To Free Hit, or not to....?

 

A lot of people seem to be pondering resorting to their Free Hit chip this week. Is that a good idea?

NO.

1)  You keep your Free Hit (and the second WildCard) in reserve for as long as possible, in case you might need it to deal with an unexpected emergency like a sudden multiple injury/suspension crisis (can happen at any time, but becomes more likely as the season wears on) or a last-minute postponement (of more than one game - because there are other ways of dealing with a loss of only 4, 5, 6 players...).

2)  If you're lucky enough to escape any such unexpected crises, the best use for the Free Hit - which most people plan for - is to deal with the expected crisis of a 'big' Blank Gameweek. (However, this year there is no longer a really big blank, since the FA Cup Quarter-Finals - which could potentially wipe out up to 8 EPL fixtures - no longer clash with the EPL schedule. And the newly introduced facility to store up to 5 Free Transfers also gives you much more flexibility in addressing occasional fixture speed-bumps. Hence, for many people, it might be possible to get around even Gameweek 34 - the FA Semi-Final weekend, when 3 or 4 EPL matches could be missing, and hence the occasion when most FPL managers have provisionally planned to use their FH chip - without needing the Free Hit.)

3)  If you find you don't need the Free Hit for a Blank Gameweek, or any less expected emergency, there can also be a case for using it to 'optimise' a squad for a Double Gameweek. (Indeed, many managers in the past have asserted that this is a preferable approach to using it on a Blank Gameweek; but that is a perverse delusion.)  However, as with the Blank Gameweeks, there are no longer any really 'big' Double Gameweeks in the calendar; and any Double that is 'big' enough to be worth optimising the entire squad with doubling players is more worth playing the Bench Boost on - so, the better strategy is to optimise the week before with the 2nd WildCard (if you can't do it adequately just with regular free and paid transfers). But NOTE that a Double Gameweek is really only valuable for good players/teams with good fixtures; there's no point loading up the squad with weaker players who are likely to lose twice (just because they'll get double 'appearance points'....?!).

4)  If you don't hit any unexpected crises and are able to negotiate the only two Blank Gameweeks left in the regular schedule simply with transfers... it can be quite useful to hang on to the Free Hit (and the 2nd Wildcard) to 'optimise' a team for one of the last few weeks of the season (particularly if that might help you progress in one or more of your Cup competitions).

Thus, the Free Hit is almost certainly likely to be more needful and useful in the much larger Blank Gameweek of GW34.... or the Double Gameweek(s) that spin off of that, GWs 36 and/or 33. Even those might very well be able to be navigated without needing to use a chip; in which case, it's still useful to hang on to the Free Hit for a possible emergency that may come up in the last 9 gameweeks of the season... or simply to have some fun with as a late-season 'smart bomb'.  There is NO WAY anybody should be considering using the Free Hit this early in the season, for a Blank Gameweek that involves only 4 teams.

 

Moreover, these aren't even 4 very good teams for FPL. Even Liverpool, with too much rotation in midfield, too many injuries in attack, and an overpriced defence, don't have any obvious picks apart from Mo Salah; few people have had more than two of their players at a time, and most were struggling to think of a third to bring in for their recent successive Double Gameweeks (most went for Cody Gakpo, who'd suddenly hit form; but he got injured again, so could have been relinquished before this blank weekend). Newcastle have had alarmingly yo-yo form all season, and again Isak is looking like their only must-have at the moment; Gordon's returns have been slightly disappointing this season, especially over the last few months (when he's been struggling with a few knocks, and has often looked rather tired; and now he's picked up an extended suspension....); Hall has done surprisingly well at full-back, and became a popular FPL pick... but got a season-ending injury a couple of weeks ahead of the Blank Gameweek. Palace have only recently started to come good, and still don't look strong enough to be trebled up on. And Aston Villa have struggled in the league this season, look a pretty unconvincing mid-table side (doing much better in the Champions League!): there are really none of their players that have been worth having - even for that recent Double Gameweek!

So, there was really no excuse to have ever had more than 6 or 7 players from the affected clubs; and a number of the likeliest picks have already been eliminated by injury or suspension in the last weeks before the Blank. You can carry 2 or 3 players (even 4, if one of them's a keeper) on the bench for a week (well, assuming you haven't got a terrible bench: this is why you need to keep a good bench, to give you the easy option to switch out players who are going to miss a week or two - or just face one tough fixture - without needing to burn through transfers, and possibly lose a lot of squad value on 'transfer tax' with short-term sell-and-buy-backs): and of course you'd like to hang on to players like Salah and Isak, because you'd probably lose A LOT of money on them if you sold them and immediately bought them back. Any remaining essential changes, you should be able to comfortably deal with using saved Free Transfers. 

If poor forward planning leaves you in a situation where you still have more blanking players (and other absentees through injury/suspension) than you can carry on the bench or replace with stored Free Transfers, then you have to bite the bullet and take 'hits' - pay points for extra transfers - to get around the problem. You might compromise, and consider putting out a team of only 9 or 10 players, to keep your transfer points-spend down, (It can be difficult for defenders to earn you more than 4 points.... unless you're really, really confident in their clean-sheet prospects - and that's a very precarious hope to bank on. In all other positions. however, good picks should be capable of earning you at least 4 points, hopefully 5 or 6 or more - so, taking a 'hit' to replace a non-playing first-team member, except perhaps in defence, should always be worth it.)

If, somehow, you find yourself in a really deep hole this week, you might consider instead using the 2nd Wildcard to get out of it. This chip is a bit of a luxury, something that can be held on to for emergencies, but doesn't have any compelling 'tactical' use in the way that the Free Hit does. So, although it would be preferable to be able to save it longer, there's not as much risk with using it early as there is with the Free Hit.

When to use the 2nd Wildcard?

 

Good grief - the FPL forums at the moment seem to be full of people proposing to play their 2nd Wildcard this week! Which, of course, prompts me to ask, "WHY?"

'Truisms' often irritate, because they are used over-frequently and often unthinkingly... But there are two truisms about the Wildcards that are in fact usefully TRUE.

1)  A Wildcard tends to become more valuable the longer you can hang on to it. (That's not to say the best time to use it is in the last possible week; but it certainly is worth resisting the impulse to use it early during its period of availability.)

2)  How early you use your Wildcards is usually a precise indicator how how badly you're doing in the game. (Again, that's not saying that it's always a bad decision in itself to use a Wildcard early; certainly, for the 1st one - as I've discussed before - there can be good reasons for using it early; but that does indicate that you've had a dreadful start to the season, and are needing to take drastic action to recover the situation. If you're using a Wildcard early because you absolutely have to, that's bad; if you don't absolutely have to, but you're using it early anyway, that's very, very bad.)

Using the 2nd Wildcard the instant it becomes available smacks of impatience, impulsivity, and just making changes out of boredom rather than any pressing need. Even if you don't accept the arguments in favour of keeping it for the last stages of the season (which I'll get to in a moment), there are rarely any good reasons for using it NOW. In fact, if the first half of the season has gone well for you, you might have been able to hold on to your 1st Wildcard until quite recently. I know some people who've only finally used it in GW18 or GW19. (I have much admiration and envy for them!!)

