Gameweek 1 · 2026/27
Fixed before the deadline of 21 August 2026, 17:30 UTC, from a snapshot taken at 09:45 the same morning. The snapshot’s hash is in the provenance strip below.
Model’s squad, objective
186.87
My squad, same objective
178.24
Difference
−8.63
That is the model’s own objective function, evaluated on both squads: for each of the five gameweeks in the horizon, the best legal eleven, plus the best starter’s score again for the captain, plus a small share of the bench, all discounted by 0.85 per gameweek away. Run on the model’s own fifteen it reproduces the value the solver itself recorded, 186.86809762841, to within 5 × 10−13.
My squad judgement calls cost 8.63 expected points against the model.
Summing all fifteen players’ five-gameweek expected points gives 247.21 against 272.89, a gap of −25.68 — nearly three times the real one. It charges full value for all fifteen when only eleven start, so it penalises a good bench. The optimiser never maximised that quantity.
The strokes on the right are the nine additive components of the gameweek’s expected points, at the same scale for every player on this page.
Model squad — cost £100.0m, bank £0.0m. Roles shown are the model’s own gameweek 1 team sheet.
| Player | Price | GW1 xP | 5‑GW xP | P(start) | ep_next | Owned | 123456789 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| B.Fernandes MID · MUN · starts, captain | £12.0m | 4.82 | 23.00 | 0.92 | 4.0 | 51.1% | |
| Mbeumo MID · MUN · starts, vice | £8.0m | 4.52 | 21.55 | 0.85 | 2.8 | 36.6% | |
| Virgil DEF · LIV · starts | £6.5m | 3.92 | 21.86 | 0.98 | 3.1 | 18.6% | |
| Szoboszlai MID · LIV · starts | £7.0m | 3.91 | 21.26 | 0.91 | 2.5 | 41.7% | |
| Anderson MID · MCI · starts | £6.5m | 4.31 | 21.22 | 0.94 | 2.3 | 8.4% | |
| Rice MID · ARS · starts | £7.5m | 3.81 | 19.23 | 0.90 | 2.6 | 18.6% | |
| Raya GKP · ARS · bench 1 | £6.0m | 3.10 | 18.04 | 0.95 | 4.0 | 37.0% | |
| Thiaw DEF · NEW · starts | £5.0m | 3.18 | 17.90 | 0.93 | 2.2 | 1.7% | |
| Lacroix DEF · CHE · starts | £6.0m | 3.60 | 17.59 | 0.90 | 2.8 | 9.5% | |
| Thiago FWD · BRE · starts | £8.0m | 3.77 | 17.14 | 0.73 | 2.5 | 17.4% | |
| Lammens GKP · MUN · starts | £5.0m | 3.76 | 16.62 | 0.97 | 2.6 | 17.2% | |
| Guéhi DEF · MCI · starts | £6.0m | 3.33 | 16.96 | 0.88 | 2.8 | 18.0% | |
| Evanilson FWD · BOU · bench 2 | £6.0m | 2.99 | 16.41 | 0.86 | 2.0 | 2.2% | |
| Truffert DEF · BOU · bench 3 | £5.5m | 2.48 | 16.32 | 1.00 | 2.5 | 4.6% | |
| Emegha FWD · CHE · bench 4 | £5.0m | 1.55 | 7.80 | 0.26 | 1.4 | 0.1% |
Slot order, left to right — the slot is always drawn, so an empty slot means that component is exactly zero for that player:
above the rule, solid — adds points. below the rule, dotted — takes them away. Both halves are drawn at the same rate, so equal lengths mean equal magnitudes, and the faint horizontal rules are one expected point apart, so a stroke can be read off and not merely compared. The tallest on the page is Haaland’s goals term, 3.20 xP.
Nine of the fifteen are the same player, so here is only what moved. Both goalkeepers survived; the argument about them is which one plays, and that is judgement call four.
Model squad against entered squad, grouped by whether we agreed. Figures are 5‑gameweek expected points.
| Model picked | 5‑GW xP | I entered | 5‑GW xP | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Goalkeepers | ||||
| agreed | Raya £6.0m | 18.04 | Raya £6.0m | 18.04 |
| agreed | Lammens £5.0m | 16.62 | Lammens £5.0m | 16.62 |
| Defenders | ||||
| agreed | Virgil £6.5m | 21.86 | Virgil £6.5m | 21.86 |
| agreed | Thiaw £5.0m | 17.90 | Thiaw £5.0m | 17.90 |
| agreed | Lacroix £6.0m | 17.59 | Lacroix £6.0m | 17.59 |
| swapped | Guéhi £6.0m | 16.96 | Mitchell £4.5m | 14.52 |
| swapped | Truffert £5.5m | 16.32 | Muharemović £5.0m | 6.96 |
| Midfielders | ||||
| agreed | Mbeumo £8.0m | 21.55 | Mbeumo £8.0m | 21.55 |
| agreed | Szoboszlai £7.0m | 21.26 | Szoboszlai £7.0m | 21.26 |
| agreed | Anderson £6.5m | 21.22 | Anderson £6.5m | 21.22 |
| swapped | B.Fernandes £12.0m | 23.00 | E.Le Fée £6.0m | 16.83 |
| swapped | Rice £7.5m | 19.23 | Tzolis £6.5m | 8.79 |
| Forwards | ||||
| agreed | Thiago £8.0m | 17.14 | Thiago £8.0m | 17.14 |
| swapped | Evanilson £6.0m | 16.41 | Haaland £15.5m | 22.22 |
| swapped | Emegha £5.0m | 7.80 | Walle Egeli £4.5m | 4.72 |
The fifteen actually entered — cost £100.0m, £0.5m in the bank. Roles are mine, not the model’s.
