https://t.co/heKE1cB7N8
The Review: GW 18 - A thread
Hi everyone, welcome to the latest edition of “The Review” where I look at Bench Boost, Triple Captaincy and the upcoming double GW 19 in detail:
#FPL #FPLCommunity @OfficialFPL
(Data taken from @FFScout and @FFH_HQ with consent)
https://t.co/heKE1cB7N8
https://t.co/1tZ92vBXIT
I jump straight away to what is the toughest question of the week. I first try and work out which one of the Liverpool midfielders to own:
(read below)
Mins per shot inside the box: 33.73 vs 34.15
Mins per big chance: 96.4 vs 111
Mins per big chance created: 224.8 vs 333
Mins per chance created: 49.9 vs 57.9
Even though Mane’s numbers in comparison to his numbers in the yesteryears have...
(read below)
Mins per shot inside the box: 27.3 vs 26.3
Mins per big chance: 104.8 vs 83.1
Mins per big chance created: 314.5
Mins per chance created: 52.4
As you can see, what's significant to note is that Salah's minute per big chance has...
Mins per shot inside the box: 27.3 vs 42.4
Mins per big chance: 104.8 vs 90
Mins per big chance created: 314.5 vs 180
Mins per chance created: 52.4 vs 48
I now run a comparison to assess Salah’s recent numbers side by side with KDB:
Mins per shot inside the box: 36 vs 41.5
Mins per big chance: 134.75 vs 90
Mins per chance created: 67.4 vs 31.76
Mins per big chance created: 269.5 vs 90
Mins per baseline bonus: 12 v 7.5
Liverpool’s mins per big chance = 31.6 vs Man City’s mins per big chance = 21.7
The numbers are telling, extremely telling and highlight De Bruyne’s form at home of late and Salah’s lack of. As expected, De Bruyne fares far better...
A few weeks ago, I was bullish about using my triple captaincy on Salah this GW. Due to the concerns that I have raised above on Salah’s form this season, I don’t think I’m as confident as I was earlier despite the fact...
This is a very common question this week and one which I’ll try and generalize even though it’s hard to answer without seeing a team on paper. If in the prior weeks you have planned to Bench Boost, then I don’t think the news...
As always, this is a team specific question. Having said that, I think this is one of those rare GWs where it is very hard to have a bad team on paper. I say that because almost all teams with highly owned...
I think it is very important to own the likes of Bruno Fernandes, Mohamed Salah and Kevin De Bruyne this week. I’m assuming it would be impossible for almost all FPL managers to own all...
If I had the luxury to choose whichever one to sell this week, I’d sell Kane over Son. I say that because Son is cheaper, presents more value long term and has the better numbers away from home which...
Son (Away) vs Kane (Away)
Mins per shot inside the box: 53.23 vs 42
Mins per big chance: 76.8 vs 142.8
Mins per chance created: 53.2 vs 47.6
Mins per big chance created: 230.7 vs 142.8
This is a fairly simple one. I don’t think I’d be buying or selling. Yes, there is a concern that after the COVID outbreak, Villa’s assets might be rusty this week but we don’t have a model to reasonably estimate the extent...
I mentioned last GW how DCL’s numbers had dropped of late:
DCL (GW 1-11) v DCL (GW 12-17)
Mins per shot in the box 31.29 v 54.63
Mins per big chance 69.28 v 145.67
In the premium category, there are Timo Werner and Jamie Vardy. Jamie Vardy is the old dog who’s been there and done that. He currently sits top for big chances of all players this season...
I think this could be a great strategy given the options at our disposal. Doubling up on the Man City defence is the gift which keeps on giving – Stones and Dias have now started...
Liverpool (Home 20/21) vs Liverpool (Away 20/21)
Shots conceded inside the box per game: 5.13 vs 5.44
Big chances conceded per game: 1.75 vs 2.33
Mins per big chance: 1219 vs 765
Mins per big chance created: 406.3 vs 218.6
Mins per chance created: 48.8 vs 47.8
Mins per touch in the final third: 2.6 vs 2.4
Mins per baseline bps: 6.2 vs 5.6
First, I look at the influence Antonio has when he plays:
West Ham (GW 1-5 with Antonio) vs West Ham (GW 6-17 without Antonio)
Mins per shot inside the box: 8.65 vs 11.9
Mins per big chance: 45 vs 54
Souček (GW 1-13) vs Souček (GW 14-17)
Mins per shot inside the box: 65 vs 45
Mins per big chance: 234 vs 180
Mins per penalty area touch: 35 vs 18
Incredibly, ∼38% of Souček’s penalty area touches in the opposition’s box all season...
