Goalkeeper, what's your thoughts? (Premium Vs rotation)

[Arne88]

Do you go with a quality GK for 5,5 or above.
Do you go with a GK for 5,0.
Do you go with one 4,5 GK (or even two at 4,5).

What's your reasoning when deciding uppon GK?
Cheap GK to have more power upfront or do you thin that Quality GK gets you more points?

I'm thinking to go with Schemicel, for 5,0 but perhaps I should go with a cheaper one to have more upfront.

[Notned]

4.5/4, all the way. Spend the money further up the pitch.

[cesc408]

Tempted to try and go with Cech in goal at 5.5 soon if I can afford the extra 1m over Foster. Decent fixtures and I expect Arsenal to be right up there again with clean sheets.

[Weisenwolf]

4.5/4, all the way. Spend the money further up the pitch.

This, I would rather upgrade a defender than waste money on keepers.

[Roope]

4.5/4, all the way. Spend the money further up the pitch.

Same. Been doing this for ages. E.g. so far Foster/Jakupovic has been perfect. After the season you'll find the GKs spreading from 120ish-160 points, with much of it depending on luck such as saved penalties (Gomes last season... He scored 20 points in one game). A good GK can even benefit from tricky fixtures (save points + BPS), so I personally don't see much point in getting a premium GK. Get a premium defender instead, IMO.

[Resonare]

Tempted to try and go with Cech in goal at 5.5 soon if I can afford the extra 1m over Foster. Decent fixtures and I expect Arsenal to be right up there again with clean sheets.

Cheapest way into Arsenal's defence, but he won't be an option until budget performers emerge.

[gallus]

4.5/4, all the way. Spend the money further up the pitch.

Agreed, go for a keeper with plenty of save points. 5.5 might keep more clean sheets, but when Heaton keeps one he gets 10 points instead of Cech's 6.

[Football Hero]

Surely having a rotating pair of 4.5's that give you better fixture coverage throughout the season is better than a 4.5/4.0 where the 4.0 isn't playing and you are forced to play the 4.5 all the time?

I'm assuming that the 4.0 is not playing, as right now, the likes of Jakupovic and Pickford are not going to be first choice soon.

That extra 0.5 that you save is probably not worth the 'fixture quality' increase that you forfeit by not having a solid rotating pair of 4.5 keepers.

For instance, lets say that you have one 4.5 that scores 150 points and another that scores 135 points. They probably score 60% of that haul in their good fixtures and 40% of that haul in their bad fixtures.

By rotating them, you can get 0.6 x (150 + 135) = 171 points.

By just playing one of the 4.5's for every match, you will get 0.5 x (150 + 135) = 143 (as there is a 50% chance that at the start of the season you will choose the 150 or 135 point keeper).

This gain of 28 points seems to be just about worth the extra 0.5 that you pay.

[Canary94]

Usually go for 4.5/4, which has been successful so far.

However when I wildcard (probably around GW 6-8) I'll go with two rotating 4.5s to give flexibility long-term. Plus there are question marks over the only 4.0 goalkeeping options. Most likely Foster/Heaton.

[carver]

5.0/4.5 and regretting it
4.5/4.5 preferred

would happily go 4.5/4.0 if 4.0 guaranteed. like to rotate

[Football Hero]

5.0/4.5 and regretting it
4.5/4.5 preferred

would happily go 4.5/4.0 if 4.0 guaranteed. like to rotate

Me too, it seems a waste of one of your goalkeeper spots if you just have it filled with someone that is deadwood.

The other advantage of having a 4.5/4.5 combo is that you are covered for injuries, (and while goalkeeper injuries are rarer than outfield player injuries; they can and do happen, just look at Butland, McGregor, Mannone and Valdes for instance who have been injured already this season alone). The last thing you want to do is be making forced transfers if your single playing keeper gets crocked.

[Football Hero]

Interesting. On the other hand I have 0.1m buffer with Jakupovic so I would be safe from his price drop. Pickford instead is a price drop threat if he is benched.

