When to use the 'Triple Captain' (2)

FPL Legends 

Yesterday, I found myself writing a long and thorough debunking of the dangerous myth that the Triple Captain chip always works best in a Double Gameweek. (It can do, it does sometimes; but historically, Single Gameweeks far more often produce the season-best returns for the handful of top players you'd consider playing the TC chip on.)

The key general takeaway from that post was that you usually only want to consider one of a few really exceptional players for your Triple Captain pick: someone who quite often scores more than just one goal (especially against weaker opponents!), someone who may reach double-digits multiple times a season, someone who usually reaches high double-digits at least a few times a season. Only Salah and Haaland regularly fall into this category; although Palmer, Foden, and Saka have often shown the potential to start rivalling them; and a few others - Bruno Fernandes, Mbeumo, Cunha (pity they all play for still-dreadful Manchester United; but even there, they may hit a run of form at some point...), or Isak - may occasionally be worth considering, if they're on a hot streak. (Really, no-one is sensibly going to take a bet on something like Madueke profiting from a trio of Palmer assists, or Kluivert converting three penalties in the same game - as we saw for two of the best hauls of last season!)

So, the choices for who you can use the chip on are very limited. Often, there might be only one or two really obvious candidates; in your squad, there might be only one.

At the moment, of course, Haaland is the standout possibility. But his early season form has been exceptionally strong - while just about no-one else's has been. That's bound to change sooner or later.

And as I observed in this post the other week, it is generally better to go for a suitable midfielder in preference to a forward - because they get more points for the same level of game contribution: it's easier for them to reach double-digits, and they have a much stronger possibility of gaining a really high score.

So long as they do in fact have a top game, of course. A forward in great form and with a great fixture can still be a good bet. But a top goalscoring midfielder in great form with a great fixture is even better. (This year, so far, it's looking ominously as if we might not have any midfielders hit that sort of points form. But I remain, for now, optimistic that we will see some emerge eventually.)

Double Gameweeks can still be appealing: they sometimes come up at short notice, and relatively early in the season - as happened with Liverpool and Mo Salah getting their first match against Everton postponed because of high winds last year, giving them a unique additional Double Gameweek at the start of February. If you know your Triple Captain choice is in superb form, and you know what the double-fixture is going to be, and they're both opponents he should be able to score against,... and we're not yet in the end-of-season weeds with big European or domestic cup games cluttering the schedule and unacceptably increasing the risk of fatigue/injury/rotation or just wobbles in form for our top players - then, a Triple Captain play on that Double Gameweek is probably a good move.

But the regular Double Gameweeks - now only two, involving only a small number of teams, and coming at the very back-end of the season, amid a crowded schedule of make-or-break games - are not a good prospect for the Triple Captaincy.

I invited the scorn and derision of the masses by querying whether it was a good idea to play the Triple Captain chip on Haaland this past weekend against Burnley. Big Erling got a huge haul in the game; but it was highly fortuitous (two uncharacteristic 'errors leading to goals' in added-on time at the end of the game gifting him a brace - when he hadn't really done that much in the rest of the game!!).

Although I wasn't lucky in anticipating the outcome there (and I didn't say he wouldn't have a good game; merely that I thought both he and some other players might have better ones later in the season - and they still might), my basic points were still sound.

1) Form (both the team's and the individual's) and fitness are key.

(Haaland appeared a slightly risky pick for this weekend because he'd been complaining of a back problem at the start of the week. And back problems, although often 'trivial' and quick to resolve, can be particularly dangerous because they so inhibit and distort your usual range of movement - making it more likely that you can pick up other injuries if you play or train again before you've fully shaken them off. Moreover, City haven't yet really found their groove, they're still often looking vulnerable, even against quite weak teams like Wolves; and Burnley themselves were well in the game for the first hour or so, nearly took the lead shortly after half-time. In a few more weeks, City as a whole might be looking much more formidable - and might be creating a lot more chances for Erling, rather than relying on the opponents to create them for him.)

2)  As far as possible, you want to target the weakest possible opponent for playing the TC chip.

(Again, I didn't think that was Burnley. They have their weaknesses, sure, and will probably struggle to stay up. But their defence - and their keeper - are actually pretty good. City are facing Leeds and West Ham quite soon; I thought they would probably offer more tempting opportunities for Haaland to enjoy a big day. )

3)  Goalscoring midfielders have a higher points-potential than forwards.

(Yes, even the goal-freak Haaland. He's rarely FPL's 'Player of the Week' even when he does produce a really big haul.)

4)  It's still a bit early to be playing any of the chips, since nobody's form has settled down yet - and we're still gettting a lot unpredictable results.

(If we do live in a multiverse, there's a significant percentage of the other realities where Burnley actually won that game, or at least toughed out a draw. And possibly a majority of them where Haaland blanked, or only nabbed a solitary goal. 

There was an unusually large amount of transfer activity adding to the usual early-season chaos this year. That, combined with a lot of early injury issues to top players, and the interruption of an early international break, meant that the season effectively didn't 'start' until Gameweek 4. And it probably won't be until about GW8 or 9 that we really start to form confident and stable impressions of what's going on in the Premier League this year.)

These simple principles lead to the conclusion that the Triple Captain chip (like the Bench Boost) is best played opportunistically - whenever a prime candidate for the captaincy is fit and in tip-top form, and so are his team, and are facing what looks like a vulnerable opponent.

The form and fitness of teams ebbs and flows through the seeason. Just automaically betting against the promoted sides won't necessarily work: all three of them are looking much tougher propositions this year than any of their recent predecessors. And even the weakest of relegated sides in the last few seasons have usually managed at least a short run of games somewhere where they managed to play quite well. Likewise, even the top sides almost always suffer a bit of a stutter in form somewhere along the line. And, of course, your Triple Captain candidate may pick up an injury, or suffer a dip in form, just as his 'most favourable' fixture approaches. Shit happens.

You can highlight at the start of the season what you think are likely to be the most promising opponents that Haaland or Salah - or Foden or Saka or whoever - may face. But you shouldn't let yourself get too rigidly set on those early ideas. You need to stay flexible: your man's easiest game of the season can quite often crop up as a complete surprise.

And you need to be cautious about succumbing to the impulse to play the Triple Captain chip at the first tempting opportunity that presents itself, because there are almost sure to be other, better ones a bit later on. 

This year, a GW6 punt on Haaland happened to work out very nicely. But most years, it won't. And it might still prove not to have been the optimal Triple Captain play for this half of the season.

When to use the 'Triple Captain'? (1)

 

One of the most trenchantly beloved myths in FPL is that you can only play your Triple Captain bonus chip in a Double Gameweek.

Now that we have been given two of this chip this year, with the first only available for use until the end of December, that factor is immediately removed from consideration for that first chip - because we're (almost certainly) not getting any Double Gameweeks in the first half of the season.

However, even for the second one, which we now must use in the second half of the season, when the Double Gameweeks traditionally occur (though we'll probably only get two of them this year, and rather small ones...), that policy can be dangerously misguided. It certainly involves quite a big risk.

The myth seems to be founded on the logic that a player must inevitably score more points if he's playing twice. But that is obviously not a necessary truth. Furthermore, I suspect that for most people it is founded on the greedy delusion that a top player can - and will, at least with a beguilingly high degree of probability - secure a double-digit haul in both legs of the DGW, thereby securing a haul for the Triple Captain chip of 20+ points!

In fact, for a long time, Wayne Rooney - in his youthful prime, over a decade-and-a-half ago - was the only player ever to have pulled off that trick of securing double-digits in both games of a double-fixture week. Admittedly, Jean-Philippe Mateta also managed it (out-of-the-blue - completely unexpected by just about everybody) a couple of seasons ago. But this feat has, in the long history of FPL, looked like a once-in-a-decade (at most!) aberration. And that was during a period when we had more and bigger double gameweeks than we do now. So, if that's what you're hoping for in waiting to punt your Triple Captain chip on a Double Gameweek - think again.

But perhaps, the myth-worshippers will object, even if a player can't return a big score in two successive games, he might at least be more likely to produce one really big score if he has two chances to do so?

