R_NZ FPL Blog

[blahblah]

He hasn't as he flew from Italy to Portugal the other day...

Congratulations, that was the 5000th post on this blog. Had to be you, right?

And I'm FISO's No2 atm

I still think people are missing the shadow of Cavani, who will take minutes off Ron unless they can shift him. Although I'm looking forward to the SAF style last 10mins hoofball with Sancho, Cav, Ron and Greenwood up top

[Joccki_10]

I think it depends on what Solskjær plans to do with Pogba. I can’t see Ronaldo starting that game over both Sancho and Greenwood, so if Solskjær persists with Pogba at LW, I don’t think Ronaldo starts. If he’s going to play Pogba at CM, then yes, I can see it being Sancho-Ronaldo-Greenwood.

[…]

As for Pogba, I feel fairly sure that we are going to be seeing the promised 4-3-3 soon enough with Pogba playing left of the middle three as he did for Juventus. Bruno right and a holder (Matic? Fred?) in between. That would enable Greenwood to keep his place even alongside CR7, at least until Rashford is back. Though OGS does have a thing for Martial as well. I think Greenwood's days as a FPL asset are numbered too, unfortunately.

There’s the answer. Pogba back to CM, Ronaldo to come in for James next week?

[Ruth_NZ]

Yeah, I think so. But Martial is always hovering and when Rashford is back Greenwood certainly won't be 1st choice. Still, make hay while the sun shines and all that.

Pleased that Son(c) had a 10-pointer, I was fearing the worst after Antonio's haul yesterday. Now it's evened up. Could just do with an United CS now, they are really due one.

[Sutter Kane]

Yes, a fair question - “how different would a GW7 WC be?”.

Plus of course this GW4 draft has James, whereas a GW7 WC allows Shaw and Greenwood (if he remains a starter, which he may do for those few weeks, despite Ronaldo/Rashford/Sancho) to stay for United’s easier fixtures before switching to Mount + James/Chilwell.

Yeah no chance of me WC gw4. GW5 allows the Newc home game for G'wood (possibly his final safe-ish game) but I take your point with the Villa home game in GW6. Ronaldo will be my only Man U player.

Maybe I will include Mount instead but it's not like Torres was bad last season, 24 appearances nearly 100 points. As long as one has a decent sub, I'd take that again if I owned him all season. I feel he's been more 'thought of' into that Pep centre forward role now though, so may get some more game time there if Jesus is now deemed rubbish in that position (and of course Aguero gone). Still might go Mount though!

Thanks Sutter, you've atleast got me thinking about a GW5 WC now!

No probs but I have planned for this GW5 WC so it's not for everyone - if you can take a hit then it might be sensible to wait. Basically any reasonable WC5 team is miles better than what I currently have for that week.

[Ruth_NZ]

WILDCARD #1

When is the first wildcard best deployed? Obviously that decision is team-specific (dependent on the state of your squad and your reading of player/team trends) but there are also external factors which have an influence. So this commentary in 2 parts will take a look at broad principles as well as specific details related to this season. For the sake of clarity, 1WC must be used "in the first half of the season (before Tue 28 Dec 13:30)", so before GW20 deadline.

Part I: Underlying Principles

1. It's the players you take out!

It is very easy to become focused on the players you want to get in when wildcarding but it equally concerns the players you are removing. Any wildcard is likely to involve the sacrifice of some components that have been performing well but don't fit your next plan, whether because fixtures are swinging against them or their gametime looks threatened or their manager is using them differently or you just want someone else more.

One such example in my squad right now is Mason Greenwood; he has 26 points in 3 weeks so far and only Lloris, Salah and Antonio have done better. The concern with him is that he has been advantaged by no summer tournament, a full-pre-season and the absence of other players. There is therefore some doubt about his future gametime once CR7 arrives and Rashford is fit again, with Cavani, Sancho and Martial now available to start games as well. But none of that has happened yet and it may not be immediate; Rashford is unlikely to be back before GW8 earliest and Cavani still hasn't started a game. It was notable that OGS took James and Sancho off before Greenwood yesterday, in fact he has played all but 5 minutes of the three games so far. So is this really an ideal moment to lose him?

