Luck-o-Meter - 25-26 Gameweek 4

  

Well, I said yesterday that the week after an international break is always full of surprises, mostly unpleasant; and this is certainly looking like it might be a weekend of oddities - though mostly, perhaps, dull rather than exciting ones. It migth turn out to be one of those rare gameweeks where it would actually have been worth fielding 4 or 5 defenders (if you have the right defenders!), as the first 6 games on Saturday saw only 8 goals - and a remarkable 7 clean sheets! And damn, ultimately only 19 goals from the 10 matches, and 10 clean sheets - one of the lowest-scoring weekends of the Premier League era.

With so little incident of any kind in most of the games, at least the officials haven't been having much opportunity to embarrass themselves: there have been quite a few bad decisions (Simon Hooper once again leading the charge to be crowned 'Worst Referee of the Year'!), but few of them on 'major incidents'.

The ease of Arsenal's win at The Emirates was a little bit of a turn-up. Still without Saka and Saliba, and losing Odegaard again to another injury quite early on, they might have been expected to be given a bit of a test by the very strong Forest side. But the visitors - although still apparently playing in their former system, rather than trying immediately to adapt to Ange-ball - were miles off their usual best, and created very little threat. Nevertheless, the final scoreline was flattering to Arsenal. Eze had looked narrowly but clearly offiside when breaking down the flank to set up the crucial second goal straight after half-time - but was apparently judged by VAR to have been on, by a matter of only millimetres. (And yet again, on the live TV coverage, the definitive computer graphic of the incident was not shared until 7 minutes later! These really ought to be screened immediately; and if that's not possible, this 'semi-automated' technology isn't ready for use yet. There were further question-marks about this call: first, because the freeze-frame chosen for the adjudication was nothing like what the 'naked eye' impression of the incident had been - and thus I have doubts about how reliable the system's timing may be [supposedly determined by an impact sensor inside the ball?]; second, because the margin was so vanishingly narrow that it appeared to depend on where the 'decision line' was drawn on the last defender's sleeve - which raises concerns about the current definition of handball, and also about whether the placing of these lines for offside determinations is done manually or by AI. In general, I favour allowing the attacking team a generous benefit of the doubt, and I don't like to see forwards being called offside for tiny margins. But that's not the system we have at the moment: and under that system,... this called looked wrong.)  And in the closing phase of the game, Elliott Anderson was called back for a non-existent foul was he was breaking clean through on goal 25 yards out. Admittedly, Anderson isn't a guy you'd absolutely rely on to convert a chance like that, and I think they were already 3 down by that point - but it might at least have provided a not undeserved consolation in the game. If one or two things had broken for them earlier on, the momentum could even have swung against Arsenal: early in the second half, they hit the underside of the bar with a looping effort - somewhat fortuiously, as Wood reflexively threw his chest at an unexpected chipped cross from Ndoye out on the right; but it was the one time in the game tha Raya was beaten all ends up, and it was a fraction of an inch from giving them a foothold in the game. This was a major step up for Arsenal from their performances in the first three games, but still hardly stellar; their opponents on his occasion were really rather poor. It's also a measure of how freakish this game was in many respects that one of the shortest players on the pitch nabbed a goal with a header (even he looked surprised; I assume this is the first headed goal he's ever scored!), completing an unlikely brace - that's as many goals as he usually gets in a season!! Strange days, indeed.

Crystal Palace, without Eze, Sarr, or Wharton, predictably failed to create very much, and visitors Sunderland acually looked the bettter side for much of the game, especially in the first-half. Newcomer Yeremy Pino, on his debut, rolled his effort just wide of the post when put in behind early on; but Palace didn't threaten again until they really started pushing for a result in the last 20 minutes or so - during which Sunderland keeper Robin Roefs produced a string of excellent saves to deny them. With Sunderland showing such promising defensive form, Roefs - currently owned only by 1.6%, and probably not regarded as a likely starter by any of those - is starting to look a tempting cheap pick. Glasner felt he should have had a late penalty, but it was obviously an accidental clash: the defender simply hanging his foot up to try to block an attempt to cross the ball and Uche kicking into it with his follow-through.

