https://t.co/heKE1cB7N8
The Review: GW 18 - A thread
Hi everyone, welcome to the latest edition of “The Review” where I look at Bench Boost, Triple Captaincy and the upcoming double GW 19 in detail:
#FPL #FPLCommunity @OfficialFPL
(Data taken from @FFScout and @FFH_HQ with consent)
https://t.co/heKE1cB7N8
https://t.co/1tZ92vBXIT
I jump straight away to what is the toughest question of the week. I first try and work out which one of the Liverpool midfielders to own:
(read below)
Mins per shot inside the box: 33.73 vs 34.15
Mins per big chance: 96.4 vs 111
Mins per big chance created: 224.8 vs 333
Mins per chance created: 49.9 vs 57.9
Even though Mane’s numbers in comparison to his numbers in the yesteryears have...
(read below)
Mins per shot inside the box: 27.3 vs 26.3
Mins per big chance: 104.8 vs 83.1
Mins per big chance created: 314.5
Mins per chance created: 52.4
As you can see, what's significant to note is that Salah's minute per big chance has...
Mins per shot inside the box: 27.3 vs 42.4
Mins per big chance: 104.8 vs 90
Mins per big chance created: 314.5 vs 180
Mins per chance created: 52.4 vs 48
I now run a comparison to assess Salah’s recent numbers side by side with KDB:
Mins per shot inside the box: 36 vs 41.5
Mins per big chance: 134.75 vs 90
Mins per chance created: 67.4 vs 31.76
Mins per big chance created: 269.5 vs 90
Mins per baseline bonus: 12 v 7.5
Liverpool’s mins per big chance = 31.6 vs Man City’s mins per big chance = 21.7
The numbers are telling, extremely telling and highlight De Bruyne’s form at home of late and Salah’s lack of. As expected, De Bruyne fares far better...
A few weeks ago, I was bullish about using my triple captaincy on Salah this GW. Due to the concerns that I have raised above on Salah’s form this season, I don’t think I’m as confident as I was earlier despite the fact...
This is a very common question this week and one which I’ll try and generalize even though it’s hard to answer without seeing a team on paper. If in the prior weeks you have planned to Bench Boost, then I don’t think the news...
As always, this is a team specific question. Having said that, I think this is one of those rare GWs where it is very hard to have a bad team on paper. I say that because almost all teams with highly owned...
I think it is very important to own the likes of Bruno Fernandes, Mohamed Salah and Kevin De Bruyne this week. I’m assuming it would be impossible for almost all FPL managers to own all...
If I had the luxury to choose whichever one to sell this week, I’d sell Kane over Son. I say that because Son is cheaper, presents more value long term and has the better numbers away from home which...
Son (Away) vs Kane (Away)
Mins per shot inside the box: 53.23 vs 42
Mins per big chance: 76.8 vs 142.8
Mins per chance created: 53.2 vs 47.6
Mins per big chance created: 230.7 vs 142.8
This is a fairly simple one. I don’t think I’d be buying or selling. Yes, there is a concern that after the COVID outbreak, Villa’s assets might be rusty this week but we don’t have a model to reasonably estimate the extent...
I mentioned last GW how DCL’s numbers had dropped of late:
DCL (GW 1-11) v DCL (GW 12-17)
Mins per shot in the box 31.29 v 54.63
Mins per big chance 69.28 v 145.67
In the premium category, there are Timo Werner and Jamie Vardy. Jamie Vardy is the old dog who’s been there and done that. He currently sits top for big chances of all players this season...
I think this could be a great strategy given the options at our disposal. Doubling up on the Man City defence is the gift which keeps on giving – Stones and Dias have now started...
