Do Wilcard transfers affect prices??

 I don't know.

I don't believe anyone (not ordinary FPL managers struggling with the game, anyway) does know for sure. Although a lot of people have convinced themselves that they do know - on no obvious basis. The idea that transfers made under a Wildcard are excluded from affecting the price-change mechanism in the game seems to be no more than a pervasive myth.

FPL Towers declines to publish any rules on how the price-change mechanism works (because, presumably, they don't want people to get too good at 'gaming the system'). And none of the online guides I've looked at over the years, guides which claim to have deduced the main 'rules' from close observation of price changes over an extended period, has ever suggested that Wildcard transfers are excluded from the process. Moreover, FPL frequently makes tweaks to this mechanism, without announcing or explaining them; so, even if such a 'rule' might have been in place at some point in the past, even last season, it might not necessarily still be in effect now.  So, nobody can really know for sure; and anyone who claims they do is a victim of self-delusion (a sadly common ailment in the FPL community).

I would imagine that this notion arose because it is fairly obvious that transfers made while a Free Hit chip is in play are so excluded from affecting prices; and so it might seem reasonable to suppose that the similar Wildcard chip is subject to the same proviso.

But there is a very obvious difference with the Free Hit: those are not 'real transfers' - they're all going to be automatically revoked within a matter of days.

With the Wildcard, however, the expectation is that all changes may persist indefinitely; and almost certainly some will remain in place for a long time, perhaps for the remainder of the season. And even those which are rapidly reversed, while the Wildcard is still in play, are nevertheless reversed by a conscious decision of the manager playing the game - based on his appraisal of unfolding circumstances. Even if a transfer has only been 'in place' for 24 hours, it is still a 'real transfer'; there is no good reason for disregarding its possible impact on overall ownership levels and price-change cues just because it was made under a Wildcard.

The purported rationale for such a strange and pointless rule is that it is intended to dissuade people from trading for profit on their Wildcard (particularly over an extended gap between gameweeks, such as the current extra-long international break - as I discussed at some length this morning).

There are two problems with this explanation. 

First, individuals trading for profit, or even quite large groups of managers trading for profit, are not generally going to have any decisive impact on price-changes. You usually need huge numbers of managers making the same trade within a short space of time to trigger a change. There are only going to be very rare gameweeks where you do have a very substantial percentage of managers all using their Wildcards at once - such that this might become an issue.

Second, since a Wildcard can be played retroactively at any point before the next gameweek deadline, such a 'deterrent policy' can be easily circumvented by paying points for the transfers initially, and then wiping out that points-spend with a subsequent playing of the chip. [There is now in theory a cap of 20 transfers per gameweek - which is not applied to the Wildcard or Free Hit chips; but that really is a huge number of transfers to make, even in a very extended gameweek. When I have tried speculative trading, I don't think I've come anywhere close to making that number of transfers. So, the prospect of being able to use 'unlimited transfers' with the Wildcard isn't much of a factor in seeking to guard against this supposed 'abuse', I don't think.]

My own - yes, superficial, anecdotal - experience of trying out Wildcard trading over international breaks (when, presumably, very large numbers of managers - perhaps responsible for the majority of the transfer volume in these periods - are indeed on their Wildcards) is that Wildcard trades do appear to play into the price-mechanism. (There wouldn't be such large volumes of transfers every single day unless a lot of them were being produced by Wildcards. There may, of course, be a further question as to whether Wildcard transfers - and perhaps Free Hit transfers also - are publicly counted in the official transfer numbers, but kept apart from a second, secret number of 'real' transfers. But I don't think the denizens of FPL Towers are capable of that level of sophistication in their cruelty - or simply in their administration. I repeat that my impression has been that the large numbers of transfers we see over an extended gameweek like this must be largely due to Wildcards in play,... and they do seem to be affecting price changes.) But, like I said at the outset, I can't be sure; and there is really no way to tell.

However, it doesn't really any difference. Whether or not you yourself are playing your Wildcard is utterly irrelevant to the price-change mechanism in the grand scheme of things. The only factor that would make a difference is if very large numbers of other people are also playing their Wildcards at the same time. And if that is the case,.... well, FPL Towers would be rotten kill-joys if they excluded those transfers from the price-changes. But... maybe they do, maybe they don't.  So what??  We seek to trade-for-profit based on the transfers we can see happening (and our own appreciation of which players are likely to become popular or unpopular). We don't know who those people making the trades are, we don't know if they're on a Wildcard or not; we just have to accept the transfer numbers that the game publishes, and act on those. We may resent that the actual number of transfers may be much higher and is not being fully counted, we may bridle at the thought that our own - and our fellow Wildcarders' - transfers are perhaps not contributing to the price shifts we hope to benefit from. But we have no way of knowing what's going on behind the scenes at FPL Towers; we have to accept the transfer picture and the likelihood of price changes that is presented to us.

The common idea that Wildcard transfers don't affect prices is not only - in all probability - an unfounded myth; it is, ultimately, utterly unimportant, it has no bearing at all on how we approach trading-for-profit on a Wildcard.

Why that Bench Boost didn't go so well

That glass isn't even half full, not anywhere near 

Apparently, over 800,000 FPL managers risked their Bench Boost on the opening weekend of the season. Most of them were probably duped into it by the surprisingly large number of influential online 'content creators' who (perhaps 'influencing' each other??!!) all suddenly decided - on very spurious grounds - that it might be 'a good idea'.

Here are the reasons usually given for this bizarre choice; and the reasons why they're all completely bogus.

1)  It can give you an early lead.

Yes, it can. It probably did, for many people. But a very small early lead that will rapidly evaporate as other managers play their Bench Boost more sensibly later in the season and get better returns from it. 

To optimise your points returns over the season, you have to try to optimise your returns for every individual gameweek; and playing a chip just to get an early lead does not do that.  If you 'chase the lead' like this, you end up in a worse position overall at the end of the season.

2)  You can set up 'perfectly' for your Bench Boost attempt using the unlimited transfers available in pre-season.

Yes, you can in theory. But as I explained the other day, there are so many uncertainties at the start of the season around form, fitness, tactics, and selection that you really have no idea how well anyone's going to play, or even if they're going to play (you don't always have 15 starters in Gameweek 1; heck, you don't always have as many as 13!!). You're betting completely blind. 

You will almost certainly get a better return from this chip if you play it later in the season (even if you're not able to set up 'perfectly' for it!) - when form has settled down, and you can feel more confident about what the most promising sets of fixtures will be;... and more confident about actually having a full 15 starters.

3)  The fixtures looked really 'promising' this weekend.

You imagined they might be promising. No-one had any real idea which fixtures were going to be easy, and which not. There are almost always a lot of surprises and upsets in the opening gameweek.  

