In terms of latest developments, the cumulative points spreadsheet a couple of guys have presented on FFS is a brilliant tool for analysis, and I will attempt to use this as well to aid my analysis. Note that this portion of the series will be significantly larger than the last, as I will be comparing trends in this second period to the first 7 games, as well as going to town a little on possible tactical changes and I'll include a bit of stats to back it up (no tables I promise).
The stats/lineups/tactical quotations that I use in these series of posts will be based on data from Whoscored, Football-Lineups, Transfermarkt, the aforementioned spreadsheet for FPL data, and if I need heat maps, Squawka. There is a "Long Story Short" Version at the end of the article. The "End" button on your keyboard is useful here.
I'll focus a bit on the midtable teams to relegation candidates first, so do take a look at those while I finish up the rest. Updated 16 July (Finished Liverpool)
The Run up to Winter (GW8 - 15)
Foreword:
I won't be able to categorise the teams as well as the last part of the series, but I'm gonna attempt to anyway. There might be some inconsistencies with the teams involved in each category, and rest assured I'll highlight them and attempt to classify them as one-off results or whether the writing was on the wall for these teams in the first place.
Champions League Commitments - Chelsea, Arsenal, United, City (Completing)
Europa League Playas and Champions League hopefuls - Liverpool, Spurs, Everton (Completing Next)
Liverpool - 1-0 (RDG), 2-2 (eve), 1-1 (NEW), 1-1 (che), 3-0 (WIG), 0-0 (swa), 1-2 (tot), 1-0 (SOU)
Well the Clean sheet pattern is definitely evident in this run of fixtures, although looking at the fixtures alone would probably "tell" you to rotate Liverpool H/A, with no one likely to do so. The first 7 games of Liverpool's season highlighted the emergence of 17-year old Raheem Sterling while confirming that Luiz Suarez scores against anybody. With their Europa League fixtures starting 2 weeks before EPL started, they stuttered initially with relatively hard fixtures (City, Arsenal and United) but at least they won their winnable games.
In terms of FPL, beyond CS points and Sterling + Suarez, there weren't a lot to shout about. Kudos to anyone who had the balls to invest in Liverpool defense early in the season, lots usually wouldn't invest in expensive defenders with Stoke and West Ham players on the rise etc.
Tactically, Liverpool were really about attempting to find the most suitable fit for Joe Allen in midfield. Lucas, Sahin, Gerrard and even Henderson were tried but Gerrard brought the most relative success. Liverpool did have a "cookie cutter" formation just like Spurs and Everton: Their 4-2-3-1 usually entails their front 4 to be as mobile as possible, but I'm sure that's common knowledge already. What is relevant to FPL however, is the emergence of Andre Wisdom due to the various injuries to Johnson (spasm), Enrique (knee) and Skrtel (illness). As a result, Wisdom has picked up on Liverpool's CS run, while Enrique has been placed OoP whether a wingback of a 3-5-2 or a 4-2-3-1.
Conclusion: What people didn't know about Liverpool was that (A) beyond Borini and Suarez they didn't have any other orthodox striker due to Carroll being loaned out and (B) Sterling
Everton - 1-1 (qpr), 2-2 (LIV), 2-2 (ful), 2-1 (SUN), 1-2 (rdg), 1-1 (NOR), 1-1 (ARS), 1-1 (mci)
Very weird period for Everton, considering they didn't have any cup distractions. Drawing against the top sides were understandable, but a win against Sunderland aside they completely underperformed compared to their blistering early season form. FPL wise there was only one constant here: Mr Microphone Head, Maroune Fellaini.
While Moyes in this period didn't change anything tactically, personnel did change quite a bit in midfield especially, but there were players who were constants: Fellaini (bar that missed Norwich game for picking up 5 yellows) behind Jelavic up front, and Pienaar on the left (bar the red he picked up against QPR). Beyond that, none of the other players performed FPL wise, and I'll attempt to go through what happened exactly.
The first thing to note throughout this period was the lack of clean sheets. Liverpool, Arsenal and City are fine to concede to, and while Pienaar picked up a red against qpr and Fellaini didn't play the Norwich game due to suspension, the remaining games were more than winnable. Everton actually dominated against Fulham from start to finish, while mid-week internationals took their toll on the defeat to Reading, where they conceded a penalty and couldn't recover. Even Everton's win over Sunderland came from a set piece, where their other goals were either conceded from set pieces (Reading, Norwich) or errors (Reading winner).
So 2 things established so far: Everton kept their system and only adjusted slightly due to injuries/suspensions, and that Everton were quite error prone, especially if they had mid-week internationals before. So the (best) conclusion so far is that with a side that keeps things largely the same, go with the hot hand, whether in attack or defense. Watch for weaknesses to set pieces too.
Tottenham - 2-4 (CHE), 2-1 (sou), 0-1 (WIG), 2-1 (mci), 2-5 (ars), 3-1 (WHU), 2-1 (LIV), 3-0 (ful)
Spurs' ascension here was halted with the Europa League fixtures and their League Cup participation taking its toll on their players. Their 7 game unbeaten streak was stopped by tough games against Chelsea, Man City and Arsenal. An interesting note though, is that they were only shut out ONLY ONCE over this period (and the past 7 games too), causing the entire midfield to provide attacking returns despite suffering defeats.
*Edit* In terms of Spurs' fixtures, Spurs actually did OK initially with handling their Europa League fixtures. In the previous part, Spurs' first spell of 3 games in a week post international break resulted in 2 wins and a draw. The second time round however, it knocked Spurs completely off guard, which included the losses against Norwich in the League Cup (where Bale scored) and their 1-0 loss to Wigan. So with a team with "relative" depth, you'd probably look at hot hands instead.
Bar the Wigan game, Bale was obviously the most consistent, but Dempsey, Lennon and even Huddlestone provided some returns, while up front it was Defoe who got points for scoring and assisting too. Defensively though, Spurs kept only a single CS in the first 15 games, while none of the defenders consistently scored or assisted (FPL-wise).
OK now that we have laid out the source of their FPL points, we can examine how the different types of players contributed towards Spurs' goalscoring streak. 2012/13 was AVB's first spell in charge as a Spurs manager, so it was understandable that he'd experiment with different personnel at different positions, but by game 6 he had probably found his best combination: Vertonghen at left back, and ball-player (Sandro/Huddlestone) and a ball-bringer (Dembele) as the 2 players in the pivot, Bale and Lennon wide, and Dempsey behind Defoe.
With an arsenal of attacking players that can score or assist, the most important question to answer is: Which player(s) should we hold on to given a certain strategy, and when to let go? The answer to most would be quite obvious, but I would like to justify it so that we can use this as rationale for FPL 13/14: We buy players that delivers the most points. Players that can score goals as well as provide assists. Hence, we examine stats that bring about these returns: Shots (up to you whether on target or not) are a step away from goals, while key passes (or accurate through balls/long balls as Whoscored would use) can be used as a rough guide for assists.
The most obvious player stands out in these metrics: Bale (Most shots per game whether home or away, as well as most key passes home and away), while Lennon is second in the Key Pass department H/A and Defoe is miles ahead of the rest in terms of Shots generated. So the "Action required" would be to keep Bale for life (unless injured) and to pick one of Lennon or Defoe to play every week regardless. Sounds simple right?
