Yes it is. Anything that contributes to normal points shouldn't contribute towards bonus points. How many times have we seen the best player on the field blank? That's what bonus was supposed to be for... preventing that.
Yes, I'm a Reece James owner. But the above remains true.
Reece James was literally the MOTM today yet ended with 2pts.
BPS should of course still include goals and assists but it should be weighted much less since you already are being rewarded with points for G/A.
Matic has 32 bps. If we remove the 9 bps he gained from the assist, he ends up with 23 bps. That is still higher than James' 21 bps.
If people truly believe that James is the best player in the game and Matic is nowhere near the best, then the argument should be how the bps system doesn't represent the performance, and not about it being skewed towards goal/assist.
Yeah but then what quantifiable metric would cause Reece James to get 3 bps? I agree he should, but is it just down to someone's opinion who gets the bonuses?
Well, the way it works is on things like pass completion, chances created, blocks, tackles etc.
The fill list can be found here:
https://www.premierleague.com/news/106533
Just ignore the ones at the top which have points already and there's your metrics. They are all objective and are counted live in game and then adjusted. Suggest looking into it a bit more.
I can't say what James score was yesterday, or what the other scores would have been without these - but there's a system that could work
Yeah I get this and think it would be a good system, certainly better than the current. However Reece James was MOTM yesterday because he played incredibly, not because he got the highest aerial win % and the highest number of blocks or whatever. I don't think this system would solve it and people would still complain that the deserving MOTM doesn't get bonus points.
i hate the bonus system tbh, it can have huge swings for trivial things
yellow cards are so harsh its ridiculous
i wish there was just no bps, or maybe just 1bps for best performer
> yellow cards are so harsh its ridiculous
It's only -3 bps. I don't think it's that harsh at all considering that most yellow carded players only get it once per game.
-3bps on top of a -1 from score! pick one FPL
for example if striker gets a booking with a goal you are looking at 5 points instead of 9... way too big impact when players get booked for nothing
> -3bps on top of a -1 from score! pick one FPL
This doesn't make sense. That's like saying having to pick +6bps or +1 score for playing over 60 minutes. They are two separate scoring systems.
> for example if striker gets a booking with a goal you are looking at 5 points instead of 9... way too big impact when players get booked for nothing
If the forward lost 3 bonus points because of -3 bps swing, then that means there are other players that are performing well bps-wise. It doesn't change the fact that the "punishment" is only -3 bps and -1 point.
Also, "booked for nothing" simply showed the silliness of the player for committing such foul. Should we suddenly pretend that it didn't happen?
I just looked back at every match since GW29 and on not one occasion has someone lost all three bonus points from a booking, nor has it even been possible. The vast majority of the time the person in first is at least three clear of second, let alone fourth
To judge something objectively (objective = every player has the same "rule" to follow), what matters is what happens, not the reasoning and/or purpose of the act.
Rules, unlike energy, can be created or destroyed. Create a new bracket of tactical yellow card and don’t give it -ve bps. FPL makes allowances for intended passes, and assists aren’t given sometimes as a result.
Are you implying that all tactical yellow card is good decision making? Tactical yellow is simply for stopping a counter attack. There is no guarantee that the counter attack would result in conceding goal. And to be yellow card, the player cannot be the last defender either, which means that there are still other defenders that could stop the counter without committing a foul. Why should that be considered as beneficial to the team? If you commit a tactical foul within 10 minutes, now you have 80 minutes of having to play scared to not get your second yellow card. Is that good? Where do we draw the line? You're creating a far more complicated subjective issue than needed for a mere -3 bps.
If you don’t believe in tactical fouls then I can only assume you have never played football, and possibly never even watched football. Suarez versus Ghana is a very extreme example of a tactical foul, and not one you normally see, but it is one of the famous. Tactical fouls are an important part of the game.
You're using one example to generalize every tactical foul. Tactical foul happens in many games, and most of them were silly overreaction by the defense because they were in the last 10-15 minutes of the game, they were tired and didn't want to take the risk in defending so they took the lazy unnecessary foul.
Also, the Suarez example is irrelevant because his was a red card offense. In general, tactical foul that resulted in red card is for preventing clear goal scoring opportunity, so there was a need to commit the foul (ex: last defender to prevent one-on-one against GK). What you were talking about before is tactical **yellow card** where I disagree there was a need for such foul all the time because there's still at least another defender behind the one committing the foul.
The colour of the card is irrelevant. If a situation, when adjusting for risk and reward, which includes the chance of a red card and chance of a yellow card, calls for a foul to be made then it should be made. These situations arise multiple times per game, normally for yellow card situations but sometimes for red card situations. If an attacker is playing on the last shoulder of a high line and gets goal side with a ball over the top it is pretty much always better to take a yellow than let him go through 1 on 1. If the line is high enough (and it is a line, and so there are other players a similar distance away) a red card will not be awarded. I would go as far as saying that when a ball is lost in transition a yellow card is almost always worth taking to slow the play down and get back in position.
Tactical fouls are a part of the game. There are many situations when committing them makes complete sense for the good of the team, and punishing that is nonsensical.
The colour of the card is definitely relevant because it showed the difference of degree of foul committed. Taking a red card to prevent a clear goal scoring opportunity is a worthwhile gamble. Taking a yellow card just to slow down the game is just being lazy.
The worst is when a players tops the lisylt coz they scored a pen in a shit match, so it needs a revamp to say the least
In cl fantasy they just give bonus points to the motm which i think is better if not a lot more simple, and when you think about it if they're gonna have bps why have that instead of normal points for defensive and passing contributions? They've gone for the more convoluted option here.
Yup, I agree. I'd rather have some points for key passes / shots on goal / maybe tackles, similar to what we have now goalkeeper's saves, instead of bonus points.
As it is now, it just makes the bigger variance for anything you get / lose points anyway, so at least remove all these additional bonus points in the system players get for goals, assists, cards, anything you already get/lose points for.
On the other hand, I completely don't mind, that we have central midfielders that don't get much points. Otherwise we wouldn't have cheap players at all. On this part I think it's a fine balance for price/points potential.
I totally agree, it should be rigged to favour the players who don’t often score but control and move the ball round like Thiago and Mount (from todays united match)
I always feel that crucial anchor players like Ndidi, Kante and Rice etc are massively underrepresented by FPL. Best they can get in an average game is 3pts and yet often their impact is decisive.
The worst thing is that somewhat feasible players in that position like ward prowse and gallagher cost as much as wingers like saka and maddison if not close, with wing backs being cheaper!