This year.... Manchester United were comprehensively outplayed by promoted Hull; Liverpool were outplayed by unfancied Newcastle, and only salvaged a point with a contentious penalty in the last kick of the match; and Manchester City were outplayed at home by Bournemouth, and barely scraped a late, narrow win; Villa got absolutely thrashed by Brighton; Spurs got absolutely thrashed by Brentford; Sunderland unexpectedly lost to promoted Ipswich; Forest lost at home to Leeds (that was always going to be a tight one; but a lot of people fancied the strong home advantage at the City Ground, and the 'magic touch' of Oliver Glasner); and Chelsea were nearly held to a draw at Fulham thanks to some horrible goalkeeping by Robert Sanchez. So, almost none of those supposedly 'easy' fixtures worked out at all as expected. Amongst the Top 50-odd FPL picks in the first gameweek, the only big returners were most of the Arsenal starters, Palmer, Joao Pedro, and Rogers from Chelsea, and Ndiaye from Everton. 23 of them blanked; another 10 didn't even play (not good for a Bench Boost!); and Matty Cash ended up with -1!! Nearly two-thirds of the most popular players came up with nothing this weekend; and that should not have been a surprise - it often happens. Gameweek 1 is always very unpredictable, and often very low-scoring.

4)  If you went without one or more of the 'super-premium' players, you could afford a 'stacked' bench (and then use an early Wildcard to switch to a much cheaper bench, and maybe bring the omitted big names back in fairly soon).

That one is actually somewhat tempting - apart from the aforementioned problem of not having any idea how most of the opening matches are going to turn out!! But I haven't seen many people following this tactic; almost everyone seems to have been hanging on to at least one of the super-premiums, and a very large number have insisted on having all three (and many of these followed the sheep to Bench Boost anyway, despite, in many cases, having 1 or 2 obvious non-starters on their bench).

The further problems here - in addition to having no real idea who to put on your bench, even if you are able to set aside more money for them - are, first, that it's always a huge risk to go without the big-name players: they're 'big names' for a reason - they often produce massive hauls,... and they often start out the season very hot; Haaland particularly so. (Some years ago, I took a chance on going without the two biggest players that season in my initial squad, and they both scored hattricks on opening day!)  Second, there is a 'cost' to the early use of chips: not only will you almost certainly be able to earn more proints from a later Bench Boost, but hanging on to your Wildcard until later in the season (when you might hit a major injury crisis, or find that there's a big shift in fixture-difficulty for several teams, or a sudden swing in form for some teams) can also be very valuable. Committing to using both of these enormously powerful chips early in the season - when you don't really know what's going on with anyone's form - is.... just silly.

5)  Well, at least this gets the chip 'out of the way'!

Um, what??? No, I can hardly believe I've seen that view expressed by normally sane and sensible members of the online community, but... Believe it or not, this has been quite a commonly expressed sentiment about the early - very early - use of the Bench Boost. Because having a second Bench Boost and Triple Captain to use in the first half of the season is a new feature of the game, only introduced at the start of the 25-26 season, many people are still confused, flummoxed, discombobulated by the fact. They don't see any real value in these additional chips, and are thus inclined to use them any old how, as if it really doesn't matter. And many of them seem genuinely worried that they might just 'forget about them', and then find themselves having to use a handful of chips one after another in December (there will be 6 or 7 gameweeks in December, so.... still not a problem).

This attitude, of course, is utterly fatuous. These chips are valuable, and you should make a careful decision about when you can use them that will give you the strongest possible chance of extracting good value from them. That is emphatically not in Gameweek 1.

Two factors are crucial to a successful Bench Boost, one 'internal' and one 'external'. The 'internal' one is that you need to have a strong squad who are all fit and starting regularly. The 'external' one is that you'd like to have all 15 squad members - or as many of them as possible, at any rate - facing weak opponents in the same gameweek.

In Gameweek 1, you simply cannot be confident that all 15 of your squad members are going to start, nor do you really know which the softest fixtures are likely to be.

The 'global average' score is a powerful indicator of how worthwhile a particular gameweek has been for using the Bench Boost in. A high average indicates that lots of players produced big hauls, and that obviously increases the chances that you might have had many big hauls among your 15 squad members. The 'global average' in this year's Gameweek 1 was a dismally low 48 points; therefore, it was a very poor week to have Bench Boost-ed in.

Now, a lot of people are claiming they did really well on their Bench Boost last week. But did they really??

Players like Sangaré, Kayode, Lewis-Potter and Janelt of Brentford, Hinshelwood and De Cuyper of Brighton, Stach and Bijol and Justin of Leeds, Dewsbury-Hall and Ndiaye of Everton, and Tzolakis of Hull did very well,... and are the type of the players that people might have left on their bench. But these players are all pretty low-owned, so it's unlikely that many people had more than one of them, and many will have had none at all. And it was entirely fortuitous that so many 'fringe' players like this happened to get really big scores in a week in which fairly few players actually returned well. 

Moreover, in most of the cases I've looked at where people have proudly shared their teams, it's pretty obvious that one of these guys should in fact have been starting. And anyway, I always maintain that, since the Bench Boost is a whole-squad achievement, you really ought only to count the 4 lowest-returning players as the true value of your points-lift from the chip, whether you'd left them on the bench or not. After all, if a player doesn't play at all, he gets shifted on to your bench; I think you ought to do the same if a player has a shit game - when evaluating your Bench Boost. Most of the Bench Boosters this week probably heavily backed Manchester United (no-one returned) and Liverpool (Van Dijk and Wirtz, two of the most popular picks, didn't return) and City (Haaland and O'Reilly, the two most popular, didn't return) - and so had a pretty dismal week in their first eleven. Getting a good bench score but a terrible score in your starting eleven.... means you made some bad choices about who to leave on your bench; and it was not ultimately a good return from your Bench Boost. 

You really need to check how high above the global average you were to assess how well your Bench Boost did. I reckon, if you're not at least 20 points above, you did quite poorly (because you'd hope to get at least 10 points above global average most weeks anyway, if you're any good at the game; and 10 points is the absolute minimum you should be making from the Bench Boost, properly counted).

Some people will undoubtedly have done quite well out of it (some people will get lucky with any Bench Boost selection in any Gameweek!!). But not many, I think. And a good outcome does not mean it was a 'good' decision. Good decisions are carefully thought-out and well-justified, and give the highest probability of success for the majority of people following a certain path. 

Playing the Bench Boost in GW1 was not that. It was a bunch of people succumbing to greedy impulse and hare-brained logic, or just unthinkingly following some online 'guru' or other. And the majority of them were punished for that. (They don't know yet just how badly they were punished; but they'll find out gradually over the next four months, as perhaps a good 60% or 70% of the other managers in the game earn substantially more from their Bench Boost chips.)

I don't think I've come across anyone who can claim to have got an effective points-lift from the Bench Boost this week of more than 10 points; most are much lower. It should be fairly easy to better that later on - once we know what's going on with everyone's form.

And - good grief! - many people were taking the same approach to the Triple Captain chip: "I don't know what to do with it, it's burning a hole in my pocket. Let's just dump it in Gameweek 1, even though I have no idea what any of the results are likely to be, or who's in form yet."

