I’d like to say at the outset that a significant number of you had replied to my post or ‘’thumbed it up’’ and have been very generous with your comments. I thank the community for that, and while that was not the intent of the comment/post, it’s a nice feeling nonetheless. I had also intended for the post to be a one-off, just a spontaneous expression of what was in my head at the time – but some commenters had valid points w.r.t team value, static vs dynamic teams which don’t quite fit into my theory, and therefore this post is an attempt to expound a little on those thoughts. Also, the joy of sharing/giving and all that. Again, a long post possibly awaits and I would ask you to pardon my indulgence.

Let me start off with the dynamic vs static team philosophy. I guess the question is something to the effect of, how does one separate knee-jerkism from rational considered transfers or even rational considered transfers with a points hit. For example, how would my theory account for ivanovic vs kolarov, two or even three weeks into the season. How does the theory account for mahrez, silva, gomis, Wilson (on their way up), and ivanovic, rooney, hazard (on their way down but seemingly ‘’high quality’’ per my definition). And also new, potential bandwagons: I,e pedro, Wilson, kolarov. Lets take these one by one. Oh boy this may be a very long post!

Mahrez: After gameweek 1, when Mahrez scored what he did, my thought was – how did I overlook this guy so completely in my initial squad selection – he did not even enter my head. This I account to oversight. Any player can and must be evaluated on multiple parameters:
1) The team he plays for and therefore the fixtures
2) Personal form and team form
3) Importance to the team, if an attacker: how central/involved is he in the play, and also to a lesser extent is he on penalties, corners, direct and indirect free kicks etc.
4) My favourite parameter: inherent quality of the player
5) FPL consideration: price, and therefore how he affects team structure, balance, coverage etc

Mahrez to me ticked every singly box: right fixtures, great form, but MOST IMPORTANTLY: outstanding quality for an outstanding price. In my mind, I’d pegged mahrez as a high quality player last season when I saw him play for Leicester, and that just comes down to player evaluation and football knowledge. Some use stats, but I would say use stats in addition to watching a player. Mahrez is an outstanding attacking player. His close control, shooting ability are terrific, and he plays in an attacking position where he is integral to the team’s play. The fact that he ticked all these boxes and additionally, drafting him in meant squad balance and an enabler to an Aguero or some other heavy hitter, meant to my mind he was a no brainer. This is not a case, in my opinion, of knee jerking, but of sound transfer strategy.

Case no 2: Rooney. Great fixtures to open the season, central to the team, proven FPL quality etc. I had Rooney in my initial squad, for the reasons above. After the first two games of the season, however, to me it was clear that Rooney was not central to Man Utd’s attacking play, and man utd were simply not generating the kind of chances through their attacking play that suggested a glut of goals. Shipping him out vs Newcastle therefore, while still a risk, was a sensible decision based on observation of team play, team dynamics and so on. Also, with the chance of price drops coming into play, and the fact that him scoring huge would not affect you because so many players had transferred him out, meant he was less of a risk.

Case no 3: Hazard. I still have him in my team because of one factor above all else: he is one of the world’s best attacking players, possibly in the top ten, definitely in the EPL top two-three, and therefore as high quality as it gets. There is no such thing as a season keeper, but I had brought in Hazard with the intent of keeping him as long as he was not injured.

Now lets examine the cons: Chelsea’s stuttering start, his own form, the arrival of Pedro. What one needs to evaluate over time is whether Pedro actively changes the dynamic of the team into a three pronged attacking machine, with costa spearheading hazard from the left and pedro from the right. To me, the answer is unclear as of now and needs more data. My quality quotient is making me keep him, but if over time I see a shift, I might ship him out. My reasons for not doing so this early is that it’s too early to tell, Hazard has too much quality, and until he is proven to be not central to the team’s play, he should be given the benefit of the doubt, with seasons worth of points history behind him.

Case no 4: Pedro: Proven overall quality, in a potentially dominant side, but still a new entrant to the team, the league, the playing style. I would say getting him in for a hit is an example of a bandwagon, simply because it’s too early to judge, but getting him in as part of a strategic free transfer that allows you to upgrade (lets say) Huth to Kolarov next week (again for free)? May not be a bad option. My own view is I will wait on Pedro, to see how integral he is to the team’s play.

Gomis/Wilson: middling quality but more of budget enablers: no hits to bring them in, but part of thought out transfers, sure.

While I could go on with multiple other cases, I hope I have conveyed to you how I approach transfers. I am not a big fan of hits, where the inherent unpredictability of a player’s performance on the day due to my discrete events theory, makes the gamble an against-the-odds proposition. But an Ivan to a Kolarov on a free (Ivan’s lack of form, Kolarov nailed on ness etc) is not a bad option.

I believe it’s important to read into a manager’s philosophy and comfort when evaluating player decisions. City have been on a roll for the last ten games essentially with the same 4-5-1 team that includes Aguero and Kolarov. It’s important to read into tactics: how Pellegrini abandoned the 4-4-2 approach towards the end of last season, and opted for a lone striker in front, and kolarov gave them attacking verve and defensive solidity. Therefore, why would he abandon it? Therefore kolarov becomes a lesser risk proposition.

Take Walcott on the other hand or even Oscar or Willian, which are interesting cases going forward. Each of these are good quality players (I actually think Oscar is very good going forward and WIllian an outstanding overall player). But each of these have no guarantee of playing time, 90 mins match in and match out. Therefore I would avoid these entirely, even if Oscar comes on next match and scores two goals and trolls everyone.

Mistakes I’ve made and how I’ve learnt from them: I had Milner in my initial squad, but want to remove him now because even though I consider him high quality, he plays too deep in Liverpool. I should have seen this earlier. Rooney vs Silva: I went for form over my instincts, and have removed rooney already, will get in Silva this week.

As for price rises and falls, I would say that in the above philosophy, I try to manage price rises and falls as best as possible, with minimal hits.

Phew. Hope this helps.