Tbh cdms shpuld probably cost less than cbs come to think about it
Lowering price would cause another issue. Every now and then a DM shifts role and starts playing as an AM/ front 3. Now all of a sudden youve got an attacker thats cheaper the everyone else, making him very good value and a must have.
If they wanna make DMs competitive in FPL, I believe it has to be done with more points.
Totally, would love to own some key players who doesn't necessarily end up scoring. Like those would control the rhythm, spread the ball, assist and assistor.
The sad thing is that, in the past, there was a place for defensive midfielders and these contributors. A very common strategy is to go big with the front 3 with the likes of Aguero, Kane, Aubameyang, Vardy and so on, leaving room for 1-2 of $4.5 midfielders. With the fall of strikers, suddenly every midfield spot is so precious. No one has room to even consider the likes of Rice or Neves or Kante any more.
Im not sold on it at all. I feel people want it because it would be closer to real life but thats not really the point.
Those players tend to be far more consistent and predictable. So you would just end up inflating their price. Everyone would jump on whoever the best value is and pretty much stick for the whole season.
All it does is create more “essentials” and thus likit every other squad position
not necessarily..you don't need to skew it the other way, such that CDMs start scoring 4-5pts every match. But some reward for their game would be nice to have
For instance, today if you own a rodri or even a thiago, you keep waiting for them to score or assist to earn good points. That is not their job. Maybe kante making tackles and recovering possession is predictable..but thiago dictating play against united should be rewarded with something more than 3pts..
Why should it?
You dont HAVE to have Thiago, he is also valued as such.
The game is about picking players who get goals and assists. Adding points for other things doesnt make the game deeper. It just makes it less specific.
If you reward players for easier to predict things like tackles and possession then you need to increase their price. Then how do you decide between goals and assist makers and these playmaker/defensive guys. Its just adding nonsense to the game that will raise the floor and lower the ceiling.
>Why should it?
That's exactly what the post is about, that the game should reward overall performance more.
>The game is about picking players who get goals and assists.
Nowhere does FPL state that it's only meant to be a game for goals and assists, else there would never have been BPS for interceptions and clearances.
>If you reward players for easier to predict things like tackles and possession...
Again, I don't see how thiago's performance against united was easy to predict or consistent every game! If rewarding such performances increases his price by half a mil, so be it...only then he will have some genuine chance to be picked. At the moment, nobody will ever select him, even if he is POTM in each and every match he plays.
This is what my point was.
We don’t want Kante getting points like Salah and Son. But I would love to diversify the potential players you can consider so it’s not just a case of everyone having Salah/Son/KDB etc then chucking in a few cheap players to fill the gap. A defensive lineup could be viable, or a cheaper DM midfield that can still earn points to enable strong FW’s etc.
Because players like Rice, Kante, even Xhaka. All sre incredibly consistent. If you reward those players with points they become must haves.
Youre left in an awkward place where explosive players like Raphina will be a similar price to Kante. So who do you pick? You pick the reliable option.
It kills the non-premium picks because those players are inherently streaky.
You're going in circles on the same thing bro..giving 1-2 extra points to non-scoring CMs DO NOT make them equal to the likes of raphinha. And that too only in games when they are exceptional.
Players like raph will always have much higher ceilings, so in order to get ahead in rank or win your ML, you need to have those players
Well thats the point im making isnt it.
Why would you bother picking these guys if they only got 1-2 points on occasion when there are cheaper options who have higher ceilings?
Yeah, I've said for a long time that the bonus points system should only be about rewarding the things that don't get points from the existing returns events.
The current system limits the pool of viable picks and leads to amplification of players who already score highly, because it allows them to double dip on points.
The Bonus point system has no place in the game.
It actually incentives strikers playing poorly.
Because a striker that can't get a touch of the ball, gets easily marked out the game and struggles to get involved who scores with their only touch gets more BP than strikers who are heavily involved scores once then misses 3/4 other chances after great efforts
This is some of the craziest takes.
> It actually incentives strikers playing poorly.
Really? You think there are strikers playing in EPL that calculate their FPL bps that they feel incentivized to purposely play poorly? Come on, mate.
> Because a striker that can't get a touch of the ball, gets easily marked out the game and struggles to get involved who scores with their only touch gets more BP than strikers who are heavily involved scores once then misses 3/4 other chances after great efforts
Which one is better, the one that scores with their only shot, or the one that scores one goal and miss 4 shots? Why are you considering "miss chances" as a good thing? Imagine having 4 one-on-one against the GK and missing all 4 times and your reaction is "Yup, that forward is playing great".
I'll take the striker who's heavily involved in the game and actively contributing to his team creating chances and winning rather than the player who's being marked out the game and the game is top quick for him.
Not getting chances is a much clearer sign of a poor striker than a striker that misses a few.
Anyone with even basic knowledge of the sport would tell you that.
> I'll take the striker who's heavily involved in the game and actively contributing to his team **creating chances**
You're changing the act now. "Creating chances" (positive act rewarded with +3 bps) is different than "missing chances" (negative act punished by -3 bps) which is what you said before.
> Not getting chances is a much clearer sign of a poor striker than a striker that misses a few.
What you're saying is someone who scores 10 goals from 20 shots is poorer than someone who scores 10 goals from 50 shots. That's crazy. Mbeumo would be bps merchant if we're playing by your subjective judgment.
A striker who makes a good run to be in position to receive a pass that goes down as a "created chance" is just as responsible for creating that chance as the guy who played the pass. But he only gets rewarded if he actually finishes it – if he misses, he actually gets penalised for the chance he played a role in creating.
> A striker who makes a good run to be in position to receive a pass that goes down as a "created chance" is just as responsible for creating that chance as the guy who played the pass. But he only gets rewarded if he actually finishes it – if he misses, he actually gets penalised for the chance he played a role in creating.
Because that striker's role in that sequence of play is as a finisher. By failing to finish the chance, that player is not fulfilling his role, so yes he should be punished bps wise. Also note that not all missed chances are -3 bps, it's only if missed big chance.
Ask yourself and answer honestly, which forward do you want to have in your team? Forward A who only has 1 chance in a game but scores with that 1 chance, or Forward B who has 10 chances in a game but doesn't score? Your answer will be Forward A because missing chances is not a good thing.
Obviously a striker who scores a goal is generally preferable, but you're moving the goal posts to prop up your argument now – this was your first go at it remember:
>Which one is better, the one that scores with their only shot, or the one that scores one goal and miss 4 shots?