Well, there might be something in that... Not much, but something. If you look at a list of the biggest gameweek hauls in the game's history, that lad Rooney is indeed at the top of it with 32 points for that double double-digit performance. And most of the following handful of top performers also benefitted from Double Gameweeks - but not all of them: in fact only 6 out of the top 10 gameweek hauls were produced with the help of a double-fixture. And that's because it's very, very difficult to get above 20 points in a Single Gameweek, and just about impossible to get above 25 points. But as soon as you get down to 25 or 26-point weekly totals (and a couple of players have done better than that from a Single Gameweek), the Single Gameweek returners immediately become the great majority. We have in recent seasons seen players like Mo Salah and Cole Palmer (and even Noni Madueke last year - with some Palmer assists!) get some very big scores from Single Gameweeks.

Moreover, a lot of those players who did tremendously well from a Double Gameweek were real randoms: defenders, or midfielders who'd been out injured for a while, or forwards at less fashionable clubs - the kind of players that no-one would have been likely to play their prized TC chip on. 

Realistically, most FPL managers - with good reason (I shall have a little more to say on this tomorrow) - are only likely to play the TC chip on an exceptional player like Salah or Haaland (or maybe Son or DeBruyne or Kane, in the past; and in recent years, Palmer and perhaps, at least occasionally, Saka and Foden have also come into the reckoning): players who, when they're really in form, seem capable of getting a double-digit haul quite regularly, and who can be usually be relied on to produce at least a few really big hauls each season.

And if you look at the record of players like these, their best returns of the season (and, very often, their second and third and fourth best too!) have almost always come in Single Gameweeks, not Doubles.

The things that make a haul more likely are form and ease of opposition, not the mere fact that a player has two games in the gameweek. 

All those players who did manage a really big return from a Double Gameweek had at least one, often two really soft opponents in their pair of fixtures. If a Double Gameweek is against two difficult opponents, or even two average opponents (or indeed it's against two really poor opponents, but your favoured Triple Captain bet is out-of-sorts at the moment....), there is no point playing the chip. The double-fixture is not 'magic' in itself: it's the quality of the fixture ('easy opponent'), not the number of games that matters.

Well, there is still the argument from fear, I suppose. Even appearance points from a second game would be a nice lift to your points total; and if your man should somehow pick up something - anything, no matter how slight - from both the games, despite somewhat unpromising fixtures,.... surely that would be a decent return for the Triple Captain chip??

Alas, NO - not really. The lower-end for your points expectation may be very slightly raised; but you should be thinking about the overall points-range, and the likeliest mid-point you could reasonably expect to achieve. That is almost certainly going to be better in a single fixture where you're absolutely confident of your captain's form, and of the poor quality of the opposition.

[You should never let fear - of your own possible misfortune, or of what your rivals might be plotting - guide your decisions in FPL. You should always focus on what you believe are the best ways to optimise your own points returns. And you should be ambitious for the Triple Captain chip; it can be very valuable - you should be looking to maximise your return from it, not simply securing an OK, least-worst outcome on it.]

And there's a further, VERY BIG problem with waiting for a Double Gameweek to play this chip. The Double Gameweeks happen in the latter part of the season: that is a long time to wait. 

Your favoured captaincy pick for the chip might have picked up a knock or suffered a dip in form by that point. (A lot of people were planning to play the chip on Mo Salah a couple of seasons ago; but he had never fully shaken off a hamstring tweak he suffered while playing for Egypt in AFCON, and had a very muted end to that season.)  Heck, he might even have suffered a season-ending injury, or been poached by the Saudis in the January transfer window.... Shit happens.

Also, in that closing phase of the season, the final stages of the FA Cup and the European competitions are getting pretty intense, and clubs still involved in those will quite often rest some of their players, particularly their top players - in matches that follow closely on one another, and/or are against weaker opponents that the back-up players ought to be able to deal with. Hence, you can't be absolutely confident that your Salahs and your Haalands will even play in both fxitures of a Double Gameweek! 

If they do play in both games, they're very likely to get restricted minutes. And they're almost certainly going to be well below their best because of mounting fatigue.  [This is why I think it's increasingly unlikely that we'll see Rooney's and Mateta's achievement replicated again; or not more than once every two or three decades, anyway! With the insane physical demands of the current game - which have escalated enormously over the last 15 years - you just can't expect players to produce peak performances twice within a few days of each other,... especially at the back end of the season, when mental and physical tiredness and persistent injury niggles are accumulating.]

And dammit, because the Double Gameweeks are determined by progress to the last rounds of the domestic cups, you can never be sure that your favoured Triple Captain pick - one of that gilded handful of players, perhaps just one or two, who do seem to offer you a significant chance of a brace of goals or better, if you give them a soft opponent - will even get a Double Gameweek. And it's impossible to predict exactly when the postponed league games from the weekend of the relevant cup tie (these days, it's only the Final of the League Cup and the Semi-Finals of the FA Cup) will be rearranged to; so, even if you're willing to gamble on your chosen Triple Captain's club getting through to those rounds, you don't know which two fixtures are going to be combined into one gameweek for him - and it might sometimes be a couple of really tough ones rather than a pair of gimmes.

Even if you get a reasonably promising Double Gameweek for your chosen Triple Captain at the tail-end of the season, it's actually fairly unlikely that he'll make more points from it than he did from a few of his best single-fixture weeks earlier in the season. And there is no guarantee that he'll get any sort of Double Gameweek at all!

Hence, it's almost never worth hanging on for a Double Gameweek to play the Triple Captain chip. (It never was, even when rearranged games from the FA Quarter-Finals weekend ususually used to give us a really big Double Gameweek slightly further ahead of the end of the season. [These BIG Double Gameweeks of old gave you an enhanced chance that Salah, Haaland, etc. would actually get a Double Gameweek; but that Double Gameweek was almost always a much more tempting opportunity for the Bench Boost chip rather than the Triple Captain!])

Ah, but never say 'never'. Didn't good 'ol Mo get a huge score in a Double Gameweek just last season??  Why, yes, he did. But that was not a regular Double Gameweek; it was a one-off rearrangement of a bad weather postponement. It happened earlier in the season than the usual Double Gameweeks. And the rescheduled date was only confirmed at fairly short notice. We knew that Salah was on fire at that point in the season. And he did indeed have two fairly middling opponents to face; so, of course, this double-fixture became a favourite opportunity to play the chip on him as soon as it was announced. Indeed, back in early December when the Merseyside derby was originally postponed, we knew Salah - who was having the best season in FPL history - would get a double-fixture against Everton + another at some point in late January or early February; and that was worth hanging on for. The utterly uncertain prospect of a Double Gameweek resulting from FA Cup success, to be scheduled in the closing weeks of the seaason, is NOT worth hanging on for.

I shall have a follow-up post soon, focusing more on when it is a good idea to play the Triple Captain chip, rather than when it isn't.

SOMETIMES the Sheep get lucky!!!

Now, I said at the weekend, just ahead of the Gameweek 6 deadline, that I thought all the enthusiasm for risking the Triple Captain chip on Haaland against Burnley was probably misguided....

And look what happened!  Yes, I was very soon proved 'wrong'!!

Except.... I carefully said 'probably'. And I was specifically criticising the reasons given for this pick (exaggeratedly denigrating Burnley's defensive abilities; and that on the basis of a single  - misinterpreted, misrepresented - statistic!), and reviewing some strong counter-arguments for waiting for later, potentially better opportunities to use the chip (on Haaland, or someone else).  In fact, I explicitly acknowledged that this chip play on Haaland might turn out OK!

But still I get pilloried by the online dingbats who insist that I made a foolish, ill-informed and obviously incorrect 'prediction'.  I did not. I just pointed out a few facts they were wilfully overlooking, and they got pissy about it; and when things work out OK for them,.... they then want 'revenge'!!!  Petty people.

Actually, things worked out much better than merely 'OK': a 16-point haul might well prove to be Haaland's best return of the entire season; and there probably won't be too many other scores much better than it. It did, as it happens, turn out to be potentially the best Triple Captain return for the season (or at least for the first half of it, since we now have two of these chips).

