Don't worry about points left on the Bench!

 

People on the FPL forums are often found fretting extravagantly about the number of points they've had unused on the Bench in this past gameweek. And many - even among the supposedly more experienced and shrewder managers in the game - often seem to fetishise the idea of minimizing your Bench points (as if it's somehow wasteful of resources, and an indicator of bad play).

Now, OK, it is bad play if you are frequently leaving a player on the Bench who returns a very good haul - in preference to a player you started whose prospects clearly weren't quite as good in that week's fixtures. 

A really good haul on the Bench is, of course, frustrating. But that's going to happen to everyone occasionally: it's a game of luck, and you can't reliably predict who's going to come up with the big points in any given week; occasionally you'll be taken by surprise. But if you find you're quite regularly having one of your best returns from a player on the Bench, then you might be having a few problems with your decision-making.

However, the Bench is also part of your team - and you will occasionally (quite often!) have to draw on your Bench through auto-substitutions to fill out your starting lineup. So, consistently getting pretty decent points out of your Bench collectively, and out of each of its individual members, is actually a very good thing - a sign of a well-balanced squad.

Moreover, you should look to have a pretty competent back-up goalkeeper, and at least one strong back-up defender - to enable you to rotate those positions around difficult fixtures. And so, sometimes, you're actually going to have a first-choice keeper or defender on your bench - who might surprise you with a good return, despite having been in a very unpromising fixture.

There are also going to be occasions when you might choose to omit one of your top players, in any position, either because of a tough fixture, or because they're a doubtful starter due to a yellow-flagged injury problem or a likely rest before or after a big European game, or on returning from international duty (South American players are typically omitted in the first weekend after an international break because they've had to fly such a long way only a couple of days before the game). And then those players may play anyway, and have a big game. 

You shouldn't blame yourself for occasional misfortunes like that - only if you made a choice purely on form and/or fixtures to leave one player on the bench in favour of starting others, and you were wrong, and that is happening a lot.  Learn to distinguish cases where you made a sensible and justifiable decision to omit someone and got unlucky with it, from cases where you just badly misjudged your players' relative points prospects based on form and fixture-difficulty.

You should generally be hoping for an average of 5-6 points per game from all of your starters; but your average return from your Bench back-up players shouldn't be too far short of that, certainly not much below 4.5 points per game.

If you're often getting 16-20 points on your Bench, that's not a bad thing at all; it's a sign of good squad strength. (If you're regularly getting a lot less than that [when everyone is starting], you have a problem - and you're going to pay for it sooner or later.)

'Buying success' is the end of football...

The phenomenon in the modern game that saddens me most is the increasing tendency from just about all managers nowadays to seek to solve problems and improve their team's performances simply by buying new players, to 'spend their way out of trouble'.

Partly, of course, this has been happening because, since the advent of pay-per-view television, the game has become awash with more money than it knows what to do with. And also, in the past couple of decades, statistical analysis has been given more and more weight, so that managers now get tempted to think that the 'numbers' reveal very slight and subtle benefits that might be derived from one player rather than another. And hence, for example, if you're worried that you're conceding a few too many goals because your left full-back occasionally gets done by a pacey winger, you could 'fix' that flaw by dropping 50 million euros on a quicker full-back, or one who's a bit better against someone taking him on one-to-one.

But of course, there are other things you could do. You could give your vulnerable full-back some specific coaching on dealing better with these dangerous one-on-ones; or you could remember to hold him in a deeper position when he's up against a quick opponent, and/or assign another player to give him back-up on that marking assignment. There is an immediate tactical or coaching 'solution' to the issue, and it might work out better than buying an expensive new player for the role.

When the supposed 'statistical advantage' is so slight, and based on such a flimsy sample size - perhaps just a handful of incidents in a handful of games, each of which may have been in some way untypical, anyway - it may easily prove to be illusory. Trying to deal wtih the problem now, with your available resources, surely makes more sense than taking a punt on trying to fit a completely new peg into this awkwardly shaped tactical hole. Your new boy might indeed be a speed-demon and adept at nicking the ball off a crafty dribbler - but what about his crossing, his tackling, his positional sense, his workrate, his professionalism, his mental toughness, his competitive mentality? Some of the things that are going to make the biggest difference to your team dynamic are essentially 'intangibles' - matters of personality and character rather than just skill and athleticism - and the stats aren't going to be of any help to you there. Also, of course, it's going to take a while for anyone new to get up to speed on your tactical approach and to bond with his new teammates. Even if he is - in theory - much, much better than the player he's displacing,... in all probability, he won't be for at least a couple of months.

But, for me, the risk of overestimating a new player, being misled by statistics as to his overall abilities or just not anticipating how he would fit into your team - or fail to - for other reasons beyond his core 'skill profile', is less important than the cost of constantly discarding players for some supposed minor shortcoming, even after they've made some outstanding contributions to your club, perhaps over a number of years. When you suddenly ditch players who've played well for you - to replace them with someone supposedly slightly better - you risk damaging the spirit in the dressing-room and the whole ethos of the club. All players start to feel less secure in their tenure - and hence less loyal to the manager and the club, and perhaps they might thus also become a little less sharp in their competitiveness. Fans, too, are often shocked and disappointed to see a popular player suddenly depart. And that adds unwelcome extra pressure on his successor to prove himself to a sceptical fanbase. 

For younger players, this kind of snub can be especially dispiriting - and perhaps a fatal setback to their career development. And it may be particularly short-sighted of the clubs to mistreat their rising stars like this, because if they continue to give these players regular minutes, big game experience, show trust in them by giving them key responsibilities on the pitch, and perhaps by sticking with them through a spell of shakey form - they can become hugely better players, and so command a much higher transfer fee in a year or two's time. And if they've come up through your Academy system, or were purchased at a young age for a fairly low price, that's almost all pure profit; one or two nice deals like that can put your PSR worries to bed for a good long while. (Perhaps I have an unduly romantic notion of how much showing trust in a player can boost their confidence and ability? It is possible, I suppose, that I am a little too much influenced by a management sim I played a lot in the early Noughties, in which this was the big secret of the game: if you gave players a run of regular starts, in games where they'd mostly win, and including some high-profile fixtures,.... their self-belief apparently soared; and with that, their overall consistency and dependability as well as their ratings on key playing attributes would soar very quickly as well. Reserves or youth team players could grow into formidable assets within a couple of months, and become potential international stars within a year or two. The effect may not be quite so dramatic in real life - but I'm sure it exists.)

If a player has chosen to leave, or is obviously not adequate to his role at the top level, then fair enough: we accept the necessity of the change, and we're all eager to see how the new man will do. But most of the time these days, this does not seem to be the case; a player who was at least perfectly adequate, if not pretty good in his role, suddenly gets canned for a new signing - who is often not an obvious improvement. And a key thing that this hard-nosed approach to trying to buy marginal advantages (which sometimes fail to materialize anyway!) overlooks is that a football club is not just about football; it's about continuity and community, it's about the bond that develops between players, staff, and fans - over an extended period of time (even expanding over generations into the distant past; it'a about history). People want to see players grow and change over time, they want to see promising youngsters stay at their club and develop a mature career there. They don't really want to see a revolving door of 'big names' trotting through their club for a year - or two or three - before looking for a bigger move.

This might seem a quaintly 'old-fashioned' view now, I fear. Yes, I did grow up in the era of Brian Clough and Peter Taylor. And their distinctive genius lay in being able to take a bunch of apparent 'journeymen' players and find a balance in the team that tapped into unsuspected synergies. Individually, very few of their players looked like world-beaters, especially in the earlier days at Derby and Forest; but collectively their teams always managed to be far stronger than the sum of their component parts would suggest was possible. I worry that this knack - one of the great arts of football management - has now been largely lost. Most modern managers, rather than thinking, "How can I get the best out of these players?" seem to ask instead, "Which of these players can I change for someone else?" (Of course, Brian and Peter weren't spoiled by that 'luxury': in their day money was tight, and most clubs rarely made more than two or three transfers per year.)

