Discussion around good; very good or genius FPL players

[Carlos Kickaball]

It's a good record, but if you look at enough player's records, you'll eventually find one that good.

Wow, well played Captain Obivious. What a redundant comment.


Except your wrong.

Because Ville Ronka's IS the best record in the game. You won't eventually find one that good.

Check the hall of fame on FFScout... he's ranked no.1 ... and by some distance.

http://members.fantasyfootballscout.co. ... me/career/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Except you're wrong, Ville's record is the record that good I'm referring too. Well done for an idiotic comment.

[chester copperpott]

Not sure what it is you're trying to say there unfortunately.

It's the best record in the game, end of story.

[eastcentral1]

Don't worry about it, I also tried (and failed) to understand that

[Carlos Kickaball]

Not sure what it is you're trying to say there unfortunately.

Okay I'll make it a little easier for you to understand.

Because Ville Ronka's IS the best record in the game. You won't eventually find one that good.

Actually, you will eventually find one that good, and it's Ville Rönkä's.

If you read my post carefully, I say nothing about finding another record as good, or finding a better record.

[Stemania]

Kenneth Tang's record is superior to Ville's in my eyes, but the FFS HOF I believe heavily weight (overly weight imo) the most recent years.

They're the best records of FFS members, who know's what the best record out there is? Almost impossible to say.

[chester copperpott]

Not sure what it is you're trying to say there unfortunately.

Okay I'll make it a little easier for you to understand.

Because Ville Ronka's IS the best record in the game. You won't eventually find one that good.

Actually, you will eventually find one that good, and it's Ville Rönkä's.

If you read my post carefully, I say nothing about finding another record as good, or finding a better record.

???

So your point was that while Ville's record was a good one, we should not get carried away, because... well it could be found eventually by someone who went looking for it?

That it was visible, essentially.

And you object to what exactly, me calling you Captain Obvious, and calling the post a redundant comment?

[The Dazzler]

Not sure what it is you're trying to say there unfortunately.

Okay I'll make it a little easier for you to understand.

Because Ville Ronka's IS the best record in the game. You won't eventually find one that good.

Actually, you will eventually find one that good, and it's Ville Rönkä's.

If you read my post carefully, I say nothing about finding another record as good, or finding a better record.

???

So your point was that while Ville's record was a good one, we should not get carried away, because... well it could be found eventually by someone who went looking for it?

That it was visible, essentially.

And you object to what exactly, me calling you Captain Obvious, and calling the post a redundant comment?

Just stop. All of you. Pointless argument.
Poyets pressie is starting any minute..........sshhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh

[Carlos Kickaball]

So your point was that while Ville's record was a good one, we should not get carried away, because... well it could be found eventually by someone who went looking for it?

Yes, I'm sorry that you missed the significance of what I said.

The implication is really that with so many records in the FFS hall of fame, and the game in general, even if luck was a reasonable part of a good season along with skill, a record like that is likely to exist. How likely that is, how much skill would need to be a factor, and how often unlikely events occur, was then discussed in the topic between a few members.

Just stop. All of you. Pointless argument.

Yes, I'll stop now Dazzler, having already typed the above reply before I read your post. I think the majority of people understood what I was saying, and even those who disagreed with me at the time understood the implications and meaning of what was said. Feel free to PM me chester copperpott if you have any other questions.

Be interesting to see if Ville Rönkä ever finds this, currently we are on the 4th page of google searches for the name Ville Rönkä.

[MPTree]

I get it, CK. Luck is the only thing that separates managers of equal skill.

Assuming a very basic model where you either have good luck or bad luck over the course of a single season, and assuming that you're just as likely to have good luck as you are bad, and given that there's over three million players: eventually you'll find a manager of an excellent skill level who has also had consistently good luck over a long period of time.

Whether or not Ville Rönkä is this player, or whether he's genuinely an FPL genius is another debate altogether.

[The Dazzler]

@SkySports_Keith
Sunderland boss Gus Poyet on who will play in goals at Palace on Monday: "I've got an idea but nobody knows. It's a strong decision for me."

