Gameweek 13 was the final week I owned Harry Kane, as I began my #KANEXIT strategy weeks before Hall of Famer, Jay Egersdorff made his video discussing the logic and strategy behind it. Kane was scoreless in the last 3 games before hitting for a goal in a 1-1 draw with WBA. It was time to move the high priced forward and shift my budget to premium midfielders, a position that had been posting consistent returns.
Driving into work today I saw a tweet flash over my mobile device that acted as the catalyst behind this article. While it won’t benefit Jay or Peter Kouwenberg, both managers moved Kane in Gameweek 18, but think it’s unfair to judge a manager on their strategy after a short duration.
TopMarx comments, “It’s not worked out so far for Jay. He’s still in the top 1,000 but with the extra 51 points if Kanexit hadn’t happened he would have 1,238 points and be 6th overall.” That statement sums up the #KANEXIT strategy, my only problem it’s judged on just 2 weeks of play. It’s fair to play devil’s advocate, but can you realistically judge the success or failure on just 2 gameweeks?
Initially my strategy would take 4 gameweeks to implement, injuries and potential price rises, as well as an unexpected upgrade saw that hasted and addition points “invested” to make the necessary transfers.
Gameweek 20 represents 6 week of going without the Spurs front man. Looking at it from a Gameweek 19 perspective, many would feel my strategy had failed, as Kane hit for a hat trick. But there is more to it, than a short sided comparison covering 2 gameweeks.
Standing back one can compare the scores of Christian Erisken and Harry Kane to that of Eden Hazard and Alvaro Morata, as it was a multiple player swap ahead of Gameweek 14.
On the surface, the Spurs duo outscored their Chelsea counterpart by 32 points over a 6 week period. However what this comparison doesn’t factor was the £2.2 savings ITB from moving Kane/Eriksen for Morata/Hazard. That savings helped fund a series of transfers that moved over 40% of my budget into the midfield, opting for cheaper forwards, while remaining strong defensively.
In the week that followed, I rolled my GW15 FT over to allow for the next set of moves to build a stronger midfield. After 2 gameweeks I was 8 points better without the Kane/Eriksen duo. That however, would change starting in Gameweek 16, as Eriksen would be differential as Kane would blank in Gameweeks 17 and 18.
Some assumptions for my starting XI would need to be made for the next 3 gameweeks, as I took hits of -4, -4 and -12 in order to complete my transfer strategy after moving Kane in Gameweek 14. For the comparison I will captain Kane in place of Hazard, which means he won’t be captained in Gameweek 17 or 19.
Gameweek 16, as my strategy enters it’s third week takes a turn for the worse, as Kane and Eriksen returns points in their 5-1 home victory against Stoke City. Eriksen finished with a goal and bonus point, while Kane hit for a brace and 2 bonus points, totaling 20 points for the Spurs men. By contrast neither Hazard or Morata returned points.
A difference of 19 points, in favor of Kane/Eriksen for the gameweek, which is a difference of 11 points in favor of the Spurs duo over the Chelsea lads over the 3 week period.
Gameweek 17 introduced a factor I wasn’t prepared for, injury. Aaron Ramsey was transferred in to replace Tom Carroll to bolster the midfield and start in a 3-5-2 formation. A hamstring injury sidelined him, which needed to be addressed and would add an extra transfer into the strategy.
In the same vein as Gameweek 16, starters were assumed based on personnel in my squad. Gameweek 18 was a late, unexpected -4, after weighing information from Jay Egersdorff, I followed suite and picked up Arthur Masuaka for Aaron Cresswell to free up budget to bring in David de Gea. That move failed miserably on the week. This transfer wasn’t in my initial GW14 plan, but much like moving Kane, seemed to be made based on good information as how Man United and de Gea were playing at the time.
Gameweek 18 hurt as Kane hit for a brace, equating to 24 points, which was twice as much as what Hazard scored. It was at this point, the scale had tilted heavily in favor of #KANEREMAINS. However I had still not completed the rest of the midfield moves to provide me 5 premium midfielders, which would come to fruition ahead of Gameweek 19.
While I didn’t consider Kane “good vallue” going into my Gameweek 14 #KANEXIT strategy, Gameweek 19, confirmed it and was a painful realization that I would not be making ground in my mini leagues or the overall rankings. This was also a week I took a -12 point hit in order to bring in Raheem Sterling, Paul Pogba, Andreas Christensen and Laurent Depoitre.
A final score of 77 was good, but it was reduced to 65 points after my hits were factored in, record another red arrow, making it 3 out of 4 weeks moving in the wrong direction. This was also the most notable week with 88 points with Kane in the starting XI wearing the armband.
Overall, the #KANEXIT strategy employed starting Gameweek 14 didn’t pay off. It was a calculated risk, one I was willing to take, based on his form and that of Spurs. Out of 13 week I owned Kane, he blanked in 6 out of 8, failed to return captaincy points in 4 out of 5 I handed him the armband. At £12.8, I did not feel he was worth his value.
A difference of approximately 78 points separated what I would of had if kept Kane in my starting XI and didn’t decide to move my budget into the midfield. While 6 weeks doesn’t make a season, it was one of the important decisions to date that has had an adverse effect on my overall score. An additional 78 points puts me into the top 50k, as opposed to where I sit now at 529k ahead of Gameweek 20.
This comparison is a moot point as Boxing Day fixtures are over and Kane has returned another 3 goals, giving him 6 over a two week period. He has outplayed his price of £12.9 over two fixtures. On Twitter, Captain Kingpin asked, “But if you could go back in time you would have kept Kane wouldn’t you?” My answer, “No, I wouldn’t have. He blanked in 6 out of 8 during the first 13 weeks, wasn’t performing at home. Spurs weren’t in form and thought there was better value in the midfield, especially with Chelsea looking at favorable fixtures. So the logic behind it was solid, didn’t work out.”
There is a light at the end of tunnel, as I had kept the door open to bring Kane back in after the DGW was announced for Spurs. What strengthens this move has been the lack of returns Eden Hazard has recorded since bringing him back in Gameweek 14. Downgrading Hazard to
Abdoulaye Doucouré (£5.3) and moving the injured/suspended Charlie Austin (£6.2) will provide the necessary budget to bring the in form forward back. It will also leave me £0.8 ITB for future transfers.