Dilemmas of the Week - GW21

Still nothing much happening in the winter 'transfer window', but that must surely change soon - probably not for this midweek gameweek, but very possibly for GW22 at the weekend, or GW23 the gameweek after. We might imminently see some new players coming into the league (City and Arsenal, and probably also Manchester United are surely looking for a couple of key signings). But the loss of existing players, and the potential disruption ensuing from uncertainty and bad feeling around potential moves, could have even more impact than exciting new arrivals.. We've seen a number of times in recent years that when negotiations around a possible move get tense, managers often prefer to remove the player in question from their squads; that is a big hazard to watch out for over the coming month. There may also be some psychological knock-on effects elsewhere; if Gyokeres really is finally headed to Arsenal, for example, there could be a danger that the likes of Jesus, Trossard, or Havertz could be distracted, disaffected by concerns about what that might mean for their prospects of a regular start.

So, we have still a particularly tricky month ahead, which - quite apart from any other considerations (like all the much more useful, necessary, things you might have to use it for later in the season) - makes this week, or any time this month, a very bad time to play the 2nd Wildcard.

So, what are the conundrums we face ahead of Gameweek 21?

Does anybody need to be moved out because of injury?

Oops - perhaps Mikel Arteta was right to be so cautious about playing Ethan Nwaneri, because when the youngster was given a start in the last game against Brighton, he developed a leg muscle problem and had to come off at half-time, and he's expected to be out for at least a few weeks. And Arsenal suffered a raft of further injury worries in Sunday's FA Cup game against Manchester United: Riccardo Calafiori missed the game with a leg-muscle problem, while Jorginho, Jurrien Timber, and Gabriel Jesus all had to exit the game - Jesus looking like he might have quite a serious knee injury.

Rodrigo Betancur will be out for a while, after his mysterious collapse in the League Cup Semi-Final against Liverpool last week. The club are citing 'concussion protocols', because he bashed his face pretty hard on the ground when he fell; but he appeared to have already lost consciousness in mid-air as he dived for a header, so I would think he'd have to undergo a lot of tests to determine if he suffered some sort of seizure or a transient heart arrhythmia.

Bournemouth have been particularly unlucky this past week, losing both their main striker Evanilson (a broken metatarsal that needed surgery, so will probably sideline him for a couple of months) and his back-up Enes Unal (with an ACL tear that will rule him out till next season) in quick succesion. This may be good news for Dango Ouattara, who put in an excellent display as the central striker in the FA Cup demolition of West Bromwich Albion on Saturday.

Problems at Villa too, where Jaden Philogene and Diego Carlos had to pull out of the last match against Leicester with training knocks, while John McGinn again tweaked his hamstring in that game and had to come off, then Emi Martinez missed the Cup game against West Ham with a 'small' training injury, and Ross Barkley had to come off in that one with a calf strain. (These are probably not players that anyone owns; but still, that big a dent in their squad is likely to impair their form, and make assets like Watkins or Rogers a bit more dubious over the next few weeks...)

There's been a fair old rash of ankle injuries in the past week as well: Joao Pedro, Sammie Szmodics, Dominic Calvert-Lewin, and Armando Broja - hopefully not too serious, but all doubts for this week.

Rodrigo Muniz is also a doubt, after coming off in the Cup tie against Watford with a back-muscle problem.

Harvey Barnes could be out for around a month, after coming off in the weekend's Cup tie with a tight hamstring.

Ipswich's Omari Hutchinson (groin strain) and Conor Chaplin (knee injury) are also likely to be out for at least a couple of weeks.

West Ham full-back Emerson missed the last game against City with a knock picked up in training, and Crysencio Summerville and Niklas Fullkrug both had to come off in Friday's cup tie at Villa; Fullkrug's problem apparently looks quite serious - which leaves the Hammers without any forward players.

Craig Dawson and Nelson Semedo picked up muscle problems in training at the start of the month, causing them to miss the last game against Forest, and this weekend's Cup tie against Bristol City - but they might be available again for this gameweek. No further word on Matheus Cunha's injury at the end of last year, but presumablly no news is good news.....

Do we have any players who are dropped, or not looking likely to get the starts we hoped for?

Liverpool and Everton, having had their derby fixture at Goodison postponed due to bad weather a month ago, hadn't yet reached the 19-game cut-off point for totting-up suspensions: and poor Darwin Nunez managed to pick up a fifth booking in Gameweek 20 - the only new suspension this week.

Oh... and Diogo Dalot will be suspended, after getting sent off for two yellow-card fouls in the Cup tie against Arsenal yesterday.

Kepa, on loan with Bournemouth, is ineligible to face parent club Chelsea. Odsonne Edouard, now on loan with Leicester, is similarly ineligible to play Crystal Palace.

And Fraser Forster seems to have been displaced in the Spurs goal by their new Czech arrival Antonin Kinsky.

Did anyone give other cause to consider dropping them?

Kyle Walker is said to have requested a move away from City, so now seems very likely to be dropped (he hasn't been playing well, anyway!).

And people are having doubts about Trent Alexander-Arnold, after his very poor display against Manchester United (although Slot gave him a vote of confidence by making him captain in the Cup on Saturday - and he scored in that one; so, I imagine his FPL owners will mostly remain loyal at least a bit longer). My main concern with him is the possibility of an immediate transfer to Real.

Did anyone play so well, you have to consider bringing them in immediately?

No particular standouts come to mind from the last round of games, but.... if Manchester United have perhaps now turned a corner under Ruben Amorim, Bruno Fernandes and Amad Diallo become very attractive possibilities for Thursday night's game against Southampton.

Oh, and Bryan Mbeumo! Not just for his predictable demolition of Southampton last time out; he's been on fire again for four or five games now. And Brentford's pacey counter-attacking could maximally exploit City's present defensive weaknesses.

BEST OF LUCK, EVERYONE!

