Me too....18 in frontArchy wrote:Outstanding - that's 2 of us looking to crack Top 10k and beat the world's best player.....any others joining??
Brunt, Kone and Fletcher were poor WC picks by Ville by any criteria, poor form and poor fixtures...
Me too....18 in frontArchy wrote:Outstanding - that's 2 of us looking to crack Top 10k and beat the world's best player.....any others joining??
I'm 3 points ahead of him. But it feels a bit like that time England beat Germany when they were going through a rare bad spell.Archy wrote:Outstanding - that's 2 of us looking to crack Top 10k and beat the world's best player.....any others joining??
eastcentral1 wrote:I'm 3 points ahead of him. But it feels a bit like that time England beat Germany when they were going through a rare bad spell.Archy wrote:Outstanding - that's 2 of us looking to crack Top 10k and beat the world's best player.....any others joining??
You can find the link to his team on page one of this thread.Hotstepper wrote:What are his current points and OR?
https://genius.com/Haddaway-what-is-love-lyricsgallus wrote:Which brings us to definition of skill.
What is skill in fpl?
HaddaVille wrote:I don't know why you're not there
I give you my skill but you don't care
So what is right and what is wrong?
Give me a sign
What is luck?
Baby, don't hurt me
Don't hurt me
no more
I've actually been keeping tabs on Ville's team this year because I keep hearing his name mentioned on Fantasy Scout. One thing I've noticed him doing is that throughout a lot of the season he left a lot of money in the bank, this seemed to be so that he could jump on any in form player(s) without taking hits. A lot of his game seems to revolve around not taking hits. It takes a lot if discipline in the game not to use excess money to strenghten your team in other areas, but Ville seems to take the patient approach so he can jump on any in form players without taking a hit.Archy wrote: The challenge I keep on making but no-one seems able to answer is "what does Ville do that makes him better than other skilled managers"?? If you're going to argue his record is NOT in any way down to luck, please pinpoint some key decisions he's made that illustrate his superior skill. (I'm more than happy to learn, I just can't see what there is left to learn after all this analysis).
This is a mistaken assumption that is often made and it really skews this whole argument.Lugger wrote:He is an excellent player and you don't finish in the top quarter of a percent or whatever it is so consistently unless you are a skilled player and have a formula that works.
Valeron wrote:Your best chance of winning mini leagues etc is to get as many points as possible, play as optimally as possible. Basically any other tactic, 'moves to catch up', 'pressure to perform' etc. is a load of bollox. Ville would play exactly the same way if he was in more money leagues, I'm pretty sure of that. And unless you truly are a very good player, he would beat you most seasons.
DAREEL wrote:Valeron wrote:Your best chance of winning mini leagues etc is to get as many points as possible, play as optimally as possible. Basically any other tactic, 'moves to catch up', 'pressure to perform' etc. is a load of bollox. Ville would play exactly the same way if he was in more money leagues, I'm pretty sure of that. And unless you truly are a very good player, he would beat you most seasons.
I'm sure you've seen this but to illustrate your point about it becoming harder to get a good rank https://fpldiscovery.wordpress.com/2014 ... l-history/ contains some nice graphs tooRuth_NZ wrote:In previous seasons it was even easier. Information and basic analysis is more widely disseminated nowadays and there are more managers playing with at least a modicum of sense. It used to be that simple competence, coupled with diligence, was enough to put you near the top of the pack. It still works but it doesn't get you as high a finish as before because there are more playing at that level.
You speak of a time you weren't around for so can't possibly know. You've been playing for, what, just under 3 years and you seek to denigrate the achievement of players from 5,6,7 years ago? Come on now.Ruth_NZ wrote: In previous seasons it was even easier. Information and basic analysis is more widely disseminated nowadays and there are more managers playing with at least a modicum of sense. It used to be that simple competence, coupled with diligence, was enough to put you near the top of the pack. It still works but it doesn't get you as high a finish as before because there are more playing at that level. So I'd personally discount rankings going back over 5, 6, 7 or more seasons as pretty irrelevant where assessing current capability is concerned.
The 2009/2010 season I think, somewhere around then.Valeron wrote: when was FFS born?
Well it may have been me. Personally I found it easier because I used to watch games (+research underlying stats) and decide on players from an FPL point of view.Valeron wrote:I think a couple of guys on here said it was a piece of piss to get a top 5k finish 7-8+ years ago.
when was FFS born?
I know there were a lot fewer teams. I also know that FFS was a much more niche site back then - it even was when I started using it. So I'm not seeking to denigrate anyone actually. It just seems to me that it's pretty self-evident that the number of informed managers has grown, that's all.Stemania wrote:You speak of a time you weren't around for so can't possibly know. You've been playing for, what, just under 3 years and you seek to denigrate the achievement of players from 5,6,7 years ago?
Spirpdermatt???Archy wrote:Spirpdermatt, who was also revered around here, won 4 years ago and followed up with two more finishes inside the top 1,000.
Out-of-interest, what station was this broadcast on? Wouldn't mind a listen.Mr Clarinet wrote:It turns out FPL managers aren't the only ones who think about skill vs luck. There was a 'personal finance' programme on the radio last night, with a discussion that included consideration of the relative merits of tracker funds and actively managed funds (the point being that the latter have higher fees in order to pay for the active management, but then you - supposedly - benefit in terms of performance - as financial returns - from the active management). So your choice should depend on the (future) performance of the active fund manager, which you have to predict from past performance. Thus the issue was raised as to how much data was needed to be able to determine whether an active fund manager's observed results were skilful or lucky; and the answer, apparently, is at least 22-years-worth.
Here you go... item starts about 10 minutes in... don't expect too much (unless you're about to invest in a pension fund!)maradonash wrote:Out-of-interest, what station was this broadcast on? Wouldn't mind a listen.Mr Clarinet wrote:It turns out FPL managers aren't the only ones who think about skill vs luck. There was a 'personal finance' programme on the radio last night, with a discussion that included consideration of the relative merits of tracker funds and actively managed funds (the point being that the latter have higher fees in order to pay for the active management, but then you - supposedly - benefit in terms of performance - as financial returns - from the active management). So your choice should depend on the (future) performance of the active fund manager, which you have to predict from past performance. Thus the issue was raised as to how much data was needed to be able to determine whether an active fund manager's observed results were skilful or lucky; and the answer, apparently, is at least 22-years-worth.
Here's a question that doesn't get asked much, but is touched upon by Sutter Kane:Sutter Kane wrote:
Well it may have been me. Personally I found it easier because I used to watch games (+research underlying stats) and decide on players from an FPL point of view.
Now the info is on a plate in many places and the addition of WCs, etc, etc has diluted things massively so yes, I still say it was pretty straightforward to do well.