Liverpool (Home 20/21) vs Liverpool (Away 20/21)
Shots conceded inside the box per game: 5.13 vs 5.44
Big chances conceded per game: 1.75 vs 2.33
Mins per big chance: 1219 vs 765
Mins per big chance created: 406.3 vs 218.6
Mins per chance created: 48.8 vs 47.8
Mins per touch in the final third: 2.6 vs 2.4
Mins per baseline bps: 6.2 vs 5.6
First, I look at the influence Antonio has when he plays:
West Ham (GW 1-5 with Antonio) vs West Ham (GW 6-17 without Antonio)
Mins per shot inside the box: 8.65 vs 11.9
Mins per big chance: 45 vs 54
Souček (GW 1-13) vs Souček (GW 14-17)
Mins per shot inside the box: 65 vs 45
Mins per big chance: 234 vs 180
Mins per penalty area touch: 35 vs 18
Incredibly, ∼38% of Souček’s penalty area touches in the opposition’s box all season...
Given the fact that West Ham have the standout double GW fixtures of all mid-priced defences, I analyze their full backs:
Mins per big chance: 1530 vs 1165
Mins per chance created: 61.2 vs 61.3
Mins per big chance created: 510 vs 582.5
Mins per touch in the final third: 6.02 vs 5.24
Mins per baseline bonus: 6.5 vs 6.9
Mins per big chance: 540 vs 450
Mins per chance created: 108 vs 50
Mins per big chance created: 540 vs 450
Mins per touch in the final third: 4.7 v 4.6
Mins per baseline bonus: 8.6 v 5.2
Twitter: https://t.co/oBvQzf7Dor
Instagram: https://t.co/1tZ92vBXIT
YouTube: https://t.co/mDw5fLXaAG
YouTube Patreon: https://t.co/VQGEYrnnpO
I await your feedback with anticipation!
More from AbuBakar Siddiq
More from Sport
You May Also Like
A brief analysis and comparison of the CSS for Twitter's PWA vs Twitter's legacy desktop website. The difference is dramatic and I'll touch on some reasons why.
Legacy site *downloads* ~630 KB CSS per theme and writing direction.
6,769 rules
9,252 selectors
16.7k declarations
3,370 unique declarations
44 media queries
36 unique colors
50 unique background colors
46 unique font sizes
39 unique z-indices
https://t.co/qyl4Bt1i5x
PWA *incrementally generates* ~30 KB CSS that handles all themes and writing directions.
735 rules
740 selectors
757 declarations
730 unique declarations
0 media queries
11 unique colors
32 unique background colors
15 unique font sizes
7 unique z-indices
https://t.co/w7oNG5KUkJ
The legacy site's CSS is what happens when hundreds of people directly write CSS over many years. Specificity wars, redundancy, a house of cards that can't be fixed. The result is extremely inefficient and error-prone styling that punishes users and developers.
The PWA's CSS is generated on-demand by a JS framework that manages styles and outputs "atomic CSS". The framework can enforce strict constraints and perform optimisations, which is why the CSS is so much smaller and safer. Style conflicts and unbounded CSS growth are avoided.
Legacy site *downloads* ~630 KB CSS per theme and writing direction.
6,769 rules
9,252 selectors
16.7k declarations
3,370 unique declarations
44 media queries
36 unique colors
50 unique background colors
46 unique font sizes
39 unique z-indices
https://t.co/qyl4Bt1i5x
PWA *incrementally generates* ~30 KB CSS that handles all themes and writing directions.
735 rules
740 selectors
757 declarations
730 unique declarations
0 media queries
11 unique colors
32 unique background colors
15 unique font sizes
7 unique z-indices
https://t.co/w7oNG5KUkJ
The legacy site's CSS is what happens when hundreds of people directly write CSS over many years. Specificity wars, redundancy, a house of cards that can't be fixed. The result is extremely inefficient and error-prone styling that punishes users and developers.
The PWA's CSS is generated on-demand by a JS framework that manages styles and outputs "atomic CSS". The framework can enforce strict constraints and perform optimisations, which is why the CSS is so much smaller and safer. Style conflicts and unbounded CSS growth are avoided.