Fair enough. I like that you point out that it is, indeed a gamble.Nothing but respect for you as a manager.

Nice post. RVP (c) I have him but i won't since i think Mata is enough for me.

You, Aguerolicious, and Chu Young escaped the last page before I could show up.

The comparisons with Adebayor and Giroud are apt. RVP may have potential, and he may have been "essential" when the last season ended, but that hasn't translated into any steady success this season, whatever the reasons may be.
He's not returning 13.6m worth of FPL points, that's all the others are trying to say.

on the FPL site, sort all forwards by "value (season)"... rvp is #47 on that list.
That means your money has been better placed elsewhere.

Everyone knows he's been injured.
he's been "essential IF ... (he's healthy, Utd get it together, Rooney plays in X position) " all year, and the apologists are running out of excuses because there are only about a dozen gameweeks to win or lose FPL this season.

For ME, RVP's not essential, he's not worth 13.6m, and he's not worth considering over SAS.

If everyone you don't agree with is wrong about whether he's worth 13.6, then that gives you an edge, so you should go and buy him, double-down on Captain Essential, and show us all how to get to the top of the heap. I'll believe it when i see it, and I don't see it.

Still too pricey for me. I brought in Mata with the extra cash. Hoping my strikers come good and if RVP explodes, then hopefully having Mata will ease the pain with a few assists.

agree with u that ppl are thinking too much about value...the extra few million and the potential damage to ur team etc..its about having the correct players in the correct moment and more importantly ur team value and how ur cash is spread out.

Fantastic debate guys. In the hope that we can drum this out in a savoury manor I think we could be having the debate of the (rest of the) season right now. To RVP or not to RVP.

About a week ago Jonty posted a hot topic on this very subject (before the Aguero injury). Almost everyone unanimously agreed he wasn't worth it. I even stated quite strongly that RVP was an expensive punt at best. Obviously this was because his price wasn't justifying his points returns and there are plenty of other top strikers out there who are.

However, despite all of the facts and stats there is one thing we can always count on. Not all things stay the same.

We must consider a number of variables here, where is the value? An awful lot of value can be found in the likes of Eriksen and Lallana right now among other names. Do we need 3 heavy hitters in midfield when there are cheaper options doing the job at the moment? Also we are now at the stage of the season where a lot of teams have a Team value above 108m, so we can probably afford a luxury player.

The combination of fixtures, Aguero's injuries, an interesting blank situation for GW28/29, affords us with a rare opportunity where we can possibly afford to take an 'expensive punt' (to use my own words). United has strong fixtures, RVP is guaranteed to play GW29 and can be benched for GW28, he 'might' find last seasons form and therefore in my opinion, RVP is a viable and worthy punt considering the circumstances.

I thought long and hard about getting RVP in my WC last week despite ruling him out as an option a week earlier. In the end I decided to save some money and get Rooney instead. However RVP is certainly a worthy option going forward.

Always agreed with this. People who wouldn't get sturridge because they thought suarez was enough are surely regretting it now.

I'm beginning to think it isn't necessary. What's the point in having Arsenal coverage in a player like Ozil if he's consistently scoring blanks whilst you can get Lallana?

Coverage gives you calmness, but never guarantee a return.

But if that coverage is for a free-flowing, hammering, galloping (in the spirit of CNY), mouth-watering City attack, then i can understand the panic of not having one.

You are correct. The object of the game is to maximize points. If you pick the optimal players to do this you win. If you start picking sub optimal players to achieve coverage you are not winning.

i couldn agree more on this. people say that to avoid getting sturridge. whereas all i see is a player that came back from injury ( dropped value ) and gets 9 9 13 9. how is that not worth doubling up? its not like liverpool cant score. be it everton or arsenal, not 1 sane manager would want to put a defender against them. hence, go SAS : )

I think the "city coverage" innuendo around here is a false sense of security.

There is merit to "coverage" though. My approach is that when good form meets favorable fixtures, it's a matter of which player from that team I'll be drafting in.
For instance, I want 0.0 players worth of Sunderland coverage over the month following Hull at home, and I'm looking at bringing in more Southampton coverage instead.

i believe whoever scoring regularly shld be in ur team...for attacker there is not much of a coverage. going giroud over sturridge for the past few weeks just for coverage ends up poorly. tts why i always double up on pool and city attacker. I only have silva now though becos i dun see it necessary to spend a transfer on them when they may blank for gw28 and 29 plus all the possible rotation

Coverage is relevant when it comes to captaining. It's important to have a good captain option every week. "Covering" a team that has good fixtures coming up and has a premium player is a good idea. If you won't be captaining a player from that team no matter what, coverage is irrelevant. Just go with the players you think will get the most points.

Totally agree, getting your team balance right is not about coverage, its about giving yourself enough captaincy options and good options each week from your rotating / part time players.

As this year you can get away with captaining Suarez every week, even tough fixtures, the captaincy is a bit of a non-issue and therefore having a second striker (i.e. Sturridge) playing for the same team is worthwhile if Sturridge, will outscore any alternatives over the period of time you are looking at, which on current form he probably will.

With the rest of your "never bench, never captain" players same applies e.g. if you think both Silva and Toure will outscore Ozil, then get Silva and Toure, don't worry about your Arsenal coverage.

With your rotating defenders and for some 4th/5th mf obviously you don't want players from the same team or they will have a crap fixture and a good fixture at the same times.

I think most people actually misuse the word coverage due to having lazy English. No one would want Fulham coverage as they suck and have no upside. I think people look at teams doing well/scoring alot of goals and naturally think, 'I want a piece of that' hence they say some coverage of that team which really means they want the scoring players from that team. Getting city coverage to me = getting players who contribute to a high % of their offense(yaya/Silva/Aguero etc). If you think players from other teams will score more then just get that teams 'Coverage'.

This is probably just what you said, bu my thoughts:

Coverage is a valid defensive concept, because teams get/miss cleans sheets together. it is not a valid offensive concept, because each midfielder and striker gets points as an individual. A team scoring a lot of goals is a clue you should look at their players, but those players should be evaluated based separately based on their individual performance. If the goals are too spread around, there may no be a player who is a good choice. And you can have a team with a crap offense that has one player getting a high percent of the goals and assists, who might be a very good value even if there is nobody else on that team who is.

Right now it looks like S & S are both good values, and their being on the same team does not matter unless they have a blank or double. Man City, has a lot of goals, but without Kun A, there is no clear choice. There are a number of decent ones, and everyone can pick the ones they like best, if any. There are probably better examples of a team with many goals and no clear best player, or clear should have players, but City is close enough.

I tend to downgrade the value of the opinions of people who believe in "offensive coverage" as it implies they don't understand an important aspect of the game. (But they may rock at other parts and I don't want to throw out any babies if I can avoid it.)