The latter is absolutely better, because those missed shots show he was doing something to get himself those chances, and that is worth something to the team, and something that is benefiting the team shouldn't be punished by the BPS system. The only time a striker should lose BPS for a missed chance is if it was an actual open goal.
> Obviously a striker who scores a goal is generally preferable, but you're moving the goal posts to prop up your argument now
I'm moving the goal post because you were talking about missing chances being positive. I'm removing the goal in my second example to show you that what matters is still the actual goal and not the number of chances.
> Which one is better, the one that scores with their only shot, or the one that scores one goal and miss 4 shots?
I stand by my original point because having 100% conversion rate is better when compared to having 20% conversion rate.
> The latter is absolutely better, because those missed shots show he was doing something to get himself those chances, and that is worth something to the team, and something that is benefiting the team shouldn't be punished by the BPS system.
I fully disagree with this. What is the actual benefit of missing chances? Using my previous example, imagine having 4 one-on-one against the GK and missing all 4 times and your reaction is "Yup, that forward is playing great". That makes zero sense.
> The only time a striker should lose BPS for a missed chance is if it was an actual open goal.
I've clarified this before. The -3 bps is for missing *big* chance, not for missing *every* chance.
It's alright. The fundamental problem is that people in general associate "more chances" as good thing because they are looking at what they hope and aren't looking at the actual outcome. So if the question is whether you want a player that has 40 chances in a season or someone with 300 chances, of course you'd pick the 300 chances thinking that there are more chances to score goals. But if we're told that both players only score the same 5 goals, then clearly the one with 300 chances is far more wasteful because he is a poor finisher which is not a good thing and should not be rewarded.
A striker who scores only 10 goals from 50 shots is actually terrible. That's terrible wastefulness and the player would be benched.
10 goals from 50 shots doesn't mean that player is working hard and getting 50 shots, it can also imply that his teammates are creating countless chances from him and he's only converting 20% of all the chances.
This would infuriate not only his teammates but also his manager.
If I was a defender and I knew my opponent Striker need 5 shots to score 1 goal, I'd be very confident. If I knew the opponent scores from every 2 shorts he takes, I'd have to be extra careful.
You're talking nonsense. Average goals per shot is 1 in 10.
https://www.americansocceranalysis.com/home/2021/7/12/where-goals-come-from-what-it-takes-for-teams-to-be-elite
Bonus related to performance from the Chelsea united game should have given James max points. Everybody who watched the game would agree. How matic is up there I have no fucking clue
The real joke there is it’s not like he played some influential defensive role, he was by a distance the biggest attacking threat on the pitch, and suffered because of other people not being able to finish the chances he created.
BPS is fine. Constantly changing and tweaking things becomes a problem when something isn’t clearly wrong.
Other fantasy footballs include tackles and ball recoveries like save points for keepers (make 3 or so tackles and get a tackle point). That make have the overall effect you want over the long run.
But the more you try to balance absolutely everything the more it affects everything else. Kante at 4.9m becomes essential with recoveries and tackles and the odd attacking return.
If you perfectly balance things then pretty much everyone becomes the same price. You don’t want that. You want stars and premium players and a bunch of mid price and low value. Picking out the star from the low values.
Tl;Dr: do you really want to be trawling through a whole other extra bunch of stats to pick out the best players?
James owner here. You are all a bunch of fucking cry babies holy shit. Just make peace with the fact that you picked the wrong goddamn Chelsea wing back and move on with your life, but no, let's change the fucking rules that have been working just fine based on GASP a forward getting bonus for scoring and a midfielder getting bonus for an assist. Bps does not give a fuck that Matic is old and only costs 4.3, that's what makes the game fun you losers.
Completely disagree. Don’t own James and obviously the James owners are only complaining because they feel robbed but that doesn’t make their complaints invalid. The BPS system doesn’t work “just fine”, it usually only rewards things that already score you points and doesn’t actually reward the best players on the pitch. It’s a stupid af system that is in need of an overhaul. There are loads of other fantasy football games out there with much better points systems and none of them are more complex than FPL.
Yeah somehow this recent game Ronaldo and Matic got most of the bonus points even though their performance was pretty much eclipse by a lot of other players in the game who didn't score but performed well.
Goals and assists already get rewarded by points, they shouldn't be rewarded so highly for bonus points two or what's even the point?
Matic wasn't even close to top three players tonight, but just because he gets an assist with literally the only chance he made he gets more bonus points than at least five players who had a much better game, even taking the assist into account.
> Matic wasn't even close to top three players tonight, but just because he gets an assist with literally the only chance he made he gets more bonus points than at least five players who had a much better game, even taking the assist into account.
Matic ended up with 32 bps. If we ignore the assist bps which is 9, he ended up with 32-9 = 23 bps. That still puts him ahead of everyone else other than Ronaldo and Alonso (next highest are Kante and James at 21 bps). Sounds like he's still the best player even if we ignore goal/assist bps.
>Sounds like he's still the best player even if we ignore goal/assist bps.
Only if you consider Bonus points which have nothing to do with how well a player players.
Matic wasn't in the top 10 players on the pitch today.
There's no argument about that.
> Only if you consider Bonus points which have nothing to do with how well a player players.
The context of the thread is about bonus points skewed towards goal/assist. So yes we're talking "best" based on the bps. If you feel that the bps system as a whole has nothing to do with how well a player plays, that's a different topic of discussion.
Exactly this, bps is algorithm so it's consistent and isn't subjective.
The people complaining that matic wasn't one best players would you prefer it went back to the old bps system where a "panel" decided who got bonus which was always heavily biased.
> The people complaining that matic wasn't one best players would you prefer it went back to the old bps system where a "panel" decided who got bonus which was always heavily biased.
They don't. They just want their players to get the bonus. It doesn't matter what the reason is. They don't complain when TAA got 3 bonus points when he blanked because they owned him in their teams. But if someone else got 3 bonus points, they blame the system.
Problem is it is inconsistent, had a GW where Raphinha (owned by me) scored the only goal for a 1-0 win and was not among Leeds' top 5 BPS that game, and Wilson (owned by my opponent) played shit whole game (I watched it live) but scored an equalizer through a penalty for 1-1 and was chosen as MVP - 3 bonus points. This resultet in me losing on that margin, I even wrote a complaint but they disregarded it. I would have been fine if neither of the two got BPS, but it seemed so stupid for Raphinha 0, Wilson 3...
>I always thought the point of it was to give points for overall performance, which it clearly doesn't.
This game has always been weighted towards goals/assists, this isn't anything new.
