High variance - why this gameweek is likely to make such A BIG DIFFERENCE

 

It's not often a Blank Gameweek hits so hard!

But this season, there are really only two teams that anyone in FPL is likely to be trebled-up on. Arsenal and Manchester City are way out ahead of the field at the top of the table. Almost every other club has lost many key players to injury and/or suffered very up-and-down form; the other would-be title contenders have all had pretty disappointing seasons (though at least Manchester United have rallied strongly since the turn of the year). Arsenal and City are just in a different class to everyone else this year; and they've both reached the League Cup Final.

So, what in many years is merely a minor annoyance, this time is a body-blow. More than half of the top dozen or so most popular players in FPL this season are from Arsenal and City. 

Raya is by far the most popular goalkeeper choice; but Donnarumma is 6th, and Dean Henderson (who also has a Blank, because he would have been facing City in the League this weekend) is 8th; even the absence of Wolves's Jose Sa is going to inconvenience well over 1% of FPL managers. So, probably about 45% of managers in FPL are missing their first-choice keeper this week; and quite a few may have found themselves missing both keepers.

And many managers will be missing 4 or 5 others of their regular starters too. If they have been imprudently holding on to some Palace (and/or Wolves!!) players as well, and/or have suffered some additional injury problems, some might be looking at having to make 8, 9, 10 changes this week. Almost everyone is having to make at least 4 or 5 changes.

Think about the consequences of that. In most gameweeks, it's very rare that anyone makes even as many as 3 or 4 changes; most of the time, we get by with only 1 or 2 transfers in a week; quite often - if we've been lucky with injuries - we'll put out a completely unchanged squad.

But this week,... almost everyone is making multiple changes to their starting eleven.

Moreover, in most gameweeks, there is a high degree of similarity between most people's teams (not as much as many people suppose: there is never a clear-and-obvious 'template' eleven...). There's usually a handful of players who are so much better than everyone else in their position category that almost everyone owns them. And at the moment, those players are Gabriel, Timber, Rice, Semenyo, Haaland and O'Reilly (or Nunes). Outside of the TOP TWO, only Bruno Fernandes, Harry Wilson, and Joao Pedro are currently such compelling and almost universally coveted picks.

This week, we have to change out half or three-quarters of our regular starting eleven - and there aren't any particularly obvious replacements to choose from. Almost no-one else has suddenly come into particularly compelling form (Tavernier, possibly; Cunha or Casemiro...); and no-one has a really good fixture this week (Liverpool, Villa, and Spurs appear to have the most over-matched opponents; but they've all been in horrible form in the league recently....). 

So, this week, there is likely to be an exceptionally high degree of dissimilarity between selections, with everyone making multiple changes, and a pretty much wide open choice of what those changes might be... and uncommonly low predictability (because of rocky form and mostly very closely matched fixtures) as to how any of that is going to play out.

Most weeks, we're just buying one or two lottery tickets; this week, we're all buying a whole fistful of them!

And all of that means that there is sure to be an extremely broad spread of points this week. And that, in turn, means more volatility - more chance that you can have an exceptionally poor week and/or that others around you can have an exceptionally good week. Of course, things could work out in your favour; but they could also go very strongly against you. There is going to be exceptionally high volatility in the rankings this week, with a lot of people seeing big swings in their league positions.

Overall, it's almost certain to be an extremely low-scoring week. Many people have used a 'hit' (or several!), spent points to assemble a starting team, and so start off at an immediate disadvantage.Many more are making do with fielding a team that's at least one or two players short. Even more, who've just about got a full eleven, but have little or no cover left on the bench, are going to find that injuries or rotations leave them with less than eleven scoring players.

And, as I already pointed out above, most of the 'best' players are missing from this gameweek; and most of the fixtures that are going ahead don't look particularly promising.

Anyone, however, who does manage to field a full eleven, and hasn't had to spend any 'hits' to do so (or only 1 or 2 of them...) is in a position to achieve a big points-gain on the majority of managers, even without getting a particularly big points total. If the global average is only 20-30 points, a haul of 50 will give you a huge lift in ranking.

* NB;  The prospect of such a powerful points/rank lift should not have tempted anyone to use a Free Hit or Wildcard this week, because those chips will - absolutely definitely - be worth even more a little bit later in the season. Over 160,000 people are on a Wildcard this week, and over 1.3 million are using the Free Hit (according to Google AI, that is; so, it's probably a completely made-up figure - but it does sound plausible). Those folks should get a useful lift this week. But that advantage will almost certainly be wiped out (perhaps wiped out two or three times over) when they are smashed by the even bigger Blank Gameweek we face in GW34, and/or they find that they can't optimise their squad for the last few weeks of the season, when we should have one or two juicy Double Gameweeks.

There is, in fact, quite a good chance that people who played one of those chips won't even do that well out of them this week - because, as I observed already, there's a dearth of obviously in-form players to choose, or inviting fixtures to bet on. Moreover, I tend to think (in my more pessimistic moments, anyway...) that more of our decisions go badly than well (there's more bad luck in the world than good luck!), so making a large number of changes - especially when you don't really need to (many people playing chips are getting tempted to go a little crazy and change almost everyone) - is generally counter-productive. I suspect that, for the most part. people who made the minimum number of changes they could get away with this week will do better than people who splashed out with a chip.

And then.... well, people who chose to play a chip this week (or left themselve 'no choice' but to do so!) are fundamentally not smart managers. We could foresee the Gameweek 31 hazard months ago, and there is absolutely no reason to have been exposed to more than 5 or 6 blanking players this week (a problem that should have been easy to deal with, using a couple of saved transfers and/or hits). So, people who made dumb choices to get themselves into such a mess are also likely to make dumb choices trying to get themselves out of it, and you wouldn't fancy them to do particularly well in this gameweek (they don't deserve to do well).