Now, every season, we seem to see multiple examples of this change for change's sake, changes just because we can afford it. I am a huge fan of Cody Gakpo (he's been a mainstay of my international Fantasy teams in the last few tournaments); but was he really a necessary purchase for Liverpool? Is he really better than Luis Diaz? Well, it's invidious and futile to make direct comparisons between great players; they each have unique attributes, different strengths. But I think Diaz's tireless enthusiasm, his workrate in the press, and his willingness to hold the width when needed, rather than always look to drift into his preferred inside-forward space, meant that he was absolutely tailor-made for Klopp's Liverpool; and Slot's Liverpool have not so far been all that different in their style of attack. But they let Diaz go? I was very sad to see that. And now there's a danger that Gakpo himself might get forced back to the sidelines by the arrival of Ekitike and Isak...

I am a huge fan of Bryan Mbeumo and Mateus Cunha as well. But Manchester United really didn't need them. Amad Diallo and Bruno Fernandes are tailor-made for Ruben Amorim's 'joint 10s' roles, and had started to look very impressive in them last season. Admittedly, Mbeumo and Cunha could also play as a central forward - although neither of them really likes that, they both prefer to start out wide and drift into the inside-forward area (which is not really what the Amorim system is looking for....). Again, this seemed to be a case of just blindly throwing money at a 'problem', hoping that bringing in new super-talented players, glamorous big-name signings would be a magic cure-all for a broken tactical system.

Is Jeremie Frimpong a better right-back than Conor Bradley? NO - don't make me laugh. He's presumably been bought primarily for his attacking potential as a wing-back; but damn, Bradley isn't bad in the final third either. There might be some doubts about the young Irishman's experience or injury-proneness, but he looks plenty good enough to hold down the 'No. 1' spot in that position, and they could have looked for a back-up to him,... rather than relegating him to occasional-rotation limbo for however many more years.

Is Riccardo Calafiori better than Myles Lewis-Skelly? Well, maybe; but not by much. And surely the homegrown youngster deserves the chance to develop further, after making such an impressive debut last season? Admittedly, Calafiori was probably bought before Lewis-Skelly's potential was recognised, and when all their other left-backs seemed to be perpetually injured. But most Arsenal fans I know feel the start ought to be Myles's to lose, after last season, and that the Italian should be the back-up. Jakub Kiwior was quite hard done-by too; no, he's not a great player, but he had done a perfectly decent job of filling in whenever needed in both central defence and at left-back - he might not be stellar, but he was plenty good enough.

Is Rayan Ait-Nouri a better left-back than Nico O'Reilly? Well, yes - probably. But is he better enough to make a big difference? That I'm not so sure about. And like Lewis-Skelly, surely O'Reilly did well enough last season to deserve further opportunities in the role this year? I know a lot of City fans feel that way.

Is Gianluigi Donnarumma better than Stefan Ortega or Jamie Trafford? Well, yes, I suppose so - he's widely regarded as the best goalkeeper in the world. But is he so far their superior that he's bound to make a substantial difference to City's prospects in the Premier League? I don't think so. And it's the treatment of Stefan Ortega that really bothers me. The guy has waited patiently for his chance to be promoted to first choice for the last three years, and has been superb whenever he has been called upon. Now, when Ederson wants to leave, he suddenly suffers in rapid succession the double insult of first being replaced by a kid who still has a lot of rough edges on his game, and then by a 'big name' from the continent - who maybe isn't that much better than him. Loyalty matters. Loyalty matters ethically; but it also pays practical dividends. Fans want and expect to see loyalty to their club being recognised and rewarded. Players expect that too; and they respond very powerfully to it. If Ortega had been elevated to the starting place he deserved this season, he would have been the most emotionally engaged keeper in the league - super-passionate, super-revved-up for every single game. That additional level of motivation is worth far more than any slight marginal advantage in a few areas of the game that statistics may purport to reveal. And I wouldn't want to support a club or a manager who treated its players so direspectfully.

These days, it seems, everybody's playing 'Fantasy Football' - just splashing cash on the most eye-catching transfer options, the most glamorous names. But this 'Galacticos' approach rarely works out in practice. You don't need all the 'best' players to create a successful football team; you need the players who will work best together. And the stats still can't show you that.

A little bit of Zen (58)

"Try to cherish the questions themselves, like locked doors, like letters in an alien tongue."

Rainer-Maria Rilke

Pick of the transfers

Newcastle's new striker 

(It was either this or 'Mr Blobby' - consider yourselves lucky!)

There was indeed a last-minute surge of loan and transfer business at the end of the summer transfer window, with 25 new deals being concluded on Monday (and a few being cancelled!).

Now that the dust is settling from all of that mayhem, I thought I'd quickly review what I think the most interesting moves will be, in terms of their likely impact for FPL managers. In most cases, these are not the biggest names, or players joining the biggest clubs; they are players who've rarely been given a proper opportunity at their former clubs in recent years, and might now suddenly blossom when they enjoy the prospect of a regular start. Picks like these - only fringe players, at best, at their original clubs, or new arrivals from abroad and hence fairly unknown quantities in the Premier League - are quite low-priced,... and may perhaps prove to be very attractively under-priced. 

Moreover, such players joining clubs that have had a weak start to the season will have more scope to have a really transformative impact; and that could have significant knock-on effects, greatly improving their new side's prospects for the season and boosting the FPL value of some of their thus far disappointing teammates. That's why I think these options are the ones most worthy of careful consideration. (I'll mention some of the more high-profile trades briefly at the end of this piece.)

So, for me, these are the ones to watch, among the recently transferred players:

Harvey Elliott (Aston Villa) - Klopp himself said that one of his greatest regrets was failing to find a way to give Elliott more minutes at Liverpool (it was a problem that his best position is as an attacking midfielder off the right flank, a position that is inevitably monopolised by Mo Salah; though he does also look pretty handy as a No. 10...). I've been a huge fan of his for the past four years: almost always outstanding whenever he did get on the pitch for Liverpool, and for the England Under-21s, I think he has the potential to be as good as Palmer or Saka. Even if he doesn't quite scale those heights - not immediately, anyway - I think he is just what Villa need to re-energize themselves after their dismally flat start to the season. At only 5.4 million, I suspect Elliott could now prove to be one of the best value-for-money returners of the season, and a prime candidate for the crucial 5th midfield seat. (And even if he isn't, he might help to revitalise the FPL appeal of players like Ollie Watkins, Morgan Rogers, and Youri Tielemans.)

Jack Grealish (Everton) - Jack has made an outstanding start at Everton already, and it's great to see him playing with a smile on his face again. His price has already jumped to 6.7 million, but in this much-improved Everton side, he's currently looking like he might get an assist almost every week, as players like Ndiaye and Beto regularly get into good positions to receive his deft crosses and cutbacks. (But that may well mean that Ndiaye and Beto are actually the better picks from Everton. Grealish might only ever contribute assists - and that's really not enough for FPL.)

Xavi Simons (Spurs) - For me, the most exciting of the big-name overseas signings, and one who could potentially have almost as big an impact as Elliott and Grealish. The thing restricting the scope of his importance for his new club's performance, I think, is not his ability but the fact that Spurs had a pretty good squad already - and have made a really strong start to the season; there's not that much room for a new player to drastically improve things. With other left-sided attacking players like Richarlison, Tel, and Odobert that they could call on, there might in fact be some doubts about whether Simons will be an invariable starter; but I feel they wouldn't have bought him if they were satisfied with their existing options; Simons should surely be the default starter, if fit. And he is very, very good.

Callum Wilson (West Ham) - The big problem with Wilson, of course, is that he's rarely managed to stay fit for more than 8 or 10 games. But when he's healthy and in-form, he's a hell of a striker; and he looked absolutely on fire in his debut for the Hammers in Gameweek 3. And since the club had had such a dreadful start to the season - becoming instant relegation favourites after their abysmal showing in the first two games - the opportunity for him to be a catalyst for transformation is huge. As long as he can keep out of the treatment room, he is looking by far the best of the 6.5-and-under forward options (he's only 5.9 million at the moment).

