rather more often, you won't.

It is a very RARE - and very, very lucky - circumstance if you manage to hang on to any of your initial squad for the whole season (other than Salah, in one of his most god-like years....).

And in fact, if you do end the season with a number of ever-presents, it's more likely a sign not of exceptional good fortune, but of laziness and stubbornness - of having obstinately (or inadvertently?!) hung on to players that, at some point, you really should have ditched.

Beware of double-ups and treble-ups

 

With a few very high-performing clubs, who boast strong attacks and strong defences,... and several big players - well, it gets mighty tempting to gobble up as many of them as you can for your FPL team. Often we hear people online griping about how the club quota limit is unfair, unduly restrictive; how 4 or 5 players per club ought to be allowed.

We really ought to be grateful that that isn't the rule!

Reasons why we should be very wary about taking our full quota of players from any one club:

1)  If you're maxed out on a club, you're restricting your flexibility to bring in anyone new from that club (unless the player you want who's newly returned from injury or suddenly hit a hot vein of form is the same position and similar price to the same-club player you're willing to sacrifice for him - that change is going to require additional transfers).

2)  You haven't spread risk very well: if you have 3 players from one club, you're very exposed to the danger of having a terrible gameweek if that club has a bad day at the office. (Yes, we have often seen occasions where, for example, Van Dijk gets set off early in the match, and Liverpool go down to a team they ought to have beaten easily.... Shit happens!).

3)  Doubling up from the same club in the same position is usually redundant, and particularly risky. In the attacking positions, at least, players essentially share a finite pool of potential attacking points, and it usually ends up being a zero-sum outcome: a better return for one player means a poor or nil return for the other. There is almost never a team that creates such a huge pool of potential points and has such an equitable distribution of those points that two of their attacking players will both do really well in the same match (and you want all 6 or 7 of your attacking players to do well in the same gameweek, or at least to have a really good chance of that). And with two defenders, the upside is limited - while the downside from an unexpectedly disastrous result can be very, very dangerous to your FPL returns: clean sheets are such an uncertain outcome to chase, even with the best defensive teams, that the chance of picking up the occasional double clean sheet from your defensive three rarely outweighs the certainty of very poor defensive returns whenever the club you've taken two of those defenders from has a poor game.

4)  You create more work for yourself if the club is affected by a Blank Gameweek. This is particularly the case where the 'blank' is unexpected - perhaps the result of a last-minute postponement due to 'severe weather' issues like high winds, thick fog, or heavy snows. Remember, it happened last year, with the first Merseyside derby called off just hours before the FPL deadline because of concerns about Storm Darragh, leaving many FPL managers panicking and burning through transfers to rebuild their squads (because some, unaccountably, had not only been carrying 3 Liverpool players, but also 2 or 3 Everton players?!).

So, in principle, trebling-up on one club is best avoided. I wouldn't say NEVER do it; but I would advise being very, very cautious about doing it. And I would try to avoid doing it with more than ONE club (and certainly not with more than TWO!!).

You have to be careful with doubling-up as well: you don't want to add too much to the risk that a couple of cancelled fixtures could wipe out 5-8 members of your squad,... or that an uncharacteristically poor performance from just a couple of the teams you have representation from could completely sink your FPL Gameweek.

The super-premiums aren't usually worth it

 

I just pointed out that, in the defender category, the value of players priced at 6.0 or 6.5 million, or even at 5.5 million, is often very dubious - when there are usually several options at 5.0 or 4.5 who may do very nearly as well, or perhaps even sometimes a little bit better.

The same is true - even more so - for goalkeepers.

In the 'midfield' and 'forward' position categories, though, the most expensive players have usually been priced that way for a good reason, and do usually offer a much higher points-prospect than any of the cheaper alternatives: there is a tempting potential differential points-gap over the competition.

And yet.... when you get up towards the extreme end of the pricing scale, it's no longer just about direct comparison with a single best alternative; it becomes about the broader opportunity cost of having to go short throughout much of the rest of the squad in order to afford such an expensive player.

These super-premium players are just about never 'worth it' in pure value-for-money terms. Even Mo Salah, in his record-smashing season last year, was well outside the Top 20 on 'points-per-pound'; Haaland's ranking on that metric, in his two huge seasons preceding, was absolutely abysmal. But as I pointed out this time last year (in this comprehensive post on how to choose an initial squad), some players are so good that they can become 'above budget'.

