'Ideal' time to use a Wildcard?

 

Well, of course, a lot of people already blew their first Wildcard early in the season (which can be a legitimate choice - but only if you've got off to a really, really bad start; and most FPL managers have no idea of what truly constitutes such a really, really bad start). And an awful lot more have chosen to use it over the current international break (which is also a stratagem with something to recommend it - and I should probably do a little post just on that at some point).

However, in an ideal world, you would:

a)  Save it as long as possible - because the longer you wait, the more sure you are that you need to use it. (And also, of course, you are running out of later - possibly better - opportunities to use it as you approach its expiry date!)

b)  Save it for a real emergency - such as being hit with 5 or 6 injuries or suspensions in the same week. (It can happen!)

c)  Save it for a gameweek when it is likely to have the most impact for you, because - regardless of the form of particular teams or players - it is quite likely that you might want to make a lot of changes to your squad because of a 'turn' in the fixtures: a significant shift in fixture-difficulty from 'mostly bad' to 'mostly good' (or vice versa!) for a number of teams, all happening at around the same time. Such a 'turn' usually occurs at least once or twice in each half of the season. But, of course, your interpretation of how dramatic such a 'turn' may be - or whether it properly counts as one at all - will be affected by relative swings in form between teams. So, you can't predict with absolute confidence at the start of the season when the most important 'turns' in fixture-difficulty will occur (although a lot of people try to).

Now, in the first half of the season this year, we see that there's potentially quite a major 'turn' around Gameweeks 10 and 11.

Bournemouth, after challenging assignments in their next two away games, face a little run of much softer opponents, starting with Aston Villa in GW11. Chelsea are already in a pretty good run (nothing much to fear apart from that game against Arsenal at the end of November - and at least that's at home), but things get even easier after their away game at Spurs in.... GW11. Crystal Palace have a great run almost all the way through to the end of the year from GW10 onwards, after they've got their visit to Arsenal out of the way. Everton could take a battering in their next two against City and Spurs, but then have 6 much more inviting fixtures, starting in GW11. Liverpool are already in a dream of a sequence, with away games against City and Spurs their only likely speed-bumps between now and the end of the year. Manchester United are away to Liverpool this weekend, but might fancy their chances of starting a revival with the fairly kind run of fixtures they have starting from GW9 (and, given how bad they've been so far this season, most FPL managers are probably going to want to wait a week or two to see such a turnaround clearly starting to happen, before they move in for any United players).

As 'turns' go, it's not perhaps especially dramatic; but it's definitely there - and it's really the only one we've got to look forward to in this first half of the 2025-26 season. So, if you fancy pivoting towards more players from these teams with suddenly improving fixtures,.... it might be nice to make a whole raft of changes all at once, round about Gameweek 10. If you still have your Wildcard, that is.

These are the kinds of things you have to watch out for in choosing when to play a Wildcard - rather than just reaching for it as a comfort blanket the first time your team has a bad weekend.

A little bit of Zen (63)

 

"Accept that some days you're the pigeon, some days you're the statue."

Roger C. Anderson

I'd really rather not be either!  But FPL certainly does give you that feeling of being constantly shat upon from on high.

This rueful quip crops up quite often across the Internet, without any definite attribution. If the commonly ascribed name is correct (far from certain; it might rather be 'anonymous'), I think the most likely suspect is this chap, an early 20th century English explorer, collector, and lifelong naval history buff, whose greatest distinction appears to have been holding the editorship of the historical journal, Mariner's Mirror. (Perhaps he's not that likely a candidate. But he's the only person I can find of that name who was any kind of a writer.)

Takin' it easy.....

These international breaks may seem irritating to some, interrupting what soon become cosy, familar routines in our FPL life. But we should rather be luxuriating in the rare joy of TIME OFF.

Here's one of my favourite-ever celebrations of goofing off, Louis Armstrong and Gary Crosby (a son of the great Bing, with a very similar vocal style) in a 1950s recording of the Johnny Mercer/Hoagy Carmichael song Lazy Bones.

What's DIFFERENT this year?

 Or..... The Rise of the Defenders!!

Yes, the most striking oddity of this season so far in FPL is the predominance of defenders at the top of the player rankings at the moment.

Apart from Haaland, way out in front, Joao Pedro is the only other forward just barely scraping into the Top 15, while the rest of that list is filled out at the lower end by 3 defensive midfielders and a couple of goalkeepers (which is also very odd). And we find 6 of the first 9 spots are filled by defenders, who've all managed to average 6 points per game or better.