The answer is yes, it is too simple. There are flaws to this method of identifying FPL targets: The data I'm using at the moment are across the season, and might not be as accurate/clear after say 7 games in a season. Key passes and shots might not lead to goals, just as they could come from forcing a bad cross to taking random shots from distance. Up to this point, to most veterans
- Pick stats that stand out rather than are "just ahead of the pack". Bale's shots per game is 5, while he creates 2.3 chances per game. 2nd place in each department respectively are Defoe (3.2) and Lennon (2). The drop after those two is huge.
- Pick stats that apply both home and away. While Bale is irresistably consistent, in the shooting department Clint Dempsey can rival Defoe at home (3.7 to 3.3), but Defoe shoots more away (2.6 to 1.7). Hence, it's probably worth a lot more picking up Defoe if Spurs play teams that have shit keepers next.
- Let them go when you see these stats being rivalled by other players. This might take a bit of homework, but you only really need to do this after every 4 games or so, and if you know how to do it (Whoscored makes miracles here) quickly you'd only take about 2 minutes to check and see if your player is worth keeping.
Conclusion: With teams that have a plethora of attacking options, stats are a good guide. Stats are especially reliable if the particular team sticks to a formation consistently (such as Spurs).
The 2011/12 relegation survivors - QPR, Villa, Wigan
Wigan - 1-2 (swa), 2-1 (WHU), 1-0 (tot), 1-2 (WBA), 0-3 (liv), 3-2 (RDG), 0-2 (MCI), 0-3 (new)
What stands out in this run of results are the lack of draws. Wigan either went for it or lost it completely. This would probably involve state analysis for Wigan which is something I'm not very keen on going into, so I'll start with the macro patters first. Despite the huge amount of losses, it was at least an improvement from the first 7 where they only got 1 win. FPL wise, the highest mover over this period was Aroune Kone, who averaged 3 points per game anyway, which amounted to a goal and an assist in this period. Beausejour also got 3 assists in this period, so while we won't see a large part of this Wigan side in the BPL any time soon, I'll at least quickly touch on a system that no other team consistently uses - the 3-4-1-2.
The reason I'm going about Martinez's system is because lots are asking questions of him at Everton, and I suppose this would have been a good time to at least take a look at how he uses it. Whoscored has classified Wigan as a side that consistently attacks down the left, emphasises on aggressive tackling and short passing/possession football. This is partly justified by the contrasts between the 2 wingbacks in the "4" - Emerson Boyce is more known for his aerial prowess, while Beausejour averages 2 accurate crosses per game. Who knows how many actual crosses he attempts. He picked up 3 assists in that period, equalling Kone's returns, so I can imagine Martinez using Baines about the same way.
The hard tackling bit is somewhat true, just not applicable to all his players. Wigan's SIGNIFICANTLY most aggressive players have been their central mids James McCarthy and James McArthur, who rank just outside the "most tackles" list according to Whoscored. I can see Martinez emphasising harder tackling on Osman and Gibson, I'm just wondering whether Martinez will buy another in the transfer window as backups for them (I'm assuming Fellaini will be used up front here).
There's also the fact that Martinez's wins were either clean sheets or going ahead and staying ahead. Wigan's only "come from behind" win was the 3-2 Reading win, but beyond that Wigan have never won conceding first. Wigan also were pretty good at not losing from winning positions, which might translate onto Everton next season.
Conclusion: Watch Everton's game mentality. Buy Everton if they are fast starters, if not stay away. Also investment in left flank is very encouraged, whoever plays there.
Aston Villa - 0-1 (ful), 1-1 (NOR), 1-0 (sun), 2-3 (MUN), 0-5 (mci), 0-0 (ARS), 1-0 (RDG), 1-1 (qpr)
Looking at the results, I never recalled Villa being this resolute (conceding lots to the Manchester duo can be forgiven for being excluded from this run), but at least they showed signs of improvement. They were pretty fearless and gave Man United a run for their money too, but it would've been really, really hard to pick up on returns for this side, scoring 6 goals over this period meaning that Christian Benteke wasn't even remotely an option yet compared to the likes of West Brom or Southampton, while defensively they did show that they were a lot better at home than away.
QPR - 1-1 (EVE), 0-1 (ars), 1-1 (RDG), 0-1 (stk), 1-3 (SOU), 1-3 (mun), 0-0 (sun), 1-1 (AVL)
I dreaded looking this up on Football-Lineups. While his 2-striker system failed over the first 6 Gameweeks, he shifted to 4-5-1 variants in the following period, where he dropped one of his strikers (obviously) but more importantly, Park Ji Sung. The winger had been trialed in the center of midfield and on the wings but failed to garner results, and Hughes quickly looked to the attacking four of Granero, SWP, Taarabt and Hoilett to support the lone striker instead of relying on experience, resulting in a 4-1-4-1 formation.
Aston Villa - 0-1 (ful), 1-1 (NOR), 1-0 (sun), 2-3 (MUN), 0-5 (mci), 0-0 (ARS), 1-0 (RDG), 1-1 (qpr)
Looking at the results, I never recalled Villa being this resolute (conceding lots to the Manchester duo can be forgiven for being excluded from this run), but at least they showed signs of improvement. They were pretty fearless and gave Man United a run for their money too, but it would've been really, really hard to pick up on returns for this side, scoring 6 goals over this period meaning that Christian Benteke wasn't even remotely an option yet compared to the likes of West Brom or Southampton, while defensively they did show that they were a lot better at home than away.
In the previous part of the series I did mention Villa having a young backline and no one really firing. Results wise they didn't really improve here, and we'll see more on Paul Lambert's significant tactical changes in the 3rd period (over winter), where he shifted from 4 at the back to 5 at the back. Without midweek games (bar Swindon) you couldn't fault a lack of fitness, but with the increase of difficulty of fixtures from the last period (they played 5 of the top 6 between GW 11 and 18) but at least the results remained about the same (a win and a couple of draws) which hopefully was up to Lambert's expectations.
Throughout this period (and the previous one) Lambert experimented between 4-4-2 and 4-5-1 variants, largely being unsuccessful. I believe I have its justifications in my tactics blog somewhere, but at the moment I'll quickly touch on when Villa IMPROVED. The turning point you could argue was their first away win at Sunderland where Villa experimented with Weimann on the wing. The 3-striker system stuck with Villa until the end of this period. Lambert then improved on this formation by attempting to rotate Brett Holman with this trio, and to be honest it worked to relative success, which showed in 5 match unbeaten run post Man City.
Conclusion: Mid table team strategic change. I've reiterated this for a little bit now, but those teams included a SINGLE consistent goalscorer while in this case, you wait for the hot hand. I REPEAT, YOU WAIT.
QPR - 1-1 (EVE), 0-1 (ars), 1-1 (RDG), 0-1 (stk), 1-3 (SOU), 1-3 (mun), 0-0 (sun), 1-1 (AVL)
I dreaded looking this up on Football-Lineups. While his 2-striker system failed over the first 6 Gameweeks, he shifted to 4-5-1 variants in the following period, where he dropped one of his strikers (obviously) but more importantly, Park Ji Sung. The winger had been trialed in the center of midfield and on the wings but failed to garner results, and Hughes quickly looked to the attacking four of Granero, SWP, Taarabt and Hoilett to support the lone striker instead of relying on experience, resulting in a 4-1-4-1 formation.
