Community

From ‘Can’t Hit A Barn Door’ To Scoring Sensation

Each year there are a number of attacking players who, despite getting ample opportunity, fail to find the back of the net.

This article aims to look at each season’s most profligate players to see if they finally saw an upturn in their fortunes the following campaign.

The inspiration for this came from a community article by Prokoptas earlier this month, which looked at the plexiglas principle, whereby wasteful players are expected to improve the following year and in turn prolific strikers may struggle to replicate their scoring feats. Giggs Boson then added to this by showcasing through Members tables* those specific players from 2016/17 who really should have scored more. If the plexiglas theory holds true, many of those on his list are expected to improve markedly this season.

For this research I will be going in search of players who had a high number of shots but a low goal scoring count over one season and then see how they did the next campaign. To accompany this research I have created this table for Members*, which can be filtered for each of the last six seasons.

*Details about accessing membership for the season, at the pre-season price of just £12.50, can be found here.

2011/12

The table identifies six players who meet the criteria. Didier Drogba moves to China the following season, but looking at the remaining:

  1. Adel Taarabt – Next season the QPR man increases his output substantially, but is still nowhere near scoring sensation status. His minutes per Goal (MpG) halve from 1008 to 449, but sadly conversion remains at 5.1, and output a mere five goals.
  2. Hugo Rodallega – Minimal improvement for the Wigan striker, and output at just three goals.
  3. Andy Carroll – Similar to Taarabt. He doubles his output, but this still leaves him with just seven goals and MpG remains at 280.
  4. Gareth Bale – The Tottenham star was a huge success story. He more than doubles his output from nine to 21 goals, and improves his MpG to just 139 from 357.
  5. Luis Suarez – Another big success story. The Liverpool striker’s  goals go up from 11 to 23, and MpG down from 232 to 129.

Summary

With the exception of Rodellega all doubled their output meaning the plexiglas theory may have legs, even though some still only registered meagre returns.

2012/13

There were 10 players to look at this season, including three repeats from last season.

  1. Hugo Rodallega – the Wigan man is back again, with the stats indicating that he should still be doing better. Sadly though in  2013/14 he proved he in fact couldn’t do any better. In fact his statistics drop across the board.
  2. Adel Taarabt – our second familiar face. The QPR midfielder features far less frequently in 2013/14, and fails to score even one goal. Not much use to us here.
  3. Gylfi Sigurdsson – This was back in his unhappy Tottenham days. He struggled to score in 2012/13, but did marginally better the following season, upping his goal output from three to five and lifting his goal conversion from  5.7 to 13.5. A small success.
  4. Jay Rodriguez – The then Southampton forward proved to be a  huge success for the theory. He manages to go from six goals from 89 attempts in 2012 to 15 goals from 101 attempts in 2013. Also his MpG is down to 171. This Saint, who joined West Brom this summer, is a big success for the theory.
  5. Nikica Jelavic, Kevin Mirallas and Andy Carroll were all at 8.x% conversion rates in 2012/13 but failed to kick on. Mirallas is the only one of the three to improve, and it’s not a substantial upturn. Jelavic notably missed 90% of his ‘big chances’ in 2012, but sadly fares little better in 2013.
  6. Victor Anichebe, Peter Odemwingie and Clint Dempsey also feature in this table, but cannot be called successes. Odemwingie does improve his conversion rate, but is taking fewer shots in 2012 so his output remains almost static.

Summary

Not a successful campaign for the theory, with Rodriguez the only standard barer for those who believe wasteful strikers can become scoring legends between seasons.

2013/14

There were fewer players to analyse in 2013/14. Nathan Redmond features with the lowest goal conversion we see in this exercise (1.5%) but he gets relegated with Norwich so we can’t see his stats for 14/15. Obviously we know he doesn’t turn out to set the world alight in 16/17, though his conversion does increase.