But the people who gambled their Triple Captain chip this week didn't know that was going to happen. And most of them are doubly stupid, because they think they did know. Trebly stupid, because they think that a successful outcome proves the 'smartness' of the original decision. It does not: it only proves that they were lucky - very, very lucky.

These people appear to fall prey to the common fallacy that if something happens, it must have had a 100% probability of happening at some point long prior to its happening. That is not so.

No-one ever has quite a 100% probability of even starting a game (because there are so many little last-minute accidents-of-fate that might thwart that - how often have we seen players pull a muscle in the warm-up, for example?). In this case, given that Haaland had missed some training earlier in the week with a back-muscle problem, he can't have been much better than a 95% probability to appear from the beginning, perhaps much less; there was surely a good chance that Pep would prefer to leave him on the bench as a super-sub option, against a team who were not expected to be very difficult to beat.

And the probability of him playing most of the game was perhaps no better than 60% or 70%, given that recent injury concern, and the fact that Pep almost invariably withdraws him as soon as a game looks safely won - especially when there is a European match coming up the following midweek. And the likelihood of him being left on until the final whistle can't have been more than 50%.

While Haaland does produce a fair few assists, it's still a relative rarity: usually only about a 25% chance in any given game. (And last year the assists really dried up for him; so, with this evolving City set-up, we might expect that probability to be even lower at the moment.)

And then, of course, he ended up getiting a brace - right at the end of the game, when he could not reasonably have been expected to be still on the pitch. Even a very poor defensive team (and Burnley are not that....) will rarely make two 'errors leading to goals' in the same game; and the chances of them both occurring in added-on time, and both being converted by the same player are vanishingly small.

Haaland's 16-point return in this game was a completely unpredictable freak event!!

Sure, City were favourites to win, and win fairly comfortably. There was a good chance they might score 2 or 3 goals against them (all of this I acknowledged in my discussions of the prospects for the match). But there was no compelling reason to suppose they would obviously be able to score a lot of goals (and really, Burnley were on top for a lot of this game, nearly took a 2-1 lead early in the second half; they didn't deserve to go down this badly), nor to expect that Haaland would claim more than 1 of any they did score (and he didn't - for nearly 90 full minutes of regulation time, which must have been agony for all those TC punters!!). There is always a range of likely points outcomes for any player in any game; and this result for Haaland was way, way above the median of that range this week.

Those who now smugly proclaim that they predicted "exactly what was going to happen" in this match are lying to themselves and everyone else. 

They made a risky bet, a brave bet - that paid off. Puffing themselves in those terms would be acceptable. But to pretend that it was 'a safe bet' and 'a shrewd decision' and so on is fatuous nonsense. You had no idea how that bet was going to turn out: it could have gone very, very badly instead of very, very well. But it just happened to go very, very, very, very well. Thank your lucky stars - and shut up about it.

And there is still a chance that another TC bet over the next three months will pay out even bigger.....

[And yes, that sheep does appear to have 8 tiny legs!! AI is not ready to take over the world quite yet....]

Luck-o-Meter 25-26 - Gameweek 6

This weekend got off to an odd start with West Ham annoucing the sacking of Graham Potter just before their next game. I fancy their prospects should be much better - eventually - under Nuno Espirito Sangto. But Monday night's visit to Everton will be very rough baptism for him.

Brentford absolutely dominated a lacklustre Manchester United in the lunchtime kick-off, and should have won much more comfortably - a very sharp display from United keeper Bayindir kept the visitors in the game, enabling Sesko to give them hope by pulling them back to 2-1 down with his debut goal in a scramble in the six-yard box (Brentford will feel that Kelleher was impeded by Mbeumo in initially jumping for the cross, but the goalkeeper was just too weak). United had nearly got back on terms when Mbeumo raced in behind and was apparently tugged off balance by Collins as he was in the act of shooting. (Once more, this was an instance where the VAR playback was not very helpful: one assumes there must have been a pull on the forward's arm, because he surely wouldn't have chosen to fall over looking for a foul in that moment when he was about to score; but you couldn't actually see the contact. We need much better resolution in these pictures, allowing for a tight zoom-in on some incidents. And we need a greater variety of camera-angles to be reviewed; this one only showed a distant view from the far side of the pitch, where Collins's hand was obscured by Mbeumo's arm.) This led to an agonising delay of fully 4 minutes, while VAR apparently pondered the issue of whether the incident was 'a denial of a goalscoring opportunity' that should have brought a red card for Collins, and ultimately decided that they couldn't decide - although it was absolutely clearcut that it was. Perhaps unsettled by the long wait, Bruno Fernandes then struck the kick weakly to the keeper's left, allowing an easy save. (I sympathise with Ruben Amorim's anxiety about moments like this; but it is really not a good look for a manager to be unable to watch his team take a penalty! Indeed, at the moment, Amorim frequently seems to be unable to bear to watch his team, and finds every excuse to look anywhere else instead but at the pitch.) Jensen's emphatic finish from a lightning-quick break put the result beyond doubt shortly afterwards.

Chelsea dominated comfortably in the first-half, without creating any clearcut chances apart from Enzo's close-range opener. The match changed early in the second-half when Chalobah got himself sent for a 'denial of a goalscoring opportunity' challenge on Diego Gomez just outside the box. The contact was slight and probably accidental, but absolutely clear; and Gomez was through behind, ahead of everyone else, and shapping to shoot from just inside the box; the mystery here is that hapless Simon Hooper needed VAR to point out what the decision should be. But VAR wasn't any better, taking a long look in the second half at Gusto kicking Minteh in the side of the head - and eventually deciding there was nothing wrong with it. I was assuming they were again weighing whether it should be a red-card offence (I would have said not, as it seemed clearly accidental) - but it was an absolutely clearcut penalty, and that somehow wasn't given. So, Brighton's 2 goals in added-on time to claim the win seemed entirely just.

Palace continued their record as Liverpool's bogey team of the moment with an absolute biff-bang game at Selhurst Park. Liverpool were at sixes-and-sevens in the first-half, and might well have been trailing by a cricket score at the break. Slot may gripe that the opening goal, a messy goalmouth scramble hooked in by Sarr, came from a corner that should have been awarded the other way; but it was impossible to see if the ball had ricocheted off Mitchell or Bradley last before going out of play; and it surely made no difference ultimately - the home side were well worth their half-time lead, and with some sharper finishing, and a less determined Alisson to repeatedly thwart their best efforts, they might have registered 5 or 6 or 7 goals in the opening 45 minuttes. Mateta's exquisite curler that beat Alisson but crashed back off the inside of the right-hand post was a particularly lucky escape for the league leaders. Palace, however, rested on their laurels a bit too much in the second-half, and mounting Liverpool pressure in the last quarter of the match made one begin to fear that they miight yet pull off another of their 'great escapte' late goals; and so it proved, with substitute Chiesa snatching a lifeline for the visitors with only a few minutes of regular time remaining. There was yet another long delay for fruitless VAR deliberations over this goal, with the high cross from the right having apparently brushed Salah's hand, high above his head as he tried to jump, as it crossed the six-yard box. It looked very much as though it had just lightly hit his fingers, and that had maybe diverted the course of the ball just enough to cause to Richards to misjudge his his attempt to clear with a stooping header - with the result that he headed weakly straight to an opponent 15 yards out to set up the scoring chance. However, the TV pictures just weren't clear enough to give any definitive view (which was obvious on the first playback, but the VAR team insisted on peering at replays multiple times). I've said before that I think it would take some pressure off VAR, and speed things up a lot, if we just acknowledged that sometimes the video playback is inconclusive, and allow a new category 'no determination possible' to reflect that. The only piece of evidence in favour of the eventual decision not to penalise Salah was that none of the Palace players seemed to appeal for it (and indeed, most of the players seemed particularly baffled as to what the VAR hold-up was for); on the other hand, Salah did look guiltily relieved when the verdict went his way! Anyhow, to the neutral if felt as though justice was served when Palace roared back defiantly against the visitors in add-on time and eventually snatched a winner in the through substitute Eddie Nketiah in the final minute. 