Dan Ndoye (Nottingham Forest) - Forest's new right-winger has been one of the biggest successes of the new summer signings so far. He's got a lot to do to rival the impact that Elanga achieved in the second half of last season, but he's made an outstanding start, with a goal and an assist in his first two games. He might now face some competition for the place from late signing Dilane Bakwa, who also looks quite handy; but the start is surely Ndoye's for the time being.

Reiss Nelson (Brentford) - Brentford have also had a rocky start, and desperately need an infusion of new blood to revinvigorate their attack. And the talented Arsenal youngster could be just the player to give them that. Of course, there will be worries about how far his development - and confidence - have been set back by getting so few minutes at his home club, and by missing most of last season with a succession of injuries. But if he's back to his best, Reiss should thrive on the responsibility of being a main creative provider at a smaller club.

Nick Woltemade (Newcastle) - 'Voldemort', as I'm sure he'll soon be known, hadn't registered on many people's radars; Newcastle had been impressively stealthy in their pursuit of him. But the estimable Adam Clery (best tactical analyst on Youtube and Newcastle uber-fan) rates his potential very highly, and that's enough for me to put him on the watchlist. Although the Stuttgart striker's a very big lad (probably about to become the Premier League's tallest player), it seems he's got very good feet as well, and likes to drop deep and play in teammates from the No.10 space as well as occasionally causing mayhem in the box. All players new to clubs (and especially forwards) take some time to settle in; and most players joining from overseas (especially forwards) also struggle a bit at first to adapt to the physical intensity of the Premier League. So, we'll probably need to give him some time to bed in; and we'll have to accept that, at least at first, he's probably going to be minutes-sharing quite a bit with their other new forward signing, Yoane Wissa. But I am quietly optimistic about his prospects; if he might not be quite as explosive a finisher as Sesko or Gyokeres, I feel he might thrive at Newcastle more than those other two will at their new clubs.

Senne Lammens (Manchester United) - I have no idea how good the young Belgian keeper is, but he's got to be a substantial improvement on Onana and Bayindir, hasn't he?? United's defence has usually managed to remain fairly secure, even when the team in front of them was at its worst; and they've actually started this season rather promisingly, with Dorgu and Yoro finally shaping up, and Luke Shaw back from his latest long injury absence. A decent keeper behind the back-three could give the club a major boost. Unfortunately, at 5.0 million, he's probably too expensive to be of much interest in FPL himself (unless United suddenly go on a clean-sheet bender!); but he might be the catalyst that helps spark a more successful run of performances, and hence make some of their other players more worthy of consideration.

Anthony Elanga (Newcastle) - He's progressed in leaps and bounds since his departure from Manchester United, and seems very excited about his move to Newcastle. Their swift attacking style should suit him down to the ground, and - if he can develop a good rapport with their new striker(s) - I can see the potential for a lot of attacking contributions from him this season. However, with Jacob Murphy so good in that right-flank role during the second half of last year, and Barnes and Gordon also able to play on that side, it might be doubted if he'll be an invariable starter. There'll probably be quite a lot of rotation around the big European fixtures, unfortunately.

Tyler Dibling (Everton) - The England youth international was one of the few bright spots in Southampton's brief visit to the Premier League last season. Unfortunately, he's now classified as a midfielder rather than a full-back, and he might not get a regular start as winger/wing-back/full-back on Everton's right (and, even if he does, we can expect that they'll strongly favour attacking down the left, through Grealish). But if he gets a run of starts, and hits a vein of form, he's one of those who could be in consideration for occasional rotation through the 5th midfield slot. My expectation for his season is that he'll be looking to make enough of a splash to get himself a move to a bigger club.

Joao Palhinha (Spurs) and Mateus Fernandes (West Ham) - And to finish, two outstanding central midfielders, who will, I think, certainly play a crucial role in stabilising their sides and making them more leak-proof; and both should benefit substantially from the new 'defensive points' this season. Fernandes also showed quite a knack for picking up a goal with Southampton last season; Palhinha is also capable of scoring a few, but at Fulham he relied heavily on taking the penalties to boost his FPL returns, and he's unlikely to be given that duty at Spurs. These are probably not players who are directly worth considering for FPL themselves; but they might help to elevate the appeal of some of their teammates!

 

I hesitated to add Kiernan Dewsbury-Hall (Everton) to this list, because I'd already nominated 2 Everton players. And I suspect he won't maintain the deadly scoring form he's shown at the start of the season for long. But he's another player I've admired for years, since he first started appearing for Leicester; and I'm very excited about what he could achieve with his new club. If he does go on a scoring streak, he's definitely worth looking at for the 5th seat.

I also omitted Joao Pedro (Chelsea), purely because, with the deal having been done shortly after the end of last season and him having already helped to win the Club World Cup in July, he no longer feels like a 'new' transfer! But I think I'd place a bet that JP will be the highest FPL points-returner of all this year's signings.

There are grave doubts about their clubs' prospects this season, after losing so many key players over the summer, but Caoimhin Kelleher and Michael Kayode (Brentford), and Bafode Diakite and Adrien Truffert (Bournemouth) look to me like the most promising new options at the defensive end of the pitch.

[Well, damn, none of these newcomers have really set the world on fire yet; the keeper and defenders at the end of the review are the only ones who've performed decently and consistently. Grealish (and Ndoye - and Dewsbury-Hall and Joao Pedro!) faded after a bright start, Xavi Simons just hasn't been able to find his form at Spurs yet, Reiss Nelson's been injured, Elanga has struggled to settle in at Newcastle and has been displaced by Jacob Murphy, Tyler Dibling's only getting occasional cameos off the bench, Callum Wilson's yet to make an impact at West Ham (although at least he graduated to a regular start in GW10), and poor Harvey Elliott seems to have got on Unai Emery's wrong side (although, of course, it doesn't help that he's fighting for a place against John McGinn and Emi Buendia). But at least they haven't been such abject disappointments as the 'big name' signings below all proved to be in the opening three months of the season! Really, only Palhinha, Lammens, and Woltemade (and Ekitike) had an immediate impact at their new clubs. As of late November, everyone else was still stuck in 'failure to launch' status.]

And these are the ones to curb your enthusiasm over:

Alexander Isak (Liverpool) - After skipping team training since the start of the new season (and with little opportunity to train now with his new club during a two-week international break), it is very doubtful if Isak will be either physically or tactically ready for a start in Gameweek 4,... and perhaps not even in Gameweek 5 or 6. Moreover, Ekitike and Gakpo have really been playing too well so far to be dropped. And even when he is ready to be integrated into the side, it's likely that he'll be rotated with Ekitike a fair bit, to keep him fresh for the big European games. Even if he were to play a full 90 minutes in every Premier League game (and that is not going to happen), he's unlikely to be as productive for FPL at Liverpool, where he's only one of their many routes to goal, as he was at Newcastle, where he was the primary outlet. This might be a very good move for his career, but - paradoxically! - it's probably a pretty terrible one for his fans in FPL-land; his points prospects are now significantly reduced, and even if he does really, really well,... he's unlikely to be worth his 10.5-million price-tag any more.

Yoane Wissa (Newcastle) - I could be wrong on this, but my suspicion is that Newcastle just wanted some decent quality back-up to ease the pressure on Woltemade during his bedding-in phase, and thought a player like Wissa, used to playing second-fiddle at Brentford for the last few years, would accept - however grudgingly - such a subordinate role. I don't see him being the regular starter once the German's found his feet. And, as with Isak, because he's been a naughty boy and withdrawn himself from training to try to force through his transfer, he's unlikely to be ready to play until Gameweek 5 or 6.

Viktor Gyokeres (Arsenal) - The Gunners just haven't hit their stride yet. And the period of adjustment to a new country and club is likely to be even tougher for Gyokeres, or rather for his team - because they've got used to playing without a central striker for the past few years. I believe Gyokeres will eventually come good, and perhaps be one of the top-returning forwards this season; but it might take another month or two before that really starts happening.