If that quote is correct, then I think Ville will have to sell.
The poker player in me says that quote means Poyet will put in Panti. If you're keeping the same keeper, why would you leave it open to doubt? You'd just say, 'I have confidence in Mannone and he'll play on Monday'. It reminds me of how Mourinho approached the Courtois/Cech issue. But perhaps, Poyet just hasn't made his mind up yet.
In any case, I think Ville might now go Krul or Green.

[Wyld]

Be interesting to see if Ville Rönkä ever finds this, currently we are on the 4th page of google searches for the name Ville Rönkä.

I've gone back through all my posts on this thread and added his full name, Ville Rönkä, to give Google something more to chew on. The trap is now baited.

[Wyld]

I get it, CK. Luck is the only thing that separates managers of equal skill.

Assuming a very basic model where you either have good luck or bad luck over the course of a single season, and assuming that you're just as likely to have good luck as you are bad, and given that there's over three million players: eventually you'll find a manager of an excellent skill level who has also had consistently good luck over a long period of time.

Whether or not Ville Rönkä is this player, or whether he's genuinely an FPL genius is another debate altogether.

You can get lucky over the course of one season (perhaps a million to one chance) in always picking the best captain from your team. However, the consistency being demonstrated by these players over the course of multiple seasons is orders of magnitude beyond just being lucky. What these players have is 1) a better strategy and 2) better tactics. If, on top of those two things, they have better luck that's just a bonus for them, but it's not something they are relying on. Looking back over the season scores for these players usually shows up instances of bad luck -- an odd season when they finished outside the top 100,000. But that's usually an anomaly.

[Carlos Kickaball]

Yes MPTree, you are pretty much spot on.

Excellent work Wyld, I hope Ville Rönkä the fantasy football player from Finland finds this thread. I would have emailed him, but unfortunately I'm not sure which Ville Rönkä he is, and don't fancy harassing random Finnish people.

[Wyld]

So I got to thinking if there might be a better way to summarize what we have learned so far when it comes to successful strategies and tactics, and I came up with this. Bold characteristics are those I think these top players are following:

Low risk starting team - high risk starting team
Buy early bandwagons - Ignore bandwagons
Wildcard early - Wildcard late - Wildcard whenever
Take no differentials - Take one differential - Take multiple differentials
Minimize bench cash - Ignore bench cash
Never take hits - Sometimes take hits - Often take hits
Rotate goalkeepers - One fixed goalkeeper
Rotate defenders - Fixed defenders
Rotate midfielders - Fixed midfielders
Rotate strikers - Fixed strikers
Rotate captains - Fixed captains
Ship out non-performers early - Give them a chance
Spend most on: goalkeepers - defenders - midfielders - strikers
Spend least on: goalkeepers - defenders - midfielders - strikers
Save transfers if possible - Always use transfer
Concentrate early on making money - Ignore cash in bank
Aim for template team - Go your own way

Any sensible disagreement with that?

[Blacksunrise]

Damn, need to start getting some hits!

[gallus]

Rotate defenders - Fixed defenders
Rotate strikers - Fixed strikers

This is my first year playing FPL but this simply makes no sense. A talented striker can score against any team in the league so rotating your strikers doesn't make much sense. It also means you can't play 3-4-3, because in 3-4-3 you clearly have to play all your strikers.

Unlike strikers, defenders get points for team achievements, not individual achievements. Therefore, it makes sense to play a defender from a team that plays the least talented attacking team.

[ruudy]

F*ck i just realised i don't even have an FPL history. I played this season with a new email address from last so i guess that's why. At least when i finish top 100 in my first season it'll look really impressive

[10Hughes]

Interesting points, however my defenders are rotated dependent on fixtures (particularly the 3rd of a back 3), and this can be planned in advance. Fixed defenders are only worthy if they're defenders for decent clubs, and these often cost money, and we all know defence isn't the place to spent your cash...

[Wyld]

Rotate defenders - Fixed defenders
Rotate strikers - Fixed strikers

This is my first year playing FPL but this simply makes no sense. A talented striker can score against any team in the league so rotating your strikers doesn't make much sense. It also means you can't play 3-4-3, because in 3-4-3 you clearly have to play all your strikers.