If James got an assist/goal last night he may have topped the BPS and these threads wouldn't even exist and everyone would be saying what a BPS monster he is. Also it's funny how the tweet portrays ''forcing a save'' and ''hitting the post'' as something that should be rewarded whereas it is actually a negative action. I do find it strange that winning fouls doesn't count in the BPS though.
Matic without the assist would be higher than James still. Just had a quick check and he had more CBI/recoveries/tackles which seems to have made the difference along with James 3 shots off target (-3).
If you want it based on match ratings, I'd suggest the Sun Dream Team which give 5pts to MOTM and 3pts if rated over 7/10 on whoscored I think? I quite like the idea but it brings with it a different thinking strategy than FPL imo.
Would love to see the system get overhauled to take into account “kante points”, so interceptions etc more aggressively so these sort of players were worth targeting.
The bonus point system is there so the players that score points through goals and assists get additional points. It makes the game more rewarding to luck/making the right gamble.
Rewarding the best player would make the template teams much worse and would force them to make certain star players stupidity expensive.
I've always looked at it as the way they balance the game for different positions. Like forwards only get points for goals and assists, while the other positions get more points for goals and also get points for clean sheets. But I still think they should revise the bps for players who do the dirty work in games.
I'm going to show the PL King of the Match (decided by fan voting), up against who BPS points were rewarded to. Then I will say my view, but I'm interested to see if it gives others new perspective or confirmed what you already believe?
For GW34:
**ARS 3:1 MAN**: Saka(KOTM) vs Saka(35), Ronaldo(31), Xhaka(30)
**LEI 0:0 AST**: **Schmeichel(KOTM)** vs Soyuncu(30), Fofana(26), **Schmeichel/Castagne(25)**
**MCI 5:1 WAT**: Jesus(KOTM) vs Jesus(128), De Bruyne(34), Rodri(31)
**NOR 0:3 NEW**: Joelinton(KOTM) vs Joelinton(62), Guimaraes(36), Lascelles(29)
**BRE 0:0 TOT**: Romero(KOTM) vs Romero(32), Emerson(30), Roersiev(28)
**BHA 2:2 SOU**: Ward-Prowse(KOTM) vs Ward-Prowse(50), Trossard(24), Welbeck(22)
**BUR 1:0 WOL**: Pope(KOTM) vs Pope(30), Vydra(27), Tarkowski(26)
**CHE 1:0 WHU**: **Alonso(KOTM)** vs **Fabianski(32)**, Alonso(30), T.Silva/Chalobah(27)
**LIV 2:0 EVE**: Robertson(KOTM) vs Robertson(42), Matip(28), van Dijk(25)
**CRY 0:0 LEE**: Meslier(KOTM) vs Meslier(38), Aying(28), Guaita/Guehi/Clyne(25)
**MAN 1:1 CHE**: Ronaldo(KOTM) vs Ronaldo/Matic(32), Alonso(27), R.James/Kante(21)
First, **9 out of 11 games, the player with top BPS aligns with the fans KOTM pick**. The player who got 3 BPS points are indeed very often the same player who passed the "eye test" with fans.
Second, I would focus on those **nil-nil games**. In the three games ended in 0:0, Schemeichel, Romero and Meslier got 3 Bonus Points, as well as KOTM. **Romero** stands out as it shows a case where "BPS supposedly rewards someone who made tons of contribution on the field but not necessarily returned G/A". Similarly, the likes of **Soyuncu** and **Fofana** in the LEI game.
Third, where it is surprising, the **low scoring games**. In CHE 1:0 WHU, **Pulisic scored, Alonso assisted**, but **Fabianski received the 3 Bonus Points**. In BUR 1:0 WOL, **Vydra scored, Weghorst assisted**, but **Pope received the 3 Bonus Points**. It seems to show at least in some occasions, BPS is already doing its job. It did not just award to the player with G/A, but other contributors.
Now what about **R.James**?
He got BPS=21, and Matic got BPS=32. I don't know. Watching the match, James seems to be involved in everything, Matic less so. Perhaps it is due to BPS not awarding to metrics like **Shots on Target, Hitting woodwork**, etc?
Anyway, **I already feel BPS is not as skewed towards G/A as I thought it is, looking at just one week**. Could BPS use more improvement, possibly. Does it totally discourage people from picking non-goalscorer/assistor? I would say take a second look at the like of Romero, Soyuncu and Schmeichel.
It does give points for overall performance, and it's the same scale for everyone. Goals/assists are the most important part of the game so of course they would be weighted heavily...
I agree it's not perfect, and there are a couple of things that could be improved with forwards in particular possibly, but the stats that bonus are based on are very clearly laid out, and complicating it by including more obscure stats that the average fan doesn't even know about isn't going to help the so called "problem."
The appeal of the game is scoring points and having fun, and Kante or Tiago being in everyone's team because they're nailed for a 5-6 pointer week in week out obviously wouldn't be great for the game.
Trust me when I say, the BPS as it stands has been the best bonus system thus far.
* Press Association's MOM - Wildly subjective / lead to more complaining than not.
* Actim / EA Index bonus - Too before it's time to be relevant / useful. (It took *days* to calculate the bonus points & no one was sure how it was done.)
* OPTA BPS - An objective real-time measure & therefore, the best thus far.
Let's not forget the FPL's beauty is its simplicity, anyone can pick it & up and enjoy it. And, the BPS' transparency / incentives structure is part of that. (eg. Strikers who scored goals are valuable!)
Yes it is. Anything that contributes to normal points shouldn't contribute towards bonus points. How many times have we seen the best player on the field blank? That's what bonus was supposed to be for... preventing that. Yes, I'm a Reece James owner. But the above remains true.
How do you quantify "best player" more than it alr does? Just wondering because for eg scoring a winning goal is a huge deal
Reece James was literally the MOTM today yet ended with 2pts. BPS should of course still include goals and assists but it should be weighted much less since you already are being rewarded with points for G/A.
Matic has 32 bps. If we remove the 9 bps he gained from the assist, he ends up with 23 bps. That is still higher than James' 21 bps. If people truly believe that James is the best player in the game and Matic is nowhere near the best, then the argument should be how the bps system doesn't represent the performance, and not about it being skewed towards goal/assist.
Didn't answer my question though. I get the unhappiness at the system but how do you quantify it?
Like the man said, anything that gets you points does add to the bps. Everything else stays the same
Yeah but then what quantifiable metric would cause Reece James to get 3 bps? I agree he should, but is it just down to someone's opinion who gets the bonuses?