And even if you haven't Wildcarded just recently, you have had half a season to get your squad in shape. If you feel the need to make a bunch of changes now - and you really do need to - then you must have been making some terrible choices up until now.

At the beginning of the season, we're all just making blind guesses about which players and teams are going to be in the best form, and even perhaps about what team selections and tactics are going to be. It's almost inevitable that many of those guesses will turn out to be wrong, perhaps some of them disastrously wrong, and - if we avoided resorting to the remedial surgery of an early Wildcard - it may take some time to sort our squads out. But by GW19, that really should have happened. Unless we've had a lot of bad luck with injuries, we should really have had a fairly stable lineup for a month or so now (and have been giving our attention to hoarding up some spare Free Transfers!).

Occasionally, there may be a couple of factors that may prompt us to consider a very early 2nd Wildcard. These are: a rash of injuries to key players at the end of December; and/or a major 'turn' of fixtures (upcoming matches looking suddenly much harder) for a number of the big teams. Neither of those is the case this year. Saka and Bowen are the only big names to be ruled out in the last month. And only West Ham and Wolves (and, to a rather lesser extent, Bournemouth and Brentford) are facing an imminent bad fixture run; and they're not exactly major clubs.

So, what are the advantages of hanging on to the Wildcard for a later date?

i)  We're in a transfer window. Some exciting new players may enter the league; others may suddenly leave. (It's unlikely to be a particularly busy window, I think; although, you never know! Manchester City and Arsenal, and perhaps also Manchester United will probably be looking for one or two big purchases. And I really can't see the logic of getting Trent Alexander-Arnold in on a Wildcard now, when he might be leaving for Spain in a week or two...)  There really is not much point in using the Wildcard before or during this phase of transfer activity, when there are going to be a number of new options to consider in a month's time, and the possibility you might then want to make multiple changes at once. Transfer speculation also adds greatly to the uncertainty of match results in this period: players involved in negotiations may be removed from squads. Team dynamics and individuals' morale may be adversely affected by the introduction of new stars, or the loss of old ones - or merely the mooted possibility of such changes. Blowing the Wildcard now is like spending your life savings on a 'Mystery Box': you have no idea what you're getting - you just don't know how the EPL is going to play out this month, or what it's going to look like going into February.

ii)  We're still in the depths of 'the bleak midwinter'. Cold weather and insane fixture congestion at this time of year mean that there continues to be a greatly increased risk of injury over the coming month or more. And you don't really want to blow your Wildcard on bringing in a bunch of players who might become unavailable almost immediately. Of course, there is some risk of such ill fortune whenever you play it; but the risk is much higher from December through February.

iii)  The 2nd Wildcard can be very valuable in negotiating the selection challenges of the Blank Gameweeks (gameweeks with less than the full number of fixtures; some clubs not playing in that week) and Double Gameweeks (where clubs that missed out in a previous Blank Gameweek make up their postponed fixture by playing two games within one gameweek, offering you a chance of higher points from their players). Now, these are likely to be much less of a problem than they have been in the past, because we've lost two of the four regularly occurring occasions for them (the Club World Cup has been moved from December to June/July, and the FA Cup quarter-finals are now to be played on a weekend emptied of EPL fixtures); thus, we are left with only the League Cup Final (GW29; affected teams probably getting a DGW in GW33) and the FA Semis (GW34; follow-up DGW probably in GW36 or 37). Also, the new rule allowing us to hoard up to 5 Free Transfers - effectively a 'mini-Wildcard' (if we could ever manage to save that many transfers....) - could make it a lot easier to get through these bothersome chicanes this year.

However, even the relatively small interruption of the League Cup Final can be pretty devastating - if you happen to have 2 or 3 players from each of the 4 affected teams (not just the finalists themselves, but whoever they were drawn against in the League that weekend); so devastating that even if you have got 3, 4, or 5 Free Transfers in the bank, you might still not be able to get to a full eleven without taking a lot of 'hits' as well. And even if you can address this problem with Free Transfers and/or paid 'hits', you might want to use a 'makeover chip' to rebuild your squad to its regular shape immediately in the following gameweek. Alternatively, there may be circumstances where it seems better to use the Wildcard to create an 'ideal' squad for this eccentric gameweek, but structure it in such a way that you can quickly restore it to is more normal shape with transfers over the next two or three gameweeks.

The Free Hit is, naturally, the best chip to use for sorting out a one-off problem like this. But you only have one of those, and this challenge is going to present itself at least twice in the second half of our season. (Just be grateful that it's no longer four or more times in a season! The FA Quarter-Finals used to be a colossal clusterfuck....)  It might yet arise more than twice; we've already seen one fixture postponed because of high winds, and more recently several others came close to being called off because of severe fog. As I pointed out in this post on the main hazard of The New Chip, there are all kinds of things that might lead to multiple postponements on one weekend. If that should happen, it's nice - very, very, very comforting! - to have the option of using either the Wildcard or the Free Hit to deal with the gaping holes it could leave in your squad.  

The common expectation of 'chip strategy' this year is that it will probably be best to hold on to your Free Hit to get around the FA Semis in Gameweek 34. But it would be very valuable to hang on to your Wildcard at least until Gameweek 29 as a back-up option for coping with this kind of last-minute emergency.

And it is also possible - though a much rarer eventuality - that teams with a Double Gameweek also have favourable fixtures following, and thus (especially if you're also developing a high level of dissatisfaction with some members of your current squad...) it may be appropriate to drop the Wildcard in that Double Gameweek to load up on more players from these teams that are playing twice, and that you're happy to keep on afterwards.

iv)  The other prime candidate for an especially valuable use of the Wildcard late in the season has traditionally been to 'set up' optimally to exploit your Bench Boost chip in a Double Gameweek. If you play your Wildcard the week before the DGW, you can be reasonably confident of having every member of your squad being a starter, and as many of them as possible having double-fixtures (and good fixtures). It is difficult to do this just with transfers, because you don't know until a few weeks ahead who the teams involved will be. (And even if you could do it that way, it tends to be non-ideal, because you're probably moving some players out of your team much earlier than you'd like to, just to optimise for the coming double-fixture week. Again, this might be more possible this year to do in one go, through having saved up 5 Free Transfers; but it would be very tricky to pull that off.) There were only two scheduled Double Gameweeks this year (we now have a third one, thanks to the Everton v Liverpool postponement a few weeks back), rather than four, which was the common minimum until now (we'd also grown rather used to having even more additional ones occur in recent years due to things like Covid outbreaks and the death of the Queen); and only one 'big' one, the rearranged fixtures from the FA Semi-Final weekend being crammed in right before the end of the season. While I always counsel that it is very risky - for all sorts of reasons - to wait until then to play a chip,.... most experienced FPL managers will probably be planning to play their Bench Boost in that last Double Gameweek.... and their 2nd Wildcard in the week before (judging that the potentially substantial benefits of this strategy outweigh the risks).

