Ville Rönkä is lucky, isn't he?

[bigcliff2]

Ah, well that explains it then...

[Stemania]

The HoF is a little more than just FFS members actually.

Chris (FISO username ChrisA) said that when he put together the tool a few years ago he scraped all the records of people who finished in the top 100k (in the game) that year and added the good records from there.

Additionally, Fpldiscovery (FISO user smarty_pants) published until last season a yearly article of the best records overall (including how many players had how many career top 1k or 10k finishes) and s_p also listed them on FISO on the original Ville thread. Chris added any great record missing at the start of last season - for example Jay Egersdorff ESP (who has since joined the FFS league).

Unfortunately s_p said he didn't have time last season for all his excellent summary articles. We should bug him at the end of the year in the fpldiscovery comments section - I remember some great summary articles like 'wildcard timings' and some wonderful graphics on the difference in transfers and hits made by the top 1k, the top 10k and the top 100k or something like that.

[Archy]

So, with Ville struggling to make an impact around the 20,000 mark, and other revered managers Spiermatt (outside the top 50k) and Triggerlips (outside the top 100k) having worse seasons, where does this leave the argument that their previous stellar records were all down to skill?

And, more importantly, who shall we follow next year who's so skilled they can guarantee us a top 5k finish next season?

[Valeron]

Ville's 8 year record will almost certainly never be bettered. It was borne out of skill, plenty luck and apparently it used to be a piece of piss to finish top 5k and its much tougher now. you can play a clever game and without your share of breaks finish outside top 10k.

I think Ridley is off the pace this season too?

How about Hancock...has he has a season outside the top 25k?

[Bixer]

I don't know how you guys know who all these people are.

[gallus]

apparently it used to be a piece of piss to finish top 5k and its much tougher now.

Maybe that's why I find it so hard to believe his record is all about skill. I only started playing 2 years ago, and by then everyone and their dog knew where to find fpl tips. Just look at this:


It's almost impossible not find advice when you search for "fantasy premier league". Maybe it was different in the past and the 10k knowledgeable players always finished in the top 20k. But now it seems impossible to finish close to top 1k without some kind of luck.

[MoSe]

Ville's 8 year record will almost certainly never be bettered. It was borne out of skill, plenty luck and apparently it used to be a piece of piss to finish top 5k and its much tougher now. you can play a clever game and without your share of breaks finish outside top 10k.

I think Ridley is off the pace this season too?

How about Hancock...has he has a season outside the top 25k?

I don't know how you guys know who all these people are.

Ville, well, he's the subject of endless topics here!
he's the longtime leader of FFS Hall of Fame http://members.fantasyfootballscout.co. ... me/career/ , due to his outstandingly consistent record over last 8 seasons

Ridley is RidleyMTB memberlist.php?mode=viewprofile&u=16165 search.php?author_id=16165&sr=posts
he recently posted hereabove too viewtopic.php?p=3049103#p3049103

My record isn't bad (4th in FFS HOF). I've not done so well this season (so far) but I've had a lot of bad luck

he's the FISO Forum League 2015/16 "Champion", having been 49th overall!
He's (also thanks to that) indeed 4th in the "Career" FFS HoF (i.e. not counting current season)

Hancock is hancockjr memberlist.php?mode=viewprofile&u=12909 search.php?author_id=12909&sr=posts
he also posted hereabove viewtopic.php?p=3049846#p3049846
his FPL Button is not updated this season, but he's in the Fiso Forum League, his team: https://fantasy.premierleague.com/a/tea ... 5/event/36
if you search in FFS HoF by the manger name in his team, you'll see he was 269th after last season
he'd been at the top tho before I joined here, in his first 4 seasons between 08/09 and 11/12 I think he got better results than Ville,
so that I took him as example to maintain that Ville is one of the best ever but not necessarily the best, going by results