And DON'T FORGET The Boycott:

#QuitFPLinGW23         #DownWithTheNewChip

A little bit of Zen (24)

 

“The true path is not about seeking to know, but rather it is letting go of what we think we know.”

Ryokan Taigu

The trouble with Pep

 

Pep Guardiola is, of course, one of the most innovative and influential coaches the game has ever seen; and - until a few months ago! - pretty much the most successful. But all of that has suddenly changed with City's remarkable meltdown since the end of October.

I am not particularly surprised by this turn of events; well, surprised, perhaps, by its suddenness and its catastrophic severity, but.... the only big surprise for me is not that it's happened, but that it took so long to come around. I think the seeds of Pep's self-destruction have been apparent for a while, and are inherent in the management 'style' that has brought him so much success thus far.

Here, I think, are some of the main reasons for the spectacular collapse we've seen unfold at City:

1)  The adamantine ego. Pep's strength of personality, his massive self-confidence and force of will, are obviously among the key factors in his exceptional success as a modern football manager. But they also evidently make him a rather prickly character, not always easy to get along with. And he has sometimes appeared to be rather petty in his dealings with his players - the very public spat with Yaya Touré being the most conspicuous instance, but surely not the only one. His rather brutal dismissal of Joe Hart (even before he had anyone decent to replace him - Willy Caballero, remember him?!), the protracted sulky controntation with Touré, and the frequent sidelining even of such giants in the team as David Silva, Sergio Aguero, and Vincent Kompany (although there were injury issues etc. behind a lot of that, it did often seem that he was reluctant to make use of them even when they were available) made it appear that he was prima-donna-ishly attempting to set his own stamp on the club by ostentiatiously shunting aside all the core contributors to its previous success. And some of the players who've left City during his reign - notably Leroy Sane and Raheem Sterling - have expressed a dissatisfaction with their treatment by him.

2)  The finicky perfectionism. "Don't let 'perfect' become the enemy of 'good'," a wise old saying goes. And I think this might be Pep's tragic flaw - or one of them. It's another thing that not only may occasionally harm results, but potentially harms his relationships with players... and fans. When you see Liverpool players being interviewed about their time under Klopp, you don't just see professional respect and gratitude towards the man, but something like adulation. When Pep's City players talk about him, there's usually a lot of positive emotion there too - certainly the respect - but it doesn't generally sound quite so warm; and it's often undercut with hints of exasperation at his obsessiveness, his perhaps excessive attention to 'small details'.

3)  The 'over-thinking'. While I wouldn't question the astuteness of Pep's understanding of the game in general, there have clearly been occasions where a compulsion to tinker with his tactical set-up has proven to be unnecessary and detrimental. At least two or three times, an undue 'respect' for the opposition in the latter stages of the Champions League has prompted a drastic change in approach which backfired and led to a premature exit from the competition.

4)  The constant 'evolution'. Now again, this isn't an outright bad thing: it's a good thing.... that can be overdone. The ability and willingness to develop the team's tractical system, to respond to new challenges from rivals and stay continually fresh (and surprising to opponents) is admirable... up to a point. But Pep seems to have been introducing a radical change of approach almost every season, and sometimes even a series of significant tweaks within the course of one season; and this is perhaps a bit too much, a bit too often. It makes it sometimes hard for the team to get settled in a particular system. And, even more importantly, it can make it difficult to recruit appropriate players - if there's an uncertainty about how the team will be playing next year, what kind of profiles they'll be needing. It probably also makes many players reluctant to accept a move to City - my climactic point here, soon - because they realise that, however good they are, they might soon become redundant under Pep's latest scheme. One year he likes attacking full-backs; then he suddenly decides that they're obsolete, and he'd rather play 3 or 4 (or 5?) centre-backs instead; then he thinks full-backs might be OK after all, but he wants them to invert into deep midfield rather than pushing up the flanks; then he decides that maybe he'd like at least one of them to join the attacking line, but more centrally rather than out wide....  It is head-spinning. (These switches of approach have been particularly pronounced in defence; and this is maybe part of the reason why there has been such a revolving door of top international defenders passing across City's books in recent years: Pedro Porro, Angelino, Eric Garcia, Oleksandr Zinchenko, Aymeric Laporte, Joao Cancelo - all unceremoniously shown the door!)

5)  An ultra-conservatism in selection.  While 'Pep Roulette' has become a notorious concept in the world of FPL (the idea that almost any City player is a risky pick because Guardiola's squad rotations can be so frequent and so unpredictable), this distracts us from the deeper truth that in many ways Pep is extremely reluctant to make certain alterations to his team. Most of his changes come in the defensive positions, or among his wide attackers, where he's usually had multiple options; but in other areas, he's often appeared to be afraid of giving key players a rest. OK, we can see that players like Ruben Dias, Rodri, and Kevin DeBruyne are 'irreplaceable' - but you have to try to do without them occasionally, both for the sake of their stamina, and for the harmony of the squad... giving the 'fringe' players enough minutes to keep them happy. Between these two extremes - rotating like crazy in positions where he's got multiple options, and being unwilling to rotate at all in positions where he's got a vital player - many of his squad have sooner or later become disenchanted and sought a move. I mentioned at the end of the point above some of the defenders who've got fed up of him (or he of them...); but there are perhaps even more examples among the attacking players who eventually tired of the limited or erratic minutes he was giving them - Leroy Sane, Riyad Mahrez, Ferran Torres, Raheem Sterling, Gabriel Jesus, Julian Alvarez. This problem is perhaps particularly noticeable in regard to promoting youth team talents to regular starting responsibility. Poor Phil Foden is still being regularly dropped or constantly shunted around different roles (despite having just been 'Player of the Season' last year, when he was mostly able to take the responsibility of the central playmaker, due to DeBruyne's extended absence), and perpetually having to play second-fiddle to DeBruyne whenever he's fit - after 4 or 5 seasons as a more-than-capable understudy, he still hasn't been given the confidence-boost of a regular lead role in the team. And I kind of feel he's been a fool to stay there so long: his career - particularly in the international arena - could probably have blossomed more at another club. The example of fellow Academy graduates like Jadon Sancho, Morgan Rogers, and - most trenchantly - Cole Palmer, who left City for better things, must surely now rankle with him. (And one wonders how long youngsters like Oscar Bobb and Jason McAtee, and even current Pep darling Rico Lewis, will stick around, given this history of being glacially slow to fully integrate younger talents.)

