Picks of the Week - DGW32

 

Just a quickie this week, to run through the possible Double Gameweek picks....

As I often warn, double gameweeks are not the magical pot of gold so many people suppose they must automatically be - and this next one, GW32, is really a bit shit: two above-average but well below-the-best teams facing pairs of non-straightforward opponents, games whose outcome is hard to predict... but very possibly - likely - not going to go the doublers' way.

People are probably only going for Palace players (apart from Munoz, who's been excellent for a while; and Mateta who has shown some strong goalscoring form since the turn of the year, at least up until his recent injury) because they have another double next week (though that one's arguably even tougher than this week's!). Since their two games this week will be hard to win, and they almost certainly won't be able to keep a clean sheet in either, I'd suggest passing on any of their defence - even Munoz! And if you were going to go for one, I'd favour Dean Henderson, since at least a keeper can pick up some useful 'saves' points, even when his side take a battering. Mateta's sharpness and confidence are likely to be undermined by his sore ear for a while, so I'm not sure there's much value in him either (particularly with budget options like Evanilson and Strand Larsen, and the similarly-priced Marmoush doing so well at the moment). And Ismaila Sarr I have expressed my scepticism about before: good player, but not a great player, and not a regular goalscorer. For me, Eberechi Eze is the only attacking asset - and probably the only player at all - one ought to be taking from Palace for these two double-fixtures.

Newcastle have slightly better fixtures in the double, both at home, where they do tend to be much more formidable; and then a not-too-bad run over the next few weeks - including a strong prospect for a clean sheet against Ipswich in GW34. So, picks from their defence are rather more viable than from Palace's. It would be nice if we could be confident that Trippier was back to his best; but, alas, we can't. A lot of FPL managers are getting over-excited about Tino Livramento having just scored a goal; but history suggests that will be the last time he does that for a year or two! He has been playing superbly of late, but Fabian Schar and Dan Burn carry a much more regular goal-threat, so they would be my suggestions. Nick Pope I would pass on; his form hasn't looked that convincing to me this season - quite a few big saves, yes, but also far more errors than usual.

Alexander Isak is the only other strong pick from the Geordies at the moment; and everyone ought to have him already, because he's been the Striker of the Season. Anthony Gordon might be in contention for some, although it looks like he's still a big injury doubt, for the first game at least; and his form has been a little disappointing over the last few months. The recently excellent Jacob Murphy - again, quite widely owned already (now in over 17% of teams) - is also a tempting option; but, given the fixtures, I'm not sure he's tempting enough to be worth bringing in just for this week, if you don't already have him.

People flock greedily to a Double Gameweek for their 'Assistant Manager' chip as well. Some favour Newcastle and Eddie Howe, because they look the likelier to pick up two wins. But I don't think those wins are by any means guaranteed, and I certainly don't see either of them being big wins. And neither of them can earn the crucial table-bonus extra points.

Palace's Oliver Glasner would be more tempting for me, as the high-risk/high-reward option with two table-bonuses on offer: if he gets a draw against Newcastle, he'll probably do as well or better than Howe over the double; if he can get something against City as well, he'll slaughter him. But even if he does rather less well than Howe this week, he's still the better pick if you have more weeks to run on the chip, because there's also the chance of an elevated return for him next gameweek (with another double, and one table-bonus opportunity); being able to keep the same AM pick for successive gameweeks - not having to burn a transfer to swap them out, maybe at the cost of a 'hit' - is a huge plus.

But I think Everton's David Moyes or Brentford's Thomas Frank have really good chances of getting upset results against recently faltering and injury-hit Forest and Arsenal; with the huge lift of the table-bonus, these two look much more promising 'Assistant Manager' picks for this week.

A little bit of Zen (37)

 

"Some people say football's a matter of life and death. But it's much more important than that."

Bill Shankly

Shankly, a gruff Scotsman, was one of the great managers of the early modern era in football, the man who first set Liverpool on the path to sustained greatness during a long tenure in charge of the club throughout the '60s and early '70s. Although this line is generally attributed to 'Shanks', I have also seen it sometimes ascribed to other football managers of his time (including his successor at Anfield, fellow Scot Bob Paisley), and I haven't been able to find any definite citation as to when or where he's supposed to have said it.

The line has something of the cracked logic of the celebrated baseball coach 'Yogi' Berra, whose 'wit' was characterised by such apparently inadvertent paradoxes or tautologies (though one suspects that at least some of them were self-consciously crafted). 

It was probably just a stumbling attempt to express the extremity of his - and many fans' -  passion for the game, but....

I like to think there may be deeper layers of meaning in it: that perhaps he was suggesting that life and death are ultimately not that important after all, not as important as they are commonly supposed to be, that perhaps individual moments of experience matter more than states of being... or perhaps that all things are equally important, equally unimportant....

The Double Gameweek that never was....

"Double, double toil and trouble...!"

Or..... the Double Gameweek that isn't now going to be!

FPL enthusiasts have been brimming with excitement all year about the prospect of late-season Double Gameweeks - which have traditionally (though wrongly) been viewed as the best and only option for playing the bonus chips (an excitement exacerbated - and complicated! - this year by the appearance of the 'Assistant Manager' as a third bonus chip...).

But really, Double Gameweeks are only a big deal when there are a lot of teams with double-fixtures. And that would only ever happen if all, or very nearly all, of the games rescheduled from the FA Cup Quarter-Final weekend were placed in the same gameweek. Since this year, for the first time, the League programme was suspended on that weekend, and thus no fixtures were lost that week and needing to be rescheduled,.... there was never going to be a BIG Double Gameweek this season.

Yet people had still been fondly hoping that the rescheduled fixtures from the Semi-Final weekend would provide some compensation, create a Double Gameweek of some consequence.

Because the teams facing a Cup quarter-finalist or semi-finalist also lose a match in those weeks, and get a compensating double-fixture, the quarter-finals could produce up to 16 doubling teams (although, typically, at least one club from a lower league usually manages to stay in the competition that far; and occasionally some of the Cup teams may be drawn against each other in the League that week, reducing the number of teams affected by cancelled matches; in some years, only 10 or 12 teams might have got double-fixtures like this); similarly, the semi-finals can affect up to 8 teams (but in some years, only 4 or 6). In the absence of the traditional BIG Double resulting from the FA quarter-finals, everyone was pinning their hopes on a fairly big Double to come out of the semi-finals. And most years in the past, that would have fallen in Gameweek 36 or Gameweek 37.

8 teams having a double-fixture in the same gameweek would give you the chance to select an entire squad of doubling players (although it's not always worth doing: one good fixture is generally better than two tough ones, so there will almost always be some single gameweek players who will produce better returns than doublers). However, sometimes the League will assign the rearranged fixtures to different gameweeks. Heck, sometimes, even if all the games are rescheduled in the same midweek cluster, they may decide to attach the earlier ones to the preceding gameweek, and the later ones to the following gameweek - creating two small gameweeks rather than one big one.