Everton absolutely dominated Villa, but just couldn't find a way through their packed defence. Their best effort, Keane's flashing header from a Grealish cross was defiantly clawed over the bar by Emi Martinez. Grealish had a good early effort saved too, Beto missed an open goal from a Jake O'Brien cross at the start of the second-half, and Keane put another strong header wide in added-on time; the home side really should have run out very comfortable winners here. It was hard to notice that Ollie Watkins was on the pitch - but that's not really his fault, when there is such a total lack of progression of the ball through the midfield; Villa are now in very deep trouble. (I'd had hopes that Harvey Elliott could turn hings around for them; but he only came on for the last 20 minutes or so here, and wasn't able to get into the game.)  The major controversy/irritation in this game is again the travesty of the BPS; it's so heavily biased in favour of game events which already directly earn points (though it doesn't take much account of the new 'defensive contributions': we are seeing many players who earn extra points under that metric get no love at all in the bonus points allocation) that when a game ends goalless, there's no way anyone other than defenders are getting the extra points. Even though every neutral observer here would have nominated Grealish or Ndiaye way out in front as 'Man of the Match', neither of them figured among the top ten under the BPS ratings! BPS is broken.

A mostly very drab game between Fulham and Leeds (quite possibly an early relegation six-pointer) livened up as the home side began to push harder in the last third of the game, and particularly when new Brazilian left-winger Kevin came on for the final 20 minutes. Prior to that, Darlow's smart save from a fierce Harry Wilson free-kick had been the only fleeting moment of excitement. Kevin also brought a fine finger-tip save from Darlow with a dipping shot from the edge of the box. But it took an own-goal, with Gudmundsson bizarrely heading a corner into his own net - under no pressure, deep into added-on time, from 10 yards out! - to give Fulham a win they hadn't really earned. Gudmundsson is actually one of the most popular cheap defender picks, with an ownership of around 5%; if any of them started him this week, they're going to be feeling particularly abused by Cruel Fate.

The south coast derby between Bournemouth and Brighton was a tight and entertaining game. Brighton were unfortunate to lose both Hinshelwood and De Cuyper early on to injury (and Semenyo should have been booked for the niggly shove on the Belgian left-back that sent him sliding into the advertising hoardings and suffering a heavy blow to his left knee; in fact, the way he was putting himself about in this game, Semenyo was lucky not to pick up two cards and get sent off - perhaps before he had the chance to put Bournemouth back in front with his spot-kick), and then to concede a second goal from a penalty when they were dominating the game. The big surprise in the game, though, was that Kaoru Mitoma scored with a header - when was the last time that happened??

Brentford v Chelsea was the most entertaining of Saturday's encounters, with some thrilling end to end play - though both sides' finishing looked likely to let them down. Chelsea gradually got more and more on top of the game, especially after beginning to introduce reinforcements at the break. Palmer took barely 5 minutes after his introduction early in the second half to register his first goal of the season (and nearly grabbed a second not long after, but was thwarted by a smart stop from Kelleher), and then a pinger from Caicedo seemed to have made the points safe. But then the visiting side gave up a late, late equaliser to a long-throw routine.... because, surprise, surprise, Garnacho couldn't be bothered to do his marking job at the far post (I think that might be the last we see of him for a while). No refereeing controversies in this one; but Damsgaard's late withdrawal due to illness was a blow to some FPL managers, as was the initial omission by Maresca of Cucurella and James (presumably to save their legs for the Munich game on Wednesday; bringing them on in the second half only made things worse for FPL managers, who might have been beginning to eye some decent points on the bench that might be subbed in). The real revelation in this one for me, though, was Brentford forward, Igor Thiago, who had a superb game, and is really starting to look like one of the most tempting budget options up front.