6)  The chronic risk-aversion. While Pep's City have sometimes been quite exciting to watch, it's usually been because of the outsanding individual creativity they have at their disposal, rather than the overall style of play. His relentless stat-crunching, the arid quest for optimum efficiency, the preference for hanging on to the ball (even if you're not going to do much with it!) rather than doing anything that might slightly increase your chance of conceding a turnover.... these things often make for a rather dull and robotic experience for the spectator. And possibly for some of the players too; I suspect that could also be the reason so many attacking players have become disillusioned at City and left in the last few years. (Jack Grealish was the club's most expensive acquistion to date, at a reported fee of £100 million; but he couldn't get a regular start for Pep until he'd learned to be a 'defensive' winger rather than an attacking one! I love Jack, but he is a bear-of-very-little-brain; the move to City was not good for his career, and he should not have taken it.)

7)  That one big gap in his experience. Although Pep's revolutionised the modern game and won all the silverware there is to win.... he hasn't previously had a long tenure at a single club; in fact, he's now been at City for longer than he held his three previous coaching jobs combined. Thus, he's not had to deal much before even with 'succession planning' to replace a few key players, much less with remaking an entire squad over the course of half a decade or a decade. And this is the challenge he's now facing at City. The age balance of the squad is all wrong: DeBruyne is 33 and increasingly injury-prone, Walker and Gundogan are now 34, and appear no longer to have the legs for top-level competition, Bernardo Silva and John Stones are 30, Ake and Akanji will soon be turning 30; there are a lot of great young talents in the squad, but only a few - like Dias and Grealish - are in their 'prime' of mid- to late-20s. Now, player recruitment might be partly - or entirely?? - outside of Pep's control; these days, the Director of Football at a club often takes the lead on transfer trading (it is perhaps not coincidental that City's DoF, Txiki Begiristain, will be stepping down at the end of this season, after more than 12 years in the position). But many of City's acquisitions in recent years have been excessively expensive and ludicrously unfit-for-purpose (Jack Grealish?? Kalvin Phillips??). And the club has signally failed to procure any credible emergency back-up for Rodri or Haaland (they desperately need a 'Plan B' for the next time the big Viking gets injured, beyond trying to play Foden or Silva as a 'false 9'....).

But wait, does all of this tie together into some over-arching flaw in Pep's Manchester City? Yes, I think it does. 

The tactical aridity and the apparent distrust of attacking flair (too 'risky'!); the often thorny relationships with some players; the frequent reluctance to give regular starts to younger players (or players new to the club); the numerous seismic shifts in the tactical formation; the over-frequent rotation in some positions and complete lack of it in others; the large number of dissatisfied players leaving the club - these factors all contribute to Manchester City not being such an attractive destination as you'd expect it to be.... with its unique record of success in the English game and internationally, its revered and peerlessly innovative coach, and its near-bottomless coffers. Some players just don't want to go there, because they see how difficult it can be to get in the team, to stay in the team.... or to play the kind of football they enjoy playing, to 'play their own game' in this team. (You think Lamine Yamal or Nico Williams or Jamal Musiala would ever consider a move to City?? No way!!! Not if they have any sense, anyway.)

And the core failing I see in all of this is.... an exclusive focus on one-game-at-a-time, rather than the medium- or long-term good of the squad and the club. It seems to me that Pep is so afraid of failure in any single game that he can't bring himself to contemplate playing a 'non-ideal' eleven.... or a 'non-ideal' (in his view) formation and gameplan. Even if DeBruyne, in his dotage, is still better than Foden, you need to rest him more often - to get the best out of Foden, and encourage other young players coming up through your youth ranks. And you might have more chance of capturing a good alternate for Rodri if you showed a willingness to occasionally play a double-pivot - allowing both to play alongside each other - even if that's not your conception of an ideal system for this next game. Damn, yes, sometimes you have to be willing to put out a slightly 'weaker' side or utilise a slightly 'weaker' system for the long-term good of the squad. Pep has never done this; and so the City recruitment team have found it difficult/impossible to attract the new players they need for cover and rebuilding. And 'suddenly'.... everything's falling apart. Suddenly?? No, it's been a long time coming.

Oh, and there is one other Premier League manager who seems to me to demonstrate almost all of these same qualities! Unsurprisingly.... it is Pep's 'Mini-Me', Snr Arteta. Last summer's transfer window, when four fantastic young back-up players all quit in a huff, and the club was unable to land any of the big names it was after (well, not the crucial ones, anyway: I think Calafiori will prove to have been a good acquisition, but he didn't seem all that essential), was a disaster for Arsenal, leaving them with a significantly weaker squad than they had last season. And why did that happen, Mikel?

And DON'T FORGET The Boycott:

#QuitFPLinGW23         #DownWithTheNewChip

Luck-o-Meter (20)

Well, I suppose the first big element of 'LUCK' affecting this gameweek was the panic over Friday and Saturday about a slew of 'bad weather' postponements being likely/possible. That would have had a HUGE impact if it had come to pass, but... it seems we've dodged that bullet.