And - oh, woe! - this year, Manchester City and Aston Villa made it to the semi-finals, but were drawn to play against each other in the League that weekend, so.... only 6 teams would have a double this year, rather than 8. And the reschedulings were split over two different weeks. And then, as a final indignity, the League, in its fathomless mischievousness, decided to deem that the Forest v Brentford game was still part of the FA Semi-Final weekend (GW34), even though it had been shifted to the following Friday. and thus wouldn't get a double-fixture after all. WTF??

Oh, and for the first time that I can remember, the bulk of the fixtures were moved forwards rather than back ('anteponed') - into the preceding Gameweek. So, the much-anticipated Double Gameweek 36.... isn't going to happen.

And in the forthcoming Gameweek 33, we have only 4 doubling teams. And of those, only Arsenal (ironically, the only one of the four teams not actually in the FA Cup round) has a good double-fixture. It's not only a very small Double Gameweek, but a fairly SHIT one - with mostly middling teams and unpromising fixtures. Nothing much to get excited about at all: certainly not for the Triple Captain chip (which should have been used long since by now, anyway).

For the Bench Boost, well.... there may be some prospect for getting something out of it. In general, you wouldn't bring in doubling players unless you thought they were going to do better than single gameweek players; and thus you wouldn't expect to have any doubling players on your bench unless your entire squad had double-fixtures (which is always hard to achieve, even if there are a lot of doubling teams to choose from). However, you tend not to get that many points from defenders and keepers, so even the small lift of 2 additional 'appearance points' for a second game-start can be a significant propoortional lift to them; but even with that possibility, you still might not favour them over your regular starters in those positions, even if they only have one match. Given that your bench almost invariably consists of your 4th and 5th defenders and your weakest forward or midfielder, plus the back-up keeper, it might be possible to find doublers for all or most of those slots - and legitimately claim that they still wouldn't be first-eleven choices, even with the extra game. And so your bench might be augmented slightly by the Double Gameweek. (Also, having at least a few doublers in your starting eleven as well slightly reduces your chances of having someone not play at all in the gameweek, and so drag someone off your bench as an auto-sub. That, however, is a very minor consideration.)

But really, whenever you choose to play the Bench Boost, the quality of fixtures is more important than the number of them; and even more important than that is the confidence that everyone - all 15 squad players - will start.... because if anyone is missing, your Bench Boosti s screwed.

Don't get hung up on the Double Gameweek Myth. It's not necessarily the best time to play the Bench Boost - never has been. Double Gameweek 33 looks like it could be a promising opportunity for the Bench Boost (not a great one, but better than nothing); but there may be better options for your squad - it depends on which fixtures you like most, and when you're most confident of having everybody start.

GOOD LUCK!

 

The Great FREE HIT Controversy

Every year, we get a few folks who take it into their heads to argue very vociferously for a weird - obviously wrong-headed! - position on some aspect of FPL strategy. 

The most common focus of contention is the optimal chip strategy for navigating the various blank and double gameweeks in the latter part of the season. (Though that perennial challenge has become hugely easier this year, now that we're no longer losing the FA Cup Quarter-Final weekend from the Premier League programme. Moreover, from this season we're enjoying the new luxury of being able to save up to 5 Free Transfers. If we are ever able to do so [a big ask!], that effectively becomes an additional 'rebuild chip', giving us greater flexibility on where to use our Wildcards and Free Hit. In all past years, when we generally only had 1 FT to work with each week - and never more than 2 - and multiple Blanks/Doubles to worry about, chip strategy was a lot more stressful,... although also somewhat easier, since the most essential options for playing the 'rebuild chips' were always pretty obvious and unarguable.)

There has always been a quirky minority of FPL managers who like to think that the Free Hit chip is better used in a big Double Gameweek, so that you can maximise your number of doubling players for it.

While I never like to rule any idea out of consideration completely, there are a number of very obvious flaws in this proposal:

1)  If it's such a big and good Double Gameweek that you want to go fully loaded on doubling players, then.... you probably want to play your Bench Boost on it! And that probably necessitates using your Wildcard to bring in the best doublers for it the week before.

2) The teams with the doubles are mostly the teams who've progressed well in the Cup,.... who are mostly the teams who are doing better in the League as well; and hence they are likely to be teams you'll already have players from (though you'll almost certainly want to bring in more for a Double Gameweek), and players you'll want to keep thereafter.

3)  Conversely, the (usually preceding) Blank Gameweek is generally one with mostly weaker teams left taking part, teams from whom you don't usually want many - or any - players.

Hence, while it might possibly - in exceptional circumstances - be conceivable that the 2nd Wildcard would work better than the Free Hit in the big Blank Gameweek for certain managers, it is pretty unlikely. 9 times out of 10, the players missing in the Blank Gameweek are players you want to keep; and thus you only want replacements for them for that one week. And similarly, most of the players you want for an optimum big Double Gameweek are players that you already have.... and/or that you'll want to keep for at least a few subsequent gameweeks as well. The Free Hit naturally works better with a big Blank Gameweek, and a Wildcard better with a big Double.

Yet last year, there was a particularly heated debate on this very topic on many of the FPL online forums. Many, many people - close, it seemed, to being the majority?? - had somehow convinced themselves that the Double Gameweek was such a rich fixture opportunity that year that one simply had to play the Free Hit on it. In most cases, this was compounded by a decision to try to navigate the big Blank without using a chip at all; these poor fellows clung obstinately to the notion that they were somehow being exceptionally clever in thus being able to keep their 2nd Wildcard to help them get around the smaller Blank/Double resulting from the FA Semi-Finals in April.

There was, of course, absolutely NO LOGIC behind that contention. They were  strangely in denial about the very basic points I outlined above, that you rarely want to replace your blanking players for more than that one week, and that you rarely need to bring in a lot of extra players for a Double Gameweek because you'll have plenty of players from the best teams already. They were also overlooking the fact that you can usually anticipate which teams are mostly likely to progress to the FA Cup Semi-Finals, and thus 'set up' for the later - much smaller - Blank/Double challenge when you play your Wildcard.

Furthermore, these folks had failed to consider the additional 'hidden costs' of their strategic choice. Most of them were condemning themselves to putting out a seriously short team in the Blank Gameweek. But they were also mostly having to use multiple transfers - and often a few 'hits' - to minimise the number of gaps in their lineup. Thus.... a) They were bringing in players that they really only wanted for the Blank Gameweek a week - or two, or three - earlier than they really wanted, at the expense of better players. b) They were also usually having to quickly offload some of these players in the weeks following the Blank, again at the cost of missing out on having a superior player available for a week or two - that all potentially costs you points! c) They were burning through transfers to do this (and even 'Free Transfers' have an effecive points cost...), which hampered their ability to make other changes they might have wanted or needed to carry out during those weeks. d) They were running the risk of going into the Blank Gameweek with an entirely empty bench, which again would have cost further points if they suffered any unexpected dropouts from their starting team. e) And in most cases, even after inflicting all this pain on themselves, they were stil mostly only fielding 9 or 10 players for that Gameweek - some only putting out a pitiful 6 or 7.  It was horrible to watch: UTTER INSANITY.

