Eriksen or Alli

[MartyBhoy7]

Not sure which midfielder to pick between Eriksen or Alli.

Eriksen is very highly owned in my ML so to me is the safer choice. Anyone else in the same boat?

[mr.stanishev]

I think you should trust your gut feelings here - Alli will probably give you more goals overall, but is a bit more inconsistent compared to Eriksen who scores rarely, but provides a lot of assists.
One thing I consider as well is that Alli's disciplinary record is worse - that is why I prefer Eriksen.

[MartyBhoy7]

I think you should trust your gut feelings here - Alli will probably give you more goals overall, but is a bit more inconsistent compared to Eriksen who scores rarely, but provides a lot of assists.
One thing I consider as well is that Alli's disciplinary record is worse - that is why I prefer Eriksen.

Thanks for the reply, that's the way I'm siding at the moment.

[Tall Paul]

Eriksen for me too.

Alli is converting chances at Sergio Aguero rates, that can't continue.

[Rich2086]

I think Eriksen is a better option but iv got Ali, yes its been a strange season

[Stemania]

I'd go Eriksen too given free choice right now. Among other great stats he's taken the most number of shots in the league except Ibra.

[Mav3rick]

I did go with Eriksen, but Alli seems to suit this new Spurs setup and is returning a lot of shots in the box. I'd say either is a decent choice, but my reason for picking Eriksen was that his set pieces can still return an easy 3 points even if spurs don't play well.

I feel like at some stage teams are going to get to grips with Alli and will work out how to defend against his runs.

[Shevchenko]

How about both and no Hazard? Costa absence can affect Chelsea performance too. Also those extra 1,4-1,9M can be the difference between Giroud/Kane, Anichebe/Rondon, de Roon/Jrod or even Phillips/Coutinho.

[Football Hero]

I did go with Eriksen, but Alli seems to suit this new Spurs setup and is returning a lot of shots in the box. I'd say either is a decent choice, but my reason for picking Eriksen was that his set pieces can still return an easy 3 points even if spurs don't play well.

I feel like at some stage teams are going to get to grips with Alli and will work out how to defend against his runs.

I don't really understand this line of reasoning, because surely this means that when Spurs do play well, then you think Alli will outscore Eriksen, (if we assume that both players are fairly even overall, hence the tough decision), and Spurs are playing well far more often than not at the moment aren't they?

[baganboy]

How about both and no Hazard? Costa absence can affect Chelsea performance too. Also those extra 1,4-1,9M can be the difference between Giroud/Kane, Anichebe/Rondon, de Roon/Jrod or even Phillips/Coutinho.

Hazard, Chelsea's central striker who BTW also takes spot kicks? Unless the prediction is of a spectacular Chelsea collapse, I would think Hazard is safe, and will score not less, but more.

Mind, though, that I have been getting more wrong than right FPL wise, lately.

[Mav3rick]

I did go with Eriksen, but Alli seems to suit this new Spurs setup and is returning a lot of shots in the box. I'd say either is a decent choice, but my reason for picking Eriksen was that his set pieces can still return an easy 3 points even if spurs don't play well.

I feel like at some stage teams are going to get to grips with Alli and will work out how to defend against his runs.

I don't really understand this line of reasoning, because surely this means that when Spurs do play well, then you think Alli will outscore Eriksen, (if we assume that both players are fairly even overall, hence the tough decision), and Spurs are playing well far more often than not at the moment aren't they?

What I mean is that Eriksen has a kind of underlying base (i.e. his set piece dominance) that is not particularly affected by poor performances, he can still get a reward from putting in a corner that Alders or Dier heads in, this is not an option that Alli has. It does not follow from that I think that Alli will outscore Eriksen all the time if spurs play well, it just means that I think Eriksen has a higher floor and that's an important consideration in my mind.

[Football Hero]

I did go with Eriksen, but Alli seems to suit this new Spurs setup and is returning a lot of shots in the box. I'd say either is a decent choice, but my reason for picking Eriksen was that his set pieces can still return an easy 3 points even if spurs don't play well.

I feel like at some stage teams are going to get to grips with Alli and will work out how to defend against his runs.

I don't really understand this line of reasoning, because surely this means that when Spurs do play well, then you think Alli will outscore Eriksen, (if we assume that both players are fairly even overall, hence the tough decision), and Spurs are playing well far more often than not at the moment aren't they?