[I was prompted to these reflections by encountering on one of the FPL forums the other day one of those arrogant oafs who insists on boasting about how good his rank is currently. I mildly pointed out that there was a good chance his rank would slip this week (he was a proud, naive Free Hitter), and he whined that I couldn't possibly have a 'crystal ball' to know that. Well, I didn't claim to know for certain; I'd said 'probably' - it was merely a significant statistical possibility. People in the top few thousands of the rankings are usually insulated from big single-week drops (or rises) in rank, because things get spread out up there: there aren't many other people within a narrow range of points. But that's in a normal gameweek. In a gameweek like this one, with such an exceptionally high variance in likely points returns, there will be a lot of big swings in rank, and even people at the very top of the rankings wno't be immune to them.

As I pointed out to the noxious oaf: There is a difference between WHAT WE CAN KNOW and WHAT WE CAN ONLY GUESS AT. Unfortunately, it is a difference that almost nobody in FPL-land seems to comprehend. 

We can know that there is going to be unusually high volatility in the rankings this gameweek; it just requires a basic understanding of statistics.]

Free Hit? Just say 'NO'!!

 

Damn, an awful lot of folks seem to be playing their Free Hit for this Gameweek. An awful lot!

I mentioned yesterday, as one of my 'Signs that an FPL manager isn't much good', that doing so was suggestive of simply having not thought ahead. We've known that the League Cup finalists were going to have a Blank Gameweek in the league programme this week since before the start of the season; we've known who those finalists were going to be for just over six weeks now; and we could have made a pretty good guess as to who they were going to be at least a month before that. This blip in the schedule should not be taking anyone by surprise.

What's more, the other two clubs blanking this weekend, their scheduled league opponents, Crystal Palace and Wolves, are not really clubs that anyone should have any FPL players from at the moment. There's not even that much reason to be trebled-up on either Arsenal or City right now. Arsenal's attacking players haven't been scoring enough goals, or even getting regular enough starts, to be in serious contention this season; even the great Bukayo Saka has faded into FPL irrelevance. For most of the season, Gabriel, Timber, and Rice have been incontestably the three Arsenal players to have; but Timber just picked up an injury, and Rice has had a bit of a lull in productivity recently - so, you could easily drop either of them, if you hadn't already. Even from City, there's been no overshwhelming case for a third pick for a while, after Haaland and Semenyo. And Haaland's returns have sputtered since the turn of the year; a lot of managers have already started deserting him. Nico O'Reilly has recently been about the most popular third pick from the club, but he too has just picked up an injury.

So, really, most smart FPL managers should not have found themselves with more than 4 or 5 players blanking this week; and it should be pretty easy to move a couple of them on to the bench for the week, and offload any others - even if it might cost one or two 'hits'.

If you did have exceptionally high exposure to this Blank Gameweek, you should have started offloading a few surplus players a few weeks back - and/or started trying to save up a few extra transfers even further back - to deal with this problem.

Yes, if you are still trebled-up on both Arsenal and City, and you somehow have one or two or three Palace and Wolves players too, and have maybe picked up one or two additional injury worries as well,.... then you could be in Free Hit territory.

But that was a situation you should have been able to anticipate the approach of, and taken earlier action to avoid. And even if that is where you find yourself,.... you might still be better off spending as many 'hits' as you need to in order to fill all the holes in your starting eleven; or compromising a little and accepting that you may just have to field a side one or two men short this week.

Because.... in Gameweek 34, the FA Cup Semi-Finals are going to wipe out four games from the league programme that weekend, not just two. The line-up probably wasn't quite as easy to predict as it was with the League Cup finalists. And the qualifiers were confirmed with only a little more advance warning; in fact, quite a lot less effective warning, very little time to save up any extra free transfers - because there are now no further Premier League gameweeks for the next three weeks. On that weekend at the end of April, we'll be missing City and Arsenal again, but also Chelsea and Liverpool, and West Ham and Leeds. Now, as it happens, probably no-one in FPL owns any West Ham or Leeds players at the moment, and not very many from Chelsea or Liverpool. But still, it's likely to be a significantly worse disruption than this week - and it might have been even worse.

Moreover, so close to the end of the season, and with the likelihood of Double Gameweeks in close proximity - probably, hopefully shortly afterwards - you really don't want to be messing your squad up with a lot of short-term changes at that point. You might be able to avoid the catastrophic impact of so  many missing players in that Gameweek with saved transfers and 'hits', but.... you're probably going to want most or all of those players back in immediately - which is going to cost even more transfers.

However difficult this looming Blank Gameweek may be to survive without the Free Hit, you should try to do so,... because Gameweek 34 is assuredly gong to be way worse, for at least 95% of us.

Signs an FPL manager doesn't know what they're doing

I pointed out last week that it is misguided - morally reprensible, and usually unhelpful anyway! - to copy selection ideas from the teams of FPL managers who appear to be doing well. Even a genuinely smart manager rarely has his squad exactly the way he'd like it. And a squad that's been successful in recent weeks, or even for the whole season thus far,... really has no more chance (or not very much more) of doing well in the upcoming gameweeks than a randomly chosen selection. Things change constantly in FPL; and no-one can foresee the future. So - looking at what other people have done in the past is really of very little help.   Don't do it!

In fact, you can probably derive more benefit from critiquing the teams/squads of recently successful managers (because, as I said in that post last week, just about nobody's squad is ever 'perfect'). You may even find it consoling when you start to recognise that most of the people doing really well (particularly in the global league; but really, in any of the very big leagues, for clubs, countries, broadcasters, etc.) aren't really all that insightful, after all; they've just been very lucky with a lot of their picks;... but they're also usually making an awful lot of basic errors, which might eventually cost them their present eminence in the rankings (though, in a league of hundreds of thousands or of millions, there will inevitably be quite large numbers of people who manage to continue to be unreasonably lucky for most of the season...).

Here, then, are my....