It's a kind of masochism: these people just don't want to do well in the game, they're trying to sabotage themselves. It is very sad.

Drafting may be 'a game in itself' - but it is of no help to the REAL GAME

 

For the past couple of weeks, the online FPL forums have been full of people sharing endless preliminary drafts of their squads - many of them joking about how many dozens of attempts they've had already, and how many more they're likely to get through... (Or, even more alarmingly, a good number of them bizarrely claim that they're done, finished, that they have their 'final' lineup sorted.... still 10 or 15 days out from the start of the season, with new transfer rumours flying around every day...??!!)

We're still a little shy of 4 million enrolments for the game this year; and we'll presumably hit at least twice that number by the end of next week, and maybe three or more times that many by a few weeks into the season. And the daily volume of transfer activity would appear to indicate that perhaps only 20-30% of managers are indulging in these endless revisions, while the majority - as I recommended a couple of weeks ago - are contenting themselves for now with a placeholder team, created in a few seconds with the game's 'Auto-pick' facility.

Now, I don't like to be a killjoy.... If these folks are treating this endless obsessive re-drafting as a bit of 'harmless fun' - well, good luck to them!

I imagine that the appeal is as a sort of 'playing the real game in imagination', trying to picture what might happen with each of the chosen squads. And this without the downer of getting immediate negative feedback in your points returns when you make actual changes to your squad during the season!! Perhaps it is nice to be able to endlessly tweak your team like this without feeling that pain.

And later on, I suspect, some of these multi-drafters may seek solace in the idea that one of their discarded 'early versions' (perhaps in a slightly misremembered, idealised form...) might actually have done really well - so much better than the final squad they actually landed on!

Quite a few seem to be leaning on AI gizmos to 'rate' their early efforts, creating a new side-game where they struggle to get ever closer to the illusory validation of their squad being deemed 100% 'perfect'!! Alas, none of these AI tools have any real understanding or discrimination, and are doing little more than spitting out random numbers - so, it's very doubtful if this will be at all helpful (probably the reverse) in developing a stronger selection.

Where I take issue with this pastime is with the widespread underlying delusion that it is actually worthwhile, that it is doing some good in honing the final selection. It most emphatically is not: it is nothing but harmful.

First of all, of course, it is a colossal waste of time.

Second, and the way in which it is most actively deleterious to your Fantasy management efforts for the season (as I discussed in detail when I first launched this blog), it will tend to lead to worse decisions on deadline day, because of the human cognitive biases that tether us to our earliest preliminary decisions on an issue. It is never a good idea to start making judgements about things before you have all the necessary information available with which to make those judgements - which, with Fantasy Premier League, doesn't happen until a few hours before the first kick-off of the season.

And third, a more general and longer-term harm, I think, is that this practice builds up a dependence on being able to see different lineups on your 'Pick Team' display before you can imagine how they might work together and how they fit within your budget cap. Just as with chess, you never get very good if you always have to physically make moves on the board to picture how a simple endgame might play out, so too in Fantasy football, I think it helps to develop the ability to picture mentally what different combinations of players you can afford within the limitations of the budget. If you really have no idea what a 'No-Haaland' squad might look like without actually building it in the app,.... I think you have a problem. And you're making that problem worse.

Trust me on this: refraining from early drafting is good for you.

'Chasing' is the ultimate DELUSION

A chap on one of the FPL forums recently was asking what tactics he should follow in the last two or three gameweeks of the season.

My reply was this:  You do what you'd do in any other gameweek. You pick the best team you can, and keep your fingers crossed for a good outcome. 

There is no way to 'protect' rank, or to 'chase' rank: you have no knowledge of what anyone else will choose to do, and no control over anyone's outcomes. 

If you delude yourself into thinking that a 'more cautious' selection or a 'more daring' selection is better, you're just distracting yourself from what you ought to be doing - trying to find the BEST selection.

That's all there is to it. 'Chasing rank' (or nervously 'protecting rank') is dangerous nonsense; it only leads to foot-shooting.

The Double Gameweek Delusion (again)

 

Gameweek 33 is our only substantial Double Gameweek this season - and not as substantial as it might have been, with Arsenal unexpectedly crashing out of the FA Cup at the hands of second-tier Southampton the other week, meaning that Arsenal and Newcastle are now omitted from the list of doubling teams.

But it's just not a great set of fixtures. City have Burnley (away) in midweek, but Sunday's crunch match in the title race against Arsenal before that (likely to be a very dour game in which Arsenal play for the draw...). Bournemouth have Newcastle (away) and Leeds (home) - neither of them a pushover. Brighton have Spurs (away) and Chelsea (home); really tough to predict those - strong teams, but in dreadful form recently. Burnley might fancy their chances against Forest on Sunday (although that is away), but must be expecting a drubbing when they face City. Only Leeds, with a home game against Wolves and an away match at Bournemouth, may have a decent prospect of two wins - although it's a hell of a long trip down to the south coast,... and Bournemouth are starting to look very dangerous again.

So.... NO-ONE - not even Manchester City - has a good Double.

And, unless a player has at least one really inviting fixture - ideally, two - it's rarely worth betting on them in a Double Gameweek, in preference to dependable high points-returners who stand a strong chance of giving you a good haul from their single fixture.

Every time there's a Double Gameweek, we see people burning through transfers, even spending 'hits' or using their Wildcard or Free Hit, to load up on 8, 10, 12, even 15 doubling players, in the fond hope that this will inevitably net them a massive points total for the week.

The foundational assumptions prompting this mania are: 1) that you are guaranteed a minimum of 4 points from a doubling player; and 2) that a doubling player will - or at least can - give you twice as many points as a single-fixture player.

Both of these assumptions are simply WRONG.

1)  Nothing is ever 'guaranteed' in this game. Players might get injured or suspended in the first of the two games, or just be deemed in need of a rest for the second; or get restricted minutes across both of them (particularly if their team is still involved in Europe). And defenders can easily get fewer than 2 points in a game; indeed, it's quite possible for a player to rack up negative points once in a while. The 'baseline' expectation from a Double Gameweek player is considerably less than 4 points.

2)  Even if a player plays all of both games, almost no-one ever manages to perform at their maximum level twice in quick succession. Even with two 'easy' fixtures, it's vanishingly rare for a player to produce two good FPL returns in a Double Gameweek. With the significant risk of limited minutes, or only appearing in one of the two games, the reasonable expected median return for a double-fixture player is far less than twice what it would be for a single-fixture player - but no-one in FPL seems to be able to grasp that.

In almost every Double Gameweek, around half of the top returning players are usually single-fixture players. At least some of the top returners in this Gameweek 33 are likely to be the same players who would have been the strongest prospects in any other week - even though they only played once: players who are being widely jettisoned in the Double Gameweek mania - such as Bruno Fernandes, Igor Thiago, Harry Wilson, Gabriel, James Tarkowski, Jordan Pickford, Caoimhin Kelleher, etc.