Leeds had a very lively start at home against Bournemouth and were all over them in the early phase of the game - but couldn't make it count, largely thanks to some agile work from Dorde Petrovic in goal: he ended with 6 saves credited to him, and his low reaction stop from Calvert-Lewin was probably the save of the weekend, if not the month. Antoine Semenyo somehow keeps his scoring streak going - much longer than I would have expected (wasn't expecting him to be on penalties, but he is; wasn't expecting him to be taking free-kicks, but he is....); he didn't do much in this game, but managed to drill a free-kick under the wall to put Bournemouth in front, against the run of play. Leeds then showed great character to fight back, first equalising with a Rodon header from a corner (Petrovic, alas, rather at fault on this one: perhaps slightly bamboozled by the effort brushing Semenyo's hair on its way through to him, he parried thin air, when the effort should have been quite easy to stop) and a neat half-volley from the edge of the area by Longstaff. Alas, they couldn't quite 'stick the landing' as Bournemouth raised their effort and found an equaliser from substitute Kroupi eventually - yet another deciding goal coming deep in added-on time (so many of those this season; of course, it helps that we're see so much added-on time!).

For that deciding goal there was another inordinate VAR delay to adjudge whether Nketiah had been offside. It was extremely close; but the new 'semi-automated' system is supposed to be able to render decisions almost immediately - "within seconds", according to the Premier League - and this took 2 full minutes!! What gives?? Even Sarr's opening goal, where there seemed to be nothing to 'decide', took over a minute to clear. I really feel we ought to be pushing hard for a time-limit on VAR decisions: if they can't do what they need to do in 30 seconds, they should admit that technical shortcomings in the process render them unable to intervene effectively, and whatever the onfield decision was will stand. Furthermore, there was an unfortunate hold-up of several minutes due to a medical emergency in the crowd. The time added-on at the end of the first-half was advertised as 10 minutes, mostly because of this; but referee Chris Kavanagh somehow played just over 15 extra minutes! Yep, they should have been coming out to start the second-half before the first had actually finished. Again, what gives?

Burnley, despite having Esteve fire into his own net in the opening minutes, and then getting overrun for the opening portion of the first-half, hung in gamely and eventually settled themselves. After Anthony's equaliser, they started to look much more dangerous, and were unlucky not to take the lead early in the second-half, when Lyle Foster's shot from the edge of the box was deflected just wide. Conceding 2 goals in quick succession just after the hour-mark, including a second own-goal from the unfortunate Esteve, was really undeserved on the balance of play to that point - though they were perhaps to blame for going after the game, rather than just sitting in a permanent low-block, as they had done so effectively against Liverpool a few weeks back. However, Kyle Walker was very fortunate to avoid conceding a penalty with a clumsy challenge on Jeremy Doku a little later, twice lunging at the ball and missing, and definitely nudging the attacker's calves in the process; VAR eventually deemed that there was 'nothing decisive' in the replay - which looks like it might be a new surreptitious attempt to speed games up by minmizing the number of pitchside reviews ordered; in the past, whenever there's clearly been a contact, the ref has been asked to take a second look, but now VAR seems to be empowered to make a negative decision and shrug "not that much in it" themselves. People who'd gambled their Triple Captain on Erling Haaland could be grateful that he at least started (which hadn't been entirely certain, given that he'd missed some training sessions during the week with a back problem), and that he wasn't withdrawn early (which Pep almost invariably does, even when there are no fitness concerns), and that he contributed a rare 'assist' (winning the header in the six-yard box that led to Nunes's opener); this already was more than they might reasonably have hoped for, and a prettty good return for the chip. But then as the game moved into added-on time, a tiring Burnley defence made a couple of blunders which gifted the big Viking - who'd really been completely anonymous in the game up to that point - a brace of late, late goals: a very, very, very lucky outcome for the chip. The final scoreline wasn't at all a fair reflection of  Burnley's performance: they had in fact given another one of the top sides a big scare.

Spurs fans wanted a penalty when Palhinha collapsed in the box midway through the first-half, but he'd plainly just run into the defender's raised leg from behind - and the contact was just ouside the box anyway: no controversy there. Kudus's free-header was parried on to the bar by Johnstone in the Wolves goal, and just before half-time Matt Doherty saw his crisp sidefoot half-volley smash against the angle of post and bar. After Santiago Bueno grabbed the lead with a poke-in from a Vicario error (he parried weakly against his own player, rather than catching a fairly tame shot), Wolves's confidence surged and they had the home side on the rack for a little while; then they soaked up pressure well for the final phase of the game - until being caught out by Palhinha's deft curler from the edge of the box, deep into added-on time, sparing the home side's blushes by salvaging a point they scarcely deserved. In truth, neither side looked very incisive up-front here; but Wolves are starting to look a much more robust team, and unlikely to remain in the bottom three too much longer.

Sunderland's goal against Forest provided yet another unsatisfactory VAR experience. Goalscorer Alderete must have been very close to offside (looked off, to the naked eye), but was deemed 'on' after a very long delay - with again no justificatory graphic being shown on TV to support this verdict. Poor defending by Forest; they didn't deserve a break on this - but it did look a very dubious call. Postecoglou claims the award of 'Most FPL-Unfriendly Manager' of the week for pulling Dominguez at half-time, and McAtee and Ndoye just shy of 60 minutes. Forest look completely toothless without their talisman Gibbs-White, who was rested for the first hour here. But even with him, they didn't create that much of a threat - although Roefs again notched 6 saves in he visitors' goal, some of them quite smart. I can't help thinking that Ange might soon join the ranks of managers with shortening odds on losing their jobs by Christmas.

Yet more painfully protracted VAR delays on Sunday, with one of the most excruciating being Arsenal's early penalty appeal against Nick Pope. It was abundantly clear from the angle the ball moved away from Pope and Gyokeres that the keeper had got a decisive touch on the ball - so, no foul. It was also reasonably clear from the three main TV views shown; though much more so from the close-up, unobstructed view from behind the goal - where it was not only crystal clear that Pope had cleanly got a toe on the ball, but had also done all he could to then twist his leg out of the way of the onrushing forward, and Gyokeres had merely done an elaborate spin-dive over where he thought Pope's leg was going to be. Here, VAR scratched its chin in doubt for getting on for two minutes before suggesting a trip to the monitor for referee Jarred Gillett - and he then took a similarly long time to watch all three replay views (two of which were fairly useless, perhaps actively unhelpfu), mutlitple times each. It was in fact a very straightforward, perfectly clearcut decision; and one I would have been qute happy to have VAR resolve on its own, to save us at least some of this needless 4 or 5-minute interruption. Also, if it had been a foul, surely it was also 'a denial of a goalscoring opportunity' and Pope should have been shown a red card for it. But if it wasn't, and in fact there wasn't even any - or at least not any substantial - contact to warrant Gyokeres's spectacular fall, then surely he should have been shown a yellow card for 'simulation'. Neither option appeared to be considered by the officials; it seems their little brains were so maxed out with the pressure of having to decide an early penalty call in favour of the leading title-chasers that they just couldn't keep track of any subsidiary issues. This is yet another problem with VAR; it just makes the referees' jobs even harder. (Arteta, of course, strutted and pouted on the touchline long afterwards, apparently protesting that his side had been somehow robbed of a clear penalty. This constant posturing of his, the vociferous disputing of even the most incontestable decisions against his side, is becoming very, very tiresome.)