v)  While there are very strong arguments for saving the Wildcard as a contingency for addressing possible Blank Gameweeks, or for setting up for a Bench Boost attempt in a 'big' Double Gameweek,... as I've said in regard to the 1st Wildcard, there can be no hard-and-fast rules: we always need to stay flexible in deciding how we can best use our chips. It can occasionally happen that we're clobbered with multiple injuries, suspensions, and sudden and catastrophic dips in form for key teams or players in quick succession - perhaps even in the space of just one week. And if we've also been taking a chance on carrying one or two people on the bench who we thought might be short-term injuries but turn out to be rather longer-term, and perhaps we haven't been paying enough attention to a looming turn in fixtures for two or three of the sides that we've taken the most players from... then we are indeed most royally screwed. If you suddenly find yourself with 6, 7, 8 gaps in your line-up you urgently need to fill - and you don't have many saved Free Transfers to help you out - that's when you need to consider playing your Wildcard.

vi)  So, I've outlined two reasons why it's just A BAD IDEA to play the Wildcard at the start of January, and given three more why there are likely going to be occasions later in the season when it will be far more valuable. But I'd also suggest simply considering THE ODDS: there are 19 occasions during the rest of the season when you could play this chip. You need to be really, really sure that the week you choose to play it is almost certainly going to be the best possible one. It's really hard to be that confident when there are 18 other opportunities to play it still ahead of you. It becomes a little easier, a little less stressful and uncertain with each passing week; once you get to GW28 or GW29, and there are almost as many gameweeks in which to use the chip behind you as there are still to come, it becomes more possible to make a confident determination - rather than just a wild guess. I think it is very likely that almost all of the remaining weeks of the season will offer a better opportunity to get the best out of the 2nd Wildcard than Gameweek 20 - for absolutely everyone. I am also quite certain that probably about half of them will be much better; and at least 3 or 4 of them will be much, much, much better.

vii)  And finally.... if you have - by some great good fortune - managed to sail through the second half of the season without encountering any huge injury crises or unexpected mass postponements, and if you've been able to safely navigate the expected Blank and Double Gameweeks, and even get the best out of your Bench Boost, just by using regular transfers (and perhaps the occasional 'hit').... well, good for you, you are truly blessed. Such things are very possible, from time to time; but you won't know until the end of the season.

And let me assure you, on the rare, blessed occasions when this may happen, there is no greater pleasure in Fantasy Premier League than being able to drop an unexpected Wildcard as a late-season 'smart-bomb' to get you through a tricky final (or perhaps even the semi-, or quarter- ) against a bitter rival in the 'Cup' competition of one of your mini-leagues. Honestly, that possibility alone always makes it worth thinking twice - and thrice, and four times! - about using the 2nd Wildcard for anything else earlier on!

So, in summary, if you are thinking of playing your 2nd Wildcard in Gameweek 20 - What is wrong with you, are you completely BATSHIT INSANE??  PLEASE, DON'T DO IT!!!

And DON'T FORGET The Boycott:

#QuitFPLinGW23         #DownWithTheNewChip

Squad value - why it matters

I am frequently astounded by how many folks on the FPL forums profess to be utterly uninterested in growing their squad value - positively contemptuous of the very idea; and how often they cite as authority the thoughts on the subject of various supposed 'top performing managers'.  If these people really did say things like that, they're being at best disingenuous, if not dishonest or self-deluding. (And they're probably not really as good at the game as their fans believe....)

I can see that some people become disdainful of squad value because there is a small minority of managers in the game who focus only on that, treating FPL like Monopoly, competing to try to build the most expensive squad by season's end; it's fair enough to dismiss that as weird and silly. And I can see that others want to emphasise other factors in their selection decisions - even if squad value is playing a role too. A lot of people, not unnaturally, resent feeling pressured into making a transfer move early because of an imminent price change,... and want to protest that they never let that happen to them: it's an affirmation of their autonomy, a refusal to bow to the force of circumstance. But that's also weird and silly: you need to pay attention to the changing circumstances of the game, and act accordingly.

Squad value is vitally important.  Here's why:

1) As I explained more fully in an early post on here, Pounds EQUAL Points: the more money you have deployed in your starting eleven, the more points you should be capable of earning each week. (That's not infallibly true in all cases, of course: you still have to make the best possible picks, and enjoy a little bit of good luck. But in general, someone with a 105-million-pound-squad should be able to do substantially better than someone with a 99-million-pound squad.)

2)  More money in the bank doesn't just raise your points ceiling in theory: its more direct practical benefit is the amount of flexibility it gives you. At the start of the season, with the 100-million budget cap, it will have been a struggle to afford all the premium price players you might have coveted. But once you've grown your squad value by 3 million or so, you can bring in at least one more of those... or, perhaps, upgrade more modestly in 2 or 3 other positions.

3)  The unfortunate flipside of this 'flexibility' benefit is that you can be hamstrung by a loss of squad value: a shortfall of just 100 k can prevent you from acquiring a player you want.  This is particularly the case early in the season when, because almost all of the price steps are still in even increments of 500 k, a 100 k loss in squad value is effectively the same as a 500k drop: you can no longer afford anyone at a desired price-point, only half a million cheaper. Occasionally, a sudden price-drop can be even more limiting than that: for example, if you bet on Quansah at the start of this season, and were caught out by his price-drop, you can now only replace him with a 4-million-pound player - and there aren't any decent starters at that price-point; so, you might feel obliged to hang on to the Liverpool youngster, desperately hoping that his price won't fall any further. This is why, especially early in the season, you do need to take care to avoid possible loss of squad value. You should always try to buy players just before they go up in price; and you should always look to sell players who are likely to drop in price.

4)  Furthermore, squad value is an excellent indirect indicator of how well you're playing the game. Good players become popular and rise in value; if you get maximum benefit from their price rises, it means you recognised their value early, anticipated their improving trend in form or good run of fixtures, and were one of the first to buy them. Players who lose form, get injured, or otherwise fall out of favour at their club will lose value; you don't want players like that in your squad; you might move them out quickly to have the benefit of another player in their place giving you better points potential, rather than specifically to avoid a possible drop in price - but the consequence is the same. Once again, preserving your squad value is a precise indicator that you are regularly making good decisions to optimise your squad.

[I would argue that consistent growth in squad value is actually the best indicator of your ability in the game. Average points returns fluctuate from year to year, and are very susceptible to wild swings of luck. Ranking is even more variable, since the number of players in the game - and how good they are... and how lucky they are! - can  change massively from one year to the next; and, as I explained on here before in some detail, the upper reaches of the rankings are inevitably going to be dominated by people who are more-lucky-than-good. But a good rise in squad value every year is a really reliable sign that you're doing as many things as possible right.]

This is why squad value matters. And why it's so vital to move quickly for players you fancy (especially early in the season): if you were interested in bringing in Jackson or Wissa or Muniz or Wood or Welbeck or Vardy, or Salah or Jota or DeBruyne or Smith Rowe, or Romero or Faes.... you probably can't afford to do it any more! And if you have an eye on Savinho or Lewis, or Diaz or Son, you'd better move fast.

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.]

What counts as A GOOD SCORE?

Season high scores from the global frontrunners can swing up and down a fair amount - so you might have to adjust your expectations according to the average returns in a given year..