A second set of appearance points is a nice lift if your doubling player has a strong chance of some sort of decent return in at least one of the two fixtures (especially for a defender or keeper, who you wouldn't generally expect to have a high chance of a big haul; this is why having some doubling players on the bench can help a Bench Boost). But you need that assurance of at least one good fixture, plus the near certainty of starting in the other game as well. Otherwise, it's a huge gamble to bring in players from mid- or lower-table clubs that you usually wouldn't bother with - and it rarely pays off.

In the grip of this Double Gameweek frenzy, people also seem to overlook the cost of transfers (even if you don't have to use 'hits' now, all transfers are valuable, and it makes sense to regard them all as effectively 'costing' 4 points; consider, if you use up a Free Transfer now, an injury crisis in a week or two's time might necessitate you taking a 'hit' that you could have avoided if you'd still had that earlier Free Transfer in hand). If you're using up a lot of transfers to bring in these doubling players, and are probably going to use more to get rid of most of them again as soon as possible - that is almost certainly going to wipe out whatever advantage you might gain from their playing twice this week. But, of course, this is an 'invisible cost'; many FPL managers don't even notice it,... or can easily persuade themselves to ignore it. They will feel terribly smug if they get a big gameweek return with their many-doublers ploy - not taking into account the cost of the transfers it consumed,... or the possible negative impact of being stuck with some sub-optimal players in their squad in subsequent gameweeks,... or the fact that many managers who made few or no changes to their regular squad did just as well, or better.

It's perfectly fine, indeed a good and necessary thing to 'load up' with doublers to an extent: good players from good teams with at least one good fixture. But a lot of DGW Delusionals are going for Burnley players, who are likely to get battered twice, or Leeds players just because they're cheap, or players from currently awful Chelsea just because they used to be good last summer, or geriatric Danny Welbeck who's extremely unlikely to start in both games....

Be very careful about which doubling players you pick for a Double Gameweek. Don't use too many transfers on them (and be mindful of how you're going to offload these 'temporary assets' again). And don't ditch your best single-gameweek players for them!

Nobody's team is ever PERFECT

 

We all want to feel good about ourselves. And we all want to feel good about our FPL team: we want it to be as good as it can be. And - much of the time - we persuade ourselves that it is.

But... as good as it can be is not perfect. And if you delude yourself into believing that it is, that can lead into a dangerous complacency.

How often, really, does any of us get to roll a transfer? Usually no more than a handful of times a season. And even then, we're usually saving them up for 'tactical' reasons, not because we really don't feel our team could use any changes at all; we'd like to use a transfer straight away, but we have judged that being able to make multiple transfers a week or two further on may be even more valuable to us.

Almost always we have a few players who seem to have lost a bit of form, or are stuck in teams whose form has suddenly - and often quite mysteriously - deserted them, or who face a few unpromising fixtures in the coming run of games. And almost always there are other players who've caught our eye with a one or two big performances (though we're probably not yet quite sure if this is really emerging form or just a flash-in-the-pan), players we are starting to covet as possibly better alternatives to some of our current selections. 

And, if we played the game like FPL's dim (probably AI??) 'pundit' The Scout, blithely making unlimited transfers every week, we'd 'fix' all of those potential problems, chase all of those dreams. But that is not the game. We play the game properly: we know that transfers have a 'cost', and that it is very difficult to make back that cost by switching out a decent player who still has a regular start - certainly not within a single gameweek. We use our transfers cautiously, parsimoniously: and almost all of them have to be used to deal with injuries.

And because of that,... not only do we almost invariably have at least a few players, sometimes even four or five or six, who are looking slightly sub-par, players that in an ideal world we'd probably swap out; some of those players might have been clogging up our team for weeks - because we've always had more urgent changes to make with our limited transfers.

So, in practice, because of the harsh realities of this Fantasy game of ours, it is extremely unlikely that any of us will truly get to enjoy the satisfaction of having our team just the way we want it. (Even when we play a Wildcard, we usually get one or two players who immediately suffer an injury or a crash in form. That always seems to happen to me, anyway...)

But even when that rare combination of circumstances does align for us, those happy few times each season when we do seem to have our team just the way we want it,.... that's never going to be 'perfect', is it? 'Perfection' is an impossible ideal. You can drive yourself crazy chasing that phantom. Make do with as good as it can be.

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.

Feeling THANKFUL?

I've long had a peculiar fondness for the American holiday of Thanksgiving - largely because I've so often been able to celebrate the occasion with American and/or Americophile friends, and a few times even in America.

This year, alas, I shall probably be making do with a turkey sandwich on my own. And maybe I'll make myself a pumpkin cheesecake for a sweet treat tonight...

Anyhow, a Happy Thanksgiving to any American readers who may stumble upon this obscure corner of the Internet (probably looking for content about the Fantasy version of their own gridiron game - the one that rather conspicuously involves very little playing of the ball with the foot....).

[And apologies to any Canadian readers who feel overlooked. But you're probably used to it! I am well aware that your version of this holiday falls much earlier, on the 2nd Monday in October, as I lived in Toronto for a year-and-a-half in my youth. However, that holiday never embedded itself in my psyche, even when I was a resident in the country. You Canucks are not so, um, culturally assertive as your American cousins, I suppose.]

For some reason, Linus's pitiful obsession with The Great Pumpkin - an autumn-themed deity of his own invention - was always one of the things that most resonated with me in the classic 'Peanuts' cartoons. This superstition of his was actually associated with Halloween, but it is Thanksgiving, with its own emphasis on pumpkins, that always recalls it to my mind. 

Linus, of course, was convinced that The Great Pumpkin would appear only to him, if he created a pumpkin-patch that was worthy of the demi-god's attendance; and he'd wait patiently every year, full of expectation - but it never happened.  In much the same way, we FPL managers convince ourselves that, if we only take enough care over our selections, one day The Great Gameweek or The Great Chip Play will manifest itself only for us.  Like I said, pitiful.

Again with the metaphors, Mr Wade?

What is a Triple Captain worth?

 

There are two aspects to that question:  1)  How should you assess the points value of the Triple Captain chip?  and 2)  How many points can you expect to earn from it?

Unfortunately, if your thinking is muddled on the first part of the question (as it often seems to be in FPL-land), that prevents you forming a clear idea of what you ought to be aiming for with the chip.

People very commonly claim that their return from playing the Triple Captain is THREE times the gameweek points-haul for their chosen captain. But this is just empty bragging, or dangerous self-delusion. (People who somehow persuade themselves that the value of the chip is TWICE their captain's points-haul are even more perversely misguided in their way of looking at this!)  Of course, you should really only be interested in the points lift that the chip gives you over what you would have had without it. And you'd get the basic points haul for that player anyway. In fact, since you surely would have made him your captain anyway, you would have got twice his points-haul for the week if you hadn't played the chip. So, the additional value of the Triple Captain chip is only the basic points-haul total, not some multiple of it.