• there are indeed a few managers who could equal or maybe slightly better Ville's record over a four seasons span
  they just weren't committed enough to keep up at the same level over a longer span, or not lucky enough to avoid some bad season(s)
  true, one-season wonders can just be lucky flukes, but imo 4 seasons are a timespan comparable to 8 for assessing a player's skill
  Ville is undoubtedly the best and most committed player over an 8-seasons span, but he hadn't been the best over 4-season spans in the past
  to me this says that there have been a few managers at least as skilled as Ville, but none as committed and consistent as him over a longer span
  
  Besides, the HoF declared purpose is to assess the currently most proficient manager, who could be held thus as a reference for the game players now
  if a manager is having a (few) bad season(s), then he's not currently one you might want to look up to, his past glory notwithstanding
  but that doesn't mean imho that he was "not that skilled after all" in retrospect, when he was at his best
  
  For instance, you can't object that Man Utd are the best team in Premier League history (since 92/93) and by far
  but they haven't been that great in last 4 seasons
  by the HoF mechanism, I "presume" they wouldn't be at its top now

If you're referring also to the couple posts above, well:
Stemania reports the Fiso usernames of posters running very popular and useful sites or features elsewhere,
we know them by reading this Forum and using those tools to enhance our FPL experience

And Archy mentions
sipderm4tt memberlist.php?mode=viewprofile&u=13014 who's our star, FPL overall champion 12/13!
Winning a few honors in fiso games too, Fiso Cup finalist in this same season viewtopic.php?p=2997103#p2997103
and triggerlips memberlist.php?mode=viewprofile&u=46563 who's the author of a very popular FPL blog https://www.triggerlips.com/ although only occasionally came here to post search.php?author_id=46563&sr=posts

[Mashed Potatoes]

Richard Millward-id347840-is heading for his 8th consecutive top 10k finish.Currently just outside the top 5k but has been there for the last 5 seasons.

[Ruth_NZ]

It's almost impossible not find advice when you search for "fantasy premier league". Maybe it was different in the past and the 10k knowledgeable players always finished in the top 20k. But now it seems impossible to finish close to top 1k without some kind of luck.

I still find this thread to be depressing and ungracious. But I also don't get these supposed mathematical arguments that supposedly "prove" what you have just said.

I am happy to agree that "standard-competent" play used to guarantee a fairly stable finishing position in the top 20k and that a manager only had to be a little bit more competent than others to regularly achieve top 10k. I don't know that but it would appear so. And it's logical to conclude that with the information required for that standard being more widely available then luck would become more of a differentiator between an increased number of managers playing at a very similar standard and in a very similar way.

What irks me is the assumption that "standard-competent" is all there is. A lot of this argument seems to me to revolve around the idea that there's a finite amount of skill that can be applied in FPL and that therefore there is a set of managers who are "equally highly skilled" (as Finisher1 put it) and that's that. Is that true? I don't know. But it's at best unproven. What I can say is that I consider a lot of the advice given on FFS and elsewhere to be poor and that it gives me an advantage to know that many will be either following it or thinking in a similar way. The top 10k is quite herd-like in my view and I don't care whether that's by copying others or just by thinking in the same way as others and coming to the same conclusions. You only have to correctly spot 2 or 3 major errors that the majority are making over a season to overcome the effects of luck.

Somewhere in this thread there was mention that a manager who was consistently lucky might gain 50 points per season by luck. In fact it was you that said it, gallus:

6 lucky weeks give you around 40-50 additional points. The number is high enough to make a difference, but not unreasonably high.

But the gap between 1st place and 10k is currently 220 points. The gap between 1st and 1k is 150 points. 50 points therefore makes a relatively small difference. For example, Finisher1 has implied elsewhere that I have been lucky this season. But even if I take away 50 points for "luck" my team would still be in the top 5k. And in actual fact I could also point to some examples of poor luck affecting my team. I won't be so self-obsessed as to itemise them but I have certainly had some negative luck events this season (in my opinion) and I have also made a few quite bad mistakes too.

