GW 28 whos going full bore?
- Poison Idea
- Treebeard
- Posts: 199
- Joined: 26 Jan 2014, 15:54
- FS Record: Decent
Re: GW 28 whos going full bore?
XI (-4)
Jakupovic
Olsson Lovren Williams Funes Mori
Mane Firmino Sigurdsson Antonio
Lukaku Carroll
Undecided on (C). So much emphasis on this GW in recent weeks, it's bound to backfire spectacularly. No plan B for GW29 either.
Jakupovic
Olsson Lovren Williams Funes Mori
Mane Firmino Sigurdsson Antonio
Lukaku Carroll
Undecided on (C). So much emphasis on this GW in recent weeks, it's bound to backfire spectacularly. No plan B for GW29 either.
- I Am Ville
- Red & Blue Braces
- Posts: 349
- Joined: 05 Sep 2016, 21:48
- FS Record: FPL Best 5,025 (16/17)
- FPL:
Re: GW 28 whos going full bore?
-8 (effectively a -4) for 10 men (plus Amat)
Foster
Baines, coleman, amat
Antonio, mane, firminio, siggy, morrison
Lukaku, llorente
Foster
Baines, coleman, amat
Antonio, mane, firminio, siggy, morrison
Lukaku, llorente
- Carlos Kickaball
- Dumbledore
- Posts: 7801
- Joined: 04 Sep 2013, 18:02
Re: GW 28 whos going full bore?
-12, to field 11.
- Stemania
- FISO Jedi Knight
- Posts: 20448
- Joined: 27 Aug 2006, 11:54
- Location: On the Iron Throne of xG, the seat of The Crown Prince of the Stat Perverts. Or if not, in the STC!
- FS Record: Best: TFF 321st. FPL 129th. FFS Career HoF Peak 2nd (Live 1st). Ability since lost.
- FPL:
Re: RE: Re: GW 28 whos going full bore?
The minute you walked in the joint, I could see you were a man of distinction.Carlos Kickaball wrote:-12, to field 11.
- Carlos Kickaball
- Dumbledore
- Posts: 7801
- Joined: 04 Sep 2013, 18:02
Re: GW 28 whos going full bore?
Stop flirting Stem, it makes me feel uncomfortable.
- Stemania
- FISO Jedi Knight
- Posts: 20448
- Joined: 27 Aug 2006, 11:54
- Location: On the Iron Throne of xG, the seat of The Crown Prince of the Stat Perverts. Or if not, in the STC!
- FS Record: Best: TFF 321st. FPL 129th. FFS Career HoF Peak 2nd (Live 1st). Ability since lost.
- FPL:
Re: GW 28 whos going full bore?
I'm just glad there's some other idiot going for a trio of Liverpool mids. Heaton masterclass ahoy...
- Pirlo's Beard
- FISO Jedi Knight
- Posts: 20554
- Joined: 21 Aug 2013, 17:48
- FPL:
Re: GW 28 whos going full bore?
Make that a trio of idiots.Stemania wrote:I'm just glad there's some other idiot going for a trio of Liverpool mids.
-
- Dumbledore
- Posts: 8753
- Joined: 19 Jan 2010, 01:21
- Location: Los Angeles, CA
- FS Record: 1,465th in FPL 05/06
- FPL:
- Contact:
Re: GW 28 whos going full bore?
Just did a FT to put in Lukaku for Ibra and now have 7, can't understand people taking 8 point hits just to field 11..
-
- Grumpy Old Man
- Posts: 1256
- Joined: 19 Aug 2014, 14:05
Re: GW 28 whos going full bore?
I guess they see it as a guaranteed return of 6 points if they do three transfers for -8. This means that it only costs them 2 points for the three players, and there is a reasonable chance of at least one of the three player's doing something and working out as a profitable trade overall.The Real Slim Shady wrote:Just did a FT to put in Lukaku for Ibra and now have 7, can't understand people taking 8 point hits just to field 11..
- Mav3rick
- FISO Jedi Knight
- Posts: 20858
- Joined: 20 Jul 2009, 20:35
- FS Record: FPL: 1082, 1201, 1800, 10203
The stats are dark and full of errors.
Re: GW 28 whos going full bore?