I have discussed in some detail before the issue of whether the Triple Captain chip invariably pays off better in a Double Gameweek. (Summary; it can - but usually it does not. And it's a very dangerous thing to gamble on, since Double Gameweeks are now few and small, and right at the back end of the season.)

My general advice on both types of Bonus Chip is that you have to be prepared to play them opportunistically. There can be so many swings in player and individual form over a season that you often don't know who the hottest player of the year is going to be until a streak of exceptional returns suddenly emerges,.... and you often don't know what anyone's 'easiest' fixture is going to be until shortly before it happens. You can suss out the likely most promising options some months ahead; but you need to stay flexible, and be prepared for those tentative plans to completely change. (This year, Erling Haaland is still in form, and still the only FPL player regularly producing big points returns. And it has been fairly obvious since the start of the season that his two best fixtures in the first half of the season were likely to be City's home gaines against Leeds and West Ham in Gameweeks 13 and 17. So - for once - the start-of-season provisional plan for most people hasn't changed.... yet. But a lot of people weren't prepared to risk waiting this long, when Haaland was also knocking in braces of goals against better opponents. And now there is a chance that Saka or Mbeumo might be coming into tempting form as possible alternative picks. If Haaland gets injured in the next few weeks, then there'll have to be a late change of plan.... Such things often happen.)

Of course, you hope to successfully target one of your best hauls of the season for a Triple Captain play - but it is not reasonable to expect to land on the best; it's all just too unpredictable. Almost always, in fact, your and everyone else's best haul of the season comes from some complete random that you would never have expected to produce for you - and didn't very often, so wasn't a strong bet for the TC chip. You have to focus on players who can bag very large hauls multiple times a season, and who maintain top form for extended periods. Even if they won't ultimately provide any of your very best scores of the season, they are more reliable bets to provide a good score in a particular gameweek.

You shouldn't use the chip lightly, just throw it away on impulse; you should carefully choose a week in which your best player, when he's in his best form, is facing an opponent against whom he should have an especially high chance of scoring more than one goal.

But even the most exceptional players don't return every week. Usually, in fact, they'll 'blank' at least 1 game in every 3 across the season, probably closer to 1 game in 2. And sometimes even a Mo Salah or an Erling Haaland in their hottest run of form will still manage to 'blank' against a poor side.

You have to steel yourself to accept that a Triple Captain play can return nothing - and very often does. Perhaps 1 time in 3, your Triple Captain will only produce basic 'appearance points', or even less (the annals of FPL abound with horror stories of managers who ventured their TC on a player who got injured inside 10 minutes, or missed a penalty, or received a red card....).  

You have to be grateful for any sort of return at all from the chip; and very, very grateful if your haul from it happens to break into double-digits, even narrowly. It is foolish to expect - or even to hope for - a massive dividend of 15 or 20 or 25 points. That kind of thing happens fairly rarely, and requires a very large dose of LUCK.

[I wrote a follow-up post a day or two later on how to assess the impact of your Bench Boost chip.]

When to use the 'Triple Captain'? (1)

 

One of the most trenchantly beloved myths in FPL is that you can only play your Triple Captain bonus chip in a Double Gameweek.

Now that we have been given two of this chip this year, with the first only available for use until the end of December, that factor is immediately removed from consideration for that first chip - because we're (almost certainly) not getting any Double Gameweeks in the first half of the season.

However, even for the second one, which we now must use in the second half of the season, when the Double Gameweeks traditionally occur (though we'll probably only get two of them this year, and rather small ones...), that policy can be dangerously misguided. It certainly involves quite a big risk.

The myth seems to be founded on the logic that a player must inevitably score more points if he's playing twice. But that is obviously not a necessary truth. Furthermore, I suspect that for most people it is founded on the greedy delusion that a top player can - and will, at least with a beguilingly high degree of probability - secure a double-digit haul in both legs of the DGW, thereby securing a haul for the Triple Captain chip of 20+ points!

In fact, for a long time, Wayne Rooney - in his youthful prime, over a decade-and-a-half ago - was the only player ever to have pulled off that trick of securing double-digits in both games of a double-fixture week. Admittedly, Jean-Philippe Mateta also managed it (out-of-the-blue - completely unexpected by just about everybody) a couple of seasons ago. But this feat has, in the long history of FPL, looked like a once-in-a-decade (at most!) aberration. And that was during a period when we had more and bigger double gameweeks than we do now. So, if that's what you're hoping for in waiting to punt your Triple Captain chip on a Double Gameweek - think again.

But perhaps, the myth-worshippers will object, even if a player can't return a big score in two successive games, he might at least be more likely to produce one really big score if he has two chances to do so?

Well, there might be something in that... Not much, but something. If you look at a list of the biggest gameweek hauls in the game's history, that lad Rooney is indeed at the top of it with 32 points for that double double-digit performance. And most of the following handful of top performers also benefitted from Double Gameweeks - but not all of them: in fact only 6 out of the top 10 gameweek hauls were produced with the help of a double-fixture. And that's because it's very, very difficult to get above 20 points in a Single Gameweek, and just about impossible to get above 25 points. But as soon as you get down to 25 or 26-point weekly totals (and a couple of players have done better than that from a Single Gameweek), the Single Gameweek returners immediately become the great majority. We have in recent seasons seen players like Mo Salah and Cole Palmer (and even Noni Madueke last year - with some Palmer assists!) get some very big scores from Single Gameweeks.

Moreover, a lot of those players who did tremendously well from a Double Gameweek were real randoms: defenders, or midfielders who'd been out injured for a while, or forwards at less fashionable clubs - the kind of players that no-one would have been likely to play their prized TC chip on. 

Realistically, most FPL managers - with good reason (I shall have a little more to say on this tomorrow) - are only likely to play the TC chip on an exceptional player like Salah or Haaland (or maybe Son or DeBruyne or Kane, in the past; and in recent years, Palmer and perhaps, at least occasionally, Saka and Foden have also come into the reckoning): players who, when they're really in form, seem capable of getting a double-digit haul quite regularly, and who can be usually be relied on to produce at least a few really big hauls each season.

And if you look at the record of players like these, their best returns of the season (and, very often, their second and third and fourth best too!) have almost always come in Single Gameweeks, not Doubles.

The things that make a haul more likely are form and ease of opposition, not the mere fact that a player has two games in the gameweek. 

All those players who did manage a really big return from a Double Gameweek had at least one, often two really soft opponents in their pair of fixtures. If a Double Gameweek is against two difficult opponents, or even two average opponents (or indeed it's against two really poor opponents, but your favoured Triple Captain bet is out-of-sorts at the moment....), there is no point playing the chip. The double-fixture is not 'magic' in itself: it's the quality of the fixture ('easy opponent'), not the number of games that matters.

Well, there is still the argument from fear, I suppose. Even appearance points from a second game would be a nice lift to your points total; and if your man should somehow pick up something - anything, no matter how slight - from both the games, despite somewhat unpromising fixtures,.... surely that would be a decent return for the Triple Captain chip??