Now, as it turned out, that big Blank Gameweek turned out to be one of those rare shockers where all of the games wound up being low-scoring, and what goals there were came from unexpected sources; just about none of the big players produced anything. It was, in fact, one of the lowest-scoring gameweeks in FPL history!!  (Though this was also partly due to the fact that so many people had fielded short teams, the number of points available was exceptionally low.)  This, of course, massively ameliorated the negative impact of the rash 'No Free Hit' strategy: people who'd used their Free Hit - or otherwise managed to put out a decent eleven without needing multiple transfers - might have expected to get at least 15 or 20 more points than the folks who ended up with short teams, but most of them wound up with an advantage barely half that. However,.... 5 or 10 points is a huge lift. And, as I just outlined above, most of the 'No Free-Hitters' had also spent points on 'hits' and compromised their squad for a week - or two or three - either side of the troublesome Blank Gameweek; so, their actual deficit was usually somewhat intangible, but surely far greater than just the points-gap in that gameweek.

But you know how people who've just done something stupid love to cling to any excuse to persuade themselves that they haven't been stupid after all...?  The 'No Free-Hitters' suddenly started crowing about how they'd somehow anticipated what a terrible gameweek it was going to be, and of course they'd been right, and this was a complete vindication of their strategy. 

No, they'd been very lucky to only lose maybe 20 or 30 or 40 points on their more sensible rivals; but that wasn't any sort of vindication.

Oh, but then the following Double Gameweek proved to be a real humdinger, with oodles of points flowing in from every game. It was - bizarrely - one of the highest-scoring Gameweeks in FPL history!! Now, of course, those darned 'No Free-Hitters' went apeshit about what far-sighted geniuses they had been: not only had they done far less badly than might have been expected in their weak Blank Gameweek, but they'd done exceptionally well in the Double Gameweek! Their brave but shrewd gamble had sensationally paid off!

A few things:  1) They'd done not-so-badly, not well.  2) They'd been absurdly lucky to get away that lightly; no-one could have predicted two such extreme sets of points returns in the critical gameweeks.  3)  They still did bloody awfully in the Blank Gameweek (just not quite as badly as they might have done, relatively speaking...).  4)  Almost everyone did well in that exceptional Double Gameweek; many who had not followed the perverse 'No Free Hit' path did far better in that week than those who had. (I myself pulled in very tidy returns for both Gameweeks; and I'd been able to set up for the Double with regular transfers only - no need to use a chip or any hits. Hence, I still had my Wildcard to deal with the later Blank/Double problem.)

This whole bizarre story is a fascinating case-study in the kind of mass hysteria - and self-harming delusion - that so often grips the FPL hordes.  [I never searched into the possible origins of this curious 'No Free Hit' cult, but I imagine it must have been started by one of the online FPL 'gurus'....]

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.

Luck-o-Meter (31)

 

Almost everyone looked desperately weary and out-of-sorts in the last batch of midweek games: late-season fatigue is starting to kick in big-time,... and injuries are piling up as a result. Also, with the quarter-finals of the European competitions coming up next week, the teams involved in those are likely to be using a lot of 'rest rotations'. So, one of the largest elements of luck in a Gameweek like this is just correctly guessing which players are going to turn out. At the back end of the season, we inevitably find ourselves sometimes only having 9 or 10 players on the field.

Everton v Arsenal was a proverbial game of two halves: the home side strangely short of verve in the first half, but much more focused and aggressive in the second, really causing Arsenal some anxiety. The penalty award against Lewis-Skelly was unfortunate, perhaps even 'harsh' - but not, I think, incorrect: he did make slight contact with Harrison's leg as he fell over into him. The argument about the decision should properly rest on whether a free-kick should have been awarded outside the area instead, for the wrestling which had preceded this very minimal trip.

Brighton turned in a rather lacklustre performance at Palace, and were fortunate not to lose by more. Anthony Taylor didn't have a great game - booking Nketiah unfairly for 'simulation', when he should in fact have had a penalty for Estupinan's slight but unmistakable trip on him, which led to him getting sent off shortly afterwards - though that second challenge was probably worthy of a straight red; as was Marc Guehi's planting his boot in  an opponent's midriff, also unaccountably only drawing a yellow from Taylor (although also a second yellow). More 'funny business' here with the BPS too: although the system rated it close between Mateta, Welbeck, and Eze, it is unfathomable to me how Eze, who supplied both assists and had a good low shot superbly saved by Verbruggen, was placed third rather than first in that trio... and how Munoz wasn't better than all three of them!

Ipswich are starting to show more fight and cohesion, and Delap has always been dangerous for them up front - but it's all too late. They were made to work for it, but ultimately Wolves came through fairly comfortably for the win that all but guarantees their survival. And Jørgen Strand Larsen is cementing his claim as the best budget forward pick at the moment.

West Ham were woefully ineffectual in the first half, only started to mount a threat after Fullkrug came on 10 minutes into the second - but even then, Bournemouth still generally looked much the better team, and they will be kicking themselves that they twice fell asleep in defence to throw away the 3 points that should rightfully have been theirs here. There didn't seem to be any problem with the refereeing here; although it was annoying that VAR twice took quite a long time to confirm Evanilson's brace of goals - when he was nowhere near offside for either of them. 

For the second time in a few days, Villa came away with a win they scarcely deserved. Forest were brutally punished for their sluggish start; they were so bad in the opening 20 or 30 minutes that they might easily have gone more than 2 behind. But Nuno did an inspired reorganisation at half-time, and the second half - apart from inevitably being caught on the break a few times, through being over-extended; Rogers and Rashford both failed to capitalise on breakaways which left them with only Sels to beat - it was really all Forest in the second half. Forest were discombulated by the absence of their thus-far ever-present right-back, Ola Aina, and their talismanic striker, Chris Wood (still struggling to get over the hip problem he picked up on international duty), and his usual stand-in, Taiwo Awoniyi, late victim of a hamstring strain - obliging them to play Elanga and Hudson-Odoi rather narrower to try to compensate for being without a central striker. But the real problem was Nuno's somewhat bizarre decision to change to a back-five - which did not work at all at the start of the game. Ultimately, they created more than enough chances to have got at least a draw here; so, hopefully, this was just a brief blip for them, rather than the beginning of a wobble.