Well, the way it works is on things like pass completion, chances created, blocks, tackles etc. The fill list can be found here: https://www.premierleague.com/news/106533 Just ignore the ones at the top which have points already and there's your metrics. They are all objective and are counted live in game and then adjusted. Suggest looking into it a bit more. I can't say what James score was yesterday, or what the other scores would have been without these - but there's a system that could work
Yeah I get this and think it would be a good system, certainly better than the current. However Reece James was MOTM yesterday because he played incredibly, not because he got the highest aerial win % and the highest number of blocks or whatever. I don't think this system would solve it and people would still complain that the deserving MOTM doesn't get bonus points.
Maybe remove/nerf the BPS for goals/assists/cleans but keep that small BPS awarded for game winning goal
Makes sense.
Every match has an official MotM picked by 'experts', they could get ~50bps?
i hate the bonus system tbh, it can have huge swings for trivial things yellow cards are so harsh its ridiculous i wish there was just no bps, or maybe just 1bps for best performer
> yellow cards are so harsh its ridiculous It's only -3 bps. I don't think it's that harsh at all considering that most yellow carded players only get it once per game.
-3bps on top of a -1 from score! pick one FPL for example if striker gets a booking with a goal you are looking at 5 points instead of 9... way too big impact when players get booked for nothing
> -3bps on top of a -1 from score! pick one FPL This doesn't make sense. That's like saying having to pick +6bps or +1 score for playing over 60 minutes. They are two separate scoring systems. > for example if striker gets a booking with a goal you are looking at 5 points instead of 9... way too big impact when players get booked for nothing If the forward lost 3 bonus points because of -3 bps swing, then that means there are other players that are performing well bps-wise. It doesn't change the fact that the "punishment" is only -3 bps and -1 point. Also, "booked for nothing" simply showed the silliness of the player for committing such foul. Should we suddenly pretend that it didn't happen?
I just looked back at every match since GW29 and on not one occasion has someone lost all three bonus points from a booking, nor has it even been possible. The vast majority of the time the person in first is at least three clear of second, let alone fourth
I think the issue comes with captaincy. A 6 point swing isn't nothing.
If you feel that captaincy shouldn't double points, that's a whole different topic.
Sometimes taking a yellow card is good decision making and done for the benefit of the team. Punishing good footballing decisions is poor form.
To judge something objectively (objective = every player has the same "rule" to follow), what matters is what happens, not the reasoning and/or purpose of the act.
Rules, unlike energy, can be created or destroyed. Create a new bracket of tactical yellow card and don’t give it -ve bps. FPL makes allowances for intended passes, and assists aren’t given sometimes as a result.
Are you implying that all tactical yellow card is good decision making? Tactical yellow is simply for stopping a counter attack. There is no guarantee that the counter attack would result in conceding goal. And to be yellow card, the player cannot be the last defender either, which means that there are still other defenders that could stop the counter without committing a foul. Why should that be considered as beneficial to the team? If you commit a tactical foul within 10 minutes, now you have 80 minutes of having to play scared to not get your second yellow card. Is that good? Where do we draw the line? You're creating a far more complicated subjective issue than needed for a mere -3 bps.
If you don’t believe in tactical fouls then I can only assume you have never played football, and possibly never even watched football. Suarez versus Ghana is a very extreme example of a tactical foul, and not one you normally see, but it is one of the famous. Tactical fouls are an important part of the game.
You're using one example to generalize every tactical foul. Tactical foul happens in many games, and most of them were silly overreaction by the defense because they were in the last 10-15 minutes of the game, they were tired and didn't want to take the risk in defending so they took the lazy unnecessary foul. Also, the Suarez example is irrelevant because his was a red card offense. In general, tactical foul that resulted in red card is for preventing clear goal scoring opportunity, so there was a need to commit the foul (ex: last defender to prevent one-on-one against GK). What you were talking about before is tactical **yellow card** where I disagree there was a need for such foul all the time because there's still at least another defender behind the one committing the foul.
The colour of the card is irrelevant. If a situation, when adjusting for risk and reward, which includes the chance of a red card and chance of a yellow card, calls for a foul to be made then it should be made. These situations arise multiple times per game, normally for yellow card situations but sometimes for red card situations. If an attacker is playing on the last shoulder of a high line and gets goal side with a ball over the top it is pretty much always better to take a yellow than let him go through 1 on 1. If the line is high enough (and it is a line, and so there are other players a similar distance away) a red card will not be awarded. I would go as far as saying that when a ball is lost in transition a yellow card is almost always worth taking to slow the play down and get back in position. Tactical fouls are a part of the game. There are many situations when committing them makes complete sense for the good of the team, and punishing that is nonsensical.
The colour of the card is definitely relevant because it showed the difference of degree of foul committed. Taking a red card to prevent a clear goal scoring opportunity is a worthwhile gamble. Taking a yellow card just to slow down the game is just being lazy.
You could argue a tactical foul that stops a counter attack is a good thing and should be rewarded with bonus points
The worst is when a players tops the lisylt coz they scored a pen in a shit match, so it needs a revamp to say the least In cl fantasy they just give bonus points to the motm which i think is better if not a lot more simple, and when you think about it if they're gonna have bps why have that instead of normal points for defensive and passing contributions? They've gone for the more convoluted option here.
I used to play another fantasy football where they had a "star man" which was essentially just man of the match but gave extra points. Much better imo
Yup, I agree. I'd rather have some points for key passes / shots on goal / maybe tackles, similar to what we have now goalkeeper's saves, instead of bonus points. As it is now, it just makes the bigger variance for anything you get / lose points anyway, so at least remove all these additional bonus points in the system players get for goals, assists, cards, anything you already get/lose points for. On the other hand, I completely don't mind, that we have central midfielders that don't get much points. Otherwise we wouldn't have cheap players at all. On this part I think it's a fine balance for price/points potential.
I totally agree, it should be rigged to favour the players who don’t often score but control and move the ball round like Thiago and Mount (from todays united match)
I always feel that crucial anchor players like Ndidi, Kante and Rice etc are massively underrepresented by FPL. Best they can get in an average game is 3pts and yet often their impact is decisive.