A few debatable calls in the Spurs v Newcastle game - but I think an increasingly beleaguered Postecoglou is clutching at straws if he's really claiming they all went wrongly against Spurs... or that that would have made any difference anyway, when they were so comprehensively outplayed for most of the game. The handball claim against Joelinton just before Isak's equaliser was rightly dismissed by VAR: Bergvall fired the ball straight at him from a few yards away, his arm was innocently by his side, and he did try to pull the hand away from the contact - it was unfortunate for Spurs that the ball deflected so conveniently into Guimaraes' path, but there was nothing culpable about that. There was even less in the claim against Dan Burn on the half-way line (and the Spurs players didn't seem to make much of it - even though it would have been a second yellow-card for him, early in the game): he was initially spreading his arms out wide (presumably to distract the Spurs player on the ball, to limit his view, or perhaps his future path of movement - but a silly and dangerous thing to do, when he might try to play the ball past you), but then he pulled them back to his side and turned slightly away as the ball was hit at him; and, even more crucially, it hit the middle of his upper-arm - which is an allowed area to control the ball with anyway under the adapted rules; so, nothing in that one. With Joelinton's forearm in the back of Bergvall's head - well, it looked accidental, as if he just bumped into him because he slipped and lost his footing at that moment; there was a suspicion of the accidentally-on-purpose about it, but... again, none of the Spurs players really complained that much; and a red card would have been very harsh, I think. Set against these empty claims, we had Kulusevski's shoulder-charging Anthony Gordon in the face (and breaking his nose, by the look of it), in the penalty area. Again, it might have been an 'accidental' collision, but to me there looked to be more intent about it than there had been with the earlier Joelinton incident; and when there's a penalty at stake, we often see a kick awarded for such a consequential impact, regardless of 'intent'. So, actually, Ange - you got off lightly. (I suspect the big man might be looking for a new job soon. This kind of self-pitying whingeing about imagined injustices carries a whiff of despair about it.)

Villa and Leicester really both looked like sides that wouldn't trouble anyone in the top half of the table here, and the home team were somewhat lucky to come away with the win, after sloppy play from Justin gifted them the chance of a late winner. If Mavididi hadn't blazed the best chance of the game wide early in the second half, the result might have been different. Again, no refereeing controversies here: Bailey's falling-over in the box for a penalty claim looked extremely optimistic, not to say delusional - rightly ignored. Barkley's clean, low drive from a few yards outside the box to take the lead was the only outstanding moment in a pretty dull game.

Bournemouth clearly should have had a penalty when Mangala kicked Ouattara in the midriff; accidental or not, you can't kick someone like that in the penalty area! This seemed to be another instance where VAR just didn't want to call their on-pitch colleague a 'clear and obvious' idiot. The home side completely dominated the game, but were struggling to break down Everton's typically dogged defence - until Huijsen, Semenyo, Kerkez and Brooks conjured a superb team move that might be one of the leading 'Goal of the Season' contenders.

Chelsea's miserable luck with penalties continued at Palace: apparently VAR thought Tyrick Mitchell got 'something' of the ball when wiping out Neto on the edge of his box late in the game - he didn't. And it shouldn't make any difference anyway; you can't just kick a player's feet out from under him, and claim you got a toe on the ball as a defence. The number of stone-cold penalties Chelsea have been denied this season is just getting ridiculous now: Palmer could probably have been above 200 points already, if our referees knew what they were doing! The sublime Sancho-Palmer link-up for the opening goal was the only high point in yet another dour, uninspiring match. Chelsea, still strangely misfiring all around, were not able to capitalise on this early breakthrough, and eventually paid the price when Palace came back into the game in the closing phase, and nicked an equaliser through Mateta. The FPL 'sheep' are despairing of Nicolas Jackson; but I think he's still looking quite sharp, and will be getting back among the goals any day now.

West Ham actually gave a very good account of themselves at the Etihad, and if Kudus and Soucek had been able to convert their very good early chances, the game might have panned out very differently (even Pep admitted as much in his post match interviews, acknowledging that City had still been quite poor in this game, and were lucky not to go behind). The major turning-point, and the major injustice, was the referee's dreadful decision to call back Summerville for a non-foul when he was clean through on goal (Ake had simply fallen over, and left the ball free for the West Ham striker to steal). And they were then desperately unlucky to fall behind to a huge deflection off Coufal beyond his keeper. The Hammers unfortunately lost their way for a while either side of half-time, but also finished quite strongly - with the lively Summerville missing another good chance near the end, after Fullkrug had already notched a consolation goal; and then, just moments later, Paqueta's improvised shot beat Ortega and grazed the outside of the far post. The Haaland faithful are, of course, crowing about the big Norwegian's 'return to form'; but I don't think there's ever been anything much wrong with his form - it's the rest of the team that's been useless. And they still are: the City defence looked worse than West Ham's in this game.

There didn't appear to be any controversy in Brentford's comfortable win at Southampton: van den Berg's goal from a corner was rightly disallowed for a bit of wrestling on the edge of the six-yard box. The only big surprise, really, was Wissa blazing the best chance of game miles over the top. But Brentford still ended up with 5, thanks to a late flurry. Southampton, of course, will be in the Championship again next year. Can they at least rally enough to cause an occasional problem to some opponents? Even that's looking doubtful.

Brighton's penalty against Arsenal was, I felt, a bit soft: one of those where both players were going for the ball, and there was an accidental, mutual contact in the follow-through. It always looks worse when it's head-to-head contact, but really, Joao Pedro was moving towards Saliba more than vice versa - seen them given, seen them not given (maybe it's a karmic balancing-up, because Joao Pedro was himself the victim of such a bad decision the other way in the previous game). The only other big surprise of a drab stalemate of a game was Arsenal conjuring a free header from one of their trademark set-pieces in the closing minute - but it falling to Partey rather than Gabriel, and him not being able to get it on target. Arsenal were probably keeping something in reserve, ahead of the Cup semi-final against Newcastle on Tuesday; but they seem to be misfiring a bit at the moment. Credit, though, to Hurzeler, for revamping Brighton's formation at half-time, and getting them into the game more after the break.