Folks on the FPL forums are getting tempted to say that it must be down to the new 'defensive points' this season. But in fact, those high-performing defenders have mostly not done exceptionally well on this new metric (no better than a lot of others, anyway); clean sheets, bonus points, and attacking contributions are still what's really making the difference. Most of the top-ranked defenders are conspicuous for having scored a goal (or 2!) already.

[There's a similar thing going on with the defensive midfielders. People say 'defensive points' are what's elevating them to such unaccustomed heights. But they've all been scoring goals as well this year! Yes, we know there are a few, like Enzo Fernandez, Bruno Guimaraes, John McGinn, and Declan Rice, who like to get forward occasionally and do often pick up 4 or 5 goals or so over a season.... But this year, we have Ryan Gravenberch already having claimed a couple, Martin Zubimendi getting a brace in one game, and Moises Caicedo now having racked up 3 goals - a strike-rate a forward would be pretty happy with, so early in the season. These are players who are very infrequent goalscorers, not usually more than 1 or 2 per season. So, this certainly looks like a very weird statistical blip.

Aha - a few days later my man Adam Clery produced a short video on this. He thinks it's probably a deliberate policy to try to exploit the fact that central defensive midfield players are usually somewhat overlooked in marking systems and can thus sometimes push forward without anyone picking them up. That does seem very plausible; although you'd think that should be a relatively easy tactical problem to fix - and thus these goals from central midfielders should be only a transient phenomenon, as defences adapt to snuff it out.]

Is there any particular reason why we've seen so many defenders (20 of them!) scoring goals this season?

Well, I suspect that more and more teams are now following Arsenal's example, and prioritising set-piece plays to try to gain the advantage in tight games. (Heck, we've even seen the long overdue reappearance of the long throw!! welcome back - we've missed you!!)

However, an awful lot of these goals have come from open play. So, perhaps there is also an element of pushing defenders up into the attack more often, when sides are enjoying sustained possession in the final third. Pep seems to have kicked off a fashion for playing one or other (or occasionally even both) of the full-backs in an advanced role - but now supporting, or even joining the front-line in more central areas, rather than hugging the touchline and overlapping the wide attacker in the more traditional fashion.

But it is still very early in the season, so this goals-from-defenders 'trend' might not be significant at all - just a fleeting statistical aberration. We'll need another month or so at least before we can really start to form a clear opinion on this. And I suspect that over that time, the strength of this new phenomenon will at least diminish somewhat.

Also, it should be noted that this unusually strong performance from a lot of defenders is only so conspicuous because there have not so far been any big contributions from any other positions (only the inevitable Erling Haaland among the forwards, only Antoine Semenyo and Jaidon Anthony among the attacking midfielders). With DeBruyne, Son, and Luis Diaz transferring overseas this year, Bowen reclassified as a forward (and struggling in a disastrous West Ham team anyway), Salah marginalized in a Liverpool going through an awkward reinvention phase, Maddison ruled out for the season, Saka and Palmer also having injury problems early on (Marmoush and Cherki and Foden too), and Wirtz, Eze, Mbeumo and Cunha still finding their feet at their new clubs,.... the 'usual suspects' among the attacking midfielders have been ABSENT so far this season. But that will change - soon.

There has, so far, often been a good case for starting 4 - or occasionally, perhaps, even 5! - defenders. But that is a freakish circumstance. And that too will surely soon change.

The next 8 or 10 games, I'm fairly sure, will see The Return of the Midfielders!

Luck-o-Meter 25-26 - Gameweek 7

This had all the hallmarks of another pretty dire weekend for FPL, with Arsenal, City and Spurs having favourable-looking fixtures - the rest all being rather too closely matched to call easily, and quite likely to result in turgid stalemates. And so it largely turned out, with a raft of games that were almost unwatchably dull, and only the top-of-the-table clash at Chelsea really providing much excitement.

At least it appears as though PGMOL may have revised its guidelines on VAR, since we've mostly seen quick and painless restarts after goals this week, whereas last week there were delays of at least a minute or so every single time - even when there appeared to be no possible incident requiring a double-check. Let us hope that this is genuine progress, and not just an unrepresentative blip! But there is still so much more that needs to be fixed about this bloody system...