There were more gripes and moans when Newcastle went in front from a Woltemade header. The claim this time was for a 'push' on Gabriel, but it looked as if the forward merely placed his hand on the small of the defender's back for a moment - no force, no pressure in it: Gabriel fell to his knees hoping for the foul to be given, when he should have stayed on his feet to do his job of heading the ball away. Arteta will again scream 'Injustice!', but it was an utterly fatuous claim. Newcastle had more reason to feel aggriieved when Gabriel shoved his arm in the German's face straight afterwards; the referee didn't see it, and VAR - evidently under instructions to remain 'low-key' this season - didn't want to say anything to him about it; but that really ought to have been a red card - for the ultimate match-winner, and top FPL points recipient. Newcastle also had a vigorous penalty shout of their own late in the game, when the ball struck Gabriel'sarm - but it had been driven at him hard from very close range by Elanga, so  I have no problem with finding no culpability there (though under the current absurdly complicated guideliness, it might not be perfectly clear that this was the appropriate decision: TV pundits made much of the fact the ball had supposedly deflected off Gabriel's calf - but the TV pictures did not show that). Arsenal had looked more like the home side for most of the game, constantly on the front foot against a rather lacklustre Newcastle. Only a superb performance from Nick Pope was keeping the Geordies in the contest: he was officially credited with 5 saves (though I'd thought it was more like 7 or 8 at least; as with so many of the stats-based points awards, there is often scope for doubt about whether they've been calculated fairly; and it's a pity too that here is no qualitative element in the points system, because of a few of these stops were really world-class - unbelievable, game-changing efforts). Arsenal kept up the pressure admirably, and it was perhaps inevitable that, despite Pope's defiant brilliance, they'd find goals eventually from headers at set-pieces; Gabriel's winner came in the final seconds of added-on time.

At Villa, Josh King was very unlucky not to get a penalty when tripped by Emi Martinez, and very, very unlucky to get booked for diving. He might have been 'looking for it', but there definitely was substantial contact, and Martinez's leg was not merely static but sweeping forwards through the oncoming forward. A very 50-50 call perhaps; but these days, we see them more often given than not. And Fulham were already a goal up at that point, so it probably would have put the game out of Villa's reach. They had anoher good shout for a penalty a little later when King drove the ball against Cash's arm outstretched behind him. (Again, I'd be tempted to excuse Cash on the grounds of the power of the shot; but it did look to me as if he knew the shot was behind him and was deliberately stretching his arm further behind him in hopes of blocking it - and I would favour a 'strict liability' approach anyway in instances like this where the 'handball' blocks a goalbound shot.) Watkins's equaliser was an exquisite volley-lob finish - but he had looked well offside when he broke forward - and yet again, the VAR dissection of this was not publicly shared. But that goal - and perhaps the second-half introduction of the quietly influential Buendia - turned the game around: Fulham looked like they should have had it comfortably won inside the first half-hour, but after the break Villa steadily took control. I wouldn't get too excited about a 'revival' just yet, as they do have a very tough little run of fixtures coming up; but this second-half was certainly way, way better than we've yet seen from them this season.

There didn't seem to be any refereeing controversies in the gameweek's final encounter at Everton on Monday evening. The only big surprise of this game was that the home side weren't able to tturn their massive dominance, especially in the first-half (a curious measure of this is that apparently half the West Ham side - including all of their attacking players! - registered more 'defensive contributions' than the hitherto prolific James Tarkowski!!); a lack of cutting-edge denied them the comfortable win that seemed to be there for the taking. The major FPL quirk was that, under the new much more liberal interpretation of 'assists', Diouf was given an extra 3 points for starting the move that led to Bowen's against-the-run-of-play equaliser. While I welcome a move away from purporting to determine who the 'orginally intended recipient' of a pass was as a means of determining whether any intervening deflection by a defender was decisive in redirecting the ball,.... well, here, we were clearly in a subsequent phase of play: Diouf had merely hoiked a hopeful early cross into the middle of the box when there was no-one there, but Michael Keane's rushed attempt at a back-headed clearance had fallen into space at the edge of the area, and Bowen was first to recover it and get off his shot... fully 5 seconds later - there is NO WAY that was an 'assist': it was not a 'deflected cross', it was clearly a separate phase of play. There's also something odd going on with Dewsbury-Hall, who, although not being a conspicuously aggressive player, picked up his 5th yellow card in 6 games and is already suspended....

It's been a pretty dreadful weekend for VAR: red cards for Nathan Collins and (arguably) Gabriel clearly missed. an obvious penaltiy not awarded to Brighton (and also, though arguably, to Manchester City), and one (or two!!) not given to Fulham; yet again some very tight offsides being decided probably correctly, but not very convincingly, and with far too long a delay. And there was an egregious FPL points aberration in awarding an 'assist' to El Hadji Diouf last night. We've also seen an above-average degree of luck in the play itself, with an unusually large number of errors by defenders and keepers, and some very near-misses, including a lot of efforts smacking against the woodwork, and some stupendous saves - including an other-worldly performance from Nick Pope. Quite a few 'unexpected' results too: Wolves were not widely predicted to earn a draw with Spurs, nor Leeds with Bournemouth, nor West Ham at Everton, and Sunderland weren't really fancied to get a win away from home at Forest, nor Brighton at Chelsea, nor recently dreadful Villa against Fulham; and while Palace's chances against Liverpool were much stronger, not many people were betiting on them to win so emphatically. And then there's this slew of of late, late goals!!! The 'Team of the Week' is yet agaiin almost completely devoid of any of the highest-owned players (only Doku and Haaland gaining inclusion after Saturday's games; only the very fortunate-to-be-still-on-the-pitch Gabriel subsequently joining them). We usually hope to have at least 4, 5, 6 'haulers' every week; but this time most people had to make do with only 1 or 2! And if you were without Haaland, you were completely screwed... (His improbably massive return against Burnley - after be'd been nursing an injury during the week - was a major slice of LUCK in itself!!)  This week's therefore looking like a strong  7 out of 10 on the 'Luck-o-Meter'.

ONE statistic proves nothing

 

This week, The Sheep's big stampede is towards punting their Triple Captain chip on Erling Haaland.

There are a few reasons why this might not be such a great idea. It's still very early in the season, and - even with this new second Triple Captain chip only available until the end of December, there will be many more, possibly better, opportunities to gamble it on Haaland, or another player. The big lad's been suffering with a back strain and missed a lot of training this week (now expected to start, it seems; but quite likely to get pulled off early, if the game's in the bag [as Pep usually does anyway; but may now go for very early], especially as City have an away trip to Monaco on Wednesday in the Champions League), and he's probably not going to be quite at his best.. And, well, although they're steadily improving, City still haven't yet looked anywhere near their dominant best of a couple of years ago.

Ah, but the primary reason behind this TC choice seems to be that Burnley are supposedly "the worst defence in the league."  And the sole piece of evidence cited for that momentous assertion is that they're currently top of the stats for 'shots conceded'.

A few problems with this:

1)  One statistic in isolation very rarely tells you anything.

2) Statistics this early in the season for anything can't tell you very much, because one 'untypical' game can massively skew the overall figures. And also, nobody's form has really settled down yet, and we've seen some wildly erratic performances and unexpected results so far this year.

3)  The 'shots conceded' number is more a measure of the quality of the opposition you've faced than the quality of your defence in dealing with that threat. And Burnley have had a particularly demanding opening run of fixtures, facing Spurs, Manchester United, Liverpool, and Nottingham Forest so far - all very good attacking teams (damn, yes, even United played quite well against them).

4)  On a range of stats that more accurately reflect 'defensive quality', Burnley actually look quite impressive. One of the most persuasive of all is their xGC 'delta', the gap between their 'expected goals conceded' and the actual number conceded - that's an enormous 2.3 in the right direction. They're keeping more goals out than almost any other team!

So, it's early in the season, and the stats can easily get skewed: Burnley have twice conceded 3 goals in a match, which makes their defensive record look terrible. They've also had 2 penalties awarded against them, which makes their goals conceded total look a bit worse than it really ought to. They looked rocky at the start of the season, when they were easily taken apart by Spurs, but have improved steadily since. Against United, they left themselves open by chasing a game they thought they could win, and were desperately unlucky to concede a late penalty to lose the points. They beat fellow promoted side Sunderland fairly comfortably, and kept a clean sheet. They played well enough to deserve a clean sheet and a point away from home against Liverpool, and were again desperately unlucky to be thwarted by a very late penalty. And they contained Forest very well - after conceding a goal out-of-nowhere barely a minute into the game.

You need to consider a range of relevant statistics, never just one on its own. And you need to put those statistics in context, to consider the story of each individual match that has produced them.

Just saying, "Look how many shots Burnley have faced! They must be rubbish!!" is NONSENSE.