Unfortunately that experiment didn't work out either, and when QPR attempted a 4-2-3-1 with Diakite and Faurlin in center midfield instead, that didn't change things either and ultimately cost Hughes his job. The reason I'd like to put more effort into this side is because Hughes is now managing Stoke, while Harry Redknapp has every chance of leaving QPR when he wants to join a side that wins "the sack race" come BPL 13/14.
So with the first theme being switching between 4-4-2 and 4-5-1 variants, the second trend I'd like to highlight is the rotation of centerbacks. Hughes' tenure for QPR's 12/13 campaign, despite only lasting 12 games, rotated between Anton Ferdinand, Clint Hill, Ryan Nelsen and Stephen Mbia, which puts a HUGE flag over Stoke's defenders, given that they've just bought 2 centerbacks in addition to the existing Huth and Shawcross. Might stick to Stoke fullbacks then for the opening fixtures.
The promoted sides - Reading, West Ham, Southampton
In this period, (late October to early December) most teams had other competitions to think about, and this is the period where we assess how these competitions have affected their form. Southampton and Reading had to deal with the league cup in late October (between GW9 and 10).
Reading - 0-1 (liv), 3-3 (FUL), 1-1 (qpr), 0-0 (NOR), 2-1 (EVE), 2-3 (wig), 0-1 (avl), 3-4 (MUN)
Offensively, Reading recovered from their really bad start (3 points in the opening 7 games and averaging 8 goals in that period) to register 3 draws and a win, while scoring against almost against any opposition. There were various factors that contributed to this trend, having a relatively large squad for this season (not many knew that Mcdermott went to town with shopping when they got promoted) and his transition from a lone striker system with Guthrie behind Pog to a 4-4-2 (courtesy of transfermarkt and football-lineups) contributed offensively to their improvement. Their defense was still abysmal though.
Other noteworthy observations were Jay Tabb's run in center midfield alongside Leigertwood and Robson-Kanu's stint on the wings at the expense of McCleary, as well as Shorey's crosses and massive amount of key passes being picked up (he got 4 assists in this period). McDermott's fondness of going with the hot-hand striker also was very noticeable in this period. He'd usually sub off the striker that was less on form, and if things don't change, he'd keep the off-form striker on the bench. Pog lost form by GW7, so Hunt came in alongside Roberts, while Adam Le Fondre was a sub. Then, while Roberts maintained his form, Hunt eventually was dropped for Le Fondre, who remained in the side until December and so on. Roberts also lost form in December eventually and Hunt came back in to the side as well.
Conclusion: With Brian McDermott, if we ever see him in the prem again, expect rotation up front. Sorry for the unnecessary effort in talking about a side and manager who we probably won't see in a while. Also with future budget/promoted teams, if we see a manager pull a McDermott, let's be at least cautious with our budget assets and be sensitive to their form.
Southampton - 1-4 (whu), 1-2 (TOT), 0-2 (wba), 1-1 (SWA), 3-1 (qpr), 2-0 (NEW), 1-1 (NOR), 0-1 (liv)
Nigel Adkins' side had plenty of offensive potential. Continuing from the previous part of the series, I did mention that Ricky Lambert's performances were the only ones worth mentioning from Southampton, but the Saints just couldn't convert their goals into wins. Lambert's returns suffered in this period as they conceded the same, alarming amount of goals while scoring even less (9 goals compared to 12 in the opening 7) and as a result, Lambert's price went back to par (6.0) at the end of this period.
Many of their results were quite expected though, losing to mid table sides away from home (WHU, WBA) while also losing to relatively strong sides at home (TOT). They did managed to halt their poor form though with their 3-1 win away to QPR, and this coincided with Nigel Adkins' use of an extra defensive midfielder alongside Morgan Schneiderlin in midfield. Enter Jack Cork. In this period, Adkins actually experimented using Davis, Ward-Prowse and do Prado alongside Schneiderlin in midfield but to no avail, but he finally got it right, moving Ramirez centrally in from the wings, playing Cork alongside Schneiderlin in midfield, and using Puncheon on the right wing with Lallana on the other (sacrificing Jay Rodriguez up front).
The result? a 1-1 home draw against Swansea (somewhat expected) followed by a 3-1 away win against QPR. Offensively the points also returned, with Lambert racking up 2 goals and an assist in that mini-period while Puncheon, Southampton's most offensive midfielder (by position) also got a goal and 2 assists himself. Defensively they were also shit throughout, keeping only 1 CS in that period, nor contributing offensively consistently.
Conclusion: Nigel Adkins is definitely at least a decently astute manager, willing to change his midfield a bit to at least proactively solve his side's problems. I wish him all the best at Reading, but what we'd like to learn from his side that with a side full of decent attacking potential (with a consistently starting goalscorer) we should look out for any tactical improvements decently that garner results.
West Ham - 4-1 (SOU), 1-2 (wig), 0-0 (MCI), 1-0 (new), 1-1 (STK), 1-3 (tot), 0-1 (mun), 3-1 (CHE)
Being the best performing out of the 3 promoted sides, and were 8th pre-GW8. The previous section had already highlighted their difference in their form, and it continued into this second period, picking up home wins against Southampton and Chelsea while earning credible draws against Man City. Their away results also were as bad (losing to Wigan, Spurs and Man United).
While West Ham were at least doing really well by their own standards, in term of FPL they were relatively inconsistent. The side's previous hot hand Kevin Nolan picked up only 2 goals, pen taker Mark Noble only also grabbed 2 goals (both in 1 game) and the defense didn't contribute much offensively throughout, with the side only keeping 2 Clean Sheets during this period, which frankly was a lot better than expected for a promoted side anyway.
Standouts from this side included George McCartney, who was an able replacement for the Joey O'Brien, who picked up an injury against QPR in GW6, while James Tomkins did so-so coming in for 4.0 right back Guy Demel, who was also in and out of the side due to his thigh injury.
The real key to West Ham's form, however, were both fullback's timing in returning from injury. O'Brien took Demel's right back spot while McCartney stayed at left back, which coincided with West Ham's consecutive CS in GW 10 and 11, as well as his equaliser against Stoke in GW12. How O'Brien's goal threat increased so significantly I might look into later, but owners of guaranteed starters such as Jaaskelainen, Collins and Reid would have at least been somewhat rewarded over this period for sticking.
Conclusion: West Ham's play style definitely warranted consistency in terms of results, but FPL wise with a consistently delivering team, it's better to stick to defense rather than attack, due to the fact that chances are you wouldn't field budget attackers unless they show trends like strong Home form or being a "flat track bully". In other words, with a budget team that consistently delivers results, grab defense over attack over that period.
The 11/12 Overachievers - Swansea, Fulham, Newcastle
Swansea - 2-1 (WIG), 0-1 (mci), 1-1 (CHE), 1-1 (sou), 2-1 (new), 0-0 (LIV), 3-1 (WBA), 2-0 (ars)
This period saw Swansea picking up their form again after their mini-slump, hitting 4 wins in this period, delivering decently in a run that included Chelsea, Arsenal and Man City, as well as their league cup scalp against Liverpool between the City and Chelsea games.