The major talking point at Craven Cottage was whether Leif Davis should have got an early red card for 'denial of a goal-scoring opportunity' when tripping Harry Wilson. It was a very tight call, which might have gone either way; but I don't like to see players sent off like that - unless it's a really egregious offence, rugby-tackling an attacker to the floor when they're obviously clean through.... The contact here was nearly 30 yards out (and really, it might have been clumsy/accidental rather than deliberate: Davis realised he wasn't going to be able to put in a challenge for the ball and pulled out of that, but was moving towards the opponent too fast to avoid running into his trailing leg...), Wison isn't super-quick, and there were three other Ipswich defenders more or less in line with him and tracking back quickly, one in the centre who would probably have been close enough to put in a block on any attempted shot; so.... a fair enough call, I think. And VAR, for once, was actually doing its job in this game. I think we can forgive the referee for initially missing the foul on Wilson for the equalising penalty: he had tripped over his own feet, and went down rather spectacularly - Morsy's very slight contact on his left calf before this was hard to see. But the 'second look' came to Fulham's rescue. (Wilson was extremely fortunate not to get a yellow card, or worse, for his excessive reaction in the referee's face about the initial decision....)  Ipswich's penalty a little later was even softer - but again a correct decision: Castagne had landed a light kick on Delap's boot as he swished at the ball, and that's enough. Particularly heart-breaking for Ipswich that Jack Clarke's fierce drive had come back off the post only 30 seconds before they conceded a second penalty; they really seemed to have done enough to deserve the win, against a very lacklustre Fulham. There were two oustanding saves in this game, Walton's low reaction stop from Raul's header early on, and Leno going at full stretch to get a hand to Broadhead's thumping drive in the second half. Not that much else all that exciting in the play from either side, though, either in attack or defence.

An aside: Ipswich describe their away strip this year as 'maroon' - but it's nowhere near that (at least, not on TV pictures); obviously more of a cerise. I suppose it's nice to have such a unique strip; and it would probably be very helpful when playing in fog or snow.... But I do find it a bit painful on the eyes, I must say.

The biggest surprise about the week's biggest game was that it went ahead at all - with heroic efforts needed from the Anfield ground staff to clear a reported 2-foot deep covering of snow from the pitch in the last few hours before kick-off. However, recently dismal Manchester United dramatically getting their shit together and proving to be the better team was, for some, perhaps even more of a surprise! Liverpool had their 'feet of clay' moment here: they weren't terrible, but it was a strangely flat performance from them, they didn't seem able to respond to the unexpected vigour and self-belief manifested by their visitors; and Trent Alexander-Arnold, perhaps distracted by his Spanish lessons, appeared to be playing in slow-motion.... Salah had a fairly quiet game; and Onana very nearly saved his penalty! Mercifully, the refereeing was pretty good here: Michael Oliver somehow missed the De Ligt handball initially, but revised his decision after visiting the pitchside monitor. (United fans will feel it was harsh, as the ball flicked towards him from Macallister's head at very close range; but his arm was already raised unnaturally high - and he then raised it even higher, towards the ball, as if making an instinctive movement to swat it away: no question about it being a penalty.) The major unexpected element of the match was Lisandro Martinez's tremendous opening goal - a ripper from a tight angle out on the left, reminiscent of Michael Keane's surprising 'Goal of the Month' earlier this season. Well, that and.... United contriving a great chance on the edge of the six-yard box in the closing seconds of the game which might have let them snatch an historic victory - but it was somehow Harry Maguire waiting in the space for the cutback, and he predictably shanked his effort miles over the bar. Oh well....

And Forest go from strength to strength, racking up yet another win - their sixth in a row?!- against Wolves on Monday night. To be fair, Wolves did occasionally look dangerous going forward, and might have got something out of the game, but for a goal-line block by Murillo and a couple of sharp saves from Sels. No refereeing snafus in this one, by the looks of it - a good way to end the gameweek.

So, Bournemouth and Chelsea (the year's unluckiest sides thus far!!) were denied clear penalties, but Brighton got one they probably shouldn't have: Leif Davis was very lucky to escape a red card, the ref denied Crysencio Summerville a 'clear goal-scoring opportunity' with a ridiculous intervention at The Etihad, and there were perhaps a few questionable decisions at Spurs.... But no goals wrongly disallowed, and no stupidly tight, possibly wrong offside decisions for once! By the abysmally low standards we have come to expect of PGMOL this season, this week was actually not at all bad for refereeing.

The 'Team of the Week' doesn't hold too many surprises either: Barkley, Van den Berg, Macallister, and Savinho are somewhat unusual inclusions in that list - not nearly so many, nor nearly so wacky as many of the collections of players that has produced in the first half of the season. Palace and Brighton managing draws against Chelsea and Arsenal, and perhaps United achieving the same at Liverpool, were modestly 'unexpected' results, but hardly bookie-breaking turn-ups. However, there was enough variety - enough of a mix of expectedness and unexpectedness - in this week's returns that there was an unusually broad spread of FPL manager scores: in my national league (quite an easy one to monitor closely, because there are only 700 or so players - but it's very competitive at the top end), there were an awful lot of disappointing 30s and 40s from people who usually get well above the global average. I think that just about gets us to 5 out of 10 on the Luck-o-Meter for this week.

And DON'T FORGET The Boycott:

#QuitFPLinGW23         #DownWithTheNewChip

The Cunha ban - WHAT??

 

One of the biggest ongoing uncertainties in FPL over the past couple of weeks, and one of the biggest impacts of 'luck' in the game's points returns in that time, has been the FA's failure to promptly ban Wolves's Matheus Cunha for his assault on a 'civilian' after the GW16 home match against Ipswich on 14th December.

It might reasonably have been expected that disciplinary proceedings could have been concluded swiftly, in such a clearcut and obviously ucontestable case, and that Cunha would have been banned before the next match - and banned for a long time. But in fact, he was most unexpectedly - and unjustly - allowed to play the next match, after all; and the next one, and the next one after that too. And after this needless two-week delay, he then only received a bafflingly token sentence! WTF???

