Fitz* wrote: » Anyone thinking of a Brighton triple up in defence? Maximum risk, maximum reward. I'm at that stage of the season where I have to take risks and punts anyways. Lot's of my rivals don't have FH or many playing players this week.
Ace2007 wrote: » What's the fascination with Brighton, they have conceded in each of the last 4 games, and Newcastle have scored in 3 of their last 4 games. If anything Fulham are the team in form for CS, but that goes against getting in Dallas/Raphaine and co?
CSF wrote: » Underlying stats. A team who should be doing really well against a team who should be doing really bad. Fulham have good underlying stats defensively too but they’re up against one of the top 3 most attacking sides in the league so I’ll probably just get Areola and leave it at that
dsmythy wrote: » Brighton have had good underlying stats for a while and not translating them is the problem. Their goalkeeper seems to be letting them down.
claw wrote: » I think it's the manner of the goals Brighton let in that I have a problem with. The goals conceded against Palace and West Brom wouldn't inspire me with much confidence. Anyone on a free hit and using it, they are worth a punt since there ain't much choice this week. But I wouldn't necessarily say they are a better bet than Fulham or Newcastle either as a punt. Head wrecking fixtures.
CSF wrote: » Reasonably good team against absolutely awful team is a good punt for me
claw wrote: » On a free hit, it's worth a punt. Dunk certainly cos he is dangerous from set pieces. They have as much chance of keeping a clean sheet this week as anyone else. But that's about it. Pretty football that ends up going nowhere with a leaky defence at the wrong time. Palace scoring 2 goals playing for a 0-0 a couple of weeks ago pretty much sums it up.
CSF wrote: » It’s not going nowhere though. They’ve created the 8th highest xG and just failed to take chances at a rate that outranks any reasonable variance. They’re also not a leaky defence. They have the 3rd best xG conceded. Only Chelsea and Man City have given their opponents lesser quality of chances. The lazy analysis that someone would say is that they just have bad finishers and a bad keeper. That may even be true to some extent, but that doesn’t even come close to covering how far their actual stats have varied from what their underlyings suggest it should be. We’re not talking minor differences. Their xG goal difference is about 19 goals off what it ‘should’ be.
claw wrote: » League tables are not decided by xG, they are decided by results. That Palace match is a snapshot of Brighton. Lots of "shots" that are going wide or over the bar to pad up stats. 2 sucker punch goals conceded. And more importantly, these goals have been going in over the last few weeks. If we want to talk about Brighton defenders being a good bet on a free hit (which I agree they are as they are as good an option as anyone this week) is that Newcastle are without arguably their 3 best attacking players in Almiron, Wilson and ASM. And that Brighton beat them 3-0 away earlier in the season.
CSF wrote: » So what do we do instead, transfer in yesterday’s points? I can’t see a successful FPL strategy that does not focus primarily on the underlyings.
claw wrote: » No, you are ignoring the main point here. Newcastle are poor because they have absolutely nothing up front. More than half their goals have come from the 3 players I mentioned. All 3 are injured.
CSF wrote: » How can I be ignoring the main point? Someone asked why the fascination with Brighton, I explained why. You came back and said that you thought Brighton were a good punt this week but that you wouldn't necessarily say they are better than Fulham or Newcastle as a punt. I explained to you why I think they're a much better punt (and yes Newcastle being even worse attacking than usual is part of that), which surely is the main point. Surely the exact reason we spend so much time combing over stats like touches in the box, and looking at heatmaps is because these are the kind of stats which are much more repeatable than goals, which often only happen once if at all a game.
claw wrote: » When they played Palace the ball was permanently in Palace's half but how many clear cut chances did they create?.
CSF wrote: » 2.59 expected goals worth of chances. There is a chart in the below which denotes the area and quality of each chance. One of the key things to note is that the vast majority appear to have been chances from inside the box also.https://understat.com/match/14677
claw wrote: » I just don't remember that many good chances Brighton had from that match. Will have to look back on it. The one thing I took from it was how badly they defended both Palace goals. Looking at that site, they had similar stats for Fulham and Villa. You wonder do they panic when they get in and around the box.
CSF wrote: » I actually haven't watched the game in question. That is why I find stats like that so useful. Means I don't have to watch the games that I don't have any footballing interest in, and still get the output from a FPL perspective. And from following those kinds of stats so closely, I can tell you that those kinds of regressions from the expected stats are way too big to just be 'bad finishers, this will repeat'. Yes, there clearly was some bad finishing on display, but the luck variable is far too big for these stats too repeat consistently, unless of course their underlying stats start to regress too Could they still mess it up on Saturday? Absolutely. But there is much more to suggest they won't, then most of the teams who have a game in 29 with their respective fixtures. They're the number 1 team this week for me. The gap between the other 6 teams that play each other isn't too big really. Especially with Son out and Lamela suspended.
claw wrote: » I'm finding it very difficult to motivate myself for this week without my free hit. I have 7 players including Bamford and 2 free transfers. I don't have Son so at least I don't have to worry about that. I would put in Dunk but I would be committing to a potential bench boost in GW30 that involves me taking him out for someone else. Really need Bamford to be fine for that to work.
NabyLadistheman wrote: » For those of us not using FH Leeds seem a good option to have 3 players. They play Sheff Utd in GW30 as well
CSF wrote: » My opinion on this week is that without the FH there aren’t that many players you bring in with a transfer that you’re delighted to have a few weeks later. Of course it’s easier, if you have a wildcard in the pocket that you’re planning to use to do a hard reset on all the DGW/Blank GW tinkering that has taken our teams away from our preferred 11 to a very fixture centric team that I’m sure we all have depending on our varying strategies
claw wrote: » Used my wildcard a few weeks ago. I gambled on Villa-Everton being played in GW28 so I have Digne and DCL, along with Cancelo, Gundo, Dias, Bruno and Salah who have no match this week. Looking at the way it is going it will be two City players going out probably.
ShagNastii wrote: » I haven’t had Martinez all year (been just as successful with other keepers). To cover the AV influx, is a Villa defender a must this week?