Newcastle v Wolves was the weekend's most exciting game, with plenty of lively attacking play from both sides - although not many clearcut chances to show for it. Newcastle probably should have had a penalty - or at least had the incident properly reviewed by VAR, which appeared not to happen - in the first-half when Mosquera barged Barnes to the floor, and threw his elbow across the side of the forward's neck, right on the edge of the box; very unclear where the key point of contact occurred, but it was certainly a foul - and even that was not given. New boy Woltemade got off the mark with an imperious header, and Tonali nearly doubled the lead a little later when a low drive from 23 yards out cannoned off the base of the right post. In the last half-hour, Wolves were hanging on by their fingernails; but things might have turned out differently for them if they'd been able to capitalise on their bright opening - Rodrigo Gomes, in fact, came within a whisker of scoring an opening goal just seconds after the kick-off. Jose Sa was another last-minute withdrawal due to illness (is Covid circulating again already?), but only 1.7% of FPL managers will have been affected by that; and many of those probably weren't starting him. Less than 0.1% own his replacement Sam Johnstone, who picked up a few saves for a decent 3 points. Vitor Perreira may have had a point in complaining after the game that his team were handicapped by having three of his team shown soft yellow cards in the opening minutes (two of the penalised incidents, in fact, weren't even fouls).

The first half of West Ham v Spurs was so dull that I gave up on the game and went to bed at half-time (late, where I am!). The only first-half incident of note was Romero's early headed goal from a corner being promptly disallowed for a supposed foul on a defender. Admittedly, Romero had put both is hands on Walker-Peters's lower arm, giving him a gentle tug; but the guy had essentially lost balance and tripped over his own feet - Romero's holding was brief and minimal, and not the sort of thing we'd ever have seen penalised in the past. (And if it was Van de Ven being penalised for barging Walker-Peters from behind, that was entirely accidental, and triggered by Van de Ven himself having been shoved in the back by Mateus Fernandes....) This is probably the sole instance this week of a goal arguably wrongly disallowed. Shorly afterwards, Van de Van was blatantly bundled to the ground at a corner, but both the referee, Jarred Gillett, and his VAR team somehow missed a clearcut penalty. Spurs started the second half with much more intent, and West Ham were beginning to crumble even before Soucek's clumsy challenge on Palhinha got him sent off (no arguments about that call: he slashed the guy's sock open at the top of the shin!).

And well, wel, welll - Super Mo continues to come up with a late, late goal (being on penalties is a great help in this case!), despite being fairly little involved in the game. It was a hard blow for Scott Parker's Burnley, who'd done enough to earn the draw: well-organised and combative, they had thwarted Liverpool impressively for well over 90 minutes. It would be unfair to call this another bore-draw, as there was quite a lot of entertaining football in it; But Liverpool just weren't able to find a way through the home side's resolute low block, and there were few major chances: a good effort from distance from Szoboszlai well parried by Dubravka, and then Chiesa getting a free header moments after coming on 20 minutes from the end, but being unable to control the direction of his glancing effort from Gakpo's pacey cross. In fact, Burnley themselves several times caused consternation wih rapid breaks, but didn't have the quality to make anything of any of them. And they were rather lucky to have played most of the match with a full side, because Ugochukwu's horrendous foul on Macallister early on really looked like a sraight red offence (foot high, studs raised, sliding through uncontrolled to make contact above the ankle; could have been a leg-breaker if Macallister's leg had been planted; even so, his toe studs caught in the turf as he tried to lift his foot out of the way and he got his ankle turned over badly - and had to come off at half-time; presumably the referee and VAR deemed the challenge not quite 'violent' enough,... but that was probably the worst call of the weekend so far); he did eventually get sent off, for a second yellow card late in the game - but the match oucome would probably have been very different if he'd been dismissed for that first foul early on. And Arne Slot once again displayed his ruthlessness - and his utter unconcern for FPL managers - in choosing to swap out Milos Kerkez for Andy Robertson after just 37 minutes. You have to be very, very wary in choosing Liverpool players this season; like Pep's City, they are becoming very much at risk of unexpected rotations or early withdrawals. [Isak didn't even make the bench for this one - which should have been no surprise. But an awful lot of over-optimistic FPL managers have owned him since the start of the season, in anticipation of a Liverpool move; and many more piled in for him as soon as the transfer finally went through - although it was very obvious that he would be way off the necessary 'match-fitness' level to be considered for an immediate start. Indeed, just a few days ago Slot affirmed that he might still be weeks away from being able to play a full 90 minutes. More than 10% of managers are carrying him as dead weight on their bench.]