However, for a player to merit this kind of special consideration, he needs to fulfill the following criteria: 

1)  Be an ever-present. Must be 100% 'nailed', not at any risk of rotation. Must also have supreme fitness levels and near-superhuman immunity to injury, and exceptional resilience to be able to recover from slight knocks very quickly. If you're paying 10 million or more - and especially if you're paying 12 million or more! -  for a player, you don't ever want to have any anxieties about whether or not they might start the next game; you want to be really confident that they will play almost every single game of the season.

2)  Must offer the prospect of at least a few really huge gameweek returns, and several double-digit returns over the season.

3) Must be incredibly consistent: rarely going more than a couple of gameweeks without some sort of additional points return, and never producing a run of more than, say, 4 or 5 'blanks' in a row.

4)  Must offer a strong prospect of a season total at least up around 250 points, with a reasonable chance of approaching or exceeding 300 points.

5)  And, most importantly, they should be likely to outscore their best rival high-priced players (at similar or lower price-point) by at least 30-50 points, and the best of the more modestly priced alternatives by at least 80-100 points.

[Now, they might not play the whole season. And you might well not want to keep them for the whole season, even if they do. But they should at least track for those kinds  of numbers - hence demonstrating a clear, consistent, and massive advantage over just about any other player, while they are starting regularly.]

Salah just about met those criteria last season. But only just. And his main rivals, Haaland, Palmer, and Saka, in contrast, all had very 'disappointing' seasons. And he only cost 12.5 million last season! This year, he's up to 14.5 million...  Last year was a freak; he can't possibly get up to that kind of enormous total again (especially as he's likely to be missing a month or so mid-season for the African Cup of Nations; and remember, in the last one of those, he picked up an injury,... took quite a while to fully shake it off,... suffered a bit of a crash in form as a result,.... and eventually started getting dropped occasionally, which led to very public friction with Jurgen Klopp... Even Super-Mo has his off spells!). And there might be several other players challenging his position at the top of the points chart this season.

I think Salah last year might have been the only player in FPL history - certainly one of only a very, very few - to categorically justify a price tag of over 12 million pounds. In other seasons, great as he's been, he's often not been massively ahead of his closest rivals; and he's often had little - or not-so-little - spells of injury or dips in form where it became reasonable to stop thinking of him as a must-have, a season-long hold.

I think - I hope - Salah will have another outstanding season this year. Haaland too. I expect them to be almost certainly the top points-scorers in the 'midfield' and 'forward' categories again.

But just having the top points-scorers is not enough. (FPL managers with a very naive view of the game, and a very limited grasp of mathematics, never seem to get beyond this....)  If their differential advantage over the next best picks in their positions is not that much, and if the differential advantage of being able to upgrade several other spots in your squad if you do without them could be absolutely HUGE,.... then they're just NOT WORTH IT.

Highly - very, very, very highly - as I rate both of them, I feel that, at the astronomical pricings of 14.5 and 14.0 million, Salah and Haaland are priced out of contention in FPL this year.

And indeed, all such super-premium priced players are usually worth avoiding. However massive the points hauls they can offer you, they're unlikely to be worth the cost of beggaring the rest of your squad.

[But.... there are no hard-and-fast rules in this game. Given how both Haaland and Salah have tended to 'start hot' in recent seasons, and rack up some enormous points in the opening few games, it is probably worth having a punt on one of them from the start of the season. If they enjoy such an early points bonanza again, and there's a wave of new owners rushing to buy them as a result, you might be able to take a quick transfer-trading profit by dumping them out after a month or so. It is always a lot easier to offload a very expensive player than it is to bring one in (which usually requires multiple additional transfers to juggle your budget).

At this price level, though, I'd say you definitely can't afford both of them. And it is an entirely legitimate choice - probably the sensible, optimal choice - to go without either,... for the majority of the season, anyway.]

Defensive premiums aren't usually worth it

There is a certain special glamour, a mystical 'aura' of invincibility attaching to a few giants of the game in the defender category: Van Dijk, Gabriel and Saliba, and, last season, Milenkovic and Murillo. Plus, of course, in most seasons, there have usually been at least a few progressive full-backs who seemed to offer the prospect of significant attacking returns: Trippier, White, Alexander-Arnold, Munoz, Gvardiol, Porro, Ait-Nouri.

Very nice to have for your club in real-world football; but this can be of tenuous benefit, if any, for FPL.