Friday night's game at Bournemouth gave us a remarkably uncontroversial start to the week. The home side powered through fairly comfortably against Fulham, despite conceding an early goal to a neat finish from Sessegnon. Antoine Semenyo's hot streak refuses to peter out (as, I confess, I have been expecting it to - as it always has in the past, after fewer games than this); this time he picked up an assist as well as a brace of goals. So, the 43% of FPL managers who don't yet own him are royally screwed this week! (However, Kluivert is finally back; and that is likely to cut into his returns substantially - particularly if he takes over the duties on penalties and free-kicks.) The other big 'news' for FPL was that Senesi, as well as disappointingly failing to keep an anticipated clean sheet, failed to earn 'defensive points' for the first time - being the last defender to lose a 100% record on this. (Some people had been fondly hoping that he and a few others were going to pick up the extra points almost every week; but it's always been fairly obvious that even the best performers under this new criterion would probably not manage a return much better than once in every two or three games across the season.)

Richarlison's omission from the starting eleven (presumably just being 'rested' after a tough Champions League game) was a blow to the 16.5% of FPL managers who own him. Even a slighly lacklustre Spurs were good enough to beat Leeds - although the home side had a lot of very good chances (more than 3x the visitors' xG!!), and Vicario had to make a sharp save from a Piroe volley right at the end to hang on to the points (although he had been slightly at fault on Okafor's equaliser). Tel's opener was a belter, but I don't take too much encouragement from Kudus's winner (although he was impressively busy in other dimensions of the game, his finishing still looks off) - a scudding effort that needed a decisive deflection from the unfortunate Struijk to beat Darlow in goal; while he had blazed wide from the game's best chance in the first half, and tamely wasted a free-kick in an excellent position in the second. Simons also had a difficult game (he's just not as effective in the central No. 10 area as he is out on the flank; and it seemed odd that he was preferred to Bergvall, given his recent form, unless there was a fitness issue with the Swedish youngster), and looked to be almost in tears of frustration when he was eventually withdrawn.

Saka didn't actually look that sharp on his full return for Arsenal, but was able to emphatically convert a penalty to underline the result (and had an earlier effort rightly ruled out for being clearly offside). Again, remarkably little refereeing incident in the game: there wasn't much doubt that Timber had been bundled over by Diouf on the 18-yard line, and only the briefest of checks was necessary to confirm that, even if the contact had started just outside, the bulk of it occurred inside the penaly area. West Ham looked rather more coherent in defence, but still couldn't muster a threat going forward. Disappointment this week for backers of Calafiori in the weekly debate over 'who is the best Arsenal defender (for FPL)?'; he cracked a fierce drive against the woodwork, while Timber picked up an assist for 'winning' the penalty and Gabriel was the only Arsenal player to earn 'defensive points' this week (and only just); it's curious that Saliba, the Sheep's darling over the last two seasons, isn't in this conversation at all at the moment! Arteta's joy at going top ahead of faltering Liverpool may be slightly undercut by the fact that both Odegaard and Rice had to come off with injuries.

A flailing Ruben Amorim continues to make multiple changes every week, even when there's no apparent need for them. Lammens was handed his debut in goal, although Bayindir had in fact produced an outstanding display last week; Mount was rushed back from injury to replace Cunha (a more combative option for pressing high up the pitch, presumably?) as one of the 'joint 10s', and Dalot was switched to the left side to accommodate the return of Amad Diallo to the right wing-back role. It might be argued that all of this tinkering 'worked', since United did produce one of their best - or least worst - performances, and ended up fairly comfortable winners against promoted Sunderland. But the visitors were surely at fault for being much too passive in the opening 25 minutes or so; as soon as they started getting on the front foot a bit more, they caused the home side a lot of problems. VAR was actually doing its job properly for once, as they directed a review of a penalty originally awarded against Sesko for appearing to kick Hume in the side of the head; it was actually very clear that there had been no contact (and I would have been very happy for VAR to be able to make a call like that on their own) - but the high boot should surely still have resulted in an indirect free-kick for 'dangerous play'?  Sesko was also at the centre of the week's great BPS mystery, somehow receiving the maximum 3 bonus points despite having done almost nothing in the game, apart from hooking in Dalot's long throw for the (ultimately irrelevant) second goal. I really feel at the moment that wins are not helpful to Manchester United overall: a loss to Sunderland here would surely have seen Amorim given his overdue marching orders; now they might be stuck with him for weeks or months longer; and I just don't see that working out well.