Weekly high scores can vary HUGELY, and unpredictably - so, setting one arbitrary target there is pretty meaningless. 

I hope to be 10-15 points better than the global average every week.

And when I launched this blog, I stated that my ultimate goal is always to reach 2,500 points for the season.

Now, these days, you're probably going to need well over 2,600, or even 2,700 points - some years, perhaps, even above 2,800 points - to have a chance of being the Global Champion. But that's pie-in-the-sky stuff - not worth thinking about.

2,500 points usually represents the top 1% or so of participants, and is a massive pinnacle to climb!

2,300 points is a very, very good score - and if you can consistently achieve above that for a number of years... I would say you've arrived as a more-than-competent FPL manager.

2,100 points is fairly respectable - and would in fact be an outstanding debut season score for someone new to the game.

If you are a complete newbie, you should be reasonably happy with 1,800 or 1,900 points in your first season - that should put you at least a little above the global average.

Always striving to be better-than-the-average is a very good place to start in this game. Then, as you get better, you can gradually ramp up your expectations of how much better-than-the-average you can be!

Pounds EQUAL Points

[This coin, worth approx. 4 million USD, was  stolen from a museum 

in Germany in 2017.]

It's a very simple and obvious equivalence - but, somehow, many FPL managers seem to overlook it.

Some of the most important implications of this are:

1)  It is wasteful to leave any budget unspent (especially at the start of the season)

You may sometimes want to keep just a little in hand (half a million or a million, say) to facilitate a planned transfer in a week or two. But you need to be careful not to do that too often - because it is potentially costing you points. 1 million pounds should be worth about 0.75 points per week. [I'll get to that calculation a little later...down at the botom of the post.]

2)  Leaving premium-price players on your bench can be very costly

If someone just has a slight knock (or a - hopefully! - brief dip in form, or a suspension), you might not want to waste transfers moving them out of your squad and then back in again within a short timeframe. But leaving a high-price player unused, for more than a week or two, can damage your points return. Leaving Haaland, for example, on the bench for a month because of injury, or Salah because of AFCON (every other year) is a big risk. 

Based on the above ideal points-per-pound value, you might theoretically be bleeding 8 or 10 pts per week if you do that. In fact, it's not quite that bad, because at least some of your bench places are redundnant; you can afford to leave one or two slots empty because you'll hardly ever use them - and thus they have no direct value. In fact, you're only measuring the difference in price between your unused premium player on the bench and the player you're replacing him with in the starting eleven. (And because premium-price players tend to have low points-per-pound returns anyway, the drop in points might not be as bad as all that.)

You may well have what you think is reasonable back-up for your missing 'star' - maybe even the best available alternative - without needing to spend money and use a transfer (so, you might not be suffering any avoidable points loss at all; but it is a danger you should be wary of). And transfers themselves have a value, which you don't want to 'spend' unless you have to.... 

3)  Transfers also have a points value (and hence a pounds-equivalent value)

The FPL gnomes price additional transfers at 4 points each. And they're pretty shrewd about the game's dynamics: they want to make you think twice about paying points for an extra transfer. (Although, you hope to get at least 5 or 6 points per game - on average - from all of your starting players; so, actually a transfer should be worth rather more than that.)

Hence, it is reasonable to apply that same points-value to your Free Transfers. The FTs are extremely useful: they can strengthen your squad and increase your points return. And you really don't want to be caught without one (or two - or even more this year, since we're now allowed to hoard up to 5 at one time) when a sudden need arises to replace someone. So, keep in mind that nominal points value - and don't use them frivolously. 

And if you can get 6 points in the next game from a player you've transferred in, that is equivalent to an optimum use of 8 million of your budget (as against a zero use, if you're replacing someone who's out injured).

4)  The points-per-pound return from your squad is of paramount importance (but it's not everything)

Now, in theory, you should be able to assemble an optimally successful squad by picking all the players with the highest 'Value (season)' figures on the FPL stats page. (Keep in mind that at the start of the new football year, this stat is using last season's points returns divided by this season's prices. So, it's useful for assessing a player's likely value this year, but doesn't show how good they were on this metric last year.)

In practice, it's not quite that simple because... for one thing, that probably wouldn't use up all your budget! You also need to make sure you're getting the highest overall points-scorers (with the best points-per-pound returns) that you can afford.  

But then there's a further complication. The size of a player's overall points haul, their differential advantage (their excess of points over the next best player, and over the average 'good score' for their position and/or price category), their reliability of returns (how confident can you be that they will again return somewhere near their theoretical best?), and their consistency over the season (how many blank spells might you have to suffer with them?) are all factors which can justify spending a huge sum on a Haaland or a Salah.... even though their points-per-pound returns are very poor.

An effective squad usually contains a number of the highest total points-scorers (even if some of them represent very poor points-per-pound value), balanced with several cheaper players who offer excellent points-per-pound.

5)  You need to pay attention to boosting, or at least maintaining squad value

A lot of people dismiss squad value as an 'irrelevance', and disdain to take any notice of it. It's perhaps got a bad reputation in the FPL community because there is a bizarre side-game where a small minority of players focus all their attention on transfer trading, trying to grow squad value rather than earn points.

However, squad value is important because it translates directly into your points potential. If you can grow your squad value by 4 or 5 million over the opening months of the season, you give yourself the opportunity to bring in one or two more premium players that you couldn't initially afford, and that should boost your points returns.

It may be getting harder now to achieve these sorts of profits. (I believe the algorthms have been heavily tweaked over the last year or two, and price change thresholds seem to be reached very rarely now, compared to a few years back. Almost all of my overall gain in squad value last year came from Cole Palmer - who remained a strictly paper 'profit', since I didn't want to cash him in to try to upgrade other positions!)  But you should still be wary of shrinking squad value. Players who pick up a serious injury, or fall out of favour with their gaffer, or suffer a serious slump in form.... need to be jettisoned very promptly (before a general sell-off triggers a price dip).

And finally....  THE FUNDAMENTAL CALCULATION:

You get a 100-million pound budget at the start of the season. You have to spend at least 17 million on your bench (some might spend a little more). 

You might grow your squad value by 5 million pounds or more over the season. But then again, you might not (as I just noted above, the game dynamics seem to have shifted recently towards making it much more difficult to generate any significant profit on transfer trading). And most of that growth in value might be spent on bolstering an initially weak or half-empty bench, or simply tied up in a player you don't want to sell. There's unlikely to be a major change in the effective value of your starting eleven over the season, probably not more than a few million, at best.

Hence, it's reasonable to suppose that  the value of your starting eleven across most of the season is a little over 80 million.

In recent years, the global leaders have regularly been getting over 2.600 points, and occasionally 2,700+ or even 2,800+. And it is widely accepted that 2,500 points is an excellent score that we should all strive for....

Sure, you can in theory get double points for one of your best players through judicious use of captaincy picks - but, in practice, you have to be very lucky to get more than about a 10% boost on your basic team score from that; and usually it's a lot less than 10%.

That means you really want to be earning very nearly 30 points across the season for every million pounds invested in that starting eleven.

