R_NZ FPL Blog

[Ruth_NZ]

Borges uses delta expected data to achieve his consistent high rankings - it's been a well known secret for years.

That's a pretty nonsensical statement, as written.

Would you like to explain how he uses it? Would you care to explain what other factors he considers as well and what relative weight he gives those? Perhaps you could elucidate how it is possible to use that stat at all with younger players that are still improving or players that are new to the PL? And if you can't do all that you are simply parroting a piece of FFS doggerel without really understanding what you are talking about.

By all means avail yourself of this blog but ideally not with cheap or condescending one-liners that are apparently designed to make you look clever but actually don't contribute anything much at all.

[BLOCKHEAD]

“Four seasons ago, I found out about xG. And since then it’s the only stat I use (along with xA) when making FPL decisions. Of course, it is not perfect but if the model is reliable – and you know how to interpret it – I believe it is, by far, the most useful stat for FPL.

I make my own xG tables which I try to update as often as possible. I put a lot of work into it and I try to adjust players’ xG numbers by using their career xG Delta (when the sample is big enough).

There are players who are consistent xG overperformers and others that underperform the model for long periods of time. For example, Kevin De Bruyne overperforms the model by 35% while Jesus underperforms it by around 25%.

I think it’s important to use xG Delta because you can easily be fooled by some great xG numbers from a particular player who is a consistent underperformer/bad finisher. And vice versa.”

Here is the direct quote from the legend himself. He uses career xG Delta which seems to suggest he is happy picking players who are new to the league. Sample size is important to him though so I imagine younger players have to reach a minimum threshold of games before they are considered and included in the models.

[Ruth_NZ]

Good explanation. Though it's not exactly a secret as that article was posted on FFS around a year ago.

The tricky parts are these:

"I try to adjust players’ xG numbers by using their career xG Delta (when the sample is big enough)."
"There are players who are consistent xG overperformers and others that underperform the model for long periods of time."

The issue of sample is a limitation for younger players, as is the fact that their finishing may well be improving, so earlier seasons may not be that useful. Quality of end product is quite often the last thing to mature.

The issue of consistency is a broader one. Most players are variable if you view it season by season - they may well overshoot xG one season and undershoot it the next. It's actually quite rare that you can clearly identify an excellent finisher until they are quite mature. Son is an obvious example (a player that Borges favours quite strongly).

In addition, it's important to note that the xG Delta is used as a modifier, not on its own. It doesn't mean much until coupled with raw xG or some other measure that expresses the number and quality of chances a player is having game by game.

All in all, what Borges is suggesting involves looking at the macro picture - the career history - rather than getting too focused on the micro numbers of the last 4 or 6 games (though they have a place too). That's something I very much agree with and this was something I intended to explore a bit in the next cross-sectional assay.

Thanks anyway for putting some meat on the bones.

[blahblah]

That sounds like a rather boring way to play the game.....

[BLOCKHEAD]

It's what is required if you want to be the undisputed GOAT of FPL.

[blahblah]

I think that we can agree that that is not part of my agenda

But then if I hadn't dropped to 2.4m from 1.5k before getting back to the top 400k then I could have done well last season

[zipnolan]

I'm a little surprised that the selection of de Gea isn't mentioned - was it right to spend that extra amount on a goalkeeper in retrospect? I can't say I was convinced at the time, or now really.

[Ruth_NZ]

I'm a little surprised that the selection of de Gea isn't mentioned - was it right to spend that extra amount on a goalkeeper in retrospect? I can't say I was convinced at the time, or now really.

Yeah, fair enough. I tried to catch the main issues and that one slipped past, although my GK issues actually became worse once Ramsdale had replaced DDG. I'll try to catch the question of GK spend in the next thread maybe.

[Hogmeister]

I'm measuring against what it took to win but really that has only been used as an external point of comparison. I would have come to a similar assessment about my own performance just by looking at GW ranks but the T5 gave an easy and relatively quick means of looking at player selection differences.

Doing a Borges comparison would have merits too, if your aim is to play more like him.