It would have been quite reasonable, if you owned Cunha, to ditch him immediately after GW16, anticipating a long period of unavailability - and a sharp drop in his FPL price from a big general sell-off. Those who trusted to blind optimism or dumb luck in clinging on to him (for, they hoped/expected, probably one more gameweek at best), actually got three more starts out of him - in the first two of which he racked up a very handy total of 21 points! That massive return was, of course, greatly helped by the abrupt dismissal of floundering manager Gary O'Neill, and a strong and immediate 'new manager bounce' under his replacement, Vitor Pereira. FPL owners who retained Cunha, in defiance of reasonable expectations, were extravagantly rewarded for the huge - and frankly illogical - risk they took on this. And I confess, that rankles with me.

The FA really do appear to have been bending over backwards to be as nice as possible to Wolves and Cunha in this matter. They waited to issue their ban until after Cunha had been able to contribute in the Leicester and Manchester United games in GWs 17 and 18 - the only two reasonably winnable fixtures they had left before a fairly horrific two-month run of over-matched games; Cunha's absence for any or all of the succeeding games would be unlikely to have made that much of a difference to Wolves's results. They only finally imposed the ban when he'd just picked up a potentially serious injury which would probably have kept him out of following games anyway. And they gave him only a ridiculously brief two-game suspension - immediately before the FA Cup Third Round, which would count as one of the two, meaning that he would only have to miss ONE Premier League game... for his violent assault on a member of the public??

I really do not understand that sentence at all. If the referee had shown him a red card for the incident, he would have had that much of a ban - immediately and automatically. If he'd got involved in a shoving match like that with another player, he would have received a minimum 3-game 'violent conduct' ban - and we sometimes see longer bans given, for still relatively mild altercations between players.

We understand that players may succumb to a 'red mist' at times in the heat of the game, and behave inappropriately towards opposing players (or even, sometimes, members of their own team!). But anyone else - whether officials, coaching staff, or spectators - has to be regarded as sacrosanct, untouchable. And any violation against someone like that really demands emphatic, exemplary punishment.

Cunha was caught on TV cameras arguing with a middle-aged man, who was apparently part of the Ipswich 'staff' in some capacity, on pitch immediately after the game. He struck the guy from behind, quite hard, on the back of the head with the point of his elbow/upper forearm. Then he moved around in front of him and shoved him quite roughly in the face, then grabbed his glasses, pulled them off his face, and seemed to throw them to the ground. 

Quite apart from the special dynamic that this guy is not a player, but a 'member of the public', the violence of the assault, its apparent unprovokedness, the power imbalance (very strong young athletic guy attacking an overweight middle-aged man), the extreme intrusiveness/transgressiveness of the actions (contact with the head and face, deliberately impairing the man's vision by stealing - and perhaps permanently damaging? - his eyesight aids) - all this would probably elevate it into the category of an 'aggravated assault' in UK criminal law; the substantial physical element to it certainly makes it 'assault and battery' rather than simply 'assault' (which can consist just of threatening behaviour or abusive language).. [And frankly, I am surprised that criminal charges have not been brought in connection with this incident. Perhaps they still might be.]

The only comparable incidents I can recall in the English game are Eric Cantona's notorious 'kung fu kick' back in 1995, for which he was excluded from the game for 8 months; and Paolo di Canio's shoving a referee after being sent off a few years later, which earned him an 11-match ban. 

Cantona's attack was, of course, especially flamboyant and theatrical, like everything else about him. But he didn't actually land the kick; and I'm fairly sure he knew he wasn't going to - he was just making an angry gesture. The extreme transgressiveness of showing violence towards a fan, and actually trying to get into the spectators' area to commit such violence, resulted in the unprecedently severe penalty. But honestly, in terms of the actual content of the action - what he did to the victim - I don't think this was as bad as the Cunha assault. They're certainly in much the same ballpark. And the di Canio event was far more trivial; the contact was actually pretty minimal, and the referee was later roundly mocked by all and sundry for making such a meal of it - he basically got his studs caught in the turf, lost balance, and staggered backwards a number of steps before falling on his backside; but the force of the push really hadn't warranted that at all. Di Canio's offence was a fleeting impulse of petulance, which could not conceivably have caused any significant harm - other than to the referee's dignity. Whereas Cunha indulged in a sustained and very calculatedly physical confrontation with his unfortunate victim; it was many times worse than what di Canio had done.

Thus, I - and many other people - had expected a penalty in this case in a range of 8-12 games banned - perhaps with a token 2 or 3 games being remitted from that on appeal. But a de facto ban of just 1 game??  That was outrageous.  The FA appears to be 'sending the message' that it is actually perfectly OK for footballers to assault 'civilians' on the pitch after a game; that this is no more serious a misdeed, in fact rather less serious, than a clumsy tackle executed during the course of a match.

No details of the decision appear to have been released yet. I wonder if there was some major mitigating factor, which they are suppressing to protect the victim's reputation - some dreadful racist or homphobic slur, presumably, which might have been deemed an extreme provocation? But I really can't imagine any provocation that would mitigate the offence to that extent; he should have been banned for 2 to 3 months,..... and he got off with 1 game???!!!  We need to know WHY.

We really need some urgent changes to be made to how the FA handles cases like this - for greater certainty in the game of FPL, and for the protection of the public in the real world.

We need to see:

1)  Clear sentencing guidelines published, so that we can know what to expect for various categories of offence, rather than, as now, sentencing appearing to be entirely discretionary - and thus wildly inconsistent.

2) Protocols introduced for the prompt resolution of cases. If decisions cannot be reached immediately after a hearing (and, in this case, where no defence was offered, and the evidence was absolutely clearcut, it's difficult to see why this was not possible), a date for decision and sentencing should be given.

3) Protocols also need to be introduced covering when bans are announced and go into force. It is obviously unsatisfactory that a ban should be imposed when a player is already injured and unable to play.

4)  The publication of a detailed rationale for the decision in the Cunha case - so that we can understand what the hell just happened here!