Top Ten 'Red Flags' that show an FPL Manager isn't really much good

1)  Having David Raya in goal

This isn't a criticism of David Raya; he just happens to be the most conspicuous recent example of a more general phenomenon (Raya is, for the second season running, the most popular keeper in FPL - despite not actually being the highest points-scoring one...). People want the 'security' of going for a very consistent keeper with a high-performing club who'll keep a lot of clean sheets. But there are all sorts of reasons why this is almost never a good idea (I went into the David Raya example in much more detail here). It's not just Raya: it's any keeper from a top club - there's no good reason for choosing Alisson or Donnarumma either. Goalkeepers at top clubs tend to be expensive; but there isn't that much of a spread of points returns across keepers, so even the very best of them won't usually give you many more points than the second or third or fourth best - and one of those is likely to be much cheaper. Keepers at the best defensive sides rarely end up being amongst the top-returning FPL keepers anyway, because you earn better returns from saves and bonus points than from clean sheets. [OK, Raya is actually in first place at the moment; but mainly because he's played at least one more game than everyone else. There are a number of others who are running him pretty close ovreall, and have done better than him over runs of games.] Even if a keeper like Raya (or Donnarumma, etc.) does end up being the top returning keeper by some margin, you could almost certainly still have got even more points from a pair of cheaper keepers with good fixture-difficulty rotation. But the most powerful argument of all is that of 'club differential' advantage: in a club with a lot of good players, the keeper isn't likely to give you as much of a points-lift over his near rivals (even if he is the No. 1 overall) as some of his defenders or attacking players will. This season, Gabriel, Timber and Rice have all been much more valuable picks from Arsenal than Raya.

2)  Not having a decent back-up keeper

Even Raya (or Alisson or Donnarumma, etc.) won't be a good bet for a clean sheet against every opponent. And every keeper may pick up a knock for a week or two, or suffer a token rotation once or twice at the latter end of the season. You really need a decent second keeper that you can utilise as necessary. And, as I just explained above, in most years you're much better off going with two decent mid-priced keepers who enjoy convenitent rotation around the most challenging opponents.

3)  Carrying 'dead wood' on the bench

Even at the start of the season, when budget is tight,... it is a dangerous false economy to have non-players on your bench; they'll quickly land you in hot water if you get a few injuries/suspensions, and no longer have any extra men spare to bring in to cover an unexpected rotation. And they tend to deplete your squad value, rather than grow it. Having a full and strong bench becomes even more important as the season goes on - particularly in the bleak midwinter months when we're often hit by multiple last-minute injuries and surprise rotations almost every week, and often need to call on automatic substitutions to fill out our starting eleven. There are occasions when you may wish to - or have to - carry a player on the bench for a week, maybe even a few weeks (a top player, a player who's increased a lot in value since you first acquired him, may simply lose you too much squad value through the dreaded 'transfer tax'; if you sell him, you might not be able to afford to buy him back); but in general, an injured player (or a player who's no longer getting regular starts, or is clearly in very poor form) is a liability - and you need to get them out of your squad straight away. FPL managers who frequently have an injured player (or two, or three!) on their bench, often a player who's been out for a week or two already, and isn't expected back any time soon,.... don't know what they're doing.

4)  Being too 'template'

Now, I dislike the notion of the 'template'; I think that, like many of FPL's irksome buzzwords, it is ill-defined and over-used. People seem to develop the exaggerated notion that there is, at any given time, a single 'best eleven' - that almost everybody owns. In fact, of course, selection decisions are never that clearcut: there's usually a pool of at least 30 or 40 most popular players who form the bulk - but almost never quite all - of most people's squads. And the thing is, popularity does not equate perfectly to quality; with many picks, there's a kind of collective hysteria, a mass stupidity behind them (the 'sheep pick' phenomenon I so often criticise on here). Many of the 'most popular' players are actually quite misguided selections, poor picks. And emerging talents, less well-known players who are just starting to hit useful form, will, at first, generally only be recognised by relatively small numbers of more astute football-watchers. Any FPL manager whose squad consists entirely of the obviously most popular players of the moment... is probably not really all that good.

5)  Having too many long-term holds

The essence of the game is that you have to rotate constantly, to try to find the players in the very best form for a short run of games at a time. Getting a player like Salah last year or Palmer the year before, who'll return high points again and again with remarkable consistency across the entire season,... is a freakishly rare event. There are rarely more than two or three players a year who come anywhere near to justifying long-term inclusion; in many seasons, there will be none. Any team/squad that's had a large number of its players unchanged for a long period.... probably isn't much good.

6)  Having a weak midfield

The midfield is where most of the points come from. Midfielders get more points for a goal than forwards, can more easily earn the new 'defensive points' than either defenders or forwards (although fairly few are actually the right profile of player to do so regularly), get a free extra point for a team 'clean sheet', and tend to be more likely to register assists and pick up bonus points as well. And a good many of them are really 'forwards' generously misclassified by the game as 'midfielders' (Semenyo, Mbeumo, Cunha, Trossard, Saka, Gordon), or at least fairly free-scoring advanced midfielders who might be expected to score nearly as often as a good centre-forward. Even in this untypically low-scoring season, this awful, awful season in which so many of the usual big producers in midfield have disappointed,.... 12 out of the top 24 FPL points-returners are midfielders. There is no excuse for going light in the mdfield, even - especially! - in the 'fifth seat'. The fourth and fifth midfield slots, in fact, are potentially the most valuable in the entire squad, and the ones you should be concentrating on rotating the most often - to get the most points from them.

7)  Having too many (any) safe-and-steady picks

With few attacking midfielders producing really well this year, while many defensive midfielders have had their points returns buoyed by the new 'defensive points' (but also by their scoring rather more goals than usual this season...), there has been a temptation for a lot of FPL managers to go for more seemingly 'dependable' options - like Declan Rice, Elliot Anderson, or James Garner. And indeed, players like these (and Enzo Fernandez and Casemiro and Ryan Gravenberch too) are in the Top 20 midfield points-producers at the moment. But.... only Rice is in the Top 5. And while there is something very reassuring about a player like this who'll give you a fairly steady drip-drip-drip of points, rather than many big gameweek hauls,... you really need to be chasing those big hauls! You really need to be looking to earn a minimum of around 6 points per game from every member of your starting eleven; and since it's almost impossible to get that from your keeper and defenders, even with hyper-efficient rotation, and since (as just mentioned in the previous point in this post) midfield is where most of the points come from, you really ought to be aspiring to more like 7 points per game from all 5 of your midfield slots; almost no single player ever achieves those sorts of numbers over a season - you have to rotate through the most in-form players. Those central defensive midfielders are only yielding 4.0-4.5 points per game; even the oustanding Rice is only producing about 5.5 points per game; that's just not enough to justify having even one of them in the squad as a season-long hold. Yet this year, many managers can be found with two or three of them; they don't know what they're doing. Almost every week you have one of these players in your squad, you're losing 1 or 2 or 3 points to someone who's making better use of rotations in these positions. [It doesn't only happen with more defensive midfielders; they just happen to be the obvious example this season. Last year many people were impressed with Morgan Rogers's excellent debut season with Villa; they bought him at the start of the year, because he was cheap, and held on to him all the way through, because he was mostly delivering decent points with a fair amount of consistency. But he only managed a season total of about 160 points: not anywhere near enough for a season-long hold!!]