The principle here is to think twice about the players you are removing and to give them equal weight in your considerations to those you are adding. The old saying familiarity breeds contempt is a good one because it is a clear feature of human psychology to under-value what we already have whilst becoming excitable about the next new thing that we don't have yet. That psychological factor always needs balancing and it is best to do it before you decide to pull the wildcard trigger.

2. The element of patience.

This follows on from point 1. You have to ask yourself whether the decisions you already made (which led to the combination of players in your current squad) were bad, or unlucky, or lucky, or sound, or mistaken, or are you better informed now? There are countless examples. Mark Sutherns took Torres out for a hit in a triple transfer involving adding Lukaku last week; Torres scored 18 points yesterday and Lukaku 2! I wrote about this at the time but the point of mentioning it here is that it is a good example of impatience at work.

Having Torres in the absence of a recognised striker at City (given that Jesus sees himself as more of a wide forward nowadays) was not a bad decision, even if there was some uncertainty involved; in fact the only reason Torres didn't make my initial team was that I thought City would need longer to get up to speed than they have (goes to show what playing Norwich and Arsenal can do for a team). Torres had been unlucky thus far; City's most threatening attacker (and highest xG) against Spurs, he then had a great finish disallowed against Norwich as well as being very close to reaching the crosses that resulted in a Krul own-goal and the one that bounced in off Grealish. So his exploits against Arsenal were hardly a surprise. It's a perfect instance of losing faith in a player (and in your own decisions) too quickly.

The same can happen in reverse when you decide against a player who immediately hauls. There was plenty of debate before GW1 about Bruno at 12m; personally I saw it as 50/50 for the early season but decided against. And then he hauled in GW1 with 20 points and single-handedly undermined the benefit of my BB. Many will have been in the same situation and plenty tore up their GW1 team in order to get him in. But the fact is that those 3 goals came from an xG of 0.78, quite similar to what Torres had in GW1 actually. And since then he has had 3 points in 2 games. 23 points over 3 games is roughly par for a £12m player, so no-one has really won or lost by having him or not having him (depending on how they dealt with captaincy). But this is part of what I meant by keeping your powder dry the other day; trusting the decisions you have already made and giving them time, because the only managers that have lost are those that didn't have him GW1, took a hit to get him GW2 and then captained him in GW3 to ensure the worst outcome of all. Patience, Padawan!

3. It's about structure as much as players.

This is quite important and is one factor that often militates towards a later wildcard. For example, a lot of FPL managers started this season with a deadspot forward (Perica was a popular one) and once you have done that it becomes harder to shift away from a 3-5-2 structure. It needs 2 transfers at least and that's if it can be done neatly (where the striker you want and the midfielder you are losing are close in value). Otherwise it may be 3 transfers realistically, even 4 before your budget is fully utilised again.

Another case occurs when budget is very stressed. Assuming Ronaldo comes in at 12.5m, many teams will have Salah & Ronaldo and that will be 25% of the budget already used. Some will try to squeeze in Lukaku or Son as well and that will mean a very tight control of spend outside those three. Those managers will mainly be shopping at the 5.5m-6.5m range for their other starting players, which is fine as long as that price-band is performing well. But they will be mainly cut off from the 7-8m band where a lot of great potential lies, at least until they downgrade one of the super-premiums and then it will take more transfers to distribute the freed-up funds.

So, what is being indicated thus far is that it is preferable if the structural shape used on wildcard is one that will last, it makes smooth management much easier and takes away some of the pressure to take hits. As it stands, I see this to be a season where sound underpinning principles, steadiness under fire and avoidance of knee-jerk moves (especially that cost points) will make a valuable difference.

This is actually more complex still than the examples given so far. For example, when budget pressure exists and you need to find 5.5m-6m players to populate your squad, then it is often better to rely on defenders at that price rather than midfielders or forwards. For example, which 6m player has the highest potential, Traoré of Wolves or Dias? Well, Traoré is the sexy choice, he looks so devastating and everyone saw him giving United a torrid time yesterday. Wolves have a great fixture run all the way to GW14 (wat BRE sou NEW avl lee EVE cry WHU nor BUR), he is in the top 10 players so far for xG and has a healthy xA as well. Yes, his finishing seems not to have clicked yet but Wolves do look like a team with attacking intent that will score plenty once it all comes together. He might even go to Spurs before the deadline (though whether that would help or harm him is another question).