And that translates to a little over 0.75 points per million per week...  It really is worth keeping that in mind. (Although, in practice, you should settle for a little bit less than that - because those sorts of numbers would get you up around the very top of the global rankings, an unreasonable thing to aim at.)

[Momentous revelation: Almost NO PLAYER ever breaches that 30-points-per-million-of-cost number, and only a handful get anywhere near it. You cannot achieve a top-of-the-rankings score with a stable squad; you have to be constantly rotating the most in-form players in and out to try to maximise your returns.... so that the average returns for each slot in your squad are greater than the average returns produced by any one player over the season.]

Why people are BAD at FPL....

Forgive me if I may sometimes use the second person - you - in the following remarks. I don't want readers to feel that my tone is accusatory, that they are perhaps being individually exposed to censure. I think what I'm about to say applies to all of us. It is only human nature to be prone to these foibles. All of us are vulnerable to them, all of us have fallen prey to these errors at some point... and most of us continue to do so from time to time. Even the most successful FPL managers are not immune to the occasional lapse. There is a need for constant self-vigilance in order to steer clear of these faults.

1)  Personal loyalties (and enmities) towards particular clubs

You have to check your emotions at the door when you play FPL. If you start favouring picks from clubs you like, and avoiding clubs you dislike (such as the main traditional rivals of the team you support), you're shooting yourself in the foot.

I have a friend who is such a rabid Spurs fan that he automatically picks the maximum three players from them, regardless of merit. And that's not enough for him; frustrated by the club limit of three picks, he also usually goes for as many ex-Spurs players as he can find (Walker, Trippier, Walker-Peters... Doherty?). And of course, he absolutely refuses to consider ever taking any players from Arsenal. Or Liverpool - he particularly hates them too! Heck, it's only recently that I've been able to cajole him into occasionally taking a player from City or Chelsea or Man Utd.  He doesn't do very well at this game...

Of course, that's an extreme example - but you get the idea.

2)  Personal affection for (or aversion to) individual players

In addition to prejudices for or against certain clubs, many of us also have strong feelings about certain players. It might be because of the way they play, or their personality or public persona; or it might be specifically because of the way they've performed for you in FPL in the past.  You can't afford to dismiss a player from consideration for FPL just because you have formed a strong negative opinion that they are 'dirty' or 'lucky' or 'inconsistent' or 'overrated' or whatever (or because you disapprove of their private life...),  nor let yourself be swayed into automatically picking them because your fundamental opinion of them is highly positive.

Moreover, a player's value - or lack of it - in FPL isn't only dependent on his basic form or ability, but on the global context of all the other players you're comparing him against in the current season. Whether he did well or badly last season is only a small part of that. It is not a good idea to pick, e.g., Salah, just because he's always done well for you in FPL in the past, or because you think he is in general terms 'a great player'; you need a stronger rationale for the selection than that. (He is a great player: but how do you justify choosing him at his price-point this year, in comparison to Haaland or Watkins, or Palmer or Foden, etc.? That's what you have to think about; and the context for a selection like this is different every year.)  Similarly, you can't afford to write a player off just because he's 'let you down' in the past.

You have to start afresh each season, and give everyone fair consideration.

3)  Not watching enough (or any?!) football

I am amazed - and appalled - by how many people I see on FPL forums who clearly don't watch very much of the actual Premier League, if any at all. They must approach FPL as a form of pure gambling. (It seems insane to me. I likened it recently to 'driving on the highway blindfolded...')

There really is no substitute for watching the games. Following gurus, seeking tips from other fans, scanning pages of stats - that may all help, but it's barely scratching the surface; and without the context of some personal knowledge of what's going on in which to ground it, it's really not very likely to do you all that much good.

You need to watch as much football coverage each week as possible (including cup ties and European games): ideally, as many full games as possible - live, and with good commentary and post-match analysis in your native language. [This is my principal handicap in the game: living in SE Asia, I often struggle to catch many full games; and when I do, it's almost always with Thai or Vietnamese commentary, which is incomprehensible to me.]

4)  Not understanding stats

People who think they understand stats, and gleefully pounce on one or two metrics to justify a decision they already wanted to make anyway, are usually worse off than those who don't bother with stats at all. You need to know which stats to look at, and understand what they're telling you.

I recall someone on a forum once insisting that a player in a major points drought had 'good underlying numbers' because he was still getting a lot of shots on goal. I had to point out that he was getting a lot fewer shots on goal than at the same stage the previous season, and that his shot conversion rate had fallen almost to zero - which didn't look like very good 'underlying numbers' to me. (When you hear someone drop the phrase 'good underlying numbers' to justify a recommendation, be on your guard; it's generally a sign that they're talking out of their arse.)

I don't use stats a great deal myself, as I think they're a poor substitute for watching game action closely (there are always some details of a player's or a team's performance that stats are going to fail to capture). The ones I chiefly recommend paying attention to when you're considering a new pick are the 'expected' number for goals, assists, or goals conceded, and how they compare to the player's actual performance. Also, although I have all sorts of gripes about its transparency and fairness, the game's BPS ratings are a pretty good guide to general form (not the bonus points allocations themselves, but the credits for various individual game actions which are used to calculate who should receive the bonuses in each game; you can find this number in the 'Player Info' charts).

And you need to consider the returns-per-game (whether that's points, saves, goals, or whatever), as well as - in preference to! - the returns over the whole season (you might have to work this out for yourself - ugh, maths.!)... because a lot of players didn't play the whole of last season.

5)  Being lazy in how you use information to choose picks

A lot of FPL managers make quick, impulsive selections, without giving the matter sufficient thought. But then - even worse - they often look at just one piece of information to justify a selection, and convince themselves that this makes the choice incontrovertibly right.

I mentioned the other day how many managers were picking Turner as a back-up goalkeeper this year probably only because he's first on the list of keepers in the 4.0 price category (he started some games last year; he won't this year). Similarly, a lot have gone for Flekken as their starter - because he's top of the list of 4.5 keepers (but only because he's the only one who didn't miss any games last season). If you make picks for such superficial reasons, you must expect to get punished for them.

6)  Superstition

Related to the earlier points about allowing emotions about a player or a club to affect your picks, many of us also get traumatised by past bad experiences (or unduly elated by good ones), whether in following a favourite team in the real EPL, or in our FPL efforts. If particular players, or particular game strategies ('Always use WildCard in GW8...  Always use Triple Captain in a Double Gameweek.... Always use Bench Boost in GW34.... etc., etc., etc.), have worked out particularly well, or badly for you, it's easy to become convinced that they must inevitably always work out the same way in the future. It ain't so: you have to try to rid yourself of that kind of mystical thinking.

7)  Being too 'reactive'

A lot of FPL managers - especially, but not only the less experienced ones - fall prey to the 'emotional rollercoaster' of immediate responses to the Gameweek's events, making impulsive choices to move a player out because of one bad performance,.... or move a player in because of one good one. Now, sometimes, of course, that will be a valid response to a situation. But you always have to look for an underlying trend - is there a reason why this player's 'form' suddenly appeared to change, and is that likely to continue, or might it just be a very short-term phenomenon or a one-off aberration?

