Three gameweeks into the defensive contributions era and most managers are still picking DefCon players the wrong way round — scanning a per-90 leaderboard, buying whoever is top, and wondering why the points don't arrive. The numbers on those leaderboards are real. What's missing is the reason behind them.
Because DefCon isn't really a measure of how good a defender is. It's a measure of how much defending his team actually does — and that is a function of tactics, game state and role, not ability. Get that idea straight and the whole table reads differently. Here's the leaderboard after Gameweek 3, and more importantly, why it looks the way it does.
The DefCon Thresholds, and Why They Change by Position
Two points are awarded when a player reaches a threshold of completed defensive actions in a single match. The threshold and the qualifying actions differ by position:
| Position | Threshold | What counts |
|---|---|---|
| Defenders | 10 | Clearances, blocks, interceptions, tackles |
| Midfielders | 12 | Clearances, blocks, interceptions, tackles and ball recoveries |
| Forwards | 12 | Clearances, blocks, interceptions, tackles and ball recoveries |
| Goalkeepers | — | Not eligible |
That second column is the detail people miss most. Ball recoveries do not count for defenders. A centre-back with a big recovery number is no closer to his threshold for it. For midfielders they do count, and for many of them recoveries are the bulk of the total — which is why the midfield threshold is 12 rather than 10 and still harder to hit.
For the full rules rather than the numbers, see our plain-English explainer on how DefCon works.
Why João Pedro and Bruno Fernandes Will Never Hit It
Start with the players managers keep asking about, because they own them:
| Player | Pos | Owned | Per 90 | Short by |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| João Pedro | FWD | 71.3% | 3.0 | −9.0 |
| Haaland | FWD | 71.1% | 4.0 | −8.0 |
| B. Fernandes | MID | 48.6% | 7.0 | −5.0 |
| Szoboszlai | MID | 40.9% | 9.7 | −2.3 |
| Mbeumo | MID | 26.8% | 4.5 | −7.5 |
| Gabriel | DEF | 25.7% | 7.0 | −3.0 |
| Virgil | DEF | 17.3% | 8.3 | −1.7 |
None of these are bad footballers and none of them are bad picks. They're just employed to do the opposite of what DefCon rewards.
Bruno Fernandes is a number ten. His job is to receive the ball in the final third and create — and every minute United spend on the ball is a minute he isn't making an interception. Same story for Mbeumo and Szoboszlai. Their teams want the ball, and defensive actions only happen when you don't have it.
The clearest case is Gabriel. He's an excellent defender at a dominant team, and Arsenal's expected goals conceded is 0.26 per 90 — barely a quarter of a chance a game. There is nothing for him to clear, block or intercept. His teammate White sits at just 4.5 per 90 and still has 18 points, because Arsenal defenders are paid in clean sheets, not defensive actions.
The rule to take away: at elite possession sides, DefCon is structurally unavailable. Don't buy an Arsenal or Man City defender hoping for it, and don't be disappointed when it doesn't come — you're buying a clean sheet machine and that's a perfectly good thing to buy.
But "Bad Team = More DefCon" Is Wrong Too
Here's where the obvious next step trips people up. If elite teams don't defend, surely the worst teams — permanently under siege — must rack up DefCons? The data says no, and this is the most useful thing on this page.
| Team | Avg DefCon / 90 | xGC / 90 | Clean sheets |
|---|---|---|---|
| Leeds | 12.63 | 1.16 | 4 |
| Brentford | 11.00 | 1.02 | 3 |
| Everton | 9.13 | 2.05 | 4 |
| Crystal Palace | 9.10 | 1.66 | 0 |
| Newcastle | 7.88 | 2.12 | 7 |
| Ipswich Town | 7.85 | 2.09 | 0 |
| Man City | 6.75 | 1.01 | 1 |
| Fulham | 6.17 | 2.13 | 0 |
| Brighton | 4.63 | 1.61 | 4 |
Fulham, Ipswich and Newcastle concede the most expected goals in this sample — and post below-average DefCon numbers. Meanwhile Leeds and Brentford sit top of the DefCon table with the lowest xGC of anyone outside Man City. Across the league the correlation between how much a team concedes and how many DefCons it racks up is slightly negative.