Sounds like I am talking myself into Traoré but actually my point is the opposite. The prospect of goals and hauls is always enticing but it is very likely that someone like Dias will tick along, getting 6 points here and 7 there and an occasional goal or assist, nothing flashy to catch the eye but then, 35 weeks later, he's way ahead of what you achieved with your 6m midfielder and you used multiple transfers on that midfielder slot whereas Dias could just have trundled along, using no transfers at all. So, what I am getting at is that if you need to include one or more 6m players, you might be as well to consider structuring for a 4-3-3 (assuming we agree that 3 strikers seem necessary) rather than 3-4-3.

I'll look at that more closely in Part II but the underlying principle here is that a wildcard ties your hands; to some definite degree you are committing to the structure you create (or pain if you need to change it) and if it lacks flexibility (especially with the exclusion of valuable price-brackets that occurs with 3 super-premiums) then you can really be painting yourself into a corner. Fine if it works but where do you go if not, with the wildcard already gone? So the question "which players do I want going forward?" isn't by any means the only important one; "which structure do I want?" is probably less appealing to most but it is actually at least as significant.

4. The conundrum of 'form'

What is 'form' anyway? Clearly it's not just how many points a player scored in FPL recently, that can quite easily be a matter of luck or happenstance. It's also not just how well an individual is playing for his team, because that may or may not translate into value for FPL. Dele Alli is in the best form he has been in for a good while but whether that makes him a valid selection in FPL is another matter as he appears to be playing deeper under Nuno. It's not stats, however much people swear by them; if it were we should all put Traoré in our teams right now (maybe to replace Benrahma) and be done with it. And stats over short periods are full of 'noise' anyway; they rely on the semi-random events of a small number of games when - for example - the crosses happened to find Player A even though Player B was also well-placed. In another game or two it could just as easily be Player B that gets the roll of the ball.

It's amazing but important to recognise how influential recent events are in the decision-making of most FPL managers. We tend to look at points scored or not when the real question is how likely that good (or bad) performance is to repeat. Often people turn to fixtures as a guide here but they are not by any means a perfect predictor either. And I say all this knowing that opposition defensive strength has been shown to be the best single metric for captaincy selection and that goals recently scored is the best single predictor of goals that will be scored in the following games.

Some managers - Joccki is one and I am probably another - are always looking for changes of circumstance for players, when their manager starts using them differently for example, when there is evidence that they (or their team) are improving or perhaps when injuries elsewhere create an opportunity for them. But this alone is no better than any other measure already referred to. A player may have been unlucky recently but that doesn't mean he's about to get lucky. Or he may have been lucky but that doesn't mean he'll now get the reverse effect - as Bruno and Jamie Vardy demonstrated in the early part of last season with incessant penalty after penalty being awarded to them.

I tend to think that form is more easily assessed in terms of teams because it is seldom that player performance is completely independent of their team. For example, I think Smith Rowe has been a shining light in the darkness for Arsenal this season but to deliver anything in that current shambles of a team is next to impossible. Similarly, I wouldn't even consider Traoré based on stats alone but when I look at Wolves as a team I see good attacking intent and teamwork and that makes me more interested.

In terms of principles, well, one is that you don't (shouldn't) base a wildcard on current form alone. Things change. Players have purple patches and grey patches and in addition, WC1 sets the team for a long road not a few weeks. Perhaps it's better to think in terms of structure and price points first and then use form/fixtures to populate the structure thereafter. This is something that experienced managers do automatically, of course, they don't need to think too much about it. But it's sometimes good to remind yourself of the basics anyway.