Ebere Eze (Arsenal) - Rather as with Isak, but more so, Eze isn't likely to be sufficiently indoctrinated with Arteta's tactical approach to be considered as a starter for a few weeks; and he might not get regular starts even then (there are good reasons to prefer Martinelli against certain opponents). And even if he is starting most games, it is unlikely that Arsenal will transform their overall style to accommodate such a maverick (Arteta likes disciplined team build-up, not flamboyant improvisation), or that they will substantially shift their attacking emphasis away from their favoured right side (White-Odegaard-Saka). Eze, unfortunately, is now a huge minutes-risk, and even if he plays regularly is unlikely to have anywhere near as much impact as he did at Palace - where he was invariably the primary creative force, and a primary goalscorer.

Benjamin Sesko and Bryan Mbeumo and Mateus Cunha (Manchester United) - This trio look on paper as if they should be the most terrifying attack in the Premier League. But so far, they've been looking as if they might become the most terrifying attack in the Championship next year. Amorim, for some reason, hasn't even trusted Sesko with a start yet; and the other two have shown only brief glimpses of the attacking danger they exhibited so regularly for their old clubs. They are hamstrung by playing in a still largely dysfunctional team (central midfield is the backbone of any successful side, and United at the moment just don't have one) under a coach who seems to have completely lost the plot. Also, I've always suspected that these three guys just aren't really going to fit together, they have no complimentary chemistry.

None of Pep's recruits - no, not even Ait-Nouri or Reijnders or Cherki - can be guaranteed regular starts. And City just aren't playing that well, anyway: they look like they could struggle even worse than they did last season, and face a real battle to stay in contention for Champions League qualification. And I doubt if Donnarumma can turn things around for them: he might be the world's best keeper, but they already had three outstanding shot-stoppers on their books - what they needed was a new keeper who was really good in early build-up play, and Donnarumma isn't that.

Randal Kolo Muani (Spurs), I'm actually really intrigued about: I think he's very talented, and could turn out to be a great acquisition for them. But I suspect he's just been brought in to add squad depth for their Champions League campaign, and I doubt he'll immediately displace Solanke or Richarlison as the main central striker options.

Hugo Ekitike (Liverpool), who has been, to date, probably the strongest of the big clubs' signings, is unfortunately now likely to become a minutes-risk, after the somewhat superfluous addition of Isak to the Liverpool squad.

And, as I said in early August, although Florian Wirtz is a great player, it's likely to take him at least a couple of months or so to fully settle in at Anfield, and even when he has, he's not going to be a particularly prolific goalscorer - so, for FPL, there are almost certainly other Liverpool players you'll want more.

I have similar doubts about Jeremie Frimpong and Milos Kerkez. I think they'll both be fine eventually, but are likely to have a difficult settling-in period. And, at the moment, Liverpool just aren't looking very secure defensively, and even the great Van Dijk is seeming a questionable pick.

So, no, sorry - none of the more glamorous signings get my juices flowing at the moment. They might, when they settle in and find some form; but for now, they don't seem worth gambling on.

Fixing VAR

We just suffered a particularly bad weekend for VAR, with several key incidents being decided dubiously, or seemingly overlooked completely by the VAR system, painfully stumbling, irrelevant explanations of their 'final decision' by referees at the pitchside, and ridiculously long delays adding 5 minutes or more of additional time in a number of matches.

All of that NEEDS TO STOP.

I've spoken on what I see as the major problems with VAR before, but here's a further expansion. This is what I'd like to see happen to improve the situation:

1)  Acknowledge that the current implementation of the system is INADEQUATE, and suspend it until a raft of improvements can be worked out - and extensively practised and tested, before implementation (that plainly didn't happen - not sufficiently - before the original launch of the system). A drastic proposal, I know. But that's how bad things have got with this bloody mess. I really think we need a break from it.

2)  Tidy up the rules of the game, for greater clarity and simplicity.  A lot of the problem with VAR decisions derives from the over-complicated, unclear and often just inept wording of some of the key rules. No-one - referees included! - fully understands any more the current, extensive definitions of such basic offences as 'handball' and 'offside',... or how to deal with the rapidly escalating problem of 'wrestling' in the penalty area at set-pieces, etc. [I hate to say this, but they really need to get some lawyers involved in a review of this. They're not good for much, but they do understand the importance of clarity in drafting rules.]

3)  Greatly improve the speed of assembling the appropriate video clips for playback. A lot of the problems with the excessive amount of time taken to reach decisions seems to arise from the cumbersomeness of the playback technology - or the officials' lack of expertise in using it. It really should take the technical team a matter of only seconds to cue up and conduct an initial review of all the relevant views of an incident (and to select the one or two most relevant for detailed review, and to potentially show to the on-pitch referee). But it seems to be almost invariably taking much, much longer than that; and sometimes, it's just not happening - the best or most relevant views are not presented to the referee at all! (But that, I think, should be the next point.)

4)  Show only the best, most appropriate views of the incident, and initially at full speed. So often recently, we've seen referees understandably confused by being shown a camera-angle that doesn't give a clear view of the incident. Often, also, just a short section of the clip seems to be repeatedly replayed, in a rather juddery fashion - which is often likely to be prejudicial, or just unhelpful. Similarly, showing freeze-frame or slow-motion views should only follow on from a 'normal speed' review, and only if it seems to be really needed. In most instances, there seems to be one camera-angle that shows an obviously 'best' - clear, close-up - view of the incident; only in rare cases, should a second - and, very rarely, perhaps a third - view be needed. Yet often we seem to see the poor ref not being shown the 'best' view at all (it only shows up later on the TV post-mortem discussion!), or only after wasting 30 seconds or more on looking at a bunch of other inconclusive camera-angles first. Showing more distant views in which key elements of the incident are unlikely to be clearly visible, is unhelpful, pointless. Showing still images or a slow-motion re-run, before or instead of a normal-speed viewing, or chopping quickly between full-speed and slowed-down replays, is likely to be confusing and often prejudicial. No thought appears to have been given to the psychology of how video playback may be interpreted, and misinterpreted; there appear to be no clear guidelines in place, no consistent approach followed as to what kind of video replay is presented to the referee for a pitchside review.

5)  Establish rigid protocols for communication between VAR and the referee.  I spoke on this at some length in that earlier post I mentioned above, but, even more than the inept use of video playback, communication from the VAR team runs the risk of being extremely prejudicial to the referee's thinking and ultimate decision on an issue. And that needs to be completely avoided. They should not be getting into any extended conversations; the VAR official should not be giving any indication of what he thinks happened. There should be a set list of formulaic 'instructions', giving the reason for the suggested review, the particular event or events that need to be looked at - but without any extended detail, which might be prejudicial. And the word 'possible' should always be included, to emphasise that the question is entirely OPEN for the referee: 'Possible contact on ball by tackling player', 'Possible handball by goalscorer', 'Possible holding by x and y', 'Possible obstruction of goalkeeper's sightline by z' - that's ALL the VAR official should ever be saying.

6)  Abandon the 'clear and obvious' threshold for VAR intervention. It is an obvious nonsense, and often ignored anyway. There are two massive problems with it: i) The VAR team is often unduly hesitant to intervene, because it might be seen as undermining or humiliating their on-pitch colleague; ii) With the threshold for recommending a pitchside 'second look' set so extravagantly high, referees are inevitably prejudiced into thinking that their initial decision must have been wrong (in effect, the decision is being made by VAR here; a referee almost never has the courage to uphold his original call after being sent for a pitchside review).

7)  Allow VAR to determine some calls directly - to save time.  The essence and purpose of the 'clear and obvious' idea might, however, be usefully retained in allowing a certain category of incidents to be adjudicated directly by VAR. In many instances where a player apparently goes down under a challenge, it is in fact quite clear that the defending player had got a touch on the ball, or had not touched the attacking player at all - and there is no subjective element to the decision, it's obviously not a foul. Most handball decisions - if the rule were more sensibly framed* - ought to be similarly uncontentious. If the referee has made an error in such clearcut cases, I think VAR should be able to immediately overrule him.