8)  Too often starting four or five defenders

Related to the two points above about the paramountcy of optimising points returns from the midfield, a further sign of weakness in this area is the number of FPL managers who are regularly starting four or even five defenders. Yes, defenders have got a very useful little lift to their returns this year from the new 'defensive points'; and midfielders and forwards have, on the whole, been slightly disappointing. But still, we only see 2 defenders (both from Arsenal, of course) in the current Top 10 FPL points producers - and only another 7 in the next 20. And it's actually even worse than this; because defenders tend to start nearly every game (as long as they're fit); and, as I just observed in the previous point about defensive midfielders, they tend to be relatively slow and steady in their returns. They might constitute one-in-three of the best points-returners over the season, but they probably quite rarely manage to be one-in-four or one-in-five of the top points producers over any short run of games. There will certainly be occasions when especially favourable fixtures for your defenders and/or form or injury issues affecting some of your more advanced players may make it a smart choice to start four, or sometimes even five defenders. But such occasions will be fairly rare - the exception rather than the rule. FPL managers who are doing it every week (even this season, when the usual massive differential between defenders and more advanced players has been considerably eroded) are just pissing away points.

9)  Having too many double-ups and treble-ups

Taking too many players from the same club fails to spread risk: it leaves you dangerously over-exposed to negative impacts from an unexpectedly bad performance from that club - or to that club having a blank gameweek. And, frankly, there aren't usually many clubs who are good enough all around to justify taking three players from them. If your squad isn't drawn from at least 7 clubs, ideally 8 or 9 or 10, you're probably storing up trouble for yourself.

10)  Having obviously 'sentimental' picks

Being swayed by one's emotions and personal preferences is one of the greatest dangers in the game of FPL. Whenever you see a manager who has three players from a club who aren't in very good form at the moment (looking at you, Liverpool), you can be fairly confident that this manager is a fan of the club - and is making selections with his heart, not his brain. Such emotional biases can relate to individual players, and/or to previous experience in FPL, as well as to real-world club loyalties. People who have Salah in their squads this year are obviously idolaters who can't get over their admiration and gratitude for all the points he's delivered over the last several years. Sometimes, too, these emotional influences can work in a purely negative way: anyone who doesn't have any Arsenal defenders in their squad, despite their massive dominance this year, is obviously prejudiced against the club - and that prejudice is harming their FPL choices.

And  a couple more quick 'bonus' ones to finish with....  

You usually have to go digging around in a manager's history a bit to discover this (unless they happen to have played a chip in the current week you're looking at), but how they've used their chips can be very instructive. If they've played a Bench Boost in a week when some of their players had quite tough fixtures, and one or two were even doubtful starters, then they're not very good. If they often use their Wildcards quite early in the window, and sometimes to make only three or four changes with them, then they're not very good.

And of course,.... it's A VERY BAD SIGN if you find that a manager obviously hasn't thought ahead about a major hazard in the game. At the moment, for instance, top sides Arsenal and Manchester City have a Blank Gameweek this weekend, because they're playing each other in the League Cup Final (and their scheduled league opponents, Wolves and Crystal Palace, are also missing a fixture). This has been known for some weeks now; but many FPL managers are behaving as though they are completely blindsided by it. There is no very good reason for being trebled-up on either Arsenal or City at the moment (though many, it seems, are trebled-up on both); and even less reason to have any Palace or Wolves players (though a few might still have Dean Henderson, or one of his defenders, from the period earlier in the season when they were returning good points; and perhaps some might still have one or two Wolves players that they brought in for their Double Gameweek a few weeks back). But if you had high exposure to this Blank, you should have been moving out surplus players already, or at leat saving up transfers, so that you could move out as many players as necessary this week (and, hopefully, bring them back, if you want to, as soon as possible thereafter). People who are being panicked into using their Free Hit this week (which will surely be far more needful for most people in the bigger Blank Gameweek caused by the FA Cup Semi-Finals in Gameweek 34), or find themselves having to burn lots of 'hits' in order to put out a full starting eleven,.... just didn't think ahead. And that's BAD FPL management.

All of these points should be pretty clearcut and uncontentious. Yet, somehow, many FPL managers seem to ignore them, or even to be in stubborn denial about them - even the supposedly 'good' managers.

Go on, take a careful look at the teams of any of the online FPL 'gurus' or 'experts'; or at those of any of the top 5,000 or 10,000 or whatever in the current global rankings. I guarantee you that almost every one of them will betray some of these telltales of fundamental incompetence in the game.

More ways to SELF-DESTRUCT

 

The FPL forums have been awash with nutters talking about using their second Wildcard this week. Yes, in Gameweek 22, barely three weeks into the New Year! Does THE MADNESS know no end??!!

The reasons why this is an overwhelmingly BAD IDEA ought to be obvious to anyone who has played the game for more than a few years

They are as follows:

1)  For any chip, there is more risk in using it earlier in its period of availability rather than later. During half a season, there will usually be at least a few, possibly several reasonable - perhaps pressing - occasions to potentially use a chip. And some of these may crop up unexpectedly, at little or no notice: you don't know they're going to happen until they happen. Thus, the later you can leave it to play a chip, the more confident you can be that there won't any longer be a better occasion to use it arising later on.

2) The general 'leaving it later' principle above is particularly true with the Wildcard because it is a 'rebuild chip' which allows you to make substantial and lasting changes to your squad, rather than just a one-off switcheroo to allow you to earn extra points in a single gameweek like all the others. It is potentially so valuable that it really should not be thrown away lightly, at the first sign of any difficulty in your squad. You tend to accumulate need for a Wildcard over time, as drop-offs in form and injuries and suspensions progressively weaken your squad. If things look bad this week, they might be even worse in another week or two!