I just wish at least one of them would be guaranteed to play, then I would take them both.

A 4.5/4.5 is the better option anyway, I wouldn't choose the greedy 4.5/4.0 option. That extra 0.5 saving isn't worth the increased points hauls from fixture rotation that you lose out on, as well as injury cover that you also lose out on too. No way is 0.5 extra cash worth giving up those two advantages for.

[Mav3rick]

That extra 0.5 saving isn't worth the increased points hauls from fixture rotation that you lose out on, as well as injury cover that you also lose out on too. No way is 0.5 extra cash worth giving up those two advantages for.

The injury/ban cover is worth something, but can also be an opportunity to switch keepers even if it does cost you 4 pts.

I'm not sure that the rotation bonus has ever been proven. It always looks good on paper, but I always have a nagging doubt that you miss out on the unexpected 10 pointers than push a budget keeper up toward the 150+ mark. I do believe in rotation, but it always feels better putting that extra 0.5 "on the pitch" in most teams I ever look at.

[Football Hero]

That extra 0.5 saving isn't worth the increased points hauls from fixture rotation that you lose out on, as well as injury cover that you also lose out on too. No way is 0.5 extra cash worth giving up those two advantages for.

The injury/ban cover is worth something, but can also be an opportunity to switch keepers even if it does cost you 4 pts.

I'm not sure that the rotation bonus has ever been proven. It always looks good on paper, but I always have a nagging doubt that you miss out on the unexpected 10 pointers than push a budget keeper up toward the 150+ mark. I do believe in rotation, but it always feels better putting that extra 0.5 "on the pitch" in most teams I ever look at.

Ban cover is not so important now, as I believe that they have changed the rules for last man penalty fouls. If you are the last man and bring them down in the penalty area, then it is just a yellow card now, and not a red card. However if you bring them down outside the box, then it is still a red card. As a result, then goalkeeper red cards should be drastically reduced.

Believe me that the rotation value is proven.

I don't understand the logic behind you supposedly missing out on unexpected 10 pointers, please can you explain in more detail what you mean by that?

[Mav3rick]

I don't understand the logic behind you supposedly missing out on unexpected 10 pointers, please can you explain in more detail what you mean by that?

No, sorry but I don't think that is a good idea for my own sanity or for the thread's OP

If you want to open a new thread on the benefits of rotation (I already said I agree it has some) please feel free, I'm sure others will debate it with you and it would be beneficial to the forum but I won't be getting involved.

[Finisher1]

Interesting. On the other hand I have 0.1m buffer with Jakupovic so I would be safe from his price drop. Pickford instead is a price drop threat if he is benched.

I just wish at least one of them would be guaranteed to play, then I would take them both.

A 4.5/4.5 is the better option anyway, I wouldn't choose the greedy 4.5/4.0 option. That extra 0.5 saving isn't worth the increased points hauls from fixture rotation that you lose out on, as well as injury cover that you also lose out on too. No way is 0.5 extra cash worth giving up those two advantages for.

I don't think fixture rotation is necessarily worth 0.5m. Also pre-match injury is always unlikely, and on-match injury can be solved with a single transfer. I don't think a fear of injury is necessarily worth 0.5m either.

It's everyone's own judgment, but you can't say it's factually a correct decision to invest 0.5m on bench. That 0.5m will earn points elsewhere in your squad too. It's just wrong to say it's definitely a correct decision to invest it on your bench.

[Football Hero]

Interesting. On the other hand I have 0.1m buffer with Jakupovic so I would be safe from his price drop. Pickford instead is a price drop threat if he is benched.

I just wish at least one of them would be guaranteed to play, then I would take them both.

A 4.5/4.5 is the better option anyway, I wouldn't choose the greedy 4.5/4.0 option. That extra 0.5 saving isn't worth the increased points hauls from fixture rotation that you lose out on, as well as injury cover that you also lose out on too. No way is 0.5 extra cash worth giving up those two advantages for.

I don't think fixture rotation is necessarily worth 0.5m. Pre-match injury is always unlikely, and on-match injury can be solved with a single transfer. I don't think a fear of injury is necessarily worth 0.5m either.