Alas, NO - not really. The lower-end for your points expectation may be very slightly raised; but you should be thinking about the overall points-range, and the likeliest mid-point you could reasonably expect to achieve. That is almost certainly going to be better in a single fixture where you're absolutely confident of your captain's form, and of the poor quality of the opposition.

[You should never let fear - of your own possible misfortune, or of what your rivals might be plotting - guide your decisions in FPL. You should always focus on what you believe are the best ways to optimise your own points returns. And you should be ambitious for the Triple Captain chip; it can be very valuable - you should be looking to maximise your return from it, not simply securing an OK, least-worst outcome on it.]

And there's a further, VERY BIG problem with waiting for a Double Gameweek to play this chip. The Double Gameweeks happen in the latter part of the season: that is a long time to wait. 

Your favoured captaincy pick for the chip might have picked up a knock or suffered a dip in form by that point. (A lot of people were planning to play the chip on Mo Salah a couple of seasons ago; but he had never fully shaken off a hamstring tweak he suffered while playing for Egypt in AFCON, and had a very muted end to that season.)  Heck, he might even have suffered a season-ending injury, or been poached by the Saudis in the January transfer window.... Shit happens.

Also, in that closing phase of the season, the final stages of the FA Cup and the European competitions are getting pretty intense, and clubs still involved in those will quite often rest some of their players, particularly their top players - in matches that follow closely on one another, and/or are against weaker opponents that the back-up players ought to be able to deal with. Hence, you can't be absolutely confident that your Salahs and your Haalands will even play in both fxitures of a Double Gameweek! 

If they do play in both games, they're very likely to get restricted minutes. And they're almost certainly going to be well below their best because of mounting fatigue.  [This is why I think it's increasingly unlikely that we'll see Rooney's and Mateta's achievement replicated again; or not more than once every two or three decades, anyway! With the insane physical demands of the current game - which have escalated enormously over the last 15 years - you just can't expect players to produce peak performances twice within a few days of each other,... especially at the back end of the season, when mental and physical tiredness and persistent injury niggles are accumulating.]

And dammit, because the Double Gameweeks are determined by progress to the last rounds of the domestic cups, you can never be sure that your favoured Triple Captain pick - one of that gilded handful of players, perhaps just one or two, who do seem to offer you a significant chance of a brace of goals or better, if you give them a soft opponent - will even get a Double Gameweek. And it's impossible to predict exactly when the postponed league games from the weekend of the relevant cup tie (these days, it's only the Final of the League Cup and the Semi-Finals of the FA Cup) will be rearranged to; so, even if you're willing to gamble on your chosen Triple Captain's club getting through to those rounds, you don't know which two fixtures are going to be combined into one gameweek for him - and it might sometimes be a couple of really tough ones rather than a pair of gimmes.

Even if you get a reasonably promising Double Gameweek for your chosen Triple Captain at the tail-end of the season, it's actually fairly unlikely that he'll make more points from it than he did from a few of his best single-fixture weeks earlier in the season. And there is no guarantee that he'll get any sort of Double Gameweek at all!

Hence, it's almost never worth hanging on for a Double Gameweek to play the Triple Captain chip. (It never was, even when rearranged games from the FA Quarter-Finals weekend ususually used to give us a really big Double Gameweek slightly further ahead of the end of the season. [These BIG Double Gameweeks of old gave you an enhanced chance that Salah, Haaland, etc. would actually get a Double Gameweek; but that Double Gameweek was almost always a much more tempting opportunity for the Bench Boost chip rather than the Triple Captain!])

Ah, but never say 'never'. Didn't good ol' Mo get a huge score in a Double Gameweek just last season??  Why, yes, he did. But that was not a regular Double Gameweek; it was a one-off rearrangement of a bad weather postponement. It happened earlier in the season than the usual Double Gameweeks. And the rescheduled date was only confirmed at fairly short notice. We knew that Salah was on fire at that point in the season. And he did indeed have two fairly middling opponents to face; so, of course, this double-fixture became a favourite opportunity to play the chip on him as soon as it was announced. Indeed, back in early December when the Merseyside derby was originally postponed, we knew Salah - who was having the best season in FPL history - would get a double-fixture against Everton + another at some point in late January or early February; and that was worth hanging on for. The utterly uncertain prospect of a Double Gameweek resulting from FA Cup success, to be scheduled in the closing weeks of the seaason, is NOT worth hanging on for.

I shall have a follow-up post soon, focusing more on when it is a good idea to play the Triple Captain chip, rather than when it isn't.

SOMETIMES the Sheep get lucky!!!

Now, I said at the weekend, just ahead of the Gameweek 6 deadline, that I thought all the enthusiasm for risking the Triple Captain chip on Haaland against Burnley was probably misguided....

And look what happened!  Yes, I was very soon proved 'wrong'!!

Except.... I carefully said 'probably'. And I was specifically criticising the reasons given for this pick (exaggeratedly denigrating Burnley's defensive abilities; and that on the basis of a single  - misinterpreted, misrepresented - statistic!), and reviewing some strong counter-arguments for waiting for later, potentially better opportunities to use the chip (on Haaland, or someone else).  In fact, I explicitly acknowledged that this chip play on Haaland might turn out OK!

But still I get pilloried by the online dingbats who insist that I made a foolish, ill-informed and obviously incorrect 'prediction'.  I did not. I just pointed out a few facts they were wilfully overlooking, and they got pissy about it; and when things work out OK for them,.... they then want 'revenge'!!!  Petty people.

Actually, things worked out much better than merely 'OK': a 16-point haul might well prove to be Haaland's best return of the entire season; and there probably won't be too many other scores much better than it. It did, as it happens, turn out to be potentially the best Triple Captain return for the season (or at least for the first half of it, since we now have two of these chips).

But the people who gambled their Triple Captain chip this week didn't know that was going to happen. And most of them are doubly stupid, because they think they did know. Trebly stupid, because they think that a successful outcome proves the 'smartness' of the original decision. It does not: it only proves that they were lucky - very, very lucky.

These people appear to fall prey to the common fallacy that if something happens, it must have had a 100% probability of happening at some point long prior to its happening. That is not so.

No-one ever has quite a 100% probability of even starting a game (because there are so many little last-minute accidents-of-fate that might thwart that - how often have we seen players pull a muscle in the warm-up, for example?). In this case, given that Haaland had missed some training earlier in the week with a back-muscle problem, he can't have been much better than a 95% probability to appear from the beginning, perhaps much less; there was surely a good chance that Pep would prefer to leave him on the bench as a super-sub option, against a team who were not expected to be very difficult to beat.

And the probability of him playing most of the game was perhaps no better than 60% or 70%, given that recent injury concern, and the fact that Pep almost invariably withdraws him as soon as a game looks safely won - especially when there is a European match coming up the following midweek. And the likelihood of him being left on until the final whistle can't have been more than 50%.

