It puts a ceiling on scores, but it also gives an extra boost to the lower end of the range as well.Sutter Kane wrote:Puts a ceiling on the scores. As planners, we pick players who have good fixtures generally especially when we rotate - if our options for choice and also our options for captaincy are depleted we score less. It's no surprise those weeks are poor ones, as we have no choice to rotate or pick desired fixtures even with xi men. We literally have to play attacker vs defender which is undesirable but hard to avoid in such weeks.Finisher1 wrote:I have never really got this argument. Surely every player has his own points potential, so you shouldn't worry about them playing against each other. If you pick just a one-sided team who don't play against each other, then you might not get any points at all.Sutter Kane wrote: On another note, the problem with playing it in blank weeks is that the players all play each other so the average score tends to be very low those weeks. Unless the blank weeks contain multiple double games.
I always believe each player has his own points potential but this isn't the same thing as the % ownership argument where I believe in picking the one who'll score the most points, not worrying about high ownership.
For instance, a gameweek where all your players play each other might range from 40 to 60 points, whereas when they don't play each other, the range could be between 30 and 70 points. The mean would still be the same but the peaks and troughs would be lower.