FPL
FPL Gameweek 2: Should You be Making Transfers?
Should you transfer in FPL Gameweek 2? Patience is key, but some players may already be sells.
Gameweek 1 is always chaos. Plans get ripped up, bandwagons appear, and patience gets tested right away. So, the big question now is: should you transfer a player out in Gameweek 2?
The short answer: maybe. But it really depends on why you want to move them on. Let’s break it down.
When It Makes Sense to Sell a Player Early
I can think of three main reasons managers transfer a player out this week:
- Unexpected minutes: you thought your player was nailed, but they didn’t start or got hooked early.
- Poor performance (player or team): they looked bad, or their team did.
- A shiny alternative looks better: someone else caught your eye in Gameweek 1.
Let’s dig into each one.
1. Lower Than Expected Minutes
If your player didn’t get the minutes you expected, ask yourself: did you see this coming?
- If they were a known rotation risk before Gameweek 1, then nothing has changed. Be patient.
- If you genuinely thought they’d be nailed, but they didn’t start, that’s different. Your assumption was wrong.
For example, Omar Marmoush is a problem. He didn’t start, and when he came on, he looked poor. His system fit is questionable, and he’s competing with Erling Haaland. That’s not what you want from an 8.5m asset. In his case, moving to someone like Tijani Reijnders, Antoine Semenyo, or even Morgan Rogers makes sense.
But if your player came off early for tactical reasons, like Strand Larsen when his team was struggling, that’s explainable. Don’t be too hasty.
2. Poor Team or Player Performance
We saw some shocking results in Gameweek 1. West Ham losing 3–0 to Sunderland was the big one. Many of us owned Jarrod Bowen or Niclas Füllkrug for that exact fixture.
- Bowen: Proven FPL gold. He’s been involved in over 40% of West Ham’s goals in recent seasons. Yes, the Hammers looked poor, but I don’t think this is panic time. Label this as a possible transfer, you could do it, but there’s no rush.
- Füllkrug: Different story. He’s not proven in the Premier League, and his FPL ceiling looks low. Selling him is more justified, but I wouldn’t say it’s urgent either. If you move him, know where you’re going—maybe to Thiago(on penalties) or a punt on Mayenda, but the fixtures suggest waiting until Gameweek 3 is smarter.
Elsewhere, Iliman Ndiaye blanked for Everton, but he played 90 minutes and is on penalties. That’s not a sell for me yet, especially with decent fixtures.
And remember: not every poor Gameweek 1 is representative. Last season, people jumped on Zirkzee after a goal off the bench, but it wasn’t a sign of things to come. Don’t fall into the same trap this year.
3. An Alternative Looks Better
This is the trickiest one. You might be tempted by a new star like Reijnders or Semenyo, but ask yourself:
- Did you want them before Gameweek 1?
- Are they nailed for minutes?
- Was their performance sustainable, not just a one-off?
If all three are true, then go for it. If not, one good game shouldn’t rewrite your preseason thinking.
Take João Pedro, for example. His minutes were never going to be 90 each week, but at 7.5m he’s still value. Moving him to Evanilson could work, but Pedro isn’t a must-sell.
The 8.5 Million Assets: Wirtz vs Marmoush
- Florian Wirtz: Keep. He looked excellent in Liverpool’s 4–0 win, taking set pieces and linking play beautifully. The returns will come.
- Omar Marmoush: Sell if you want. He’s not nailed, doesn’t suit the system, and you don’t pay 8.5m for a bench risk.
Cole Palmer: On Thin Ice
Palmer is the trickiest call of the lot.
- The good: on penalties, massive ceiling, capable of explosive hauls.
- The bad: poor form carried over from last season, looked flat in Gameweek 1, and Chelsea’s fixtures toughen after West Ham in gameweek 2.
I’d give him two more weeks. But if he’s still blanking by Gameweek 4, it’s time to move on.
Pedro Porro: Start or Bench?
Porro is one of the best long-term defensive assets in the game, but away to Manchester City in Gameweek 2 is brutal. Numbers suggest that Spurs have only a 10% clean sheet chance.
If you’ve got a decent bench, I’d sit him. If not, don’t panic, he could still nick an attacking return.
Don’t Waste Chips in Gameweek 2
Some are considering Free Hit or Bench Boost this week. I’d strongly advise against it.
- Free Hit: only helps for one week, and you get your “bad” team back. If your squad really is that bad, just Wildcard later with a bit more information.
- Bench Boost: benches like Dubravka, Esteve, Guiu, and Porro are relying on low-probability outcomes. You’ll likely get 4 to 10 points. Save it for a better chance.
Final Thoughts
Gameweek 2 is not the time to panic. Transfers this week should be made for clear, justified reasons: unexpected benchings, genuinely poor assets, or moving to someone you already rated highly pre-season.
Download the We Play FPL app to take your decision-making to the next level. Compare players, plan transfers, and get accurate points predictions—all in one place.
