Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest
GW26 Matchday Thread...
Comments
-
-
-
-
-
Ya must gave a very high rank to not been satisfied with that?
Not really, just outside 10k. Not sure why people are thinking 80 is a good score? The average for the top 20 in Boards this week is 95. Top 50 is about 93, so I was slightly high with my 97 calculation. A sub 90 score is below average if you take the game seriously, it's not up for debate!brian plank wrote: »shouldn't that be
83. unlucky
Not sure what the smiley face is about, but yes it is unlucky. I took a risk on Bale -> Gerrard and it didn't work out, plenty took the same risk. If it worked out it would have been lucky. Had I not made the transfer at all I would have captained Suarez and left in Bale, leaving me 14 points better off in the end. I'd have finished on 97 (slightly above average) and would have 2 FT's to work with now. In hindsight it didn't work out but doesn't make it a bad transfer.
@alchemist, good punt on Enrique!0 -
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
Exactly what I meant by realistic average, most people that don't take the game seriously won't reach this regularly. Scoring 80 points is only good if those around you score lower. This week if you are doing well overall 80 simply isn't a good score. FYI I got 83! You shouldn't have a target end of season score or weekly score as this changes week on week and season on season. Some years 2,100 would be a great score, in 08/09 this may have won the game. The following season it probably wasn't even in the top 250,000. It's an arbitrary number.
If you only play the game for a bit of fun then ignore all of the above
0 -
Exactly what I meant by realistic average, most people that don't take the game seriously won't reach this regularly. Scoring 80 points is only good if those around you score lower. This week if you are doing well overall 80 simply isn't a good score. FYI I got 83! You shouldn't have a target end of season score or weekly score as this changes week on week and season on season. Some years 2,100 would be a great score, in 08/09 this may have won the game. The following season it probably wasn't even in the top 250,000. It's an arbitrary number.
If you only play the game for a bit of fun then ignore all of the above
Yeah I get you, I'm just using a different scale I guess. I'm definitely taking the game seriously. I'm not playing for fun, I'm playing to win money. For my league 97 is a good bit above average and is actually the second highest score.
Top 10k would be my target on a global level.0 -
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
Maybe our definition of 'decent' is different then! I would consider this to be anyone in the top 50 on boards. In this case the average is 93. For 'top' players, which I would consider players in the top 20, the average rises to 95. Either way my point stands - the FF average of 65 is an absolute mile off what you should be targeting.
If you got 80 this week and consider it a good score then you won't go too far in the game! It's all relative.
I understand your point but the top 50 of boards roughly corresponds to the top 10k out of 2.5 + million players. I know there are lots of inactive / uncommitted players but I think you're exaggerating the figure. I'd consider the top 50k "decent", the top 20k "good" and the top 10k "very good". For all these "categories" I'd regard skill > luck. Higher than 10k I'd say to improve up to let's say (to keep it simple/simplistic) 5k skill = luck and inside the top 5k if I don't dare skill < luck I'd put it that way: you need a consistent luck to complement your skills.
This GW is actually a good example. I was perfectly set up for it. My team for it wasJaaskelainenShawcross - Harte - Davies BLe Fondre was in there temporarily (I gained 0.1 on him) to allow Puncheon -> Gerrard with 2FT in hand this week.
Fellaini - Mata - Walcott - Michu - Gerrard (C)
Van Persie - Suarez
Federici - Le Fondre - Demel - Gibbs
I didn't want to stock up too much on Liverpool/Swansea players not to be burnt the following one so was keeping 2 FT and didn't pull the trigger on a very tempting Gibbs -> Enrique.
In hindsight I still think I made the right calls. I captained Gerrard and got 78 points which I agree with your last statement is well below par this week. I'm down to 27k in the overall ranking and would probably be around 15k had Gerrard scored the penalty against WBA and Michu played the second game. So despite not being inside the top 10k I'd still consider myself a "decent" player but a couple of GW like this one can really break your progression and I think you've experienced that as much as me
. 0 -
-
-
-
94 points, no hits.
Down to places from 616 to 626.
Says it all about the stated averages on the FPL website!
Yeah but being that highly ranked you can't refer to the overall average. It's a bit like if you run a marathon and are in contention for the world record or just aim to break the 3h mark. And the latter would make you a pretty decent runner :cool:. 0 -
94 points, no hits.
Down to places from 616 to 626.
Says it all about the stated averages on the FPL website!
No it doesnt, your interpretation of the data is misconceived is all
Its a pity you cant change the data set of the average you want to look at, i.e. average of top 1k, 10k, 50k, 100k etc0 -
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
I understand your point but the top 50 of boards roughly corresponds to the top 10k out of 2.5 + million players. I know there are lots of inactive / uncommitted players but I think you're exaggerating the figure. I'd consider the top 50k "decent", the top 20k "good" and the top 10k "very good". For all these "categories" I'd regard skill > luck. Higher than 10k I'd say to improve up to let's say (to keep it simple/simplistic) 5k skill = luck and inside the top 5k if I don't dare skill < luck I'd put it that way: you need a consistent luck to complement your skills.
This GW is actually a good example. I was perfectly set up for it. My team for it wasJaaskelainenShawcross - Harte - Davies BLe Fondre was in there temporarily (I gained 0.1 on him) to allow Puncheon -> Gerrard with 2FT in hand this week.
Fellaini - Mata - Walcott - Michu - Gerrard (C)
Van Persie - Suarez
Federici - Le Fondre - Demel - Gibbs
I didn't want to stock up too much on Liverpool/Swansea players not to be burnt the following one so was keeping 2 FT and didn't pull the trigger on a very tempting Gibbs -> Enrique.
In hindsight I still think I made the right calls. I captained Gerrard and got 78 points which I agree with your last statement is well below par this week. I'm down to 27k in the overall ranking and would probably be around 15k had Gerrard scored the penalty against WBA and Michu played the second game. So despite not being inside the top 10k I'd still consider myself a "decent" player but a couple of GW like this one can really break your progression and I think you've experienced that as much as me.
Regarding being higher had michu played, id disagree. Virtually everyone around you would have michu in their team. Some even had him captained. Him playing/not playing would have had a negligible impact on your overall position.0 -
-
-
-
Advertisement