If You Can't Be Good, Be Lucky

Jam.

Big Jam.

I must apologise to every other player in the game.

75 points (avg. 58)

De Cuyper came off my bench with his fifteen points. Obviously it was totally unexpected too, as we all just assumed Szoboszlai would play. So very lucky. It's comfortably the best thing he's done for me since I brought him in.

And now he's probably going.

His injury changes my transfer dynamics yet again. Meaning Gabriel gets a stay of execution.

My plan now is to bring in Haaland, Elliot Anderson and either Gross or Manzambi.

Manzambi seems like a lovely differential, but do I want to go against Gross? Of course, I could get both and forgo Anderson. The Ipswich fixture is hard to ignore though.

I'll decide on Friday.

My overall rank is 1.7m (approx.)

Not ideal, let's hope we're at least moving in the right direction now.

A Perfect Illustration

Yesterday's Liverpool vs Man City game almost perfectly illustrated the point I've been making about how overregulation is killing the game. It was almost funny.

I've written about this before here: https://cyprilocks.substack.com/p/the-handball-of-the-british-empire

For the last few weeks we've had this constant talk about unfairness and cheating.

I've been pointing out,

"Look, you can't eliminate external unfair circumstances. If Manchester United play Grimsby in the FA Cup that's always going to be unfair if you're judging by club size and resources. It's just the way it is ..but so what? Why is this bad? As long as it's eleven vs eleven on the pitch and the referee treats them all equally, what's the problem?"

No amount of regulation can make two clubs economically equal, but even if it could, why would you want to do this? It'd be horrible and boring.

I'm a Middlesbrough fan. If we play Arsenal in the FA Cup this season, or get promotion to the Premier League and play these massive teams next year, it'll be fun. I'll be very happy about that. It's literally what I'm hoping for when I turn up every game.

I'm not thinking, "Oh no, that'd be awful. We should be playing Watford every week. That way it'd be fair and even."

Yes, we'll probably get hammered, but even one season in the top flight would be exciting. I'd love to see Haaland at the Riverside. Plus, you never know, we could do alright. We could stay up. We could get a few results against bigger teams ..and it'd be all the more sweeter as we'd be the underdog.

This is the beauty with football. This is why it is fair.

If Man City play Accrington Stanley in the FA Cup it doesn't matter how many millions they've spent, if they don't show some grit and passion, there's a chance, albeit small, that they could get embarrassed. As, at the end of the day, for all the money and pizzazz, it's eleven men against eleven with a football and a referee's whistle.

It's the great leveller.

And in England we uphold this to a tee. Not only do we have a fine tradition of this sporting fairness, but it remains today. There's no match-fixing, no bribery. The very thought of such a thing is almost unthinkable in English football. The game is cleaner than a referee's whistle. This is why it's such a slander on English football when people scream "It's corrupt!"

When it really isn't. It's just not.

The Sending Off

Anyway, this brings me back to the actual game. Yesterday it wasn't eleven vs eleven. It was eleven vs ten. As Liverpool's Ryan Gravenberch was sent off for two very soft yellow cards.

So we had this ridiculous spectacle where people were outraged over Manchester City's past spending, yet the actual unfairness was right there before everyone's eyes on the pitch.

Now, you could criticise the referee, but in truth it's not really the referee's fault. The referee is trying to ref the game fairly to the best of his ability. (As above, our referees are honest. Some might be idiots, but they're honest, and I won't hear anyone say otherwise.)

The wider reason why Gravenberch was sent off was because of the modern rules.

As with the financial regulations, in the quest to make the game fairer and eradicate fouls and cheating, they've made the game more unfair.

In today's game all fouls are severely punished, regardless of intent. In the past a yellow or red card was for something serious or deliberate. Today they get given for technical breaches. A player makes an honest attempt to win the ball back for his team and because he fails he gets a yellow card.

So, Gravenberch was sent off yesterday not because he tried to cheat, but because he was competitive. (The very thing we supposedly want the game to be.) He stuck his foot out to try to win the ball back for his team, and because his opponent was a fraction quicker he's sent off the pitch.

This is unfair.

(Again, imagine if Accrington Stanley do play Man City at some point. Would it be fair if they go down to ten men for half the game because one of their players accidentally trips the much faster Haaland?