It's everyone's own judgment, but you can't say it's factually a correct decision to invest 0.5m on bench. That 0.5m will earn points elsewhere in your squad too. It's just wrong to say it's definitely a correct decision to invest it on your bench.

Having to use an FT on a keeper switch in a 4.5/4.0 set up, that you didn't need to make using a 4.5/4.5 set up, has effectively cost you 4 points, (since an FT is worth 4 points, and you've had to unnecessarily 'waste' one that you could have used to make a shrewd attacking transfer).

The fixture rotation is definitely worth points in the long run, I assure you. Deliberately playing your 4.5 keeper at Old Trafford, Stamford Bridge etc. is throwing points away when you could have been playing a keeper that had say West Ham at home in the same week.

[Finisher1]

Having to use an FT on a keeper switch in a 4.5/4.0 set up, that you didn't need to make using a 4.5/4.5 set up, has effectively cost you 4 points, (since an FT is worth 4 points, and you've had to unnecessarily 'waste' one that you could have used to make a shrewd attacking transfer).

It's not as if a goalkeeper will definitely get injured - it is a rather unlikely event which is not necessarily worth 0.5m to cover. If he doesn't get injured and you have wasted 0.5m on your bench goalkeeper - oh well, then you have wasted 0.5m on your bench goalkeeper.

Even if he gets injured, you probably still want to transfer him out - or if you don't, then your great rotation plan is 100% useless and you have 0.5m invested on an injured bench goalkeeper. How does that sound like?

The fixture rotation is definitely worth points in the long run, I assure you. Deliberately playing your 4.5 keeper at Old Trafford, Stamford Bridge etc. is throwing points away when you could have been playing a keeper that had say West Ham at home in the same week.

For example Foster's fixtures are very delicious for GW4-7. I don't see a huge need for rotation there, and I'm not really interested in investing 0.5m for a rotation that might, just might, happen in GW8. This is a very dynamic game, and things might have totally changed by GW8 - you might never be able to use your rotation advantage in GW8.

[Finisher1]

Anyway, I have played both 4.5m/4.0m and 4.5m/4.5m with a great success and I'm not going to say either of them is necessarily right or wrong. I think it's a judgment call and it's always dependent on circumstances. At the moment I think 4.5m/4.0m is a way to go for me, because decent budget picks elsewhere in the squad are almost non-existent currently, so money is needed elsewhere.

[Football Hero]

Having to use an FT on a keeper switch in a 4.5/4.0 set up, that you didn't need to make using a 4.5/4.5 set up, has effectively cost you 4 points, (since an FT is worth 4 points, and you've had to unnecessarily 'waste' one that you could have used to make a shrewd attacking transfer).

It's not as if a goalkeeper will definitely get injured - it is a rather unlikely event which is not necessarily worth 0.5m to cover. If he doesn't get injured and you have wasted 0.5m on your bench goalkeeper - oh well, then you have wasted 0.5m on your bench goalkeeper.

Even if he gets injured, you probably still want to transfer him out - or if you don't, then your great rotation plan is 100% useless and you have 0.5m invested on an injured bench goalkeeper. How does that sound like?

The fixture rotation is definitely worth points in the long run, I assure you. Deliberately playing your 4.5 keeper at Old Trafford, Stamford Bridge etc. is throwing points away when you could have been playing a keeper that had say West Ham at home in the same week.

For example Foster's fixtures are very delicious for GW4-7. I don't see a huge need for rotation there, and I'm not really interested in investing 0.5m for a rotation that might, just might, happen in GW8. This is a very dynamic game, and things might have totally changed by GW8 - you might never be able to use your rotation advantage in GW8.

You aren't investing 0.5 in injury cover, you are investing say 0.15 in injury cover and 0.35 in fixture rotation benefit.