Except one of those transfers could probably be done for free, so it's just two separate -4s for an effective -2 each. It can be justified though, either in fund moving, shifting dead wood or picking longer term options.Football Hero wrote:I guess they see it as a guaranteed return of 6 points if they do three transfers for -8. This means that it only costs them 2 points for the three players, and there is a reasonable chance of at least one of the three player's doing something and working out as a profitable trade overall.The Real Slim Shady wrote:Just did a FT to put in Lukaku for Ibra and now have 7, can't understand people taking 8 point hits just to field 11..
I personally am struggling with defensive changes but will probably take a -4 to shift Sterling plus one other and maybe another -4 if Phillips is out.
- Sutter Kane
- Dumbledore
- Posts: 7522
- Joined: 05 Aug 2010, 12:13
- FS Record: Unknown.
- FPL:
Re: GW 28 whos going full bore?
Yes indeed. Problem is when you own players you would rather keep! I have Eriksen, Alli and Hazard, all of which I want to keep. I'd like a Liv mid (although I'd struggle with picking one) in for Hazard for a -4 points but not sure I want that Liv mid long term. Only GW31 looks really tasty in the near future.Mav3rick wrote:Except one of those transfers could probably be done for free, so it's just two separate -4s for an effective -2 each. It can be justified though, either in fund moving, shifting dead wood or picking longer term options.
So it's just 10 for me, Phillips included.
- Sutter Kane
- Dumbledore
- Posts: 7522
- Joined: 05 Aug 2010, 12:13
- FS Record: Unknown.
- FPL:
Re: GW 28 whos going full bore?
5 defenders though...
- Sutter Kane
- Dumbledore
- Posts: 7522
- Joined: 05 Aug 2010, 12:13
- FS Record: Unknown.
- FPL:
Re: GW 28 whos going full bore?
5-2-2 formation and that includes Phillips...
- Mav3rick
- FISO Jedi Knight
- Posts: 20858
- Joined: 20 Jul 2009, 20:35
- FS Record: FPL: 1082, 1201, 1800, 10203
The stats are dark and full of errors.
Re: GW 28 whos going full bore?
Very similar to me, I don't want to move Eriksen or Kane, I'm on the fence about Alonso and Holebas and ideally I'd even wait a bit on Aguero but I think I'll need the funds. Siggy will come in for Sterling, and I'm thinking that Amat to Funes Mori will be acceptable too.Sutter Kane wrote:Yes indeed. Problem is when you own players you would rather keep! I have Eriksen, Alli and Hazard, all of which I want to keep. I'd like a Liv mid (although I'd struggle with picking one) in for Hazard for a -4 points but not sure I want that Liv mid long term. Only GW31 looks really tasty in the near future.Mav3rick wrote:Except one of those transfers could probably be done for free, so it's just two separate -4s for an effective -2 each. It can be justified though, either in fund moving, shifting dead wood or picking longer term options.
So it's just 10 for me, Phillips included.
After that, i find the -4s hard to justify unless part of a grander stratgeic approach, but I'm very aware that the wildcard window is almost here so time for longer term strategies to pay off is limited.
I think it took about 6 or 7 games for Heaton to gain back the -4 i took on him early in the season. Over 5 weeks or so, any moves from spurs to Liverpool etc could easily not be worth even the -2.
-
- Grumpy Old Man
- Posts: 1256
- Joined: 19 Aug 2014, 14:05
Re: GW 28 whos going full bore?
Yeah, but which transfer(s) are the points hits? Because the distinction will be arbitrary, then there's a case to be made for the free transfer or two free transfers to be rolled into the pot when evaluating the hits.Mav3rick wrote:Except one of those transfers could probably be done for free, so it's just two separate -4s for an effective -2 each. It can be justified though, either in fund moving, shifting dead wood or picking longer term options.Football Hero wrote:I guess they see it as a guaranteed return of 6 points if they do three transfers for -8. This means that it only costs them 2 points for the three players, and there is a reasonable chance of at least one of the three player's doing something and working out as a profitable trade overall.The Real Slim Shady wrote:Just did a FT to put in Lukaku for Ibra and now have 7, can't understand people taking 8 point hits just to field 11..
I personally am struggling with defensive changes but will probably take a -4 to shift Sterling plus one other and maybe another -4 if Phillips is out.
Also, sometimes a hit can be for one week, and other times it can be for a period of games. This is where I struggle quite a lot in terms of evaluating the value of points hits and it's quite frustrating when you don't have a definitive answer because perhaps there isn't one?