It's the underdog's right to compete and make things difficult that levels the game.)

After the red card Gary Neville said in commentary that Gravenberch knew he was on a yellow, so should've been more careful, which shows how ridiculous it all is. Yes, if you're on a yellow card you obviously shouldn't do something stupid like drag someone's shirt or go flying into a crazy slide tackle, but the idea that you should go the entire game without trying to win the ball back is just insane.

Yeah, the ball's there to be won, you could win it, but no, better just let the opponent have it.

Don't do your job and actually try to compete in a football match, whatever you do.

Of course, if Gravenberch didn't show passion and try to win the ball back, Gary Neville and all the other pundits would be criticising him for that too. So all these talking heads don't really know what they want. It was a competitive game up until the sending off, but they're more annoyed that fifteen years ago Man City signed Aguero and a bunch of other superstars.

They're all very confused, and they're confused because they're lost in a maze of rules and regulations. Anyone with an ounce of common sense can see it's the rules themselves that are the problem.

Failure.

Well, GW6 and the results are in: my plan to go against Haaland has failed.

(Ignore the fifteen points from De Cuyper on my bench ..I'm trying to. Obviously it was a mistake not to play him. Though I don't regret it, as I genuinely thought Davis had the better fixture. I thought Sunderland away would be a difficult tie. This is one of the problems with relying too much on the eye test. Sunderland impressed me a lot against Arsenal, and that one game probably weighed more heavily on my judgement than it should've done. So it was a mistake, but it was my own call. Ipswich won and Sunderland weren't exactly a walkover. Meaning it wasn't that bad of a mistake. Plus, I am an eye test guy, and that's how I play. So I can live with it.)

What I can't live with is the wider failure.

Having Fernandes, Isak and Gabriel instead of Haaland just hasn't paid off.

Isak: Unlucky, as it's an injury. Though, saying that, he had injury problems last season so it's not hugely surprising.

Gabriel: So far he just hasn't offered any of the extras that he offered last season to justify the price.

Fernandes: Manchester United look terrible.

I caught the second half of yesterday's game. They looked like relegation contenders. In fact, I missed the first half as I was on my way home from the Riverside. It was my club's - Middlesbrough's - 150 year anniversary. Our history isn't quite as illustrious as United's, but the football was certainly better. I wouldn't trade a single United player for Will Lankshear.

Anyway, back to my team..

It'll be a relief to finally bring Haaland in. I was tempted to do it last night, but with today's (Sunday's) games to go, plus midweek fixtures, I need to wait. I'm also not sure whether to use two transfers or all three. If I make three I'll be able to ditch Gabriel to use the cash to get a more expensive midfielder. However, if I do that I'll have a benching headache.

I could bench boost, the problem is Davis would be playing Man City. So I haven't quite found the right solution yet. It might be wiser to get a cheap mid and save the transfer.

We'll see where we are.

Bench Boosting ..without the chip

Don't worry, this isn't about Man City.

It's just regular ol' fpl content.

Here's my team..

I was planning to bench boost in GW6, but instead my bench is being boosted into the first team. With Davis and Szoboszlai coming in for the flagged Isak and Konsa.

Isak is definitely out. Konsa could possibly start, but as his upside isn't huge it's a nice opportunity to play Davis.

Isak being out makes next week's decision a little easier. I was toying with keeping Isak and going with him, Haaland and Joao Pedro up front. Now it looks like it'll be a straight swap for Haaland, with just Fernandes dropping down to free up the cash. Though with three free transfers I could drop Gabriel and Palmer instead.

I have no idea when the bench boost will be used.

Manchester City: Smashing A Beautiful Blue Sportscar

Life is unfair, but if there's some guy who's better looking than me (unfair though that may be), I can't go to the government and say, "Please, can you ban this man from spending money on getting new clothes and a haircut? It's not fair! How can I compete with him when getting a job or a girlfriend?!"

You can't restrict everyone else's freedom to make things "fair", and even if you could it would never be fair anyway. As every arbitrary restriction would be an unfairness in of itself.

In fact, part of competition lies in the desire to overcome unfairness. The other guy may be better looking than me, but if I work harder, or smarter, or show some creativity, perhaps I'll overcome that. Of course, you could argue that it's unfair that I'm smarter and more creative than the good-looking guy. That maybe the government should restrict or limit my use of that in the interests of fairness. Life is complex though, and who decides these things? What god gets to weigh them up and say, "Yes, I'll decide what's fair."