8)  Extend VAR's remit in a few key areas.  While I'd rather have VAR involved as little as possible, it is an obvious lunacy in the present system that only straight red cards are reconsidered by VAR, and second yellow offences (which have exactly the same game impact) are not. In fact, I feel there's a case for making all serious fouls reviewable by VAR - at least in cases where it is so unfathomable that the referee did not award a yellow card, it must be assumed that he did not properly see the incident. The correct awarding of corners and throw-ins can also have a crucial impact, and I see no reason why VAR should not be involved here as well. If the system were working smoothly, such decisions should take only seconds (and, as in the point above, VAR should be able to make these calls directly).

9)  The new 'semi-automated' offside decisions need to be much quicker, and have clearer graphics.  Sometimes, we don't seem to get shown the justificatory graphic for a contentious offside call on our TV coverage at all - or not until several minutes later. Almost always, they seem to take at least a minute or two to appear, which is far too much - and is causing further intolerable delays in the flow of the game. If the CG rendering really takes this long, then the system is not currently fit for use; we need to be able to see the justification for these decisions within a few seconds. Also, these graphics are not presenting the situation clearly: they seem to show only one 'line' for the point of a player's body nearest to the goal-line, extended across the whole width of the pitch, parallel to the goal-line; but we really need to see two, to clearly show the distance between the nearest points of the attacker's body and of the relevant last defender's. In close calls, parallax and the lack of depth perception in the CG images make it completely impossible to judge which player is nearer to the goal-line. (And in some instances, there may also be a question as to why they have chosen to draw the 'line' on one part of the body rather than another. But for me, the true problem here lies in the absurd fiction that we can - or should even try to - determine offside calls on such fine margins. **)

10)  Referees should be spared - for now - from having to explain their decisions after review.  It eats up even more precious time. It adds further pressure on them. And, currently, it is only likely to exacerbate rather than soothe controversy. Until some of these other problems above are addressed, these referees' 'explanations' are likely to be more confusing and annoying than anything else. While the rules are so over-complicated and badly framed, it is going to be difficult for referees to concisely or accurately summarise the key elements in their decision; and even if they do, it's often not going to be readily comprehensible to the spectators. I was mightily vexed at the weekend by Sam Barrott's burbling about 'a sustained pull' on Diallo leading to the award of Manchester's life-saving (and unjust, even if arguably correct) late penalty on Saturday: that only goes to the issue of whether it was a 'foul' (there was no argument about that), but the crucial thing to be determined was where that foul occurred, inside or outside the box; and by failing to address that, Barrott implied that he hadn't even considered it.... and thus had made an incorrect decision (or made his decision on incorrect grounds, at least).

And finally, the REALLY BIG ONE.....

11)  VAR decisions should be strictly time-limited.  VAR should certainly aim to be able to render a decision in no more than 15 seconds. And while we might allow them a bit longer in exceptional circumstances, I think they ought to be 'timed out' at well under a minute, ideally only 30 or 40 seconds. If they can't reach a conclusion in that time, they should just admit they are 'Unable to render a prompt decision' and let the incident go - let it rest with the on-pitch officials' original call. We simply can't have these minutes-long interruptions ruining our enjoyment of the games every week (and messing up the TV scheduling: some matches are now running so long that there's almost no time for post-game discussion before the next kick-off - some pundits might be losing their jobs, and I'm sure we don't want that!). Sometimes there are technical hold-ups with identifying the correct portions of video for playback. Sometimes, perhaps, the technical crew are just inept in sorting that out. Sometimes, an incident becomes inordinately complicated, with several side issues also seeming to warrant review. Sometimes, none of the camera angles give a really definitive view of a crucial element of the action. When these things happen, we should accept that VAR is unable to help us in this instance. I would far rather suffer a few more wrong decisions than put up with these constant interruptions to the games.

And I'm not convinced that we'd actually get more wrong decisions if we relied solely - or far more - on the on-pitch referees; because there are still a huge number of mistakes happening with VAR in place; a huge number, in fact, that are happening because VAR is in place. (And I don't know if anyone has attempted to do some sort of study on this yet, but I am convinced that the standard of on-pitch refereeing has declined because of VAR. Referees are feeling under intolerable additional pressure; but they're also feeling, in some situations, that it will be OK for them to make an over-harsh or over-cautious call because their VAR colleagues can rescue them if it looks really bad on TV.)

*  For handballs, on the position of the arm, I would say that the only things relevant are if the arm is close in front of the body, such that the ball would have hit the body as well; or the arm is tight to the side of the body, so that it effectively forms part of the body. There is absolutely no need to bother with all this twaddle about 'making the body unnaturally larger', or the 'natural position of the arm'.

If the ball is fired at the defender at speed, from very close range, such that he has no reasonable opportunity to respond; or, if the ball deflects on to a defender's arm from another part of his body, or bounces on to his arm from close-range in a crowded penalty area, and he could not reasonably have seen or anticipated that the ball would come to him at that angle,.... in cases like that, then the position of the arm should not matter: the defender simply ought not to be culpable.

However, I would institute a 'strict liability' rule for instances where a ball striking a defender's arm (so long as not close in front of the body, or tight at the side - as explained above) decisively deflects it when it is goal-bound. The position of the arm, proximity to the ball, speed at which the ball is driven towards him - all irrelevant in such a case. The only thing that matters is the direction of the ball and the consequence of the contact.

Questions of 'intent' should only be relevant to punishment. Where a handball appears to be blatant and deliberate, it should usually be only a yellow-card offence if the ball is not goal-bound (potentially still a 'denial of a goalscoring opportunity' red card, though that's only likely to occur in incidents outside the penalty area), and a red-card offence if the ball is goal-bound. Simple enough.

** I have always felt that a certain amount of latitude should be allowed in ruling on offside incidents. In 'the good old days', the benefit of the doubt was always given to the attacking player - if it was 'too close to call', he was considered onside. That was an eminently sensible provision, and I'd like to see it restored.

And to make both the linesman's and the 'automated review' decisions easier - and more likely to accord with each other - I'd propose that only the torso ought to be considered relevant, not the toes or the upper arm or the tip of the nose, as we so often see now. In fact, I'd make it simpler still: only the pelvis should be considered relevant. This is the centre-of-gravity and a clear determinant of the player's effective position on the pitch. And most player's pelvises are at approximately the same height above the turf, so it's rather simpler to judge where they are in relation to each other. (And, I suggest, there would be a small additional improvement in fairness - in those rare situations where a defending playing is lying on the ground, and perhaps parallel to the touchline, he won't be playing opponents onside by the full length of his body...) Even in very tight situations, it's usually possible to determine accurately with the naked eye whether one player's rear-most hip is clearly further forward than another's fore-most hip. And that's what we need for a practicable offside law.

And if it's really, really tight, if a wrinkle on the player's shorts might be deciding whether he's 'touching' the level of the last defender, or clearly in front of it,..... then he should get the benefit of the doubt and be deemed onside. I'd always find in the attacker's favour unless there are at least a couple of inches of clear daylight between his hips and the last defender's.

Oh, what a wonderful world that would be.....

[Apparently, FIFA have been 'considering' a change to the offside rule along these lines - the whole of the attacker's body needing to be closer to the byline than the whole of the relevant 'last defender's' body, in order to be 'offside' - for a while now; but Arsene Wenger said last May that he didn't think it was likely to be approved for implementation for at least another year. With a bit of luck, it will be part of the usual raft of 'trial innovations' introduced for next year's World Cup. Although this definition should allow more leeway to attackers, and much easier decision-making, I am concerned that it still suffers from the fundamental taint of supposedly attainable 'perfection' in 'drawing the line', and some decisions could still potentially be given on a margin of less than a millimetre. I'd really like to see 'benefit of the doubt' and 'margin of error' principles reintroduced into the application of this rule, to try to avoid that.]