This kind of hyper-reactvity plays into the next point as well....

8)  Falling in with the flock

Unfortunately, far too many FPL managers spend a lot of time exchanging their anxieties on online forums, or following the dubious advice of self-styled 'influencers', or.... treating the vapid content churned out by FPL's The Scout seriously....  And this tends to engender a 'collective mindset' - it can create a huge momentum towards buying certain players (and ditching others). All too often, alas, this is not a collective wisdom but a collective stupidity. (And even if the choices might be justified, their value is diminished by so many people going for them at once...)

Now, I will often counsel that you shouldn;t avoid a pick just because it has become very popular; but you certainly should not choose any player just because they're a popular pick.  It's fine to go along with the sheep so long as you've thought about the decision carefully for yourself and are confident there's a good reason for it - rather than just lazily assuming that the majority must know what they're doing (oh, dear me - NO!) or timorously seeking comfort in the idea of 'safety in numbers'. 

9)  Stubbornness

We all prefer being 'right' to being 'wrong'; we all like to think we're right all the time. And it can be very, very difficult to acknowledge the hard truth that this isn't so - to accept that we've made a mistake and need to backtrack on it.

Possibly the No. 1 most damaging mistake that FPL managers fall prey to is not making a very bad pick, but obstinately refusing to change that bad pick even when it's become very apparent how bad it is.

Though perhaps even more difficult is letting go of a good pick when it ceases to be a good pick....

There are probably a few more I could write on another time, but I think these are the main ones. I hope we can all avoid them as far as possible this season.  GOOD LUCK, EVERYONE!

More BAD PICKS (some slightly less obvious ones!)

Following on from yesterday's post about some of the most egregious 'BAD Picks' I see a lot of FPL managers making at the moment, I present a few more examples.... that may seem more surprising or controversial to a lot of people.

Now, yesterday's examples weren't bad players (well, apart from Turner and Flekken!); but they were very conspicuously poor picks for their position and price-point.

This is how ruthless FPL rquires you to be. You only get 2, 3 or 5 picks in each position category; and across each of those positions, you probably have a particular amount of budget in mind, a range of just one or two price-points, for each individual selection. So, you're not just looking for 'one of the best' players for a certain position; you're looking for absolutely THE BEST, in FPL points potential, in that position, at that price-point - for every slot in your squad. (But you also have to consider filling each valuable squad slot not just in isolation, but in the global context of how many players you can take from each club, and how much more bang-for-your-buck you might get from taking a same-position player from another club, or perhaps a different-position player from the same club, or.... The combinations of factors you have to juggle are daunting.)

In order to achieve that, you have to look beyond merely superficial appeal (so many people are clearly just picking whoever happens to have scored the most points last season in each price/position category; that's so lazy - and deserves to be punished!).  You need to look deeper into the stats. 

In particular, you need to work out returns-per-game, not just look at the whole season numbers (a lot of players didn't play the whole season). It's also valuable to review the xG ('expected' goals), or xGC ('expected' goals conceded) for defenders and keepers, and to look at whether those numbers are lower or higher than the actual numbers of goals scored or conceded; this 'delta' factor (the difference between 'expected' and actual performance) is a key indicator of whether a player has been doing a good job.

You also need to try to recall the story of the season as a whole. Did a player play the whole season? Was he consistent across the whole season, or did he have peaks and troughs in form? Did he, overall, improve or decline across the course of the season? How did most of his points come about? What changes in tactics or personnel at the club contributed to his differing returns?  (If you don't watch much football, or can't remember, you should read up on some old match reports, or season summaries for the leading clubs - most clubs put out their own, and there are some good ones on Wikipedia too. And there are some good tactical analysts on Youtube who sometimes put together reviews of the season to explain how a top club achieved success. Adam Clery of FourFourTwo magazine had a particularly good one on Arsenal's so-near-and-yet-so-far-away season a couple of months ago.)

So, here are 5 players who look like very good picks - but AREN'T... for perhaps slightly non-obvious reasons.

Raya

Reason:  Arsenal were way ahead of the pack on clean sheets last season, and Raya conceded fewer goals than any other regular keeper. And he ended the season as the second-ranked FPL goalkeeper.

Yes, but... he was only a negligible amount ahead of Leno and Onana, and miles behind Pickford; so, not very convincingly one of the top few goalkeeper picks for FPL. (Onana, bouncing back after a dreadful start, looked the much better prospect in the latter stages of the season. And Leno has been consistently at the top end of the FPL goalkeeper rankings during his two seasons with Fulham.)

Moreover, his 24 goals conceded was actually slightly above his xGC - which suggests he is prone to the occasional lapse.

And he has a similar problem to Ederson at City over the last few seasons: the rest of the team dominates games so much, is so good defensively, that he rarely gets an opportunity to make a save. And saves - and the bonus points which can come from them when the keeper has a busy game - tend to be worth more than clean sheet points (that's why so many keepers from clubs at the lower end of the table manage to return decent FPL scores). His 'saves' total for the season of 46 was way the lowest of any keeper - barely a third of what Sa, Leno, Areola and Onana posted. And he managed a puny 6 Bonus Points for the entire season - compared to 15 for Leno and 22 for Pickford.

So, if you ponder the stats for a moment, Raya - despite his huge clean sheet potential - just isn't one of the more attractive goalkeeper options.

But that's NOT the reason you shouldn't have him in your squad. The key reason is the differential advantage offered by other Arsenal players. Raya probably won't be the top-scoring keeper this season; and even if he is, he won't significantly outscore a raft of other goalkeepers who cost 0.5 or 1.0 million less. But last year, White, Saliba, and Gabriel massively outscored every other defender; and they almost certainly will do so again.

So, you probably want at least 1, more likely 2 players from the Arsenal defence. You also probably want 1 of their very potent attacking midfielders, Odegaard or Saka. You might even fancy Declan Rice as a more budget option for your 5th midfield spot. And you might also be interested in Gyokeres up front, if that transfer comes off. Or you might just want to keep one of your three Arsenal slots open for another player who might get a run of starts and hit some rich scoring form for a spell - Martinelli or Trossard or Havertz or Jesus, perhaps.

David Raya might be a 'Top 5' goalkeeper option -  but he's not a 'Top 5' pick from Arsenal.

If you don't consider the full range of relevant goalkeeper stats (saves, bonus points, and delta xGC) - you'll make bad choices. If you don't pay attention to the relative value that other players in other positions at the same club offer - you'll make bad choices.

Saliba

Reason:  He's the best defender in the League. And Arsenal were way the best defence in the League last year (miles ahead on clean sheets), and are almost certain to be so again.

Absolutely. But.... being 'the best' in your position in real life means very little for your value in FPL 

All members of the Arsenal defence get the same 4-pt bonus for the many, many clean sheets William Saliba helps them to earn; but they all offer more than him in the potential for further points. Gabriel presents a more consistent threat at attacking set-pieces (it's a fairly marginal advantage, and might not always translate to an actual points lift; but it is worth paying attention to); and Ben White, when he pushes forward to link up with Saka, provides a regular possibility of assists and even a few goals over the season. Calafiori - if he starts immediately, if he beds in well and lives up to his potential - should also become a major attacking force down the other flank this season, and could conceivably even out-score White.

