xgEdge

Fantasy Premier League

Best value in the game

Every player the game would let you field, projected over the rounds ahead and priced against them. The board is ranked on the model's own currency; the value column is one click away.

Best value in the game

Antonín Kinský

GKP · TOT · 4.5m · owned by 17%

2.37

Value

every bar on one axis of 0 to 2.5

That is 10.7 projected points over the rounds ahead, weighted so the round in front of him counts for most.

Gameweek 6 · 5-round window · feed of 01/10 11:39

Antonín Kinský is the best value on the board: 2.37 points per million, from 10.7 over 5 rounds at 4.5m.

Price

4.5m

What the game charges for him today, which is what the value column divides by.

Ahead

10.7

His weighted score over the next 5 rounds, and the currency this board is ranked in.

Own

17%

The share of managers already holding him.

The top five on this board

The board as your controls leave it — the same five that open the table below.

  1. Ranked 1 Sandro Tonali
    MID TOT vs
    10.7 Ahead
    Value
    2.02
    Price
    5.3m
    Own
    1.8%
    3.4
    1. MUN (A)
    2. COV (H)
    3. CHE (A)
    4. CRY (H)
    5. LEE (A)
  2. Ranked 2 Antonín Kinský
    GKP TOT vs
    10.7 Ahead
    Value
    2.37
    Price
    4.5m
    Own
    17%
    3.4
    1. MUN (A)
    2. COV (H)
    3. CHE (A)
    4. CRY (H)
    5. LEE (A)
  3. Ranked 3 Omar Marmoush
    FWD TOT vs
    9.7 Ahead
    Value
    1.39
    Price
    7.0m
    Own
    2.1%
    3.4
    1. MUN (A)
    2. COV (H)
    3. CHE (A)
    4. CRY (H)
    5. LEE (A)
  4. Ranked 4 Rodrigo Bentancur
    MID TOT vs
    9.6 Ahead
    Value
    1.75
    Price
    5.5m
    Own
    0.2%
    3.4
    1. MUN (A)
    2. COV (H)
    3. CHE (A)
    4. CRY (H)
    5. LEE (A)
  5. Ranked 5 Micky van de Ven
    DEF TOT vs
    9.0 Ahead
    Value
    1.80
    Price
    5.0m
    Own
    3.8%
    3.4
    1. MUN (A)
    2. COV (H)
    3. CHE (A)
    4. CRY (H)
    5. LEE (A)
Position
Minutes played
Rounds ahead
Price
1 Sandro Tonali 10.7
MID vs TOT · 5.3m 92%
Value
2.02
Pts
3.0
xGI
0.18
Own
1.8%
Mins
427
  1. MUN (A)
  2. COV (H)
  3. CHE (A)
  4. CRY (H)
  5. LEE (A)
GKP vs TOT · 4.5m 92%
Value
2.37
Pts
2.9
xGI
0.00
Own
17%
Mins
450
  1. MUN (A)
  2. COV (H)
  3. CHE (A)
  4. CRY (H)
  5. LEE (A)
FWD vs TOT · 7.0m 75%
Value
1.39
Pts
2.7
xGI
0.14
Own
2.1%
Mins
339
  1. MUN (A)
  2. COV (H)
  3. CHE (A)
  4. CRY (H)
  5. LEE (A)
MID vs TOT · 5.5m 75%
Value
1.75
Pts
2.7
xGI
0.03
Own
0.2%
Mins
370
  1. MUN (A)
  2. COV (H)
  3. CHE (A)
  4. CRY (H)
  5. LEE (A)
DEF vs TOT · 5.0m 75%
Value
1.80
Pts
2.2
xGI
0.16
Own
3.8%
Mins
360
  1. MUN (A)
  2. COV (H)
  3. CHE (A)
  4. CRY (H)
  5. LEE (A)
DEF vs TOT · 4.9m 69%
Value
1.66
Pts
2.0
xGI
0.22
Own
6.5%
Mins
450
  1. MUN (A)
  2. COV (H)
  3. CHE (A)
  4. CRY (H)
  5. LEE (A)
DEF vs TOT · 4.4m 75%
Value
1.78
Pts
1.9
xGI
0.14
Own
2.5%
Mins
366
  1. MUN (A)
  2. COV (H)
  3. CHE (A)
  4. CRY (H)
  5. LEE (A)
8 Sávio 7.3
MID vs TOT · 6.5m 58%
Value
1.13
Pts
2.0
xGI
0.41
Own
0.7%
Mins
240
  1. MUN (A)
  2. COV (H)
  3. CHE (A)
  4. CRY (H)
  5. LEE (A)
9 Mathys Tel 6.9
MID vs TOT · 5.7m 58%
Value
1.21
Pts
1.9
xGI
0.15
Own
0.2%
Mins
257
  1. MUN (A)
  2. COV (H)
  3. CHE (A)
  4. CRY (H)
  5. LEE (A)
10 Archie Gray 6.8
MID vs TOT · 4.9m 58%
Value
1.39
Pts
1.9
xGI
0.08
Own
0.2%
Mins
307
  1. MUN (A)
  2. COV (H)
  3. CHE (A)
  4. CRY (H)
  5. LEE (A)
FWD vs TOT · 5.8m 42%
Value
1.08
Pts
1.8
xGI
0.31
Own
0.8%
Mins
170
  1. MUN (A)
  2. COV (H)
  3. CHE (A)
  4. CRY (H)
  5. LEE (A)
MID vs TOT · 5.7m 58%
Value
1.00
Pts
1.6
xGI
0.17
Own
0.8%
Mins
