FHFC wrote: » Hmm, it appears my current team is more 'Mr Prodston' than 'Lemlin'. Is that good or bad!! :eek:
Mr.Prodston wrote: » Join me friend, join the darkside Look we all know that I'm a little different, feck it some would probably call me a hipster :cool: but dammit do I get results!! (Except for last season that couldn't have gone worse if I'd tried, and the fact that my best score has been 12k :pac: )
Iused2likebusts wrote: » Totally agree with debuchy arsenal also have 2 cl qualifiers to play in between the first 3 games. Less than ideal pre season prep either due to having the most players from Pl teams reach the last 8 of the world cup. I'm also on the swa Sto rotation.
Lemlin wrote: » I'm thinking of dropping him alright. I generally stick to 2 premium defenders and three cheapies to be rotated. Debuchy is leaving me with three premium defenders. I could downgrade him to Taylor perhaps (frees up 1 million) and change Shaw to Evans (frees up .5 million) and if I then change Sanchez back to Ramsey I can afford Sturridge instead of Dzeko. Leaving me with: Mannone/Krul Terry, Jonny Evans, Taylor, Targett, Widsom (will be changed to someone who plays) Ramsey Mata Hazard Siggy (Albrighton) Jelavic Sturridge Rooney as opposed to: Mannone/Krul Terry, Shaw, Debuchy, Targett, Widsom (will be changed to someone who plays) Sanchez Mata Hazard Siggy (Albrighton) Jelavic Dzeko Rooney Opinions on which is better folks?
manual_man wrote: » looking at this now pretty happy, i have a few differentials in Coutinho Lamela and Fletch, the one that really worries me(not having) is Sanchez, but i have Ramsey and Giroud. i'm frankly shocked at the amount of teams without Ramsey, but hopefully that will work in my favor **limited numbers available on the GW2 Rambo Wagon**
CSF wrote: » Is anyone going striker heavy? I did an alternative option team with Rooney, RVP and Costa on it, which I don't think I'm gonna go with. I'm guessing people don't think it's the most sensible option to go striker heavy instead of midfield heavy?
kennyb3 wrote: » No city players? They could easily batter Newcastle (I say that as a Newcastle fan too). Can't have em all i guess
Lemlin wrote: » I always like looking at Mr P's teams because he always goes with the crazy option. Bardley Johnson anyone? I'll also throw in here that my worst position in the last four seasons is 12k :D:D
Mr.Prodston wrote: » Speaking of city something I don't think we've discussed yet is Aguero. Yes him, that guy. What happens if he comes back fit, playing and scoring goals? Naturally the pertinent question here is "IF" but it's not beyond the realms of possibility. He could be a dangerous weapon for a few weeks at any given moment but will anyone be able to fit him in at 12.0 when most people will only have one forward above 10.0.
Iused2likebusts wrote: » Charity shield Aguero to score a couple would make things interesting.
CSF wrote: » It's gonna be interesting in that respect with everybody having different big hitters. But who needs big hitters when apparently the best strategy is to have attacking coverage from all the best teams?
manual_man wrote: » in a give yet-another-headache to your average Joe fantasy manager kind of way
Lemlin wrote: » I'm not sure alot of people are understanding "coverage" the way I would. Coverage basically means you try to cover off as many of the best teams with your attacking players as possible. It also means though that you try to have the best scoring player from each team. For example, the team I plan to go with: Ramsey Mata Hazard Siggy (Albrighton) Jelavic Sturridge Rooney In this team I have Arsenal, Chelsea, United and Liverpool "coverage". However, there's no point having Hazard if Fabregas is performing better. I've seen people saying that they'll get "coverage" by having the likes of an Oscar at Chelsea or a Lallana at 'Pool. That to me is not coverage. Coverage is aiming to have the best value player at each club. I can't see that being Lallana or Oscar so they are as pointless to me as having Yannick Bolaise! "Coverage" mean that if a club run up a high score you have an attacking player at that club and should gain from this high scoring game. It also means that, if say Hazard isn't performing well, I can swap him fairly easy for the Chelsea mid who is performing well. You can be guaranteed that the top six will always have at least one of their attacking gems performing. The funniest thing is you'll see people disagree with "coverage" yet when you look at their team it will consist of a spread of attacking players from the top clubs - exactly what "coverage" is to me.
Iused2likebusts wrote: » That sums up my approach get the most likely points scorer from the most likely to score teams. It also gives you an array of captaincy options.
manual_man wrote: » I'm hereby appointing Yannick Bolasie the new FSA cult hero for 2014/2015. There, i said it
Lemlin wrote: » I'm not sure alot of people are understanding "coverage" the way I would. Coverage basically means you try to cover off as many of the best teams with your attacking players as possible. It also means though that you try to have the best scoring player from each team. For example, the team I plan to go with: Ramsey Mata Hazard Siggy (Albrighton) Jelavic Sturridge Rooney In this team I have Arsenal, Chelsea, United and Liverpool "coverage". However, there's no point having Hazard if Fabregas is performing better. I've seen people saying that they'll get "coverage" by having the likes of an Oscar at Chelsea or a Lallana at 'Pool. That to me is not coverage. Coverage is aiming to have the best value player at each club. I can't see that being Lallana or Oscar so they are as pointless to me as having Yannick Bolaise! "Coverage" means that if a club run up a high score you have an attacking player at that club and should gain from this high scoring game. It also means that, if say Hazard isn't performing well, I can swap him fairly easy for the Chelsea mid who is performing well. You can be guaranteed that the top six will always have at least one of their attacking gems performing. The funniest thing is you'll see people disagree with "coverage" yet when you look at their team it will consist of a spread of attacking players from the top clubs - exactly what "coverage" is to me.
Lemlin wrote: » Well "He is a fans favourite due to his direct running, trickery and commitment on the pitch".http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yannick_Bolasie
CSF wrote: » Coverage is merely a coincidence IMO. If the great striker or Michu type comes from West Ham or Sunderland this year, we will all sign them and not worry about if we have a good attacking player from Arsenal. It just so happens that the best attack in players are usually signed by the best teams, but whether we have 0, 1 or 2 attacking players from any particular club should not worry us, as long as we have the best front 7 we can have while achieving balance at the same time.
Lemlin wrote: » That great budget striker or midfielder generally fills your 4th midfielder spot or third striker spot though. Any season the bulk of your attacking players (generally 3 mids and 2 strikers) will come from the top six clubs. After all, they are the top six clubs because they are scoring alot.Look at the forum here, most people are worrying about having one of Ramsey/Sanchez/Ozil/Giroud because we don't need the season to start to know Arsenal should score well.