Sorry, but I used to be a lawyer. Injustice bothers me. Procedural imprecision and inconsistency bother me.

Dilemmas of the Week - GW20

 

At least we're now into the second half of the season, and so past the first threshold for 'totting-up' suspensions: anyone who's still on 4 yellows or less should be safe for a good long time now (although if they reach 10 before GW33, they'll receive a 2-game ban; not sure why there's a cut-off in GW32 - players can just kick lumps out of each other with impunity in the last six weeks of the season??). But the fixture mayhem (4 more matches crammed into the next two weeks; although 1 of them is FA Cup, not EPL) and the toll of the dire weather continue unabated, and so we're still likely to be troubled by a high incidence of injuries and rest rotations over the coming month or so.

In addition, we're now into the winter 'transfer window', so we might imminently see some new players coming into the league (I imagine City and Arsenal, and probably also Manchester United are looking for a couple of key signings). But the loss of existing players, and the potential disruption ensuing from uncertainty and bad feeling around potential moves, could have even more impact than exciting new arrivals. I imagine Cunha is on a lot of people's shopping-lists, some of them outside the Premier League. And while Real are said to be trying to get Alexander-Arnold to pre-sign for a free move in June, I'm pretty certain they'd like to get him immediately to cover for Dani Carvajal's season-long absence; and Liverpool would surely have to take even a token 10 or 15 million for him now, rather than nothing in 5 months' time. We've seen a number of times in recent years that when negotiations around a possible move get tense, managers often prefer to remove the player in question from their squads; that is a big hazard to watch out for over the coming month. There may also be some psychological knock-on effects elsewhere; if Gyokeres really is finally headed to Arsenal, for example, there could be a danger that the likes of Jesus, Trossard, or Havertz could be distracted, disaffected by concerns about what that might mean for their prospects of a regular start.

Oh, also, the League Cup Semi-Finals are coming up this midweek, so there might be a few additional rotations to fear from Liverpool. Arsenal, Newcastle, and Spurs.

So, we have a particularly tricky month ahead, which - quite apart from any other considerations (like all the much more useful, necessary, things you might have to use it for later in the season) - makes this week, or any time this month, a very bad time to play the 2nd Wildcard.

So, what are the conundrums we face ahead of Gameweek 20?

Does anybody need to be moved out because of injury?

The only really big news of the last gameweek was Jarrod Bowen having to go off near the end of the game against Liverpool - with what is apparently a fractured metatarsal, likely to keep him out for at least 3 or 4 weeks. (He's owned by less than 6%, but had seemed poised for a big jump in popularity after a few strong performances recently - as many FPL managers are still desperately casting around for the best 'Saka replacement'.)

Destiny Udogie had to go off in the game against Wolves with a hamstring problem, and looks likely to be out for a little while. With Ben Davies still not fit, Djed Spence, back from suspension. will presumably deputise again at left-back - but Spurs are getting very short of defenders for any position.

Joe Gomez also hobbled off in that game with what looked like quite a serious hamstring injury; Slot has said he expects he could be out for weeks. With no still no timeline announced for the possible return of Ibrahima Konate, Jarrell Quansah finally seems likely to get a little run in the side.

Lukasz Fabianski's concussion the other week must have been quite severe, since he seems to be getting a very slow 'Graduated Return to Play' under the protocols, and is said to be unlikely to start again before mid-month.

Wolves's André had to go off with a heavy knock in the game against Spurs, but might be OK again for this week.

Pervis Estupinan unexpectedly missed the last game with an illness, Murillo with some muscle discomfort felt in the warm-up, and Callum Hudson-Odoi, Fabio Carvalho, Arne Muric, and Southampton's Flynn Downes with training-ground knocks, while Pau Torres and Seamus Coleman had to go off in the games with muscle problems - but all could possibly be available again this week. Evan Ferguson, though, has apparently reinjured his troublesome ankle again in training and could be set to miss a few weeks at least. 

Matheus Cunha also looked likely to miss out this week after retiring at half-time with a muscle problem in the game against Spurs last Sunday - but the FA has very kindly started his ban this week!

Do we have any players who are dropped, or not looking likely to get the starts we hoped for?

Jurrien Timber, Morgan Rogers, Fabian Schar, Rodrigo Betancur and Southampton's Mateus Fernandes (who??) all reached 5 yellow cards in the last game before the mid-season amnesty threshold, so miss out this week.

Jhon Duran is serving the second of his unfortunate - unjust - 3-game ban.

And Wolves's Matheus Cunha will start his 2-game ban (the second of which will be served in next week's FA Cup round) for assaulting a civilian on the pitch after the Ipswich game (a laughably lenient sentence for a really very serious offence - WTF??).

Trevoh Chalobah, only on loan at Palace, is ineligible to face parent club Chelsea.

Did anyone give other cause to consider dropping them?

Only 1% of FPL managers have Arne Muric anyway (and probably not as a starter), so his omission last week will probably not have much impact. Although his stand-in, Christian Walton, did outstandingly well, Kieran McKenna has suggested that it was only a token run-out, taking advantage of minor training injury to Muric.

It is very, very risky to have any Manchester City players at the moment; grinding out an unspectacular win against a relegation-bound side (who didn't even play anywhere near their not-that-good best) is not cause for celebration or optimism. But Josko Gvardiol, still owned by over 21%, presents a particular hazard, I think; I've been saying for a while that he's been looking jaded and tired; but the last few games he's started producing some really poor defensive performances too. I'm sure Pep would want to drop him, or at least give him a short break, if he had any other fit defenders at the moment.

Did anyone play so well, you have to consider bringing them in immediately?

Ethan Nwaneri - well, I think so; but I'm afraid Mikel Arteta probably doesn't. He looks like he's going to persist with playing Martinelli now mostly on the right, and Jesus or Trossard on the left; giving the youngster only occasional cameos off the bench. (This is why no-one wants to sign for you, Mikel...)