Manchester United, who often manage to rouse themselves to coherence and efficacy for big games, were once again at sixes-and-sevens at the Etihad for the weekend's final game, and might easily have taken a much harder beating (Haaland and Reijnders missing two of the easiest chances of the game). Yoro and Mbeumo were the only bright spots for the visitors, the latter producing their only two moments of real danger - a sweet left-foot volleyed cross-shot which Stretch Armstrong somehow managed to keep out, and a low driven cross from Diallo which cannoned off Mbeumo's shins, going just the wrong side of the near post. It was nice to see Phil Foden return with a lively performance and a goal. And Haaland is looking in very dangerous form; he might easily have had a hattrick here (poking a cross-shot against the inside of the far post, after he'd beaten the keeper). However, there is again just a slight nagging doubt about the officiating on his second goal - a rare instance where the 'decision line' for the offside call is not the last defender (because the whole United team had pushed so far into the opposition half) but the half-way line. Instances like these are very hard to judge with the naked eye, but Haaland looked as if he might have been offside: he was certainly well in the opposition half when he received the ball, and looked to be at least 3 or 4 yards beyond the half-way line when we first saw the ball on its way to him; the actual moment of release from Bernardo Silva's foot was half a second or so earlier, and Haaland appeared to be just crossing the line. Probably he was onside, but it must have been pretty close - and yet again, we were not shown the justificatory graphic to allay our concerns.

The 'global average' has ended up being a surprisingly high 63 points, despite the scarcity of goals this week - presumably driven by a lot of people being on Haaland with his brace, and probably a lot of people also blowing bonus chips again. There's obviously something particularly odd about this gameweek, because almost everyone in my mini-leagues, and most of the best managers that I keep a regular eye on, are below that average this week; some of them, well below! What gives??

The tallying of 'defensive contributions' for potential extra points this year continues 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 the frequent failure to share - promptly or at all - the CG picture of the crucial decision-frame), and an ongoing general lack of transparency about how VAR is operating. We've seen probably at least a couple of penalties overlooked this week, the Romero goal harshly disallowed, a straight red card not given to Ugochukwu, and two perhaps dubious non-offside calls (possibly in fact correct decisions; but they must have been quite tight - and we weren't shown the justificatory graphics). The 'Team of the Week' is another oddball miscellany, with Haaland the only player that's very widely owned,, and Semenyo (lucky penalty!), Van de Ven (rare goal!), and Romero (assist, and random max bonus points award!!) being the only other justifiable picks; even Salah got edged out by improbable haulers like Foden, Bergvall, Caicedo, and.... Zubimendi! The refereeing has been - by the miserable standards we've come to expect - acually pretty uncontentious this week. Though some last-minute withdrawals from starting lineups, and the very low number of goals add to he 'luck' factor, I think it's only a 5 out of 10 on the 'Luck-o-Meter' this week.

Dilemmas of the Week - Gameweek 4 (25/26)

  

Gameweek 3 (seems a long time ago now, doesn't it?) saw quite a few irksome new injuries, to add to all the other early-season uncertainties of flakey form, less-than-100% fitness, and erratic team selection that so plague us early in the season. Now, we've got to face the further imponderables of possibly disrupted line-ups and evolving tactics because of the flood of new transfers this year. Many players returning from international duty may be a little fatigued, or carrying slight knocks - yet will still turn out for their club this weekend, despite being far below their best. And, of course, there's the perennial hazard in these fixtures that many of the South American players will be rested simply because they've had such a long flight back only a couple of days before the next fixture. Plus, of course, the usual pattern of regular team training and tactical preparation has been interrupted by the two-week international break, so any form we may have thought we'd seen emerging in the opening weeks is now out of the window - and we're effectively starting the season again from scratch. And yet.... some people (rather a lot, by the look of it!) are still playing their Wildcard this week!!!  (Others, even more daft, are tossing away their Free Hit - in what is probably one of the most flakey, topsy-turvy, unpredictable weekends of the whole season - when we just don't have any confidence in exactly who's going to start, let alone who's going to play well.)