Firstly injuries to goalkeepers is not that rare, as evidenced by at least 4 keepers being injured this season already, (and that's not including Schmeichel coming off injured in one game although it seems as though the injury was only minor). This also does not include when your keeper is perhaps just a slight doubt for a match by picking up a minor niggle and not a full blow injury. With a 4.5/4.5 set up, you can ride the slight doubt out as you have back-up if needed, but in a 4.5/4.0 set up you are worrying about what to do and you're left having to guess on how serious the injury doubt is, as there is a chance you could be without a keeper for the next week.

Secondly if you are routinely playing your players in bad fixtures, then you are making a huge mistake in the long run. This is because points expectation is always (significantly) higher when your player is on the winning side, so playing your players in games that they are likely to lose is hurting your points expectation. Sometimes it's unavoidable of course, (as you are limited on transfers), but some of the time it is completely avoidable and so we should be taking steps to think ahead and mitigate that.

Ignore these concepts at your peril of course.

[Football Hero]

Anyway, I have played both 4.5m/4.0m and 4.5m/4.5m with a great success and I'm not going to say either of them is necessarily right or wrong. I think it's a judgment call and it's always dependent on circumstances. At the moment I think 4.5m/4.0m is a way to go for me, because decent budget picks elsewhere in the squad are almost non-existent currently, so money is needed elsewhere.

Saying that ''it's always dependent on circumstances'' sounds like an alternative way of saying that you're ''hoping to get lucky'' on this one.

Treat your keepers with respect.

[Finisher1]

Having to use an FT on a keeper switch in a 4.5/4.0 set up, that you didn't need to make using a 4.5/4.5 set up, has effectively cost you 4 points, (since an FT is worth 4 points, and you've had to unnecessarily 'waste' one that you could have used to make a shrewd attacking transfer).

It's not as if a goalkeeper will definitely get injured - it is a rather unlikely event which is not necessarily worth 0.5m to cover. If he doesn't get injured and you have wasted 0.5m on your bench goalkeeper - oh well, then you have wasted 0.5m on your bench goalkeeper.

Even if he gets injured, you probably still want to transfer him out - or if you don't, then your great rotation plan is 100% useless and you have 0.5m invested on an injured bench goalkeeper. How does that sound like?

The fixture rotation is definitely worth points in the long run, I assure you. Deliberately playing your 4.5 keeper at Old Trafford, Stamford Bridge etc. is throwing points away when you could have been playing a keeper that had say West Ham at home in the same week.

For example Foster's fixtures are very delicious for GW4-7. I don't see a huge need for rotation there, and I'm not really interested in investing 0.5m for a rotation that might, just might, happen in GW8. This is a very dynamic game, and things might have totally changed by GW8 - you might never be able to use your rotation advantage in GW8.

You aren't investing 0.5 in injury cover, you are investing say 0.15 in injury cover and 0.35 in fixture rotation benefit.

Firstly injuries to goalkeepers is not that rare, as evidenced by at least 4 keepers being injured this season already, (and that's not including Schmeichel coming off injured in one game although it seems as though the injury was only minor). This also does not include when your keeper is perhaps just a slight doubt for a match by picking up a minor niggle and not a full blow injury. With a 4.5/4.5 set up, you can ride the slight doubt out as you have back-up if needed, but in a 4.5/4.0 set up you are worrying about what to do and you're left having to guess on how serious the injury doubt is, as there is a chance you could be without a keeper for the next week.

Secondly if you are routinely playing your players in bad fixtures, then you are making a huge mistake in the long run. This is because points expectation is always (significantly) higher when your player is on the winning side, so playing your players in games that they are likely to lose is hurting your points expectation. Sometimes it's unavoidable of course, (as you are limited on transfers), but some of the time it is completely avoidable and so we should be taking steps to think ahead and mitigate that.

Ignore these concepts at your peril of course.

Obviously those are the advantages, but I think they are commonly exaggerated and always dependent on circumstances. At the moment I think it's not worth 0.5m, for the reasons I explained in the post you quoted.

