Skip to content
FPLRogueNewsroom
LatestExpected points explained: inside the FPLRogue model

FPL GW1 captaincy archive: the forecast and what happened

The original 15 August captaincy shortlist, preserved alongside official GW1 scores and minutes. What the forecast got wrong, and why eight players cannot establish model accuracy.

Four football shirts representing Erling Haaland, Bruno Fernandes, Gabriel Magalhães and Bryan Mbeumo arranged across a dark green football pitch.
AI-generated illustration: FPLRogue
Answer first

Haaland and B.Fernandes led the early forecast but each scored two points. Saka and Calafiori scored nine each within the eight-player shortlist. The original predictions remain unchanged; this historical review separates points misses from minutes uncertainty.

Advertisement

The captaincy verdict

Haaland led this early GW1 forecast on 8.11 expected points, with B.Fernandes almost level on 8.02. That 0.09-point gap was too small to support a confident claim that one was materially better. The shortlist is preserved so the original decision can be judged against both its assumptions and the eventual results.

What the model says

Every candidate in the original table uses the same 15 August cutoff. Prices, clubs, ownership and the first three fixtures are historical context. The GW1 column answers the captaincy question; the three-Gameweek total was a squad-planning measure and should not be substituted for the one-week ranking. Expected minutes describe the forecast available at that time, not confirmed starts.

Data visualisation

Archived GW1 captaincy forecast · 15 August 2026

Frozen pre-deadline projections, prices and ownership. These historical values have not been refreshed with today’s player data.

Key takeaway: Haaland led B.Fernandes by only 0.09 projected points in this eight-player shortlist.

Archived GW1 captaincy forecast · 15 August 2026: complete data table
Haaland25.18 pts8.11 pts86.5 minsMan City · FWD · £15.5m · 73.3% owned · Bournemouth (H), Crystal Palace (A), Coventry City (H)
B.Fernandes22.49 pts8.02 pts86.2 minsMan Utd · MID · £12.0m · 48.0% owned · Hull City (A), Ipswich Town (H), Everton (A)
Gabriel17.77 pts6.52 pts88.3 minsArsenal · DEF · £8.0m · 27.4% owned · Coventry City (H), Aston Villa (A), Chelsea (H)
Saka17.58 pts6.5 pts75.5 minsArsenal · MID · £9.5m · 10.6% owned · Coventry City (H), Aston Villa (A), Chelsea (H)
Mbeumo16.56 pts5.96 pts78.8 minsMan Utd · MID · £8.0m · 27.5% owned · Hull City (A), Ipswich Town (H), Everton (A)
Gyökeres15.59 pts5.92 pts76.5 minsArsenal · FWD · £7.5m · 12.9% owned · Coventry City (H), Aston Villa (A), Chelsea (H)
Calafiori15.44 pts5.74 pts62.3 minsArsenal · DEF · £5.5m · 18.3% owned · Coventry City (H), Aston Villa (A), Chelsea (H)
Thiago15.92 pts5.68 pts87.6 minsBrentford · FWD · £8.0m · 16.3% owned · Spurs (H), Leeds (A), Sunderland (H)
Source: FPLRogue model and official FPL feedCaptured 15 Aug 2026, 23:05 BSTModel 2026-27-GW1-v6-team-role-defcon-bps26-dated

Best alternatives

Gabriel was third on 6.52 GW1 xPts, narrowly ahead of Saka on 6.50. The remaining candidates offered different combinations of projected output, position and price. Lower ownership could change the effect of a successful captain on rank, but it did not make that player more likely to score points. The eight-player shortlist was a selected group, not the complete FPL player pool.

Risks and late news

This snapshot predated the final team-news window. Its recorded limitation was that recent player-history inputs were empty and the minutes model used position-level assumptions. That weakened the evidence for individual roles. Later fitness, selection or role information is not retrospectively inserted into the table. A forecast this early was a provisional starting point, and its precision should not be confused with certainty.