Which makes sense once you picture it. A team being genuinely overrun isn't making completed defensive actions — it's being passed through. Bodies are out of position, the ball goes past them, and the sequence ends in a shot rather than a tackle. Getting battered doesn't fill your stat sheet; it just concedes goals.
What actually generates DefCon is aggressive, organised ball-winning. Leeds and Brentford press hard, win possession back high, and get through enormous volumes of tackles, interceptions and recoveries — while conceding few chances, because winning the ball back early is also good defending. That's why four of the top ten defenders and three of the top ten midfielders on this page play for one of those two clubs.
The Three Team Archetypes
Every side falls into one of three buckets, and it tells you exactly what you're buying:
| Archetype | Example | DefCon | Clean sheets | Verdict |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Elite control | Arsenal, Man City | Very low | Excellent | Buy for clean sheets only |
| Aggressive presser | Leeds, Brentford | Very high | Decent | The sweet spot |
| Overrun | Fulham, Ipswich | Low | None | Avoid — worst of both |
The middle row is where the value is, and it's the row most managers don't know exists. They're picking between "premium defender at a good team" and "cheap defender at a bad team", when the actual answer this season is "cheap defender at a well-drilled pressing team" — you get the defensive actions and a realistic clean sheet chance from the same £4.5m slot.
DefCon Per 90: Top Defenders After Gameweek 3
Filtered to 180+ minutes, because a per-90 from a single appearance is noise. The margin column is what matters — how far the rate sits above the 10 he needs.
| Player | Team | Per 90 | vs 10 | Price | Owned | CS |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Egan | Hull City | 17.0 | +7.0 | £4.0m | 5.2% | 2 |
| Ajer | Brentford | 13.5 | +3.5 | £4.5m | 5.2% | 1 |
| Muharemović | Leeds | 13.0 | +3.0 | £5.0m | 3.3% | 1 |
| Hall | Newcastle | 11.2 | +1.2 | £5.1m | 9.8% | 1 |
| Richards | Crystal Palace | 11.0 | +1.0 | £5.0m | 0.7% | 0 |
| Silva | Bournemouth | 10.8 | +0.8 | £5.0m | 0.4% | 0 |
| Lacroix | Chelsea | 10.5 | +0.5 | £6.0m | 8.3% | 0 |
| Branthwaite | Everton | 10.0 | 0.0 | £5.5m | 1.8% | 1 |
| O'Shea | Ipswich Town | 10.0 | 0.0 | £4.0m | 3.2% | 0 |
| Justin | Leeds | 10.0 | 0.0 | £4.5m | 1.5% | 1 |
Egan is the standout and the archetype-buster: seven clear of the line, £4.0m, 5.2% owned — and two clean sheets, having conceded nothing in his minutes. His total is 32 clearances, blocks and interceptions to just 2 tackles, which is a deep-block profile rather than a pressing one. Read that as a warning as much as a recommendation: it's a rate built on Hull spending a lot of time defending their box, and it would compress if their fixtures eased.
Compare that with Ajer and Justin, whose numbers come out of Brentford's and Leeds's pressing structures. Those are more repeatable week to week, because a pressing system doesn't switch off when the opponent is weaker.
DefCon Per 90: Top Midfielders After Gameweek 3
| Player | Team | Per 90 | vs 12 | Price | Owned | Pts |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Stach | Leeds | 16.0 | +4.0 | £6.0m | 3.0% | 17 |
| Scott | Bournemouth | 13.4 | +1.4 | £6.0m | 2.0% | 23 |
| Ndiaye | Man City | 12.5 | +0.5 | £5.9m | 11.5% | 13 |
| Mac Allister | Liverpool | 11.6 | −0.4 | £5.5m | 1.4% | 5 |
| Janelt | Brentford | 11.5 | −0.5 | £5.0m | 0.7% | 10 |
| Kamada | Crystal Palace | 11.5 | −0.5 | £5.0m | 0.3% | 5 |
| Ampadu | Leeds | 11.5 | −0.5 | £5.5m | 1.1% | 7 |
| Tavernier | Bournemouth | 10.8 | −1.2 | £6.0m | 2.3% | 20 |
| L. Miley | Newcastle | 10.7 | −1.3 | £5.5m | 0.1% | 7 |
| Wharton | Crystal Palace | 10.5 | −1.5 | £5.5m | 0.9% | 6 |
Only three midfielders in the league are averaging above the threshold on a real sample. That's the central fact about DefCon in midfield: it's a much harder line to clear than the defenders' 10, and the reliable pool is tiny.