If someone wants to make a case for luck being a deciding factor then they first have to define what "luck" is, don't they? I mean in terms of FPL, not in general. My experience is that that my team is both lucky and unlucky most weeks. Some players/teams get the breaks, others get the reverse. Usually I have a mixture of both types, isn't that generally the case with most FPL teams? If we allow that luck can affect any player then a FPL manager's luck applies to 16 decisions per week (15 players and one captain). So that's 608 events over a season, not 38, isn't it? I'm no mathematician but I assume that the likelihood of extreme runs of good fortune becomes quite tiny quite fast if you consider that a FPL season is 608 events. No?

Anyway, this is what I find depressing about this thread. It seems to be all about how luck differentiates between managers playing at the same level. I am more interested in learning and figuring out how to play at a better level. I'm no VR fanboy and I have already said what I think about him; I neither dismiss his record nor do I hold it up as a miracle. He is clever, competent and diligent; and good for him! Whether he happens to be a bit more or less lucky than others playing in a similar way is of no interest to me whatsoever. I'm only interested in playing better than them. And I find it pretty tawdry to be insisting that someone's record is down to luck. So what if it is? Figure out how to give them a 50-point start (luck) and still beat them then.

[Archy]

MoSe - a skilled manager doesn't suddenly become 'less committed' and therefore do less well.

They do less well, which may lead to becoming less committed as a consequence.

[MoSe]

Richard Millward-id347840-is heading for his 8th consecutive top 10k finish.Currently just outside the top 5k but has been there for the last 5 seasons.

interesting spot, he's not in the FFS HoF, nor is he a Fisoer I reckon
this shows how ther can be plenty more at a very high level who fall out of our "Fiso/FFS backyard" scope

just curious, anyone you know?
I see you're his runner-up in a "PuntersLounge" league https://fantasy.premierleague.com/a/lea ... 46/classic

[Mashed Potatoes]

I don't know him but have come across him as I am chasing him in that league

[MoSe]

MoSe - a skilled manager doesn't suddenly become 'less committed' and therefore do less well.

They do less well, which may lead to becoming less committed as a consequence.

How can you say?
With all due respect, I strongly question that statement, which appears to me purely based on your (respectable) opinion.
Without needing to be dramatic, real life can simply push (for the good or the bad) your gaming commitment a bit more to the background.
you could just get bored even

It can ALSO be as you say, of course.
And even in the case, so what?
I honestly can't say whether your objection was intended just for a behavioral sake of precision,
or if you actually implied that you want to confute the concepts I had exposed above,
that is if after 4 season at the top, you have a bad one, then you say (?) this proves you were not that skilled after all, but more lucky, because a "really skilled" (?) player CAN'T lose his commitment all of a sudden, he'd have 5 top seasons not just 4

In case, sorry, I don't see it that way (my opinion of course)
4 top season are enough an indicator of your skill imho, as much as 8
Or, if you want, 8 top seasons are not a proof of significantly higher skill than just 4, imho, whatever happens later, just of higher endurance, or adaptability

anyway, I din't want to rekindle or aggravate the discussion in this n-th Ville thread
mine above was just an aside in reply to Bixer's "how do you know all those people", to explain that hancockjr is a forum veteran who for a while had even better results than Ville, and how imho that was enough to show that hancock skill IS (not was) comparable to Ville's one, regardless how or why later his results got worse.
It was just an explanation in support of my hancock's praise

[eastcentral1]

There are hundreds of equally highly skilled managers.

Prove it. Your entire argument seems to depend on that assertion. So what is the evidence?

You are wrong. My argument doesn't depend on that assertion. My argument depends on what gallus has said - it is statistically very likely that some managers have been very lucky over 8 seasons.