The MOST notable change in this period, starting exactly from the 2-1 Wigan win (they had a 2-2 draw the game before) was Laudrup's decision to drop Danny Graham and playing Michu up front. Pablo Hernandez also got a run in the side at Dyer's expense, which showed significant home form (3 games out of 4 getting more than 6 points). Now it's a bit weird to mention this due to the fact that Michu and Hernandez were both taking up midfield slots in FPL, but running 2 Swansea players where one is an OoP striker might make this viable in the future. I did manage to run Dyer and Michu in early season I believe, so do expect this "mid-OoPmid" strategy to be part of the FPL 13/14 arsenal.
A trend that most didn't pick up in this period (which was noted by some during the winter break) is that defensively, Swansea were VERY VERY insistent on keeping it tight at the back, never conceding more than 1 goal away from home throughout this period, which could have spelt lots of save points for their keeper. Unfortunately, Vorm did get injured against Man City in this run, and Tremmel did get some decent save points, which was pretty value for money considering his starting price (4.0).
Conclusion: Significant tactical changes (especially involving form goalscorers being made OoP) do affect a side's results, and hence their FPL potential. Noticing this change is probably one of the keys to reviving a bandwagon early, and secondary strategies (mid-OoPmid) can also be utilised, though hard to spot. I'd have to attribute their defensive improvement to a combination of Laudrup and Swansea's play style, whether it's a one-off only time will tell. In the meantime, we can only look out for the same to occur again.
Fulham - 1-0 (AVL), 3-3 (rdg), 2-2 (EVE), 3-3 (ars), 1-3 (SUN), 0-1 (sto), 0-0 (che), 0-3 (tot)
In terms of results, it's really, really hard to look for a trend in Fulham's games here. While the H/A trend was applicable early season, they were very inconsistent for their home "winnable" games while away from home they were even worse. In FPL terms, the whole squad literally gave flash in the pan returns (Riise's CS + Assist against Villa, Berbatov and Kacaniklic's superb returns against Arsenal, Baird's goal) and in hindsight, Jekyll and Hyde sides really aren't worth investing in.
What we should be looking for, however, are the symptoms of a Jekyll and Hyde side. What did Martin Jol do that made Fulham so low scoring one game and drawing 3-3 against Arsenal the next? The best I can come up with so far, is that keeping the same back 4, Jol rotated his forwards (bar Berbatov). The rumours about Ruiz and Berbatov only started surfacing around Christmas, but it was definitely no coincidence that Ruiz playing between the midfield and attack did help Fulham attack a lot better (Everton Arsenal and Sunderland games) compared to when Berbatov partnered Petric or Rodallega up front (Stoke, Chelsea, Tottenham, Villa, Reading).
A quick note on Kacaniklic, who was brilliant in the first 7 games but disappeared randomly after: He featured in the 2-2 draw with Fulham (GW7), but in between GWs 7 and 8 he was featured in Sweden's 2 WC qualifying matches, which caused him to be rested against Villa. After coming back against Arsenal, he was equally unfortunate in picking up an injury against Sunderland, not featuring until early December. So with young and internationally recognised players, do watch their fitness, especially in a midtable side.
A note on Bryan Ruiz as well. Ruiz came on in the 58th minute against Reading, in addition to the games above, and scored in the 61st and got an assist in the 77th, which was the explosive start to his wonderful run in the side. He also picked up an injury against Sunderland and did not feature until January. Please keep Bryan Ruiz in mind for FPL 13/14.
Conclusion: Tactical Changes. It seems to run quite consistently with midtable sides that revolve around a consistent goalscorer (Berba in this case, Michu in the previous).
Newcastle - 1-1 (sun), 2-1 (WBA), 1-1 (liv), 0-1 (WHU), 1-2 (SWA), 0-2 (sou), 1-2 (sto), 3-0 (WIG)
Wow I didn't realise Newcastle's form dropped that badly. The scoring and conceding ratios stayed the same, so I've got a feeling we'll have to dig a bit deeper into this, but basically they weren't doing enough to beat teams in and around them, despite the relatively favourable fixtures. Ba's form didn't suffer however, picking up goals against West Brom, Swansea, Wigan and Stoke in this period. Cisse's returns were still sporadic, not justifying his price tag (and largely ignored anyway).
With the stats out of the way, there were plenty of things to look at in terms of attempting to justify Newcastle's results. The most glaring issue was Newcastle's games in the Europa League coupled with their injuries. They had games before West Brom, West Ham, Southampton, and post-Wigan as well. Looking at their lineups in Football-Lineups make things even more baffling with Tiote picking up red against Sunderland while Coloccini got sent off against Liverpool, which started their 4 match losing streak.
While Tiote could have been covered by Perch and Jonas, it was Jonas' and Cabaye's loss to injuries in the West Ham game that was the last straw, with Tiote and Anita unable to do much in midfield. Newcastle were really, really unlucky with injuries and fixtures.
Conclusion: With squads that don't have much depth, expect losses (or at least leaked goals) with injuries to key personnel. Probably common knowledge anyway, but good to confirm.
The rest - Sunderland, Norwich, Stoke, West Brom
Sunderland - 1-1 (NEW), 0-0 (stk), 0-1 (AVL), 1-2 (eve), 3-1 (ful), 2-4 (WBA), 0-0 (QPR), 1-2 (nor)
Sunderland had a beautiful run of fixtures over this period and failed to fully capitalise on it, although this team was really, really watched upon due to their upcoming DGW in GW16. The side were another Jekyll and Hyde team that fluctuated between low scoring and high scoring, really not producing a lot of significant returns. 2CS for the price you pat, combined with 3 blanks for their strikers over the 8 games really hasn't been investment worthy, with quite literally their only worthwhile investment, Cuellar (4.5) delivering in the 2 games Sunderland picked up those CS, aided by a red card in the win against Fulham.
Studying Sunderland would be slightly tricky, considering that they hardly deviate from their variants of 4-5-1. Perhaps it is the fact that Martin O'Neill opted to rotate players instead of changing up his formations that has led to this slump. The midfield center 3 was always Sessegnon plus two of Larsson, Colback, Cattermole and Gardner occasionally, who had Bardsley helping out at right back when Gardner was in CM. The wings weren't exactly the most stable either, with Johnson, Larsson and McClean being rotated too, the former 2 starting slightly more.
Only a more detailed analysis would be able to tell us how Sunderland failed to deliver points in this beautiful run of fixtures, but for now I'll have to conclude that for punting on a player in an off-form side, go cheap and try and play that player as much as you can over that period. Just expect explosive points instead of consistent 5-6 pointers.
Norwich - 1-0 (ARS), 1-1(avl), 1-0 (STK), 0-0(rdg), 1-0 (MUN), 1-1 (eve), 1-1 (sou), 2-1 (SUN)
The fixtures didn't exactly fall kindly for Norwich. Their home games were relative toughies and their winnable games were away, so it was kinda hard to foresee investment in this side until the fixtures eased out. Those that did, however, were rewarded, especially those that picked up Bassong's immense run throughout this period. Picking a defender prior to this run was also exceptionally tough, they had conceded 5 against Fulham, 5 against Liverpool and 4 against Chelsea going into this run so something MUST have changed in between.
And there was. Courtesy of Football-Lineups, the most obvious change between the 2 periods were the center midfield pairing of Howson and Johnson being split, replacing either of them with Norwegian Alex Tettey, which made a bigger impression on me initially when commentators shouted his name on TV for his shot against Arsenal (which sounded like the singular term for boobs) than his actual impact on the team.