- Mav3rick
- FISO Jedi Knight
- Posts: 20858
- Joined: 20 Jul 2009, 20:35
- FS Record: FPL: 1082, 1201, 1800, 10203
The stats are dark and full of errors.
Re: GW 28 whos going full bore?
Football Hero wrote: I guess they see it as a guaranteed return of 6 points if they do three transfers for -8. This means that it only costs them 2 points for the three players
Mav3rick wrote: Except one of those transfers could probably be done for free, so it's just two separate -4s for an effective -2 each. It can be justified though, either in fund moving, shifting dead wood or picking longer term options.
I actually think there usually is a definite order in transfers. Much like how you assess that Mane is a better captaincy choice than Lukaku, you know what your optimum transfer in is, and that's your first and free transfer. The only cloudyness is around transfers that require funds to be freed, then you can view it as a block of transfers if you wish and it becomes a bit harder (or probably easier in this case) to judge if a hit is worth it.Football Hero wrote: Yeah, but which transfer(s) are the points hits? Because the distinction will be arbitrary, then there's a case to be made for the free transfer or two free transfers to be rolled into the pot when evaluating the hits.
Last edited by Mav3rick on 10 Mar 2017, 13:09, edited 2 times in total.
- Lucky
- Grumpy Old Man
- Posts: 3994
- Joined: 13 Sep 2006, 07:24
- FPL:
Re: GW 28 whos going full bore?
I almost brought Firmino for a (-4). But he seems doubtful according to Klopp at pc
Firmino faces fitness check
Liverpool v Burnley (Sunday, 16:00 GMT)
Posted at
13:37
Injury news from Jurgen Klopp ahead of Liverpool's home league match with Burnley on Sunday. Jordan Henderson and Daniel Sturridge are not available, while Roberto Firmino will need a check.
"He couldn't train. We have to wait and see," Klopp says of his Brazilian playmaker.
Firmino faces fitness check
Liverpool v Burnley (Sunday, 16:00 GMT)
Posted at
13:37
Injury news from Jurgen Klopp ahead of Liverpool's home league match with Burnley on Sunday. Jordan Henderson and Daniel Sturridge are not available, while Roberto Firmino will need a check.
"He couldn't train. We have to wait and see," Klopp says of his Brazilian playmaker.
- Aldershot Rejects
- Dumbledore
- Posts: 9585
- Joined: 03 Aug 2011, 17:15
- Location: Kent
- FS Record: 5th Metro (2010-11); 146 - Sky (2015-16); 218 - Sky (2014-15); 386 - Sky (2020-21); 636 - FPL (2017-18); last 16 Sky Cup (2018-19)
- FPL:
Re: GW 28 whos going full bore?
Great; bought him in last night for a hit. Sounds like 4 points potentially down the drain.Lucky wrote:I almost brought Firmino for a (-4). But he seems doubtful according to Klopp at pc
Firmino faces fitness check
Liverpool v Burnley (Sunday, 16:00 GMT)
Posted at
13:37
Injury news from Jurgen Klopp ahead of Liverpool's home league match with Burnley on Sunday. Jordan Henderson and Daniel Sturridge are not available, while Roberto Firmino will need a check.
"He couldn't train. We have to wait and see," Klopp says of his Brazilian playmaker.
-
- Treebeard
- Posts: 182
- Joined: 06 Aug 2016, 17:58
Re: GW 28 whos going full bore?
Klopp on Firmino "He couldn't train until now" do we think that Implies he trained today?
Yes I brought him in for a hit
Yes I brought him in for a hit
-
- Grumpy Old Man
- Posts: 1256
- Joined: 19 Aug 2014, 14:05
Re: GW 28 whos going full bore?
Your first transfer causes the second transfer to be a points hit though, so it is involved in the permutations. You could even argue that your free transfer from the week before is also now involved because without it, both of your transfers in this current week would have been for free and therefore both transfers could be done even if they only gave a marginal points gain, (as you would be considering them as both free transfers and so a small gain would be fine).Mav3rick wrote:Football Hero wrote: I guess they see it as a guaranteed return of 6 points if they do three transfers for -8. This means that it only costs them 2 points for the three playersMav3rick wrote: Except one of those transfers could probably be done for free, so it's just two separate -4s for an effective -2 each. It can be justified though, either in fund moving, shifting dead wood or picking longer term options.I actually think there usually is a definite order in transfers. Much like how you assess that Mane is a better captaincy choice than Lukaku, you know what your optimum transfer in is, and that's your first and free transfer. The only cloudyness is around transfers that require funds to be freed, then you can view it as a block of transfers if you wish and it becomes a bit harder (or probably easier in this case) to judge if a hit is worth it.Football Hero wrote: Yeah, but which transfer(s) are the points hits? Because the distinction will be arbitrary, then there's a case to be made for the free transfer or two free transfers to be rolled into the pot when evaluating the hits.
