Oops that was much longer than expected, and on top of page by accident, I'm not trying to get a hulk or anything I just wanted a little discussion about cover, planned to write 1 paragraph!

Suarez Sturridge last season.

Without reading all that, I see cover as simply playing the % game.

what

defenders all get the same points for a clean sheet though, mids/strikers is a different proposition

what if city score a lot of goals and it doesn't involve the player you have from them? you still lose ground

for example, people are considering getting nasri for city coverage, which isn't that wise as he isn't involved that much in terms of end product

I still just get the players I think will get most points, regardless of who they play for and coverage etc.

Yep, those who don't believe in attacking coverage don't take into consideration 'combined points potential' of the two or three players involved. Generally it would requirer the team to score at least 2 or 3 goals per game for it to be worthwhile.

I'll just add this discussion from a few pages back. Worth the read

http://www.fantasyfootballscout.co.uk/2014/12/09/scout-notes-gameweek-15-monday-3/?hc_page=1#hc_comment_9080452

Bet the best premium players you can, then get best value players after. Done.

I was always under the impression you can only cover defenders clean sheets.

I look at their recent form. Sanchez is the only real option at Arsenal at the moment, why would I want Cazorla? Bony has scored the most goals in the league in 2014 and Siggy is high up in the list of returns for midfielders - no problem having both.

I have no Liverpool "coverage". Should I be on the safe side and get Henderson in just in case they pick up some form?

I look at the players form, doesn't matter who they play for. To get Cazorla or Henderson in just because I want Arsenal or Liverpool covered is silly.

I already have Fabregas and Costa and I have a choice between either Hazard or Yaya for a midfield spot. Using your theory I should go for Yaya which actually would be a smart move but are you telling me Yaya will score more points than Hazard in the next few weeks? Maybe, maybe not. There will be weeks when Yaya gets nothing and Hazard gets points.

Cover is more fun. More games that your team is involved in. End of discussion.

Suppose it is easy to use any example to suit what side of the fence you sit on.
I could say that having sterling gives me good Liverpool cover, then he gets one assist in five games, where as could have got hazard and oscar and they get 4 goals and 3 assists between them over those games.

I don't buy any of the arguments you gave, but I do think that coverage is useful for another reason, which is flexibility. If you have three players from a team that suddenly hit a poor run of form, for whatever reason, it is a lot harder to adjust than if you only have one player from that team. However, for teams like Chelsea who are unlikely to have any sustained poor form this season, this isn't really an issue so I am happy to have three Chelsea players in my side. Generally, I think that having only one or two players from a team is sensible not because it means that you can 'cover the points' of other teams, but rather because it allows you to adapt more quickly to evolving situations.

The really good picks tend to me a focal point for their team and involved in most their goals. For that reason it can be hard to find 2 of those in the same team.

But i cant see any way in which whether or not i have bony will impact on siggy's points so why would it therefore be a significant factor in how i make my decision to get siggy or not.

The only advantages i can see of spreading your players across clubs is the flexibility it can give you to manage fixtures, reduced chance you will max out your players from one club thereby limiting your choices and the greater variation in captaincy choices

so if its 50/50 who will score more i would probably choose to split between the 2 clubs

I completely disagree with this post. I had two Southampton defenders, I currently have two Chelsea defenders.

Without wishing to sound disrespectful, diversification is for people who don't have faith in their convictions. If you think Ramsey will score 6ppg over the next month and Sanchez will score 7, then get both. They are independent. You shouldn't go and get Toure just because you worry whether both your players will get points in any one game. You have to have a long term time horizon and ride out the volatility of having concentrated bets.

I disagree with most of this. To win this game it is very simple, you want the players who score the most points.

A FPL team with Fabregas, Hazard and Costa all season would be doing well irrespective of the fact they all play for Chelsea. Their point scoring is totally independent of whether or not which or how many of them you've selected them in your team (although it doesn't always feel like that).

The advantages of having coverage for attacking players are:
- to get a better spread of captaincy options
- emotional - you can feel some FPL involvement in more matches, irrationally hoping all the goals scored will be for your players

coverage is a myth, live with it. you dont want arsenal coverage, you want sanchez. earlier, you didnt want manu coverage, you wanted di maria (when he was scoring well). when the season began, you didnt want chelsea coverage, you wanted fabregas & costa. atm, hazard seems like a better bet than costa. they are individuals, not coverage. also, west ham coverage sounds a bit stupid. but downing seems like a good pick. again, individuals, not coverage.

BS

"I already have Fabregas and Costa and I have a choice between either Hazard or Yaya for a midfield spot. Using your theory I should go for Yaya which actually would be a smart move but are you telling me Yaya will score more points than Hazard in the next few weeks? Maybe, maybe not. There will be weeks when Yaya gets nothing and Hazard gets points." End of story

You are making the argument about how illogical it is very well thanks jtd.

Sterling is a great example. He nowhere near covered Liverpool (or indeed suarez) last season and the season before it was Rooney not covering rvp (as I know to my cost).

You don't need 2 or 3 goals a game to gain a good return from three attacking players in one team as you don't expect them to score every gw. With bonus points and clean sheet points midfielders can get 11 pts for a goal in one match. A top ppg for a mid would be circa 6 ppg. If the mid gets one assist over the next two he would probably achieve this. So that is 2 goals in three games for one player. If you have another mid doing the same and a fwd getting a couple of goals then your triumvirate are doing fine for 4 goals scored by the team over three matches. Add in the fact that most top teams will average more than 2 goals a game and allow for particularly good runs of fixtures where you load up on a teams attacking players and you start to see why cover is a silly concept.

Bottom line is when you look at the top 8 attacking scorers in fpl this season 3 are from Chelsea one from arsenal and one from city. In the coverage theory people would be trying to cover Chelsea points with one of the attackers losing out on the other two while having coverage of teams like Liverpool, Utd and spurs whose top scoring players were not matching these top scorers. Also trying to "cover city and arsenal attacking points with other arsenal players would gave killed your OR too.

Just because people don't do it, doesn't mean they are correct.
For defenders at least, the optimal play is often to double up on one in form team.

If you had two SOU or two CHE defenders so far this season you'd have more points than if you owned a City or Utd defender for "cover".

You make some good points about the problems with doubling and tripling up on players from one team, but I don't think you are discussing "coverage"...at least not he same "coverage" that is often criticized.

"Coverage" is criticized because people say things like:

"I can't afford Hazard, so I've Matic as Chelsea coverage"

This is the fallacy/myth that most often complained about. Owning a random player from an in-form team will not get you points 🙂

You've addressed a different issue I think, but you've done it well.
Good post Punty! 🙂

I usually tend to focus on getting the best player(s) in the game, and at their respective clubs.

For example, all of Hazard, Costa and Fábregas have scored well. I have had all three for a few weeks. They don't all do well in one go, but they tick along nicely. Now Agüero is out, Yaya is the best City option. He is now very popular due to penalties etc.

I think people buy cover without even knowing, the excuse they need a player from say City, with their fixtures, is often used.

Same goes for defenders with easy fixtures, people rave about getting players from that team.

If you offered someone an attack with the likes of Hazard, Fabregas, Oscar, Costa, ADM, RVP and Rooney (any combination) they wouldn't want it. I find it better to spread players around from different teams, ensuring you have the best options and thus the best possible points total.

what rubbish