What I mean is that Eriksen has a kind of underlying base (i.e. his set piece dominance) that is not particularly affected by poor performances, he can still get a reward from putting in a corner that Alders or Dier heads in, this is not an option that Alli has. It does not follow from that I think that Alli will outscore Eriksen all the time if spurs play well, it just means that I think Eriksen has a higher floor and that's an important consideration in my mind.

At the moment they are tied on points though, and Alli has not started three games, whereas Eriksen has not started one game, plus Eriksen had a lower points per minute value from last season compared to Alli, so the data points to Alli being the better pick imo.

Yes, Eriksen has more set piece potential, but Alli has way more open play potential to more than cover that off. You can't just look at one and ignore the other. I'm not really buying this ''If Spurs play poorly then Eriksen is better'' argument, because Spurs don't play poorly often enough for that to matter, hence why they are up there fighting for the title instead of being mired in mid-table.

[Mav3rick]

If you don't look beyond points scored then I can see why you'd pick Alli.

[blahblah]

There's nowt in it but price, imho.

[Football Hero]

If you don't look beyond points scored then I can see why you'd pick Alli.

Well considering it's FPL points that matter in this game, I think they are a very fine metric to use. I get the feeling that you are over thinking this a little bit, when sometimes these decisions can be simplified. Don't get me wrong, I think you post a lot of quality content and I enjoy reading your contributions very much.

[Beerfuelledman]

I went for Alli - but that was at 8.1m. Not much in it now.

[Mav3rick]

If you don't look beyond points scored then I can see why you'd pick Alli.

Well considering it's FPL points that matter in this game, I think they are a very fine metric to use. I get the feeling that you are over thinking this a little bit

You've put this argument before with regards to underlying stats versus points scored:

viewtopic.php?f=18&t=122649&hilit=under ... 0#p2945258

For the benefit of others, as a confessed stats pervert, my opinion is that it's too simplistic to look at points scored as your only metric or even main metric, but I've no interest at all in opening that debate up again since it has run it's course for me. Others take different views, and I've no intention of trying to convert anyone.

[Football Hero]

If you don't look beyond points scored then I can see why you'd pick Alli.

Well considering it's FPL points that matter in this game, I think they are a very fine metric to use. I get the feeling that you are over thinking this a little bit

You've put this argument before with regards to underlying stats versus points scored:

viewtopic.php?f=18&t=122649&hilit=under ... 0#p2945258

For the benefit of others, as a confessed stats pervert, my opinion is that it's too simplistic to look at points scored as your only metric or even main metric, but I've no interest at all in opening that debate up again since it has run it's course for me. Others take different views, and I've no intention of trying to convert anyone.

But we are also debating the element of your argument that relates to Eriksen being better when Spurs play poorly, because he can always lump the ball into the box for someone to put their head on it, (Alderweireld, Dier or Alli even?)

How about when Spurs play well and Alli is more instrumental in the good play that they do? You can't just ignore those games can you.

[Mav3rick]

I can't produce metrics about when spurs play well to prove one way or the other (feel free to find the facts though, I'd be happy to talk about any objectively identified trends). All I can say is what I said before that Eriksen has a higher floor due to set pieces and that I disagree with your assertion that more ppg always means a better pick, with all the reasoning in the thread linked above.

[Joccki_10]

Definitely agree with you, Mav. This game is not about chasing last week's points, but trying to get the most points in the weeks that come. And that very much goes along with underlying stats.

[gallus]

Whatever you do, pick one and stick with him. Don't chase points by transfering them in and out.

[Football Hero]

I can't produce metrics about when spurs play well to prove one way or the other (feel free to find the facts though, I'd be happy to talk about any objectively identified trends). All I can say is what I said before that Eriksen has a higher floor due to set pieces and that I disagree with your assertion that more ppg always means a better pick, with all the reasoning in the thread linked above.

Yeah, you make the case for why Eriksen is supposedly better, but you have to accept that in the last year and a half, the fantasy points, (which is the ultimate and most important barometer), do not bear that out. Ok, so you can say that we haven't got to the long run with these two yet so you could still be right and we should listen to you, and I accept that... for now.

So... out of interest, how long do you give your assertions before you forcibly change your mind on them when results suggest that your assertion is incorrect? If say in a year's time, Alli is still the better pick based only on FPL points, will you then accept that he is actually the better pick? I am wondering at which point you change your mind on these kinds of things, because surely you are smart enough to realise that you can't just blindly stick to a theory when results consistently over many years show otherwise.