Great series of posts (as usual) Ruth, lots of food for thought here.

Yes, my primary benchmark is my own selection of the “great and good” (which includes Borges of course) as per my virtual elite league I used last year. And my aim in using that is to play more like those players who typically do very well.

I pretty much ignore last year’s winner/top 5, as they are just the lucky ones. I watched a youtube video at the start of last year where Fergi interviewed the 20-21 winner, and there really was nothing to learn there… and indeed that player had a dreadful start to this season (I stopped tracking him after a couple of months, so don’t know how he finished).

So that sort of “Borges et al” benchmark works for me, but as previously discussed, our FPL philosophies are quite different (I’m very boring!) and I can understand why you might want to do something different.

[Ruth_NZ]

Great series of posts (as usual) Ruth, lots of food for thought here...

Thanks.

Glad you started a blog, I have scanned some of the posts and certainly intend to respond (I actually had in mind something we might work on together next season) but want to get my 'lessons learned' thing done first. As there are two more threads to go that is occupying what time I have right now. Will post in your blog and/or send you a PM when that project is complete, though it might take a week or so.

I'm absolutely not averse to learning from good managers like Borges, in fact have always tried to do so. But my aim isn't to emulate them, it's to beat them. Therefore I try not to present their decisions and/or strategies to myself as benchmarks, rather something to improve upon. It will probably never happen but that's the way I choose to approach what is, in the end, a game and not a profession.

[zipnolan]

I play a lot of competitive bridge. Some would say I'm quite good at it (though not many who play in one of my FPL leagues, which consists of some of the best bridge players in the UK).

I mention it because I am often reminded of a quotation from Michael Rosenberg, a great player now in the US, originally from Scotland. It was during one of those interminable post-mortems that we like to have, and was something like, "You don't get it, do you? None of us is any good at this game." By which he meant that, no matter what systems one plays, or how technically aware one is of the odds or the way your opponents play, it is virtually impossible to play a perfect game, no matter how revered one is. FPL is increasingly like that - all one can do is become familiar with strategies that are likely to give an edge in the long term. The good news with FPL is that one can - within certain parameters - get lucky... but that used to mean real luck, now means combining premeditated techniques in a way that happen to work for a while. As for William Blake, the joy of experience is of a different order to innocent joy.

[Ruth_NZ]

I do enjoy your literary allusions. Blake is something of a hero of mine, did you ever read Peter Ackroyd's biography of him? A great appraisal.

The Rosenberg quote - well, exactly so. That's my view also.

Do you play any bridge online? If you ever want an average kind of partner I'm available, though I haven't played in a long while.

[zipnolan]

Ha, I spend a worryingly large amount of my time on BBO. Currently watching the European Championships, where England are just outside the qualifying spots (two days left to play). Happy to have a game sometime if you like.

[Bob Newhart]

Blake is something of a hero of mine.

Always preferred Avon, myself.

[Ruth_NZ]

Lessons Learned
Part 4: Value and VORP

So far in this series I have been mainly focused on lessons to learn from my own play, primarily through looking at mistakes made (as distinguished from unlucky outcomes). In the last 2 threads the survey will move to some more general observations which can serve as further cross-sectional transits concerning player selection.

Value is very important. I have written at length about it before and won't rehash the whole argument but put succinctly, FPL is at root an issue of extracting maximum points per £1m of budget. Sometimes people say that FPL is just about scoring points but as budget is one of the few permanent constraints (having 15 players being another) then achieving value becomes a constant factor in successful play. There are lots of caveats and side-observations that could accompany this statement (captaincy, box-packing, predictability, transfer costs and others) but none of them gainsay the correctness of the fundamental idea, they just add moderators to it.