Anyway I have noticed you are frequently committed to pages-long debates all over here - I like that

Anyway, I have played both 4.5m/4.0m and 4.5m/4.5m with a great success and I'm not going to say either of them is necessarily right or wrong. I think it's a judgment call and it's always dependent on circumstances. At the moment I think 4.5m/4.0m is a way to go for me, because decent budget picks elsewhere in the squad are almost non-existent currently, so money is needed elsewhere.

Saying that ''it's always dependent on circumstances'' sounds like an alternative way of saying that you're ''hoping to get lucky'' on this one.

Treat your keepers with respect.

Every FPL decision includes potential gains and risks with respective likelihoods. We just have to assess what are the potential gains and risks, and how likely each outcome is.

[Football Hero]

Having to use an FT on a keeper switch in a 4.5/4.0 set up, that you didn't need to make using a 4.5/4.5 set up, has effectively cost you 4 points, (since an FT is worth 4 points, and you've had to unnecessarily 'waste' one that you could have used to make a shrewd attacking transfer).

It's not as if a goalkeeper will definitely get injured - it is a rather unlikely event which is not necessarily worth 0.5m to cover. If he doesn't get injured and you have wasted 0.5m on your bench goalkeeper - oh well, then you have wasted 0.5m on your bench goalkeeper.

Even if he gets injured, you probably still want to transfer him out - or if you don't, then your great rotation plan is 100% useless and you have 0.5m invested on an injured bench goalkeeper. How does that sound like?

The fixture rotation is definitely worth points in the long run, I assure you. Deliberately playing your 4.5 keeper at Old Trafford, Stamford Bridge etc. is throwing points away when you could have been playing a keeper that had say West Ham at home in the same week.

For example Foster's fixtures are very delicious for GW4-7. I don't see a huge need for rotation there, and I'm not really interested in investing 0.5m for a rotation that might, just might, happen in GW8. This is a very dynamic game, and things might have totally changed by GW8 - you might never be able to use your rotation advantage in GW8.

You aren't investing 0.5 in injury cover, you are investing say 0.15 in injury cover and 0.35 in fixture rotation benefit.

Firstly injuries to goalkeepers is not that rare, as evidenced by at least 4 keepers being injured this season already, (and that's not including Schmeichel coming off injured in one game although it seems as though the injury was only minor). This also does not include when your keeper is perhaps just a slight doubt for a match by picking up a minor niggle and not a full blow injury. With a 4.5/4.5 set up, you can ride the slight doubt out as you have back-up if needed, but in a 4.5/4.0 set up you are worrying about what to do and you're left having to guess on how serious the injury doubt is, as there is a chance you could be without a keeper for the next week.

Secondly if you are routinely playing your players in bad fixtures, then you are making a huge mistake in the long run. This is because points expectation is always (significantly) higher when your player is on the winning side, so playing your players in games that they are likely to lose is hurting your points expectation. Sometimes it's unavoidable of course, (as you are limited on transfers), but some of the time it is completely avoidable and so we should be taking steps to think ahead and mitigate that.

Ignore these concepts at your peril of course.

Obviously those are the advantages, but I think they are commonly exaggerated and always dependent on circumstances. At the moment I think it's not worth 0.5m, for the reasons I explained in the post you quoted.

Anyway I have noticed you are frequently committed to pages-long debates all over here - I like that

Anyway, I have played both 4.5m/4.0m and 4.5m/4.5m with a great success and I'm not going to say either of them is necessarily right or wrong. I think it's a judgment call and it's always dependent on circumstances. At the moment I think 4.5m/4.0m is a way to go for me, because decent budget picks elsewhere in the squad are almost non-existent currently, so money is needed elsewhere.

Saying that ''it's always dependent on circumstances'' sounds like an alternative way of saying that you're ''hoping to get lucky'' on this one.

Treat your keepers with respect.

Every FPL decision includes potential gains and risks with respective likelihoods. We just have to assess what are the potential gains and risks, and how likely each outcome is.

I get that, but you can't ignore fixture strength in the long run, it's all about the long run and points expectations. Never look or worry about the short run.

