Join The Team!
A signing like no other...
Every Premier League outfielder ranked by how often they clear their own DefCon threshold.
Clearances, blocks, interceptions and tackles.
The same four, plus ball recoveries.
Ten actions and twenty actions pay exactly the same.
| # | Player | Price | Owned | Mins | Actions per 90 vs threshold | Hit rate | Where the actions come from | Pts/90 | Per £m |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 |
|
£4.0m | 7.1% | 191 | — | 1.78 | 0.44 | ||
| 2 |
|
£5.0m | 0.2% | 199 | — | 1.76 | 0.35 | ||
| 3 |
|
£4.1m | 6.2% | 270 | — | 1.64 | 0.40 | ||
| 4 |
|
£5.0m | 3.4% | 270 | — | 1.56 | 0.31 | ||
| 5 |
|
£5.7m | 14.1% | 210 | — | 1.33 | 0.23 | ||
| 6 |
|
£5.0m | 0.1% | 140 | — | 1.30 | 0.26 | ||
| 7 |
|
£6.3m | 4.6% | 233 | 59% recoveries | 1.30 | 0.21 | ||
| 8 |
|
£5.0m | 0.1% | 157 | 45% clearances | 1.21 | 0.24 | ||
| 9 |
|
£4.0m | 8.7% | 257 | — | 1.21 | 0.30 | ||
| 10 |
|
£6.0m | 8.2% | 270 | 54% clearances | 1.19 | 0.20 | ||
| 11 |
|
£5.0m | 0.9% | 164 | 57% clearances | 1.17 | 0.23 | ||
| 12 |
|
£5.0m | 0.4% | 270 | — | 1.10 | 0.22 | ||
| 13 |
|
£6.0m | 11.3% | 270 | 52% clearances | 1.08 | 0.18 | ||
| 14 |
|
£5.5m | 2.3% | 180 | 39% clearances | 1.08 | 0.20 | ||
| 15 |
|
£5.0m | 0.7% | 270 | 52% clearances | 1.06 | 0.21 | ||
| 16 |
|
£5.5m | 0.8% | 270 | 50% clearances | 1.06 | 0.19 | ||
| 17 |
|
£6.0m | 0.1% | 148 | 40% recoveries | 1.04 | 0.17 | ||
| 18 |
|
£5.5m | 0.2% | 225 | 47% recoveries | 1.04 | 0.19 | ||
| 19 |
|
£4.0m | 3.1% | 270 | — | 1.03 | 0.26 | ||
| 20 |
|
£5.0m | 0.1% | 196 | — | 1.02 | 0.20 | ||
| 21 |
|
£4.5m | 0.0% | 146 | — | 1.01 | 0.22 | ||
| 22 |
|
£5.5m | 1.1% | 270 | 44% recoveries | 0.99 | 0.18 | ||
| 23 |
|
£4.9m | 0.2% | 270 | 46% clearances | 0.96 | 0.20 | ||
| 24 |
|
£4.9m | 3.5% | 270 | 55% clearances | 0.96 | 0.20 | ||
| 25 |
|
£5.5m | 1.3% | 185 | 51% recoveries | 0.96 | 0.17 | ||
| 26 |
|
£5.0m | 0.1% | 180 | 51% clearances | 0.93 | 0.19 | ||
| 27 |
|
£5.5m | 1.9% | 270 | 40% clearances | 0.92 | 0.17 | ||
| 28 |
|
£5.0m | 0.9% | 253 | — | 0.91 | 0.18 | ||
| 29 |
|
£5.0m | 0.7% | 270 | 45% clearances | 0.91 | 0.18 | ||
| 30 |
|
£6.0m | 4.4% | 266 | 50% recoveries | 0.91 | 0.15 | ||
| 31 |
|
£4.5m | 4.9% | 270 | 47% clearances | 0.90 | 0.20 | ||
| 32 |
|
£5.5m | 1.8% | 196 | 46% clearances | 0.89 | 0.16 | ||
| 33 |
|
£5.5m | 4.4% | 270 | 49% recoveries | 0.87 | 0.16 | ||
| 34 |
|
£5.5m | 1.6% | 269 | 40% clearances | 0.86 | 0.16 | ||
| 35 |
|
£6.5m | 17.3% | 270 | 62% clearances | 0.85 | 0.13 | ||
| 36 |
|
£5.0m | 1.6% | 270 | 45% recoveries | 0.80 | 0.16 | ||
| 37 |
|
£5.5m | 1.6% | 270 | 51% clearances | 0.78 | 0.14 | ||
| 38 |
|
£5.0m | 2.7% | 235 | — | 0.78 | 0.16 | ||
| 39 |
|
£4.5m | 1.5% | 270 | 35% clearances | 0.75 | 0.17 | ||
| 40 |
|
£8.0m | 24.8% | 270 | 53% clearances | 0.74 | 0.09 | ||
| 41 |
|
£7.4m | 13.6% | 241 | 47% recoveries | 0.73 | 0.10 | ||
| 42 |
|
£4.9m | 7.0% | 270 | 44% clearances | 0.71 | 0.14 | ||
| 43 |
|