Tettey's (lol) debut against Chelsea playing DM (whoscored can back me up on that one) wasn't spectacular, but when shifted into the more advanced of the midfield duo against Arsenal, the results showed. He doesn't create a lot offensively, but he rarely gives away the ball (his pass % is higher than the 70s consistently which is brilliant for a box-to-box CM) and he takes shots when he sees fit. Granted most of them have been off target, but at least he's a bigger presence than either Johnson or Howson, who are great chance creators but aren't as direct as Tettey.
It's slightly odd that Lambert decided to use Tettey as the more defensive CM away from home (more tackles, long balls, clearances etc) reaping not-so desirable results (Villa, reading, Chelsea, etc.) but when used as the slightly more adventurous CM, we see Norwich deliver results (All the home games, I'm serious I looked them up). The wingers also showed phases from Lambert's early season habits of playing a CM in LM but eventually settled down with a winger instead. (Surman - Johnson - Pilkington).
Conclusion: Home/Away form can be somewhat justified through tactical changes, especially if it involves a debut of a new player in a team's so-called "spine". While Tettey wouldn't be an excellent FPL prospect himself (see Jack Cork for Southampton) it at least provides a decent indicator for people to "watch" whether that team will have a turn of results, and hence investment.
Stoke - 2-4 (mun), 0-0 (SUN), 0-1 (nor), 1-0 (QPR), 1-1 (whu), 1-0 (FUL), 2-1 (NEW), 1-0 (wba)
Stoke haven't had the best of starts, which is understandable. Post Man United game though their fixtures were theoretically really good, and investors got their money's worth out of it. Their home form was immense, registering CSs against Sunderland QPR and Fulham while away from home they weren't bad either. Most of the results were expected, considering that from their modest 45 point haul and with only 1 significant signing (Adam) you'd expect Stoke to win games via shutouts rather than outscoring opposition.
FPL wise, defensively anyone who invested in any of the back 4 + Begovic would've profited. Offensively Walters, Adam and Crouch got 2 goals each, which separated them from the rest of Stoke's attacking players really, which weren't a surprise. The lineups over this period didn't change at all either (in terms of starters anyway): Cameron/ShawX/Huth/Wilkinson at the back, NZonzi and Whelan/Whitehead in CM/DM, Walters, Adam, Crouch and Etherington/Kightly ahead of the two. Take your pick really. Since the relatively quality attacking players only got 2 goals over this period, it's kind of hard to identify a trend anyway, which means that they're "pick and stick" material, which fit this run of games really, considering opposition.
Conclusion: I've spent time in previous teams highlighting that a change of system, generally, in a team losing form in most cases will garner positive results, which highlights the abilities of managers in a particular team. This is a case of a team in the opposite spectrum: A team that "doesn't change its winning formula" will stay consistently, umm, well. Expected defensive and offensive returns as a result. The drawback of this policy? Well we'll wait for post January for that.
West Brom - 1-2 (mci), 1-2 (NEW), 2-0 (SOU), 2-1 (wig), 2-1 (CHE), 4-2 (sun), 1-3 (swa), 0-1 (STK) - I promise this is the last one
In my tactical blog I had rated Steve Clarke really, really highly for making decisively reactive formation changes through mid game substitutions instead of getting more bodies up there just for the sake of it. Results wise, their early season form was replicated pretty well here, pretty much delivering the same amount of wins, losses, goals and goals let through.
FPL wise, the returns were abysmal at the back. The defence got about 10-15 points over this period (courtesy of the chart mentioned at the top of the page) while Ben Foster's groin injury didn't make the GK selection any easier. Up front though, Shane Long, Peter Odemwingie and Romelu Lukaku's returns were consistent, but always plagued by their lack of 90 minutes games. The entire midfield hit about 20 points (over GW8-15, it's not much) despite being rotated a lot in this period.
While Steve Clarke's side have been very reactive, one thing is relatively consistent: They are rarely shutout, only being shut out twice over 15 games, scoring 25 goals in the process. That is overperformance for a supposedly mid-table team.
OK from what I can observe from their lineups, there are a few things to take note here, but note that this is for West Brom uniquely only. I'm only putting extra effort into West Brom's system because of the fact that (A) they did not change their manager over the summer and are likely to improve and (B) I am a huge fan of Steve Clarke. Firstly, Clarke rarely lets his front 4 go for 90 minutes. All of his player substitutions have been for the front 4, unless something special happens (Like Odem's red against Fulham), because he relies on his front 4 to do a lot of running. which is something Long and Lukaku aren't strangers to.
So let's start stating tactical observations:
So. WHAT HAVE WE LEARNT? We have learnt that a tactically apt manager such as Steve Clarke is really, really nice to watch as a neutral, but completely unpredictable as an FPL go-to guy. His shit players will look somewhat attractive, his not-so-shit players might not even start. Hence, don't expect Anelka to be the next Michu. That butterfly celebration can only be appealing for so long.
RDG: Brian McDermott rotates his strikers. Doubt we'll see much of him though.
SOU: Teams with huge attacking potential only need a slight tweak, which we should look out for.
WHU: With a budget team that delivers results, go with defense over attack.
SWA: Sides with 1 consistent goalscorer will be affected by OoP movements/significant tactical changes.
FUL: Identical to Swansea, it was Ruiz that improved Berbatov's form, making Berba the lone striker.
NEW: They were hit worst by injuries and suspensions in this period, and without depth, expect goals to be conceded.
SUN: An off-form side that makes peripheral changes instead of tactical ones will suffer. Punt on cheaper players, and expect explosive returns.
NOR: New personnel within a spine (Alex Tettey) will affect results. Watch for Home/Away patterns.
STO: Don't change a winning formula. They did it well.
WBA: Steve Clarke is tactically really flexible. Buy at your own risk.
QPR: Mark Hughes uses 4-4-2 or 4-5-1, but when they fail he gives it about 5-6 games before he switches.
AVL: Similar to SWA and FUL. However, FPL investment should be put ON HOLD until a hot-hand striker is found.
WIG: Watch Roberto Martinez's team mentality. Buy Everton if they GO AHEAD in matches initially. Invest in left flank most likely.
So with the first theme being switching between 4-4-2 and 4-5-1 variants, the second trend I'd like to highlight is the rotation of centerbacks. Hughes' tenure for QPR's 12/13 campaign, despite only lasting 12 games, rotated between Anton Ferdinand, Clint Hill, Ryan Nelsen and Stephen Mbia, which puts a HUGE flag over Stoke's defenders, given that they've just bought 2 centerbacks in addition to the existing Huth and Shawcross. Might stick to Stoke fullbacks then for the opening fixtures.
That's all the trends I can spot for QPR for now, and while his tactical changes MIGHT work for other clubs due to possessing better players, at least we know that Hughes gives his system about 5-6 games before he shakes it up.
Right, time for the quick note on Redknapp then. His 3 games in this period involved a slight upturn in form (courtesy of the new manager effect), but he largely stuck to Hughes' 4-2-3-1, the key being actually sticking to his two centerbacks (Nelsen + Hill) and revolving his front 4 around Adel Taarabt. I only have 3 games from here to work with, so I'll mention Redknapp's penchants and peeves in the next section.
