Yeh true. This is exactly the reason why I don't have a strong fifth mid, as then I am forced to play my 4th mid in games, where, were I to have a strong 5th mid also, I perhaps wouldn't play them in (and they often get big points in the 'difficult games')

Yeh looking like its between these two, money will play a part I would imagine as well so il see what plan I come up with.

Its not something I'd do long term though. Benching Mahrez is fraught with danger as many have discovered and I've done much better having a rubbish fifth mid than not oddly.

Yeh. I think it has to be done, otherwise I'll be left with just Kane up top and a weak looking midfield.

My debate is between Lingard/Antonio. If I buy Antonio it will only be a matter of time before I wamt to transfer him out, and with the DGW/blank planning, all ft's are vital. If I buy Limgard I can simply leave him there after GW 27.

I think a front 7 in GW 27 of the following looks good:

Sanchez - Ozil - Mahrez - Alli - Antonio/Lingard

Kane - Vardy

I think you should keep GW30 in mind aswell when picking a King replacement, not just the next three. Bournemouth could easily have two decent fixtures in the blank weeks, so maybe looking within the same team wouldn't be a bad idea.

Very good point, didn't think of that. Thanks.

Which are they again. Leicester, Southampton.. Swans?

I think what Mr Alex meant was to lay out the idea of buffing up your 5th mid to cover for blanks, then Jonty just presented the hot topic as a general 3-5-2-discussion.

Point is, you won't have three strikers in GW27, and definately not in GW30 either.

Yeh but in order to play 3-4-3 in gw27 (assuming that's what you were referring to) me, as well as many others, would have to sell both Aguero and Lukaku in order to have a playing front 3 in gw27.

Gw27/special circumstances aside, 3-4-3 all the way.

I do kind of understand this argument but don't really agree with. As you mentioned if you can afford it then why not, but I am sure that our starting XI can always be improved. People often say things like, 'I'd rather have the player with points on my bench than not have him at all', but that is a flawed view IMO.

An example I used yesterday was that It is possible that you could own, hypothetically, Alli and Barkley at the same time. They combined could score consecutively for 6 weeks, say, Barkely 3 of those weeks and Alli the other 3. It is extremely possible that rather than getting 3 of these returns, you get 1/2 of these returns due to wrong benching decisions. For me the best option has to be getting a fourth mid and sticking with him, ensuring you get all his points. Then, use the remaining money elsewhere.

Yes this is the other option. Lots of thinking is going to be required to see what is going to work best. No rushes transfers this week.

Has to be a 3-5-2 in blank weeks though.

3-5-2 is completely necessary for blank gw's IMO. No way I'm selling Aguero + Lukaku for one GW.

Would hold my horses as B'mouth looks likely to have a fixture in both blank weeks, whereas Arsenal and Spurs looks near guaranteed to have a blank GW30.

Sorry it's quite a long reply, but I think it should clarify why I, and many other players use 'bench fodder.'

Honestly said, I don't see the value in a strong 8 rotation. Of course, on paper a strong front 8 looks much better than a strong 7 with bench fodder, and of course being able to rotate a strong 4th/5th midfielder sounds great, but in reality these things are not that great.

Why do some have a strong front 8? We can only play 7 attackers at a time. This means every week you've got someone like an Antonio/Arnoutovic on the bench. On paper it looks good having such a luxury, but in reality you're just benching 1 million that could be spent on the starting XI.

Also, rotating dependent on fixtures sounds all good and logical but it's extremely silly in my opinion. Players are not restricted to scoring in easy games. It is possible I could, hypothetically, own Alli and Barkley in 4/5th mid. They could proceed to get get combined (each gameweek on of these players blanks, and one scores high) returns 6 fixtures in a row. However the players score in the games you thought were 'hard' and thus you proceeded to bench them missing out on their points. Because of this its not just simply a case of 'I'd rather have the player on my bench with points than not at all', as some pro strong fifth-mid players say, it's a case of you're missing out on many points.

I currently own Alli and Stanislas. If I had owned say Arountovic as a fifth mid, I would have missed out on so many Alli points. As I said, players are not restricted to scoring in easy gameweeks, and therefore, in my opinion it is important to play the player each week to be sure you get their points.

However, if money is a luxury, then having a fifth mid sat on the bench would be fine, as I could play them when my current fourth got injured, but I certainly wouldn't get into the rotation game if I owned a good fifth mid, he would simply be a slightly more expensive bench fodder. The only games I would consider having a strong-fifth mid useful for, would be for when they Arsenal and Man City away from home, which happens only twice a season.