Obviously I can't prove Ville is one of those, because there is no objective measurement for proving that. Similarly Ville camp can't prove he is better than other highly skilled managers. We are always going to debate based on our personal beliefs, both camps. So where is Ville camp's evidence? Nowhere.

The only fact we have on table is the fact that some managers are very lucky over 8 seasons.

Evidence of Ville's skill? In the absence of any information, the only evidence available is his record. I believe you are correct when you say that we can't really come to a conclusion. If it had been the case that luck is irrelevant over the course of 8 seasons, then we could safely conclude that Ville isn't lucky. However, if luck is a factor over the course of 8 seasons, then it's not the case that the converse can be concluded. Instead, the position is inconclusive. And, as you say, it just comes down to beliefs.

[Archy]

MoSe -not really looking for a debate on the subject, it just seemed to me you were "justifying" the bad season(s) of a 'skilled' manager by saying they must have done poorly becasue can't have been committed, when actually I think this is the less likely sequence of events.

It would be a convenient get-out for a top manager to say "I can't be bothered this year" after a bad start. When someone who loves playing the game (as the top managers obviously do) it seems to me unlikley they would let a excellent record falter out of conscious choice.

[Archy]

What I can say is that I consider a lot of the advice given on FFS and elsewhere to be poor and that it gives me an advantage to know that many will be either following it or thinking in a similar way. The top 10k is quite herd-like in my view and I don't care whether that's by copying others or just by thinking in the same way as others and coming to the same conclusions. You only have to correctly spot 2 or 3 major errors that the majority are making over a season to overcome the effects of luck.

Now this is the one element of skill we should be talking about, because it's tangible to some extent and is something that genuinely could set someone ahead of the rest. If we're honest about it, planning efficiently is a skill but is easily replicable, hence the conversation veering towards "equally skilled managers" because there are literally thousands who can do this well (and probably with little to choose between them as its not a difficult skill to master). I think the ability to spot something different and go against the grain is the most important element of skill and this is something we haven't seen examples of (not from Ville this season anyway)

My best season (top 1k finish) came in the 2014/15 season when I could pinpoint some key (IMO skilful but also excessively rewarded) decisions I made which made a difference. Eg recognising Kane’s innate ability - and value - from the off and acting immediately (so benefitting from his hauls while others held on to the less effective and more expensive Costa). There was also the infamous incident when some (including me) captained Kane when he got a massive haul and Aguero - another viable choice for the armband - scored zilch. I also clocked early doors that Sanchez was much less effective when employed on the wing so shipped him out sharpish when this happened for the cheaper, and more effective, Cazorla. Most others held on to Sanchez because of his heavy scoring early season. (Same as happened this year but I didn’t do the shipping out because of the DGWs ).

The point is these are examples of skill paying off (but arguably fortunate to be rewarded so well). No-one to my knowledge has been able to point to Ville doing anything comparable, which is why there are questions as to how 'uniquely' skilled he really is. I also wonder whether its actually possible to benefit from 'early adopter'' calls like this every season, or if they are likely to pay off so well each season. eg you don't necessarily get a new Harry Kane bursting on to the scene midway through each season so its not always possible to do this.

If we're truly going to understand skill, it surely needs to be by highlighting those decisions a manager makes which go against the grain, when he sticks his neck out and makes a call before the masses cotton on. Because if it really is just "doing the basics" very efficiently - as Ville seems to - I think it's not difficult to argue that everyone at the top of the game must be pretty much the same.

Ruth - as you raised this, can you give examples of skilful decisions of this type you have made this season?

[gallus]

I had a wall of text written but I'm getting kind of tired of this discussion, because I can't see it ending. If anyone wants to discuss it with me specifically you can PM me.

[Ruth_NZ]

It would be a convenient get-out for a top manager to say "I can't be bothered this year" after a bad start.

Just as it might be a convenient get-out for a mediocre or average manager to say "he only beat me by luck". Or would that be 'amateur psychology'?

