GW6 Review

FPL experiment review

Gameweek 6 Review: GW5 to GW6

Three transfers, two hits and a strong De Cuyper return made this an eventful restart after the international break. Here is what I changed and what those decisions returned.

By David Slade, Founder of TallyKindUpdated 14 Oct 2026

Review snapshot

Big individual returns, with hits and lineup choices to account for

David reviews Saka Potatoes in GW6: Tarkowski, Cunha and De Cuyper transfers, an eight-point hit, the scored team and actual versus no-change points.

Saka Potatoes scored 63 points before hits, adding 55 to reach 401 season points.
De Cuyper and Cunha returned 25 points between them; all three transfers gained five player points after hits.
The unchanged GW5 lineup also scores 55 in GW6, so the full no-change comparison is level.

Available weeks

FPL experiment notes

Intro GW5 Review GW6 Review

My notes

A good return, but a few hot-headed decisions

After a long international break, it can be hard to predict how teams and players will pick up again. Will the same form continue, or will we see a reset?

The TallyKind FPL model suggested a defensive change. I did not want to load up too heavily on Brighton, so I initially chose Tarkowski over De Cuyper. Konsa made way because the injury concern left him in doubt. Fernandes needs to come back in, but the budget and cost of another hit meant delaying that for at least a week. Joao Pedro is another obvious gap in the team; I can feel a Wildcard week coming to test a few ideas.

Then came a panic move: taking a hit to bring in Cunha for Palmer after seeing him benched, with a shuffle towards 3-5-2 in mind. That was hot-headed. My final move was more logical and followed the model: bringing in De Cuyper. Burning hit points while chasing miracles rarely works, but this time De Cuyper and Cunha returned 25 points between them, helped by another strong De Cuyper performance and an assist from a motivated Cunha.

All in all, it felt like a solid week and a strong performance in the leagues I contest. More interestingly, I am encouraged by the results from the TallyKind model's suggestions. The numbers below put that feeling in context: the hits and lineup choices matter too. Next week, I want to make more rational decisions and try to squeeze out a few extra points.

GW6 points

55 after the eight-point transfer hit.

Season total

401

Up from 346 after GW5.

Actual vs no change

55 / 55

Net points versus keeping the GW5 lineup and captain.

Transfer player gain

+5 pts

28 incoming minus 15 outgoing minus eight in hits.

Overall ranking

1,565,133

Down 620,276 places from 944,857 after GW5.

Captain return

12 pts

Gross scored six, doubled with the armband.

Review table

How the team moved from GW5 to GW6

GW points are shown before hits; net points show what was added to the season total.

Metric	GW5	GW6	Change
GW points before hits	45	63	+18
Transfer-hit cost	0	8	Two paid transfers
Net GW points	45	55	+10
Season total	346	401	+55
Overall ranking	944,857	1,565,133	Down 620,276 places
GW ranking	6,429,507	4,232,615	Up 2,196,892 places
Transfers	1	3	One free, two with hits
Bench points	5	12	+7
Bank	1.7m	1.0m	-0.7m
Squad value	100.6m	100.8m	+0.2m

Review table

What the three transfers returned

Each player comparison is before hits. The eight-point cost is deducted once from the combined gain.

Out	Out pts	In	In pts	Gain
Konsa	4	Tarkowski	3	-1
Palmer	8	Cunha	10	+2
Shaw	3	De Cuyper	15	+12
Outgoing total	15	Incoming total	28	+13
Hit cost		Two paid transfers	8	-8
Net transfer player gain		After hits		+5

Review table

Actual points versus making no changes

The no-change scenario reuses the GW5 lineup and captain with their GW6 points. It is an estimate of standing still, rather than a prediction.

Scenario	XI points	Captain bonus	Hit cost	Net points
Actual GW6	57	6 (Gross)	8	55
Keep GW5 setup	49	6 (Haaland)	0	55
Difference	+8	0	-8	0

Team outline

GW6 team outline

The final team played 4-4-2. Gross's 12 includes captaincy; the XI totals 63 before the eight-point hit. There were no automatic substitutions.

4-4-2

RayaARS3 pts

GabrielARS2 pts

TarkowskiEVE3 pts

De CuyperBHA15 pts

AinaNFO0 pts

RogersCHE9 pts

GrossBHA12 pts

SchadeBRE1 pts

CunhaMUN10 pts

WissaNEW2 pts

HaalandMCI6 pts

BenchKinskyGKP - 3 ptsYalcouyeMID - 1 ptsRubenDEF - 6 ptsCalvert-LewinFWD - 2 pts

What paid off

De Cuyper scored 15: a goal, a clean sheet and three bonus points. Shaw, who made way, returned three.
Cunha's assist and three bonus points helped him reach 10, two more than Palmer.
Gross and Haaland both scored six base points, so the captain switch was neutral.

What still cost points

The eight-point hit absorbed much of the 13-point gain from the incoming players.
Tarkowski scored three against Konsa's four, so the injury-risk move lost one point immediately.
Ruben's six stayed on the bench while Aina scored zero. The final lineup matters as much as the transfer returns.

Putting the returns in context

25 points returned is not the same as 25 points gained

De Cuyper and Cunha returned 25, but Shaw and Palmer returned 11. Those two moves therefore gained 14 player points before the eight-point hit, or six after it. Including Tarkowski for Konsa reduces the combined net transfer player gain to five.

The full team comparison is different again. Keeping the GW5 lineup and Haaland as captain would have scored 55 in GW6. My actual team scored 63 before hits and 55 after them, so that particular no-change scenario is level. It includes the effect of bench selection as well as transfers.

These are immediate returns, not a verdict on the next three or five GWs. The review uses public FPL GW6 results and TallyKind's Transfer Analyser, checked on 14 October 2026. The overall ranking shown is the saved GW6 history value; live rankings can move as FPL updates.

FAQs