  1. Andros Townsend – No surprise to see a man known for wild longshots on the list. Simlarly no surprise to find he betters his conversion rate of 1.8%, scoring with 12.5% of his attempts in 14/15. Sadly it’s from only 16 attempts, so just two goals. An improvement, but not one that will excite Fantasy managers.
  2. Philippe Coutinho – His first appearance in this table, and he is not a success story. He follows his five goal season with the same return the following year. His underlying statistics remain consistent too.
  3. Nikica Jelavic – back, this time with Hull. He misses 81% of his big chances, and scores just 5.7% of all his attempts but the subsequent season brings more joy. He doubles his goal tally from four to eight and posts a respectable 14% conversion rate.
  4. Saido Berahino – We are on a roll with the then West Brom striker proving another success story, going from five goals to 14, and increasing his conversion rate to 16.3%.
  5. Jason Puncheon – Not much to see with the Palace midfielder, who followed up his 2013/14 tally of seven goals with just six the following campaign and taking 12 fewer shots.
  6. Kevin Mirallas – back for the second time, the Everton winger  suffered from restricted minutes in 14/15 so although his goals go down from 8 to 7, it’s from substantially fewer chances. This means he saw an increase in his goal conversion and proved to be a minor success for the theory.

Summary

This group are a mixed bag, with Berahino proving a real success, while long shot merchants like Townsend and Coutinho continued to show why striking from distance rarely delivers returns.

2014/15

  1. Coutinho – The Liverpool midfield maestro is back and this time he proves to be a better poster boy for the plexiglas theory.  His goals increase from five to eight, and his conversion rate goes from 4.9 to 7.2. This ensures his MgG drops dramatically from 559 to 250.
  2. Riyad Mahrez – The Leicester winger is another huge success for the theory. From four goals in 2014/15, Mahrez goes on to score 17 goals in 2015/16. His conversion leaps from 6.3 to 19.8 and MpG plummets from 520 to 180. If we could find a Mahrez every season, we’d be laughing.
  3. Danny Welbeck – Another decent success, but in the mould of “fewer minutes = better conversion”. He scored four goals in both 2014/15 and 2015/16, but from 63 attempts in the former and just 20 in the latter.
  4. Romelu Lukaku – A huge target in this year’s FPL season, he was seen by the table to be underperforming in 2014/15. His 10 goals came at a 9.5% conversion, and indeed he went on to improve significantly in 2015/16; scoring 18 goals from only a handful more chances. Another success story in a season of success stories.

Summary

Four players fit the bill as those who could have scored more. All delivered an upturn in goal output with Mahrez in particular showing one of the best ever improvements in Premier League history. A good year for plexiglas theory fans.

2015/16

  1. Christian Eriksen – The Spurs midfielder is another player who favours shots from distance. While he does improve his output from 2015/16 to 16/17 it is not by much, from six goals to eight and a conversion boost from 6% to 9.5%. His game is based around more than goals, with assists his calling card. But is he ripe for goal scoring improvement or has this set piece specialist peaked as a shot taker?
  2. Wilfried Bony – He only got given 13 starts at City in 2015/16 but would have hoped to do better than his four goals. Sadly for Wilfried, he gets even less of a chance in 2016/17, with just nine starts. Limited to just two goals, at least his conversion rate improved to 9.5%. It is hard to call these two seasons a success, but with a better conversion rate I’m loathe to call it a failure.
  3. Philippe Coutinho – Third time’s the charm for the Brazilian. This time he goes from eight goals in 2015/16 to 13 in 16/17. That’s more like it, as his MpG drops to 173, and his conversion rate comes in at 12.3%.
  4. Yannick Bolasie – Injury cut short his subsequent season, this time at Everton. But the signs were not good before that. He managed just one goal from 27 attempts, far less effective than his previous of five from 57 attempts.

Summary

Coutinho proves that patience is a virtue and his recurrent appearance in this analysis finally saw a breakthrough last season. Could Eriksen follow him and also show a substantial upturn in scoring output? Elsewhere injury and lack of game time make the other players here hard to assess in terms of plexiglass theory efficiency.

Potential improvers in 2017/18

Here a list of players from the 2016/17 season who, according to the plexiglas theory, could be in for a strong follow up campaign.