This post isn't really about Burnley. Or Haaland. It's about how people deceive themselves with superficial, lazy readings of statistics.

Burnley are a weak team overall: they can't control the ball enough or create enough threat to stop the stronger teams in the league from dominating them. But their defence is, arguably, in fact one of the best in the league at the moment.

And, realising the hopelessness of their chances against City, they'll probably sit back in a low-block all game and try to tough out a draw. They so nearly made that work against Liverpool - who are, at the moment, a much, much better-looking team than City.

I don't think Burnley will beat City, and even a draw is a very long-shot for them. Heck, I think Haaland can probably pick up a goal, even if he only plays 55 minutes or so.

But Burnley's defence (and keeper!) are actually pretty damn good. They are - thus far, anyway - the most impressive-looking of the promoted sides; and also - so far - way, way better than West Ham,.... or Villa,... or Wolves.

This is not a fixture that looks like a pushover, a guaranteed multi-goal party.

People are only playing that Triple Captain chip now because they're getting impatient. (And impatience in FPL is - usually - a very bad thing.)

I'd rather wait until Haaland has clearly shaken off this injury worry,.... and is facing a genuinely weak defence (he has Villa, Leeds, Sunderland, Fulham, and West Ham coming up between now and Christmas).

Even more, I'd rather wait until one of the goalscoring midfielders (who can give you a better return) like Saka or Salah or Palmer, or maybe Mbeumo or Cunha comes into a hot streak of form. All rushing to drop the Triple Cap on Haaland the first time he plays a promoted side is classic sheep behaviour.

(Now, Erling has been in tremendous form so far this season; and he is really the only player at the moment who regularly looks capable of scoring more than 1 goal per game. And he might pull that off again against Burnley; he might even get a hattrick [very, very unlikely; but he might]. That won't mean that playing the chip on him this week was a smart choice; that would just make it a lucky choice. All the evidence points to there being better opportunities for this chip a bit later on.)

[Ha! As it turns out, Haaland did manage a huge return in this game. Though he had to rely on being gifted 2 goals by bizarre defensive errors at the end of the regulation 90 minutes! As I acknowledge at the end of this piece, there was indeed a reasonable chance that he'd pick up a goal in this game, maybe even two; but there was no very strong reason for supposing that this was much more likely than in many other fixtures he'll face, much less for expecting that he was 'almost certain' to bag a multi-goal haul. The outcome here, while not beyond the bounds of expectation, was very much at the uppermost limit of the range of such expectation - it was very, very LUCKY!]

Dilemmas of the Week - Gameweek 6 (25/26)

We seem to have remarkably few new injuries this time, despite the flurry of midweek games in the 3rd Round of the League Cup, and opening games in the Europa League for Forest and Villa.

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 6 of the new season?

Does anybody need to be moved out because of injury?

The major anxiety of the week has been that Erling Haaland, owned by nearly half of FPL managers, might be in doubt his week, after Pep reported that he was struggling with a back strain in the game against Arsenal last time. That all seems to have blown over, and, after sitting out the comfortable League Cup win over Huddersfield, he's back in training and expected to be OK to start. City's young Uzbek defender Abdukodir Khusanov, however, came off injured against Arsenal and is expected to miss 3 or 4 games (though hardly anyone owns him...).

It looks like Cole Palmer will now be out for at least a few weeks, after breaking down early in last week's game when trying to play through his troublesome groin problem. Chelsea will also be without defender Tosin, who's been a rock for them so far; he's picked up a calf injury which is likely to sideline him for a few weeks. Chelsea are getting stretched at the back, with Wesley Fofana suffering an apparent concussion in the Cup game against Lincoln on Tuesday, Josh Acheampong missing that game with illness, and Benoit Badiashile apparently still some way off full match-fitness, we might see Marc Cucurella or Reece James moved into central defence.

Noni Madueke picked up a knee injury in last week's City game, and it's rumoured that he could be out for up to two months.

Emi Martinez is a doubt for Villa, after having to miss Thursday's Europa tie against Bologna with a minor problem.

Fulham's Brazilian winger Kevin is a doubt after injuring his shoulder midweek against Cambridge (though he hasn't yet been a regular starter anyway).

Liverpool;s new back-up central defender Giovanni Leoni unfortunately picked up an ACL injury in the League Cup game against Southampton, and could be unavailable for the rest of the season - not that many people had even heard of him, much less considered him as a potential FPL pick.

Douglas Luiz had to come off in Forest's Europa game against Real Betis with a hamstring problem. Postecoglou hopes it's not serious, but it will keep him out of contention this weekend. (And Murillo is apparently still hobbling after that kick on the shin a couple of weeks ago....)

Pape Sarr missed the League Cup tie against Doncaster because of a thigh problem, but that is said to have been 'precautionary' and he might feature against Wolves on Saturday.

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

Hugo Ekitike misses this weekend after picking up a second yellow card in the Cup Tie against for his goal celebration (Slot was not pleased!!),

Also banned for collecting 2 yellow cards in the League game last weekend is United's Casemiro. Amad Diallo will also be missing this week, owing to a family bereavement. However, Diogo Dalot and Matheus Cunha are apparently fit to start again, so maybe he would have been omitted anyway.

Sunderland's Mozambican right-back Reinildo (a popular budget squad-filler choice in FPL, with 6.7% ownership) is starting a three-match ban after being sent off for retlation against Matty Cash last Saturday. 

Thomas Soucek is serving the second part of his three-game ban for 'serious foul play' against Spurs a fortnight ago.

Chelsea keeper Robert Sanchez is available, having served his one-match ban for getting sent off against Manchester United in the League Cup round this week (a bit harsh anyway, as it wasn't really a 'denial of a goalscoring opportunity', as it was called - although it might have been 'serioius foul play'!).

Loanee Facundo Buonanotte is ineligible to represent Chelsea against parent club Brighton this weekend (a pity, since he miight have been favourite for a start in Palmer's absence).

Did anyone give other cause to consider dropping them?

With Cole Palmer out, and so many absentees at the back that the defence is starting to look like a Swiss cheese, Chelsea assets are looking like a 'sell' at the moment - although you might hang tough, as they do have a very nice little fixture-run coming up after next week's daunting home game against Liverpool.

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

Nobody stood out that much in a very drab round of League matches last weekend, but Brighton's Paraguyuan midfielder Diego Gomez is strongly expected to gett a start now after a superb showing in the League Cup demolition of Barnsley (he scored 4 times, the first 2 absolute screamers).

Forest striker Igor Jesus also impressed in midweek with 2 goals against Real Betis, but veteran Chris Wood might still be preferred against the likely stubborn defence of Sunderland.

BEST OF LUCK, EVERYONE!

A little bit of Zen (61)

 

"The intuitive mind is a sacred gift and the rational mind is a faithful servant. We have created a society that honors the servant and has forgotten the gift."

Albert Einstein

I'm inclined to think that the great man's playful epigram here is founded on somewhat of a false distinction. The intuitive mind is perfectly rational: it's just supercharged - by not having the ego constantly stomping all over it.

This is why the notion of trusting your gut is not mere idle superstition; it's almost invariably far superior to pondersously over-thinking a problem.

Luck-o-Meter - 25-26 Gameweek 5

Things have balanced up quickly after last week's glut of clean sheets: NO clean sheets at all on Saturday. And despite a reasonable number of goals being scored, almost none of them came from the most likely, most fancied players. This was always likely to be a tough gameweek for FPL managers, with so many of the fixtures closely matched and difficult to call. And the weather - heavy, freezing rain across most of the country - probably hasn't helped either! And then, damn, Chelsea get their goalkeeper sent off inside the first 5 minutes??!! Unexpected results, unexpected goalscorers, and super-rare random curveballs like a goalkeeper being dismissed at the start of the game - it's shaping up to be an epically bad, very low-scoring gameweek.