Curious decision from Maresca to rest Palmer and Jackson for the visit to Brentford. (He's really more worried about a visit from Legia Warsaw in the Conference League than securing Champions League qualification through a strong domestic finish?? It's more likely, I think, that there are still fitness issues of some sort with that pair.) We've seen over the last three months or so that without Jackson or Palmer, Chelsea really don't look a top third side; without Jackson and Palmer, they look a bottom third side. And so it was here. A few moments of excitement, a few good saves from both keepers, the inevitable near-miss with a curler from the edge of the box from Palmer when he got on for a half-hour cameo. His omission will be a sore blow to his faithful followers in FPL (he's still held by more than 40%, despite having been deserted by around 3 million managers since the turn of the year). At least there were no refereeing screw-ups in this one, it seems (although the Beeb seem to be trying to downplay those as much as possible these days; and, since they couldn't find many 'highlights' from this game worth showing, it's very possible that their brief rundown omitted some moments of controversy).

Speaking of wobbles,.... are Liverpool having one?? Kelleher, though very good, isn't Alisson. And Curtis Jones, for all his abilities, is not a right-back - and having such an obviously weak link on that side of the pitch clearly unsettles the rest of the back four,.... and leaves Salah starved of service. Liverpool looked immediately far more dangerous after Conor Bradley came on in the second half. Credit to Fulham, though, for putting on a superb, battling performance to unsettle the champions-elect. While Liverpool might feel they did enough to earn a point in the last quarter of the game, Fullham were really well worth the win; in fact, they should have taken the lead in the opening minutes, when two of their players were wiped out in the box in quick succession, by Kelleher and Van Dijk, but the referee saw nothing untoward in either collision, and VAR apparently considered the second incident an 'accident', and didn't deign to offer a comment on Kelleher's obvious foul (although the League apparently tweeted later that VAR deemed that one also just a 'coming together' - whatever they hell they think that's supposed to mean!). For the overall course of the game, the booking - or not - of your goalkeeper and/or your star centre-back in the third minute might have even more impact than a penalty award. Liverpool were outrageously lucky with this one; and they still couldn't capitalise on it! In the second half, too, Luis Diaz was very lucky not to be yellow-carded for a ridiculous dive in the box - not a great performance from referee Chris Kavanagh in this one. Macallister and Muniz both came up with 'Goal of the Season' contenders, and Harvey Elliott might have had one too - but his fierce curling effort late in the game smacked against the woodwork.

A particuarly astounding VAR screw-up at Spurs, where the home side's apparent second goal, a neat hooked volley from Bergvall, was ruled 'offside'; this bizarre call took nearly 5 minutes, and came as a gobsmacking surprise, since clearly no-one on the pitch or in the ground thought that it was; and indeed, the freezeframe selected for display appeared to clearly show all Spurs players onside rather than off - the lines having been somehow superimposed in the wrong colours....??  Not as calamitously BAD as the Luis Diaz decision last year, but possibly the worst one we've seen this season. Ramsdale might have been a bit lucky to escape a booking for handling the ball outside his area; but the view on TV was not definitive - it looked to me as if he had taken his hand off the ball just as he slid over the line with it. (Not a huge issue anyway; but these things do have small points impacts for some FPL managers....) The greater sense of injustice in this game comes from Brennan Johnson not being allowed to take the last-minute penalty to complete his hattrick - what on earth was going on with that? He looked very disconsolate at the decision to let Tel take it instead; and anyone that owns him would have felt even more so. (He got maximum bonus points anyway, but still....)

In the opening minute or so of the Manchester derby, Ruben Dias's bumbling into Garnacho to send him tumbling did clearly seem to occur just inside the penalty area - but, yet again, VAR seems to have just shrugged and said, "Yeah, whatever you think..." to the ref's initial, impulsive call otherwise. This is a case where it's surely clearcut enough for them to just overrule him (without any loss of face!!); or if not, because there's some 'subjective' element about where the contact took place or how decisive it was, surely he should be sent to the monitor to decide the matter. VAR just doesn't seem to be doing its job any more most of the time. United had much the better of a fairly drab game, but as usual, couldn't muster many decent efforts on goal; but City couldn't manage anything, apart from a couple of long-range fizzers from Marmoush - to me, they're really not looking like a top half team at the moment, or certainly not top-third; probably don't deserve to be qualifying for any European competition, let alone the Champions League. (Another BPS conundrum in this one: how the hell did Josko Gvardiol win the maximum bonus - when he wasn't namechecked in the TV highlights even once?! Now, admittedly, modern-day commentators aren't as reliable about identifying the player on the ball - regularly, promptly, correctly -  as they used to be in my distant youth; but since United appeared to have most of the game, and were attacking primarily down the left through Dorgu and Garnacho,.... it does seem highly likely that he wasn't directly involved that much. He shared top spot with Andre Onana, who similarly did fairly little in the game; I suppose everybody else just did even less....)

Newcastle did enough to breeze past Leicester on Monday night, and Isak - despite doubts and rumours - did manage to start (although he looked decidedly out of sorts, and came off 20 minutes before the end); Gordon, alas, was still absent. A brace for Murphy (now owned by just over 10%) was a nice boost for some, but many (well, 2.5%!!) are ruing the fact that Schar's inspired attempt to chip the keeper from 5 yards inside his own half crashed against the face of the crossbar (providing the assist for Murphy's second, so Schar wasn't completely unrewarded for the effort; but he would have got 4 or 5 more points if it had gone in directly!). Patson Daka was particularly unfortunate in the dying minutes to see his fierce shot hit both posts before rebounding perfectly into Pope's arms (but it might not have been allowed to stand anyway, as the linesman flagged for a very dubious offside against Jamie Vardy, who'd supplied the final pass to him).

A moderately terrible week from the officials, then (not the worst we've seen, by a long way), with United and Palace both being denied a penalty, and Fulham too (a particularly egregious one - twice over!), Spurs having a goal bafflingly disallowed for offside, and two Palace players luckily escaping straight red cards (although they were both second yellows, so it didn't save them from a sending-off or unfairly impact the match; it will affect the length of their suspensions, though).

'Form' and fortune are all over the place at this time of year: results tend to become more and more random, harder and harder to predict in the final phase of the season. This week, we had minor 'upsets' with Manchester United holding City to a draw, West Ham doing likewise with Bournemouth, and Brentford with Chelsea; a rather bigger upset with Everton holding Arsenal to a draw, and really quite huge upsets with Villa beating Forest and Fulham beating Liverpool (very comfortably!). While the few expected wins were not as comfortable as anticipated. The 'Team of the Week' again features a conspicuous absence of any of the big names - many of whom didn't play, or didn't start: no Wood, or Palmer or Saka at first; and nothing from Salah, Isak, Marmoush, Mbeumo, Bruno F., Son, Mitoma... The list of top returners is instead peppered with low-owned randoms like Andre Onana, Reece James, Pablo Sarabia, Illiman Ndiaye, Donyell Malen, and Southampton's Matheus Fernandes (who's owned by less than 5,000 people; although one might wonder why he's owned by more than zero...).  WTF???  Funny old world, indeed.