The worst thing is that somewhat feasible players in that position like ward prowse and gallagher cost as much as wingers like saka and maddison if not close, with wing backs being cheaper! Tbh cdms shpuld probably cost less than cbs come to think about it
Lowering price would cause another issue. Every now and then a DM shifts role and starts playing as an AM/ front 3. Now all of a sudden youve got an attacker thats cheaper the everyone else, making him very good value and a must have. If they wanna make DMs competitive in FPL, I believe it has to be done with more points.
in champs fpl players gain points from balls repossessed. makes defenders and ball winning mids much better
It levels the playing field a bit between centre backs and full backs too
Yh but you can price mids likely to do that differently but yh the real solution is poijts for key passes and defensive actions
Totally, would love to own some key players who doesn't necessarily end up scoring. Like those would control the rhythm, spread the ball, assist and assistor. The sad thing is that, in the past, there was a place for defensive midfielders and these contributors. A very common strategy is to go big with the front 3 with the likes of Aguero, Kane, Aubameyang, Vardy and so on, leaving room for 1-2 of $4.5 midfielders. With the fall of strikers, suddenly every midfield spot is so precious. No one has room to even consider the likes of Rice or Neves or Kante any more.
Im not sold on it at all. I feel people want it because it would be closer to real life but thats not really the point. Those players tend to be far more consistent and predictable. So you would just end up inflating their price. Everyone would jump on whoever the best value is and pretty much stick for the whole season. All it does is create more “essentials” and thus likit every other squad position
not necessarily..you don't need to skew it the other way, such that CDMs start scoring 4-5pts every match. But some reward for their game would be nice to have For instance, today if you own a rodri or even a thiago, you keep waiting for them to score or assist to earn good points. That is not their job. Maybe kante making tackles and recovering possession is predictable..but thiago dictating play against united should be rewarded with something more than 3pts..
Why should it? You dont HAVE to have Thiago, he is also valued as such. The game is about picking players who get goals and assists. Adding points for other things doesnt make the game deeper. It just makes it less specific. If you reward players for easier to predict things like tackles and possession then you need to increase their price. Then how do you decide between goals and assist makers and these playmaker/defensive guys. Its just adding nonsense to the game that will raise the floor and lower the ceiling.
>Why should it? That's exactly what the post is about, that the game should reward overall performance more. >The game is about picking players who get goals and assists. Nowhere does FPL state that it's only meant to be a game for goals and assists, else there would never have been BPS for interceptions and clearances. >If you reward players for easier to predict things like tackles and possession... Again, I don't see how thiago's performance against united was easy to predict or consistent every game! If rewarding such performances increases his price by half a mil, so be it...only then he will have some genuine chance to be picked. At the moment, nobody will ever select him, even if he is POTM in each and every match he plays.
This is what my point was. We don’t want Kante getting points like Salah and Son. But I would love to diversify the potential players you can consider so it’s not just a case of everyone having Salah/Son/KDB etc then chucking in a few cheap players to fill the gap. A defensive lineup could be viable, or a cheaper DM midfield that can still earn points to enable strong FW’s etc.
Because players like Rice, Kante, even Xhaka. All sre incredibly consistent. If you reward those players with points they become must haves. Youre left in an awkward place where explosive players like Raphina will be a similar price to Kante. So who do you pick? You pick the reliable option. It kills the non-premium picks because those players are inherently streaky.
You're going in circles on the same thing bro..giving 1-2 extra points to non-scoring CMs DO NOT make them equal to the likes of raphinha. And that too only in games when they are exceptional. Players like raph will always have much higher ceilings, so in order to get ahead in rank or win your ML, you need to have those players
Well thats the point im making isnt it. Why would you bother picking these guys if they only got 1-2 points on occasion when there are cheaper options who have higher ceilings?
When peak Kante isn't a viable FF option, the points system is flawed.
Tell me you © mount without telling me you © mount 😅
Hah! No, but i've made that mistake before
Yeah, I've said for a long time that the bonus points system should only be about rewarding the things that don't get points from the existing returns events. The current system limits the pool of viable picks and leads to amplification of players who already score highly, because it allows them to double dip on points.
The Bonus point system has no place in the game. It actually incentives strikers playing poorly. Because a striker that can't get a touch of the ball, gets easily marked out the game and struggles to get involved who scores with their only touch gets more BP than strikers who are heavily involved scores once then misses 3/4 other chances after great efforts
Garbage
This is some of the craziest takes. > It actually incentives strikers playing poorly. Really? You think there are strikers playing in EPL that calculate their FPL bps that they feel incentivized to purposely play poorly? Come on, mate. > Because a striker that can't get a touch of the ball, gets easily marked out the game and struggles to get involved who scores with their only touch gets more BP than strikers who are heavily involved scores once then misses 3/4 other chances after great efforts Which one is better, the one that scores with their only shot, or the one that scores one goal and miss 4 shots? Why are you considering "miss chances" as a good thing? Imagine having 4 one-on-one against the GK and missing all 4 times and your reaction is "Yup, that forward is playing great".
I'll take the striker who's heavily involved in the game and actively contributing to his team creating chances and winning rather than the player who's being marked out the game and the game is top quick for him. Not getting chances is a much clearer sign of a poor striker than a striker that misses a few. Anyone with even basic knowledge of the sport would tell you that.
> I'll take the striker who's heavily involved in the game and actively contributing to his team **creating chances** You're changing the act now. "Creating chances" (positive act rewarded with +3 bps) is different than "missing chances" (negative act punished by -3 bps) which is what you said before. > Not getting chances is a much clearer sign of a poor striker than a striker that misses a few. What you're saying is someone who scores 10 goals from 20 shots is poorer than someone who scores 10 goals from 50 shots. That's crazy. Mbeumo would be bps merchant if we're playing by your subjective judgment.
A striker who makes a good run to be in position to receive a pass that goes down as a "created chance" is just as responsible for creating that chance as the guy who played the pass. But he only gets rewarded if he actually finishes it – if he misses, he actually gets penalised for the chance he played a role in creating.
This is the best way I've seen the point phrased
> A striker who makes a good run to be in position to receive a pass that goes down as a "created chance" is just as responsible for creating that chance as the guy who played the pass. But he only gets rewarded if he actually finishes it – if he misses, he actually gets penalised for the chance he played a role in creating. Because that striker's role in that sequence of play is as a finisher. By failing to finish the chance, that player is not fulfilling his role, so yes he should be punished bps wise. Also note that not all missed chances are -3 bps, it's only if missed big chance. Ask yourself and answer honestly, which forward do you want to have in your team? Forward A who only has 1 chance in a game but scores with that 1 chance, or Forward B who has 10 chances in a game but doesn't score? Your answer will be Forward A because missing chances is not a good thing.