While Haaland does produce a fair few assists, it's still a relative rarity: usually only about a 25% chance in any given game. (And last year the assists really dried up for him; so, with this evolving City set-up, we might expect that probability to be even lower at the moment.)

And then, of course, he ended up getiting a brace - right at the end of the game, when he could not reasonably have been expected to be still on the pitch. Even a very poor defensive team (and Burnley are not that....) will rarely make two 'errors leading to goals' in the same game; and the chances of them both occurring in added-on time, and both being converted by the same player are vanishingly small.

Haaland's 16-point return in this game was a completely unpredictable freak event!!

Sure, City were favourites to win, and win fairly comfortably. There was a good chance they might score 2 or 3 goals against them (all of this I acknowledged in my discussions of the prospects for the match). But there was no compelling reason to suppose they would obviously be able to score a lot of goals (and really, Burnley were on top for a lot of this game, nearly took a 2-1 lead early in the second half; they didn't deserve to go down this badly), nor to expect that Haaland would claim more than 1 of any they did score (and he didn't - for nearly 90 full minutes of regulation time, which must have been agony for all those TC punters!!). There is always a range of likely points outcomes for any player in any game; and this result for Haaland was way, way above the median of that range this week.

Those who now smugly proclaim that they predicted "exactly what was going to happen" in this match are lying to themselves and everyone else. 

They made a risky bet, a brave bet - that paid off. Puffing themselves in those terms would be acceptable. But to pretend that it was 'a safe bet' and 'a shrewd decision' and so on is fatuous nonsense. You had no idea how that bet was going to turn out: it could have gone very, very badly instead of very, very well. But it just happened to go very, very, very, very well. Thank your lucky stars - and shut up about it.

And there is still a chance that another TC bet over the next three months will pay out even bigger.....

[And yes, that sheep does appear to have 8 tiny legs!! AI is not ready to take over the world quite yet....]

ONE statistic proves nothing

 

This week, The Sheep's big stampede is towards punting their Triple Captain chip on Erling Haaland.

There are a few reasons why this might not be such a great idea. It's still very early in the season, and - even with this new second Triple Captain chip only available until the end of December, there will be many more, possibly better, opportunities to gamble it on Haaland, or another player. The big lad's been suffering with a back strain and missed a lot of training this week (now expected to start, it seems; but quite likely to get pulled off early, if the game's in the bag [as Pep usually does anyway; but may now go for very early], especially as City have an away trip to Monaco on Wednesday in the Champions League), and he's probably not going to be quite at his best.. And, well, although they're steadily improving, City still haven't yet looked anywhere near their dominant best of a couple of years ago.

Ah, but the primary reason behind this TC choice seems to be that Burnley are supposedly "the worst defence in the league."  And the sole piece of evidence cited for that momentous assertion is that they're currently top of the stats for 'shots conceded'.

A few problems with this:

1)  One statistic in isolation very rarely tells you anything.

2) Statistics this early in the season for anything can't tell you very much, because one 'untypical' game can massively skew the overall figures. And also, nobody's form has really settled down yet, and we've seen some wildly erratic performances and unexpected results so far this year.

3)  The 'shots conceded' number is more a measure of the quality of the opposition you've faced than the quality of your defence in dealing with that threat. And Burnley have had a particularly demanding opening run of fixtures, facing Spurs, Manchester United, Liverpool, and Nottingham Forest so far - all very good attacking teams (damn, yes, even United played quite well against them).

4)  On a range of stats that more accurately reflect 'defensive quality', Burnley actually look quite impressive. One of the most persuasive of all is their xGC 'delta', the gap between their 'expected goals conceded' and the actual number conceded - that's an enormous 2.3 in the right direction. They're keeping more goals out than almost any other team!

So, it's early in the season, and the stats can easily get skewed: Burnley have twice conceded 3 goals in a match, which makes their defensive record look terrible. They've also had 2 penalties awarded against them, which makes their goals conceded total look a bit worse than it really ought to. They looked rocky at the start of the season, when they were easily taken apart by Spurs, but have improved steadily since. Against United, they left themselves open by chasing a game they thought they could win, and were desperately unlucky to concede a late penalty to lose the points. They beat fellow promoted side Sunderland fairly comfortably, and kept a clean sheet. They played well enough to deserve a clean sheet and a point away from home against Liverpool, and were again desperately unlucky to be thwarted by a very late penalty. And they contained Forest very well - after conceding a goal out-of-nowhere barely a minute into the game.

You need to consider a range of relevant statistics, never just one on its own. And you need to put those statistics in context, to consider the story of each individual match that has produced them.

Just saying, "Look how many shots Burnley have faced! They must be rubbish!!" is NONSENSE.

This post isn't really about Burnley. Or Haaland. It's about how people deceive themselves with superficial, lazy readings of statistics.

Burnley are a weak team overall: they can't control the ball enough or create enough threat to stop the stronger teams in the league from dominating them. But their defence is, arguably, in fact one of the best in the league at the moment.

And, realising the hopelessness of their chances against City, they'll probably sit back in a low-block all game and try to tough out a draw. They so nearly made that work against Liverpool - who are, at the moment, a much, much better-looking team than City.

I don't think Burnley will beat City, and even a draw is a very long-shot for them. Heck, I think Haaland can probably pick up a goal, even if he only plays 55 minutes or so.

But Burnley's defence (and keeper!) are actually pretty damn good. They are - thus far, anyway - the most impressive-looking of the promoted sides; and also - so far - way, way better than West Ham,.... or Villa,... or Wolves.

This is not a fixture that looks like a pushover, a guaranteed multi-goal party.

People are only playing that Triple Captain chip now because they're getting impatient. (And impatience in FPL is - usually - a very bad thing.)

I'd rather wait until Haaland has clearly shaken off this injury worry,.... and is facing a genuinely weak defence (he has Villa, Leeds, Sunderland, Fulham, and West Ham coming up between now and Christmas).

Even more, I'd rather wait until one of the goalscoring midfielders (who can give you a better return) like Saka or Salah or Palmer, or maybe Mbeumo or Cunha comes into a hot streak of form. All rushing to drop the Triple Cap on Haaland the first time he plays a promoted side is classic sheep behaviour.

(Now, Erling has been in tremendous form so far this season; and he is really the only player at the moment who regularly looks capable of scoring more than 1 goal per game. And he might pull that off again against Burnley; he might even get a hattrick [very, very unlikely; but he might]. That won't mean that playing the chip on him this week was a smart choice; that would just make it a lucky choice. All the evidence points to there being better opportunities for this chip a bit later on.)

[Ha! As it turns out, Haaland did manage a huge return in this game. Though he had to rely on being gifted 2 goals by bizarre defensive errors at the end of the regulation 90 minutes! As I acknowledge at the end of this piece, there was indeed a reasonable chance that he'd pick up a goal in this game, maybe even two; but there was no very strong reason for supposing that this was much more likely than in many other fixtures he'll face, much less for expecting that he was 'almost certain' to bag a multi-goal haul. The outcome here, while not beyond the bounds of expectation, was very much at the uppermost limit of the range of such expectation - it was very, very LUCKY!]