It's unfair that Manchester United has a history of success and your side doesn't. It's unfair that Arsenal sit at the heart of a capital city with a huge catchment area, whereas your club sits in a small, unknown town. There are so many differences such as these that are accidents of chance and history. And no two clubs, just as no two people, will ever be exactly level in all things.

This is life.

Now what am I getting at here? Of course, it's the recent Manchester City furore.

The two questions people are asking are:

Did City break the rules?

What should their punishment be?

However, I would argue that the more important question is:

Should we have these rules in the first place?

Rules that effectively limit how much owners can invest in their football clubs.

As above, where I was complaining about the good-looking guy, the argument is, "It's not fair that other clubs can spend more money! They should be banned from doing it!"

Now firstly, it's bad in general wanting to ban things, and wanting to stop other clubs from investing money and effort into being the best they can be. Essentially stopping the pursuit of excellence. Just as it would be pretty spiteful for me to want to ban another man from getting an expensive haircut and being the best he can be.

Secondly, the way the rules work aren't fair anyway. As clubs are allowed to spend in proportion to the revenue they generate. Meaning bigger clubs are allowed to spend and invest more money than smaller clubs. So it entrenches unfairness. It actively stops investors coming into the game and shaking things up.

Imagine you run a corner shop. You inherit some money and want to invest it in your shop to make it more successful. But then the authorities come along and say, "No, you can't invest that money, it wouldn't be fair on the other corner shops!" So you can't improve your business. Meanwhile Sainsbury's and Tesco are investing millions. When you raise that point though the reply comes back, "Ah, but they're much bigger, they can afford to invest that sort of money."

Of course, you can afford to invest it too. The money is sat in your bank. But you're not allowed to, as it wouldn't be "fair."

If corner shops and other businesses had to be ran like this it would just be silly, but that's how football is run now.

And it wasn't even originally about fairness

Everyone talks about "fairness" now, however the rules came in to stop clubs from going out of business. That was the aim. It wasn't to impose fairness, which, as we've noted, is an impossible task.

The argument was that clubs were borrowing too much money and taking too many risks in order to compete with other clubs. Resulting in some clubs going into administration. So that's what the rules were (understandably) aiming to stop.

Even here though it's foolish to think you can have a system where the threat of going out of business is removed. It's economically illiterate.

If I spend money I don't have to buy a sportscar, to compete with the good-looking rich guy who's just bought a sportscar, then I'm going to go bankrupt ..and it would be my own fault. You can't just ban everyone from buying a sportscar because of idiots like me.

Yes, it might be unfair that some people don't have a sportscar, but banning just creates a world where no one has a sportscar and no one ever can have one.

Anyway, this is what these rules are doing to the Premier League. In the pursuit of rosy-eyed fairness they're going to kill the golden goose.

They're going to smash a beautiful blue sportscar, one of their most cherished possessions, because some silly rules that were brought into being barely ten years ago say they have to.

I've made my bed, I'm going to have to lie in it.

..also, the bench boost is cancelled.

Joao Pedro is seemingly out. That puts me a man down and rules out a bench boost. It's quite fortunate in a sense, as it means I can just play Szoboszlai - a fairly sturdy replacement. It was Szoboszlai sitting on my bench that leaned me into wanting to use it in the first place. So this is a potential net positive, as the other fixtures my bench had weren't ideal. It's also saved me a transfer.

As for the bed I'll have to lie in that's not looking so rosy. Yesterday I could've used two transfers (meaning a minus four) to bring in Haaland. I could've upgraded Joao Pedro and downgraded Fernandes to a £4.4m midfielder. Alas, that's no longer possible, as Haaland increased in price last night.

I wouldn't have made that move anyway, though I did briefly consider it. In fact, I knew Haaland was rising (I've been using the price change feature a lot in the last few weeks). It does make Haaland even more expensive when I do get him though 😬

I think I've criticised Man Utd enough this week, but they really do seem to be in crisis mode. So captaining a Utd player, away from home, when everyone else has Haaland, feels ominous. Again though, I've made my bed, so I just have to roll with it. Hopefully Sunderland can do me a favour.