Do you sometimes play the 4.5 keeper in the better fixture, and he scores 1 point, and the keeper on your bench keeps a clean sheet and a penalty save in his tougher fixture? Of course, that happens a fair bit. But what about all the times when the keeper you play delivers good points and the keeper you bench scores poorly; it's easy to overlook these occasions and not notice them, (unlike the times when we bench good points, we reason that we got these better points from our playing keeper because that's how it 'should' be).

So yeah, it comes down to the inescapable fact that whenever your player is on the losing side, they are usually looking at scoring 2 points or less 90% of the time. Whenever they are on the winning side, it's probably a 50% chance that they pick up decent points. This is why the players from the top clubs score higher, because they win more matches. If you play your only keeper away at Man Utd or City or Chelsea, when those teams usually win 15+ games out of 19, then it's just asking for trouble.

Each week you have to pick 12 players, (including your captain); so do what you can to pick more winners and less losers, and over the long run you will score more points that way as the maths can't be denied and you will come out on top eventually.

[Finisher1]

I get that, but you can't ignore fixture strength in the long run, it's all about the long run and points expectations. Never look or worry about the short run.

I disagree. Short run is always a priority because FPL is a very dynamic game. Of course you should think about long run too, but you shouldn't make too much sacrifices in short run because you might never be able to use your plans for long run.

Like I mentioned, Foster looks a very solid pick for GW4-7 and doesn't really need rotation for that run - I don't think it's smart to invest 0.5m for an advantage you might or might not be able to use starting from GW8. FPL is a continuous change process and we don't know a shit about GW8 yet.

[Football Hero]

I get that, but you can't ignore fixture strength in the long run, it's all about the long run and points expectations. Never look or worry about the short run.

I disagree. Short run is always a priority because FPL is a very dynamic game. Of course you should think about long run too, but you shouldn't make too much sacrifices in short run because you might never be able to use your plans for long run.

Like I mentioned, Foster looks a very solid pick for GW4-7 and doesn't really need rotation for that run - I don't think it's smart to invest 0.5m for an advantage you might or might not be able to use starting from GW8. FPL is a continuous change process and we don't know a shit about GW8 yet.

I think you're misunderstanding what I am saying.

I play for the short run in terms of decisions about gameweeks and transfers, but in a statistical variance sense, the long run and the points expectations even out, so playing your players regularly in matches that you know they are going to lose, is a recipe for disaster when repeated over hundreds and hundreds of gameweeks, (i.e. the true long run).

I am saying that you should not worry about the variance in the short run. You should of course be making regular transfers based on the short run, (albeit it with long run principles in mind).

[Finisher1]

I get that, but you can't ignore fixture strength in the long run, it's all about the long run and points expectations. Never look or worry about the short run.

I disagree. Short run is always a priority because FPL is a very dynamic game. Of course you should think about long run too, but you shouldn't make too much sacrifices in short run because you might never be able to use your plans for long run.

Like I mentioned, Foster looks a very solid pick for GW4-7 and doesn't really need rotation for that run - I don't think it's smart to invest 0.5m for an advantage you might or might not be able to use starting from GW8. FPL is a continuous change process and we don't know a shit about GW8 yet.

I think you're misunderstanding what I am saying.

I play for the short run in terms of decisions about gameweeks and transfers, but in a statistical variance sense, the long run and the points expectations even out, so playing your players regularly in matches that you know they are going to lose, is a recipe for disaster over hundreds and hundreds of gameweeks.

But that's really off-topic regarding what we were discussing.

I'm saying that, in my opinion, it's not smart to invest 0.5m on the bench in order to possibly utilize it for a goalkeeper rotation starting from GW8. This 0.5m will 100% certainly improve your points potential at this very moment if only invested elsewhere - I rather take a 100% certain advantage now than a possible, just possible, advantage in GW8.

I think you are speaking generally, while I'm speaking regarding the actual circumstances we now have. Foster is a very solid pick for GW4-7, so that's why this 0.5m on bench would be wasted money in GW4-7.

[Football Hero]

I get that, but you can't ignore fixture strength in the long run, it's all about the long run and points expectations. Never look or worry about the short run.