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 4 of the new season?

Does anybody need to be moved out because of injury?

William Saliba, who had appeared to pick up a hamstring problem early in the last league game against Liverpool, was apparently just feeling too much discomfort in the ankle he'd sprained slightly in the warm-up (is deliberate misdirection on injuries via play-acting also part of Arteta's policy now?); he has done some training since, and might be straight back in this week. Martin Odegaard should definitely be back, after good performances with Norway this week. Ben White also appears to be fit again; although Jurrien Timber has done so well in his absence that he might not immediately get the start back.

Adam Smith, who'd been looking so good at right-back for Bournemouth so far this season, did pick up a hamstring problem in the last game and will be out for some weeks. That is starting to leave Bournemouth stretched a bit thin at the back, and probably undermines the team's prospects in the next few fixtures.

Liam Delap also pulled a hamstring last time out against Fulham (muscle injuries are especially common early in the season, when players are pushing themselves a bit too hard when not quite fully fit), and is expected to be out for at least 10-12 weeks. Tyrique George or Marc Guiu (hastily recalled from loan at Sunderland) might deputise for him - providing the opportunity of a very cheap starting option for the third forward slot. In brighter news, Cole Palmer rejoined training with Chelsea on Thursday on Friday, and Maresa will make a last-minute decision whether he can be used for the game against Brentford; I'd guess he'll at least get some minutes off the bench.

Adam Wharton (apparently a recurrence of the earlier problem he'd only just recovered from) and Ismaila Sarr also had to withdraw with muscle injuries in the match against Villa - though neither are apparently too serious, and it is hoped they might be back before the end of the month.

Vitaliy Mykolenko, only just back from a lengthy absence, picked up a knock while training with Ukraine and is now a doubt again. So too is talismanic attacker Iliman Ndiaye, who suffered a knock while away with Senegal and will now face a late fitness test.

Leeds's Brazilian goalkeeper, Lucas Perri, has pulled a thigh muscle, and is expected to miss the next two weeks. Karl Darlow will deputise: another 4.0-million starter in that position - although those who've gone for the option of a cheap-but-largely-worthless second keeper are probably more than happy with Martin Dubravka. Forward Joel Piroe is doubtful with a slight calf strain - although it seemed his start might be at risk from Dominic Calvert-Lewin anyway.

Curtis Jones is out for this week, at least, having picked up some sort of knock in the match against Arsenal.

Omar Marmoush injured his knee playing for Egypt this week; it doesn't seem too bad, but no definite word on a recovery timeline yet. John Stones also pulled out of the England squad with a knock - though this might have been just one of those 'avoiding international duty' scams. And Rayan Ait-Nouri has an ankle injury from the Brighton game, is likely to be out for 5 or 6 weeks. With Kovacic and Cherki out fairly long-term, and Gvardiol, Foden, and Savinho only just returning to fitness, City are looking stretched a bit thin: there is even talk of Gundogan getting a start in midfield again - which would, I think, be potentially disastrous, even against such a floundering side as Manchester United.

Matheus Cunha had to come off in the first-half against Burnley with a pulled hamstring that looked quite serious. And Mason Mount withdrew at half-time, apparently with a recurrence of his previous long-term injury - so he might also be out for quite a while. Diogo Dalot pulled a muscle in training with Portugal, so will also be missing for a week or two, Paradoxically, I think the combined effect of these absences might actually be positive. Sesko (who has been a doubt for match-fitness, but just managed two full games for Slovenia, so ought to be OK to at least start) could finally slot into the No. 9 role (which neither Cunha nor Mbeumo like or thrive in), Bruno Fernandes will presumably have to take over the 'joint 10' role from Mount, where he'll be much more effective, Amad Diallo might now get at least a short run of starts at right wing-back, where he can be transformative for the team's attacking options (although the more defensively-minded Mazraoui might be preferred against City), and Ugarte or Mainoo will have to come into central midfield to support the canny but ponderously slow Casemiro - all good. (This is what you get when you make a bunch of glamorous signings who don't really fit your needs: you try to crowbar them in, and unbalance the whole team....)