Luck-o-Meter - 25-26 Gameweek 3

 

Although most of the decisions ultimately seem to have been correctly determined (I have my doubts about the Manchester United penalty!), the major vexation of this weekend has been the unnecessarily, painfully long delays we seem tto be suffering with every VAR intervention. This really has to change soon; we can't be having every half of every game extended by 5 or 10 minutes just because the officials are so clumsy and ponderous in reviewing replays.

After last week's impressive demolition of West Ham, Chelsea suddenly looked very lacklustre and short of ideas again against their West London rivals, Fulham. It didn't help that Delap had to go off with a hamstring strain after just a few minutes; but there really seem to be all sorts of problems with the team still - the cohesion and confidence they discovered during the summer's Club World Cup is proving evanescent. They were, in fact, rather fortunate to avoid falling behind to an early breakaway for 18-year-old Josh King (Sanchez, somehow going the wrong way, easily beaten at his near post.... still major question-marks over this keeper!!); the effort was rightly ruled out for a foul by Muniz on Chalobah at the start of the move (but, as seemed to be happening all weekend, VAR took an inordinately long time even to recommend a review, and the review - which need only have taken seconds, and surely could have been determined by the VAR team themselves - took minutes more...; a lot of the punditry seem to be taking the bizarre view that a foul isn't a foul if it's accidental, but that is not in the rules; and frankly, the contact was very nearly severe enough to be considered as potentially 'serious foul play'). We then had to go through the same agony again early in the second-half when a completely clearcut handball for a penalty somehow took several minutes to be decided (and the poor ref was left spouting irrelevant nonsense about the defender "making his body unnaturally bigger" - he moved his arm towards the ball, it looked deliberate, case closed). This system is just an utter, UTTER MESS at the moment. I'd really prefer it to be scrapped altogether, until all the problems with it can be resolved. In Palmer's absence, Enzo Fernandez was on penalties rather than Joao Pedro: a pleasant surprise for some FPL managers and an unpleasant one for others - but unlikely to be of any further relevance, either way.

My predicttion before the Old Trafford game had been a low-scoring draw, possibly 0-0, probably 1-1 - maybe, if we were lucky, if one of the teams got an early breakthrough, a slightly more entertaining 2-2. I was looking spot-on during a mostly fairly arid first half. And things were not immediately more promising straight after the break; but then, 5 or 10 minutes into the second half, the match suddenly devolved into an end-to-end ding-dong which could easily have ended up at 5-5. Burnley were desperately unlucky not to get something out of the game; in fact, it feels rather unjust that they didn't win it. We endured yet another baffling VAR delay for the eventually retracted penalty decision against Kyle Walker on Mason Mount; it took the backroom team minutes, apparently just watching the same short clip over and over again, before even recommending the ref take a second look, and then Sam Barrott did the same, mulling the matter over for an inordinately long time before rendering a decision - when it appeared quite clear to me that Mount had initiated the contact, throwing his leg across in front of Walker, and then falling over (and the TV commentator said that VAR was stressing something about Mount having tugged at Walker's shirt - which was absolutely irrelevant to the issue in question; whatever else was going on in their little tussle, the final contact from Walker was not significant, not culpable, initiated by the attacking player). I would prefer to put up with the occasional wrong decision than regularly suffer such a pointless 5-minute hold-up in play.

United's opener was a huge stroke of good fortune, with a rebound off the crossbar cannoning into the goal off the shoulder of a Burnley defender. To add insult to injury, Lyle Foster's second equaliser was ruled out for a paper-thin offside - and yet again there was a yawning delay in the decision being given (if it takes a couple of minutes to produce the CG rendering of the incident, the 'semi-automated' system is not yet fit for use); and even worse, the graphic eventually produced did not clearly show that he was offside - for some bizarre reason, the decisive 'line' had been drawn on the defender's arm (and near the point of his elbow, not on the 't-shirt line' in the middle of the upper arm, a crucial extra inch or two nearer to the goal-line), when it really looked as if the relative position of the two players' toes ought to be definitive; and there was no further form of highlighting to demonstrate the attacker's point-furthest-forward, and the parallax on the view provided was so extreme that one really couldn't tell which player was nearer the goal-line. I've often said that we really don't want to see goals ruled out for such insubstantial margins anyway; but if it is going to happen, we need much more clearcut evidence from the assisting technology. Fortunately, Burnley did almost immediately get their deserved equaliser in a goal-mouth scramble. And then the match really might have swung either way during a frenetic last half-hour, but Burnley were defending steadfastly, and looked well worth a draw at least. It was a cruel, cruel blow that United were awarded a penalty deep into added-on time (after another HUGE delay for the VAR inervention, which resulted in the stoppages ultimately running to 12 minutes, rather than the originally scheduled 5...); and this time, Bruno didn't miss! My gripe with this one was that Barrott, plainly floundering under the pressure of having to publicly explain his reasoning, completely flubbed it: the crucial issue in this instance was where the decisive shirt-pulling had occurred (and, since it had clearly started well outside the area, and Anthony had released his grip as his hand crossed the edge of the area, for me the 'decisive moment' of the foul was clearly outside the area), but the poor ref didn't comment on this at all; it appeared that the VAR team's instruction to review had prejudiced him into assuming that there clearly was a foul (there was) and it clearly was inside the area (it wasn't). Very entertaining game; but a complete shit-show from start-to-finish on every aspect of the officiating - and thus getting us up to a very high 'Luck-o-Meter' score for the week all on its own. And then on top of everything else, Matheus Cunha (more than 8% ownership in FPL) became the latest victim of a muscle strain, having to retire quite early in the first half. (Mason Mount's withdrawal at half-time was presumably also down to a fitness issue, but there doesn't seem to have been any news on this yet.)

Sunderland are looking like the best organised and best balanced of this year's promoted sides, and are perhaps also the ones who are getting the biggest lift from their home fans. Their surprise winner late in added-on time will be a huge psychological boost in the early part of their campaign for survival. Brentford have only themselves to blame, having been unable to convert their massive dominance of possession into many clearcut chances. If Dango Ouattara's early breakaway goal had not been ruled out for a very marginal offside (another one that appeared to have been decided - not very convincingly - on where the 'lines' were drawn on the attacker's and defender's arms, rather than their feet or torsos...), things might have been different. I also wonder if they were at a disadvantage having to face a side playing in their usual strip,... and having to suffer a change strip in a sort of muddy monkey-shit-brown that blended into pitch and crowd, making them almost invisible to each other. The game was also marred by Anthony Taylor giving two penalties for very, very minor bits of wrestling-at-set-pieces (at least he balanced it up by awarding one to each side; and one wonders if there was a sort of 'cascade effect' at play here: he'd ignored a much more substantial incident of a similar type earlier in the first half, which may have prejudiced him towards being a little more amenable in considering Brentford's second appeal; but then perhaps realising what a soft, dubious call that had been, he didn't feel able to turn down a very similar shout from the home side.... and on all three, VAR seemingly just sat on its hands, didn't want to say anything; to my mind, the contact in all three instances was fairly minimal, indecisve, and the final falling-to-the-ground was either a tripping-over-their-own-feet or a deliberate dive). And this week's surprise penalty taker, Kevin Schade, completely flubbed his effort for Brentford, giving Sunderland keeper Roefs a huge boost to his FPL points (though I don't suppose very many people even own him, and even fewer will have started him).

Spurs, like Chelsea, really seem to struggle for any consistency. After last week's impressive dismantling of Manchester City, they completely failed to show up against Bournemouth (until a late rally in the last 25 minutes or so). They really didn't look like the home side, as Bournemouth completely dominated, and made chance after chance; the visitors deserved to win by a lot more than just the one goal, but Vicario pulled off a few sharp saves. There was one minor controversy when Kudus kicked Senesi in the penalty area, but they were both stretching their feet towards a high ball, and the contact didn't look very substantial.