But MoSe is right, you know. One of the better managers on FFS let his team go dead for 2 months when approaching his finals. A friend of mine who is doing his finals now is very near to doing the same - certainly he's investing a lot less time. People have babies, get depressed, get a new job or have problems at work, need to deal with illness or death in the family... These things do happen. And they are all more important than a hobby.

Take away the "who's the best" nonsense and we could all get on with enjoying the game and, who knows, maybe even getting better at it. Personally I will consider myself good at FPL when I regularly finish in the top 1k. And I'll consider myself to be the best when I have won it twice. Until then I'm not much interested in making comparisons.

My best season (top 1k finish) came in the 2014/15 season when I could pinpoint some key (IMO skilful but arguably excessively rewarded) decisions I made which made a difference. Eg recognising Kane’s innate ability - and value - from the off and acting immediately (so benefitting from his hauls while others held on to the less effective and more expensive Costa, who had scored well at the start of the season).

That's a fine example. It wasn't till Kane scored twice against Chelsea (in December I think) in a 5-3 win where he was undeniably good that I changed my mind about him. Until then I didn't have him. But he had been playing and scoring for fun in the EL before Pochettino ever considered starting him in the PL (and only injuries to Adebayor and Soldado precipitated that). Many Spurs fans were more aware of Kane than I was and were ready to jump on. I consider that "skill" in the sense of "able to exercise better judgement". Then there are managers like Joccki (and maybe you, Archy, with Kane) who will painstakingly watch every team, look at injuries, see who that makes more likely to play... and get Stanislas in as he did on wildcard. That's good application; a skill in my book. I don't begrudge Joccki any reward he gets for it because I know very well that sometimes it won't pay off and others it will pay off handsomely.

You are also right to say that chasing every low-price bandwagon is a recipe for dismal failure. Skill (or good judgement) is what enables you to make better (not perfect) decisions about which to swerve and which to adopt (or can even cause you to adopt that player before they become a bandwagon).

I also clocked early doors that Sanchez was much less effective when employed on the wing so shipped him out sharpish when this happened for the cheaper, and more effective, Cazorla. Most others held on to Sanchez because of his heavy scoring early season. (Same as happened this year but I didn’t do the shipping out because of the DGWs ).

I did the same and was roundly abused for suggesting it at the time. Although my analysis was a bit more subtle. This is something I am good at. Whilst I don't invest as much time as I might in tracking every team and every option, I do invest a lot of time in tracking key premium players. The "standard-competent" approach (my term) seems to be to use ownership as a reason to keep them, I believe it is called "reducing variance". My style is to deliberately (but selectively) "increase variance" - in other words I am always looking for an opportunity to do something different, especially with key players. But I won't do it willy-nilly. There has to be a good reason and I have to trust my own judgement.

Ruth - as you raised this, can you give examples of skilful decisions of this type you have made this season?

Trouble is that one man's skill is another man's luck, Archy. I prefer the term "good judgement" myself. But yes, I think I exercised good judgement about losing Aguero back in GW10. Certainly the idea was met with a lot of flak at the time and I was accused of all kinds of idiocy. And in actual fact the week I did it had an incredibly unlucky outcome because my replacement failed to score (despite a huge number of attempts and shots on target) whilst Aguero scored twice. But I think that decision was worth upwards of 100 points in the end. Certainly more than 50 anyway. And it's documented in my RMT.

Some other such decisions were: getting Zlatan when he was being widely sold; preferring Alli to Eriksen when the consensus was Eriksen; getting Lukaku quite a while before he became the popular choice; getting Alonso before most others. Alli, Lukaku and Alonso I bought at their season low price; Zlatan I bought at 11.3m and had to watch him fall to 11.1m before his price started to rebound.

Skill? Luck? Who knows? I'm just trying to do the best I can.

[Mashed Potatoes]

Did someone say that Ville got married sometime this season? Maybe his attention has been diverted from fantasy football.........