(Also, there might be just a little bit of a worry about Saliba's physical resilience, because he did end up missing about a third of his debut season at The Emirates - with what had initially seemed to be a fairly innocuous back strain.)

So, paradoxical as it might seem, while Saliba is, by common consent, the best defender at Arsenal, he's the worst defender pick from Arsenal for FPL.

The exact same thing happened last year. Almost everyone went for Saliba, rather than White and Gabriel, at the start of the season. And the season started weirdly: Gabriel mysteriously out of favour and dropped for a few games, White moved back into central defence (where he's much less productive in FPL terms),... and then Saliba nabbing a couple of - extremely untypical - headed goals. So, the sheep who'd gone for Saliba because everyone else had gone for Saliba, felt smugly vindicated: Saliba was miles ahead of those other two after the opening handful of games. And his owners then felt it wasn't worth using a transfer to switch to one of his rivals later on, even when that started to change. But once things had settled down at Arsenal, Saliba's two clubmates did indeed outscore him during the remaining portion of the season, Gabriel fairly narrowly, but White very substantially. Saliba wasn't the best pick from the Arsenal defence last year either.

Ben White costs 0.5 million more than Saliba this year. Last year, despite missing a few starts at right-back, and having a fairly subdued opening phase to the season, he still ended up with nearly 20 pts more than him. And Saliba might not get on the scoresheet again this season so,.... there's a strong chance that White's advantage over him this year could be in the 30-50 pts range (and Calafiori's haul perhaps similar!). You look to earn, ideally, around 30 or so points for every million spent on your starting 11 (realistically, a little less than that for defenders); and there aren't actually many differential picks where you find that kind of potential advantage for an extra half-million or million spent. But Ben White is absolutely worth the extra half-million he costs this year - if you can afford it; he will almost certainly score quite a lot more points than Gabriel or Saliba.

If you focus on real world status rather than Fantasy points value - you'll make bad choices. If you don't properly consider the rival choices in the same position at the same club - you'll make bad choices.

Gvardiol

Reason:  He scored 4 goals in a handful of games at the end of last season!

Yes - but, as I remarked somewhere on this blog just a few days ago, when defenders score a few goals in quick succession, it's almost always a fleeting streak, not an emerging trend. A lot of the FPL managers piling in for Gvardiol are absolutely expecting this to to be a consistent trend, they think he's going to be rivalling Haaland's scoring figures. That won't happen. He might well not score a goal all season.  [We see the same thing, a little less strongly, with the popularity of Pedro Porro this season (see below). And we saw it with Pervis Estupinan, one of the great 'sheep picks' from the start of last season, who had likewise bagged a couple of spectacular - but extremely untypical (I don't think he'd ever scored in his career before; other than from the penalty spot for Ecuador) - goals towards the end of the previous campaign.... Remember how that worked out?]

He is primarily a central defender, and is likely to be used there rather than at left-back at least some of the time. And when he does play at left-back, it's extremely unlikely that the ultra-conservative Pep is going to sanction him playing in such a marauding style very often. (And if he does, it's likely that opponents will be much more alert to the danger now, and will try to make sure they don't allow him time and space with the ball around the edge of their penalty area.)  The prospects of him repeating last season's goal-spurt are, alas, very, very slim.

There's such squad depth in the defensive positions at City that no-one is likely to start every game. Despite his outstanding form at the end of last season, Gvardiol is not even a guaranteed starter for the beginning of this season - and he certainly won't be an invariable starter for the whole campaign. 6.0 million is a lot to pay for someone who might only get 25-30 starts. (And City haven't even been keeping that many clean sheets over the past season or two!)

Gvardiol, again, is not an outright terrible choice: he's obviously one of the strongest defensive options for the year. But he is a very extravagant choice, a profligate use of funds. There is little need to take any of the defenders priced at 6.0 million or more; and if you do, there are probably better picks at the premium price level than Gvardiol.

If you think 'black swan' events will start happening every week - you'll make bad choices. If you ignore the reality of 'Pep Roulette' - you'll make bad choices.

Porro

Reason:  He got 3 goals and 7 assists last season

Indeed he did. And he is a very talented player, with some good potential for attacking returns. However, it's probably wildly over-optimistic to think that he might equal or better last season's tally - because he doesn't play that high up the pitch most of the time. The majority of those attacking contributions came in a handful of games, where he was playing as a very advanced wingback... because all of the right-sided creative mdfielders were out with injury.

And Spurs have a pretty terrible defensive record. With Postecoglou insisting on a suicidally high line, and a keeper who's very flakey and ridiculously easy to bully at set-pieces, they are always likely to leak a lot of goals. Moreover, the BPS tweak this year, with defenders and keepers now being more heavily penalised for conceding a goal, means that Spurs defenders are much less likely to pick up many bonus points in games in which they don't keep a clean sheet. Thus, even if Porro does get some good attacking points over the year, he's still fairly unlikely to get near his last season's points total again.

Porro's not a terrible pick; but he is a bit of a 'sheep pick' - and that collective enthusiasm for him derives from unrealistic expectations. With so many very strong defensive options this year priced at only 4.5 and 5.0 million, it's very difficult to justify paying 5.5 million for someone with such doubtful clean-sheet potential.

If you allow yourself to be swayed by headline numbers, without looking at the pattern of the whole season - you'll make bad choices. If you go along with the sheep too easily - you'll make bad choices.

Gakpo

Reason:  He always impresses for the Netherlands; he was brilliant at the Euros.

Indeed, he's been great for the Dutch in the last three big tournaments. But club and country are completely different worlds. For the national team, he enjoys the confidence of being a guaranteed starter in his favoured position down the left side of attack; and, in the absence of an established central goalscorer, he's been free to cut inside as much as he likes... and take on the mantle of being the team's primary goal-threat. He'd love to be able to play like that at Liverpool as well - but it ain't going to happen.

Gakpo's never really staked his claim at Anfield yet. Diaz (and Jota, when fit; and now maybe Carvalho too) has clearly been claiming priority on the left side of 'the trident', and both he and Jota can also usefully fill in through the middle, when Nunez is missing the sticks too often. Yes, Gakpo can play deeper in midfield as well, though that's not the best use of his talents; and there's probably even more competition for places there. 

He's more of a support player than an outright stiker anyway, so not a super-prolific source of goals. And it's difficult to see how he's ever going to become more than a handy utility player at Liverpool. There are so many forward options 1-2 million pounds cheaper who are primary goalscorers for their club and start every week.

If you let yourself be dazzled by someone's 'potential' rather than their likely prospects at their club - you'll make bad choices. If you get too impressed by someone's international form - you'll make bad choices.

How many of these guys do you have?  Maybe you should think about switching them out....

Not that any of these guys are dreadful picks, of course. They're all excellent players, and they will all very probably return very strong results in FPL this year. People who own them probably won't feel much remorse. But the objections I've raised above are mainly based on the context of the overall selection: to me, they look severely non-optimal when compared to other players you might pick instead - whether that's in their position category, their price category, or just across the range of choices at their club.