Wolves, even without the injured Strand Larsen, looked much improved over their feeble performances in the opening two weeks, and made a good fight of it - but they were unfortunate to come up against an Everton side in such ebullient form. In FPL-land, it's now becoming difficult to decide who you want from the Everton midfield: Ndiaye, Grealish, or Dewsbury-Hall (maybe more than one of them...)? Mercifully, this was the only Saturday game completely free of any controversy or cock-up in the refereeing.

Well, at least until the late kick-off between Leeds and Newcastle, which was such an astonishingly dull and dour encounter that it really failed to produce any memorable incidents at all. Eddie Howe, bizarrely, opted to switch to five-at-the-back (perhaps because he didn't have enough forward players available? Elanga and Barnes were both strangely omitted.....).

Pep made five changes to last week's City line-up, but it didn't make them any better. Although there wasn't much in it in a stodgy first-half, Brighton brought much more energy to the second-half, and increasingly got on top of the fixture - their win ultimately well deserved: Minteh and Mitoma had decent efforts, and Trafford did well to claw away a hooked close-range effort from Van Hecke in the second-half. They were, in fact, unlucky not to have gone in front in the first-half, when a lone breakaway by Diego Gomez was chalked off for a very soft foul on Khusanov (he put his hands briefly on the defender's shoulder, which he should not have done; but it was brief, had no force in it, was no sort of 'pull'; Khusanov, in front at that point, but realising he was going to be done for pace, just threw himself on the floor when he felt the contact - I don't like to see those given). Astoundingly, Erling Haaland received the 3 bonus points in this game. With City not even finishing as the winning side, two other - 'decisive' - goals in the game, three assists, and Rodri and Minteh(!!) earning 'defensive points', it was scarcely credible that the lanky Viking deserved even 1 bonus point, let alone the maximum. As I say so often, BPS is broken. But even with that deeply flawed system of calculation, it is impossible to see how Haaland ended up anywhere near the top of the ranking in this game. I really worry that FPL is just manipulating the bonus points awards to pander to the largest user constituencies - nearly a third of teams include Haaland at the moment. Many of them had made him captain; so, a huge number of managers this week got a completely unearned, undeserved boost of 2-6 points! Ain't no justice.

The biggest 'upset' of the weekend occurred at Nottingham Forest's City Ground. The home side were comfortably in control in the first-half, but were well off their best, struggling to create many chances. West Ham started coming at them more in the second-half, and looked a lot more dangerous after the introduction of the lively Callum Wilson. But West Ham's three very late goals, while they weren't against the run of play in that phase of the game, weren't at all expected or deserved on the overall balance of play; a fairly gentle shot from the edge of the area by Bowen, that the usually immaculate Sels seemed to misjudge, was slow getting across to; a very soft penalty award (yes, Sangare flicked his leg out, but there was barely any contact, Summerville just dived), and then a last-gasp breakaway by Diouf down the left-flank. The many, many FPL managers who had banked on a 'safe' clean sheet from Forest keeper or defenders (or perhaps a goal from Wood or Ndoye) were sorely disappointed; those who had recently given up hope on West Ham and sold Bowen or Paqueta were vexed. But the biggest frustration of the game was that the all-action Elliot Anderson (deservedly getting an England call-up this week) allegedly came up one 'contribution' short of earning the new 'defensive points' for the third successive gameweek. I don't think so. We really need some explication from FPL as to how these 'defensive contributions' are being defined and counted.

Liverpool v Arsenal was, predictably enough, a cagey tactical encounter, with both defences in the ascendance. Arsenal were relying desperately on their set-piece routines, but the Liverpool back-line was not bothered by these shenanigans. Liverpool got on top in the second half; they still weren't able to create many chances, but getting in front through Szoboszlai's stunning free-kick seemed well-deserved on the balance of play. (Raya looked perhaps very slightly slow to get across to it, taking an extra step to adjust his position before jumping; and he'd been lucky earlier not to concede a penalty in bundling over Gakpo, who turned out to have been offside when reacting to Wirtz's parried shot.) Eze and Odegaard didn't appear until the last 20 minutes, and failed to have any impact. The game was too uneventful to generate any refereeing controversies. The main point of interest for FPL was another slew of muscle injuries: Saliba withdrawing after just a few minutes, Konate late in the second half, and, apparently, Timber also in trouble at the end of the game.

While Manchester United's and West Ham's penalties were merely dubious, Villa goalkeeper Bizot's 'foul' on Kamada to give Palace their opener from the spot was plainly illusory; the keeper shouldn't have risked making a trip with his arms like that, but the Palace man plainly skipped over him without any contact being made - why did VAR not intervene on this??  Just crazy!  Injustices like this always rankle; but at least this one couldn't be said to have had any real impact on the ultimate course of the game, since Villa just didn't show up at all (only managing a couple of isolated efforts on goal in the entire match, and, really, barely getting a meaningful kick of the ball), allowing their visitors to cruise to a comfortable, unopposed win. Yet another muscle injury too, with Adam Wharton limping off in this one (not widely owned in FPL, but a further warning to us about how elevated is the incidence of such problems early in the season).

The tallying of 'defensive contributions' for potential extra points this year will continue to add to the sense of confusion and injustice we almost invariably feel about the bonus point allocations. And I'm still concerned about the often awkwardly long delays in deciding offside calls, and an ongoing general lack of transparency about how VAR is operating. There were unexpectedly poor performances this week from Spurs, Newcastle, Forest, Brentford, Arsenal, and Chelsea - though Chelsea got away with it (I wouldn't count the poor performances from City and United and Villa as 'unexpected'!). And the 'Team of the Week' is particularly left-field this time, with only 3 or 4 players that anybody would have owned. With a slew of injuries, massive VAR delays and endless periods of added-on time and a few very late goals, some ridiculously tight offside calls, yet another badly missed penalty, at least a couple of slightly dodgy penalty awards and numerous other controversial (though mostly correct) refereeing decisions, and the utterly mystifying award of maximum bonus points to Haaland, I think it has to be at least an 8 out of 10 on the 'Luck-o-Meter' this week.

Dilemmas of the Week - Gameweek 3 (25/26)

 

Well, it didn't take long for us to start getting a mini-flood of irksome injuries, to add to all the other early season uncertainties of flakey form, less-than-100% fitness, and erratic team selection.

I'm trying to streamline these weekly round-ups a bit from last year, restricting myself for the most part to just the injuries etc. affecting players that are likely to have a major significance in FPL; and also, of course, only to new injuries - I figure everyone should be aware of players who've already been ruled out for some time!  

[For some years, I have found the 'Injuries & Bans' summary on Fantasy Football Scout the most reliable resource for this kind of information; although this site, Premier League Injuries, is a very good alternative (often a little quicker to update, I think - though it did go through a bit of a glitchy period for a while last year).  Go check these out for more comprehensive coverage. 

I see the Fantasy Premier League site has added an improved 'Player Availability' page this year (though hidden under 'The Scout' tab?!). That also seems to be reasonably comprehensive and up-to-date, but god knows how it's supposed to be 'organised' - maybe by 'date of injury'? Obviously, arranging it by club and alphabetical order would be more sensible; but the denizens of FPL Towers seem to have a deep aversion to the sensible.]

So, what are the conundrums we face ahead of Gameweek 3 of the new season?

Does anybody need to be moved out because of injury?

The biggest blow in FPL last week was highest-owned player Cole Palmer dropping out minutes before the kick-off after feeling soreness in his groin during the warm-up (a problem that he'd apparently been troubled by all week, and may have inhibited his performance in the opening gameweek). Apparently, it's 'not too serious', but we haven't heard any further details during the week. It seems unlikely he'll be risked this weekend, although he might still appear on the bench; and there appears to be no danger that he won't be back for Gameweek 4 after the international break - so, we ought to be able to carry him on our benches for one week.