[Sutter Kane]

Fairly interesting read the last page or so!! Anyway I've always wondered about how one can try just as hard from one season to the next and finish 156 one season and 52,000th in another. The force of luck involved in that kind of turnaround is astronomical and would serve to suggest the element of luck over a whole season can be incalculably devastating despite the large number of decisions. So over 8+ seasons, I'm sure something associated must exist too...

[dino1980]

My best season (top 1k finish) came in the 2014/15 season when I could pinpoint some key (IMO skilful but also excessively rewarded) decisions I made which made a difference. Eg recognising Kane’s innate ability - and value - from the off and acting immediately (so benefitting from his hauls while others held on to the less effective and more expensive Costa). There was also the infamous incident when some (including me) captained Kane when he got a massive haul and Aguero - another viable choice for the armband - scored zilch.

Congrats on those decisions, but the bolded part, is a very good example of a lucky decision, not a skilful one IMO. I also captained Kane that week and owned Aguero. It was basically a coin-flip and Aguero captainers did nothing wrong. On paper, they both had very similar points expectations but on the pitch, it was very different.

[dino1980]

The point is these are examples of skill paying off (but arguably fortunate to be rewarded so well). No-one to my knowledge has been able to point to Ville doing anything comparable, which is why there are questions as to how 'uniquely' skilled he really is. I also wonder whether its actually possible to benefit from 'early adopter'' calls like this every season, or if they are likely to pay off so well each season. eg you don't necessarily get a new Harry Kane bursting on to the scene midway through each season so its not always possible to do this.

If we're truly going to understand skill, it surely needs to be by highlighting those decisions a manager makes which go against the grain, when he sticks his neck out and makes a call before the masses cotton on. Because if it really is just "doing the basics" very efficiently - as Ville seems to - I think it's not difficult to argue that everyone at the top of the game must be pretty much the same.

I think HancockJr did a fine job of pointing out what Ville does, but I'll throw my two cents in.

I think Ville does go against the grain but he does it by keeping players rather than being an early adopter. He sticks his neck out by keeping players when others are shifting them and swims against the tide that way. His punts are keeping players who've seemingly underperformed, at least in terms of FPL points. Costa being a recent example. Part of the reason he is so good, is that he doesn't stick his neck out and make calls before the masses cotton on. Most of those calls go wrong! Martial (last season), Gundogan (this season) are just two examples of mass hysteria that didn't pay off. By not making any calls of this type he saves transfers and potential hits and can use the transfers he has to maximum effect.

I think part of this luck theory stems from the fact that on the face of it this manager whims top of the hall of fame doesn't appear to do anything special at all. If he's not doing anything that anyone else isn't doing then it must be luck, right?

However, I think a lot of people underestimate just how hard it is to do the basics very efficiently, it's really not that easy. It's so so easy to make one sub-optimal decision which, in isolation, is quite small, but then that one move leads to another mistake and another mistake and so on. Ville simply doesn't do that (and if he does it's very very rare). He's also helped by the fact that as The Dazzler put it. "He plays pure." He's not, to my knowledge, in any money leagues so doesn't have that to worry about.

To give you an example of the edge that's given him over me I'll use an example from my season. After GW10 I was ranked 28,859 (570 points) and Ville was 35,992 (566 points). By GW17 I was ranked 800,744 (836 points) and Ville had also had a rough time slipping to 109,703 (913 points). So, over that seven-week period, despite him dropping 75k in rank, I still lost 81 points to him. Did I get unlucky? Not really (injuries aside) I just made a series of bad decisions, starting with losing Sanchez to Hazard after getting swept up in the hype after Chelsea beat Everton 5-0. That move in pure points cost me 24 points. From GW11 to GW17 I made 13 transfers to try and stop my slide and lost 24 points in hits. In other words, I panicked and deviated from a plan. Ville made seven transfers, no hits.