Yoane Wissa is yet another who picked up an injury while with his national team (I'm surprised he was considered fit for call-up, after keeping himself out of team training this season). Jacob Ramsey, newly signed from Villa, also picked up an injury immediately on arriving at Newcastle. On the plus side, Joelinton might be just about ready to play again, after a few weeks out with a muscle strain; and Eddie Howe has said that their other new forward signing, Nick Woltemade, could be ready to go straight away.

Ola Aina pulled his hamstring playing for Nigeria; unclear yet how serious that is.

Niclas Fullkrug is a doubt for West Ham with a slight calf strain, and Graham Potter has expressed doubts about how many minutes Callum Wilson can handle.

Jorgen Strand Larsen is suffering with a sore Achilles, and could be out for some time.

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

Oleks Zinchenko is only on loan with Forest, and so ineligible to play against Arsenal this week.

Anthony Gordon is serving the second instalment of a three-match ban.

Several players could be sidelined, or see their minutes considerably reduced, by some of the new transfer window arrivals - most notably Hugo Ekitike and/or Cody Gakpo at Liverpool (and knock-on effects through the rest of the line-up might see increased rotation between Szoboslai, Macallister, and Wirtz too). However, that shouldn't become an issue for a while: Alexander Isak clearly isn't anywhere near match-fit yet, after absenting himself from training all season; and Arne Slot has said that he can't be expected to play 90 minutes for a few weeks yet, at least. I'd be surprised if he even makes the bench this week against Burnley.

Altay Bayindir seems very likely to be replaced in goal at Manchester United by new Belgian signing, Senne Lammens, but perhaps not straight away. (And the much reviled Andre Onana has, of course, left on loan to Trabzonspor in Turkey.) 

With many of the new signings, even where their fitness is not an issue, having arrived close to - or after the start of - the international break, they've had hardly any opportunity yet to train with their new teams, and so probably aren't going to be tactically up-to-speed enough for an immediate start. 

Did anyone give other cause to consider dropping them?

Manchester City have looked so flakey thus far (even the 'comfortable' win against Wolves wasn't as comfortable as all that; the game might have swung the other way if Wolves had been able to make some of their breakaways count), and are getting so stretched by injuries that I really wouldn't fancy any of their players at the moment.

And with Crystal Palace, you have to worry how they will adapt to the loss of Ebere Eze - particularly with their two next best creative players, Wharton and Sarr, also missing at the moment. If their attacking threat evaporates, their defence is likely to come under much more pressure too - and maybe it won't hold up.

A lot of FPL managers are also panicking about how the ousting of Nuno Espiritu Santo may unsettle Nottingham Forest; and especially about the possibility that his replacement, Ange Postecoglou, will undermine their previous defensive solidity (he did rather get himself the reputation at Spurs of obstinately chasing 4-3 wins....!). The more immediate worries for me are Nikola Milenkovic, who lacks the pace to cope well with maintaining a very high defensive line, as Ange usually likes, and could either get dropped completely, or find himself often having to commit professional fouls to thwart breakaways, and risk yellow or red cards; and also Chris Wood, who's probably too old and slow to lead the vigorous high press that is also a hallmark of Ange's style. Don't say you weren't warned. However, I thnk it's ridiculously over-hasty to be dropping anyone straight away (particularly with Burnley and Sunderland up next as opponents after this week's visit to The Emirates): and players like Sels, Murillo, Aina, and Ndoye might still prove to be decent long-term holds.

And I'm a bit wary of Arsenal at the moment: they've really been pretty unimpressive so far - and with Saka and Havertz out for a while, Odegaard only just back from a short absence with a shoulder injury, White and Saliba slight doubts at the back, Gyokeres still finding his feet, and newly-arrived Eze presumably set to be replacing Martinelli (probably an overall improvement, but nevertheless disruptive in the short term), and three more tricky fixtures up next.... I wouldn't be in a rush to have any of their players for FPL.

West Ham's rather lucky win against an out-of-sorts Forest last time didn't really suggest any major turnaround in form or self-belief; and they'd still be my favourites among the established Premier League clubs to make room for one of the promoted teams to survive this time - and also favourite for an early change of manager.