5. Summary to Part I

• Think twice about the players you will be removing and give them equal weight in your considerations to those you will be adding - this should ideally be thought through before the wildcard decision.
• Trust the decisions you have already made and give them time unless it is very clear you made a mistake; wildcarding out of frustration isn't one of the better reasons for it.
• Remember that a wildcard ties your hands and that structure is as important in this as player selection.
• You don't (shouldn't) base a wildcard on current form alone and using it primarily to get one player is unlikely to be an optimal use of it, better to take a hit or two if that's what's going on.
• WC1 sets the team for a long road not a few weeks - the team you have at Xmas will be influenced by what you did in GW4 or GW7 or whenever the wildcard was deployed.

Well, that's my list of principles, maybe you have others? In which case please be invited to write about them below.

All xG/xA stats are from understat.com

[Joccki_10]

That is a lovely piece, mate. I will try to give a detailed comment by giving examples later today. Looking forward to the second part.

[TheRumourMill]

Have to say Ruth, your postings over the last few days have been first class, really enjoy these long form posts which delve into the big questions and strategy surrounding them.

On the 3 premiums question, its looking more and more likely that Man City will not sign a striker today, which I believe increases the attractiveness of Torres at £7.1m. Also, the rumours surrounding Firmino's injury may potentially make Jota near essential at £7.6m. Furthermore, the performances of TAA have been outstanding this season, and Elliott reaching the first team at Liverpool appears to be pushing TAA into more threatening and creative positions. I don't want to lose him from my team. The same goes for Antonio. My thinking is the desire for these mid priced assets may override any feeling for getting in 3 super premiums, as I don't believe they can all be fitted into the same team. These are the pull factors.

The push factors are I'm really not seeing enough from the budget players. Livamento is doing well, but even so I don't see Southampton getting many clean sheets. Amartey and Duffy's time I believe to be limited, Williams is at a poor side. In midfield Benrahma is undoubtedly a great asset, and I'll always back Raphinha, but haven't seen much from Harrison, Mbuemo and Sarr yet.

So as it stands I'm leaning towards 2 rather then 3 super premiums, the question in my mind is are we confident on the shape of the season yet, and the price performance landscape? This feeds into your wildcard musings too I suspect.

We have bought up Mark's team a couple of times here, I think his team is a case in point this week. 56(-4) was about 13 points below the top 10k average, and thats because his differentials of Lukaku, Sarr and Mbuemo failed to achieve what the likes of Greenwood, Son, Toney, Ings, DCL, Bamford, Torres, Grealish etc managed. Lukaku is doing a hell of a lot of heavy lifting in his triumvirate.

[Ruth_NZ]

Thanks, Joccki, will look forward to your comments. There's a lot at play and a conversation will help to make sense of it.

TRM, thanks also and concur with most of what you say. I am already pretty settled that there will be two super-premium slots in my team and that's it (which should be evident from my recent posts). Your 'push' factors are well observed although you missed Gray, Traoré surely has to be considered and James at Leeds will be interesting ( and who will he displace?). Plus, having Souček set and forget will never harm a team. But the heavy lifting that a 3rd super-premium must do is exactly right and that's a perfect way to express it.

On the shape of the season and price/performance landscape, yes, they do feed into the wildcard commentary and will come up in Part II. I think the fog is lifting faster than it sometimes does this season but it's still at the stage that every week of information helps.

[dod]

Great post Ruth.

I am very much in agreement with your comments about structure and how the wildcard should be considered a long-term strategical chip rather than a short-term tactical one. One of the worst mistakes managers (myself included ) commonly make is failing to build in to their squads sufficient structural flexibility to easily transition to a different strategy if things don't turn out as planned.

*Spoiler alert* - In FPL things almost never turn out as planned.

Looking forward to Part II.

[Ruth_NZ]

..how the wildcard should be considered a long-term strategical chip rather than a short-term tactical one.

Welcome back from hiatus.

Yes, indeed, it has to be considered primarily as a strategic chip, that's one of the reasons why I don't like it being used to set up a BB. Might help the BB but it reduces the influence of the wildcard.

BB and TC are clearly tactical chips but what do you think about the FH? Mostly it is used (and assessed) tactically (how much ground do you gain when you use it) but I see it as halfway between the two. It is tactical when you use it but strategic in terms of allowing you to lave a longer-term plan that 'skips' an awkward week. For me it is always viewed in that context rather than in terms of the headline score the week it is deployed.