1. Paul Pogba: The Manchester United midfielder managed just five goals last season from 92 attempts, a rate that seems very likely to improve, especially if a defensive midfielder joins to ensure he takes a more advanced role.
2. Christian Eriksen: This is his second time in the chart. That statistics indicate he should be scoring more than eight goals from his 133 attempts. W
3. Kevin Mirallas: Third time’s the charm for Kevin? If he can get minutes, he ought to go better than four goals from 62 attempts. Everton are a work in progress though, so personally I’d leave him alone for now.
4. Gylfi Sigurdsson: Similar to Mirallas, I’d leave alone for now as it is unclear whether he will still be a Swansea player, or will move to Everton. His nine goals last season was good but this table suggests he should be scoring more. A perennial favourite, and certainly one to watch again, whichever club he lines up with.
5. Wayne Rooney: He managed just 52 attempts last season, so only just scrapes through the filter. An interesting possibility for sure, and well priced if he can return to his former glories.

Conclusion

Between 2011 and 2015/16 the table generated 28 players that should have  improved and of these 20 of  did have better goal conversion rates in the subsequent season. This 71% success rate seems better than chance. So that’s very positive for the plexiglas theory.

Not all of the increases were as substantial, as that of Riyad Mahrez, but with some refinement I do think this has a good chance of finding some gems. With that in mind it is worth monitoring those I’ve earmarked above from last season, who could end up as scoring sensations or at the very least improve their goal conversion rate.

Spreadsheet Built a spreadsheet for fantasy football. Got a bit out of hand now.

53 Comments Post a Comment
  1. J0E
    • Fantasy Football Scout Member
    • Has Moderation Rights
    • 14 Years
    6 years, 9 months ago

    Thanks so much for posting. This is an excellent follow up the plexiglas article.

    Either Eriksen has reached 'peak goalscorer' or he's about to do a Coutinho all over next season.

  2. RubberDucky
      6 years, 9 months ago

      This just adds to my headache

    • Andy_Social
      • 11 Years
      6 years, 9 months ago

      Very interesting. For me Pogba's nailed on providing United sign a DM. Eriksen is certainly worth consideration.

      1. snowman.david
        • 6 Years
        6 years, 9 months ago

        Pogba's in my team. Eyeing KDB v Eriksen. Have a feeling KDB will really hit it big this year.

    • Ógie
      • Fantasy Football Scout Member
      • 11 Years
      6 years, 9 months ago

      Nice work

    • Andy_Social
      • 11 Years
      6 years, 9 months ago

      SS, are you looking at the other side of the plexiglass hypothesis, players who may have overachieved last season, say King?

      1. Deulofail
        • 8 Years
        6 years, 9 months ago

        Hey Andy, can I ask my what measure you're claiming that King overachieved? I genuinely want to know.

      2. Spreadsheet
        • Fantasy Football Scout Member
        • 10 Years
        6 years, 9 months ago

        I hadn't, but I'm sure we could. I think conversion rates between 10-20% are fairly 'normal' (though I'll admit to plucking this number out the air) so I think we'd want to try to find players over 20% (Capoue for instance at the start of last season must have done similar) who we'd expect to regress...

        Certainly an exercise to consider.

    • Coys96
      • 6 Years
      6 years, 9 months ago

      opinions on this team...

      Forster
      Cedric Trippier Dawson
      Alli KDB Zaha Pogba Ramsey
      Jesus Lukaku

      don't know whether to have willian instead of Ramsey/ Zaha

    • Coys96
      • 6 Years
      6 years, 9 months ago

      Eriksen or Alli????

    • A Team Of James McCleans
      • 8 Years
      6 years, 9 months ago

      Has this swung anyone to eriksen/pogba?

      1. Coys96
        • 6 Years
        6 years, 9 months ago

        Eriksen

    • Coys96
      • 6 Years
      6 years, 9 months ago

      Willian or Zaha?