Martin Odegaard and Bukayo Saka also had to come off in last week's match, just either side of half-time, with a shoulder injury and a hamstring strain respectively. Again, neither said to be too serious: Odegaard might be available this weekend, but Saka will probably have to rest up until mid- or late-September. (Though not that many people had either of them yet anyway, as Arsenal have a rather tough early fixture-run this year.)  There hasn't been any news on Ben White's injury status either; but again, his problem was not announced to be anything significant, so there must be some chance that he will reappear again for the Liverpool game; FPL managers who've rushed in for Jurrien Timber on the back of his best-of-the-week haul out of nowhere last weekend, may be dismayed to find that he's currently only 2nd choice, behind White, at right-back, and 2nd choice, behind Calafiori, at left-back....

Georginho Rutter is still a doubt for Brighton too (though I don't suppose many will fancy starting any of their players against City; although that, I think, might be a mistake - they are the sort of side that can cause a few upsets, and City's defence is still looking rocky).

Fulham's Harry Wilson is likely to be out, after picking up a painful knock on the foot in the League Cup in midweek. (This might mean a first start for Emile Smith Rowe, although he still looks a long way off full fitness; maybe Adama Traore will get the nod instead? We probably don't fancy any of their players this week for a West London derby, though....)

Alexis Macallister has been back in training this week, after missing last week's game against Newcastle with a knock - should be OK to start.

Rayan Ait-Nouri limped off in the first half against Spurs last week with an apparent hamstring problem, but has apparently been deemed fit enough to be called up for the Moroccan national squad - so, might be able to make an appearance at Brighton this weekend?

Newcastle were in the wars in their epic Monday night game: in addition to Gordon's sending off, they suffered injuries to Fabian Schar (knock to the head), Sandro Tonali (shoulder), and Joelinton (thigh strain - again). Schar, surprisingly, seems to have passed 'concussion protocols' and is looking likely to start; Tonali is a 50/50 (nothing serious, but still in quite a lot of discomfort); Joelinton will probably be missing for at least a month (which will probably create an opening for new signing Jacob Ramsey to get a start).

Sunderland's Dan Ballard, whose ownership had surged up to 7% after his improbably huge haul in Gameweek 1, picked up a groin strain in the League Cup this week, and looks set to be out for a little while.

Jorgen Strand Larsen is now apparently a doubtful starter for Wolves, because of a sore Achilles - but one wonders if that is just cover for an ongoing transfer discussion....

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

Bournemouth right-back Julian Araujo is suspended for one game after picking up 2 yellow cards in the League Cup tie on Wednesday.

And Anthony Gordon is beginning a three-game ban for what was deemed a 'serious foul play' challenge on Virgil Van Dijk in Monday night's game.

Alexander Isak and Yoane Wissa are still excluded from consideration at their current clubs, because of anticipated imminent transfer moves.

Ebere Eze would probably not have been fancied to start immediately for Arsenal on Sunday, having only had a week to train with his new teammates. The injuries to Odegaard and Saka perhaps make it more probable that he will be rushed into service straight away, but.... Arteta is such a detail-oriented coach that I doubt he will feel satisfied that Eze has sufficiently internalised his ideas by this weekend (and perhaps not even after the international break...!); and for such a huge fixture, an early potential 'title decider' at Anfield, I very much doubt if he'll get more than minutes off the bench.

Did anyone give other cause to consider dropping them?

The whole Crystal Palace team, having come through another tough preliminary tie in the Europa Conference League on Thursday night, are likely to be a bit leggy for their visit to Villa on Sunday evening - and no doubt reeling from the loss of their most creative player (plus, they still have rumours of an imminent move away for their captain and defensive lynchpin, Marc Guehi, hanging over them). So, although, on recent form, they look like they should comfortably have the beating of floundering Villa, I wouldn't be betting on any of their players this weekend.

Although Burnley look like they should be a fairly easy opponent for Manchester United at Old Trafford today, the humiliation of their League Cup defeat (where they just didn't put up much of a fight for most of the game, allowing themselves to be comprehensively outplayed by a much better organised and more committed fourth-tier opponent), and the intensified speculation over Amorim's possible imminent removal (I think he has to go, as soon as possible; but it might be difficult to find a replacement), mean that it's suddenly a bit of a risky punt even to stick with United players you may already have (Cunha or Mbeumo, and - less justifiably - Bruno Fernandes, have been very popular picks so far), let alone bring in any new ones for this fixture. Burnley, in fact, are probably now favourites to at least claim a draw... and might be able to sneak a win.

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

Well, it's encouraging - in the short-term, at least - that Joao Pedro seems to thrive in the No. 10 role even more than as an outright forward. And Jack Grealish made a very encouraging start for Everton. Iliman Ndiaye, Dan Ndoye, and Marcus Tavernier looked very good for a second successive game, and should also be competing for attention as fifth-seat midfielders.

Arsenal fans are getting terribly excited about big returns from Timber and Calafiori (calm down - it was only against Leeds!); but neither of them can yet be regarded as nailed starters, and the Gunners face probably their toughest fixture-run of the whole season over the next four games. Similarly, I wouldn't yet be too optimistic about the prospects for Gyokeres (nice that he's got off the mark; but it was only against Leeds!), or Eze (how often will he start, or how prominent a creative force will he be even if he does start regularly - when Saka and Odegaard are also playing?).

BEST OF LUCK, EVERYONE!

Counting down

 

The Summer Transfer Window drags on just that little bit longer this year. It's closing at 7pm on Monday 1st September, UK time - rather than the more traditional midnight on the 31st August (apparently because the 31st is a Sunday?). So, we have just about 75 more hours of suffering to endure.....

It seems to have been a particularly busy - and particularly acrimonious - spell of transfer activity this year, with 99 deals already concluded (according to Fantasy Football Scout's roundup), and Stuttgart striker Nick Woltemade today apparently set to become the 100th, when his move to Newcastle is confirmed. (Who?? Yeah, not the biggest blip on the 'Top European Forwards' Radar....)

Now, if that Woltemade signing goes through, the door could be open for Isak to finally complete his contentious move to Liverpool. (I really hope that doesn't go ahead. They're only buying him because he's available, and they can afford him, and he seems like too good an opportunity to pass up; but they don't need him - at the moment, I think they'd be better off without him...)  And if that happens, the thus-far brilliant Ekitike might get dropped to make room for him; and indeed, Gakpo might find himself suddenly minutes-sharing too. So, this one superficially unexciting piece of transfer activity could have massive repercussions for FPL.

Likewise, two more of last year's highest-scoring forwards in FPL, Watkins and Wissa, are still looking for a move, which might come to pass over the final few days of the window. And if that should happen, and they move to another Premier League club rather than leaving the country, that might greatly enhance their perceived value in FPL. But it might also gravely undermine the value of all of their former teammates at the clubs they've left without a top striker,.... unless they can obtain a top replacement at the last minute. Jorgen Strand Larsen might also become a much more attractive FPL property if he gets a move to a better club (and Wolves might be even deeper in the toilet...). And Xavi Simons's move to Spurs might actually become one of the most influential acquisitions of the window.  So much could still surprise and confound us over the next few days.

Perhaps we'll have a quiet weekend, and Woltemade will be the last deal concluded. But, typically, there's a huge last-minute rush in the final few hours of a window. With the best part of a whole extra day available this year, the possibilities for further business are enormous.

I wouldn't be going anywhere near a Wildcard until all the dust has settled from this frenzy of club-swapping and squad-strengthening. Indeed, I wouldn't want to be going anywhere near one until at least the end of September, by which time we'll have had a few weeks to observe new club line-ups in action, and form starting to develop...  At present, we really don't have much idea at all what the new season is going to look like. And any changes we make to our FPL teams now are likely to be rendered irrelevant within the next month or so.

A little bit of Zen (57)

"Congratulate yourself when you have done something strange or extravagant, and broken the monotony of a decorous world."

Ralph Waldo Emerson

I've always liked to challenge stuffy conventions and unexamined 'truths', to do things that are bold and unsettling and out of the ordinary. Emerson, it seems, was a man after my own heart. (There aren't too many.....)