FPL has a crude way of assessing value - basically points scored divided by price - but that's not really adequate and that's where VORP (Value Over Replacement Player) comes in. VORP is a moneyball-type concept and it has to do with why Haaland is conservatively worth €150m in the current market whereas Abraham might be valued at €50m. On the face of it, that suggests that Haaland is 3 times as good a striker as Abraham but that's plainly nonsensical as they are both probably within the top 1% of all strikers that play football. Put them in the same team and Haaland isn't going to score 3 times as many goals as Abraham. But that elite edge which Haaland has is hugely valuable because it is rare and clubs are willing to pay heavily for what is maybe a 10%, maybe 20% but certainly not 200% edge.

Moneyball was/is an idea that instead of focusing on the elite edge of a Haaland, you concentrate on the component parts or ingredients of what a team needs to be successful, breaking that down into multiple discrete actions about which stats can be compiled. That can show up players whose value is greater than it appears and who are available at lower wages or transfer fees than they should be. It is very stats-based and was developed in baseball originally as a way for franchises with much lower budgets to compete with the big boys. Nowadays it has migrated into football, where teams like Brentford have been built largely on those principles. Liverpool are another that do it but starting from a much higher budget, of course, and thus able to season their moneyball principles with big-ticket players. Replacing Mané with Diaz for roughly the same transfer fee but with the incoming player being much younger, having higher future resale value and wanting less wages (which Liverpool have essentially just done) is a classic moneyball type of move.

VORP in FPL

So, how does VORP work in FPL? Well, you have to start with the constraint that all teams must have 15 players. They don't all have to be starters for their clubs but you can't afford too many that aren't. And that produces a fixed minimum spend of approximately £68m; you are unlikely to be able to have a reliable 11 starters every week for much less (though the exact amount can vary slightly season to season or even month to month). Let's call that compulsory spend. It gets you 15 players. That leaves £32m (which will gradually rise during the season) which we can call discretionary spend. So FPL is about extracting the maximum value from that £32m when you boil it down.

Previous research led me to the assessment that a £68m team (the compulsory spend) should deliver something around 30 points per GW on average and that indicates that the baseline returns of a 4.5m player (or 5m forward) should be near enough 2.5 points per GW. Of course, this is terrible value but there's nothing you can do about it really because you are forced to have 17.5m or so of budget benched every week and essentially delivering nothing. On past evidence a team needs around 66 points per GW for a high finish (say top-1k) but it is reasonable to allow for 10 of those points to come from captaincy and chip usage. So that leaves your 32m of discretionary budget needing to produce 26 points per GW - a much, much higher return that your compulsory spend delivers. And that tells you that every 0.5m you spend over baseline on a player (generally over 4.5m) needs to deliver around 0.4 points per GW.

Thus a 6m player needs to deliver 3.75 ppg, a 8m player needs 5.4 ppg and an 10m player needs 7.0 ppg to deliver the kind of value required for a high finish. Are those numbers hard? No. But they are a very workable benchmark to use.

Now, obviously value is different when it comes to captaincy, because captain points are doubled. If it weren't for that then no player over 10m would have anything but the slimmest chance of delivering value. In fact I generally consider that as soon as a player goes over 9m then their chances of delivering value are less than 50% and the higher the price, the lower the probability. But that doesn't matter if you are captaining that player regularly (and successfully) because the only thing that counts for captains is points, not price (well, more or less). Though even with that, you have to be careful. If you have too many 10m+ players that may help you on captaincy but they won't likely be delivering value in the weeks they aren't captained and therefore the remainder of your discretionary spend has to work even harder (or your captaincy hit rate has to be even greater).

Anyway, when I did all this analysis (quite some time ago) it was designed to give me a means to compare my expectations of a 5m player and a 6m player - to know how many more points the 6m player would need to deliver than the 5m player to be worth that extra 1m of my precious discretionary spend. It also gave me a means to compare the ability to deliver value of defenders, midfielders and forwards. All useful as general benchmarks. But what was missed is that there is, in fact, some variance between GKs, defenders, midfielders and forwards in how much the baseline player can be expected to deliver and also what the baseline player costs - it is very rare to have a 4.5m starting forward and even a 5m starting forward is quite unusual. So what I am going to do in this thread is to make a new, live calculation per position, based on the 21/22 season.