Final ranking

Original snapshot order: 1. Haaland — 8.11 GW1 xPts, 86.5 xMins; 2. B.Fernandes — 8.02 GW1 xPts, 86.2 xMins; 3. Gabriel — 6.52 GW1 xPts, 88.3 xMins; 4. Saka — 6.50 GW1 xPts, 75.5 xMins; 5. Mbeumo — 5.96 GW1 xPts, 78.8 xMins; 6. Gyökeres — 5.92 GW1 xPts, 76.5 xMins; 7. Calafiori — 5.74 GW1 xPts, 62.3 xMins; 8. Thiago — 5.68 GW1 xPts, 87.6 xMins.

What happened in Gameweek 1

Haaland and B.Fernandes each played 90 minutes and scored two FPL points. Saka and Calafiori were the highest scorers within this shortlist, with nine each. Gabriel scored five; Mbeumo scored two. Gyökeres did not play and recorded zero points, while Thiago played 82 minutes and also finished on zero. These are individual scores before captain multipliers or any squad-specific substitutions.

Data visualisation

GW1 outcomes against the original forecast

The same eight shortlisted players, kept in forecast order. Actual points are official individual FPL scores before captain multipliers.

Key takeaway: Saka and Calafiori scored nine points each; the top two forecast picks scored two each. Gyökeres did not play.

GW1 outcomes against the original forecast: complete data table
Haaland8.11 pts2 pts86.5 mins90 mins
B.Fernandes8.02 pts2 pts86.2 mins90 mins
Gabriel6.52 pts5 pts88.3 mins90 mins
Saka6.5 pts9 pts75.5 mins67 mins
Mbeumo5.96 pts2 pts78.8 mins90 mins
Gyökeres5.92 pts0 pts76.5 mins0 mins
Calafiori5.74 pts9 pts62.3 mins80 mins
Thiago5.68 pts0 pts87.6 mins82 mins
Source: Archived FPLRogue forecast and official FPL GW1 resultsCaptured 21 Sept 2026, 09:45 BSTModel 2026-27-GW1-v6-team-role-defcon-bps26-dated

Across these eight selected players, the mean absolute points error was 4.37 points. This small, deliberately selected cohort is not a measure of whole-model accuracy and is not directly comparable with an all-player benchmark. One Gameweek also cannot distinguish a persistent modelling weakness from normal scoring variation.

The minutes comparison separates two different kinds of miss. Haaland and B.Fernandes received the playing time the forecast broadly expected, but their scoring returns were lower. Gyökeres was projected for 76.5 minutes and played none: his miss began with availability or selection, though this results feed alone does not establish the reason. Calafiori played 80 minutes against a 62.3-minute estimate, giving him more opportunity than the early snapshot allowed.

The useful lesson is to compare close forecasts alongside the quality of their minutes evidence. Keep the original prediction visible, record what changed before the deadline, and evaluate results across a broader sample before claiming improvement. For a current captaincy decision, use the latest Gameweek analysis and team news rather than this archive.

Advertisement

Read the latest FPLRogue coverage

See what happened in Gameweek 1

Evidence and methodology

How this article was checked

The original 15 August 2026 snapshot is preserved without changing its player values. Official GW1 results were retrieved on 21 September 2026 after FPL marked the event finished and data checked, and joined by player ID. Mean absolute error is the average absolute difference between original GW1 xPts and actual individual points for these eight shortlisted players only. No captain multiplier is applied; this selected sample is not an all-player model benchmark.

  1. Fantasy Premier League — Official 15 August player prices, positions, clubs, ownership and availability fields.
  2. Fantasy Premier League — Official Gameweek 1-3 fixtures and the 21 August deadline.
  3. FPL Rogue data and models — Refreshed FPLRogue GW1-3 xPts, GW1 xPts and expected-minutes evidence.
  4. FPL Rogue data and models — Model engine and freshness metadata for the refreshed projection snapshot.
  5. Fantasy Premier League — Official GW1 individual points and minutes for the eight archived captaincy candidates.
Next decisions

Keep building your Gameweek plan