I think really the best way to look at it is to view all of your transfers over the season as being part of the same transfer pool, and that if you take your 35 free transfers and say 10 extra transfers, then this will cost you 40 points, and each of your 45 transfers has a tax of 40/45 = 0.89 points per transfer. I don't see any other way around looking at points hits fairly and objectively.
Of course you wouldn't know your transfer tax value until all is said and done by the end of the season, but for most serious players, I would say the tax value would be between 0.80 and 1.00 points per transfer, so essentially each transfer that you make, just needs to exceed this value in points expectation, (but of course that will also be the case for all of the transfers that you do, including the ones that you label as 'free' transfers throughout the season).
- Mav3rick
- FISO Jedi Knight
- Posts: 20858
- Joined: 20 Jul 2009, 20:35
- FS Record: FPL: 1082, 1201, 1800, 10203
The stats are dark and full of errors.
Re: GW 28 whos going full bore?
I don't think you can say that your free transfer causes the second to be a hit and therefore they are linked I mean, obviously it does, but it's still two separate events. The fact is that you prioritise one transfer because it has a better likley outcome (in your opinion) and the second one was not chosen so it is an optional transfer and incurs the -4. Again, the only way they are linked is through fund freeing, such as needing to sell Aguero, but even in that scenario you should take the position that selling Aguero is the optimal move (the only possible one which makes it the optimal move) and so the second transfer is still optional, and is still a -4 on it's own.Football Hero wrote: Your first transfer causes the second transfer to be a points hit though, so it is involved in the permutations. You could even argue that your free transfer from the week before is also now involved because without it, both of your transfers in this current week would have been for free and therefore both transfers could be done even if they only gave a marginal points gain, (as you would be considering them as both free transfers and so a small gain would be fine).
I'm not saying hits are bad, certainly not in the short GWs, it's just that in most situations they are each still able to be judged objectively and each has an individual cost.
There's no way I could even contemplate how to judge a sequence of 5 or 6 transfers, let alone a whole season's worth. There are just way too many moving parts.Football Hero wrote: I think really the best way to look at it is to view all of your transfers over the season as being part of the same transfer pool, and that if you take your 35 free transfers and say 10 extra transfers, then this will cost you 40 points, and each of your 45 transfers has a tax of 40/45 = 0.89 points per transfer. I don't see any other way around looking at points hits fairly and objectively.
-
- Grumpy Old Man
- Posts: 1256
- Joined: 19 Aug 2014, 14:05
Re: GW 28 whos going full bore?
What I am saying is, that if you can see a gain of greater than 1.00 points on a transfer, and you aren't planning on making more than 46 transfers for the season, then you should take it.Mav3rick wrote:I don't think you can say that your free transfer causes the second to be a hit and therefore they are linked I mean, obviously it does, but it's still two separate events. The fact is that you prioritise one transfer because it has a better likley outcome (in your opinion) and the second one was not chosen so it is an optional transfer and incurs the -4. Again, the only way they are linked is through fund freeing, such as needing to sell Aguero, but even in that scenario you should take the position that selling Aguero is the optimal move (the only possible one which makes it the optimal move) and so the second transfer is still optional, and is still a -4 on it's own.Football Hero wrote: Your first transfer causes the second transfer to be a points hit though, so it is involved in the permutations. You could even argue that your free transfer from the week before is also now involved because without it, both of your transfers in this current week would have been for free and therefore both transfers could be done even if they only gave a marginal points gain, (as you would be considering them as both free transfers and so a small gain would be fine).
There's no way I could even contemplate how to judge a sequence of 5 or 6 transfers, let alone a whole season's worth. There are just way too many moving parts.Football Hero wrote: I think really the best way to look at it is to view all of your transfers over the season as being part of the same transfer pool, and that if you take your 35 free transfers and say 10 extra transfers, then this will cost you 40 points, and each of your 45 transfers has a tax of 40/45 = 0.89 points per transfer. I don't see any other way around looking at points hits fairly and objectively.