It's also a list of holding midfielders, which is the catch. The number six who wins the ball back is exactly the player who doesn't get near the box — so you're buying two points a week with almost no attacking ceiling behind it. That's a fine £5.0m squad filler and a poor use of a £6.0m slot, unless the player also offers something going forward.
The Double Threat: DefCon Plus Attacking Returns
The genuinely valuable players are the ones who clear the defensive line and still threaten the opposition box. There are very few:
| Player | Pos | DefCon / 90 | xGI / 90 | Pts | Owned |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Scott | MID | 13.4 | 0.24 | 23 | 2.0% |
| Hall | DEF | 11.2 | 0.28 | 17 | 9.8% |
| Janelt | MID | 11.5 | 0.36 | 10 | 0.7% |
| Ndiaye | MID | 12.5 | 0.33 | 13 | 11.5% |
| Murillo | DEF | 10.0 | 0.23 | 5 | 1.5% |
Scott is the headline. He's the highest-scoring DefCon-clearing player in the game at 23 points, sits comfortably above the midfield threshold, carries a real attacking threat, and is owned by 2% of managers. His total is built on 20 ball recoveries against just 6 clearances and interceptions — a role-driven, repeatable profile rather than a fixture-driven one.
Hall is the defensive equivalent: an attacking full-back who clears the threshold, which is unusual because attacking full-backs normally sit too high to accumulate defensive actions. Newcastle's xGC of 2.21 means he gets plenty to do at both ends.
Why No Forward Is a DefCon Pick
Forwards need 12, the same as midfielders. Every forward with 180+ minutes, ranked:
| Player | Per 90 | vs 12 | Owned |
|---|---|---|---|
| Evanilson | 6.8 | −5.2 | 3.3% |
| Wissa | 6.7 | −5.3 | 15.6% |
| McBurnie | 4.5 | −7.5 | 2.1% |
| Haaland | 4.0 | −8.0 | 71.1% |
| João Pedro | 3.0 | −9.0 | 71.3% |
| Isak | 1.9 | −10.2 | 16.7% |
Not one forward is averaging even 60% of the threshold. A striker's defensive work is pressing the centre-backs, which produces almost nothing that counts. Ignore DefCon entirely when picking forwards.
The Fixture Inversion Nobody Talks About
Here's the strategic wrinkle that catches experienced managers out. For twenty years the rule for defenders has been: buy the easy fixtures, because easy fixtures mean clean sheets.
DefCon partly inverts that. A CBI-heavy defender like Egan needs his team to be defending to accumulate anything — so a run of hard fixtures raises his DefCon floor while lowering his clean sheet chance. A run of easy fixtures does the opposite. The two point sources pull against each other.
Which is why the pressing sides matter so much. A Leeds or Brentford defender's numbers come from the system rather than from being under siege, so he doesn't need bad fixtures to deliver — you get the DefCon floor without sacrificing the clean sheet upside. When you're choosing between two cheap defenders, ask which one's total comes from his manager's tactics and which comes from his team being bad. Only the first one is reliable.
What Makes Up a DefCon Total, and Why the Split Matters
Two players can reach identical totals from completely different sources, and the sources have very different reliability:
Egan's is 94% clearances, blocks and interceptions — opponent-driven, and it swings with the fixture. Scott's is 61% recoveries — role-driven, and it holds regardless of opponent. Same headline number, very different confidence.
Every player profile on the site now shows this breakdown, with actions that don't count for that position marked as such.
The Trap: Per 90 Is a Rate, DefCon Points Are Per Match
One more way these tables mislead, including the ones above.