Haaland-idolaters are rushing to get him back after the win against Leicester. I am more cautious. I've always maintained that there's been no real evidence (recent penalty miss aside!) of any major problem with his own form, only with his team's; and there's been no strong turnaround there - nor any immediate likelihood of one, I fear. DeBruyne's return is a huge plus, of course; but he still doesn't look 100% fit, and probably isn't going to be able to play all of every game. I wouldn't be touching any Manchester City players until after the end of the transfer window - and probably not then, if they haven't been able to land a good new central defensive midfielder.

Eze and Ramsdale again impressed last week. And Wood and Joao Pedro may be coming back into points-scoring form. But on the whole, GW19 didn't generate a lot of excitement.

BEST OF LUCK, EVERYONE!

And DON'T FORGET The Boycott:

#QuitFPLinGW23         #DownWithTheNewChip

A little bit of Zen (23)

 

“Awareness is the greatest agent for change.”

Eckhart Tolle

Report Card (2)

 

A couple of months ago, I was giving myself a rueful C- for my performance in the first quarter of the season,... though indulging in some light optimism about a slow-but-steady improvement after a string of early misfortunes in the opening weeks of the season. How have things gone since then?

Well, I continued dogged - but not too spectacular - upward progress: 110 points above global average (3 'bad' Gameweeks, very slightly below the average) over the next 9 gameweeks, scrabbling up almost back into the top million (it can take a very long time to drag your way clear of bad beginnings: by GW5 or 6, when most of the eventual global leaders were probably at least in the top 500,000, if not the top 100,000, I was still barely inside the top 5 million!). I take particular comfort from the fact that my squad value leapt by nearly 4 million quid in those two months - a sign that a lot of my picks are proving quite shrewd.

However, I was still suffering quite a lot of bad luck. I'd decided to take a chance on Iliman Ndiaye, being impressed by his early-season form before he'd actually scored much; and he gave me a nice return in his first match for me, against Ipswich, but then had quite a long fallow run (came back into form for a while, after I'd dropped him; but then got injured again.... one to watch for a budget forward option next year, perhaps). I got on Matz Sels, Jarrod Bowen, Lewis Hall and Jorgen Strand Larsen quite early, and in December, Amad Diallo too; but only Sels proved a strong long-term hold, the others soon picking up injuries. I dropped Mbeumo during his lull in form in November, and then he suddenly started scoring like a monster again - despite some unfavourable-looking fixtures. I took a punt on Giorginho Rutter as a fifth midfielder for a while, but his points dried up, and then he got a season-ending injury. And I retained optimism in Cole Palmer and Nicolas Jackson perhaps a bit too long after Chelsea's form began to falter badly in early December. (Not sure how long I would have ultimately held on to them, as I stopped playing at the end of January, in protest at the absurdity of the new 'Assistant Manager' chip. Jackson, of course, picked up an injury immediately after that. But Palmer was still giving intimations of threat, and had some appealing fixtures - so, there was certainly a case for retaining him until some time in April....); I was gutted that I hadn't given Palmer the captain's armband for his last really big haul, in Gameweek 15. Even worse, I'd gone in for Enzo Fernandez during his brief hot streak - which abruptly ended when Romeo Lavia got injured, requiring Enzo to revert to being one of the deep pivots, rather than pushing up alongside Palmer.

In general, I would say, my selection decisions all looked pretty sound, often prescient; but few of them gave me any long-term returns - I had a lot of bad luck with injuries or crashes in form almost immediately I brought someone in. The most egregious of these was Bukayo Saka, who I only managed to find room for in GW12, and in GW17 picked up a hamstring problem that would sideline him for nearly half the season.

January went rather nicely for me, with 100 points above the 'global average' in just 5 gameweeks (although that was with the benefit of Triple Captain and Bench Boost chips working out quite well in Gameweeks 23 and 24). But then I quit the game in a huff, just as things were starting to go well...

So, the second quarter of the season was probably a solid B for me, maybe even a B+ (and getting near to an A in January...). Alas, the stupid innovation of the 'Assistant Manager' Chip spoiled the season, and drove me to abandon the game for the year. But honestly, it was going to be a godawful year for me anyway. I still hadn't quite got back into the top 1 million at the end of January, and probably would have struggled to reach the top 500,000 by season's end - which might have made it my second worst year ever.

When to use the 2nd Wildcard?

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

And DON'T FORGET The Boycott:

#QuitFPLinGW23         #DownWithTheNewChip

A New Year bit of Zen

"One should not go into the woods looking for something, but to find out what is there..."

John Cage

Happy 'Year of the Snake'!!

 

OK, this is a little premature, since the New Year for folks in the Sinosphere doesn't actually kick off until the 29th of January this year; and in South-East Asia, where I live, the Buddhist New Year festivals are even later, in mid-April.

For Westerners, the Snake might not seem the most auspicious of birth-year animals - since we have come to associate the creature almost entirely with negative attributes: the leading-astray of Adam and Eve in Eden; the danger of painful, possibly fatal bites; furtiveness, skullduggery, and dishonest dealing. The most 'positive' characteristic we recognise in them is their impressively elegant mode of locomotion, and a suggestion of low cunning = impressive, if sinister - conjured by their penchant for ambushing prey from hiding. In Asian cultures, though, they have become identified with a more admirable spectrum of qualities - notably wisdom, insight, intuition.

Thus, I felt that a snake toiling to ascend a mountain slope might be an apposite image for the striving FPL manager, as we are about to enter the (Western/'International') New Year... and the second half of the Premier League season.

This is traditionally a time of year dedicated to reflection and self-improvement. So, I will probably soon be attempting a few 'reviews' of my ups-and-downs in FPL this year, and of the appositeness or otherwise of the various predictions and recommendations I might have made on this blog over the past few months.

I may also try to come up with some new insights for improvement going forward; and - although I am wary of the word - perhaps even a few 'resolutions' too.

Have a happy and prosperous 2025!!!