Right, time for the quick note on Redknapp then. His 3 games in this period involved a slight upturn in form (courtesy of the new manager effect), but he largely stuck to Hughes' 4-2-3-1, the key being actually sticking to his two centerbacks (Nelsen + Hill) and revolving his front 4 around Adel Taarabt. I only have 3 games from here to work with, so I'll mention Redknapp's penchants and peeves in the next section.
Conclusion: Mark Hughes rotates his centerbacks. He is able to rotate between 4-4-2 and 4-5-1 variants, and he usually gives his team about 5-6 games of bad results before he switches systems. The end.
The promoted sides - Reading, West Ham, Southampton
In this period, (late October to early December) most teams had other competitions to think about, and this is the period where we assess how these competitions have affected their form. Southampton and Reading had to deal with the league cup in late October (between GW9 and 10).
Reading - 0-1 (liv), 3-3 (FUL), 1-1 (qpr), 0-0 (NOR), 2-1 (EVE), 2-3 (wig), 0-1 (avl), 3-4 (MUN)
Offensively, Reading recovered from their really bad start (3 points in the opening 7 games and averaging 8 goals in that period) to register 3 draws and a win, while scoring against almost against any opposition. There were various factors that contributed to this trend, having a relatively large squad for this season (not many knew that Mcdermott went to town with shopping when they got promoted) and his transition from a lone striker system with Guthrie behind Pog to a 4-4-2 (courtesy of transfermarkt and football-lineups) contributed offensively to their improvement. Their defense was still abysmal though.
Other noteworthy observations were Jay Tabb's run in center midfield alongside Leigertwood and Robson-Kanu's stint on the wings at the expense of McCleary, as well as Shorey's crosses and massive amount of key passes being picked up (he got 4 assists in this period). McDermott's fondness of going with the hot-hand striker also was very noticeable in this period. He'd usually sub off the striker that was less on form, and if things don't change, he'd keep the off-form striker on the bench. Pog lost form by GW7, so Hunt came in alongside Roberts, while Adam Le Fondre was a sub. Then, while Roberts maintained his form, Hunt eventually was dropped for Le Fondre, who remained in the side until December and so on. Roberts also lost form in December eventually and Hunt came back in to the side as well.
Conclusion: With Brian McDermott, if we ever see him in the prem again, expect rotation up front. Sorry for the unnecessary effort in talking about a side and manager who we probably won't see in a while. Also with future budget/promoted teams, if we see a manager pull a McDermott, let's be at least cautious with our budget assets and be sensitive to their form.
Southampton - 1-4 (whu), 1-2 (TOT), 0-2 (wba), 1-1 (SWA), 3-1 (qpr), 2-0 (NEW), 1-1 (NOR), 0-1 (liv)
Nigel Adkins' side had plenty of offensive potential. Continuing from the previous part of the series, I did mention that Ricky Lambert's performances were the only ones worth mentioning from Southampton, but the Saints just couldn't convert their goals into wins. Lambert's returns suffered in this period as they conceded the same, alarming amount of goals while scoring even less (9 goals compared to 12 in the opening 7) and as a result, Lambert's price went back to par (6.0) at the end of this period.
Many of their results were quite expected though, losing to mid table sides away from home (WHU, WBA) while also losing to relatively strong sides at home (TOT). They did managed to halt their poor form though with their 3-1 win away to QPR, and this coincided with Nigel Adkins' use of an extra defensive midfielder alongside Morgan Schneiderlin in midfield. Enter Jack Cork. In this period, Adkins actually experimented using Davis, Ward-Prowse and do Prado alongside Schneiderlin in midfield but to no avail, but he finally got it right, moving Ramirez centrally in from the wings, playing Cork alongside Schneiderlin in midfield, and using Puncheon on the right wing with Lallana on the other (sacrificing Jay Rodriguez up front).
The result? a 1-1 home draw against Swansea (somewhat expected) followed by a 3-1 away win against QPR. Offensively the points also returned, with Lambert racking up 2 goals and an assist in that mini-period while Puncheon, Southampton's most offensive midfielder (by position) also got a goal and 2 assists himself. Defensively they were also shit throughout, keeping only 1 CS in that period, nor contributing offensively consistently.
Conclusion: Nigel Adkins is definitely at least a decently astute manager, willing to change his midfield a bit to at least proactively solve his side's problems. I wish him all the best at Reading, but what we'd like to learn from his side that with a side full of decent attacking potential (with a consistently starting goalscorer) we should look out for any tactical improvements decently that garner results.
West Ham - 4-1 (SOU), 1-2 (wig), 0-0 (MCI), 1-0 (new), 1-1 (STK), 1-3 (tot), 0-1 (mun), 3-1 (CHE)
Being the best performing out of the 3 promoted sides, and were 8th pre-GW8. The previous section had already highlighted their difference in their form, and it continued into this second period, picking up home wins against Southampton and Chelsea while earning credible draws against Man City. Their away results also were as bad (losing to Wigan, Spurs and Man United).
While West Ham were at least doing really well by their own standards, in term of FPL they were relatively inconsistent. The side's previous hot hand Kevin Nolan picked up only 2 goals, pen taker Mark Noble only also grabbed 2 goals (both in 1 game) and the defense didn't contribute much offensively throughout, with the side only keeping 2 Clean Sheets during this period, which frankly was a lot better than expected for a promoted side anyway.
Standouts from this side included George McCartney, who was an able replacement for the Joey O'Brien, who picked up an injury against QPR in GW6, while James Tomkins did so-so coming in for 4.0 right back Guy Demel, who was also in and out of the side due to his thigh injury.
The real key to West Ham's form, however, were both fullback's timing in returning from injury. O'Brien took Demel's right back spot while McCartney stayed at left back, which coincided with West Ham's consecutive CS in GW 10 and 11, as well as his equaliser against Stoke in GW12. How O'Brien's goal threat increased so significantly I might look into later, but owners of guaranteed starters such as Jaaskelainen, Collins and Reid would have at least been somewhat rewarded over this period for sticking.
Conclusion: West Ham's play style definitely warranted consistency in terms of results, but FPL wise with a consistently delivering team, it's better to stick to defense rather than attack, due to the fact that chances are you wouldn't field budget attackers unless they show trends like strong Home form or being a "flat track bully". In other words, with a budget team that consistently delivers results, grab defense over attack over that period.
The 11/12 Overachievers - Swansea, Fulham, Newcastle
Swansea - 2-1 (WIG), 0-1 (mci), 1-1 (CHE), 1-1 (sou), 2-1 (new), 0-0 (LIV), 3-1 (WBA), 2-0 (ars)
This period saw Swansea picking up their form again after their mini-slump, hitting 4 wins in this period, delivering decently in a run that included Chelsea, Arsenal and Man City, as well as their league cup scalp against Liverpool between the City and Chelsea games.
The MOST notable change in this period, starting exactly from the 2-1 Wigan win (they had a 2-2 draw the game before) was Laudrup's decision to drop Danny Graham and playing Michu up front. Pablo Hernandez also got a run in the side at Dyer's expense, which showed significant home form (3 games out of 4 getting more than 6 points). Now it's a bit weird to mention this due to the fact that Michu and Hernandez were both taking up midfield slots in FPL, but running 2 Swansea players where one is an OoP striker might make this viable in the future. I did manage to run Dyer and Michu in early season I believe, so do expect this "mid-OoPmid" strategy to be part of the FPL 13/14 arsenal.