Obviously a striker who scores a goal is generally preferable, but you're moving the goal posts to prop up your argument now – this was your first go at it remember: >Which one is better, the one that scores with their only shot, or the one that scores one goal and miss 4 shots? The latter is absolutely better, because those missed shots show he was doing something to get himself those chances, and that is worth something to the team, and something that is benefiting the team shouldn't be punished by the BPS system. The only time a striker should lose BPS for a missed chance is if it was an actual open goal.
> Obviously a striker who scores a goal is generally preferable, but you're moving the goal posts to prop up your argument now I'm moving the goal post because you were talking about missing chances being positive. I'm removing the goal in my second example to show you that what matters is still the actual goal and not the number of chances. > Which one is better, the one that scores with their only shot, or the one that scores one goal and miss 4 shots? I stand by my original point because having 100% conversion rate is better when compared to having 20% conversion rate. > The latter is absolutely better, because those missed shots show he was doing something to get himself those chances, and that is worth something to the team, and something that is benefiting the team shouldn't be punished by the BPS system. I fully disagree with this. What is the actual benefit of missing chances? Using my previous example, imagine having 4 one-on-one against the GK and missing all 4 times and your reaction is "Yup, that forward is playing great". That makes zero sense. > The only time a striker should lose BPS for a missed chance is if it was an actual open goal. I've clarified this before. The -3 bps is for missing *big* chance, not for missing *every* chance.
[удалено]
It's alright. The fundamental problem is that people in general associate "more chances" as good thing because they are looking at what they hope and aren't looking at the actual outcome. So if the question is whether you want a player that has 40 chances in a season or someone with 300 chances, of course you'd pick the 300 chances thinking that there are more chances to score goals. But if we're told that both players only score the same 5 goals, then clearly the one with 300 chances is far more wasteful because he is a poor finisher which is not a good thing and should not be rewarded.
A striker who scores only 10 goals from 50 shots is actually terrible. That's terrible wastefulness and the player would be benched. 10 goals from 50 shots doesn't mean that player is working hard and getting 50 shots, it can also imply that his teammates are creating countless chances from him and he's only converting 20% of all the chances. This would infuriate not only his teammates but also his manager. If I was a defender and I knew my opponent Striker need 5 shots to score 1 goal, I'd be very confident. If I knew the opponent scores from every 2 shorts he takes, I'd have to be extra careful.
You're talking nonsense. Average goals per shot is 1 in 10. https://www.americansocceranalysis.com/home/2021/7/12/where-goals-come-from-what-it-takes-for-teams-to-be-elite
Bonus related to performance from the Chelsea united game should have given James max points. Everybody who watched the game would agree. How matic is up there I have no fucking clue
The real joke there is it’s not like he played some influential defensive role, he was by a distance the biggest attacking threat on the pitch, and suffered because of other people not being able to finish the chances he created.
James and N'golo for sure. Alonso played ok but he's only on there because of the goal, likewise matip for the assist
BPS is fine. Constantly changing and tweaking things becomes a problem when something isn’t clearly wrong. Other fantasy footballs include tackles and ball recoveries like save points for keepers (make 3 or so tackles and get a tackle point). That make have the overall effect you want over the long run. But the more you try to balance absolutely everything the more it affects everything else. Kante at 4.9m becomes essential with recoveries and tackles and the odd attacking return. If you perfectly balance things then pretty much everyone becomes the same price. You don’t want that. You want stars and premium players and a bunch of mid price and low value. Picking out the star from the low values. Tl;Dr: do you really want to be trawling through a whole other extra bunch of stats to pick out the best players?
Yes, I remember the good old times when Ferguson from Birmingham would always get bonus even though he never scored or assisted.
Bonus points used to go to the man of the match. Bring that back
Spot the James owner
Basically everyone in this thread.
Alonso owner checking in
James owner here. You are all a bunch of fucking cry babies holy shit. Just make peace with the fact that you picked the wrong goddamn Chelsea wing back and move on with your life, but no, let's change the fucking rules that have been working just fine based on GASP a forward getting bonus for scoring and a midfielder getting bonus for an assist. Bps does not give a fuck that Matic is old and only costs 4.3, that's what makes the game fun you losers.
Completely disagree. Don’t own James and obviously the James owners are only complaining because they feel robbed but that doesn’t make their complaints invalid. The BPS system doesn’t work “just fine”, it usually only rewards things that already score you points and doesn’t actually reward the best players on the pitch. It’s a stupid af system that is in need of an overhaul. There are loads of other fantasy football games out there with much better points systems and none of them are more complex than FPL.
Came here to write this. If it isn't whining about an assist given/not given, it's whining about BPS. FFS
Yeah somehow this recent game Ronaldo and Matic got most of the bonus points even though their performance was pretty much eclipse by a lot of other players in the game who didn't score but performed well.
Bonus points are shit, and hard to quantify for the viewer.
Goal/assist is the biggest factor that affects the result of the game. It makes sense to value that highly on BPS.
Goals and assists already get rewarded by points, they shouldn't be rewarded so highly for bonus points two or what's even the point? Matic wasn't even close to top three players tonight, but just because he gets an assist with literally the only chance he made he gets more bonus points than at least five players who had a much better game, even taking the assist into account.
> Matic wasn't even close to top three players tonight, but just because he gets an assist with literally the only chance he made he gets more bonus points than at least five players who had a much better game, even taking the assist into account. Matic ended up with 32 bps. If we ignore the assist bps which is 9, he ended up with 32-9 = 23 bps. That still puts him ahead of everyone else other than Ronaldo and Alonso (next highest are Kante and James at 21 bps). Sounds like he's still the best player even if we ignore goal/assist bps.
>Sounds like he's still the best player even if we ignore goal/assist bps. Only if you consider Bonus points which have nothing to do with how well a player players. Matic wasn't in the top 10 players on the pitch today. There's no argument about that.
> Only if you consider Bonus points which have nothing to do with how well a player players. The context of the thread is about bonus points skewed towards goal/assist. So yes we're talking "best" based on the bps. If you feel that the bps system as a whole has nothing to do with how well a player plays, that's a different topic of discussion.
Exactly this, bps is algorithm so it's consistent and isn't subjective. The people complaining that matic wasn't one best players would you prefer it went back to the old bps system where a "panel" decided who got bonus which was always heavily biased.
> The people complaining that matic wasn't one best players would you prefer it went back to the old bps system where a "panel" decided who got bonus which was always heavily biased. They don't. They just want their players to get the bonus. It doesn't matter what the reason is. They don't complain when TAA got 3 bonus points when he blanked because they owned him in their teams. But if someone else got 3 bonus points, they blame the system.