3)  A crisis requiring a Wildcard to rectify it can also arise very suddenly: it is not uncommon to pick up 4, 5, 6 or even more injuries (or suspensions, or fallings-out-of-favour with the manager) inside a week or two. That is the kind of catastrophe for which you may need your Wildcard. And they can occur at any time (although they tend to become more common in the final third of the season...).

4)  Although this threshold will decrease slightly later in the season, you don't really want to be considering a Wildcard unless you have a case for making at least 5 or 6 urgent changes to your squad. If players aren't unavailable - through being injured, dropped, transferred out, suspended, etc. - it's never absolutely urgent to replace them, it's simply 'elective'. You should be able to carry under-performing players on your bench for a week or three, while you stock up more Free Transfers for a 'mini-Wildcard' shake-up. You can even sometimes take a chance on leaving a few 'holes' on your bench (hang on to non-playing assets) for a little while. And if an immediate change seems likely to be particularly valuable to you, it's OK to take a 'hit' - spend the extra points on it - a few times a season. Blowing a Wildcard for only 3 or 4 - non-urgent! - changes is A COMPLETE WASTE.

5)  At the moment, no-one should have such an urgent case for multiple squad changes. Although there have been a lot of injuries over the past month or so, mercifully, so far none of these have affected any of the really 'big' players: Josko Gvardiol is the only high-owned FPL asset who's been ruled out for a long spell. Moreover, we all just enjoyed an extra 'mini-Wildcard' this year, with the unnecessary additional transfers doled out for AFCON barely a month ago. If you used those sensibly to strengthen your squad during December (or saved at least some of them to allow yourselves a few extra transfers during the injury-ravaged month of January...), there should be absolutely no need to consider multiple squad revisions - or any at all! - just now.

6)  You don't want to be using a Wildcard at a time where there is more than usual uncertainty about what's going on in the Premier League, and perhaps an imminent possibility of significant changes in the FPL player-comparison landscape. And that is very much the case at the moment, in late January. The mid-season transfer window doesn't close for another 11 days, and there's usually a late rush of activity right before the final deadline (this year, on the evening of February the 2nd); some players might yet leave the Premier League altogether, some new big names might join from overseas. And even if you don't fancy any of the new arrivals themselves, you need to be mindful of the disruptive effect they can have on team selections and playing styles, of the possible knock-on consequences for players you do own, or might like to own. These impacts will not make usually themselves fully felt until at least a few weeks after a new player has joined - or left - a club; so, for this reason alone, it is utterly, utterly DAFT to consider using the Wildcard before the second half of February, at the very earliest.

7)  Quite apart from the upheaval of the transfer window, we are deep in the 'midwinter doldrums' now: almost every team is suffering poor or fluctuating form, most players are obviously getting tired or jaded, and many are probably carrying some sort of niggling injury. A crop of new more serious injuries is arriving every week. If you use the Wildcard now, there is an elevated risk that most or all of your new selections might lose form or become unavailable altogether within a few weeks: that is why you shouldn't use it in January. 

8)  There are also some more particular factors affecting the overall player-comparison landscape just at the moment. The five main ones are: a) additional upheaval caused by the turnover of managers around this time of year (Maresca and Amorim have just been replaced; Glasner had looked likely to go, but might survive; Frank looks under extreme threat, Dyche, Espirito Santo, and possibly even Howe also at some risk); b) the immediate and dramatic improvement displayed by Manchester United on being freed from the shackles of Ruben Amorim; c) the upturn in form and fighting spirit starting to be shown by all the clubs at the bottom of the table, making relative 'fixture difficulty' much more difficult to assess; d) the return of AFCON players (most of the more popular FPL choices went deep into the tournament and have only just rejoined their clubs; Senegal and Morocco were in the final last Sunday, and it is not clear if - probably rather unlikely that - their players will be back, or able to be immediately reintegrated into their club sides this weekend); e) the conundrum of Cole Palmer (and perhaps also of Mo Salah and Ollie Watkins); he's playing again at last, and faces a short run of fairly 'easy'-looking fixtures over the next month or so; many FPL managers are bringing him in just because of this enticing fixture-run - but that's almost certainly dangerously premature. He's still being troubled by recurring muscular discomfort, and is obviously a long way short of full stamina and match sharpness (he looked absolutely exhausted at the end of last week's game against Brentford, and he hadn't even been all that 'busy' in it - compared to his usual all-action standards); he isn't yet anywhere near his best, and looks like he might take at least a few more weeks to get there. If/when he does, he'll almost certainly be worth having; but because he's so expensive, that's probably going to require at least three or four transfers - not just one - to accomplish, to reallocate budget around a squad. The only other 'premium' players this season - Salah, Watkins, and Saka - might present a similar dilemma; we know they have the potential to make an enormous FPL contribution - but they haven't been doing so thus far; as soon as that changes, we may want them again,... and we may need to make multiple changes in one gameweek to achieve that. (You don't necessarily need a Wildcard to make these changes; in fact, you really shouldn't. But the point here is that there are a number of likely circumstances that might make you want to make substantial changes to your squad again in the near future - and these might undo many of the changes you've just made with your silly, premature Wildcard.)

Now do you see???

And, oh gawd, some people are talking about using their Bench Boost too. There's a much simpler argument against that. With so much injury, fatigue, and important European and domestic Cup games cramping the schedule at the moment, and thus a heightened rate of unpredictable player rotations - you can't count on anyone being a guaranteed starter at the moment; and thus it's very unlikely that all 15 of your squad will start (which is the bare minimum criterion for considering a Bench Boost play). Also, just about no-one has a really strong bench at the moment (you usually have to use some saved transfers or a Wildcard to 'set up' an optimum squad to get a really good Bench Boost return). And, even if this weekend's games were happening in less unsettled February or March, it still wouldn't be a good gameweek for a Bench Boost: there just aren't that many attractive fixture match-ups!!!