A trend that most didn't pick up in this period (which was noted by some during the winter break) is that defensively, Swansea were VERY VERY insistent on keeping it tight at the back, never conceding more than 1 goal away from home throughout this period, which could have spelt lots of save points for their keeper. Unfortunately, Vorm did get injured against Man City in this run, and Tremmel did get some decent save points, which was pretty value for money considering his starting price (4.0).
Conclusion: Significant tactical changes (especially involving form goalscorers being made OoP) do affect a side's results, and hence their FPL potential. Noticing this change is probably one of the keys to reviving a bandwagon early, and secondary strategies (mid-OoPmid) can also be utilised, though hard to spot. I'd have to attribute their defensive improvement to a combination of Laudrup and Swansea's play style, whether it's a one-off only time will tell. In the meantime, we can only look out for the same to occur again.
Fulham - 1-0 (AVL), 3-3 (rdg), 2-2 (EVE), 3-3 (ars), 1-3 (SUN), 0-1 (sto), 0-0 (che), 0-3 (tot)
In terms of results, it's really, really hard to look for a trend in Fulham's games here. While the H/A trend was applicable early season, they were very inconsistent for their home "winnable" games while away from home they were even worse. In FPL terms, the whole squad literally gave flash in the pan returns (Riise's CS + Assist against Villa, Berbatov and Kacaniklic's superb returns against Arsenal, Baird's goal) and in hindsight, Jekyll and Hyde sides really aren't worth investing in.
What we should be looking for, however, are the symptoms of a Jekyll and Hyde side. What did Martin Jol do that made Fulham so low scoring one game and drawing 3-3 against Arsenal the next? The best I can come up with so far, is that keeping the same back 4, Jol rotated his forwards (bar Berbatov). The rumours about Ruiz and Berbatov only started surfacing around Christmas, but it was definitely no coincidence that Ruiz playing between the midfield and attack did help Fulham attack a lot better (Everton Arsenal and Sunderland games) compared to when Berbatov partnered Petric or Rodallega up front (Stoke, Chelsea, Tottenham, Villa, Reading).
A quick note on Kacaniklic, who was brilliant in the first 7 games but disappeared randomly after: He featured in the 2-2 draw with Fulham (GW7), but in between GWs 7 and 8 he was featured in Sweden's 2 WC qualifying matches, which caused him to be rested against Villa. After coming back against Arsenal, he was equally unfortunate in picking up an injury against Sunderland, not featuring until early December. So with young and internationally recognised players, do watch their fitness, especially in a midtable side.
A note on Bryan Ruiz as well. Ruiz came on in the 58th minute against Reading, in addition to the games above, and scored in the 61st and got an assist in the 77th, which was the explosive start to his wonderful run in the side. He also picked up an injury against Sunderland and did not feature until January. Please keep Bryan Ruiz in mind for FPL 13/14.
Conclusion: Tactical Changes. It seems to run quite consistently with midtable sides that revolve around a consistent goalscorer (Berba in this case, Michu in the previous).
Newcastle - 1-1 (sun), 2-1 (WBA), 1-1 (liv), 0-1 (WHU), 1-2 (SWA), 0-2 (sou), 1-2 (sto), 3-0 (WIG)
Wow I didn't realise Newcastle's form dropped that badly. The scoring and conceding ratios stayed the same, so I've got a feeling we'll have to dig a bit deeper into this, but basically they weren't doing enough to beat teams in and around them, despite the relatively favourable fixtures. Ba's form didn't suffer however, picking up goals against West Brom, Swansea, Wigan and Stoke in this period. Cisse's returns were still sporadic, not justifying his price tag (and largely ignored anyway).
With the stats out of the way, there were plenty of things to look at in terms of attempting to justify Newcastle's results. The most glaring issue was Newcastle's games in the Europa League coupled with their injuries. They had games before West Brom, West Ham, Southampton, and post-Wigan as well. Looking at their lineups in Football-Lineups make things even more baffling with Tiote picking up red against Sunderland while Coloccini got sent off against Liverpool, which started their 4 match losing streak.
While Tiote could have been covered by Perch and Jonas, it was Jonas' and Cabaye's loss to injuries in the West Ham game that was the last straw, with Tiote and Anita unable to do much in midfield. Newcastle were really, really unlucky with injuries and fixtures.
Conclusion: With squads that don't have much depth, expect losses (or at least leaked goals) with injuries to key personnel. Probably common knowledge anyway, but good to confirm.
The rest - Sunderland, Norwich, Stoke, West Brom
Sunderland - 1-1 (NEW), 0-0 (stk), 0-1 (AVL), 1-2 (eve), 3-1 (ful), 2-4 (WBA), 0-0 (QPR), 1-2 (nor)
Sunderland had a beautiful run of fixtures over this period and failed to fully capitalise on it, although this team was really, really watched upon due to their upcoming DGW in GW16. The side were another Jekyll and Hyde team that fluctuated between low scoring and high scoring, really not producing a lot of significant returns. 2CS for the price you pat, combined with 3 blanks for their strikers over the 8 games really hasn't been investment worthy, with quite literally their only worthwhile investment, Cuellar (4.5) delivering in the 2 games Sunderland picked up those CS, aided by a red card in the win against Fulham.
Studying Sunderland would be slightly tricky, considering that they hardly deviate from their variants of 4-5-1. Perhaps it is the fact that Martin O'Neill opted to rotate players instead of changing up his formations that has led to this slump. The midfield center 3 was always Sessegnon plus two of Larsson, Colback, Cattermole and Gardner occasionally, who had Bardsley helping out at right back when Gardner was in CM. The wings weren't exactly the most stable either, with Johnson, Larsson and McClean being rotated too, the former 2 starting slightly more.
Only a more detailed analysis would be able to tell us how Sunderland failed to deliver points in this beautiful run of fixtures, but for now I'll have to conclude that for punting on a player in an off-form side, go cheap and try and play that player as much as you can over that period. Just expect explosive points instead of consistent 5-6 pointers.
Norwich - 1-0 (ARS), 1-1(avl), 1-0 (STK), 0-0(rdg), 1-0 (MUN), 1-1 (eve), 1-1 (sou), 2-1 (SUN)
The fixtures didn't exactly fall kindly for Norwich. Their home games were relative toughies and their winnable games were away, so it was kinda hard to foresee investment in this side until the fixtures eased out. Those that did, however, were rewarded, especially those that picked up Bassong's immense run throughout this period. Picking a defender prior to this run was also exceptionally tough, they had conceded 5 against Fulham, 5 against Liverpool and 4 against Chelsea going into this run so something MUST have changed in between.
And there was. Courtesy of Football-Lineups, the most obvious change between the 2 periods were the center midfield pairing of Howson and Johnson being split, replacing either of them with Norwegian Alex Tettey, which made a bigger impression on me initially when commentators shouted his name on TV for his shot against Arsenal (which sounded like the singular term for boobs) than his actual impact on the team.