The overriding point is, to steal a poker phrase, Ville maximises his gains and minimises his losses. Both are equally valuable skills. We've, for the most part in this thread, been focusing on how he gains on other managers, which is only one part of the equation.

I'm not claiming to be in the class of managers like Ville, Ruth, Stem, Mav etc but I consider myself to be decent enough. God knows I spend enough time thinking/reading about the game.

[Billy Bongo]

Luck may not even exist

If Ville is patient, and the more patient he is the luckier he seems to get.

His patience can at least be observed and measured

Sent from mobile

[Archy]

So, after being neck and neck with Ville for the last 2/3 of the season, I've now gone 18 points ahead of the worlds best player with 1.5 weeks to go. Our teams have been very similar throughout (generally fielding around 8 of the same players each week) and it's been interesting to watch his ranking more or less equal mine for the last 25 weeks, despite his being IMO the slightly inferior of the two teams. I feel he has been fortunate along the way to achieve this, but is also due some credit, eg his better planning for GW28, and picking Cech in the wildcard, which I wish I had done.

Essentially, he has suffered so far this week by choosing Alli and Costa to my Sane and Kane. (He also has no Alonso, but that was more of a budget-constrained decision). I feel his loyalty to Costa has been misplaced all season but he has got away with this through some strokes of luck, including the injury to Costa at the perfect time to enable him to catch Kane's hauls. Even now, we've seen in his wildcard he rates Costa better VFM of the two strikers, which remains the wrong judgement call IMO.

With mini-leagues tied up now, beating Ville remains one more goal for the season. Fingers crossed this post doesn't end up jinxing it, but anyway it should add a little more spice to the next week!

[Panserjohan]

Ville is now 14K over all, playing BB with this team:

Chech
Yashida-Stephens-Brunt
Sanches(c)-Eriksen-Alli-Hazard
Costa-Gabbiadini-Jesus

Caballero-Holgate-Kone-Fletcher

61p so far

[Archy]

Yep I have 8 the same, with the following differences:

Ville has:
Cech to my Pickford
Brunt to my Alonso
Holgate to my Monreal
Kone to my Mustafi
Alli to my Sane
Fletcher to my Carroll
Costa to my Kane

I count advantage to Ville on two (Cech and Fletcher), one pretty equal (Alli v Sane) and advantage to me in the other 4

Despite the apparent advantage I have, Ville has been like a terrier all season, refusing to lie down and let his team get the beating it deserves, so definitely not writing him off just yet.

[Archy]

Well well. Ville must be breathing a huge sigh of relief today following his remarkable good fortune last night in the pulsating head-to-head battle that is keeping everyone here on the edge of their seats.

My:

Pickford, Monreal, Mustafi, Sane

Only beat his:

Cech, Kone, Brunt, Fletcher

by 6 measly points thanks to yellow cards for each of Monreal AND Mustafi AND Sane whilst Ville's contingent of Kone, Brunt and Fletcher got none, despite being on the wrong end of maulings. Furthermore, there were no attacking points for any of my outfield players either, despite all of them going close to scoring at some point.

As it stands, Ville will be hoping his good fortune holds out this week and his Alli is able to claw back some of the 24 point deficit by beating my Kane (our only remaining differentials).

It's all pretty nail-biting stuff

[MoSe]

my season goal: 10k
fall-back: ahead of Ville!

Tuesday
Archy 59p
Ville 53p
MoSe 41p

current OP
2200 Archy OR 7124 Gabbi Yoshi Stephens Kane Eriksen
2188 MoSe OR 9629 Yoshi Stephens Kane Eriksen Davies
2176 Ville OR 12492 Gabbi Yoshi Stephens Eriksen Alli

[Archy]

Outstanding - that's 2 of us looking to crack Top 10k and beat the world's best player.....any others joining??

[Hotstepper]

Outstanding - that's 2 of us looking to crack Top 10k and beat the world's best player.....any others joining??

I'm.Spartacus