Robertson gets another 90 minutes as Mitrovic draws a blank

Agreed. Saw someone comment on this earlier that if Lacazette were more expensive he'd be in his team, and that's one fo the reasons. If Lacazette cost 11m, you then have options to switch him throughout a season to Aguero, Lukaku, Auba etc. But at that awkward 9.5m price, you're just not able to do that.

Team structure is super important and very overlooked. You need to have good options at each price and have your team be built in such a way that you can make quick changes (not hits) to get in form players.

Tltr...

1.Watch Numb's video.
2. Don't take hits
3.Only remove injured players.

The end.

If Vardy is injured. Sell him for a cheaper player. You then have a nice sum in the bank to spend the same or following week on upgrading a player who's been underperforming for you. Previous to this, you were getting extra points by chosing the combination of players you thought would get the most points. Structure is overrated.

HT please.

Just don't overthink. It takes up to 2 transfers to change Vardy and Firmino to Aguero and Zaha, let's say. Moreover, if you decide to downgrade one of them you do it for a reason. Expensive doesn't always mean better.

All you need is 2 FTs and you can change whatever. I think team structure and which formation is one of the most unnecessary things over here.

There are many things that could be done about this "awkward pricing". You can leave some money itb if you think that you're screwed if Kun/Kane/Lukaku become essential, there is always cheaper options that are in form too that you can get..

"or an upgrade, which then means identifying another player to lose, which is a forced transfer and not necessarily desirable; ultimately both options will likely cost you two transfers."

Most often the obvious 'other player to lose' would be the other 9m striker as that's the most obvious way to upgrade. So you kind of need both to perform strongly in order to justify having them. Basically, have a 9+9 or an 11+7 (or thereabouts), otherwise the midfield/defence is surely way too cheap.

I've thought along the same lines for Maddison + Richarlison (both of whom I own). There's no easy way to upgrade one of them without downgrading the other, so you end up sort of 'stuck' at a single price point.

I understand where you're coming from but I'm quite a maverick manager and like to make choices because I want to make them since I think I will make more points from those choices then not making the moves.

It makes complete sense to stick to the template strategy - 1 prem fwd, 1 or 2 prem mids with Richa/Maddison etc and a defence of Doherty, Alonso, Robbo Mendy etc. This is probably the type of template formation in your thinking - correct me if not.

At the end of they day, if Laca & Firmino are chosen, it will only ever take two FT to convert those players from Maddison & Firmino to KDB & Wilson for example,and will only take a mini wildcard for a hit of -4 to completely redistrubute funds by downgrading both Laca and Firmino to a high quality mid - Sterling/Hazard.

Personally, I've lost 28 hit points so far but Im at least 60 points better off after taking those hits. Some managers dont take hits and are rewarded for patience. Other managers take hits and are rewarded with instant results. Myself, I would opt for the strongest possible squad for getting points in blocks of four gameweeks regardless of taking a hit or two - the strikeforce of Kun Laca Vardy wouldnt scare me, although I've gone off Kun for the time being, as I know it wouldn't take much surgery to distribute the funds to other areas if needed.

I get your thinking but I don't subscribe to it myself as I don't see a problem with having to downgrade if your 9.something striker isn't getting the job done. Okay, it may cost you a transfer, but it gives you the ability to upgrade elsewhere which to me provides more flexibility than rigidly sticking to certain price points. What if Salah finds his form from last season? Mid-priced striker to budget striker easily funds Sterling/Mane to Salah. What if Alonso, Robertson and Mendy re-establish themselves as the go to back 3? Mid-priced striker to budget striker easily funds budget defender to premium defender. So no, I don't agree that it's more restrictive than a rigid structure which aims to only swap players at the same price points. Downgrading and upgrading is a big part of transfers. It's inevitable really.

Some sort of structure is fine, but if it is too tightly set-up, than it is surely too restrictive.

Have some structure, sure, but be flexible. This means that you can jump on and off different value spots, e.g. the glut of high-performing 6-7mil forwards at the moment. Would you want to stick with these all season even if underperforming just to stick to a particular structure?

Maybe a stupid question, but don't teams that rely on such a structure of price points fall foul of the scarcity heuristic?

I think this is overthinking it. Most teams have at least 2 £9+ players but a third starts to imbalance the team too much given the limits on funds.

I agree with you on the whole, you lose the flexability a bit when owning 2 of 3 options. I do think however it also depends what the midfield looks like in such a team and what the price point structure is there...

Price structure is very important. To be able to get most players with one transfer, keeping your team fluid is very important IMO.

For that reason I share your thoughts on the fact Vardy and Laca are good options but I wouldn’t have both as like you say, Bobby is the only other straight transfer.

I don't mind so much having players in difficult price points if you can downgrade, for example Salah is a difficult price point as he is really expensive and now with this possible injury every other alternative mid is available. The same would hold true with the 9.5 options up front due to the many options currently available between 5.6 and 7.0. The problem I do have though is the lack of flexibility and potential points this created elsewhere in your team.

With Kun, Lacazette and Vardy you have probably downgraded in multiple other areas in your team. This means that you have less big hitters in midfield and defense, two areas where points are being made. You are now reliant on these bigger hitters up front more often, you will therefore most likely lose the consistency of points required for a high ranking finish.