249
  1. MUN (A)
  2. COV (H)
  3. CHE (A)
  4. CRY (H)
  5. LEE (A)
MID vs TOT · 5.3m 42%
Value
1.00
Pts
1.5
xGI
0.33
Own
0.2%
Mins
134
  1. MUN (A)
  2. COV (H)
  3. CHE (A)
  4. CRY (H)
  5. LEE (A)
MID vs TOT · 5.3m 25%
Value
0.74
Pts
1.1
xGI
0.38
Own
0.1%
Mins
78
  1. MUN (A)
  2. COV (H)
  3. CHE (A)
  4. CRY (H)
  5. LEE (A)
DEF vs TOT · 5.4m 44%
Value
0.71
Pts
0.9
xGI
0.24
Own
7.6%
Mins
198
  1. MUN (A)
  2. COV (H)
  3. CHE (A)
  4. CRY (H)
  5. LEE (A)
DEF vs TOT · 5.8m 25%
Value
0.51
Pts
0.7
xGI
0.02
Own
3.5%
Mins
90
  1. MUN (A)
  2. COV (H)
  3. CHE (A)
  4. CRY (H)
  5. LEE (A)
DEF vs TOT · 4.4m 25%
Value
0.66
Pts
0.7
xGI
0.24
Own
0.3%
Mins
86
  1. MUN (A)
  2. COV (H)
  3. CHE (A)
  4. CRY (H)
  5. LEE (A)
18 Callum Olusesi 2.4
MID vs TOT · 4.4m 8.3%
Value
0.54
Pts
0.7
xGI
0.00
Own
1.0%
Mins
0
  1. MUN (A)
  2. COV (H)
  3. CHE (A)
  4. CRY (H)
  5. LEE (A)
19 Luca Williams-Barnett 2.4
MID vs TOT · 4.5m 8.3%
Value
0.53
Pts
0.7
xGI
0.00
Own
0.1%
Mins
0
  1. MUN (A)
  2. COV (H)
  3. CHE (A)
  4. CRY (H)
  5. LEE (A)
MID vs TOT · 6.5m 8.3%
Value
0.36
Pts
0.7
xGI
0.39
Own
0.2%
Mins
123
  1. MUN (A)
  2. COV (H)
  3. CHE (A)
  4. CRY (H)
  5. LEE (A)
MID vs TOT · 6.3m 8.3%
Value
0.37
Pts
0.7
xGI
0.15
Own
0.4%
Mins
59
  1. MUN (A)
  2. COV (H)
  3. CHE (A)
  4. CRY (H)
  5. LEE (A)
22 Brandon Austin 1.9
GKP vs TOT · 4.0m 8.3%
Value
0.48
Pts
0.5
xGI
0.00
Own
1.0%
Mins
0
  1. MUN (A)
  2. COV (H)
  3. CHE (A)
  4. CRY (H)
  5. LEE (A)
23 Martin Dubravka 1.9
GKP vs TOT · 4.0m 8.3%
Value
0.48
Pts
0.5
xGI
0.00
Own
17%
Mins
0
  1. MUN (A)
  2. COV (H)
  3. CHE (A)
  4. CRY (H)
  5. LEE (A)
24 Ben Davies 1.6
DEF vs TOT · 3.9m 8.3%
Value
0.42
Pts
0.4
xGI
0.00
Own
0.9%
Mins
0
  1. MUN (A)
  2. COV (H)
  3. CHE (A)
  4. CRY (H)
  5. LEE (A)
25 James Rowswell 1.6
DEF vs TOT · 4.0m 8.3%
Value
0.41
Pts
0.4
xGI
0.00
Own
0.1%
Mins
0
  1. MUN (A)
  2. COV (H)
  3. CHE (A)
  4. CRY (H)
  5. LEE (A)
26 Jun'ai Byfield 1.6
DEF vs TOT · 4.0m 8.3%
Value
0.41
Pts
0.4
xGI
0.00
Own
0.1%
Mins
0
  1. MUN (A)
  2. COV (H)
  3. CHE (A)
  4. CRY (H)
  5. LEE (A)
27 Tosin Adarabioyo 1.6
DEF vs TOT · 4.4m 8.3%
Value
0.37
Pts
0.4
xGI
0.00
Own
0.1%
Mins
5
  1. MUN (A)
  2. COV (H)
  3. CHE (A)
  4. CRY (H)
  5. LEE (A)
each row's Ahead, drawn to scale every bar on one axis of 0 to 20

What this board is, and what it is not

Every ranking here is in expected points or in the weighted score for the rounds ahead, which are the units this model is measured in. The value column is those figures restated over a price — it is a way of scanning the board, and nothing on this site backtests it.

Bonus points are projected nowhere on this site, so they are in none of these figures.

The window score is points times weight rather than points. The 5 weights sum to 3.36, so a window score is never a total anybody could add up from the per-round figures beside it.

The price is what he costs today. What the game would pay for a player who has risen is less, so a value figure is an estimate of a purchase rather than of a sale.

The board is every player the game would let you field, the flagged included — whether a doubtful player is worth picking is a judgement the projection makes with his published chance of playing, not one made by hiding him.

What is measured here, and what is not

  • Measured The projected points

    Replayed against gameweek 2 after it was played: an average miss of 1.617 points a player, against 1.842 for “predict what he has averaged so far”, over 456 players. Recorded Sunday, 6 September 2026 and refreshed by hand, so the date is part of the claim.