This Everton side look good enough to go toe-to-toe with Liverpool and give them a really hard time (as they did, in the second half), but David Moyes is often over-cautious, and here he seemed to have told his men to sit back and soak up pressure early on - which they just weren't able to do. It didn't help that the home side conjured up a 'Goal of the Season' contender after just a few minutes! But Everton had their moments too, and really looked on top at the end of the first half and through most of the second; on the overall balance of the game, they probably deserved a draw. It's already starting to look as if Liverpool's name is on the trophy again this season: this ability to keep grinding out wins they scarcely deserve is little short of uncanny. We once again saw the inadequacies of the BPS here: nobody but goalscorers can get the extra points! Tarkowski once again monstered the 'defensive contributions' stat, and - despite being arguably slightly at fault on both goals - was probably the 'Man of the Match',... but was ranked nowhere (well, 10th!) by the BPS. Darren England, consistently one of the worst officials on the PGMOL roster, didn't endear himself to Everton fans by booking three of their best players, Ndiaye (for a minor foul), Dewsbury-Hall (for taking a free-kick quickly), and Grealish (after the game, without even telling him - for complaining too forcefully about these earlier incidents; and, no doubt, the fact that he had been having lumps kicked out of him for the whole game, without one of the offenders being carded...). And Arne Slot didn't endear himself to FPL fans by suddenly dropping Wirtz for Szoboszlai (and moving Bradley rather than Frimpong into the right-back slot), and preparing to make his substitutions ahead of the hour mark (although, fortunately, there wasn't a break in play to implement them until just after 60 minutes). The likelihood of frequent rotations and early substitutions might seriously undermine the FPL value of all of Liverpool's attacking players (except, probably, Salah).

Brighton benefitted from another absurdly tight offside decision. Minteh had looked well off when running through behind Spurs's high back-line for his early breakaway goal, but the SAOT graphic (when it was eventually shared, several minutes later) showed both his and the last defender's arms beyond the decision line; it wasn't at all clear from this graphic exactly where the line had been drawn on the arm, or whose arm, or why - or what the relative positions of the other parts of of the players' bodies were (the trouble with these CG representations is that they're very '2D', lacking in any of the detail that might give you a hint of depth perception). And then Ayari put them two up on the half-hour with a worldie of a shot from 25 yards out on the left (although Vicario, having one of his less impressive days, probably should have been able to turn it around the post). Then when Richarlison pulled one back, there was a long, long VAR delay - for what?? (There was no suggestion of any offence or offside anywhere in the sequence of play. Just baffling!) Spurs pulled their socks up in the second-half, but laboured to get back on terms - needing an unlucky own goal from Van Hecke to notch their second - and couldn't find a winner. It is, of course, classically 'Spursy' to save their best performances for top sides while often faltering against more mid-table opposition; and there may be a problem for them this season of suffering a reaction after draining midweek Champions League games. But at least they showed a lot of character here in battling back from a disastrous start.

Burnley v Nottingham Forest was a predictably cagey affair, with neither side able to fashion many clearcut chances. An early goal for the visitors from the surprising source of Neco Williams set them up for the potential for a morale-restoring victory, but they then let the home side get on top for a while. Forest held up in defence surprisingly well, despite having Murillo withdrawn at the last minute, after failing to recover from a knock he picked up against Arsenal last week. Dan Ndoye, excellent so far on the right, looked somewhat subdued here when swapped to the left to accommodate a debut from Dilane Bakwa on the right wing. Bakwa had a bright enough game that there must now be some worry about possible regular rotation between him, Ndoye, and Hudson-Odoi. The only mild controversy of the game was whether Jaidon Anthony's equaliser ought to have been recorded as an own-goal for Zinchenko. I would have been inclined to say so, as regardless of whether the initial effort was bound inside the far post (close, but probably yes), it had little power in it, and Zinchenko had been in position to block it - but somehow clumsily swept it into his own net; I think such a deliberate action, when the player ought to have been in control of the ball, clearly feels like an 'own-goal' in commonsense terms.

Wolves faded strangely in the first half, after taking an early lead away at Leeds through their Czech new-boy, Krejci. Three good goals from the home side left them reeling, and despite regaining control in the second-half, they couldn't claw themselves back into the game. Keeper Jose Sa looked slightly at fault on all three goals, and you can't help wonder if he was rushed back prematurely after being laid up with an illness over the past week or so. Wolves coach Pereira has just signed a new contract and insists he has no concerns about his future at the club, but this was a game he really needed to win. Gleaning no points at all from the first five games probably already dooms Wolves to spending the entire season in the relegation battle (particularly with the promoted sides all getting off to quite good starts).

West Ham looked slightly improved this week, perhaps steadied a little at the back by the reinstatement of Areola between the sticks; but they still didn't create much real threat going forward, and the big surprise/disappointment in FPL terms is that Palace didn't keep another clean sheet (allowing Bowen to drop back into space for a free header angled across the goal from a corner on the left). West Ham's players looked not just disappointed but depressed at the end of the game, and Graham Potter again looked utterly baffled at how to fix things. He's surely going to be on his bike soon. Palace weren't great, but a goal for Mateta should boost his confidence (after Glasner had hinted in the week that he might be rested for this game, after a few drab displays), and new introductions Kamada, Pino, and Devenny are starting to look like they could replace some of the creativity that's been lost with the departure of Eze. But they needed another unexpected goal - anoher 'Goal of the Month' frontrunner, an instinctive right-foot volley from left-footed, hardly-ever-scores Tyrick Mitchell! - to secure the win here.

God obviously does not love Chelsea: first they get their goalkeeper sent off within minutes of the start (the second earliest dismissal for a keeper in Premier League history!!), and then shortly afterwards Bruno Fernandes nicks a devastating opening goal, and the game is pretty much over. And a few minutes after that, Cole Palmer - who probably shouldn't have been risked anyway - felt unable to continue, troubled again by that stiff groin muscle that's been bothering him all season. Chelsea, in fact, never really looked on it in this game, even in the first minues - perhaps wearied by their exertions against Bayern a few days earlier, perhaps subdued by the miserable weather. But there was an element of controversy about both of those crucial early incidents. Mbeumo had overplayed the ball to knock it past Sanchez, and it was probably running away from him irrecoverably; moreover, there were two Chelsea defenders, level with Sanchez and just ahead of Mbeumo, racing back to cover - so, this didn't look like a clear 'denial of a goalscoring opportunity'; and although it was a lateral kick across the legs at knee-height, it wasn't really savage enough to qualify as 'endangering an opponent' (and was not, I think, classified as such: that would entail a longer suspension). I've always said Sanchez is an accident-waiting-to-happen, and it happened here; but he was somewhat hard done-by. Bruno was probably played onside for his poacher's goal by Chalobah's extended rear leg, but it was incredibly close, would have been determined by where the decision-line got drawn on Bruno's leading arm. Yet again, the SAOT graphic was not shared until minutes later, and was no real help; for some reason it's only showing the 'decisive' line, not the relevant nearest-to-byline lines on both atacker and defender, and in situations this close, it's really not clear from the graphics which body part is nearest - or if it's really nearer or further away than the other player's body part that the decision-line has been drawn on. I'm happy for Bruno's goal (his 100th for United, apparently) to stand; but there must have been millimetres in the offside call, and a convincing justification for it was not provided - despite a lengthy delay in the game. There may have been a subsidiary issue, too, as to whether Sesko, clearly offisde, was interfering with play (impeding Chalobah, or distracting the goalkeeper only a yard-and-a-half or so ahead of him); but that was seemingly not addressed by the VAR team at all. Casemiro's second - again, a smart bit of poaching after some sloppy defending by Chelsea - was also very, very tight for offside (but not quite as tight as Bruno's!), and again occasioned a protracted VAR delay. Casemiro getting himself sent off for a second yellow-card foul just before half-time provided Chelsea with a lifeline, but they didn't have enough top attacking players left on the pitch to take advantage of it (Maresca's decision to withdraw both Estevao and Neto in the wake of the sending-off, when he knew that Palmer's fitness was in doubt, was highly questionable). 

Ironically, I think this might actually prove to be a terrible result for United. If, as was widely expected, they'd dropped points here, and in the next two fixtures against 'easier' opponents, and then taken a hard beating against Liverpool in GW8, Amorim would surely then have been dismissed. But getting a win against a top-of-the-table side may now buy him more time, even if the next three games do indeed go against him. And I'm increasingly convinced that the longer Amorim stays at United, the worse things will get for them.