I think this is just about an  8 out of 10 on the 'Luck-o-Meter', with the combination of unexpected selections, a few bad refereeing decisions, and improbable game events and surprise results.

DON'T FORGET The Boycott.  The dratted 'Assistant Manager' chip is in play now. I took the high road by quitting playing the game for the rest of the season. [I worry that, if people don't do this, the new chip may become a permanent feature of the game - and it will completely ruin it.]  If you don't feel like joining me in such an emphatic gesture, please at least think about refusing to use the Assistant Manager chip.

Please also criticise and complain about it online as much as possible. And raise objections to it with any football or media figures you know how to contact, and - if possible - try to find a way to protest about it directly to the FPL hierarchy (and let me know how, if you manage that!).

#QuitFPLinGW23         #DownWithTheNewChip

Dilemmas of the Week - GW31

Fixture congestion is taking its toll on player fitness now: we've had a fair old splurge of new player injuries ths past week (including the two most popular defenders!). And the 'business end' of the European competitions getting under way next midweek no doubt means that we're going to see a lot of 'rest rotation' - especially for key players, or anyone who's suffering some sort of fitness issue. I feel sorry for anyone who's recently used their Wildcard.... and now finds themself with 4, 5, 6 injuries occurring all at once. Life's a bitch.

I'm trying to streamline these weekly round-ups, as they had been getting dangerously over-long. I'm aiming to confine myself to just the injuries to players that are likely to have a major significance in FPL. [I currently find the 'Injuries & Bans' summary on Fantasy Football Scout the most reliable resource for this kind of information - go check that out for more comprehensive coverage.]

So, what are the conundrums we face ahead of Gameweek 31?

Does anybody need to be moved out because of injury?

The BIG NEWS of the week is that Gabriel - the highest-owned defender in the game - has suffered a serious hamstring injury and is likely to miss the rest of the season. Arsenal could be getting stretched a bit thin in defence as Ben White missed the midweek game with another problem in his troublesome knee, and Jurrien Timber had to come off in that game after suffering a knock to his knee. Arteta is hopeful they have 'a chance' of being available this weekend, but they're certainly doubts.

Leon Bailey missed the midweek game for Villa with a training knock, and remains doubtful. And Ollie Watkins has apparently been struggling with a knee problem - so seems likely to get short minutes ahead of the Champions League quarter-final next week.

Giorginho Rutter was absent in midweek as a result of an ankle problem picked up in the weekend's Cup game against Forest; and Hurzeler now thinks it could keep him out for the rest of the season.

Justin Kluivert was a last-minute withdrawal in midweek with a muscle problem, and remains doubtful for the weekend.

Chelsea's Romeo Lavia, who was finally set for a comeback after a long injury absence, succumbed to another muscle injury ahead of the midweek game and looks set to be out for a while again. (Indirectly relevant to FPL, I feel; while probably no-one would pick Lavia himself,.... Chelsea do play much better with him in the side, and that would improve the points prospects for Palmer, Jackson, Fenandez, etc.)  On a more positive note, Nicolas Jackson was immediately in excellent form on his return against Spurs on Thursday; and Noni Madueke is poised to come back as well, possibly this weekend.

Everton's Jesper Lindstrom has a groin injury, which sounds potentially quite serious. Again, that's one that could have knock-on effects: few people would own Lindstrom himself, but he has been a major element in Everton's recent success.

Attacking left-back Leif Davis, possibly the only Ipswich player anyone would still consider owning, was absent in midweek because of a leg injury suffered in training.

Alisson was yet another late withdrawal in midweek. Liverpool had originally been optimistic about him being able to play, but apparently he 'failed' a last-minute check under 'concussion protocols' (after taking a bang on the head playing for Brazil 10 days ago) - so is probably touch-and-go for this weekend too.

Matthijs De Ligt is doubtful, suffering a knock. But Mason Mount looked sharp on his return for United against Forest.

Many woes for Newcastle: Alexander Isak had to come off after just over an hour against Brentford, feeling discomfort in his groin; Anthony Gordon, three-match suspension now over, hasn't been in training because of a thigh muscle problem hi picked up playing for England a couple of weeks ago; and Joelinton is also suffering with a hip problem. Particularly worrisome news for anyone who was banking on some of these guys, or any Newcastle players, for their Double Gameweek next week.

Forest's Ola Aina (the second most-owned defender in FPL!) had to come off quite early against United, after straining a calf-muscle - likely to be out for a few weeks. (Harry Toffolo expected to come in at left-back, Nico Williams switching to the right to cover for Aina.)

Paul Onuachu, Southampton's goal hero against Palace, picked up an ankle injury in that game.

Mohammad Kudus missed the midweek game for West Ham with a hip problem, but Graham Potter is hopeful he might be recovered.

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

Well, Southampton's Flynn Downes has picked up a two-game ban for reaching 10 yellow cards for the season - but that can have no FPL relevance for anyone. 

Matheus Cunha is completing his four-match ban this weekend.

Did anyone give other cause to consider dropping them?

With Spurs's continuing abysmal form and a make-or-break European tie against Frankfurt coming up, I wouldn't trust any of their players... even to get minutes; Ange is almost sure to rotate a lot in the Southampton game. (Pity - because you generally fancy anyone against Southampton!)

I'd be wary of West Ham too. They've looked pretty terrible of late, and are also likely to suffer a lot of rotations because..... constant tinkering is Potter's style.

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

Well, Chelsea look rejuvenated by the reappearance of Nicolas Jackson to lead the line. I'm not sure that he'd immediately be a promising forward pick (although Chelsea do have quite a nice fixture-run this month), but Cole Palmer - and perhaps even Enzo Fernandez - starts to look an appealing prospect again as a result of having a dangerous target man to look for. Palmer might get a further lift from the imminent return of Noni Madueke too.

Marco Asensio and Marcus Rashford are continuing to look very lively and dangerous for Villa too - although I'm not excited by their overall team form, or their upcoming fixtures (apart from Southampton next week; although they tend to be dreadful straight after a European game, so even that one might not be the gimme it should be for them).

Frustratingly, Brighton's surprise home defeat by Villa in midweek means that their lead over Palace has shrunk to four places - denying 'Assistant Manager' players their most promising pick for a table-bonus win this week. Leicester against Newcastle, Southampton against Spurs, or West Ham against Bournemouth look very unpromising for a table-bonus return. Fulham have a good record so far for picking up these coveted table-bonus points; but I don't think anybody would give them much of a hope against Liverpool. Many people fancy Villa's chances against Forest (it's a Midlands derby, I suppose; they can sometimes throw up more unexpected results...), but I'd prefer Everton's chances of at least getting a draw from Arsenal; and Thomas Frank's Brentford are well capable of nicking a win from Chelsea (although there are signs that Chelsea are finally getting their act together again...) - so, they'd probably be my AssMan pick for the week. Or perhaps United can pull off a surprise in the Manchester derby (there's never been a better time!)?? I think you have to chase these table-bonus prospects, because even a draw can be so valuable; and none of the better teams playing a lower-ranked club this week look as if they can be relied on for a comfortable win.