May your arrows be green. Happy managing!
Chip Strategy
GW10 Rice: is he worth a £7.4m transfer?
Rice has five assists, but his £7.4m buying case needs a closer look. Weigh his creativity, goal threat and fixtures before using a GW10 transfer.
Keep Declan Rice for Hull at home if you own him and have a more urgent transfer to make. Buying him at £7.4m needs a stronger reason than his five assists and 47 points. You would be paying for a midfielder whose creativity has produced more returns than his underlying attacking numbers suggest.
Rice can reward owners against Hull. The concern for a new buyer is the price, his limited goal threat and the fixtures that follow. Before spending a transfer, decide whether you want him beyond GW10.
Five assists need some context
Rice has five assists against 2.01 expected assists this season. He has created chances, but projecting another five assists from the same level of creation would be optimistic. Expected assists describe the chances he has created; they do not forecast his next result or require him to blank to make up the difference.
His per-90 attacking rates sharpen the buying decision: 0.05 xG/90, 0.24 xA/90 and 0.29 xGI/90. He has averaged 84.4 minutes per match. At that level of goal threat, you are relying on his creativity for much of his attacking upside. He has scored no league goals so far.
Those season-to-date performance rates help explain how he has played. They are not a points prediction for Hull, and the average playing time does not guarantee his next start or workload.
Check the floor beneath the returns
Rice has collected seven bonus points. Those points count for his owners, but you should judge the next purchase on the scoring routes available in the coming matches. Budgeting for bonus alongside each assist would overstate the security of his returns.
His 8.76 DefCon/90 also gives little reason to assume a dependable cushion of defensive-contribution points. That rate measures defensive actions across his playing time; it does not guarantee threshold points in an individual fixture. Use the verified 84.4 average minutes per match alongside it, then leave room for variation in both workload and involvement.
Rice remains capable of a useful return. At £7.4m, a buyer needs to want his creative role enough to accept the limited goal threat, rather than treating his past points as a reliable weekly floor.
Look beyond Hull at home
Arsenal host Hull in GW10, then visit Newcastle in GW11 and host Manchester City in GW12. A transfer for Hull alone leaves you with another decision at the next deadline.
If you are considering Rice, compare players and upcoming fixtures in We Play FPL before committing the budget. Check how the purchase fits your midfield through Newcastle and Manchester City, including whether you would still choose him if you could not use another transfer on that slot.
Existing owners can give him the Hull match while fixing a weaker starting position. For a fresh purchase, favour a clear improvement to your XI over chasing the assists you missed. Rice makes sense if you want his creativity across the holding period and can accept the risk of quieter weeks. His recent returns alone are too thin a reason to spend £7.4m.
Fixtures
GW10 Calvert-Lewin injury doubt: hold or move to Evanilson?
Hold Calvert-Lewin if the fitness update supports a start and your cover works. For a fresh forward purchase, we prefer Evanilson at £6.4m.
Keep Calvert-Lewin if the final fitness update supports a start and you have cover you trust. For a fresh forward purchase, we prefer Evanilson. You can buy the Bournemouth forward without taking on Calvert-Lewin’s unresolved foot problem, while an existing owner has more reason to wait before spending a transfer.
Calvert-Lewin costs £6.1m and carries a foot-injury flag ahead of Leeds’ home match against Spurs. Evanilson costs £6.4m, has no current injury flag, and visits Ipswich in GW10. That £0.3m difference is a buying-price comparison: check your own selling value before planning the switch.
Calvert-Lewin owners can wait for the fitness update
The current flag gives Calvert-Lewin a 75% chance of playing. Treat that as unresolved availability, with no guarantee of a start or a full match. Owners should wait for the final update before deciding whether their squad needs a replacement.
Leeds host Spurs in GW10, visit Chelsea in GW11, then host Coventry in GW12. You can retain Calvert-Lewin for the two home fixtures if his fitness allows it, with a separate lineup decision for Chelsea away. Selling him before the injury picture clears could mean spending a transfer on a forward you would want to start again in GW12.
Check the substitute who would cover him. A playable bench option makes a hold easier to accept, but you still face the risk of Calvert-Lewin appearing for a short spell and blocking an automatic substitution. Managers who need him to complete their XI have more reason to consider a sale if the final update leaves his participation in doubt.
Evanilson is our preference for a new purchase
Evanilson offers a route into Bournemouth’s attack at £6.4m. After Ipswich away, he faces Nottingham Forest at home in GW11 and Fulham away in GW12. A new buyer can assess that run without inheriting an injury decision before the first match.
His season-to-date attacking rate is 0.55 expected goal involvements per 90 minutes, compared with Calvert-Lewin’s 0.48 xGI/90. Evanilson averages 83.7 min/match; Calvert-Lewin averages 85.9 min/match. Those are played averages, so Calvert-Lewin’s figure does not tell you how long he will play while managing the foot problem.