I'll try to remember to return to these guys a few times over the season to check how they're doing.

BAD PICKS (And why people make them)

I thought I'd go over some of the most obviously AWFUL picks that seem to be very popular in FPL at the moment, dissecting why it probably is that people are coming to make such poor choices.

Of course, the No. 1 'Bad Pick' of the moment, by a mile, is goalkeeper Matt Turner. He's the most popular GK currently, with nearly 25% ownership - that is just gob-smacking. 

Usually with a bad keeper pick, you make jokes like "He deserves to be 3rd or 4th choice at his club. They're probably going to demote him to the youth team soon - or sell him." But with Turner, the usual resources of humour fail. That is actually TRUE. He is nowhere near a start at Forest: already third-in-line, at best - and they're said to be looking to acquire Aaron Ramsdale as their new No. 1.

So, WHY has this happened? How have so many people come to pick a player who is so utterly and completely VALUE-LESS?

1)  Turner

Reason:  He is the highest-ranked 4.0-million-pound keeper, on last year's points returns.

Yep, he did actually get some starts last year; played nearly half the season in fact. But his points during that time were terrible. And he was deservedly dropped - twice. He now looks unlikely to feature in the Premier League again - not just for Forest, but for any club ever.

People lamely say, 'Oh, well, it doesn't matter - for a back-up keeper, you can take anyone.'  NO - it does matter. Even at that 4.0 level, there are some keepers who are first-in-line to take over if anything happens to their starter. Some of them are quite decent, and might even have a chance of being promoted to the No. 1 spot. They bring some value to your squad; Turner doesn't. In fact, he represents negative value - because there's likely to be a big sell-off when people start to realise how useless an asset he is, and his price will suddenly drop.

If you only look at one stat - you'll make bad choices.  If you look at a stat without understanding what it's showing you - you'll make bad choices.  You need to know something of the history of how last season unfolded as well.

2)  Flekken

Reason:  He's the top-ranked 4.5-million-pound keeper on last year's points returns. But that's not a full reflection of his ability and FPL points potential. And he has horrible opening fixtures.

Flekken was new to the League last season, and he struggled to settle in at first. He improved in the second half of the season; but many analysts still feel he might be at risk of being replaced.

Brentford were in relegation trouble for much of last season, and although that was largely because of a huge injury crisis in their defence and they might bounce back this year, they are essentially a side who are struggling to maintain a lower mid-table ranking.

Most of the other keepers priced at 4.5 million missed a few games to injury last year, or only came in part-way through the season. That's why Flekken ended up with more points than them overall (though he's only 3pts ahead of Areola). They almost all did much better than him on saves-per-game and points-per-game. Flekken conceded 63 goals in the league last season, the second highest of any keeper. He had a terrible delta too; he let in 9 more goals than his xGC of 54 - that's a sign of a poor keeper.

And Brentford have possibly the worst early run of fixtures of any team: even their home opener against Crystal Palace might be tough; and they then face away trips to Liverpool, City and Spurs in GWs 2, 4, and 5.  You really don't want any keeper starting for you in matches like those, where there's a high likelihood of conceding multiple goals.

If you don't carefully compare someone to all the rivals in his position - you'll make bad choices. If you don't work out their relative returns-per-game as well as over the whole season - you'll make bad choices. If you don't check the fixture list - you'll make bad choices.

3)  Konsa

Reason:  Name recognition; recency bias. Konsa got some attention for his performances with resurgent Aston Villa last season. And people remember that he appeared in the Euros (he played one game!).

There are 70 or so defenders available at 4.5 million; and about a third of them are more attractive FPL prospects than Konsa. Thus, his current ownership level of 17.3% is quite baffling, hugely inappropriate.

Villa's defensive record last season wasn't that great: they conceded around 1.6 goals per game. Palace, Everton, Fulham, and even Bournemouth kept more clean sheets. (And, as a central defender, Konsa offers minimal chance of any additional points for attacking contributions.)

If you don't carefully compare someone to all the rivals in his position - you'll make bad choices. If you just plump for a familiar name - you'll make bad choices.

4)  Mainoo

Reason:  Name recogntion, recency bias; club loyalty, patriotic pride, over-enthusiasm about emerging talent.

Yes, Kobbie Mainoo was outstanding for Manchester United in the latter part of last season, and showed a lot of promise for England in his performances at the Euros. He likes to carry the ball forward, and is even capable of getting the occasional goal. That's all very exciting - at least for Manchester United and England; not so much for Fantasy Premier League.

Mainoo is a defensive midfielder, and those just don't tend to produce that many points; not as many anyway, as players who provide plenty of goals and/or assists. Even at his low 5.5-million-pound price-point, there are some hard-working bonus point-magnets like Andreas Perreira, McGinn and Pape Sarr (who also get among the goals a bit more than most players of their type); there are very talented creative players like Smith Rowe, Barkley, Elliott and McNeil; there are numerous goalscoring wingers like Hudson-Odoi, Elanga, Iwobi, Sarabia, Adingra, Kluivert, Harrison and De Cordova-Reid; and even one outright forward, in the unfathomably reclassified Antoine Semenyo. Many - perhaps all - of those will outscore Kobbie Mainoo. So, it's very, very difficult to justify picking him, even if you need a 5.5-million midfielder.

If you choose someone based primarily on recent international performances - you'll make bad choices. If you don't think about how someone's position and style of play will limit their likely points return - you'll make bad choices.

5)  Havertz

Reason:  People see him ranked as the third highest-scoring 'forward' last year.

Very impressive, yes. Except that... perhaps they're forgetting that he was classified as a 'midfielder' in the game last year; so, he got 1 extra point for each of his 13 goals; and a lot more extra points for all of the team clean sheets that he was involved in; and quite possibly a few extra bonus points too. If you take that into consideration, he actually ranks only seventh. 

And a lot of his closest goalscoring rivals - like Isak, Cunha, and Mateta - missed big chunks of the season; most would agree that they look stronger attacking prospects than Havertz.

Admittedly, he didn't play every game either. And he played more as a midfielder for most of the first half of the season. So, it is reasonable to assume that if he continues in the 'false 9' role for the whole of this season, he might score a few more goals. But he'd need 7 or 8 more to equal his points tally of last year - does that really seem likely?

And Arteta, we know, loves to tweak things constantly. There can be no confidence that Havertz would remain in that role for the whole season, or that the team would continue to play in the same style they did last year. So, any projections of his goalscoring returns this year are very, very speculative - fraught with many uncertainties.

In fact, using Havertz as a 'false 9' always felt like an improvised solution, and the club was known to be seeking a new forward throughout the last year. Now, they appear to be close to completing the signing of Viktor Gyokeres from Sporting Lisbon - which will probably mean that Havertz drops back into midfield,... or maybe even ends up on the bench for much of the season.

If you don't take into account how changes in position classification can affect the points return - you'll make bad choices. If you don't take into account possible changes of personnel or tactics at the club - you'll make bad choices.

So, there we have it: my current  Top Five AWFUL Picks in FPL.  I'll share a few other - slightly more surprising - examples soon.