People considering either of these chip plays this week (or, good grief, yes, the Triple Captain or Free Hit too), are just BORED, IMPATIENT, or DEPRESSED (taking the recent run of terrible gameweek returns too personally: wake up, people, it's been SHIT for everyone lately!!), and looking to cheer themselves up with a whacky and impulsive move. All you are doing, my friends, is shooting yourselves in the foot. You'll get no decent advantage from these chips this week; and you will soon be ruing your choice when an obviously much better - or more necessary - occasion to use them comes along.

FOUR types of selection decision in FPL

 

It occurred to me the other day, when I was writing about Phil Foden's recent improbably hot run of form, that we may discern 4 main types of selection decision in FPL, differentiated by their timing.

Timing of a transfer: the FOUR TYPES

1)  Anticipatory/Speculative/Precognitive

If you go in for a player before he's started to show any clear signs of form - just following a 'hunch', or because you have some sentimental attachment to him, or because he's a big-name player who's often done well in the past (ahem, Mo Salah...) - you may sometimes get lucky with that. But you have to appreciate that it's a very risky play. Going in so early for someone is inevitably a big gamble, even if you may have some good reasons - though very subtle and uncertain ones - for the choice. Those reasons might be founded on past history (e.g., the player usually recovers strongly from a brief injury absence, regularly displays a particularly keen hunger to return to the fray after missing a few games for any reason, always bounces back strongly after just a few poor performances, often has a great game against this particular opponent...), a positive shift in team form or lineup or tactics, a favourable run of upcoming fixtures, some background information which may suggest a likely psychological lift (a spat with the manager or a legal problem resolved, a family problem improving, a bereavement receding into the past), or subtle indications on the pitch of a possible turnaround in fitness or confidence that might herald a sudden, imminent uptick in points-scoring form. If you weighed up such factors, and subsequent performances by the player seemed to vindicate your assessment, you may congratulate yourself on a perceptive early transfer decision. But more often, FPL managers who go in early for someone are just taking a wild punt, based on no substantive rationale at all; and if that player suddenly hits a hot streak of form out of nowhere, they've just been incredibly LUCKY - but they'll never admit that. [Disgruntled rivals may complain of them relying on a crystal ball or a time-machine, because there really seems to be no other way to explain how such a bizarre decision worked out so well for them....]

2)  Hasty/Hopeful/The Calculated Gamble

If you go in for a player after 1 or 2 good hauls, that will sometimes pay off for you. But again, it's very risky - you might be falling victim to the classically over-optimistic vice of chasing last week's points. 'Form' is not always accurately reflected by points returns; 'form' is often transient or inconsistent. You need to look for evidence of a general upturn in form that is likely to persist - and improve further - over a number of games. You can only find that kind of evidence by watching full games with close attention; stats are no substitute for that; and a highlights roundup is not good enough either - you need to have seen the whole game. 

3)  The 'Goldilocks Zone'

This is the 'ideal' time to make a transfer, the time when most 'smart' managers recognise that a player is probably now worth having. Now, as I just said above, because 'form' is not always reflected fully - or, sometimes, at all - in the FPL points returns, this 'sweet spot' might come when a player has started playing better, but has not yet produced any worthwhile points; or perhaps, they've only produced a few modest hauls, but (not yet) a really big one. And, although it might sometimes be possible to discern indications of a decisive upturn in performance from just one game, usually it takes a little longer to be confident of that. As I wrote in this essay at the end of last season attempting to define the concept of 'form': One good game might be a freak; two on the bounce is very encouraging, but it still might mean nothing; three.... is form.  Of course, with the benefit of hindsight, you can pinpoint the individual gameweek in which a player first began a streak of good points-scoring - even if those returns were at first quite modest and/or quite intermittent (and perhaps not really reflective of any strong positive shift in the player's or his team's performance at that point!). But as the season is unfolding, it is almost always impossible to recognise the exact moment of such a shift: it doesn't generally become visible until a little later - one, or two, or three gameweeks further on. And that is when you should be jumping on the player. Don't beat yourself up that you might have missed a few good hauls from him; be satisfied that you're getting good points from him now, points that a lot of rival managers are still missing out on.

4)  'Late to the party'

Often, you'll miss these 'early signs' that a player may be about to go on a tear. And that's forgivable - especially if, like me, you don't have good access to live TV coverage of the games. And the 'Goldilocks Zone' is very unforgiving, usually an extremely narrow window of opportunity: it's often just a single gameweek, and, even with the most generous dispensation, it can rarely be extended to more than two or three. However, after that point, it should be fairly obvious that this player is now a top pick, and if you continue to ignore him - well, then you're really not paying attention; or, worse, you're being stubborn (sticking to a previous selection in defiance of mounting evidence against it), or unreasonably prejudiced against this new option (perhaps he hurt you in the past: the old 'He always starts blanking as soon as I buy him' superstition - we've all fallen victim to that at one time or another). Often, such stubbornness grows out of being in thrall to the ideal of self-consistency, or what is sometimes called a 'committment bias'  - one of the most deep-rooted and damaging of our cognitive biases: we may have convinced ourselves that a player we'd picked ahead of the newly in-form player was always going to remain the superior prospect, or we may have convinced ourselves early on in this emerging trend of form that it was going to prove ephemeral - and nothing will now change our minds about this choice, no matter how much evidence is stacking up that it has now become wrong. But.... better LATE than NEVER. If you can overcome your pride, your stubbornness, your prejudice, and accept that a player is now so hot that you must have him - you might still be able to catch one or two more decent hauls from him before the streak dries up (as they all do, eventually).

In summary, then:...

The first type of transfer is very early: made before there has yet been any evidence of an improvement in a player's performance (or at least, not in his FPL points returns); it is hence a big, and probably unjustified, risk. Such transfers can occasionally pay off very well; but you should ensure that such a pick is based on definite evidence - if only in the form of positive background factors, rather than anything yet in the on-field displays - and sound reasoning.

The second type is also early, and possibly over-hasty: it is made on the basis of an improvement in performance, but perhaps only scant evidence of such, perhaps from just one or two games - which is rarely enough to make you fully confident of a sustained upturn in form. If you're allowing yourself to get over-excited about one or two good returns, you're most often not shrewdly anticipating the next big thing, but simply falling prey to a fatuous 'sheep pick'.