Unlike strikers, defenders get points for team achievements, not individual achievements. Therefore, it makes sense to play a defender from a team that plays the least talented attacking team.

Sorry a bit of woolly thinking on my part... probably should have read:

Rotate defenders - Fixed defenders
Rotate strikers - Fixed strikers

[gallus]

Interesting points, however my defenders are rotated dependent on fixtures (particularly the 3rd of a back 3), and this can be planned in advance. Fixed defenders are only worthy if they're defenders for decent clubs, and these often cost money, and we all know defence isn't the place to spent your cash...

I think 2 fixed defenders (one premium, for example Ivan or Baines, and one 5.0 chosen based on fixtures) and 3 rotating base price defenders are the way to go, though 1*7.0+2*4.5+2*4.0 could be interesting as well. defence is about team performance, so unless a defender is a consistent attacking threat you should pick cheap defenders from decent clubs and rotate them based on fixtures.

[Wyld]

Interesting points, however my defenders are rotated dependent on fixtures (particularly the 3rd of a back 3), and this can be planned in advance. Fixed defenders are only worthy if they're defenders for decent clubs, and these often cost money, and we all know defence isn't the place to spent your cash...

Has this been proven statistically? I don't recall that. A back line of say Baines, Ivanovic, Clyne would have been pricey but nice so far...

I think 2 fixed defenders (one premium, for example Ivan or Baines, and one 5.0 chosen based on fixtures) and 3 rotating base price defenders are the way to go...

Agreed: that seems like the best strategy. However, Ville has made little or no attempt at defender rotation so far. It's a bit difficult to tell -- what with the early wildcard and all that.

[Finisher1]

Low risk starting team - high risk starting team
Buy early bandwagons - Ignore bandwagons
Wildcard early - Wildcard late - Wildcard whenever
Take no differentials - Take one differential - Take multiple differentials
Minimize bench cash - Ignore bench cash
Never take hits - Sometimes take hits - Often take hits
Rotate goalkeepers - One fixed goalkeeper
Rotate defenders - Fixed defenders
Rotate midfielders - Fixed midfielders
Rotate strikers - Fixed strikers
Rotate captains - Fixed captains
Ship out non-performers early - Give them a chance
Spend most on: goalkeepers - defenders - midfielders - strikers
Spend least on: goalkeepers - defenders - midfielders - strikers
Save transfers if possible - Always use transfer
Concentrate early on making money - Ignore cash in bank
Aim for template team - Go your own way

This actually describes my own philosophy almost perfectly.

I'm especially ashamed when some people want to have strong bench. I mean what the hell. You want your money on the field, so buy just base price bench guys. I don't see any reason to invest on your bench.

If there's injury - eff it, do a transfer if necessary.
If there's tough fixtures - eff it, do transfer if necessary

[baganboy]

^^ agreed.

[liquidfootball2]

I think Ville did Sterling to Sanchez, leaving Pelle Welbeck and Aguero up front and so far anyway Manmissing in goal. 1 transfer used.

Should have said Hazard not Sanchez

[Joshua82]

looks like Ville has gone with Sterling Hazard this week and left Mannone alone (well, he's spent £1.3m so I assume that's his move).

I guess Hazard has high point scoring potential this week so I can see the logic behind having him + a potential non playing GK vs. Sterling & Krul/Foster/Green.

[Stemania]

I think Ville did Sterling to Sanchez, leaving Pelle Welbeck and Aguero up front and so far anyway Manmissing in goal.

looks like Ville has gone with Sterling Hazard this week and left Mannone alone.

Have you ever thought about meeting up and solving crimes together?

[liquidfootball2]

Yep it's not often i'd bother looking, but in the same boat and curiousity got the better of me.

I meant to put Hazard not Sanchez anyway!

[Joshua82]

Same, seeing as I also had a Mannone issue.

Quite odd that we both decided to post our findings at roughly the same time too.

[Mo Bot]

Good, very good or genius players wouldn't have transferred Chambers in but left him on the bench

[The Catman]

Yes, Sterling Hazard (c) this week, resisted removing Mannone or getting Costa in.