That should enable the discussion of value to have an added component that is somewhat more practical or pragmatic than the general broad sweep I used in earlier iterations of this concept.

GKs

So, let's start here with the best 4.5m GKs that are likely to be 4.5m again next season, namely Sanchez, Guaita, Dubravka and Raya. They may not all be 1st choice at their clubs next season but it doesn't matter, we are only looking for a benchmark. So, together they scored 436 points in 117 games, an average of 3.73 ppg. It's considerably higher than the outfielder baseline and of course it doesn't mean that every 4.5m GK will do that but we have to assume that we are capable of picking one of the 4 best regular starters at that price if we want to.

So, if we use my approximate 0.4 ppg per 0.5m number quoted earlier for discretionary spend, that says that the value targets for more expensive GKs would be:

4.5m - 3.73 ppg
5.0m - 4.14 ppg
5.5m - 4.55 ppg
6.0m - 4.96 ppg

None of the more expensive GKs reached those targets, somewhat to my surprise. Allison was the best of the 6m GKs (in a season where Liverpool had an unnaturally high number of CSs and over-performed their xGA by a wider margin than any team other than Wolves) and he averaged 4.76 ppg. It wasn't bad at all but still not value over a well-chosen 4.5m GK. The best 5.5m was Lloris with 4.16 ppg - again short. And the best 5m was Sa with 3.95 ppg, again not bad but below target.

So, the assessment is very simple here. To have a well-chosen 4.5m GK is still the way to go, assuming you can spend the money well elsewhere, and despite the chain of CSs an Allison type can provide. It's not the conclusion I expected going in - my instinct was that 6m GKs had become a viable option - but it's what the numbers say. Caveats? Well, if someone next season is obviously underpriced that could create an exception (which I mistakenly thought DDG would be last season) but nothing I am writing about here is intended to be a rigid rule, just an appraisal of the fundamentals of how the FPL engine works.

Note: The FPL tables have Allison as the best value GK with Sanchez (best of the 4.5ms) only 4th. That's why the VORP adjustment is so valuable because FPL aren't factoring in the fact that discretionary spend has to out-perform compulsory spend by a considerable margin. Their calculation of value isn't really value at all, or at least it's only a crude approximation.

[Ruth_NZ]

Lessons Learned
Part 4: Value and VORP continued

It's somewhat trickier to calculate baselines with outfielders than GKs because (a) selection is less clear-cut (the majority of teams have a clear 1st choice GK but that's less obvious for outfielders, especially attackers) and (b) it is more reasonable to expect that a FPL manager would avail themselves of the possibility to rotate their squad if they have, say, 5 options for 4 slots in their lineup. That being said, I will continue on the basis of what seems reasonable and realistic.

Defenders

Once again we start with the best 4.5m defenders that one could reasonably have selected at the beginning of last season, namely Coady, Dier, Guehi, White and Veltman. Together those 5 scored 595 points from 174 games, so an average of 3.42 ppg, once again ahead of the outfielder baseline I have previously used. The next table shows the consequent value targets for different price bands together with some sampling of the best performances achieved.

Baseline 4.5m - 3.42 ppg - 595 points from 174 games as specified above
5.0m - 3.83 ppg - Cash 147/38 = 3.86 ppg, Gabriel 146/35 = 4.17 ppg, Cucurella 126/35 = 3.60 ppg
5.5m - 4.23 ppg - James 141/26 = 5.42 ppg, Rüdiger 150/34 = 4.41 ppg, Laporte 160/33 = 4.85 ppg
6.0m - 4.64 ppg - Cancelo 201/36 = 5.58 ppg, Dias 141/29 = 4.86 ppg
6.5m - 5.04 ppg - VVD 183/34 = 5.38 ppg
7.0m - 5.45 ppg - Robertson 186/29 = 6.4 ppg
7.5m - 5.85 ppg - TAA 208/32 = 6.5 ppg

This listing shows how well-chosen premium defenders are capable of not only justifying the premium but beating it, sometimes by a considerable margin. Of course, the starting valuations have been used and some of those players rocketed in price, reducing the value advantage for later adopters and it is also true that the gametime security for premium defenders (especially wingbacks/fullbacks) isn't quite as good as for the 4.5m defenders used in the sample. Nevertheless, the value advantage from allocating discretionary spend in defence is clear to see.