Brentford, despite being gifted an early lead at Craven Cottage by a sloppy square ball from young Josh King, could never really get into the game, and looked very creaky at the back. It was unfortunate that the best of Fulham's goals, Muniz's fierce drive late on, was ruled out for an (entirely accidental) arm across Collins's face by him in the buld-up. The only major curiosity here for FPL was Joachim Andersen being credited with a huge 'defensive contributions' total: it wasn't obvious in watching the game that he'd been particularly busy or had out-performed his central defensive colleague Calvin Bassey. The opacity of this new points system bothers me: it feels as though FPL is just plucking random numbers out of the air every week - they're certainly making no attempt to explain, justify or illustrate the figures awarded.

Damn, the Bournemouth v Newcastle game turned out to be ferociously dull - one of those that, even if there had been 20 matches played this weekend, you knew within the first 20 minutes that it was going to be last on Match of the Day. The visitors, despite lining up with an oddly conservative three-at-the-back and fielding basically a 'B team', with 5 or 6 of their usual starters missing, looked more like the home side, comfortably dominating possession as Bournemouth sat back and tried to hit them on the counter. Both sides were strangely sluggish: the match often felt as if it were being played in slow motion. Newcastle at least had the excuse that some of their players might still have been fatigued after their huge game against Barcelona on Thursday night, but there is no obvious reason why Bournemouth were so far off it. There was a fair bit of refereeing controversy, though, to make up for the shortage of real incident in the game, including two mildly contentious penalty appeals. The ball appeared to hit Tonali's arm in his own box in the first-half, but it came at him at speed, and his arm was protecting his face, and close to his body - so, no way that was a handball. In the second half, Diakite grabbed a handful of Woltemade's shirt, prompting him to fall to the floor. It was a pretty minor shirt tug, but all holding in the box is supposed to be illegal; and it seemed odd that VAR would dismiss the claim rather than at least telling the referee there was an incident that needed to be assessed (as he'd evidently missed it the first time, having no view of Diakite behind the Newcastle forward). There was also the strange business of David Brooks putting the ball in the net early on: he looked about a yard offside, and he didn't celebrate because he knew himself that he'd dropped in behind far too early - but the SAOT graphic eventually indicated that it was another one of those 'so close you can't readily figure out which the relevant body parts are' calls (it definitely wasn't; so this must raise doubts about the automated system for timing the relevant forward pass). And right at the end of the game, in added-on time, ref Rob Jones awarded Bournemouth a free-kick on the edge of the box: the ball had been driven at Harvey Barnes from close range, and his arm was tight against his body - so, there was no way that was a handball! Jones then added insult to injury by allowing Bournemouth to move the ball a yard or so further back and quite a bit over to he left, to improve the prospects for a direct attempt on goal. Nick Pope managed to shovel the ball to safety when Kluivert cracked a fierce low drive through the gap in the wall, but that led to a string of corners - which gave Newcastle an unreasonably nervous end to the game. Malick Thiaw made an impressive debut in central defence for Newcastle, which will give their fans some encouragement that they may be a little better able to weather injury crises this year - at the back, anyway.. However, Bournemouth fans felt he should have been sent off for a second yellow-card offence late in the second half; I couldn't see anything in it myself - a very mild 'body-check', with the Bournemouth player, in my view, deliberately running into Thiaw as he took a half-step across his line.

The only other item of FPL interest was that Antoine Semenyo, who had a severely quiet game, somehow picked up enough 'defensive contributions' to earn 2 extra points! I'm not saying it didn't happen; but it certainly wasn't something you noticed while watching the game - and I can't help suspecting that FPL is, at least occasionally, massaging or inventing these 'defcon' figures to give extra points to popular players (Semenyo is currently the third hottest pick in the game, with over 46% ownership). Do I really think the FPL hierarchy are unscruptulous and dishonest enough to cheat like this, to manipulate the points system to try to pander to managers and keep them happy by being over-generous to he most-owned players? Well, of course, I have no definite proof that it is happening; but I do absoluely believe that they might do it. And the opacity of the system for awarding these new 'defensive points' leaves pletny of room for such conspiracy theories to blossom.

Despite full-back Reinildo getting himself sent off on the half-hour for a petulant rettaliatory flick at Cash (no complaints from anyone on that decision), Villa still couldn't impose themselves on the match: home side Sunderland dominated all the attacking stats, despite having only a fifth of the possession, and probably deserved more than just the 1 point. Matty Cash's screamer from 26 yards out broke the painful goal drought (though it should have been comfortably saved by Roefs, who made the bizarre decision to try to punch it away rather than parry it with his palms, and didn't get enough on the ball), but it was a Black Swan Event (when did Cash last score? has he ever scored from outside the box??), and the sole moment of comfort for Villa fans. It is looking very much as though Unai Emery has somehow 'lost the dressing-room' and needs to be replaced.

There is evidently still a massive gulf in class between City - even a below-their-best City - and Arsenal; they absolutely dominated the home side for most of the game (despite being on the wrong end of all the possession stats; Arsenal had more of the ball, but struggled to do anything with it), and should really have had far more than just Haaland's early breakaway goal to show for it. Arsenal without Odegaard and Saka, much like Chelsea without Palmer, just don't have any creativity; and Arteta's unfathomable decision to replace Odegaard with Merino rather than Eze or Nwaneri really didn't help their cause here. Throwing Saliba back into the fray - rather than sticking with the excellent Mosquera - was also possibly a mistake: he looked a bit ring-rusty, and was slow getting back to try to cover Haaland's break for the goal (not as slow as everyone else in the Arsenal defence, but still pretty slow and ineffectual). However, City were increasingly guilty of sitting back in the second half, gradually allowing Arsenal to get a foothold in the game (although they still weren't creating any clearcut chances: poor Gyokeres hardly touched the ball all game!), and Pep's decision to remove Foden in favour of an extra defender after only 67 minutes, when the lead was not secure, seemed premature, rash. Even so, City were still looking mostly on top in the closing minutes, and super-sub Martinelli's cheeky dink over Donnarumma, deep into add-on time, must be considered extremely fortuitous (he was only onside by an inch or two, and City have a point that Arsenal appeared to have won possession through a foul in their own half at the start of the move,.... and 'the best goalkeeper in the world' was much too far out of his goal - a horrible goal for City to concede!).

Arteta appeared to be trying to 'gaslight' his own supporters by claiming supposed 'dominance' in the game in his post-match interviews. And from the evidence of the online forums today, he's had a fair measure of success - lots of Arsenal fans crowing about what a great performance it was, and how lucky City were to come away with a point!! They lean heavily on those possession stats. But what really matters in a game is 'useful possession': moving the ball around well, getting it forward efficiently, creating shooting chances. On that metric, I'd say City were probably 2- or even 3-1 ahead. Or maybe Arteta really believes this - because his criterion of excellence is 'control' and nothing else, denying the opponent much of the ball (more than trying to create with it yourself). How did that work out for you here, Mikel - really?? I've said before on here that I think this philosophy is profoundly misguided (and so do many, many Arsenal fans - though they rarely dare to say it out loud); and I reiterated just the other day that I think Mikel Arteta is probably now the main thing standing between Arsenal and success.

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. The 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 are also invariable weekly irritations. The 'Team of the Week' is yet again full of complete randoms: it might in fact establish some sort of record as the most improbable collection of high-scoring players ever (after Saturday's games, Bruno Fernandes and Martin Dubravka [who probably isn't a starter for most of his owners] were the only two with an ownership above 1% at the moment; the only change on Sunday was that Nick Pope nicked the goalkeeper spot - and he's only the 10th most popular pick, with barely over 6% ownership)! Although the refereeing hasn't been at all good, there haven't been any obvious mistakes on major game decisions (Robert Sanchez's sending-off is the main candidate; and I seem to be the only person quibbling about that!). However, freak events like the early sending-off, unexpected results and many, many unexpected goalscorers lift this week to at least another 5 out of 10 on the 'Luck-o-Meter'.