The difference in xGI/90 supports a preference for Evanilson, rather than a claim that he will outscore Calvert-Lewin this week. Both forwards have offered attacking involvement. For a new purchase, we favour Evanilson’s combination of availability and the upcoming fixtures; an owner considering a sale must weigh the transfer cost too.
Check the next three lineups before switching
Compare your XI with Calvert-Lewin available, your XI with him absent, and the team you could field after buying Evanilson. You can test those future lineups in We Play FPL before using a transfer. Include the GW11 and GW12 selections so you can see whether the move improves more than the immediate injury cover.
Use the switch to solve a starting-XI problem. If a positive fitness update lets you start Calvert-Lewin with confidence, keeping him preserves a transfer for another position. If he cannot play and your substitute would leave you short, Evanilson is a sensible replacement, provided you can afford him and have room within the club limit.
Make the final call before the GW10 deadline on Friday 6 November at 18:30 UTC. Our preference is to hold a fit Calvert-Lewin as an owner and buy Evanilson for a vacant forward slot. An unresolved injury that leaves your XI exposed is the reason to turn that buying preference into a sale.
Chip Strategy
GW10 captaincy: Haaland or Gabriel for the armband?
Haaland leads our GW10 captaincy picks, with Gabriel at home to Hull the alternative. Compare their scoring routes and check Calafiori’s workload.
Haaland gets our GW10 captaincy vote away to Forest. Gabriel is a credible alternative at home to Hull for managers willing to back Arsenal’s clean-sheet prospects and his attacking threat. Choose between those routes after checking selection news, with Haaland our first choice if you own both.
Gabriel’s home fixture deserves consideration. His season-long playing time and several ways to score make him more than a punt on a header. The trade-off is the weight you place on a defender’s clean sheet against Haaland’s stronger attacking involvement.
Haaland offers the stronger attacking case
Haaland averages 88.8 min/match and records 0.74 xG/90, with 0.84 xGI/90 once expected assists are included. At £15.8m, he takes a large share of the squad budget, but owners can captain him without spending a transfer or changing their team structure.
Manchester City visit Forest in GW10. The away venue gives Gabriel’s home match some appeal, though choosing Haaland still means backing the player with the more substantial attacking record in this comparison. His goal threat is the main reason for our preference.
These rates describe season-to-date performances. A 0.84 xGI/90 figure is neither a GW10 points prediction nor a promise of a goal involvement. Use it to judge the attacking case, then check whether new fitness or selection information changes your confidence before the deadline.
Gabriel gives you a different route to returns
Gabriel costs £8.0m and averages 90.0 min/match. He has 0.80 xGC/90 and 0.19 xGI/90, including 0.16 xG/90. Against Hull at home, managers can back the combination of defensive returns and his threat from set pieces.
His 9.00 DefCon/90 adds context to the defensive case. It measures defensive contributions per 90 minutes; it does not guarantee contribution points in this match. The same caution applies to clean sheets: xGC/90 measures expected goals conceded while he is on the pitch, rather than the chance of shutting out Hull.
Gabriel’s attacking rate sits below Haaland’s. That does not settle the captaincy by itself because defenders have other scoring routes, but it explains what you accept by choosing him. You put more weight on Arsenal keeping a clean sheet and on Gabriel adding another return.
For a manager who owns Gabriel without Haaland, he is a defensible captaincy option. For an owner of both, we lean Haaland unless fresh team news changes the assessment. Keep a purchase decision separate from the armband: Gabriel’s captaincy appeal this week alone does not justify spending a transfer and £8.0m.
Check Calafiori’s workload before choosing another Arsenal captain
Calafiori shares the Hull home fixture and costs £5.9m. He records a higher attacking-involvement rate than Gabriel at 0.29 xGI/90, alongside 0.85 xGC/90 and 4.64 DefCon/90. His average playing time is lower at 77.7 min/match.
That combination makes a selection check important. Reassess his workload after the midweek match and the available information about his next start. A good fixture gives little protection from reduced playing time, and a short appearance can leave you relying on the captain you chose rather than your vice-captain.
We prefer Gabriel within this Arsenal captaincy comparison unless team news gives a reason to change. Calafiori’s stronger xGI/90 alone is insufficient to move him ahead when Gabriel has the longer played average and stronger defensive-contribution rate. Neither historical average guarantees a start this weekend.
Make the call with the players you own
You can test captains and future line-ups in the We Play FPL planner before changing your live squad. Compare the armband choices within your current team, then consider transfers as a separate decision. A captaincy change costs no transfer; buying a player for one attractive fixture can affect several later weeks.
Our order is Haaland first, Gabriel the alternative, with Calafiori requiring a closer workload and selection check. Recheck availability before the GW10 deadline on 6 November at 18:30 UTC and choose a vice-captain you expect to play.