Manchester United - although I fancy their prospects a little better with the likely changes of lineup forced on them by injuries this week - have looked an absolute mess so far: they have no functional central midfield, can't decide who they want to use as their wing-backs, and their expensive new forward-line just hasn't been clicking at all. I really think Amorim needs to go as soon as possible, to save them from another season of floundering in lower mid-table. Nuno's available!

And although the three promoted sides have all got off to a fairly lively start, and picked up more points than they could have anticipated, none of them have yet done enough to persuade that they're likely to be able to stay up. So, I would avoid-like-the-plague any players from Sunderland, Burnley, or Leeds.... at least for a while longer.

That really narrows the player pool down A LOT. And with so many likely favourite picks - Saka, Palmer, Cunha - out injured, we have to cast the net wide through the more 'fringe' players we might not usually consider.

In gameweeks like this, there is also aways a grave risk that South American international players will be rested, or get only short minutes, because they've had to endure such a very long flight back across the Atlantic - usually only getting back, stiff and jet-lagged, a couple of days before their next Premier League game.

Moreover, the main phase of the Champions League kicks off this week with games over Tuesday, Wednesday, and Thursday evenings, and it is likely that teams may seek to protect their most important players with limited minutes or a complete rest ahead of those. That's particularly likely for Liverpool (facing Atletico Madrid), Chelsea (v. Bayern Munich), Manchester City (v. Napoli),... and Newcastle (v. Barcelona!!).

We just don't know who's going to start, who's going to get pulled off early, or who's going to play well this week. We'll all be lucky if we have 11 starting players in our squad. It is an utterly, utterly MAD week to be playing a chip in.

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

Well, an awful lot of players were banging in the goals for fun in the internationals over this past week or so; but most of those fixtures were so unbalanced that that doesn't really count for much.

And Gameweek 3 is a bit too distant now - especially with hardly any club training happening since - to use as a reliable guide. Everton have been looking very good so far, particularly Ndiaye, Grealish, and Dewsbury-Hall. And Dominik Szoboszlai has been outstanding at right-back for Liverpool (he would have been my pick for 'Player of the Month' - though it actually went to Grealish), but might now perhaps be rested (with the likely return to availability of Conor Bradley and Jeremie Frimpong), or be moved back into central midfield, where he might have a more constrained role.

For the rest, we'll just have to wait and see. The week after an international break is impossible to predict, full of surprises (most of them unpleasant!).

BEST OF LUCK, EVERYONE!

A little bit of Zen (59)

 

"All problems are important; but some are urgent, and some can wait."

Anonymous spokesman for the Vietnamese Communist government, shortly after Reunification in 1975

This is a somewhat ominous line, since it appears that the official here might have been intending to refer, at least partly, to the problem of internal dissent, and the Party's evolving plans for mass internment in 're-education through labour' camps. (In the first weeks after the fall of Saigon, the feared backlash against anyone associated with the government, military, or civil service of the former South Vietnam seemed not to be materialising, or at least not at anything like the rate or scale that had been widely anticipated. They took a couple of months on their planning before getting around to it....)

The general idea, though, has a broad applicability. A lot of FPL managers rush into drastic remedial action after only two or three 'bad' weeks, or even just one such week. They don't seem to realise how valuable that Wildcard will probably be a little later in the season, how wasteful is its early use (especially right at the start of the season!). They don't realise that it's very common to have a bad start to the season, when there are so many additional unpredictabilities about form and line-ups and results. They don't realise that two or three poor gameweeks back-to-back scarcely even counts as a disappointing 'run' - and that you can have several genuinely disappointing runs in a season, and will in fact be very lucky to get away with having fewer than 3 or 4 such spells. As I said at the end of that earlier post I just linked to: "A Wildcard is for emergencies; a bad Gameweek 1 (or even a bad opening three Gameweeks) is NOT an emergency."