Midfielders

The best 4.5m midfielders one could reasonably have selected at the beginning of last season would have been Brownhill, Gordon, Luiz, Romeu and Sissoko. Together those 5 scored 454 points from 176 games, so an average of 2.50 ppg, bang on the outfielder baseline referred to earlier. The next table works in the same way to the one above.

Baseline 4.5m - 2.50 ppg - 454 points from 176 games as specified above
5.0m - 2.90 ppg - Guimarães 67/17 = 3.94 ppg
5.5m - 3.31 ppg - Ødegaard 131/36 = 3.64 ppg, Gallagher 140/34 = 4.12 ppg
6.0m - 3.72 ppg - Kulusevski 99/18 = 5.50 ppg
6.5m - 4.22 ppg - Bowen 206/36 = 5.72 ppg, Saka 179/38 = 4.71 ppg, JWP 159/36 = 4.42 ppg, Raphinha 145/36 = 4.03 ppg
7.0m - 4.63 ppg - Maddison 181/35 = 5.17 ppg, Zaha 150/33 = 4.55 ppg, Silva 155/35 = 4.43 ppg
7.5m - 5.03 ppg - Mount 169/32 = 5.28 ppg
8.0m - 5.44 ppg - Foden 137/28 = 4.89 ppg
8.5m - 5.84 ppg
9.0m - 6.25 ppg
9.5m - 6.65 ppg
10.0m - 7.06 ppg - Son 258/35 = 7.37 ppg
12.0m - 8.68 ppg - KDB 196/30 = 6.53 ppg, Mané 183/34 = 5.38 ppg, Bruno 151/36 = 4.19 ppg
12.5m - 9.10 ppg - Salah 265/35 = 7.57 ppg

It is important to reiterate here that we aren't comparing on an exactly like-for-like basis with defenders because the baseline is different. To compare like-for like would require the same baseline to be used across all categories and that would cause other problems. So it just has to be noted that defenders are generically producing better value than midfielders who produce better value than forwards in the round. On the other hand, most FPL managers are more likely to captain an attacker than a defender so that swings the balance back a little.

This listing shows how well-chosen mid-range midfielders in the 6.5m-7.5m range are capable of more than justifying the premium but it really becomes a gradient of diminishing returns after that. Son has to be considered as an outlier, partly because his starting valuation was lower than it will be next season. There are also good-value options to be found at 6m and 5.5m that would make good set-and-forget types if you can identify them early. The upper mid-range (8m to 9.5m) was pretty barren this season, though it may not always be. But it's a hard range to deliver value in.

Well, that's it for now. I will try to come back and do the forwards later today and also to write the summary appraisal. Once that is done, I won't be reliant on FPL data if next season's game is launched.

[Ruth_NZ]

Lessons Learned
Part 4: Value and VORP continued

Forwards

This one was very tricky to do because there simply weren't the baseline players at 4.5m and even at 5m they were few and far between. Forwards are just more expensive in FPL. I had to stretch my parameters a little (so far I have only considered players that played 67% of games or better) but eventually took a set of 5.0m and 5.5m forwards to make the baseline. These were Broja and Dennis at 5m and Hwang, Nketiah and Mateta at 5.5m. Together those 5 scored 423 points from 137 games, so an average of 3.08 ppg. If you pro rate this down to artificially create a baseline at 4.5m it comes almost exactly to the 2.5 ppg used for the midfielders so I will simply use those value thresholds again, which is good because we will be comparing all attackers on equal terms in that case. Here's the table.

