Maths!!

Joe Devine narrates this interesting short - posted the other day on The Athletic magazine's Tifo sub-channel on Youtube - about why football is intrinsically much harder to analyse than almost all other sports.

The killer quote in the middle of it comes from Christofer Clemens, the Head Analyst of Die Mannschaft when they won the 2014 World Cup, who once noted ruefully: "We are increasingly convinced that there's a lack of data that provides real information about the things that make you successful in football..."  Even the World Cup winners didn't know how they'd done it!

The main point of the video is that a continuous sport like football is much harder to analyse effectively than one which is more broken up, divided into a series of discrete, short passages of play. In cricket or baseball, for example, there are only so many types of delivery that the bowler/pitcher can produce, and only so many ways that the batsman/batter can respond; and once the fielding side have dealt with whatever happens, the ball quickly becomes 'dead' - the game is paused while the fielding side reset and the bowler/pitcher prepares to deliver the next ball. In football, the ball becomes dead far less regularly, less often; and while some teams will try to eat time off the clock by putting the ball into touch as often as possible, it is common for sequences of uninterrupted play in a field game like football to go on for a minute or two.... and occasionally even for several minutes at a time. The possible patterns of play are thus almost infinitely complex. 

The video points out that there are a few games that are arguably even more continuous in their play: ice hockey, for example, allows for substitutions to be made without pausing the game. What it doesn't go into, however, is that these games tend to have fewer players and/or shorter playing periods - again making the challenge of analysis just that bit more manageable. Most field games have settled on 11 as the number of players; a few, such as rugby have more - but again, they usually have rules which restrict the variety of play. In rugby because the ball can only be passed by throwing, there is a fairly narrow practical limit on how far and how fast the ball can be moved with each pass; also, the ball cannot be passed forwards in that game. In football, almost any part of the body is able to be used for controlling and moving the ball, and passes in all directions are allowed, and it is possible to move the ball when struck with the foot a huge variety of different distances and at different speeds - and even to shape the trajectory of the ball by deliberately applying spin to it. This almost limitless range of potential movement for the ball also means that in football almost every player on the pitch can potentially receive the ball next, whereas in most similar sports there are generally only a very small number of likely receivers. (Stick-and-ball games like hockey have similar fluidity of movement, but are much more heavily biased towards passing the ball in a particular arc of the field.) Thus, even a relatively short passage of play, just 4 or 5 passes, can move the ball enormous distances and involve almost the entire team. There are few other games - probably NONE - which have anything like this level of variety and complexity in their potential patterns of play.

The video notes that as statistical analysis has become more thorough in recent years, it has started to prove useful in some areas - particularly in identifying the 'skills profile' of individual players, and deciding if they might be a good match for a given squad and style of play (Brighton's business model is founded on this, and they've become very, very good at it). Where it still falls down, and probably always will, is in assessing the effectiveness of tactical approaches, and determining how far they contribute to a team's overall success.

I would suggest that this is not just because it requires one to look at an entire game (or a whole series of them) rather than just individual game actions, and at the team as a whole rather than just an individual player - although obviously that is a massive (and insuperable) part of the problem. Surely, it's also that it's impossible to define with any precision or consistency what team tactice are. They change from minute-to-minute, as players seek to adapt to shifting circumstances on the field; they change as the manager makes in-game tweaks, or galvanises his team to greater efforts with a rousing half-time pep talk; they change with shifting game-states. They change from game to game, as a manager seeks to adapt to a particular opponent. They change from season to season, and even within the course of a season, as managers seek to stay fresh - and surprising to the opposition. And however clear and consistent the tactics may be in the manager's vision, how cohesively and consistently and effectively they are realised on pitch by the players can vary drastically from game to game.... and within a game, sometimes even from minute to minute. Plus, of course, the effectiveness of the chosen tactics always depends not only on how accurately the team impements them, but on the response of the opposition. 

In a fluid game, like football, with an almost unlimited range of possible movement, and long uninterrupted sequences of play.... any attempt to statisticallly analyse success or failure in terms of the overall team tactics is usually going to be doomed to failure. 

Caveat: Unless the tactics are really, really bad! If a team has a really obvious flaw, like Ten Hag's United having such a huge gap between their midfield and defence, because they didn't have the pace in defence to mount a high defensive line, even though their high-pressing style really required that - then, yes, you can see why a team is losing all the time, and the statistical data will expose that flaw too. But when you have two very good teams going up against each other, it's far more daunting to try to disentangle the impact of the tactics from the importance of individual moments of skill from the players. [Maybe Pep's tactics have never been that good, and he's just been saved over and over again by the brilliance of his teams...??]

I'd go further and say that I think you can usually determine the tactical basis of a result in indvidual games via the 'eye test' - watching closely, and analysing multiple different interacting factors at once. It's much harder, usually almost impossible, to reliably draw such conclusions from data alone. And disentangling the impact of 'tactics' - amid the web of other elements: form, fitness, confidence, refereeing decisions, the 'luck of the bounce', the quality of the opposition - in overall results over a run of games.... that, i think, is a very elusive - probably illusory - Grail to be chasing with statistical analysis.

Food for thought.

Why people are BAD at FPL....

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

1)  Personal loyalties (and enmities) towards particular clubs

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

4)  Not understanding stats

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

6)  Superstition

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

7)  Being too 'reactive'

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

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

8)  Falling in with the flock

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

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

9)  Stubbornness

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

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

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

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

More BAD PICKS (some slightly less obvious ones!)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Raya

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Saliba

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Gvardiol

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

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

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

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

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

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

Porro

Reason:  He got 3 goals and 7 assists last season

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

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

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

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

Gakpo

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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