Unless you find yourself in the rare, horrible condition of having made several obviously bad choices in your initial squad, already have several key players who are injured, or not getting the minutes you expected, or are just playing really, really badly (or are stuck in teams which are playing really badly, which is even more frustrating...),... then you should restrict yourself to isolated, 'essential' changes for now, trying to make do with your meagre ration of Free Transfers. And if you feel you really must make more changes than that, try to limit them to one or two, and bite the bullet on accepting the 'hit' - paying the points for the additional transfer(s).  Using the first Wildcard before the end of September (which is still early; only a few weeks after the end of the transfer window and the jarring interruption of the first international break: form and line-ups still haven't fully settled down....) is a sign of desperation, and almost always self-harming. DON'T DO IT - UNLESS YOU ABOLUTELY HAVE TO!!!

[I came across the above quotation last week in Andrea Pitzer's excellent book on the history of concentration camps, One Long Night - a grim read, but an informative and thought-provoking one.]

The rise of THE IDIOCRACY

 

I came upon this fascinating audio-essay the other week, from a Youtube channel called Philosophical Effect. (The narration sounds worryingly as though it might be AI-generated - just rather flat and generic in tone, although at least missing the worst of the usual giveaways like clunking pauses, misplaced emphases, and bizarre mispronunciations.  And I think the text is too sophisticated for even the latest LLM's best effort. Also,.... I don't think AI would want to be warning us about this....!) [Unfortunately, this video seems to have been pulled after a few months. I can't see that there were any likely copyright claims against it; but I fear it might have been a bit too confrontational, and its author might have become disheartened at often vitriolic responses to it - I hope not. Then again, maybe it was just an AI experiment....  I am keeping an eye out for it to reappear one day.]

Like most of the world these days, I spend far too much of my time online (though at least I refuse to succumb to the supposed allure of the 'smartphone'). And that is an increasingly depressing environment. In particular, the FPL forums where I loaf about in many of my off hours are often aggressively narrow-minded, positively belligerent and spiteful towards anyone who dares to challenge any of the generally accepted unwisdoms surrounding the game (yes, that would be me: I found Socrates's gadfly metaphor dangerously inspiring in my childhood).

The above examination of why people naturally find critical thinking so difficult and unpleasant reminded me of this video I found some years ago on the excellent science education channel, Veritasium, about the concept of 'cognitive ease' - how we quickly come to feel such comfort in the familiar that we fiercely resent anything that threatens to disturb this comfort, anything that challenges our preconceived notions, our habitual channels of thought.

As presenter Derek Muller observes at the end here (and isn't this the problem with the FPL forums, and with the online world in general?!): "The more often you hear something, the more it feels like it's true."

That is certainly a prevalent phenomenon in the world of the FPL forums. We see on these webpages so many examples of precepts that are passionately and unquestioningly adopted by FPL managers in their masses, treated as items of Holy Writ: that you always get a better return for your Triple Captain chip in a Double Gameweek, that certain super-premium players like Haaland or Salah are inescapable 'must-have' picks, and that it is impossible to have a successful team without the highest-scoring individual players, that you don't need to spend any money on your Bench, that forwards always make the best captaincy choice, and that it's usually better to play a third forward than a fifth midfielder, or that playing your Bench Boost chip in the opening Gameweek is a worthwhile strategy. All of these propositions are, of course, utterly preposterous, if you give them a moment's thought. But people just refuse to do that; and are furiously resentful of anyone who does.

Which leads me, finally, to this, from the channel Philosophy Coded (yes, I do listen to and read a lot of philosophy; it was an area of study of mine in my younger life, and I have maintained an interest in it ever since), The celebrated German writer and pastor, Dietrich Bonhoeffer, martyred at the end of WWII for his resistance to the Nazis, elaborated a devastating thesis on the power and the danger of wilful mass ignorance, noting despondently that: "Against stupidity, we are defenceless."

As this video says: "When someone shares misinformation that supports their worldview, they are participating in a system that rewards intellectual shortcuts over careful analysis. The algorithm feeds them more of the same, creating 'echo chambers' that act like intellectual quicksand."

And:  "In a world that rewards confident ignorance over humble uncertainty, admitting gaps in your knowledge becomes a radical act."

Maybe I should stay away from those forums....  You can't open a closed mind. But hanging out too long among closed minds may tend to close your own as well....

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.]