BEST OF LUCK, EVERYONE!

DON'T FORGET The Boycott; the dratted new 'Assistant Manager' chip is in play now - and I am urging everyone to please consider quitting the game, or at least refusing to use this silly chip. 

And if you can't bring yourself to do either of those things, please do criticise the Assistant Manager chip as vigorously as possible on any relevant social media channels you use, raise objections to it with any football or media figures you know how to contact, and - if possible - try to find a way to protest about it directly to the FPL hierarchy (and let me know how, if you manage that!).

#QuitFPLinGW23         #DownWithTheNewChip 

A little bit of Zen (36)

"It is exhausting - having to reason all the time, in a universe which wasn’t meant to be reasonable."

Kurt Vonnegut

Luck-o-Meter (30)

 

It's always hard to know what's going to have happened with form and fitness and general team cohesion after a long break from Premier League football, Evening fixtures also often throw people out of their usual stride a little. And late-stage knockout games, like this recent batch of FA quarter-finals, can be particularly gruelling - mentally even more than physically; so, we can expect extreme fatigue to play a part for many teams as well. This gameweek looks like it's going to be a particularly weird one, with a few topsy-turvy results - and a slew of new injuries!

Arsenal laboured to see off a visibly weary Fulham - and would have been held, probably fairly, to a draw, if Muniz hadn't headed wide of an open goal. The BIG stroke of 'FPL Luck' here was Saka being brought on for the last 25 minutes, and coming up with the goal to make his side safe(r) in the game (with his head?! when was the last time that happened, has it ever???). And both Merino's and Muniz's goals were a bit flukey, coming from massive deflections. Perhaps even more momentous for Arsenal and FPL than the Second Coming of Saka, though, may be Gabriel's limping off in the first half with an apparent hamstring problem; that could be grim news for the 31% of managers who've been relying so far on the game's most-owned defender.

United battled hard, but yet again lacked incisiveness up front. They'll perhaps feel they deserved something from the game, after bringing several saves out of Sels and having Murillo clear a Mount effort off the line in the dying seconds; but really it was another comfortable, methodical Forest performance. They weren't at their best, tired after the marathon game and shootout at the weekend, and lacking usual mainstays Wood and Hudson-Odoi, but were still plenty good enough. And Elanga's 60-yard carry for a solo goal will probably be a contender for 'Goal of the Season'. But damn, Ola Aina - the second most-owned defender in FPL - also limped off in the first half, with a calf-muscle strain. Injuries this week are starting to look brutal.

Wolves did enough to get their win against West Ham, who had some good chances but didn't really play well. (I'm not convinced Potter was a good choice for them. But with relegation not likely to be an issue, I expect he'll be given one full season to try to prove himself.)  Again, no refereeing cock-ups in this one? Remarkable.

I've always felt Ipswich were the best (least worst?) of this year's promoted sides, and might have a chance of staying up - but they've probably left it too late now. And they needed a very below-par performance from Bournmeouth - presumably physically and emotionally depleted from the disappointment of their FA Cup quarter-final defeat on Sunday - to sneak a narrow win here. At least the refereeing seemed unobjectionable, for once. Yet more FPL woe, though, for the one-third of managers who own Justin Kluivert - and found him withdrawn on the eve of the game with a muscle problem.

Villa's 3-0 win away at Brighton was perhaps the most unlikely 'walloping'; they weren't really in the game at all until the final 20 minutes, and should have been very grateful to squeak a draw out of the encounter. Fate and the officials were clearly not favouring the home side, as Mitoma was deemed to have handled the ball before setting up Adingra (and, from the TV coverage, this appeared to be a decision that VAR had somehow taken on itself, rather than sending the ref to take another look on the monitor - WTF? Where it's that tight a call, and a goal's at stake, surely it has to be down to the referee??): for me, it was very hard to see exactly where the ball touched his arm, but it appeared to be kind of in the middle of the upper arm, and with the new more generous interpretation of where the 'sleeve-line' may be, I think that ought to be OK; this one felt as if he were being penalised for the intentionality of the contact rather than anything else. Insult was added to injury a little later when Villa were allowed to get away with one of the most blatant handballs I've seen this season (I couldn't identify the defending player running back towards his goal, though; Konsa, presumably?); definitely made a deliberate movement towards the ball, definitely hit his lower arm, definitely controlled the ball.... no way that's not a penalty. Although, to be fair, Hinshelwood was also a little fortunate not to have conceded a penalty for tripping Ramsey in the first half. All in all, a pretty awful refereeing performance in this one; Simon Atwell's had a few stinkers this season, and it might be time to take him out of the firing-line for a few weeks. The biggest surprise of all in this one, though, was that Rashford started in the No. 9 position - and didn't suck! Villa's January-window business has compensated a good deal for their lack of squad-building last summer: all three of their new boys, Rashford, Asensio, and Malen, are looking really good.

City ground out an inevitable win against woeful Leicester - without doing very much to convince anyone that they deserve to qualify for the Champions League this year. Marmoush had a lively game up front; but the only reason the week's most transferred-in player got any FPL points here was that poor Mads Hermansen, who has heretofore usually been Leicester's strongest asset, somehow fumbled the ball right at his feet to gift him a goal. Marmoush owners, therefore, should count themselves very lucky.

Brentford, strangely, didn't show up at all in the first half at Newcastle, but came on strongly in the latter part of the second. The overall result, therefore, felt just about fair; but there was a lot of questionable refereeing in this one. Damsgaard got flattened in the box by Guimaraes twice, and really both looked stone-cold penalties. The first, the Dane certainly collapsed a bit easily, but there's no question that Bruno ran into the back of him and gave him a little shove. The second, in the dying moments of added-on time, Thomas Frank was inclined to take a generous view of - an 'accidental' follow-through/ collision, after Bruno had got to the ball first; but he absolutely wiped Damsgaard out as he fell into him - that's a penalty all day long as well. The big worry here is that VAR is apparently too timid to venture any kind of opinion on many incidents of this kind now, and thus the referee's initial - often incorrect - instincts are going unchecked. (I also felt Barnes actually looked onside, just, for the first disallowed goal; but there didn't appear to be any VAR check on that??)

Like Bournemouth, Palace were clearly a bit flat after the exertions of the FA Cup at the weekend, but still looked plenty good enough to see off - an admittedly much improved of late - Southampton; but somehow, they just couldn't find the back of the net during regular time. Mateta was unfortunate not to get on the scoresheet - crashing a long-range effort off the underside of the bar after just over a minute, and later bringing an excellent low one-handed save out of Ramsdale.