Attacking returns from defenders have been on the decline over the last several years, and particularly so in the last two or three (arguably Pep's influence, again), as it's become more common for progressive full-backs to tuck into central midfield, rather than pushing all the way down the flanks to overlap the wide attackers and try to supply balls directly into the box. Even the best of them haven't really lit any big fires in the past couple of seasons. If a player of this type has a really good season, they're still likely to be out at the front of the defender rankings - but probably not by the kind of big margins we've sometimes seen in the past; they might only be posting 10-15 points more than the best centre-backs.

And the best centre-backs, the Van Dijks and Gabriels.... will sometimes get outstripped not only by a couple of outstanding full-backs but by a few fellow centre-backs who are less well-known, less fancied (like Milenkovic last year).  Even when they do stay head-and-shoulders above the field,.... well, that head-and-shoulders gap over the best of the rest might not actually be that large. And the differential advantage might not be worth it, when some positional rivals who cost 1.0 or 1.5 million less are posting returns very nearly as good. That extra money spent in midfield will probably buy you more additional points.

It's also worth remembering that most defensive points are earned collectively; so, the weakest and/or cheapest member of a back-line will get almost exactly the same points as its strongest link. If Ibrahima Konate is cheaper than Virgil Van Dijk, you're probably better off going with him; if Micky van de Ven is cheaper than Pedro Porro, you're probably better off going with him; if Jake O'Brien is cheaper than James Tarkowski, you're probably better off going with him.

A few teams do have such a massively greater prospect of clean sheets than the rest of the league that it may be worth paying 6.0 million for one of their defenders: Arsenal and Liverpool this year are very tempting again, of course, and probably also Chelsea and Nottingham Forest,... maybe Newcastle. I'd usually consider getting 1 or 2 defenders around the 6.0 million mark - but not more than that. And if you can find decent alternatives at 5.5 or 5.0, go for them instead.

[Things are complicated this year by a slight upward shift in overall defender prices. I haven't had time to attempt a full breakdown of this, but it looks like there are considerably more players than usual priced at 5.5 and 5.0, rather than 4.5 this year - presumably to reflect the slightly enhanced points prospects created by the introduction of additional 'defensive points' this season.]

Attacking returns will still (usually) beat 'defensive points'

 

FPL has thrown a major spanner-in-the-works this season - by introducing (for the first-time ever) a significant adjustment of the game's basic points system.

As I already complained at some length, this revision - like nearly all the changes the FPL hierarchy has foisted on us in recent seasons - is ill thought-out, clumsily implemented, and utterly unnecessary.

The reason it's so discombulating at the start of this new season is that FPL has given us almost no information on which to assess just what sort of an impact it's going to have (nothing, in fact, beyond a few token illustrations of the additional points that would have been earned by a handful of top defenders and defensive midfielders last season - as in the table above).

However, the indications from this scant information - and from our own observations of the game - are that this rule change won't have too substantial an impact.

These new points are hard to earn (you need to reach quite a high threshold of varied 'defensive actions' in order to qualify), they are capped at a single award per game (so, you only get 2 extra points, no matter how many of these 'defensive actions' you complete), and are most likely to be earned in games where the player's team is having a hard time of it (and hence the player is unlikely to earn clean sheet points - or any other points - in the same match).

The change will make a difference for very active defensive players who regularly register significantly more tackles, interceptions, etc. than their peers. But all that is going to do is elevate some defenders to the upper ranks for that position, who might not normally be at the forefront like that. If these players are at lower price-points, and seem likely to do rather better out of the new 'defensive points' than certain of their more premium-priced peers, then they should take priority in the selection of your defensive roster. But that's a pretty big 'IF'; most of the players who are most likely to benefit from these points are already the most popular - and most expensive - defenders. (And the few who might not have been, like Tarkowski and Lacroix, have had their prices bumped up a bit this year!)

And the sample statistics grudgingly released by FPL seem to suggest that only a handful of the very best defensive players will earn these extra points as often as once every two games; most, presumably, will do no better than once every three to four games.

And 4 of these points over 5 games, for instance, wouldn't be worth more than - or, probably as much as - a single assist (which is likely to reap more bonus points as well). Plus, of course, more attack-minded defenders like Kerkez and Cucurella are quite likely to be picking up 'defensive points' as well from time to time (if not quite so often as the monsters like Milenkovic and Caicedo).

