I have always wondered how much does Luck play a part when we sum up our final scores.
Is it very important to have lady luck by your side ?
Or will skill and hard work triumph eventually over the luckiest guy ?

The top players will finish there or thereabouts but luck will decide the winner.

I ran a thread about this a few years ago (which isn't coming up on a search so it must be on the old, pre-October 2005 forum). The general feeling was that success in fantasy football is broadly down to an even three-way split between gameplay (ie an understanding of how the particular game you're playing works and the best tactics to employ), football knowledge (which would include knowing who's injured, who's likely to be dropped etc) and luck.

I think heavy good luck in the beginning of the game can setup the mediocre player to a very high finish, top 50 happens lots of times. (a little unfair I'd say, luck is way more than 33% at the top end)
Luck will evaporate over seasons, which is why I think there should be a long-running table and that is where you would find the best players who don't need any luck. (say past 3 seasons minimum) Of course they'll NEVER do that because it takes away the fun for the crap players who may have a one season wonder and enjoy their '15 minutes of fame'. As it is, FPL get 2mn+ players every year which achieves their aim, website hits.

Ironfist That was for your dig at the World's Greatest Team and the World's Greatest Footballer

for players who generally know what they doing, over the course of the season, luck is basically the difference between finishing in the top 5,000 - 10,000 or finishing in the top 1,000.

Spot on. It's annoying for a very good player to be between 500 and 3000 every year because it gets boring but luck makes that a high probability. Whereas a 'rubbish' player could finish anywhere (realistically) from 1000 (which would be a very acceptable finish for them and require good luck) and 1000,000th.
Of course if you are very good and you have awful luck you still shouldn't be outside top 15,000 really.

I voted 25 - 50%. I think there is a slight element of luck, what with injuries and snow, but being well read and knowing what is going on is vital. I've lost track of the number of times I've asked someone who they've transfered in, to then have to break the sad news that he's injured or unlikley to play (I love these moments )

I read the forums and check the team news on a Friday. I also think watching MOTD or games live helps as you can often spot potential for a bandwagon before takes off. A good example would be Chimbonda a few years back at Wigan.

I've done ok as a result.

Why am I the first one to have voted 75%+ luck?

Skill gets you in and around the top 10,000 consistently. but to be around the top few hundred you need a massive amount of luck.

And if you get that massive amount of luck, especially in the beginning, it doesn't take a good player to get into the top 100, which it should. And there are plenty of examples of poor/mediocre players who've cracked the top 50 over the seasons, or won. That should not happen which means there is too much luck. Only poor players would argue...

How do we know that? If I were to look at the top 50 for previous years, what distinguishes those players that were poor+lucky from those that were just good?

Quite easy. Have you firstly looked at their previous history over the years (e.g. 877,000th[let them off first season], 450,000th[very bad], 550,000[terrible], and then suddenly 9th!!!) and then looked more importantly at their transfers which have been sometimes awful. I'm not saying the top 50 is littered with average players, but I can spot at least one or two every year who are not worth their place. And the year after surprise surprise they finish 200,000th. You telling me this doesn't happen?

And by the way the good players (can't tell all the time because some players are in their first season and may well be good) can be spotted a mile away...mainly by their history.

No, of course I would not presume to tell you anything. I was interested because I don't play to win the whole thing, I just (try to) compete in my mini-league, so the top of the overall table is of no interest to me (my main mini-league bans selection of certain players so making it effectively impossible to compete overall). I think it is interesting that you can spot poor players - can you give some actual examples to back up your hypothesis with evidence? As someone who tries quite hard (within the mini-league's restrictions) it is rather difficult to imagine that someone can be a poor player and just though luck finish in the top 50 in the world! I never think of myself as being particularly lucky or unlucky, over the course of a season I guess I sort of thought there would be good breaks and bad ones.

I can't give examples until later in the season. Most of them are on a very steep learning curve so at a point later in the season they are not bad players so generally make OK decisions (however it's too late for many better than them to overtake as they are either miles behind or have too similar a team). Winning a mini league is all well and good but it's your final position that defines how good you are. The fantasy scout league seems to always finish top which is where you will generally find the top players. See my mini-league is of little interest because it bears little relevance to my performance that season.
I'm just saying out of the 2mn players, I estimate 1.8mn aren't really going for it seriously and of those say 50000 are lucky early on (I mean very lucky) and so they actaully concentrate (when they maybe would have not been interested) and out of those say 5000 are very lucky (and so they keep going) and so on...until only a few remain in the top 50 at the end. Or something like that
I can't say for sure at this early stage but I wouldn't bet that there will be people who've started with Scholes, Hart, Harewood, etc that will be top 50 come end of season. And that for me is wrong. Those players should NOT be in your starting eleven and they'll learn that but only at the point in the season where they are 150 points ahead of me...