    • Deulofail
      • 8 Years
      6 years, 9 months ago

      "Christian Eriksen: This is his second time in the chart. That statistics indicate he should be scoring more than eight goals from his 133 attempts"

      What statistics? Are you comparing his stats to a particular mean to claim that he should 'regress'? Is that the mean of all teams that year? Only players who play in Eriksen's position? Or only Eriksen's mean over his own personal history? Etc

      Sorry, but all these stats articles are so vague and opaque. It's driving me mad trying to find answers to questions about them over that last several days.

      I have no idea why wasteful players should be expected to improve, even by applying the Plexiglas Principle or regression to the mean. If you're wasteful one season, you have to compare it to previous seasons to get some kind of "expected" metric, but you've only taken one season's stats in isolation and claimed that if they are different the next season, this is evidence of some vaguely definined effect that everyone improves if they are bad?

      1. RubberDucky
          6 years, 9 months ago

          He has obviously put a lot of effort in producing that so don't be so quick to knock it.

          Yes it won't tell you who to pick but it's interesting to see the pattern or lack of in some cases.

          1. Deulofail
            • 8 Years
            6 years, 9 months ago

            Sorry, but I'm getting frustrated by misleading information on this site.

            It's nice that he's put the effort in, and it shows to the extent that it reads well and the graphs are nice, but that doesn't make the information and assertions worthy of basing decisions on by itself.

            In fact I could argue that it could negatively effect FPL points tallies, as people buy into false narratives and simplifications, taking bitesized bits of information at face value because they trust the editorial decisions of FFS.

            I'd personally like to see FFS take more responsibility for the content they publish. Perhaps editorial notes, which give us alternative ideas and caveats, and assess the validity of the claims of community articles (as well as their own).

            1. Deulofail
              • 8 Years
              6 years, 9 months ago

              (Besides, my questions are quenine questions. I'd hope the author was keen to answer them. As an investigative fellow, I presume he doesn't want to tell people what to do, but is open to questions and improvements)

              1. Frip
                • 11 Years
                6 years, 9 months ago

                Agreed, I'd like to see more statistical backings to the claims that are made around here. There are so many examples where a simple z-test could be used to ensure validity.

            2. RubberDucky
                6 years, 9 months ago

                All information is there for you to take as much or as little as you want from it. Some articles you are going to find more useful than others, depending on what your looking for and put value in.

                If your questioning the value of the articles and the dieloution some may have over others, then at least more info/stats are there for you to pick from.

                You didn't find the historical basis of this article useful as like some people they put no weight into previous stats as situations can fluctuate for players or not for others.

                Like all articles the stats are there take them or leave them.

                1. christoff
                  • 14 Years
                  6 years, 9 months ago

                  if i post a statistic that i had flipped a coin ten times, then 7 of those times it turned to be heads, does that mean anything? given that football has a lot more factors than just flipping a coin, like deulo i'd appreicate a bit more analysis, and even something from author's own observations, as much as I appreciate the great effort that has been put in here.

                  what about something like, "...out of eriksen's 133 goal attempts last season, 80 of those were from 25 yards or more". A bit of perspective can really help make clearer decisions for paying members and I don't think such statistics are hard to access, either.

              • Piggs Boson
                • 12 Years
                6 years, 9 months ago

                Write your own article on it. I'd read it.

                1. Deulofail
                  • 8 Years
                  6 years, 9 months ago

                  Cheers GB. But I'm scare I'd be too harsh on myself in the comments.

                  Maybe after I get this assignment out of the way, I'll consider it 🙂

          2. Je suis le chat
            • 10 Years
            6 years, 9 months ago

            Agreed. Eriksen is my favourite player in the league and should have won POTY. The eye test metric is the most important one.

          3. tm245
            • 12 Years
            6 years, 9 months ago

            Keep up the good questions, Deu -- you're on to something here as well. I think the quality of the chances and the shots need to be looked at, since those who take a bunch of long range shots might not be able to expect an uptick in conversion automatically, whereas a center forward who gets in great positions might be able to improve, especially if he has done so before.

            The other quality to identify is the player himself - can he shoot straight? Those first two names from way back when are great examples. Maybe they are not PL-caliber goal scorers, nothing more, nothing less.