Chelsea's opener was a rocket from Caicedo, from well outside the box (the one-goal-a-season man is suddenly posting striker numbers??!!). Maresca got himself booked on the touchline for protesting the non-award of a penalty to Garnacho for a supposed 'push in the back' from Szoboszlai - but it was such a light and fleeting contact that there was nothing in the appeal at all; and the Chelsea manager should rather have been grateful that the Argentinian was not penalised for his exaggerated dive. He'll now face a touchline ban for the next game, after picking up a second yellow for over-celebrating Estevao's late winner. Apart from a promising spell early in the second half, when Wirtz briefly provided some new energy up-front, having been brought on at half-time while Szoboszlai was moved to right-back in place of Conor Bradley, Chelsea were well on top for most of the game, and actually seemed to gain renewed focus and energy from Gakpo nicking an equaliser against the run of play; their eventual win - with yet another deep in added-on time effort from the young Brazilian substitute - seemed well deserved. Garnacho, with an elegant curler in the first half, and Enzo, with a firm header in the second, had both hit the woodwork; and Mamardashvili made a pair of excellent saves in quick succession from Gittens and Estevao. Chelsea will be worried though, that both of their central defensive starters limped off in the second-half. And any FPL managers who still have Liverpool players should be discouraged not only by the side's flakey form but by Arne Slot's recurring penchant for making early substitutions. It might be a measure of what a comparatively disappointing match this was that apparently only Reece James reached the threshold for earning 'defensive points'. (If no-one was earning 'defensive points', no-one was creating much attacking threat!)

Aston Villa are finally starting to look a bit more lively, with Morgan Rogers in particular becoming more dangerous again. Ollie Watkins, alas, continued to be strangely anonymous, but Donyell Malen, joining him in the middle in an attacking pair, looks like he could be a revelation. Burnley, though, were again well in the game for the most part, and will be ruing their couple of defensive mistakes. Two refereeing question-marks in this one: Rogers felt he should have had a penalty, but I feel VAR was correct in viewing it as a trivial tug on the shirt that set Rogers play-acting. There was much more of a case with the late shout for a sending-off against Zian Flemming for thowing an elbow in the face of Emi Buendia; apparently, that was considered 'accidental' - but it didn't look that way to me.

Postecoglou's Nottingham Forest again failed to produce any sort of attacking threat, and Newcastle at home, even a little below par, dominated so comfortably, they really should have won by more than 2 goals. The only mild controversy was whether Bruno Guimaraes's slight shove on Gibbs-White as they ran into each should have invalidated his stunning first goal 10 seconds later; in one sense, possibly a 50/50 sort of call - and yet one that no-one is ever going to give.

Everton v Palace looked for a long time like it was going to be a game where two mediocre attacks would be cancelled out by two top defences. Although, Palace looked like the home side for most of the match, dominating easily, but failing to establish a decisive lead - thanks to some wasteful finishing from Sarr and Mateta, and a few smart saves from Pickford. Everton came back strongly at the end, but didn't really deserve (yet another!) late, late winner. At least no refereeing cock-ups in this one....

Wolves looked plenty good enough to have gained their first win against a rather lacklustre Brighton: Jhon Arias blazed over from the best chance of the game, after being set up by Hugo Bueno on the left, and Jorgen Strand Larsen cracked a drive against the foot of the near post late on. Bart Verbruggen is surely the unluckiest player of the weekend, initially making an excellent fingertip save to Munetsi's scorching volley, but having the ball rebound off the underside of the crossbar and then immediately bounce into the net off the back of his head as an 'own-goal'. As with Burnley, a late defensive lapse at a corner cost the home side the points.

Brentford did well to hang on in the game and keep it to a narrow loss, after allowing Haaland to bulldoze his way through the middle of their defence for an opener after only 8 minutes. They should really have had an equaliser when Thiago broke in behind on his own, but crucially miscontrolled the ball just as he approached the edge of the box and was rushed into a shooting effort that Donnarumma blocked fairly easily. They nearly nicked another shortly afterwards, when Donnarumma failed to notice Schade closing him down and blasted the ball straight at him - but the rebound luckily deflected wide of the goal (that probably counted as a 'save' for Donnarumma, though he knew absolutely nothing about it!). The major news in the game, though, was that Rodri - who had survived an hour or so in the Champions League in midweek with no apparent ill effects - broke down again here after just 20 minutes.