[TheRumourMill]

Your 'push' factors are well observed although you missed Gray, Traoré surely has to be considered and James at Leeds will be interesting ( and who will he displace?). Plus, having Souček set and forget will never harm a team. But the heavy lifting that a 3rd super-premium must do is exactly right and that's a perfect way to express it.

On the shape of the season and price/performance landscape, yes, they do feed into the wildcard commentary and will come up in Part II. I think the fog is lifting faster than it sometimes does this season but it's still at the stage that every week of information helps.

Gray is an interesting one, his xG is quite low at 0.28 yet he has 2 goals thus far, whereas Traore is the opposite with an xG of 1.5 yet no goals. I agree they have potential yet also the potential to frustrate, I guess they are your typical cheap mid assets in that they are inconsistent and best dealt with by setting and forgetting in your team and taking the points when they (often unexpectedly!) arrive. I think James will initially be on the bench and his pace used late on in games. I've seen it suggested that perhaps Raphinha moves to a number 10 position with James on the right but that could just be fan speculation.

I'm very much looking forward to part II

[blahblah]

Ruth: any news etc on Chelsea defenders ie who will play?

[Ruth_NZ]

Ruth: any news etc on Chelsea defenders ie who will play?

They will all play, blah. Chelsea have CL as well and if you are looking for the magic one that starts every PL game it's probably in vain. TTs insistence on keeping CHO indicates he will be used at RWB sometimes and Pulisic has also been used there; against 'lesser' teams that will mainly defend against Chelsea, Tuchel wants a RWB that can go past players. Rüdi will play most but he only has a year left on his contract and I hope they get that sorted soon. And if anyone thinks Alonso is 1st-choice LWB, I suggest you think again.

[blahblah]

Ruth: any news etc on Chelsea defenders ie who will play?

They will all play, blah. Chelsea have CL as well and if you are looking for the magic one that starts every PL game it's probably in vain. TTs insistence on keeping CHO indicates he will be used at RWB sometimes and Pulisic has also been used there; against 'lesser' teams that will mainly defend against Chelsea, Tuchel wants a RWB that can go past players. Rüdi will play most but he only has a year left on his contract and I hope they get that sorted soon. And if anyone thinks Alonso is 1st-choice LWB, I suggest you think again.

Indeed, rather annoying .....

[Stormrider]

Fantastic article Ruth! Really great to have such good writers and strategical thinkers around here in the RMT section as you and also a couple of others. I could learn a lot and still am about the mechanism of the game and often come across a new view at it and then remember I read something about exactly that back from you, Baganboy, Dod etc. Great to have you here and looking forward to the second part. Will try to keep that in my while currently playing my wildcard.

[Aldershot Rejects]

Great article Ruth. Great principles, but in my experience they are very easy to forget after yet another poor week

[Ruth_NZ]

Great article Ruth. Great principles, but in my experience they are very easy to forget after yet another poor week.

Yeah, Andy, it's hard to keep perspective when that happens. But OR really means little at this stage. You are, what, 50 points from a very solid rank? That's nothing. It's not 250 points as it might be later in the season and a rebound could easily be one GW away.

Had a look at your team and you have been unlucky so far, not a lot wrong with your choices. No Antonio has cost you and that's the main thing. But you look extremely well set to avoid an early wildcard, there's only Barnes someone that needs doing really and lots of good options to choose from.

[Aldershot Rejects]

Thanks, yes - basically Wilson over Antonio and Barnes over just about every other popular 7.5m midfielder has killed my early rank. Fwiw, I have no plan to use an early wildcard and am not tempted at the moment - a couple more poor weeks might test my will-power

For me - I want a bit more certainty when I wildcard in terms of how teams will line-up, what effect the current crop of transfers will have, etc. I don't feel like I have anywhere enough information to make some of the longer-term decisions I want to make. I guess this might fall under your point about changing circumstances - at the moment it feels like a lot of things are changing, but we don't necessarily know the implications of those changes on individual players.

[raoul]

I liken this thread to reading the Sunday Times (or even better , for me at least, the weekend FT) in an outside bar, 30 degrees, in Singapore a few years back. Solid gold.