So for this week, assuming you are on course to make less than 47 transfers for the season currently, then transferring a non-playing player to another player that has a game in GW28 and so therefore has an expectation of at least 2.00 points, then you should do this transfer, because the tax value is actually only 0.96 points, (44/46).
This system isn't perfect of course and has flaws, but it attempts to judge transfer hits as coming out of your seasonal transfer allowance, rather than trying to judge individual '-4's' against individual gameweeks.
-
- FISOhead
- Posts: 643
- Joined: 24 Jul 2016, 19:39
- FS Record: Virginal
Re: GW 28 whos going full bore?
Ah, the great Average Cost Fallacy! (Otherwise known as throwing good money after bad)Football Hero wrote:What I am saying is, that if you can see a gain of greater than 1.00 points on a transfer, and you aren't planning on making more than 46 transfers for the season, then you should take it.
Marginal Cost is what drives informed, logical decisions.
-
- Grumpy Old Man
- Posts: 1256
- Joined: 19 Aug 2014, 14:05
Re: GW 28 whos going full bore?
Damn it. I hate it when I fall foul of a fallacy.TheoRiginal wrote:Ah, the great Average Cost Fallacy! (Otherwise known as throwing good money after bad)Football Hero wrote:What I am saying is, that if you can see a gain of greater than 1.00 points on a transfer, and you aren't planning on making more than 46 transfers for the season, then you should take it.
Marginal Cost is what drives informed, logical decisions.
- Mav3rick
- FISO Jedi Knight
- Posts: 20858
- Joined: 20 Jul 2009, 20:35
- FS Record: FPL: 1082, 1201, 1800, 10203
The stats are dark and full of errors.
Re: GW 28 whos going full bore?
Well, no, what you were saying was that a -8 this week is effectively a -2, which is something I don't believe to be correct, at least not in the majority of cases:Football Hero wrote: What I am saying is, that if you can see a gain of greater than 1.00 points on a transfer, and you aren't planning on making more than 46 transfers for the season, then you should take it.
So for this week, assuming you are on course to make less than 47 transfers for the season currently, then transferring a non-playing player to another player that has a game in GW28 and so therefore has an expectation of at least 2.00 points, then you should do this transfer, because the tax value is actually only 0.96 points, (44/46).
This system isn't perfect of course and has flaws, but it attempts to judge transfer hits as coming out of your seasonal transfer allowance, rather than trying to judge individual '-4's' against individual gameweeks.
It's probably correct to say that if you, say, had to sell Aguero in order to buy Mane and Coutinho or something similar to that, but even there you don't have to take the first or second hit if each individually looks a bad play based on your circumstances. Hits aren't bad, they just need to be thought about sensibly and judged correctly on their merits. As an example, I could take a hit this week to replace Phillips or I could leave him, get 0 and get Sanchez next week. That is a conditional decision and I don't view the -8 as all being in it together for three moves. Equally, I would happily make 5 transfers if I thought each one was a genuinely good move that works for this GW and moving forward into the time I want to wildcard.Football Hero wrote:6 points if they do three transfers for -8. This means that it only costs them 2 points for the three players, and there is a reasonable chance of at least one of the three player's doing something and working out as a profitable trade overall.
If you want to pivot the debate that's fine, but I've nothing to add to the particular discussion you're now framing, except to say that I don't believe there is an optimal number of hits (or amount of "transfer tax" - which by the way you've completely lost me on ), each one is an individual case and I can perfectly imagine scenarios where it's optimal to make zero transfers all season, just as much as it might be optimal to make a -8 every week.
- TheBigLewandowski
- Grumpy Old Man
- Posts: 4622
- Joined: 25 Jul 2016, 15:04
- FS Record: OR 1,259 2016/17
- FPL:
Re: GW 28 whos going full bore?
I'll have 10 playing hopefully.
If Firmino doesn't make it, 9, but that should still be OK.
Not taking any hits.
If Firmino doesn't make it, 9, but that should still be OK.
Not taking any hits.
-
- Grumpy Old Man
- Posts: 1256
- Joined: 19 Aug 2014, 14:05
Re: GW 28 whos going full bore?