Also, in these downgraded areas if the player gets injured or out of form you will have less options. For example, getting TAA rather than Robertson completely changes the bracket of player you can select. Instead of Mendy you will probably need to look towards a 4.5 of a team with good fixtures.

I think discounting structure as irrelevant is naive to say the least.

The key factor is that this year there are only three 9.0 ish strikers so having your team leaning on having two of these three at any one time is not an optimal strategy (imo).

It’s not to say it can’t work or won’t work, it’s just not putting the odds in your favour.

Of course you can transfer out a 9.0 for a 6.0, but transfers are a finite resource, and moving a 9.0 to a 6.0 is basically using two transfers to redistribute the excess budget created by the first.

I think any given year’s pool of players needs to be analysed & the trends this year definitely include a wealth of sub 7.0 forwards.

In my opinion a team built around two of Arnie, Mitro, Ings, Jiminez, Wilson, King, Zaha, Murray etc just does much better than a team built around two of Firmino, Vardy, Laca, because it’s so much more structurally efficient.

I wrote an article recently which touched on this. You're right, it comes down to probability - with more info later in the season it can be that a "less balanced" team that has more restrictions might be better but it's not wise to jump onto now.

I don't focus too much on structure, but i do pay some attention. It's just important not to be putting too much money into any one position depending on your formation. I am absolutely not a fan of three fat ones at the top for this reason - just not good value, as it restricts midfield and defence big hitters for luxuries who won't do as well.

It really depends on the rest of your team.

My WC planned for next week is looking something like this (my player values, so don't necessarily match current prices):

4.5, 4.0
6.1, 5.5, 5.5, 4.7, (4.4)
11.0, 9.7, 9.7, (4.4, 4.4)
11.3, 9.0, 6.2

So there's a price spread in the back 4 and up front, but a big grouping in midfield.

So lets say I downgrade a mid to a 7.0ish. I can now upgrade to 3 expensive strikers, but that's what this topic is about avoiding. OK, so I move the money into defense. Luiz and Doherty become Alonso and Mendy, but then I've got 4 big defenders with nowhere much to go if the big defenses start misfiring.

Just get thee players who will score the most points IMO.

I consider it with my GW1 team (I started with Firmino in order to get Lacazette easily, but then Mitro seemed like better value, Laca wasn't starting and I also wanted Hazard, so I went with Mitro instead).

But after the initial couple of weeks I just get whoever feels like decent value (players like Doherty/Jonny/Richarlison) and then make sure I'm covering the best/most used captain options (Salah, Haz, Aguero so far this season).

Structure doesn't really come into it per say, not intentionally anyway, but covering those 3 players just doesn't give me an option to have someone like Kane as well. I'd rather have Vardy or Laca instead of Mitro/Arnie if I could, but I don't see any real reason to remove either of those two right now (or the 3 captaincy options) so I'm happy to stick for now.

I don't get the structure argument at all. Swapping only works when the player you want is less or equal to the player you have, plus whatever you have ITB. It's a false sense of security. I'd chase the points.

Let's add some numbers in. Looking at value, points per game per million. You're looking at a number that is less than 1. So if you have to downgrade a 9 to a 7, you're looking at less than 2 points per game with the money sitting in the bank (and probably closer to 1), so probably not worth getting too worried about. Given 2 moves generally let's you get most places you need, I can't see that structure is the be all and end all. It's all about the points for me. If the points look like they're coming from players that don't fit into a template, then go for it. Probably better to be gambling on your formation as your differential strategy than some outside shot of a player who might just do something this week.

Another caveat, if you still have your wildcard, than full on gambling is fine. You can fix your team no problem, so chase the points.

I used to follow a bit of a structure with price limits for defence midfield and attack but I actually think that this restricts you.
This season there are plenty of premium defenders scoring highly and I don't believe having only one of them is enough. I think Alonso Robertson Mendy and trippier can keep up PPG wise with lacazette and vardy personaly so I will be keeping the money at the back.
Saving a transfer where possible means you can change formation easy enough though when needed

i don't tend to allocate price ranges to the different areas as prefer the flexibility of e.g. going heavy at the back or front as form dictates.
i do tend to create a team that does allow me to switch emphasis quickly with just 2 transfers. e.g. atm can easily move a premium defender and cheap striker to Vardy and mid-priced defender if required or a mid-priced forward and cheap defender to a premium defender and cheaper striker.
Also i keep 2 "reasonable" bench players that can play or used to release funds if required. Never go 100% bargain basement bench.

Big problem of the fixed structure this season is Kane and Salah. Both are too expensive, but both are top choice for captaincy against certain team. Thus best choice so far is to pick them only in favourable fixture, and dropping them otherwise. Doing that will mess up your structure.
Possible to go without them, and that will be why you are ahead or behind at season finish

Why would you want 9.something players stinking up your team in the first place?

Especially with the likes of Arne, King, Wilson and Mitro about.

This gives you an opportunity to own all the big hitters plus a premium defensive trio which is where the value and points appear to be at this season.

You highlight as a weakness that if one of the 9mil strikers gets injured you have to "downgrade" to a cheaper option. But your own structure is based on owning one of the cheaper downgrade options to begin with. It is only a weakness if any of the 9mil strikers are being outscored by a cheaper option. Go with the points.