£5.0m | 0.2% | 157 | 45% recoveries | 0.69 | 0.14 | ||
| 44 |
|
£5.0m | 2.1% | 270 | 45% clearances | 0.68 | 0.14 | ||
| 45 |
|
£6.0m | 2.8% | 270 | 45% recoveries | 0.67 | 0.11 | ||
| 46 |
|
£4.0m | 14.8% | 270 | 51% clearances | 0.66 | 0.16 | ||
| 47 |
|
£4.9m | 1.1% | 161 | 47% clearances | 0.65 | 0.13 | ||
| 48 |
|
£5.5m | 0.9% | 270 | 53% recoveries | 0.63 | 0.11 | ||
| 49 |
|
£4.0m | 1.2% | 270 | — | 0.61 | 0.15 | ||
| 50 |
|
£5.5m | 3.5% | 270 | 38% recoveries | 0.60 | 0.11 | ||
| 51 |
|
£5.9m | 1.0% | 142 | 49% recoveries | 0.60 | 0.10 | ||
| 52 |
|
£5.5m | 0.1% | 227 | 42% recoveries | 0.58 | 0.10 | ||
| 53 |
|
£4.5m | 0.2% | 270 | 50% clearances | 0.57 | 0.13 | ||
| 54 |
|
£6.0m | 18.6% | 270 | 39% clearances | 0.55 | 0.09 | ||
| 55 |
|
£7.0m | 38.4% | 270 | 55% recoveries | 0.55 | 0.08 | ||
| 56 |
|
£5.0m | 0.1% | 152 | — | 0.55 | 0.11 | ||
| 57 |
|
£4.9m | 12.4% | 270 | 48% clearances | 0.53 | 0.11 | ||
| 58 |
|
£5.9m | 10.1% | 266 | 62% recoveries | 0.50 | 0.08 | ||
| 59 |
|
£4.1m | 11.2% | 243 | — | 0.49 | 0.12 | ||
| 60 |
|
£4.9m | 0.2% | 158 | — | 0.48 | 0.10 | ||
| 61 |
|
£5.1m | 11.8% | 269 | 46% recoveries | 0.48 | 0.09 | ||
| 62 |
|
£5.0m | 2.9% | 270 | — | 0.47 | 0.09 | ||
| 63 |
|
£5.0m | 0.3% | 156 | 38% recoveries | 0.47 | 0.09 | ||
| 64 |
|
£5.5m | 0.3% | 146 | 44% recoveries | 0.47 | 0.08 | ||
| 65 |
|
£5.0m | 0.4% | 266 | 45% recoveries | 0.45 | 0.09 | ||
| 66 |
|
£4.5m | 1.9% | 270 | 42% clearances | 0.45 | 0.10 | ||
| 67 |
|
£5.0m | 0.3% | 268 | 52% recoveries | 0.45 | 0.09 | ||
| 68 |
|
£6.4m | 0.7% | 140 | 44% recoveries | 0.44 | 0.07 | ||
| 69 |
|
£5.9m | 1.8% | 246 | 46% recoveries | 0.44 | 0.07 | ||
| 70 |
|
£4.5m | 0.4% | 270 | 35% recoveries | 0.43 | 0.10 | ||
| 71 |
|
£5.5m | 0.5% | 167 | 58% recoveries | 0.43 | 0.08 | ||
| 72 |
|
£4.5m | 1.3% | 270 | 39% clearances | 0.43 | 0.10 | ||
| 73 |
|
£4.5m | 1.5% | 249 | 41% recoveries | 0.43 | 0.10 | ||
| 74 |
|
£5.0m | 8.3% | 270 | 40% recoveries | 0.41 | 0.08 | ||
| 75 |
|
£5.5m | 1.6% | 268 | 37% recoveries | 0.39 | 0.07 | ||
| 76 |
|
£5.0m | 0.2% | 190 | 53% recoveries | 0.39 | 0.08 | ||
| 77 |
|
£4.5m | 2.8% | 216 | 38% recoveries | 0.38 | 0.08 | ||
| 78 |
|
£5.4m | 0.4% | 153 | 56% recoveries | 0.37 | 0.07 | ||
| 79 |
|
£5.9m | 5.1% | 258 | 47% recoveries | 0.37 | 0.06 | ||
| 80 |
|
£5.0m | 0.3% | 270 | 45% recoveries | 0.36 | 0.07 |
No players match those filters.
clears the threshold on average
within 15% of it
short of it
the player's own threshold
clearances
recoveries
tackles
interceptions
blocks
Minimum 135 minutes played. Hit rate is the modelled chance of clearing the threshold in a start,
using the match to match spread measured from our own data rather than assuming actions arrive at a steady
tempo. That is what puts a defender on 9.5 actions and a midfielder on 11 on the same scale. Underneath it is
what actually happened, and the final column is what those actions are made of, which the official data does
not break down at all.