Two defenders both finish two matches with 34 actions and an identical 17.0 per 90. The first got 17 in each — threshold hit twice, 4 points. The second got 30 then 4 — hit once, 2 points. Same rate, half the return, because DefCon pays per match and doesn't care about your average.
The metric that answers this is hit rate: the percentage of matches in which a player actually reached his threshold. We don't publish it yet, because it needs a match-by-match record rather than season totals, and we're building that now. Until it's here, read every per-90 on this page as strong evidence rather than proof — and lean on the component split above, because a role-driven total is far more likely to repeat than a fixture-driven one.
Minutes Risk: The Number That Cancels Everything
A per-90 is worthless if the player isn't on the pitch for 90 minutes, and this is the most expensive mistake available on this page.
Ndiaye is the clearest case. Third among all midfielders at 12.5 per 90, comfortably above the line — and projected for 30 minutes in the coming gameweek. A player arriving with half an hour left cannot accumulate 12 defensive actions however intense his rate. The rate is real; the points aren't reachable. Mac Allister has the same problem at 50 projected minutes.
A 10.0-per-90 defender who plays every minute is worth far more than a 14.0-per-90 midfielder who plays 35. Check the projected minutes on the profile before you spend the transfer.
Budget DefCon Picks Under £4.5m
This is where DefCon actually changes squads — two points a week from a £4.0m defender rewrites what the rest of your team can afford.
| Player | Team | Price | Per 90 | vs 10 | Owned |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Egan | Hull City | £4.0m | 17.0 | +7.0 | 5.2% |
| Ajer | Brentford | £4.5m | 13.5 | +3.5 | 5.2% |
| O'Shea | Ipswich Town | £4.0m | 10.0 | 0.0 | 3.2% |
| Justin | Leeds | £4.5m | 10.0 | 0.0 | 1.5% |
| Diop | Ipswich Town | £4.0m | 9.3 | −0.7 | 15.5% |
Diop is the cautionary one. Already 15.5% owned — very high for a £4.0m defender — and sitting below the line, at Ipswich, who are the overrun archetype: heavy xGC, zero clean sheets, mid-table DefCon. He's been bought as a DefCon source and the tactical profile doesn't support it. Justin at Leeds costs the same and comes with the pressing structure behind him. Our budget enablers guide covers the wider cheap-defender question.
Cheap defenders who start delivering rise quickly, since a low-owned player needs far fewer net transfers to cross the threshold. How FPL price changes actually work explains why — and why beating one is rarely worth a hit.
How to Use This
- Buy DefCon in defence. Lower threshold, far bigger pool, cheaper slots. Ignore it entirely for forwards.
- Buy the pressing teams, not the bad teams. Leeds and Brentford give you defensive actions and clean sheets. Fulham and Ipswich give you neither.
- Ask where the total comes from. Recovery-heavy and tackle-heavy totals repeat. Clearance-heavy totals swing with the fixture list.
- Check projected minutes before the rate. A high per-90 on 30 minutes is a mirage.
- Don't expect DefCon from elite-possession defenders. Gabriel and Virgil are bought for clean sheets — judge them on that.
Every profile in our player database now carries a DefCon section with the per-90, the margin against that player's threshold, and the full component breakdown. You can also compare two players side by side if you're stuck between them.
The Oracle Takeaway
DefCon is a tactics stat wearing a defending stat's clothes. The players farming it aren't the best defenders — they're the ones at clubs whose managers ask them to win the ball back constantly, which is why Leeds and Brentford dominate these tables while Arsenal and Manchester City are nowhere near them, and why genuinely poor sides like Fulham and Ipswich are nowhere near them either.
If you take three names: Egan at £4.0m and 5.2% ownership is the standout value, Ajer at £4.5m is the most repeatable cheap option because his comes from a system, and Scott at 2% ownership is the only player in the game combining a cleared threshold with real attacking output and 23 points already on the board.
Run your own squad through Oracle's free tools to see which of your defenders are actually clearing the line — no account needed.
Who's your best DefCon pick so far — and has anyone in your squad surprised you? 👇