If only I still had that luxury (although at least my wine bill is now cheaper).

The WC - a (not quite) one in a lifetime chance to start again. As someone who has done that, more than once depending on how you look at things, absolutely remember what you have, not just the allure of what you can get, and think for the longer term as much as that is feasible.

On one specific point, probably too specific for the current conversation, I planned for 1 super premium only in the long term, and that is how I stand now (one of only 2 in the top 100 not to have Bruno).

Ronaldo. Lukaku. All very tempting.

But avoid those guys, stick to Salah, and the structure is super flexible.

Discuss...

[Ruth_NZ]

Well, there you go, Bruno wasn't a necessity after all.

Issue is captaincy. I think that to have a top captain every week with a good fixture (against a weaker defence or bottom-half team) justifies 2 super-premiums myself. Captaincy is just such an important factor in the game.

There is also the question of how much 'cover' you need this season. Covid is still with us and can put someone out unexpectedly. Also there are players - I am thinking particularly of City but it affects United and Chelsea too - that are attractive to have but may get the odd random/rotational benching. So deciding how deep to make your bench is less of an automatic matter than it was 5 years ago. If it needs to be stronger your idea has more merit.

[Ruth_NZ]

WILDCARD #1 continued

Intermediate Commentary

I have realised that Part I tended to focus on what not to do rather than what to do. The 1WC is always going to be seeking to establish a winning formula, to capitalise on trends and fixture swings and to rectify weaknesses but it is not an opportunistic chip, it's a strategic chip. And really the principles identified in Part I were largely about ensuring that it is treated as such. However, there is obviously another aspect to consider because the general principles may be perennial but the details are very specific to the one season in play. And those are what will be looked at in Part II, which will come soon.

I'd like to observe, though, that I won't be going anywhere near 'which player?' and if individual players are mentioned they will be examples, not recommendations. I think everyone should choose their own players. Yesterday there was an article on FFS where their "Scout Team", one of whom is a top manager with a great record, each set out what their GW4 wildcard team would be. Not principles, not ideas, a full, structured squad ready to be copied. And one of the teams (guess which) is very close to what I would do, too. These sample wildcards mostly use a back-4 (as was discussed in Part I), something which few of their clientele would think of doing for themselves.

To me, this is taking spoon-feeding to an egregious extreme but that's the FFS business model nowadays, to spoon-feed the masses. It's a shame and it degrades the game in my eyes but so be it. Most of the copycat managers won't understand how to manage a squad like that when they have it and from taking a cursory glance at the squads I still see areas where I think they may be missing a trick. Anyways, no 'which player?' here, not in that way anyway. I am interested in articulating and discussing the challenges of the game with my FISO homies and everyone else can do as they please, copy whomsoever they please and take advice from wherever they choose. And I will try to beat them anyway.

[dod]

..how the wildcard should be considered a long-term strategical chip rather than a short-term tactical one.

Welcome back from hiatus.

Yes, indeed, it has to be considered primarily as a strategic chip, that's one of the reasons why I don't like it being used to set up a BB. Might help the BB but it reduces the influence of the wildcard.

BB and TC are clearly tactical chips but what do you think about the FH? Mostly it is used (and assessed) tactically (how much ground do you gain when you use it) but I see it as halfway between the two. It is tactical when you use it but strategic in terms of allowing you to lave a longer-term plan that 'skips' an awkward week. For me it is always viewed in that context rather than in terms of the headline score the week it is deployed.

The FH is, in my opinion, by far the most interesting and versatile chip. Ostensibly it is tactical, but I agree that it is best used strategically to turn a likely poor GW into a good one which avoids the need to compromise one's team both before and after the FH GW.

I do wonder if the problems associated with the BB chip (which most people solve by wasting the 2nd wildcard to set up a massive BB GW) could be mitigated simply by not trying to get every last point out of the BB? If I am not going to use the 2nd wildcard as a wildcard but rather just to maximise the points gained from a less valuable chip then maybe a better strategy would be to use it as a 2nd FH chip in GW38 or depending on the fixtures to set up the last 2 or 3 GWs.