Tettey's (lol) debut against Chelsea playing DM (whoscored can back me up on that one) wasn't spectacular, but when shifted into the more advanced of the midfield duo against Arsenal, the results showed. He doesn't create a lot offensively, but he rarely gives away the ball (his pass % is higher than the 70s consistently which is brilliant for a box-to-box CM) and he takes shots when he sees fit. Granted most of them have been off target, but at least he's a bigger presence than either Johnson or Howson, who are great chance creators but aren't as direct as Tettey.
It's slightly odd that Lambert decided to use Tettey as the more defensive CM away from home (more tackles, long balls, clearances etc) reaping not-so desirable results (Villa, reading, Chelsea, etc.) but when used as the slightly more adventurous CM, we see Norwich deliver results (All the home games, I'm serious I looked them up). The wingers also showed phases from Lambert's early season habits of playing a CM in LM but eventually settled down with a winger instead. (Surman - Johnson - Pilkington).
Conclusion: Home/Away form can be somewhat justified through tactical changes, especially if it involves a debut of a new player in a team's so-called "spine". While Tettey wouldn't be an excellent FPL prospect himself (see Jack Cork for Southampton) it at least provides a decent indicator for people to "watch" whether that team will have a turn of results, and hence investment.
Stoke - 2-4 (mun), 0-0 (SUN), 0-1 (nor), 1-0 (QPR), 1-1 (whu), 1-0 (FUL), 2-1 (NEW), 1-0 (wba)
Stoke haven't had the best of starts, which is understandable. Post Man United game though their fixtures were theoretically really good, and investors got their money's worth out of it. Their home form was immense, registering CSs against Sunderland QPR and Fulham while away from home they weren't bad either. Most of the results were expected, considering that from their modest 45 point haul and with only 1 significant signing (Adam) you'd expect Stoke to win games via shutouts rather than outscoring opposition.
FPL wise, defensively anyone who invested in any of the back 4 + Begovic would've profited. Offensively Walters, Adam and Crouch got 2 goals each, which separated them from the rest of Stoke's attacking players really, which weren't a surprise. The lineups over this period didn't change at all either (in terms of starters anyway): Cameron/ShawX/Huth/Wilkinson at the back, NZonzi and Whelan/Whitehead in CM/DM, Walters, Adam, Crouch and Etherington/Kightly ahead of the two. Take your pick really. Since the relatively quality attacking players only got 2 goals over this period, it's kind of hard to identify a trend anyway, which means that they're "pick and stick" material, which fit this run of games really, considering opposition.
Conclusion: I've spent time in previous teams highlighting that a change of system, generally, in a team losing form in most cases will garner positive results, which highlights the abilities of managers in a particular team. This is a case of a team in the opposite spectrum: A team that "doesn't change its winning formula" will stay consistently, umm, well. Expected defensive and offensive returns as a result. The drawback of this policy? Well we'll wait for post January for that.
West Brom - 1-2 (mci), 1-2 (NEW), 2-0 (SOU), 2-1 (wig), 2-1 (CHE), 4-2 (sun), 1-3 (swa), 0-1 (STK) - I promise this is the last one
In my tactical blog I had rated Steve Clarke really, really highly for making decisively reactive formation changes through mid game substitutions instead of getting more bodies up there just for the sake of it. Results wise, their early season form was replicated pretty well here, pretty much delivering the same amount of wins, losses, goals and goals let through.
FPL wise, the returns were abysmal at the back. The defence got about 10-15 points over this period (courtesy of the chart mentioned at the top of the page) while Ben Foster's groin injury didn't make the GK selection any easier. Up front though, Shane Long, Peter Odemwingie and Romelu Lukaku's returns were consistent, but always plagued by their lack of 90 minutes games. The entire midfield hit about 20 points (over GW8-15, it's not much) despite being rotated a lot in this period.
While Steve Clarke's side have been very reactive, one thing is relatively consistent: They are rarely shutout, only being shut out twice over 15 games, scoring 25 goals in the process. That is overperformance for a supposedly mid-table team.
OK from what I can observe from their lineups, there are a few things to take note here, but note that this is for West Brom uniquely only. I'm only putting extra effort into West Brom's system because of the fact that (A) they did not change their manager over the summer and are likely to improve and (B) I am a huge fan of Steve Clarke. Firstly, Clarke rarely lets his front 4 go for 90 minutes. All of his player substitutions have been for the front 4, unless something special happens (Like Odem's red against Fulham), because he relies on his front 4 to do a lot of running. which is something Long and Lukaku aren't strangers to.
So let's start stating tactical observations:
- Beyond the 2 defensive midfielders, Dorrans, Morrison and Gera put in decent passing % whenever they start, whether short or long. This implies that they at least get really involved in their team's build up play, and would be worth considering if West Brom rely on buildup play to beat teams this coming season.
- Peter Odemwingie has decent dribbling and shooting stats, at least better than the candidates that operate behind Long/Lukaku. I'm not quite sure where he's going, but assuming he stays (and starts) he'll be good for a goalscoring midfielder (if he's classified as one).
- Chris Brunt will be set piece king. Again. Not uncommon knowledge, but he does top the "Accurate crosses per game" list in the squad and hence do look out for any teams "weak" to long balls and expect Brunt to be in the thick of it if rotation plays into Brunt's hands.
- Fortune and Gera are OLD. They start, quite literally, for that "moment of magic" such as Gera' goal against Liverpool. While Gera is quite sound defensively, Fortune has been more the weak link than the inspirational spark, and was especially exposed when playing away to Spurs (Assou Ekotto on that flank scored that game).
- Strangely, in most games one or the other would be fielded, while on the other flank Dorrans, Odemwingie or Brunt would be selected. What I make of it is that Clarke's tactics are a bit too much effort to delve into, but let's just focus on the bigger picture and say that the only player worth investing in was James Morrison for 12/13.
So. WHAT HAVE WE LEARNT? We have learnt that a tactically apt manager such as Steve Clarke is really, really nice to watch as a neutral, but completely unpredictable as an FPL go-to guy. His shit players will look somewhat attractive, his not-so-shit players might not even start. Hence, don't expect Anelka to be the next Michu. That butterfly celebration can only be appealing for so long.
Long Story Short:
RDG: Brian McDermott rotates his strikers. Doubt we'll see much of him though.
SOU: Teams with huge attacking potential only need a slight tweak, which we should look out for.
WHU: With a budget team that delivers results, go with defense over attack.
SWA: Sides with 1 consistent goalscorer will be affected by OoP movements/significant tactical changes.
FUL: Identical to Swansea, it was Ruiz that improved Berbatov's form, making Berba the lone striker.
NEW: They were hit worst by injuries and suspensions in this period, and without depth, expect goals to be conceded.
SUN: An off-form side that makes peripheral changes instead of tactical ones will suffer. Punt on cheaper players, and expect explosive returns.
NOR: New personnel within a spine (Alex Tettey) will affect results. Watch for Home/Away patterns.
STO: Don't change a winning formula. They did it well.
WBA: Steve Clarke is tactically really flexible. Buy at your own risk.
QPR: Mark Hughes uses 4-4-2 or 4-5-1, but when they fail he gives it about 5-6 games before he switches.
AVL: Similar to SWA and FUL. However, FPL investment should be put ON HOLD until a hot-hand striker is found.
WIG: Watch Roberto Martinez's team mentality. Buy Everton if they GO AHEAD in matches initially. Invest in left flank most likely.
amazingly well done sir!
ReplyDelete