And it doesn't seem likely that these new points for defenders will raise anyone over 150 or 160 points for the season - which is nowhere near what the best midfielders and forwards produce. So, contemplating a formation shift to start more defenders - which some poor fools have been floating in the online forums - is just RIDICULOUS. Even optimum rotation of defender picks for form and fixtures can't get you up to more than 170 or 180 points for each starting slot; whereas you can realistically hope for more like 200 points, or even a little more from good rotation in the other outfield position categories. [Admittedly, that hasn't really been the case in the first half of the 2025/26 season; but that's because there have, for various reasons, been freakishly low returns from midfield players so far, not because defenders are doing that much better this year.]

There is a chance that a few really high-performing defensive midfielders might get up into contention for the budget 5th midfield slot as a result of these new extra points; but I think that's only likely to happen with a player who also gets a decent number of goals (and/or assists) - which, at present, means.... probably only Declan Rice (maybe Palhinha,.... if he's on penalties?!). But as I pointed out yesterday, that 5th midfield seat is so important that you're probably still going to be better off concentrating on more attacking players who have hit a hot goalscoring streak (and rotating often, to keep bringing in the most in-form options).

The new 'defensive points' will significantly enhance the prospects of a few defenders and defensive midfielders - but probably not to the point of making them priority starting choices. Thus, the impact of the rule change on squad and team selection is likely to be pretty minimal, I think.

[But I could be wrong. It's hard to envision just what's going to happen with any confidence before the season's under way.]

The fifth midfield slot is where the value lies

 

As I outlined yesterday, FPL's scoring system is so stacked in favour of midfielders - and so many of the game's 'midfielders' are in fact outright forwards, or at least frequent goalscorers - that it makes no sense to play fewer than 5 of them (except in rare cases).

Moreover, there is such a plethora of midfield choices at the lower end of the price scale that you can usually find very good points prospects for only 6 million (and often even better options at 6.5 million; although 6.0 is usually all you can afford in the initial squad), and sometimes at 5.5 or 5.0 (though just about never at 4.5!!).

However, among these 'less formidable' players (there's usually a good reason for their price being so low...), even more so than with more premium options, you are very unlikely to find someone who scores consistently well for a long period - much less across the season as a whole. In this price-bracket, you tend to find players like (last season) Alex Iwobi, Justin Kluivert, Anthony Elanga, Antoine Semenyo, and Jacob Murphy - who blow really hot for 4 or 5 or 6 games (maybe 8 or 10, if you're really lucky),.... and then lapse back into comparative anonymity again for a while.

More expensive players in the other midfield positions tend to be more consistent: they get really high weekly scores more often, contribute at least some additional points very frequently, and rarely or never suffer an extended string of 'blanks'. Because of this, they are worth sticking with, even if they do blank a few times (unless there are stronger indications than just the FPL returns that they and/or their team have suffered a serious crash in form). Also, you tend to be a bit locked-in to your more expensive players, because it is cumbersome to transfer very expensive players in and out (you generally have to burn through additional transfers and/or leave a significant amount of money unused in the bank for a week or three...; both of which are highly undesirable); and, if you want to buy them back again later, you may suffer a heavy hit from 'transfer tax'.

None of this is true for the cheaper midfield selections. It is easy to move them in and out of your squad at will. And you will want to, because it is highly unlikely that any of them will sustain a long run of good returns.

You should be constantly rotating your 5th midfield slot (and perhaps your 4th as well!), every month or two, to bring in whoever in that price category is hitting a hot run of form.

[Last year, a lot of people went for Morgan Rogers early in the season, and were sufficiently satisfied to hang on to him for the whole season. This was a HUGE mistake. Although he produced consistently enough to amass a very respectable points total for the season, his big returns were quite intermittent: he never put together a run of big-points weeks in succession, while numerous of his position rivals in the 'cheap' midfielder category did. Rogers was rarely even the best midfield performer overall in that price bracket (he was, narrowly, for the last couple of months of the season; but then got overtaken on the last day by Semenyo!); and he was never the best - not usually in the top 3 or 4! - over any short run of games. His season return of 161 points was barely more than the best defenders, and pitiful alongisde the best midfielders. You really want closer to 200 points for every starting position in your squad - even more for midfielders, since that is where most of your points come from! - if you are to have any hope of attaining the upper strata of the global rankings. You could achieve that if you succesfully rotated through all the best budget midfield options when they were in their best form; you can't get anywhere near it by sticking with a player like Rogers for the whole season. (Which is not to say anything against Rogers. He's very, very, very good as a real-world player. He's just not a season-hold for FPL. That's an important difference.)]