[Smurphy Paw]

The FH is, in my opinion, by far the most interesting and versatile chip. Ostensibly it is tactical, but I agree that it is best used strategically to turn a likely poor GW into a good one which avoids the need to compromise one's team both before and after the FH GW.

A word of caution, learned the hard way last year: I planned the FH in this way. Covid (mainly) and other factors intervened twice. 1. I had planned to use the FH in the first half of the season (I don’t recall exactly which game week) to avoid particularly tricky fixtures and for a few weeks dead-ended my team in that direction. Then extra games were slotted in at the last minute nullifying the benefit.
2. Further down the line I lost significant ground when lots of games were cancelled and the winners were those who had retained the chip.
The result was that having opted to use it strategically it backfired twice. Last year was exceptional with the lack of crowds meaning that very short notice rearrangements were much easier to administer. However it is plausible that the pandemic will intervene again so I will be retaining the FH Chip a little longer this year. I’ll still look for a comparable opportunity to benefit but, at least in the planning, it’ll be after the worst of the weather and usual flu season. In that way it’ll still be ‘in hand’ if required even though it’s a more defensive deployment than I’d usually look for.

I do wonder if the problems associated with the BB chip (which most people solve by wasting the 2nd wildcard to set up a massive BB GW) could be mitigated simply by not trying to get every last point out of the BB? If I am not going to use the 2nd wildcard as a wildcard but rather just to maximise the points gained from a less valuable chip then maybe a better strategy would be to use it as a 2nd FH chip in GW38 or depending on the fixtures to set up the last 2 or 3 GWs.

I can find Ruth’s thread to be a place for over complicating the BB chip. I get it, for some the BB chip weighs disproportionately heavily. Without the BB chip in hand a good proportion would still wildcard in that same timeframe, c.GW33/34/35. This is not because of the BB Chip but because it is a associated with a double game week followed or preceded by a blank or blanks. Within that context there’s nothing strategically wrong with opting to use the c.£18M* bench cash on those with advantageous fixtures. This, I believe, tallies with the, ‘not trying to get every last point out of the BB’. (*the figure Ruth suggested leading to his BB GW1 and one that I agree with).
It also does many of those a disservice to suggest that they blindly use the Chip just to maximise the single week score. Some do, true. They’re not the players I consider myself to be competing against.
In previous pages of this and my blog Ruth and I have discussed this at length. It usually gets quite heated. So for this season this will likely be my only ‘not all of us find it that tricky’ comment. That’s because I wear the chip lightly, considering it to have similar benefit/dis-benefit to getting a single game week captaincy decision right or wrong. In my experience it is unusual for there to be much more than half a dozen points variance between good and average outcomes. Improving my captaincy choices remains the area that I think I can improve on more and will have a greater impact on my overall ranking.

Good to see you back, dod. I hope that you and the family are well and recovered from the last couple of years

[Stu255]

Isn't it much better to use FH in a gameweek with a very high xFPL rather than a GW with a low xFPL?

People always seem to use their FH on a BGW and it amazes me that they are delighted to have got 48 points instead of 38 points, when at the other end of the spectrum the delta could have been 110pts instead of 70.

Every year people use FH on the BGW. I don't understand it.


Also last season I used my second WC along with my BB (subsequent weeks) and this alone moved me from 60,000 OR to 4,500 OR over the space of 3 weeks. I can't remember when it was, maybe GW31 or something like that. Some credit to Ben Crellin. Obviously so late in the season your bench can be so much deeper. But I also significantly closed the points gap to #1 OR. I think from 160 to 90.

I went from chasing and having to find differentials to being 100pts clear at the top of every cash league I was in, and having the luxury of selecting all the best players. There's a big difference between leading and chasing, I guess some people only play to be OR#1 and so are always chasing, yet they use a strategy as if they are leading, using the same players as everyone above them and creating zero probability of moving any higher. That's basically what happened to me last season, outside of the chips.

[Beerfuelledman]

Might have to factor in the scoring of some of the dross yore transferring in to cope with the BGW in order to save the FH.

[hancockjr]

I used FH in a BGW last year and had pretty much my best gameweek in terms of OR rise (Trossard scored me double digit points, for instance). All games can produce FPL points, you just don't normally have those players, but FH lets you have players for one week you wouldn't normally have.