That SAME OLD QUESTION again....

"Are Haaland and Salah worth it this year?"

Short answer: NO.  (But....)

'Super-premium' players are almost never 'worth it': the opportunity cost of going without so many other better players in almost every position in your squad will massively outweigh any points-advantage they might offer (4 times out of 5, anyway). 

There are certain guideline criteria I suggest in that earlier post on this issue which might justify their inclusion. But I don't think these criteria (the crucial last two of them, at any rate) are clearly going to be met with either of the BIG TWO this season.

Will they rack up an absolutely massive season total??  Probably not - not anywhere near the level of their previous best years, anyway. Liverpool and City are both in a 'rebuilding' phase, which makes their overall team performance much more suspect (City, in fact, were really poor for most of last season - and haven't yet shown any sign of turning that around). Their star men are having to adapt to a lot of new personnel around them, with probably a very radically different playing style arising from that as well; and, more particularly, they will probably face more competition in sharing the club's pool of potential goals than in many previous years, with new players like Ekitike and Wirtz and Frimpong (and maybe Isak...?) very likely to cut into Salah's total, and Marmoush and Cherki probably claiming at least a few chances that might previously have fallen to Haaland. I think both of these superstars will still have very decent seasons - probably breaking 200 points, and maybe even getting up towards 250. But is that enough to justify a price tag of 14.0 or 14.5 million? Probably not!  [And that, I think, is at the optimistic rather than the pessimistic end of the range for projections of their performance this season. Salah, of course, is likely to lose a month or so mid-season due to his participation in the African Cup of Nations, and we should adjust our expectations of his season-total accordingly (although we should always be concerned rather with current form, rather than year-long achievement). And both Liverpool and City are giving signs that they're likely to struggle a little this season, at least against better opposition - and returns from all of their players will probably be slightly restricted by this. There is a good chance that Haaland and Salah - even without a major upset like a significant injury or a prolonged dip in output - will only return something like 170-190 points this season.]

Will they be the top-returner in their position category, by a big margin??  Again, probably not. They might again be the top points-returners, but, as I pointed out a few days ago, that, on its own, doesn't matter; it's the runs of returns over short stretches of the season, and the overall returns from the full starting eleven rather than the best individuals that decide your outcomes in FPL. Palmer, Saka, and Gakpo could run Salah pretty close, maybe even do a little better; and Cunha, Mbeumo, Ndiaye, Kudus, Wirtz, Ndoye, Hudson-Odoi, Elanga, Grealish, Ismaila Sarr, Enzo Fernandez and a few others also look like they could have very big seasons. Haaland has been given stiff competition by Isak and Watkins in the last couple of seasons, and they might prove even better prospects this year (especially if they move to stronger teams?); Joao Pedro and Richarlison have started the season very strongly, with suddenly rejuvenated teams who now look likely to be able to challenge at the top of the table; Wissa and Wood will be hoping to build on their outstanding form of last season; and the new arrivals in the league, Ekitike and Sesko and Gyokeres, look to have a lot of potential too. I'm not saying any of these will beat Haaland; but I don't think he'll open up much of a gap over the best of them.

Despite - probably - failing these key 'rule-of-thumb' tests, Haaland and Salah might still be justifiable picks as long as they're getting somewhere close (they might; though I'm not super-confident in them this time...),... IF the overall budget dynamics this year make them still affordable.

The key factors that determine this 'affordability' are how many other premium players there are (that you might covet as well as, or instead of the BIG TWO), and how much really good value there is to be found at the lower-end of the price spectrum.

On the first point, the situation looks rather promising: there are almost no other premium-priced players this season - the smallest number there has been for many years, I think. With the departures of Son and Luis Diaz in pre-season, we're left with only Palmer and Saka priced above 10 million in midfield, only Bruno Fernandes at 9.0, only Marmoush and Wirtz at 8.5, and only Cunha, Mbeumo, Foden, and Odegaard at 8.0. Among the forwards, only Isak is priced above 10 million (and not by much: I'd expected he'd start this season at least at 11.0 or 11.5!!), and only Watkins and Gyokeres are at 9.0.

But the cheap squad-filler end of the equation isn't nearly so favourable: among the forwards, only Strand Larsen and Thiago look like reasonably viable picks at the bottom end of the price spectrum (if Strand Larsen's rumoured move to Newcastle comes off this week, he could suddenly become one of the most popular picks in FPL!), and only perhaps Beto, Muniz, and Osula possible ultra-cheap bench-fillers (though they'd be low-value, very risky picks, as they don't currently look like being regular starters). Amongst the cheaper midfielders, only Reijnders, Ndoye, and Tavernier have so far stood out - and those might have been flash-in-the-pan performances. So far, we haven't seen many really compelling possibilities even at 6.5 (Rice and Enzo, Ndiaye and Grealish?), let alone much cheaper. Finding a player like Palmer two years ago, someone who might become the top points-producer of the season from a starting price of only 5 or 6 million, is a real 'Black Swan' event.....

Moreover, quite a few of the better budget midfielders, and most of the strongest defenders seem to have been priced 0.5 million higher this year, presumably to reflect their greater overall points-potential because of the newly-introduced 'defensive points'. This has a surprisingly big impact on the overall budget dynamics, and really puts a squeeze on our ability to afford the most expensive players (effectively, it means an extra 1.5-2.5 million of our budget is being spent 'invisibly').

If Haaland or Salah hit a run of form where they seem to be averaging 7 or 8 points a game for a while, they will be worth considering. But actually, for players of their price, even that isn't particularly outstanding - maybe still not quite enough to justify their selection, most of the time. Last year, Salah managed to average 9 points-per-game over the entire season; and both of them have often enjoyed spells of averaging 10 points or more per game. This year, I just don't think they'll do that again. While lots of other players will also probably hit that desirable threshold of bringing in 7 or 8 ppg, at least for a short spell.

But, of course, the dynamics of squad selection are always very fluid, dependent on multiple interacting factors. Salah and Haaland, despite not playing conspicuously well, have both produced pretty good points across the opening two games. While most of their more expensive rivals are currently out of contention: Isak is unavailable for selection while transfer discussions drag on, Watkins may be distracted by thoughts of a move and has looked out-of-sorts, Palmer and Saka and Odegaard just got injured, Eze just moved clubs and might not get an immediate start, Cunha and Mbeumo and Wirtz haven't found their form at their new clubs yet....

As it happens, you probably can afford Salah or Haaland at the moment. But I don't think you should splash the cash for both of them!  And neither of them should be regarded as a long-term hold this season.

For many FPL managers, alas, this question is treated as above rational discussion. These two players have developed a cult-like following of fanatics - who insist that they must always be a must-have pick, regardless of any considerations of form or overall budget. This, of course, is a very damaging delusion.