            That being said, wouldn't expected goals and expected assists (xG and xA) help out with the original poster's approach? He did a good job of aggregating all of this information, it would be great to take it the next step.

            1. Spreadsheet
              • Fantasy Football Scout Member
              • 10 Years
              6 years, 9 months ago

              Yep, using xG would be a huge factor in this undoubtedly. Would help to remove some of the Townsend types I expect. Certainly players who have high minutes per chance, with a high xG, and low conversion rates *should* be ripe for improvement. But until I have easy access to xG numbers from the last 5 years, I can only speculate 🙂

          4. Pezzle
            • 6 Years
            6 years, 9 months ago

            Isn't the data you are actually after in the data tables that have been produced in the Members* area.....

            1. Deulofail
              • 8 Years
              6 years, 9 months ago

              Yes and no. That's the raw data. But I'm asking what specifically he is looking at, and how he is using it (hence my question about whether he is using averages of a specific subset of data, and what that subset is).

              Although the specific claim, "That statistics indicate he should be scoring more than eight goals from his 133 attempts", could be a missunderstanding due to a typo, and he could be claiming that appearing twice in the chart constitutes a statistic in itself, and that that statistic of "2 consecutive appearances in my charts", indicates that he should score more due to the idea that having a low conversion rate compared to all players that year entails that your conversion rate will go up.

              Now I have an issue either way. Either way I don't understand the connections being made. And the claim about Eriksen here is just an example of a general lack of transparency that I find in this article and others, as well as in the culture of statistical discussions on this site, which just gloss over the important stuff and look for some coherent narrative that suits their preheld beliefs. Or something like that, but which sounds less harsh! 😀

              1. Spreadsheet
                • Fantasy Football Scout Member
                • 10 Years
                6 years, 9 months ago

                Interestingly, that particular line "statistics indicate...133 attempts" was not my words. The editor of the article spiced it up slightly. I'd originally said "More to his game than just goals, but he should be scoring more than 8 goals from 133 attempts." Which I think is true. If I was Eriksen, I'd hope to score more than 8 goals from 133 attempts. I think 13-20 goals would be about right, which is 10-15% of shots going in. I don't have statistics to indicate that though!

                This theory gets fairly damaged by players who take a lot of 'hopeful' long shots. Which is probably why Giggs Boson's original 'theory' (http://members.fantasyfootballscout.co.uk/public-stats-tables/view/19129/) was more focussed on players who take more box shots than long shots.
                But a) not as easy to find the data from season to season, as "Minutes per Attempt in Box" is a generated value, so I'd have to generate it too (AiB/Minutes) which just added another layer of effort, and
                b) players like Bale did shoot a lot from out the box. So when I encountered him early on, I decided to change my approach.

                Apologies for the lack of transparancy. Had I had more of a plan when I started writing the article, I might have been able to avoid it that - but instead I saw an interesting theory in the Plexiglas Principle and decided to investigate if there was any evidence that players with low conversion rates managed to improve conversion in the subsequent season. Ideally I'd have looked towards more than just the subsequent season, but it took long enough to do just the one!

                1. Piggs Boson
                  • 12 Years
                  6 years, 9 months ago

                  I consider Bale an outlier. Who else in world football can score so consistently with long-shots? Only the very best.

                2. Deulofail
                  • 8 Years
                  6 years, 9 months ago

                  Interesting that that line was edited, indeed!

                  Hopefully you'll appreciate that it's a little hard to interpret the 71% figure, given that it's based on binary (i.e. categorical yes-no) question, so it doesn't include the expents to which players improve/get worse. And also since it's not relative to the norm (say a particular mean as a baseline) or compared to some kind of control or separate experimental group. (Not to mention the small sample size, which of course is a problem for everyone).

                  Obviously you didn't inted to publish in a scientific journal, but there are still certain methods that are valid and others that are not. It's also hard to agree with explanations when you don't understand the question, and you can't make the same leaps. I'd just appreciate it if you spelt it out, like you were speaking to a child, and then we can all see eye to eye

                  I look forward to your next article! 😀

                  1. Spreadsheet
                    • Fantasy Football Scout Member
                    • 10 Years
                    6 years, 9 months ago

                    No offence taken Deulo, don't worry! No doubt the methodology could be improved.