Baseline 4.5m - 2.50 ppg - as specified above
5.0m - 2.90 ppg - Broja 92/32 = 2.88 ppg, Dennis 134/32 = 4.18 ppg
5.5m - 3.31 ppg
6.0m - 3.72 ppg - Pukki 142/37 = 3.84 ppg, Welbeck 89/25 = 3.56 ppg
6.5m - 4.22 ppg - Toney 139/33= 4.21 ppg, ASM 116/35 = 3.31 ppg
7.0m - 4.63 ppg
7.5m - 5.03 ppg - Antonio 140/36 = 3.89 ppg, Watkins 131/35 = 3.74 ppg, Richarlison 125/30 = 4.17 ppg
8.0m - 5.44 ppg
8.5m - 5.84 ppg - Jesus 120/28 = 4.29 ppg
9.0m - 6.25 ppg
10.5m - 7.48 ppg - Vardy 133/25 = 5.32 ppg
12.0m - 8.68 ppg
12.5m - 9.10 ppg - Kane 192/37 = 5.19 ppg, CR7 159/30 = 5.30 ppg

And those were the best of them. Really a dreadful picture on value with the exception of a couple of very cheap, under-priced players right at the bottom of the scale. Is this an oddity of the 21/22 season? Maybe to a degree but forwards have always been significantly behind the other categories on value for as long as I have been looking at the FPL game and the trend has been downwards, season by season. Maybe Haaland can buck the trend next season?

Summary Appraisal

Obviously the argument can be made that season stats aren't a fair measure, we have multiple transfers to use and the aim is to catch players on hot streaks. True enough but the underlying value element is always going to be at play. I'm not suggesting that value is the be-all-and end-all and would agree that it's the value delivered while the player is in your team that matters. Nevertheless, these notes do give substance to the ideas expressed earlier about squad structure and also provide some kind of yardstick by which performance can be tested for value.

It is somewhat customary for managers to seek a 4m defender to have in their early squad, even if a deadspot defender, in order to maximise playing budget. I have no objection to that, especially if a regular starter can be found at 4m. But my view, which has only been confirmed by this cross-sectional strand, is that if you are going to have a non-playing selection it's far better to waste a forward slot by having a 4.5m deadspot player there.

[raoul]

Useful stuff and it largely mirrors my own very similar analysis.

Some points my mind is considering:

GK

yes, a top 4.5m keeper is great. But there will be several 4.5m GK and the value erodes if the top bods are not spotted asap.

There will no more than 3 x 6m GK and they are almost guaranteed to get their return.

But another variable is VORP from same Prem team. Taking Alisson or Ederson means not taking some other LIV or MC player.

To me, it is the latter point which carries most weight. I'm unlikely to need 3 slots for BHA, CP so if keepers are 4.5m they seem very logical picks.

FWD

picking a super cheap F1 is going to necessitate a playing F2 to try to avoid being a starter short. Looking as a pair, perhaps 6.5 + 4.5 is better than a pair of 5.5. In other words, super cheap F1 has additional costs.

[Ruth_NZ]

1. GK - yes, a top 4.5m keeper is great. But there will be several 4.5m GK and the value erodes if the top bods are not spotted asap.
2. There will no more than 3 x 6m GK and they are almost guaranteed to get their return.
3. But another variable is VORP from same Prem team. Taking Alisson or Ederson means not taking some other LIV or MC player.
4. To me, it is the latter point which carries most weight. I'm unlikely to need 3 slots for BHA, CP so if keepers are 4.5m they seem very logical picks.
5. FWD - picking a super cheap F1 is going to necessitate a playing F2 to try to avoid being a starter short. Looking as a pair, perhaps 6.5 + 4.5 is better than a pair of 5.5. In other words, super cheap F1 has additional costs.