| Player | Price | GW1 xP | 5‑GW xP | P(start) | ep_next | Owned | 123456789 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Raya GKP · ARS · starts | £6.0m | 3.10 | 18.04 | 0.95 | 4.0 | 37.0% | |
| Lammens GKP · MUN · bench, GK | £5.0m | 3.76 | 16.62 | 0.97 | 2.6 | 17.2% | |
| Virgil DEF · LIV · starts | £6.5m | 3.92 | 21.86 | 0.98 | 3.1 | 18.6% | |
| Lacroix DEF · CHE · starts | £6.0m | 3.60 | 17.59 | 0.90 | 2.8 | 9.5% | |
| Mitchell DEF · CRY · bench 3 | £4.5m | 2.87 | 14.52 | 0.90 | 1.7 | 6.5% | |
| Thiaw DEF · NEW · starts | £5.0m | 3.18 | 17.90 | 0.93 | 2.2 | 1.7% | |
| Muharemović DEF · LEE · bench 2 | £5.0m | 1.43 | 6.96 | 0.43 | 2.2 | 3.3% | |
| Mbeumo MID · MUN · starts, vice | £8.0m | 4.52 | 21.55 | 0.85 | 2.8 | 36.6% | |
| Tzolis MID · ARS · starts, captain | £6.5m | 1.75 | 8.79 | 0.43 | 2.3 | 22.2% | |
| Anderson MID · MCI · starts | £6.5m | 4.31 | 21.22 | 0.94 | 2.3 | 8.4% | |
| E.Le Fée MID · SUN · starts | £6.0m | 3.87 | 16.83 | 0.89 | 2.1 | 10.9% | |
| Szoboszlai MID · LIV · starts | £7.0m | 3.91 | 21.26 | 0.91 | 2.5 | 41.7% | |
| Haaland FWD · MCI · starts | £15.5m | 4.71 | 22.22 | 0.79 | 4.0 | 69.3% | |
| Thiago FWD · BRE · starts | £8.0m | 3.77 | 17.14 | 0.73 | 2.5 | 17.4% | |
| Walle Egeli FWD · IPS · bench 4 | £4.5m | 0.99 | 4.72 | 0.15 | 1.0 | 2.2% |
The objective is a weighted sum over five gameweeks. Its weight falls by 0.85 each week out, so gameweek 1 counts for nearly twice as much as gameweek 5 — a squad that is wrong now is punished harder than a squad that will be wrong later. Both columns are scored the same way, re-picking the best legal eleven and the best captain each week, so this compares the two squads rather than my team-sheet decisions.
Best legal eleven per gameweek, before and after the decay weight.
| GW | Model, raw | Mine, raw | Weight | Weighted difference |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 49.08 | 47.98 | 1.0000 | -1.10 |
| 2 | 53.97 | 49.34 | 0.8500 | -3.94 |
| 3 | 49.81 | 47.71 | 0.7225 | -1.52 |
| 4 | 50.10 | 48.41 | 0.6141 | -1.04 |
| 5 | 48.20 | 46.21 | 0.5220 | -1.04 |
| Total | 251.16 | 239.64 | -8.63 |
Where I overruled the model, or fed it a number I chose myself. Listed separately so each can be graded on its own when the week is scored.
| # | The call | What it costs if I am wrong |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Belgian → Premier League attack factor set to 0.58 | Tzolis becomes the squad’s best player at 23.64 xP. At a factor of 0.30 he falls to 17.1 and Rice is the better pick. |
| 2 | Bruno Fernandes fitness factor set to 0.85 | He drops out, and the £12.0m he frees funds Haaland. At 0.95 he keeps his place and Haaland is unaffordable. |
| 3 | Diop P(start) set to 0.85 | Corrects a stale Fulham bench role. He still did not make the squad, so this one costs nothing either way. |
| 4 | Raya started over Lammens, against the model | The model prefers Lammens on a fixture priced by the FDR fallback rather than by expected goals. |
| 5 | Le Fée over Ampadu | The model prefers Ampadu by 1.22 xP. Le Fée’s 16 bonus points last season are invisible to a formula with no bonus term. |
| 6 | Egeli over Thomas-Asante | Bought £0.5m of headroom against price rises. The model prefers Thomas-Asante. |
| 7 | Tzolis captained, decided on the day | The same bet as call 1, doubled. If the 0.58 factor holds he is a 4.72 xP captain and the armband is worth 4.585; if it does not he is 1.75 and it is worth 2.874. Nothing in between. He is in every published predicted Arsenal XI, at home to a promoted side. |
Outside the snapshot
George Hirst
Our first choice at £5.0m, and reported to be mid-medical at Stoke City on a £10m permanent deal. FPL still lists him as a clean, available Ipswich forward. Nothing in the snapshot, the archive or the Wikipedia collection would have carried it.
Outside the snapshot
Coventry’s striker
Coventry were reported to be close to a £17m signing, which would push both of their existing forwards down the order. Unconfirmed at the deadline and worth re-checking; it did not change this squad, but it is the kind of thing that silently invalidates a price-sorted shortlist.
Where this squad sits against the crowd and against FPL’s own projection, position by position; the 4 candidates the model cannot price because they have no Premier League history; and every number on this page unrounded, with all nine components for each of the 38 players named.
The hash below is of the data snapshot the solve consumed. The same snapshot and the same formula version return the same fifteen names.