The third type is based on an astute assessment of early evidence of an upturn in performance: not just the FPL points returns, but the overall contribution of the player and the way he and his team are functioning together. Such evidence may occasionally be visible in a single game; but usually it takes two or three games to become persuasive.

The fourth type is at least slightly late - or maybe very late! - only recognising the turn in form some time after it has become evident, at least to the smarter and more perceptive FPL managers. (As a general rule-of-thumb, if The Scout - FPL's vapid, anonymous, in-house pundit - has just recommended a player,... you probably should have bought him at least one or two gameweeks back.)

To apply this template to the recent example of Phil Foden's extraordinary streak of goalscoring form....

If you'd gone in for him in Gameweek 13, that was definitely a Type 1 decision. And it must have been based on having a crystal ball, because there really was no indication that he was suddenly about to come good so strongly, after a long run of 'blanks', and often pretty anonymous performances (he'd only produced 20 points from the previous 8 games, with just a solitary assist!). A fixture against Leeds was not sufficient reason to start fancying a player who'd shown almost no indication of suddenly becoming a major FPL points contributor again over the previous two months. (Neither was a moderately promising fixture-run immediately thereafter. And it was only moderately promising: Fulham away is not a particularly 'easy' fixture; Palace away certainly isn't.)

If you'd bought him for Gameweek 14, that would have been a Type 2 decision. Was there really any evidence in the Leeds game of a decisive change in mentality, confidence, style of play (or in team tactics, that might give him more scoring opportunities...)? Not really. And that good performance was only against Leeds, who are struggling at the bottom of the table. Moreover, there were two further Premier League games within the coming week, and we might reasonably have expected that Foden would get short minutes in these games - or perhaps be rested completely for one of them - and/or might have been inhibited a little by fatigue. I would say, getting Foden in GW14 was essentially just chasing last week's points; there was not yet any convincing rationale for buying him.

The interesting question is whether, after two outstanding displays in quick succession, it would have a Type 3 decision to get Foden in Gameweek 15. I would say NO. Foden had just played twice within a few days; and there was a crucial Champions League tie away to Real Madrid coming up the following midweek - and he did indeed get short minutes in this next match. Also, Sunderland were much the best of the three EPL teams he'd faced in this remarkable week - although they produced an uncommonly poor performance on this occasion, and, despite playing only just over an hour, Foden again managed to come up with a goal.

Acquiring him didn't really become a Type 3 decision rather than Type 2 until Gameweek 16; and arguably perhaps not even then. In the wake of the Real Madrid game, there was again a risk that Foden might be rested or subbed off early. And Crystal Palace are one of the best teams City have faced this season, the strongest defence in the league (after Arsenal's); especially away from home, a City win could not have been confidently predicted. Moreover, it is statistically extremely improbable that any player will achieve 4 double-digit hauls in a row (has it ever been done before??) - and while that wouldn't argue against acquiring Foden for this game, it should counsel that it was unreasonable to expect another very big points return from him. And yet - astoundingly - he did produce yet another haul! But that was a once-in-a-blue-moon freak; and if you bet on that, you were lucky rather than brilliant.

This might be a rare case where there was in fact no 'Goldilocks Zone' for acquiring Foden. There have been good reasons to doubt if he would be able to extend this scoring streak in each gameweek that it has continued; and the calculus on this was greatly complicated by the December fixture congestion and the huge importance of City's looming Champions League clash. In each of those four - closely packed-together - gameweeks, there were reasonable arguments for remaining hesitant about acquiring Foden: It was becoming increasingly unlikely in each match that he would produce another successive big haul, and increasingly likely that Pep might rest him. 

Moreover, Doku had been a very attractive pick from City for a while, and Cherki was just becoming so - before Foden suddenly caught fire. And if you already had one of these (or perhaps Nico O'Reilly; albeit that he's in a different position category, that pick would still be eating into your club quota from City), it would not have been unreasonable to hang on to them, in preference to Foden - whose newfound burst of form might well have quickly fizzled out again. And even if you had fancied bringing Foden it, it was still a somewhat speculative pick - so early in the emerging hot spell, after such a long barren streak, after such a disappointing season last year - and it might not have been a leading transfer priority; especially as the mounting toll of injuries and suspensions in the bleak midwinter was using up most of the available stock of Free Transfers for the majority of FPL managers (even with the bonanza of extra transfers we were just given in in GW16).

Perhaps, perhaps... transferring in Foden has jumped straight from a Type 2 to a Type 4 decision!

However, I would suggest that acquiring Foden now, for Gameweek 17, is probably the Type 3, 'Goldilocks Zone' moment. 

Yes, paradoxical as it may seem, I think he's only become a really unassailably strong pick now - when his super-hot streak is (almost certainly?) over. You will have missed 55 points from 4 games in the last fortnight; but a fortnight ago, that was completely unforeseeable; and even as the fortnight played out, it remained hugely improbable. You shouldn't suffer any self-recrimination for missing out on the benefits of such a bizarre freak performance.

But now, we have seen clear evidence that Foden - and his team - are playing extraordinarily well; and this does seem to be a sustained shift in performance. Moreover, they're in a pretty soft run of fixtures still, with only the New Year game against Chelsea offering a significantly formidable opponent in the next month or so (and at least that one's at home). At this point, it is definitely looking foolhardy to resist buying him any longer.

With the benefit of hindsight, we would all realise that Gameweek 13 was the ideal time to have brought him in. With the benefit of a crystal ball, we could have realised that he would become 'essential' in Gameweek 14.... or 15,... or 16. But we do not enjoy those two benefits. And without them, it was reasonable enough to hold off buying Foden until now. Most of the FPL managers I consider 'smart' have not bought him yet (the few that do have him, I think had punted on him earlier in the season - and had probably only stuck with him thus far because they'd had other higher-priority problems to address with their transfers); but I anticpate that the majority of them will be going in for him now.

Alas, it is now statistically very unlikely that Foden will achieve yet another massive points-haul in the next game - even against defensively flakey West Ham. And you can be pretty damn sure that he won't rack up another 50-odd points over the next 4 or 5 games. But he is in sensational form, and has some inviting fixtures coming up.