[Mav3rick]

Nobody "should listen to me" everyone needs to make up their own mind based on evidence that I or others post.

[Gambit]

I'd be very surprised if there was much between them come May.

Both tied on 121 at the moment

Alli last year 166
Eriksen previous years 178 / 162 / 132

hard to say one is a better choice than the other, both should get 180+ this year, other than injury I can't see a scenario where one of them significantly outscores the other. Obviously getting the "right" one might be the difference between winning a cash league etc or a few thousand places overall as they won't finish on the same score but I just don't think there is a definite answer.

I'd say Eriksen slightly ahead based on set-pieces and Alli still looks to have that youthful menace about him where he could get a red card.

[Football Hero]

Nobody "should listen to me" everyone needs to make up their own mind based on evidence that I or others post.

You've avoided answering my question for some reason.

[N1ckj]

Why not just have both? Spurs looking pretty good at the moment!

[Football Hero]

Why not just have both? Spurs looking pretty good at the moment!

How about because of issues like budget limitations, or already owning Kane and Walker say?

[Archy]

Not too worried about the stats on this; sometimes a decision for me is based more in what intuitively feels right.

For me, Eriksen is the more reliable performer and I choose him over Alli simply because, for now at least, I trust him more for consistent returns. As Mav says, you can usually rely on him to get 'something'. Alli seems less consistent, blowing hot and cold, possibly making him someone to transfer in and out based on fixtures rather than holding in your team?

Having said that, I should add Alli is 4 years younger and I am generally an advocate of backing young players who are on an upwards trajectory so am happy to be proved wrong (Eriksen himself is only 24 though so still in theory yet to peak himself)!

[Football Hero]

Not too worried about the stats on this; sometimes a decision for me is based more in what intuitively feels right.

For me, Eriksen is the more reliable performer and I choose him over Alli simply because, for now at least, I trust him more for consistent returns. As Mav says, you can usually rely on him to get 'something'. Alli seems less consistent, blowing hot and cold, possibly making him someone to transfer in and out based on fixtures rather than holding in your team?

Having said that, I should add Alli is 4 years younger and I am generally an advocate of backing young players who are on an upwards trajectory so am happy to be proved wrong (Eriksen himself is only 24 though so still in theory yet to peak himself)!

The problem with this way of thinking is that we are playing a game where we are trying to maximise FPL points, and so far, over the last year and a half, Alli is (slightly) better at picking up FPL points than Eriksen. You can believe that Eriksen is the better pick for reasons X, Y and Z, but you have to accept that results are not bearing that out so far, and that the only solace you can take is that perhaps variance hasn't evened out yet, (despite obviously a year and a half being a fair amount of time of course).

The idea that Eriksen is supposedly more 'consistent' is completely irrelevant as far as I'm concerned and only really helps in terms of arbitrarily making you feel mentally 'happier' if a particular player is able to have less 'bad' weeks than the other over a given period. For instance, if Eriksen over a ten week period scored 5, 6, 2, 8, 5, 5, 6, 7, 3, 2 then he has only had three 'bad' weeks where you were unhappy with his points return and he scored 49 points in total, whereas Alli might score 2, 3, 10, 15, 2, 2, 16, 2, 3, 2 which yields seven 'bad' weeks but a total points yield during that spell of 57. For me Alli would have unquestionably been the better pick to have since he has scored more points overall, and that 'consistency' is essentially just an arbitrary label used to justify an inferior selection.

[Archy]

I'm completely open minded about this and am happy to be persuaded either way, but how have you reached the conclusion that Alli has a clear superior points record than Eriksen (16% superior using the theoretical example you give)?

I can see that both have 121 points this season from 19 appearances.

Eriksen got 178 last year from 35 appearances and Alli got 166 from 33 appearances.

There may be some nuances behind those stats, but to me it doesn't seem certain at all that the results clearly prove Alli is superior, which seems to be the foundation of your argument?

Also, If we are going to talk about consistentcy, how about looking at it from another angle: Eriksen looks pretty much nailed on for 90 minutes each week (he has only missed 9 minutes in total from the last 16 games) whereas Alli is much more prone to missing game time or being subbed off early (perhaps because he is less robust and more injury prone?). This in my mind (currently) reinforces Eriksen as the more "solid" choice.