Average defensive actions per 90 across every qualifying outfielder at each club. Sides that spend the game without the ball generate the actions, so this is really a map of where to shop — and a warning, because the same clubs tend to concede the clean sheets you also want.
Defensive contributions, shortened to DefCon by most managers, are the defensive actions Fantasy Premier League awards points for. A defender scores two points in any match where their clearances, blocks, interceptions and tackles add up to ten or more. A midfielder or forward needs twelve, and ball recoveries count toward their total as well as those four actions. Goalkeepers are not scored this way at all; they are rewarded through saves.
The critical detail is that this is a threshold, not a rate. The two points are awarded once per match, so a defender who records ten actions and a defender who records twenty score exactly the same. That single fact changes how you should shop for the statistic, and it is where most defensive contribution content goes wrong.
Because the points are a threshold, what you are buying is not a player's average but how often they cross the line. The hit rate column converts each player's rate into the chance of clearing their own bar in a full match, and that is what the board is ranked on by default. It matters most when comparing positions: a defender averaging 9.5 actions is a far better bet for two points than a midfielder averaging 11, because the defender needs ten and the midfielder needs twelve. Sorted on the raw average, the midfielder looks the better player. Sorted on hit rate, the truth shows up.
FPL publishes a season total and nothing finer, so every tool built on it has to work backwards from an average and guess how those actions were spread across the season. The usual guess is that they arrive at a steady tempo. They do not. We hold the matches themselves, and across last season defensive actions varied about one and a half times as much as a steady tempo allows, because they depend on how much of the game a team spends without the ball. The same player records four one week and sixteen the next.
Feeding that measured spread into the model changes the answer in both directions: a player averaging below his threshold clears it more often than the steady assumption credits, and one averaging comfortably above it misses more often. The averages themselves come from starts only, so a substitute who made one tackle in one minute of football does not appear as a 90-actions-per-90 player. Only players past 135 minutes appear here at all.
Worth saying what we did not do, because it is the obvious move and it is wrong. Having the matches, the tempting thing is to rank players on how often they actually cleared the bar. Tested properly, by fitting on the first part of each player's season and predicting the rest, that turns out to be the worst of the options, worse even than the steady-tempo assumption. A threshold throws away almost everything: a nine-action game and a two-action game both count only as a miss. The count is shown beside each player because it is a fact worth seeing, but the ranking uses the full distribution.
The last column of the table is the part FPL cannot show you at all. Two players can clear the threshold just as often as each other and be nothing alike underneath. Last season Kevin Danso cleared it in 81% of his starts, almost entirely on clearances, averaging 7.8 a game. Elliot Anderson cleared it in 70%, and did it on ball recoveries, averaging 8.2.
Those two returns behave very differently. Clearances come from defending your own box, so a clearance-heavy defender is being paid for his team being under pressure, and a run of kind fixtures quietly takes his points away with it. Recoveries follow where a midfielder is asked to stand, which is a decision his manager makes rather than something the opposition does to him, so they hold up far better against a soft run. If you are buying defensive contributions to survive a good set of fixtures, the split is what tells you which players will still be scoring them.
Defensive contributions are worth roughly two points a week to a player who reliably clears the threshold, which over a season is comparable to a handful of goals. That makes them most valuable in cheap defenders and mid-priced midfielders, where two points a week is a large share of what you are paying for, and close to irrelevant in premium attackers you own for goals. The per £m column is that argument in a number: filter to £5.0m and under and sort on it to find the budget picks doing the work.
The trap is buying the statistic in isolation. A midfielder at a club that concedes possession will rack up actions precisely because his team is defending, which usually means fewer attacking returns and fewer clean sheets. That tension is visible in the club table above: the sides at the top generate the most actions and are rarely the sides you want for clean sheets. The players worth owning are the ones who clear the threshold at clubs that also keep the ball out of their own net, and the fixture ticker is where you check the second half of that.
To weigh defensive contributions against everything else a player does, the player explorer has actions per 90 as a sortable column alongside price, minutes and every attacking metric, and the team rater prices the threshold into every projection it makes.