Read on Twitter
THREAD - Looking at my upcoming transfers raises an important issue for me - something that has worked for me in the seasons I've come top 1k - doubling/tripling against ownership. It's a high risk/reward strategy and, for me, overlooked... Let me explain, and I'd love feedback!
The basic premise is that if most 'good' players own a particular player, I try to consider them as just a blank spot in my team. So for this season, Lundstram, Soyuncu, Vardy and Abraham are all non-players. Everyone (nearly) has them, so I don't benefit from their returns.
However, it's easy to get into the mindset of 'not wanting to double up' on, for instance, Leicester defence. But in reality, everyone has Soyuncu, so if Leicester keep a clean sheet, you don't really benefit. You need a second Lei defender to benefit.
Another example, which @fpl_tactician got me thinking about, is Chelsea attack. Most have Mount and Tammy. I think Chelsea will score lots in next 4. Therefore if I want to benefit from that, I need a third Chelsea attacker. But triple Chelsea attack?! Really?!...
This method of discounting highly owned players as 'blanks' means I have the courage to make a bold move because, in effect, Pulisic becomes my only Chelsea player. Equally, it makes me want Chilwell NOT Maddison, as I really think Lei defence will perform and I want one.
This might just be re-hashed shields/swords but I don't see it stated this way often. As I say, it's worked really well in seasons I've come top 1k. There is risk though - this season KDB/Sterling double and double Liverpool defence has not worked and my rank has suffered...
. @FFScout_Joe asks Meet the Managers what's the difference between top 10/20k and top 1k. For me (and I'm no expert!) it has been this. If you think something, back yourself, be bold and don't hedge using players everyone else has - they are basically not scoring for you.
Good luck all!