                    I think quite often (in both life, and fantasy football) people do like to try to find patterns where there aren't any. I'm as guilty of it as anyone; if we can find and apply some sort of filter to past performance, can we can find players who are 'due' to score? We see it every season ("Kane never scores more than 2 goals in August", "Aguero has never scored against Bolton Wanderers", "Suarez always scores a hattrick against Norwich"). The members tables are always full of things like it, and obviously there's plenty of underlying logic (at it's simplest it's usually 'more shots = more goals' which seems plausible enough), but it's always hard to get away from the fact that correlation causation...

                    You're right of course, it probably wouldn't take that much more effort to try to make it more statistically robust, and therefore more meaningful. And I do take fantasy football more seriously than many. Maybe I'll try harder next time!

          5. Spreadsheet
            • Fantasy Football Scout Member
            • 10 Years
            6 years, 9 months ago

            Hi there. Questions are all valid. This article really was just to investigate the 'plexiglas principle' article. The numbers are all generated relatively arbitrarily, as this was just something I put together of an afternoon 🙂

            I think really I should have listed some assumptions at the top, such as "scoring fewer than 10% of shots is a disappointing return". Really all I've done here is to find players who have:
            a) played more than 20 games
            b) had at least one shot on target (on average) per 90 minutes
            c) had over 50 shots on target over the season
            d) scored fewer than 10% of their effort

            The players generated 'felt about right' for the theory, in that they are attacking minded players who could have scored more. Looking at their subsequent season, they often did score more. So with that in mind, finding other players with a similar pattern COULD indicate that they are 'due' to score more.

            I just like playing around with numbers. Most of my community articles are just investigating suggested theories by others, to see if they seem remotely sound.

            I hope you (and others) found it interesting, but certainly I don't want to claim that it's great science.

            1. Deulofail
              • 8 Years
              6 years, 9 months ago

              Hey spreadsheet. Thanks for your earnest reply. I didn't mean to offend with my criticism. Articles like this have so much promise and are often very close to being very useful, but usually just fall short. I certainly appreciate that you spend the time to do the work and share with us. It's just a little frustrating, because 'scientific' is the method of enquiry that works, so anything that's not scientific is pretty bogus.

              You don't have to be a scientist to be scientific of course. You've displayed plenty of elements of science in your article, which is why it's all the more frustrating when something isn't transparent or assumptions are made etc. I think if you were just a big more rigorous, your articles have the potential to be some of the best I've read on fantasy football in the last few years. I know it's easier to say all these things than to do all these things. Keep up the good work 🙂

          6. Piggs Boson
            • 12 Years
            6 years, 9 months ago

            Stats should always have context. Just relax, be open-minded and think about them logically.

            Eriksen takes many long-shots. His conversion rates will be low because of the location he takes the shots from. As a result, this is not expected to improve much.

            These articles are not trying to prove a player is bad, or whether you should get or not get them. They're just showing us statistical patterns that we can interpret to use, or not use. It is certainly not showing us "everyone improves if they are bad", just they are more LIKELY. It'a all about probability. I think this is why you're finding them vague. There is no definitive answer, we can only play the odds.

            1. Deulofail
              • 8 Years
              6 years, 9 months ago

              No no. I know it's not showing us that "everyone improves if they are bad". I'm saying that I don't know what the claim is, and I don't believe the article can support the claim anyway.

              From what you said, it sounds like you take the claim to be that players that are bad are more likely to improve than players that are not bad. If this is the claim, then the article didn't investigate this, since it looked only at "bad" players, and found that 71% improved, which is apparently 'above chance' for some reason.

              I'm trying to understand the article(s). You could say that if I fail to understand the articles, then it's my fault and my problem. But I'm asking questions to help me figure out the context, to think about it logically, and to understand the material so I can put it into context and think about it logically. I don't think you can fault me on that. Sorry if it's a problem for the community, but my intentions are to improve everyone's knowledge so we can all get better points tallies in FPL!