David Moyes complained vociferously about Liverpool's lone goal not being disallowed for offside, but he didn't seem to have a leg to stand on. While Everton deserved more from the game, having been very unfortunate to have a good early goal from Beto ruled out for the slimmest of offsides, and then have him smash another effort against the foot of the post when through one-on-one with Kelleher; but they were also very, very lucky not to have lost Tarkowski in the opening minutes for his horrendous challenge on Macallister (won the ball, yes; but the out-of-control, two-footed follow-through was in 'leg-breaker' territory), and perhaps also Pickford in the second half (the whistle having just gone for an earlier foul shouldn't absolve him if he was culpable; but although the incident looked eerily similar to his notorious foul a few years back on Van Dijk that put the Liverpool skipper out for half a season, I think with this one that any blame might be split more evenly between him and Nunez, and it was essentially just an accidental collision - although one that would certainly have resulted in a penalty, if the ball had still been live). Perhaps the major upset here for FPL managers - apart from the (not entirely unexpected) low scoreline, and Salah recording a rare 'blank' - was the last-minute revelation that Alisson was not, contrary to initial reports, OK to play after getting a bang on the head playing for Brazil last week.

Chelsea look revitalized by the return of Nicolas Jackson (who nearly scored in the opening minute, and terrorised a ragged Spurs defence throughout), and those who offloaded Palmer in the last few weeks look likely to be soon suffering regrets. Spurs might feel they did well to stay in the game, and nearly salvaged something with a late effort from Son, blocked on the line by Sanchez; but really, they were pretty dreadful, and this was one of the most one-sided 1-0s you'll ever see. Caicedo and Sarr both had stunning strikes ruled out, one for an offside against Colwill in the build-up and one for an earlier foul; both probably correct calls, if naturally irksome to fans - and they took an inordinately long time for VAR to adjudicate.

My main gripe with the officiating this season continues to be that there seems to be no consistency or transparency about how VAR is intervening. We've reached a point where this actually feels like quite a good week for the refereeing, since there were several games that apparently lacked any controversial decisions. But we've still had a pretty egregious red card missed, 3 penalties not given, 1 goal harshly disallowed, and a bunch of very tight offside calls eliminating further goals. Almost every week, we're having more game outcomes swinging on what the referees have - wrongly - decided than on individual moments of brilliance from players; and that's not right.

A rash of injuries to popular picks could be a particularly hard blow to the many managers who've punted their Wildcard in the last week or two. I counselled that this was a severely non-ideal time to play it, for a variety of reasons, the risk of multiple injuries - particularly to players you want for the upcoming Double Gameweeks - being a major one. Now, a lot of folks are looking at red or yellow flags against Wood, Isak, Kluivert, Gabriel, White, Timber, Trippier, Alisson, Aina.... Ouch.

This gameweek was also notable for the ridiculous amount of time added on at the end of matches. Several games dragged on for 10 minutes or more after the regulation 90 were up, despite there having been no major injury hold-ups; the match at Stamford Bridge last night almost reached the quarter-hour mark! And this seems to be very largely down to protracted VAR deliberations - this has got to change.

This was another very low-scoring week in FPL, with a global average of only 44 points - and again, for the second gameweek running, with a heavy skew towards the low side of that: a few lucky souls did very well, but the great majority managed only something close to or even a little below that dismal average. There were upset defeats for Brighton and Bournemouth, and very nearly for Palace; while everyone else was held to a narrow win, and only three sides managed a clean sheet. Of the 'big names', only Isak, Mbeumo, Marmoush, and Palmer came up with anything; the 'Team of the Week' contains no-one - apart from Sels and Ait-Nouri - owned by more than a handful of managers.

I think I'll give this gameweek another 7 out of 10 on the 'Luck-o-Meter'.

DON'T FORGET The Boycott.  The dratted 'Assistant Manager' chip is in play now. I took the high road by quitting playing the game for the rest of the season. [I worry that, if people don't do this, the new chip may become a permanent feature of the game - and it will completely ruin it.]  If you don't feel like joining me in such an emphatic gesture, please at least think about refusing to use the Assistant Manager chip.

Please also criticise and complain about it online as much as possible. And raise objections to it with any football or media figures you know how to contact, and - if possible - try to find a way to protest about it directly to the FPL hierarchy (and let me know how, if you manage that!).

#QuitFPLinGW23         #DownWithTheNewChip

Sheep Picks (11)

.

I quite often snipe at 'The Sheep' element among Fantasy Premier League managers - by which I mean the substantial numbers (possibly, alas, an overall majority) who don't really understand FPL that well, or even follow the EPL that closely, and so make most of their decisions based on an impulsive reaction to last week's results... and/or at the promptings of FPL's own vapid pundit 'The Scout' or the many similarly unimaginative 'influencers' out here on the Internet.... or indeed just following whatever seems to be a popular pick being mentioned a lot in online discussion forums. This often coalesces into a kind of collective hysteria - where the HUGE numbers of managers rushing in to buy a certain player bears no relation to his true worth, his likely points potential over the next handful of games. The player in question might not be at all bad (though often he is); but he is not the irresistible bargain, the must-have asset that so many people seem to think

Hence, I created this occasional series of posts highlighting players I think are deangerously over-owned, are the subject of a sudden and misguided enthusiasm.

And I know I've already mocked the unfounded over-excitement for Bruno this ganeweek but I am prompted to offer a second nomination for Gameweek 30 by the discovery that Palace's Ismaila Sarr has also tipped 500,000 transfers in for the week (and it's still 6 hours before the deadline!) - actually now slightly ahead of Bruno!

I have nothing against the guy: he's a very handy attacking midfielder, and he's having a pretty good season. But this massive rush-to-buy smacks to me of being too easily swayed by recent returns - the naive vice commonly referred to in FPL circles as chasing last week's points. Yes, he's just picked up 3 goals in the last 2 games. And while I might generally fret that one couldn't rely on a player maintaining form over a long EPL break like we've just had, he still did look quite lively in the FA Semi-Final on Sunday. But he does tend to blow very hot and cold on goal involvements; and he's never managed more than 2 or 3 consecutive weeks of contributions before; and he's never established himself a major producer in his previous two seasons at the club. It is possible that he is now on a very hot streak, and that streak might continue for one or two more gameweeks, and he might pick up another goal in one of those; but history, alas, speaks slightly against that. Whereas his precocious teammate Eherechi Eze can - so long as he manages to stay fit - be relied upon to threaten some sort of contribution almost every single week when he's in the kind of form he's been showing lately; he looks a much better bet from Palace for the rest of the season.

However, making an FPL selection isn't only about choosing the most promising player in a particular position; it's also about weighing up the overall context, assessing whether players from this club are really a good prospect, and then deciding which the most valuable players from the club will be. People are rushing to Palace because they have two Double Gameweeks coming up during the run-in. However, they're not likely to be very attractive Double Gameweeks. In fact, Palace's fixtures during the run-in are really daunting: apart from their next game against hopeless Southampton, Wolves is their only other temptingly winnable game - and even that is unlikely to be a pushover. As I so often say, DGWs are not an infallible magic: they're only worth loading up on if the the doubling team has at least one - and preferably two! - soft fixtures.