Yeah, well, I never made any claims... but you've defined me now and I have to live with it.


It must be tough at the top - you have my sympathy.

Your position over seasons defines how good you really are, not me. I was just having a rant on amounts of luck involved as that's the basis of this thread.

I'll just wish you good luck then

That may be partly because some of Fiso's top players also enter their teams in the much larger FFS minileague,which gives FFS a big advantage

If you look at the top of the Scout league, it kind of gives Sutters Luck Theory a shred of credibility, and goes some way to explaining why they do so well, all but one the top 5 have previous which is bordering on non existent or cringe worthy at best.

So Sutters Luck Theory would seem to dictate that from a pool of almost 5000, you can almost guarantee a few mugs will get lucky and join a couple of "Top Players" and bingo, a winning league.

So Sutter, why are we not getting the privilege of seeing your team and past record then .

I know you have been dying for someone to ask

I think i would agree with you. It can be luck that breaks you inside the top 10,000. But it surely cant be luck that breaks you inside the top 50 ?!?! You need to be a fantastic player to be top 50 ..
Yes - I know certain top 50 people have finished something like 500,000 In the Past.
But that maybe becasue they registered a team , and never actually bothered playing the game for the rest of the season ?
I remember last season ( my first season )- I played for 3 gameweeks - and never touched the team again ( for various reasons )
I finished with 1800 odd points and a six figure rank.
Say this time i play , play well, and have a lot of luck - maybe that means me finishing inside top 10,000.
I am not saying this must have happened to the others as well - but it definately is a possibility ?

How do you post record though not sure I want to be shot down in flames; mine's OK, not as good as say Blue Scorpion's if you know him (Malefice, Quan Qei Qu)?? I've averaged around 2,000th for last 8 years (got a 150th and a 22nd but slipped to my lowest ever 13,000th last year, dreadfully unlucky you know ) so I'm not the best player out there but definitely earned a good opinion

I'm telling you now there will be plenty of non-fantastic players around the top 50 come end of season, see it every year. Because the year after they are awful again, they can't have the excuse of "they only tried for one year" cos that doesn't prove anything. The cream will always rise to the top50 but because of the sheer amount of sheep out there, one or two of them always slip through via tremendous luck, we're talking 1 out of 1.8mn here and only 38 GWs. Remember also that early luck is paramount especially if they're a new player because they may actually turn out to be an OK player by the time mid/end season arrives.

(BTW even very poor players know to bring in Drogba and make him captain)

I will tell you something, it takes a darned good player to make the top 200 even once. You have 16 variables that you are dealing with (15 players + captain). You think that you can be lucky with those for 38 weeks? No you can't.

You can copy and paste your team id into a post, I`m not doubting you, I`m just curious, honestly

abcd1234, is that you in your avatar?

http://fantasy.premierleague.com/M/entr ... ?id=154421

Used to be called IANMARSHALLRULES and I've seen a thread somewhere on the internet (assume it's still there) detailing that season (22nd).

As for the must be a great player to get into top 200, how come players with very poor past histories and future histories (after the one season wonder) get high up then?? Only got to happen to 1 in a million...

As for captain variable, if you'd made Lamps captain pretty much all last season, you wouldn't be going far wrong. (and it doesn't take a genius for that). Not 15 other variables because at certain points during the season some players are no-brainers, now it's Carroll, Drogba, Malouda, etc (which altogether spends a fair chunk of your budget)

This thread demonstrates how little many players understand about the game. Not only is it extremely skillful, most players don't even understand what the full range of skill is (for instance not just getting the right players in, but getting them in at the right time etc - there are many many other examples).

Looking at the year so far tellls you nothing - there is lots of luck from week to week, and month to month, but no lucky player will hold it together for a season to finish, say, top 15.

Sure there may be one or two lucky players in the top 100 but surely this shows it is 98% skill - and the lucky players maybe average 10,000 or something so are in the top 1% in the first place (assuming 1,000,000 "sensible" teams).

Good players will take a lot of heart from this thread! Scholes, for instance, was a very good pick from the start, and I'm kicking myself for missing it. He was well rested when many were tired, bonus magnet, used to score goals (so can clearly finish), only one game per week and dirt cheap for a top 2 side with a good start to the season! Whether he is a good seasn long pick is neither here or there - that is what is good about FPL.

I think it's pretty easy to figure out to be honest. When I do well, it's 100% skill and just my natural footballing foresight. However if I do badly, then it's completely luck that everyone else beat me and should be written off as a fluke