              1. Deulofail
                • 8 Years
                6 years, 9 months ago

                Plus, asking questions is more open minded than glossing over an article and taking the buzzwords you want to affirm your biases, like it seems a lot of people do! Haha sorry you pushed my buttons 😀

        • SwissWavey
          • 10 Years
          6 years, 9 months ago

          Sorry to ask such a seemingly daft question but I've spent an hour looking in vain.
          How does one set a gravatar on this site?

          Thanks 🙂

          1. andy85wsm
            • Fantasy Football Scout Member
            • Has Moderation Rights
            • 13 Years
            6 years, 9 months ago

            Go to gravatar.com and use the same email as here

            1. SwissWavey
              • 10 Years
              6 years, 9 months ago

              Thank you. Seems I have to get a WordPress account and site too. What a palaver!
              Sorry if it offends anyone but I'm going pictureless. 🙁

              1. SwissWavey
                • 10 Years
                6 years, 9 months ago

                Wouldn't it be nice if you could just add a picture on your profile page. Maybe that's just me...

          2. Essem
            • 6 Years
            6 years, 9 months ago

            gravatar.com

        • Bedknobs and Boomsticks
          • 14 Years
          6 years, 9 months ago

          Good article. It generally seems to be the better quality players who kick in. Bodes well for Pogba.

        • matth141
          • 8 Years
          6 years, 9 months ago

          I'm happy with my side so I think I'm ready for you experts to tear it apart

          Foster (Elliot)
          B.Davies Lindelof Kolasinac (C.Taylor) (4.0)
          Mkhitaryan KDB Ramsey Willian (Loft.Cheek)
          Lacazette Agüero Rashford

          Give me your worst!

          1. Witty Pun: Not good at this…
            • 7 Years
            6 years, 9 months ago

            Rashford? A gamble, at least at this stage.

          2. Swanremainsthesame
            • 8 Years
            6 years, 9 months ago

            Foster - WBA dont do clean sheets anymore, even in 'easy' fixtures
            Elliot - will be behind Randolph when New buy him in
            B.Davies behind Rose
            Lind,Kola,Laca PL newbies, may not even be 1st on the pitch
            Mkhi,KDB,Willian Ague,Rash disappointing last season - need a change in managers tactics/attitude to be worth it.

            Cant fault the 4.0 pick choice though

            🙂

        • Piggs Boson
          • 12 Years
          6 years, 9 months ago

          This is fantastic! I was thinking about writing a similar article so I'm glad you got there first 🙂

          71% of players with under-average conversion rates improving their shooting the following season is hugely significant.

          Especially when you consider how many of those are long-range shooters, who are unlikely to improve on their conversion as much. (e.g. Siggy, Eriksen, Coutinho)

          The strongly believe in the Plexiglas theory. If anyone thinks Ramsey is likely to continue at 2.4% conversion, or Jesus is likely to sustain 29% conversion, they are deluding themselves. That would defy the odds in an extreme way.

          1. Spreadsheet
            • Fantasy Football Scout Member
            • 10 Years
            6 years, 9 months ago

            Thanks Giggs, glad you liked it!

            1. Piggs Boson
              • 12 Years
              6 years, 9 months ago

              I just saw your table in the member's area. It looks familiar 😀

          2. Witty Pun: Not good at this…
            • 7 Years
            6 years, 9 months ago

            Hey Giggs, you were talking about an article of dome sort (forgot the details) in the pre season, still thinking of writing it?

            1. Piggs Boson
              • 12 Years
              6 years, 9 months ago

              It was to see whether the big-hitters are worth the extra outlay, and if they are only worth it when you captain them. I will probably still write it but been a bit busy lately, and my mind is fried.

        • makaveli123
          • Fantasy Football Scout Member
          • 7 Years
          6 years, 9 months ago

          Great article. Cheers!

        • Sterling is £11Mill..…
          • 7 Years
          6 years, 9 months ago

          Even if Eriksens goals improve that still doesnt mean he is as good as or better then Alli.