And if you really do fancy Crystal Palace that strongly for the coming doubles, there is probably more value in Dean Henderson (in such great form recently that you'd fancy him to earn good 'saves' points even in games Palace might lose; and certainly the best prospect among the doubling goalkeepers), Daniel Munoz (still among the very best defensive assets of this season, even with some tougher fixtures to face) and/or perhaps one of his defensive colleagues (Guehi, Richards, and Lacroix have all looked very solid, and even an occasional goal threat; and Tyrick Mitchell, although he hasn't done much lately, is one of the few full-backs this season that is still getting forward into crossing positions fairly often), or Jean-Philippe Mateta, one of the league's most impressive centre-forwards in recent months.

Moreover, Oliver Glasner is looking one of the most tempting 'Assistant Manager' picks over the next few gameweeks, particularly in the GW32 double-fixture. So, if you even potentially have an eye on that option, you ought to restrict yourself to TWO Palace players to make it easy to bring Glasner in.

Not only is Sarr a weaker pick from the Palace midfield than Eze, arguably neither of them are among the best three picks from the club. And if you still have your 'Assistant Manager' chip to play, you ought only to be taking a maximum of 2 Palace players at the moment anyway.

Selecting players is not just about looking at who did well in the last few weeks; you have to consider a whole range of related issues. 

Dilemmas of the Week - GW30

Well, it doesn't look like there have been too many injuries over the international break and last weekend's FA Cup quarter-finals. And some recuperating players may suddenly be back in first-team contention after a nice long rest....  But, as I grumped last week, the two-and-a-half week hiatus means that we've been deprived of much if any 'team news', and the teams have probably all lost a bit of sharpness and cohesion after being apart, out of regular training for so long: the 'form' of Gameweeks 28 and 29 might have gone completely out of the window - it's very difficult to anticipate how this week's matches are going to play out. Despite this, many people seem to be rushing - lemming-like - to play their 2nd Wildcard this week... for no particular reason, other than that someone said it might be a good idea. WTF, really??  I would advise very strongly against it.

With Blank and Double Gameweeks looming, and all kinds of fixture-swings and shifts in form likely over the closing weeks of the season, you really want to hold off using that 2nd Wildcard for as long as possible. If you end up finding you didn't have to use it at all, that's fine; but using it prematurely could be disastrous. (Also, it's looking like this week or next will be the best - ONLY!! - time to deploy the dratted 'Assistant Manager' chip....)

I'm trying to streamline these weekly round-ups, as they had been getting dangerously over-long. I'm aiming to confine myself to just the injuries to players that are likely to have a major significance in FPL. [I currently find the 'Injuries & Bans' summary on Fantasy Football Scout the most reliable resource for this kind of information - go check that out for more comprehensive coverage.]

So, what are the conundrums we face ahead of Gameweek 30?

Does anybody need to be moved out because of injury?

Riccardo Calafiori picked up a knee problem playing for Italy, and looks set to be out again for 'weeks', maybe the rest of the season - good news for anyone who's been hanging on to Jurrien Timber (although Ben White's return from injury, and the continuing stellar form of Myles Lewis-Skelly still make him somewhat of a minutes-risk).

Tariq Lamptey and Georginio Rutter at Brighton picked up ankle injuries in training last week; Lamptey is likely to miss the rest of the season.

Marcus Tavernier also missed the weekend's Cup game with an ankle problem.

Everton's Ukrainian full-back Vtaly Mykolenko is apparently a doubt with a thigh injury (no further details?).

Alisson had to come off after a whack to the head in a game for Brazil against Colombia last week, but it doesn't look like 'concussion protocols' will exclude him from Wednesday's derby game.

Erling Haaland suffered an ankle injury in Sunday's semi-final against Bournemouth, still being assessed; City seem optimistic that he isn't ruled out for the season... but pessimistic that he'll play any part for the next week or three.

Morgan Gibbs-White was taken off in the Cup game against Brighton after bashing his leg against a goalpost, but is expected to be fine for tonight's game. Chris Wood picked up a hip injury playing for New Zealand: not too bad, rapidly improving - but leaves him a doubt for this week.

The BIG NEWS of he week, though, is that Bukayo Saka is finally poised to return.... though probably not immediately as a starter, given that there's a Champions League quarter-final against Real looming next week.

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

No new bans this week; but Anthony Gordon still has one game of his suspension to serve, and Matheus Cunha has two (after the FA eventually added an extra one for the 'aggravated' nature of his offence).

Did anyone give other cause to consider dropping them?

No-one's suffered a notable collapse in form, I don't think. But there is a strong case for letting go of Bruno Fernandes now because of the turn in fixtures against Manchester United. (Very hard to see them getting anything out of a game away against Forest this midweek - although they do sometimes have a knack of dredging up a better performance against a superior team....)

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

In the last EPL Gameweek - half a lifetime ago! - er, NO. (Not as far as I can recall, anyway...)  And I don't really think international games, or even FA Cup games can give us much of a pointer towards League form.

Marco Asensio and Marcus Rashford have been continuing to look impressive for Villa; but unfortunately, the rest of the team haven't been nearly as convincing, and they don't have an inviting run of fixtures over the rest of the season - in fact, Southampton looks like their only really likely win in the final 9 games.

It is looking very much as if this gameweek - or next (perhaps favoured by most) - is going to be rhe best/last chance to play the 'Assistant Manger' chip (if you still have it; many people - perhaps uncertain what to do with it, or resentful of the way it cramps the rest of your chip strategy - got rid of it straight away...). Spurs and Brentford are looking particularly inviting prospects for a table-bonus win this week; and Everton, Fulham, and Manchester United are also in table-bonus games (remember: a draw with the table-bonus is better than a win without one!). In fact, if you're a United fan, they now enjoy a run of three successive matches against much higher teams (the benefit of falling so low in the table!).  There are further attractive fixture possibilities (though not as good, and some still a tad uncertain - as we don't know how much relative league positions may change over such a span of time) over the next two or three gameweeks as well; plus, of course, the confirmed Double Gameweek for Palace and Newcastle in GW32 (both tough games for Glasner, but both with a table-bonus opportunity), and the possibility of more in GW33 (pity we almost certainly won't know before today's deadline!!)

BEST OF LUCK, EVERYONE!

DON'T FORGET The Boycott; the dratted new 'Assistant Manager' chip is in play now - and I am urging everyone to please consider quitting the game, or at least refusing to use this silly chip. 

And if you can't bring yourself to do either of those things, please do criticise the Assistant Manager chip as vigorously as possible on any relevant social media channels you use, raise objections to it with any football or media figures you know how to contact, and - if possible - try to find a way to protest about it directly to the FPL hierarchy (and let me know how, if you manage that!).

#QuitFPLinGW23         #DownWithTheNewChip