If you already got him in the last few gameweeks, good for you; but you were taking a gamble on him, and were fortunate that it paid off so extraordinarily well. Now, though, it really is looking as if all of us should join you.

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

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Try to learn the value of waiting....

A bad outcome does not mean it was a BAD DECISION

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

It's NEVER a binary

 

Well, almost never.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Always risky to play a chip after a break

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

Another way of looking at LUCK in FPL

 

Following on from my comments the oher day about the perils of over-confidence, I want to make a further observation about how we should view our LUCK in this game.

In Tuesday's post, I pointed out that if our self-confidence in regard to our FPL decisions were what cognitive psychologists call 'well-calibrated', it would correspond exactly to the probability of the outcomes we were betting on with those choices. But there are so many variables at play in a game like football that no one game event ever has anything like a 100% probability; in fact, with there usually being multiple potential outcomes to any situation, very few of them can properly be said to have anything near even a 50/50 chance of happening. [Even an absolutely 'ever-present' player can.... catch a cold, break his toe in the shower on match-day morning, wrap his sports car around a lamp-post, have a row with his manager or his girlfriend.... No-one, absolutely NO-ONE has a 100% probability of even starting a game, let alone of achieving any particular points-outcome in it.]

We should never presume to know what a player is going to do in a game. The best we can hope for is to formulate a fairly reasonable projection of his range of likeliest points-outcomes.

And then we have to try to judge what the median likelihood return is on that spectrum of expected possible returns.

Now, it is always more likely that a player will only perform at the lower-end of that scale - or perhaps even have an unexpectedly disastrous week and return well below even his lowest predicted outcome. A disappointing - or, sometimes, outright terrible - return is almost invariably a far more likely outcome than some kind of very big points haul. Thus, the median point of a player's projected most likely returns for the gameweek will not be in the middle, but skewed quite significantly towards the lower end of the range.

Now, of course, as I observed in that post on Tuesday, if a player does really, really well for us, we always like to convince outselves that we absolutely foresaw this - with perfect confidence - and are thus absolutely deserving of all the points we receive. But in fact, even a middling points return is usually at least a little bit above what would have been a reasonable median outcome, and you should be very happy with any such returns. Every really big haul you get is well above what you could reasonably have expected as a return on this basis; every really big haul is, to a significant degree, 'LUCKY'.

Our results in this game are not earned 100% by merit. We should be more ready to acknowledge our debts to good fortune and the caprices of Fate, to cultivate an attitude of humility and gratitude when we enjoy really big points returns - rather than constantly trying to deceive ourselves into believing that such a result was entirely deserved.

The vice of OVER-CONFIDENCE

 

I've referrred to Derek Muller's consistently thought-provoking science channel, Verittasium, on the blog before - here and here.

His latest post last week was on the unfortunate human predilection towards being massively - and inappropriately - confident about our beliefs all the time. 

He starts by touching on the notorious Dunning-Kruger Effect (which identifies the tendency for less 'knowledgeable' or 'competent' people to most drastically over-estimate their abilities in self-evaluations), but goes on to discuss how EVERYONE tends to be massively over-confident - even when making a guess about a problem that we really don't know the answer to - and explains the concept of 'calibration', meaning the correlation between the confidence we have in our beliefs or predictions and their accuracy.

Playing FPL, of course, is a classic case of having to constantly make intelligent predictions of events in the football world that we can't actually know the outcomes of in advance; we are just making guesses about problems we don't know the answer to.

And such events in football all come with a high degree of uncertainty: even the great Erling Haaland, even when he's on such a great run of form as he has been so far this season, cannot be relied upon to always get a big haul against a 'weaker' opponent, nor indeed can he be relied upon to score at all in every single game.

'Calibration', in this sense, means that our confidence in a particular outcome should correlate exactly to its probability. 

Therefore, if our guessing was 'well calibrated', we wouldn't ever feel much more than 60% or 70% confident that Haaland, even in the form of his life, was going to score in any given game, and should never really be more than about 50% confident - or anywhere near that! - of him notching a brace; and confidence in him returning a hattrick cannot ever be more than a very, very low percentage - it is just too rare and unpredictable an event, even for a player like him (especially when Pep so often subs him off early!). 

And yet, somehow, we always seem to end up professing near-100% confidence in such predictions. That is a dangerous INSANITY.

It probably arises from our desire to feel good about ourselves all the time, and to look good in front of others. Anxiety about future outcomes, and doubt about the accuracy of our decisions are uncomfortable feelings, something we seek to suppress. And we imagine that other people will be more impressed by us, and be more likely to be swayed by our opinions if we express them with absolute assurance. Hence, once we've made a decision, we immediately reassure ourselves that it must - absolutely definitely - be correct, and that we can place near-100% confidence in it. But that just ain't so - EVER.

There are, I think, FOUR supplementary vices which follow on from this tendency to be over-confident in our choices.  1) It hurts harder, makes our disappointment and dissatisfaction all the sharper when we happen to be 'wrong'.  2) It makes us more stubborn: the disproof of an idea we had become so confident of, and so emotionally invested in, undermines our sense of self, and we struggle to accept that; the powerful impulse of denial drives us into thoughts such as, "I might have been wrong this week, but I'm bound to be right next time!" and into sticking by bad picks longer than we should.  3) It makes us less self-reflective, more resistant to the possibility of change in the short-term as well. (Many FPL decisions, such as the captaincy choice, playing a chip, the starting lineup and bench order, can be changed without cost within the gameweek, right up until the deadline. And late-breaking news might often give good cause to do so. But once we've made our choices for the week, we tend to be very reluctant to revisit them - for any reason.)  And 4) It makes us less grateful for our good fortune: when we get a great haul from a player, we always like to think, "I predicted that, I knew that was going to happen: I completely deserve every single point of that improbably huge return!"  Hmm, NO, you don't; you got LUCKY.

We would be much better off - certainly happier in our playing of the game, and probably more successful too (though these two things should not be inextricably correlated) - if we could break away from this habit of always wanting to be believe that we are absolutely correct in our decisions, that we know what the best FPL picks for the week are going to be. We don't; we're just guessing.