I disagree. Short run is always a priority because FPL is a very dynamic game. Of course you should think about long run too, but you shouldn't make too much sacrifices in short run because you might never be able to use your plans for long run.

Like I mentioned, Foster looks a very solid pick for GW4-7 and doesn't really need rotation for that run - I don't think it's smart to invest 0.5m for an advantage you might or might not be able to use starting from GW8. FPL is a continuous change process and we don't know a shit about GW8 yet.

I think you're misunderstanding what I am saying.

I play for the short run in terms of decisions about gameweeks and transfers, but in a statistical variance sense, the long run and the points expectations even out, so playing your players regularly in matches that you know they are going to lose, is a recipe for disaster over hundreds and hundreds of gameweeks.

But that's really off-topic regarding what we were discussing.

I'm saying that, in my opinion, it's not smart to invest 0.5m on the bench in order to possibly utlize it for goalkeeper rotation starting from GW8. That 0.5m will 100% certainly improve your points potential if invested elsewhere - I rather take a 100% certain advantage now than a possible, just possible, advantage in GW8.

If you plan to do a goalkeeper transfer in GW8, then that is fine. However from GW8 - GW11, I can see West Brom losing all of those matches and so he shouldn't willingly be played in any of them.

The only downside to doing a goalkeeper transfer in GW8 is the opportunity cost of not doing an alternative transfer, but if you've planned for it then it should work out well.

[Finisher1]

If you plan to do a goalkeeper transfer in GW8, then that is fine. However from GW8 - GW11, I can see West Brom losing all of those matches and so he shouldn't willingly be played in any of them.

The only downside to doing a goalkeeper transfer in GW8 is the opportunity cost of not doing an alternative transfer, but if you've planned for it then it should work out well.

Even if I played Foster GW8-11, by then I have already received a great advantage by investing 0.5m elsewhere in my squad on the field for GW4-7 - compared to those who have had 0.5m on bench, instead of on-field, for GW4-7.

You see, it's a judgment call, and there is not a definite right answer.

[Football Hero]

If you plan to do a goalkeeper transfer in GW8, then that is fine. However from GW8 - GW11, I can see West Brom losing all of those matches and so he shouldn't willingly be played in any of them.

The only downside to doing a goalkeeper transfer in GW8 is the opportunity cost of not doing an alternative transfer, but if you've planned for it then it should work out well.

Even if I played Foster GW8-11, by then I have already received a great advantage by investing 0.5m elsewhere in my squad on the field for GW4-7 - compared to those who have had 0.5m on bench, instead of on-field, for GW4-7.

You see, it's a judgment call, and there is not a definite right answer.

Yes, you have had the slight advantage of reinvesting the 0.5, and if you keep the 0.5 invested in your other players, it will be GW8 - GW11 where the pain will be felt from that decision essentially.

[Finisher1]

If you plan to do a goalkeeper transfer in GW8, then that is fine. However from GW8 - GW11, I can see West Brom losing all of those matches and so he shouldn't willingly be played in any of them.

The only downside to doing a goalkeeper transfer in GW8 is the opportunity cost of not doing an alternative transfer, but if you've planned for it then it should work out well.

Even if I played Foster GW8-11, by then I have already received a great advantage by investing 0.5m elsewhere in my squad on the field for GW4-7 - compared to those who have had 0.5m on bench, instead of on-field, for GW4-7.

You see, it's a judgment call, and there is not a definite right answer.

Yes, you have had the slight advantage of reinvesting the 0.5, and if you keep the 0.5 invested in your other players, it will be GW8 - GW11 where the pain will be felt from that decision essentially.

A lot will change by GW8 regardless of how much you plan. At worst, I will pay -4 points for having 0.5m more money on field for GW4, GW5, GW6, GW7. So I will have 0.5m more money on field for a total of four gameweeks, and in the very worst case scenario I pay -4 points for that - doesn't sound too bad for me.

How do I have a feeling neither of us wants to give a last word for the other?