Given the fact that West Ham have the standout double GW fixtures of all mid-priced defences, I analyze their full backs:
Mins per big chance: 1530 vs 1165
Mins per chance created: 61.2 vs 61.3
Mins per big chance created: 510 vs 582.5
Mins per touch in the final third: 6.02 vs 5.24
Mins per baseline bonus: 6.5 vs 6.9
Mins per big chance: 540 vs 450
Mins per chance created: 108 vs 50
Mins per big chance created: 540 vs 450
Mins per touch in the final third: 4.7 v 4.6
Mins per baseline bonus: 8.6 v 5.2
![](https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EryHyIEWMAAwyi2.jpg)
Twitter: https://t.co/oBvQzf7Dor
Instagram: https://t.co/1tZ92vBXIT
YouTube: https://t.co/mDw5fLXaAG
YouTube Patreon: https://t.co/VQGEYrnnpO
I await your feedback with anticipation!
More from AbuBakar Siddiq
More from Sport
Over 70 former professional rugby players are preparing for legal action against the sport’s governing bodies according to this report.
The group litigation seems to be in its early stages, but World Rugby & Unions will be starting to get twitchy.
THREAD on the key issues 👇🏼
1) Duty of care
Do the governing bodies (World Rugby, RFU, WRU etc) owe players a duty of care in respect of their health and safety? The answer is almost certainly yes (see for example Watson v BBBoC).
2) Breach of duty
Have the governing bodies breached this duty? This is the first of the major hurdles for any litigation.
The question is essentially whether they acted reasonably in the circumstances.
Did they know about the dangers of concussion and fail to act?
Or should they have done more to discover the dangers of concussion but failed to do so?
The NFL case was based on the fact that the NFL knew of the dangers and covered them up. I’d suggest that’s unlikely here. However, it may be that WR/Unions should have done more sooner.
Much will depend upon the state of medical/scientific understanding of concussion at the relevant times.
For example, in the early 80s it may be that there was no indication that concussion might cause long-term complications but, by the early 2000s, there was.
The group litigation seems to be in its early stages, but World Rugby & Unions will be starting to get twitchy.
THREAD on the key issues 👇🏼
Exclusive: Rugby faces group litigation action on concussion | @danscho1 reportshttps://t.co/i246r0c9IS
— Telegraph Rugby (@TelegraphRugby) December 7, 2020
1) Duty of care
Do the governing bodies (World Rugby, RFU, WRU etc) owe players a duty of care in respect of their health and safety? The answer is almost certainly yes (see for example Watson v BBBoC).
2) Breach of duty
Have the governing bodies breached this duty? This is the first of the major hurdles for any litigation.
The question is essentially whether they acted reasonably in the circumstances.
Did they know about the dangers of concussion and fail to act?
Or should they have done more to discover the dangers of concussion but failed to do so?
The NFL case was based on the fact that the NFL knew of the dangers and covered them up. I’d suggest that’s unlikely here. However, it may be that WR/Unions should have done more sooner.
Much will depend upon the state of medical/scientific understanding of concussion at the relevant times.
For example, in the early 80s it may be that there was no indication that concussion might cause long-term complications but, by the early 2000s, there was.
It's Sunday, Fed blackout, am recovering from soccer match, sipping on double espresso, so of course a perfect time to take on Tyler Cowen here. 🙂
Like many people, I enjoy reading Tyler's blog. But there are times (alright, many times) I disagree with him. This is no big deal. I also disagree with myself sometimes (especially my past self). But his recent post left me
What is he trying to say here? After thinking about it for a bit, I think he's critiquing the idea that "running the economy hot" leads to employment *and* real wage gains. Perhaps the former, but only at the expense of the latter. At least, this is what a textbook IS-LM model
tells us if one "runs the economy hot" through increased fiscal stimulus (on consumption and transfers, not public infrastructure investment). If this is what he meant, then he should have just said so, instead of labeling this a "Keynesian" proposition.
In fact, this property follows as a *neoclassical* proposition that is embedded in the IS-LM framework. (For non-economists, note that Keynes did not invent IS-LM; the framework was developed later by Hicks as an interpretation of *some* parts of the General Theory.)
It is hardly phony, especially on social media, to refer to IS-LM models and the like as \u201cKeynesian.\u201d Krugman pushing it and, for better or worse, rising in popularity.
— tylercowen (@tylercowen) January 17, 2021
Like many people, I enjoy reading Tyler's blog. But there are times (alright, many times) I disagree with him. This is no big deal. I also disagree with myself sometimes (especially my past self). But his recent post left me
What is he trying to say here? After thinking about it for a bit, I think he's critiquing the idea that "running the economy hot" leads to employment *and* real wage gains. Perhaps the former, but only at the expense of the latter. At least, this is what a textbook IS-LM model
tells us if one "runs the economy hot" through increased fiscal stimulus (on consumption and transfers, not public infrastructure investment). If this is what he meant, then he should have just said so, instead of labeling this a "Keynesian" proposition.
In fact, this property follows as a *neoclassical* proposition that is embedded in the IS-LM framework. (For non-economists, note that Keynes did not invent IS-LM; the framework was developed later by Hicks as an interpretation of *some* parts of the General Theory.)