In a mostly rather drab and unexciting gameweek, there have been scarcely any major refereeing decisions to query. So, on the officiating, we were actually getting pretty close to our first ever ZERO (if only this weren't such a rarity!); but a fair number of injuries, omissions, stunning goals and efforts crashed against the woodwork still up the 'LUCK' factor somewhat. It's telling that while the 'Team of the Week' has a fairly high proportion of widely owned players this week, there are still some curveballs like Lammens, Van Hecke, Guimaraes, Malen, and Sesko in there! So, I think we're looking at a 2 out of 10 on the 'Luck-o-Meter'.

Dilemmas of the Week - Gameweek 7 (25/26)

It looks as though - touch wood - nobody (except Liverpool) suffered too badly in this week's European games, so there is fairly little new news on the injury front this week.

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 7 of the season?

Does anybody need to be moved out because of injury?

Tyrone Mings came off with an ankle injury last weekend and is likely to be out for at least a few weeks. Emi Martinez has also reportedly suffered a muscle injury this week. More woe for Villa!

Kaoru Mitoma is reportedly struggling with a knock of some kind - although that might be one of those 'tactical' phantom injuries to get him excused from international duty with Japan next week. Joel Veltman is going to be out for a couple of weeks with a calf strain.

Chelsea midfield stopper Andrey Santos has picked up a knock; although Romeo Lavia may be ready to step in alongside Caicedo as a second pivot again. (Or, indeed, they sometimes play Reece James effectively in that role - making room for Malo Gusto to come in at right-back.)

Raul Jimenez is a doubt after having to come off against Villa last week with a hip problem. Since his alternate Rodrigo Muniz has a hamstring strain which may keep him sidelined for some weeks, that's looking like quite a challenge for Fulham. Maybe they'll play Harry Wilson or Alex Iwobi as a 'false 9'? Full-back Kenny Tete suffered a knee injury in training just before last week's game: not too serious, but going to keep him out until after the forthcoming international break at least. This might provide room for Antonee Robinson, rehabilitated after his knee surgery at the end of last season, with Castagne or Sessegnon switching to the right side.

The big news of the week is that Alisson and Hugo Ekitike both had to come off with muscle injuries in Tuesday night's Champions League game at Galatasary. Ekitike maintained his problem was "only cramp", but Alisson looks set to miss at least a few weeks - giving an opportunity to new back-up Giorgi Mamardashvili.

Tino Livramento's knee injury is not as bad as first feared when he had to be stretchered off against Arsenal last week after landing awkwardly, but he is expected to be out for around 2 months. Kieran Trippier will presumably deputise (until he gets injured again....).

Murillo came off after an hour in Forest's European game last night (having only just returned from a two-week absence), and looks likely to have to make way for Morato again this weekend against Newcastle.

Dominic Solanke has just had surgery on his troublesome ankle, and so is now likely to be missing for another couple of months or so at least. Wolves's Matt Doherty has apparently also just had a surgery on a wrist problem, so will be out for a few weeks at least.

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

Trevoh Chalobah serves a one-match ban for getting sent off for a 'denial of a goalscoring opportunity' offence last week.

Kiernan Dewsbury-Hall is also suspended for this week, having - remarkably - picked up 5 yellow cards already.

And Tomas Soucek is serving the last game of his three-match ban for 'serious foul play' against Spurs.

Did anyone give other cause to consider dropping them?

It's really becoming difficult to keep the faith with any Manchester United players - even Bryan Mbeumo or Bruno Fernandes - when Ruben Amorim is in such a painful death-spiral. I'm hoping a home defeat to Sunderland this weekend will prompt his immediate sacking, so that a recovery of sorts can begin at Old Trafford.

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

Ismaila Sarr and Jean-Philippe Mateta - and, of course, the whole of the Palace defence - are starting to look promising again. But no-one really stood out last week, in a mostly very drab round of games.

BEST OF LUCK, EVERYONE!

A little bit of Zen (62)

 

“Happiness is your current situation - minus expectations.”

Jimmy Carr

The wilfully provocative Anglo-Irish comedian often reveals a philosophical bent in his more serious moments. This is a sentiment worthy of Epictetus (who is, to be honest, a rather greater influence on my personal outlook than Zen Buddhism or Taoism).

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'.