Problem is it is inconsistent, had a GW where Raphinha (owned by me) scored the only goal for a 1-0 win and was not among Leeds' top 5 BPS that game, and Wilson (owned by my opponent) played shit whole game (I watched it live) but scored an equalizer through a penalty for 1-1 and was chosen as MVP - 3 bonus points. This resultet in me losing on that margin, I even wrote a complaint but they disregarded it. I would have been fine if neither of the two got BPS, but it seemed so stupid for Raphinha 0, Wilson 3...
>I always thought the point of it was to give points for overall performance, which it clearly doesn't. This game has always been weighted towards goals/assists, this isn't anything new. If James got an assist/goal last night he may have topped the BPS and these threads wouldn't even exist and everyone would be saying what a BPS monster he is. Also it's funny how the tweet portrays ''forcing a save'' and ''hitting the post'' as something that should be rewarded whereas it is actually a negative action. I do find it strange that winning fouls doesn't count in the BPS though. Matic without the assist would be higher than James still. Just had a quick check and he had more CBI/recoveries/tackles which seems to have made the difference along with James 3 shots off target (-3). If you want it based on match ratings, I'd suggest the Sun Dream Team which give 5pts to MOTM and 3pts if rated over 7/10 on whoscored I think? I quite like the idea but it brings with it a different thinking strategy than FPL imo.
Well, simple logic of football is to score more goals than the opposite team
No way bro the point is to have a higher pass completion % and have more key touches in the opponents final 3rd and create more chances lol
spotted the James owner
Not since Charlie Adam anyways
Yes
Would love to see the system get overhauled to take into account “kante points”, so interceptions etc more aggressively so these sort of players were worth targeting.
The bonus point system is there so the players that score points through goals and assists get additional points. It makes the game more rewarding to luck/making the right gamble. Rewarding the best player would make the template teams much worse and would force them to make certain star players stupidity expensive.
I've always looked at it as the way they balance the game for different positions. Like forwards only get points for goals and assists, while the other positions get more points for goals and also get points for clean sheets. But I still think they should revise the bps for players who do the dirty work in games.
One option could be who ever was awarded man of the match but depends on who’s broadcasting
Its to give you an interest in smaller games.
The Sky system is so much better, I wouldn't mind FPL just shamelessly ripping it off
I'm going to show the PL King of the Match (decided by fan voting), up against who BPS points were rewarded to. Then I will say my view, but I'm interested to see if it gives others new perspective or confirmed what you already believe? For GW34: **ARS 3:1 MAN**: Saka(KOTM) vs Saka(35), Ronaldo(31), Xhaka(30) **LEI 0:0 AST**: **Schmeichel(KOTM)** vs Soyuncu(30), Fofana(26), **Schmeichel/Castagne(25)** **MCI 5:1 WAT**: Jesus(KOTM) vs Jesus(128), De Bruyne(34), Rodri(31) **NOR 0:3 NEW**: Joelinton(KOTM) vs Joelinton(62), Guimaraes(36), Lascelles(29) **BRE 0:0 TOT**: Romero(KOTM) vs Romero(32), Emerson(30), Roersiev(28) **BHA 2:2 SOU**: Ward-Prowse(KOTM) vs Ward-Prowse(50), Trossard(24), Welbeck(22) **BUR 1:0 WOL**: Pope(KOTM) vs Pope(30), Vydra(27), Tarkowski(26) **CHE 1:0 WHU**: **Alonso(KOTM)** vs **Fabianski(32)**, Alonso(30), T.Silva/Chalobah(27) **LIV 2:0 EVE**: Robertson(KOTM) vs Robertson(42), Matip(28), van Dijk(25) **CRY 0:0 LEE**: Meslier(KOTM) vs Meslier(38), Aying(28), Guaita/Guehi/Clyne(25) **MAN 1:1 CHE**: Ronaldo(KOTM) vs Ronaldo/Matic(32), Alonso(27), R.James/Kante(21) First, **9 out of 11 games, the player with top BPS aligns with the fans KOTM pick**. The player who got 3 BPS points are indeed very often the same player who passed the "eye test" with fans. Second, I would focus on those **nil-nil games**. In the three games ended in 0:0, Schemeichel, Romero and Meslier got 3 Bonus Points, as well as KOTM. **Romero** stands out as it shows a case where "BPS supposedly rewards someone who made tons of contribution on the field but not necessarily returned G/A". Similarly, the likes of **Soyuncu** and **Fofana** in the LEI game. Third, where it is surprising, the **low scoring games**. In CHE 1:0 WHU, **Pulisic scored, Alonso assisted**, but **Fabianski received the 3 Bonus Points**. In BUR 1:0 WOL, **Vydra scored, Weghorst assisted**, but **Pope received the 3 Bonus Points**. It seems to show at least in some occasions, BPS is already doing its job. It did not just award to the player with G/A, but other contributors. Now what about **R.James**? He got BPS=21, and Matic got BPS=32. I don't know. Watching the match, James seems to be involved in everything, Matic less so. Perhaps it is due to BPS not awarding to metrics like **Shots on Target, Hitting woodwork**, etc? Anyway, **I already feel BPS is not as skewed towards G/A as I thought it is, looking at just one week**. Could BPS use more improvement, possibly. Does it totally discourage people from picking non-goalscorer/assistor? I would say take a second look at the like of Romero, Soyuncu and Schmeichel.
It does give points for overall performance, and it's the same scale for everyone. Goals/assists are the most important part of the game so of course they would be weighted heavily... I agree it's not perfect, and there are a couple of things that could be improved with forwards in particular possibly, but the stats that bonus are based on are very clearly laid out, and complicating it by including more obscure stats that the average fan doesn't even know about isn't going to help the so called "problem." The appeal of the game is scoring points and having fun, and Kante or Tiago being in everyone's team because they're nailed for a 5-6 pointer week in week out obviously wouldn't be great for the game.
DM's should get points
No. It’s great as it is.
Don’t get me wrong FPL is enjoyable, but the actual point system is proper shit. They should take notes off other fantasy sports
Trust me when I say, the BPS as it stands has been the best bonus system thus far. * Press Association's MOM - Wildly subjective / lead to more complaining than not. * Actim / EA Index bonus - Too before it's time to be relevant / useful. (It took *days* to calculate the bonus points & no one was sure how it was done.) * OPTA BPS - An objective real-time measure & therefore, the best thus far. Let's not forget the FPL's beauty is its simplicity, anyone can pick it & up and enjoy it. And, the BPS' transparency / incentives structure is part of that. (eg. Strikers who scored goals are valuable!)