Obviously 70->110 is better than 40->50, but I don't see where those figures are coming from. Suspect my FH was something like 30->80.

OTOH, I mess up my wildcard every year, sometimes spectacularly, so will be re-reading RNZ's posts to try to protect from this.

Thanks RNZ - best this is the best thread on FISO IMO.

[TheRumourMill]

Stu I think one of the main reasons people use the FH in a BGW is psychological, although there's also a mathematical probability slant to it too. If you've got 8 players in your squad who blank, there is no possible way those players can outscore the ones you FH in, which gives you peace of mind. You also cannot be subjected to negative variance if the players you don't own don't play, that's the math side to it. Therefore, the risk of it going spectacularly wrong is minimal.

FH in a DGW is far riskier, plenty FH Zaha in for example last season in GW35 and were outscored by the DGW players they couldn't fit in, or even SGW assets. You are correct that the potential rewards are higher in a DGW, but its also harder to achieve them, and you are susceptible to negative variance.

There's also the fact that in most seasons (not last season because 33% of the season were either doubles or blanks), the teams blanking will shortly before or after have a double. Therefore you can attack a fixture run by owning DGW assets without worrying about them blanking. The FH is an easy way to deal with this inconvenience whilst simultaneously optimising the gameweeks before or after.

[Ruth_NZ]

I can find Ruth’s thread to be a place for over complicating the BB chip.

Be fair, SP. My thread is a place for over-complicating everything, not just the BB chip.
Still, it isn't that complicated for me at least. Don't need to think about it for another 11 months.

Thanks RNZ - this is the best thread on FISO IMO.

Very nice of you to say so. It even has the power to transport Raoul back to his happy place in Singapore you know.

There's also the fact that in most seasons (not last season because 33% of the season were either doubles or blanks), the teams blanking will shortly before or after have a double. Therefore you can attack a fixture run by owning DGW assets without worrying about them blanking. The FH is an easy way to deal with this inconvenience whilst simultaneously optimising the gameweeks before or after.

Yes, that's the strategic element and you have summarised it well. Much harder to quantify than the headline uplift in the week when the FH is played but it's there nevertheless. That's why stories of gains made with the FH slightly miss the point because that's a purely tactical measurement of the chip. The BB chip is the only one that is strategically negative, of course, so counting the headline points scored with it in the week it is used (as mostly happens) only paint half the picture as well. (That's the last I'll say about it, SP, promise. )

[raoul]

Well, there you go, Bruno wasn't a necessity after all.

Issue is captaincy. I think that to have a top captain every week with a good fixture (against a weaker defence or bottom-half team) justifies 2 super-premiums myself. Captaincy is just such an important factor in the game.

There is also the question of how much 'cover' you need this season. Covid is still with us and can put someone out unexpectedly. Also there are players - I am thinking particularly of City but it affects United and Chelsea too - that are attractive to have but may get the odd random/rotational benching. So deciding how deep to make your bench is less of an automatic matter than it was 5 years ago. If it needs to be stronger your idea has more merit.

I suppose that since I have Vardy, he is also captain material on occasion and not far off super premium price. Maybe I have 2, and am kidding myself. But if it is all about captaincy then why does it need to be an 11/12m player anyway? Have the in form value player and there is another option (allegedly 16,000 managers have captained Antonio all 3 weeks, and they are no doubt happy with that decision).

Covid ... well it is not really why I am on just 1 super prem, but it does provide a warm feeling to have two decent outfield subs.

[raoul]

I used FH in a BGW last year and had pretty much my best gameweek in terms of OR rise (Trossard scored me double digit points, for instance). All games can produce FPL points, you just don't normally have those players, but FH lets you have players for one week you wouldn't normally have.

Obviously 70->110 is better than 40->50, but I don't see where those figures are coming from. Suspect my FH was something like 30->80.

OTOH, I mess up my wildcard every year, sometimes spectacularly, so will be re-reading RNZ's posts to try to protect from this.

Thanks RNZ - best this is the best thread on FISO IMO.

concur