Other than the captaincy I quite like my team. The goalkeeper isn't ideal, and the Arsenal fixture isn't the best. However, saying that, I really don't think having a triple-up on Arsenal is that risky. Everyone has Calafiori, and many have Konsa now too. So if Arsenal lose the clean sheet it's just Gabriel versus whichever third defender other people have. Even with a concession Gabriel could get defcon or an attacking return. So losing the clean sheet isn't as damaging as it would appear on first viewing. It's not like having a triple-up when everyone else has no one from that team, or just one.

Bournemouth played away in Europe last night, so the Liverpool fixture isn't awful. Barnes and Barry are somewhat hopeful picks - I'm not expecting much, but the fixtures are nice. So there are reasons to be optimistic. Even if Utd lose again they could lose 4-3 and Fernandes could get a haul. Anything could happen.

And tonight's Chelsea game just feels like a bonus. Tough fixture for Palmer and Rogers, but I certainly don't mind owning either.

A.I.M. - Artificial Intent Metric

That Manchester United vs Manchester City game really got me thinking about intent. And how important it is.

I don't want to pick on Marcus Rashford - I could use other United players - but his lack of intent on Sunday in comparison to Bruno Fernandes was quite striking, as he did get on the ball in good positions. Yet never looked like doing anything.

An Example

Let's say two players put speculative crosses into the box from similar positions. At similar points in a play's development. Let's say from the lefthand side of the eighteen yard box, and both crosses go into the same dangerous area of the pitch.

(Player A and Player B

putting near identical crosses into the box)

Now statistically these both go down the same. AI analysis, or just general data analysis, scores them both the same. Two crosses into a dangerous area.

However, in reality, though they're both just percentage balls into the box, the intent on the ball matters greatly.

We know this from watching games - the eye test - and we also know it from personal experience of playing football.

If I'm just having a kick-about and I put a ball into the box - la di da - like it doesn't matter. Then that's completely different to a game where it's important.

"We're 1-0 down, we desperately need a goal. The clock's ticking. This needs to count."

The difference is both subtle and huge. Thanks to that purposeful intent there may be a little bit of extra speed and aggression on the ball, making it harder for the keeper to judge. The slight difference in the angle of the cross as a consequence may make it favour the attackers slightly more than the defenders.

Again, we can witness this difference in intent (intensity) when we watch games. I could clearly see the difference between Fernandes and Rashford (and the other United players). When Fernandes played a cross or forward pass you felt something might happen. Whereas Rashford's shots and crosses were just hopeful. There was no real belief or urgency. Of course, this is all subjective too. Another person might watch the same game and judge things differently. They might think it was Rashford that had intent on the ball and that Fernandes lacked it. Or that Fernandes was just as lacking as Rashford.

This is why it's hard for data alone to gauge these things. We're trying to read subtleties, including things like body language. You could have deeper data. You could for example take into account the speed and angle of the cross. But even then it's not that simple. A pass or cross might need to be slower not faster, and the intent of the player helps them execute it accurately, or with the perfect timing.

So, anyway, I'm thinking that maybe I should use the eye test to ascribe intent ratings to players (and the teams they play for - as obviously the players they're playing with affect the potential as well).

For example, Haaland would be a 9 or 10. In fact, I've probably undercounted for this so far this season. I've been looking at other players with similar or close xG, such as Isak. Forgetting the fact that Haaland is a monster, with superhuman levels of intent and will to score.

So Haaland is a 10, and he's surrounded by players who have (to varying degrees) a similar level of intent. Therefore he's a 10 in a City side I'd score around 8.

Whereas Bruno is a 9 or 10. Let's say a 9. But in a team that's much lower. Let's give a generous 6.

This is actually why I brought Szoboszlai in. On the eye test he looked full of intent. Like he wanted to make an impact on the game, not just make up the numbers. Driving through midfield with the ball. Aggressive shots at goal - nearly all on target. Maybe Liverpool, like United, aren't quite top tier either though. He hasn't had the points so far, so we'll see how it plays out. Had I not watched Liverpool play Ipswich I wouldn't have him in my team. Will I benefit from this in the long term, or would I have been better off not seeing the game?

It's interesting. I'm definitely someone who values the eye test. So maybe this is a way to quantify my impressions a little better.