There's also the issue where you can see a transfer hit for GW28 for instance that is +EV, so you do the hit and feel good about yourself because it is indeed a profitable hit, but actually the reason around you needing to do the hit in the first place could have been because you didn't plan well enough for GW28 in the first place, (as you greedily prioritised GW25 and GW26 say); and in that scenario it was technically an avoidable hit if you'd planned better.Mav3rick wrote:Well, no, what you were saying was that a -8 this week is effectively a -2, which is something I don't believe to be correct, at least not in the majority of cases:Football Hero wrote: What I am saying is, that if you can see a gain of greater than 1.00 points on a transfer, and you aren't planning on making more than 46 transfers for the season, then you should take it.
So for this week, assuming you are on course to make less than 47 transfers for the season currently, then transferring a non-playing player to another player that has a game in GW28 and so therefore has an expectation of at least 2.00 points, then you should do this transfer, because the tax value is actually only 0.96 points, (44/46).
This system isn't perfect of course and has flaws, but it attempts to judge transfer hits as coming out of your seasonal transfer allowance, rather than trying to judge individual '-4's' against individual gameweeks.
It's probably correct to say that if you, say, had to sell Aguero in order to buy Mane and Coutinho or something similar to that, but even there you don't have to take the first or second hit if each individually looks a bad play based on your circumstances. Hits aren't bad, they just need to be thought about sensibly and judged correctly on their merits. As an example, I could take a hit this week to replace Phillips or I could leave him, get 0 and get Sanchez next week. That is a conditional decision and I don't view the -8 as all being in it together for three moves. Equally, I would happily make 5 transfers if I thought each one was a genuinely good move that works for this GW and moving forward into the time I want to wildcard.Football Hero wrote:6 points if they do three transfers for -8. This means that it only costs them 2 points for the three players, and there is a reasonable chance of at least one of the three player's doing something and working out as a profitable trade overall.
If you want to pivot the debate that's fine, but I've nothing to add to the particular discussion you're now framing, except to say that I don't believe there is an optimal number of hits (or amount of "transfer tax" - which by the way you've completely lost me on ), each one is an individual case and I can perfectly imagine scenarios where it's optimal to make zero transfers all season, just as much as it might be optimal to make a -8 every week.
There is also the scenario where sometimes you are forced into an additional hit because you were unlucky and a player got injured and you find out just before the deadline and need to take action and remove them whereas you wouldn't have removed them if they hadn't succumbed to a secret injury.
So extra transfers and hits can come about for so many reasons and it is very difficult to quantify things I guess.
-
- FISOhead
- Posts: 643
- Joined: 24 Jul 2016, 19:39
- FS Record: Virginal
Re: GW 28 whos going full bore?
By George, I think he's got it!Football Hero wrote:So extra transfers and hits can come about for so many reasons and it is very difficult to quantify things I guess.
- Mav3rick
- FISO Jedi Knight
- Posts: 20858
- Joined: 20 Jul 2009, 20:35
- FS Record: FPL: 1082, 1201, 1800, 10203
The stats are dark and full of errors.
Re: GW 28 whos going full bore?
Considering that I was planning for this blank week a good while back, I am rather disappointed to be looking at 7 + Amat without hits
Phillips, Sterling and the Aguero TC have rather scuppered my planned 9 without hits initial strategy, so I think I'll be looking at Phillips Sigurdsson and Aguero Caroll to field 8+Amat (-4). I'm also looking at the merits of Amat ?, who could play this week and get me some defensive cover over the coming weeks, as well as pondering a move on Sterling for a potential -12 in total.
Phillips, Sterling and the Aguero TC have rather scuppered my planned 9 without hits initial strategy, so I think I'll be looking at Phillips Sigurdsson and Aguero Caroll to field 8+Amat (-4). I'm also looking at the merits of Amat ?, who could play this week and get me some defensive cover over the coming weeks, as well as pondering a move on Sterling for a potential -12 in total.
-
- FISO Knight
- Posts: 11198
- Joined: 13 Sep 2013, 12:30
- FPL:
Re: GW 28 whos going full bore?
Amat someone like Robertson/Maguire is surely worth it given it is essentially a -2 for this week and gives more flexibility going forward?Mav3rick wrote:Considering that I was planning for this blank week a good while back, I am rather disappointed to be looking at 7 + Amat without hits
Phillips, Sterling and the Aguero TC have rather scuppered my planned 9 without hits initial strategy, so I think I'll be looking at Phillips Sigurdsson and Aguero Caroll to field 8+Amat (-4). I'm also looking at the merits of Amat ?, who could play this week and get me some defensive cover over the coming weeks, as well as pondering a move on Sterling for a potential -12 in total.
View Latest: 1 Day View Your posts