1. Less so than you think provided you don't panic. The top 3 GKs @ 4.5m were separated by 16 points in total, not huge. Those three included the most obvious one, Sanchez (2nd).
2. Also less true than you'd think. The 3 x 6m GKs were separated by 46 points and the 21/22 leader (Allison) was way down the list in 20/21. I think Liverpool were quite fortunate to have so many CSs last season and that doesn't usually happen 2 seasons in a row.
3. Are you likely to have 3 x City? Who? This wouldn't be an issue for me if I thought a 6m GK the best way to go, even if the choice were Allison; he was more than competitive with VVD and Robertson last season taking price into account.
4. I also have my eyes on Meslier, there has to be a chance that he will be 4.5m next season and if so he could be useful for BB1 or as a longer-term GK choice.
5. You could always play 5-4-1 or 4-5-1? My own preference in general will be to have a 5.5m forward as F2 and to rotate them with M5 and D4/5 for the last place in my XI, so a 4-4-2/3-5-2/4-5-1 hybrid. Long-term I'll probably be content with 7.5, 5.5, 4.5 deadspot for the forwards unless I feel it's necessary to have Haaland.
6. Whether I will start that way is another matter, depends on whether I go for BB1. It looks possible as Newcastle and Spurs both look to have good CS opportunities GW1, both are likely to have base price defenders that could be used and Newcastle may have a base price GK. Those are the first things I look for in a GW1 BB.

[Sutter Kane]

This wouldn't be an issue for me if I thought a 6m GK the best way to go, even if the choice were Allison; he was more than competitive with VVD and Robertson last season taking price into account.

And now Allison is 1.5mn cheaper than Robertson?

Whether I will start that way is another matter, depends on whether I go for BB1. It looks possible as Newcastle and Spurs both look to have good CS opportunities GW1, both are likely to have base price defenders that could be used and Newcastle may have a base price GK. Those are the first things I look for in a GW1 BB.

Do you mean 4mn as base price? Plenty of 4.5mn players lurking though, in GK and defence. With regards the BB, a two-premium approach with a BB1 does look possible. Myself, I'm looking at 3 premiums so BB1 would be off the table if I persist with that route.

[raoul]

And now Alisson is only 1m above those 4.5 keepers?

[zipnolan]

And Mendy at 5.0?

[raoul]

And Mendy at 5.0?

Surely must be a gap between Mendy and Ramsdale/Sa?

[raoul]

And Mendy at 5.0?

Surely must be a gap between Mendy and Ramsdale/Sa?

Oh, just seen the reveal.

5m for Mendy is insane.

[blahblah]

The prices do seem a tad low, especially the GK's....

[Neath boy]

Prices are too low. No value now in 4.5 goal keepers if you can get Chelsea gk for 0.5m or Liverpool for 1m more although it does take one Chelsea or Liverpool spot away

[Neath boy]

With the prices I have seen you really don’t need to look outside top 6 clubs for your 11 other than for maybe 2 or 3 spots. I admit I haven’t looked closely at this stage.

[Ruth_NZ]

@SK Haven't been keeping up with the price leaks, doesn't much interest me right now as I still have analysis to do from last season when I get some time and am busy with other things at the moment. I won't be looking at the new season's prices in any depth or beginning to draft a team until a week before GW1.

From the odd bits I have seen, Allison at 5.5m and especially Mendy at 5m seems a bit crazy. At those kind of prices it becomes quite questionable to go with a 4.5m GK. It's true it occupies a Liverpool/Chelsea slot but that's no big deal because there's little or no rotation risk, which there will be with most of the highest-potential defenders. And if you can have Allison & Dunk for £1m less than Sanchez & VVD then is there really a question?

The other thing I am aware of is Salah 13m Diaz 8m. That seems all out of whack to me, mainly because Diaz seems stupidly under-priced.

I meant 4.5m as base-price for defenders. The odd 4m option may occur but they tend not to be long-term starters for their clubs and I never expect much from them.

[Ruth_NZ]

Regretfully I won't be playing FPL this season. Too time-consuming in relation to other priorities at the moment. I apologise to Wahine and Stormrider for not making use of the data they collected but I may still get to that at some point. This blog will be in hiatus but can stay here as much of the work in it is game theory rather than tactical. Good luck with your seasons.

[Multiple Scorgasms]

You could always select a zombie team making no transfers for season. (Or would that be too tempting?)

Sent from my SM-A515F using Tapatalk