Two points. In Fantasy Premier League (FPL), they rarely make headlines. They don’t inspire thousands of transfers, dominate captaincy debates or produce the sort of green arrow we immediately want to share. But what if those two points arrive 10 times? That is 20 points.
20 times? 40 points. And 30 times across a season? 60 points.
The equivalent of 15 clean sheets for a defender, before we even consider appearances, attacking returns or bonus points. Of course, earning defensive contribution points in 30 matches would be an exceptional achievement. But the arithmetic reveals something important: a scoring opportunity does not have to be spectacular to become valuable.
Last season, Marcos Senesi (£5.7m) earned 50 points from defensive contributions alone. That is not a theoretical projection. It is evidence that the accumulation can be substantial. And it raises a question I find increasingly difficult to ignore. Are we still choosing FPL defenders as though these points barely exist?
The defender we used to overlook
Traditionally, FPL defenders have been judged through a familiar combination of clean-sheet potential, attacking threat, fixtures and price. An attacking full-back who creates chances feels exciting. A centre-back who threatens from corners attracts attention. A defender playing for a dominant team offers the reassurance of possible clean sheets.
Meanwhile, a centre-back spending 90 minutes clearing crosses, blocking shots and making tackles could produce an outstanding defensive performance without offering much Fantasy value. Defensive contribution (DefCon) points have changed that relationship.
Defenders now earn two additional points when they reach ten qualifying defensive actions in a match: clearances, blocks, interceptions and tackles. Midfielders and forwards need 12 contributions, although ball recoveries also count towards their total. The award is capped at two points per match. Twenty defensive actions do not earn four points.
But the crucial number is not necessarily how many actions a player makes in one exceptional performance. It is how often he reaches the threshold. 10 successful matches produce 20 points.
And suddenly, a defender who rarely scores or assists can possess a valuable additional route to FPL returns.
That does not mean we should stop caring about clean sheets. It means we should stop treating them as the only meaningful measure of defensive value.
Consistency isn’t always glamorous
There is an important difference between a defender who occasionally produces an excellent Gameweek and one who repeatedly earns points through the ordinary demands of his position.
The first is easier to notice. The second might be more useful than we think. DefCon also forces us to reconsider what constitutes a favourable fixture. An attacking opponent can make a clean sheet less likely while increasing the opportunities for clearances, blocks and tackles. That is not a contradiction in the scoring system. It’s a reflection of the different ways a defender can contribute.
Of course, the relationship is not automatic. A difficult opponent might dominate possession without generating enough qualifying defensive actions for a particular player. And conceding several goals can quickly erase the benefit of two DefCon points.
A defender who plays 90 minutes, reaches the threshold and concedes twice earns three points before any bonus or other events. If his team concedes four, that falls to two. DefCon cannot make every difficult fixture attractive. But it can make some difficult fixtures more interesting than they initially appear.
The challenge is identifying players whose defensive contribution records suggest a repeatable opportunity, rather than assuming that every busy defender will automatically collect the points.
The problem with last week’s points
The Gameweek 10 debate surrounding Ezri Konsa (£4.8m) and Jan Paul van Hecke (£5.0m) provides an excellent example. Both are attractive options, but for different reasons.
Konsa has collected 33 points in his last three matches for Arsenal, including three clean sheets, a goal and seven bonus points. At that price, he’s difficult to ignore. There is, however, uncertainty surrounding William Saliba‘s (£5.9m) return and what it might mean for Konsa’s longer-term minutes.
Van Hecke, meanwhile, offers a compelling combination of team defensive numbers and individual attacking involvement. Tottenham Hotspur have conceded relatively few high-quality chances, while the Dutchman has registered nine shots in the box and created ten chances across the opening nine Gameweeks.
Those are meaningful reasons to consider him. But here is where DefCon adds another dimension.
After nine Gameweeks, Van Hecke has earned six defensive contribution points, reaching the threshold in three matches. He averages approximately 8.3 qualifying actions per 90 minutes.
Konsa has also earned six DefCon points, reaching the threshold in three of his eight appearances, with an average of approximately 7.7 qualifying actions per 90. The difference is not enormous, and neither player should be judged on those numbers alone.
Indeed, their appeal may lie more strongly in clean sheets, attacking potential and the quality of their teams. But that is precisely the point. We should know which types of points we are buying.
Konsa’s recent total is impressive. Van Hecke’s underlying attacking numbers are attractive. Their DefCon records provide another piece of the puzzle, not a definitive verdict. The danger comes when we see a large recent score and assume it represents the player’s likely future.
I have written before about the temptation to buy last week’s points. A strong performance becomes a popular transfer, popularity creates urgency, and suddenly the decision feels almost compulsory. But FPL rewards what happens next.
Not what we wish we had bought last Saturday.
What three Hull defenders taught me
My own squad offers a slightly less conventional example. I currently own three Hull City defenders: John Egan (£4.1m), Nobel Mendy (£4.1m) and Semi Ajayi (£4.2m). All three visit Arsenal in Gameweek 10. I realise this sounds less like squad planning and more like a request for sympathy. But their defensive contribution numbers are worth examining.
After nine Gameweeks, Egan has earned ten DefCon points, reaching the threshold in five of his nine appearances. His average is approximately 11.1 qualifying defensive actions per 90 minutes.
Mendy has collected eight DefCon points in six appearances, reaching the threshold four times. His average is around 13 actions per 90. Those numbers are particularly interesting because they suggest that defensive contributions are not merely an occasional consolation prize for these players.
For comparison, Antonio Silva (£5.1m) of Bournemouth has already earned 12 DefCon points, reaching the threshold in six of nine appearances. That makes Silva a very appealing future target.
But it also makes me question whether I should rush to replace Egan or Mendy simply because Hull are facing Arsenal. The answer is not that Hull will suddenly become defensively reliable. Nor is it that I intend to start all three. The answer is that I can see measurable value in players whom traditional fixture analysis might encourage me to dismiss immediately.
Arsenal may score several goals. Hull’s defenders may struggle. DefCon might not compensate for the damage. Yet there is a statistical reason to consider keeping at least one of them rather than automatically using a transfer to escape an uncomfortable fixture. And sometimes having a reason to wait is valuable in itself.
A question Emil asked
My partner Emil was not entirely convinced. “What happens when Arsenal score?” he asked. A perfectly reasonable question. He also wondered why I would consider keeping defenders from a weaker team when I could buy someone from a stronger one.
Again, reasonable. But I think we were discussing two slightly different things. Emil was asking whether my defence could be improved. I was asking whether improving it was the best use of my free transfer. Those questions are not interchangeable.
A defender can be an imperfect asset without being the most urgent problem in your squad. And this is where DefCon becomes relevant to transfer strategy rather than simply individual player scoring.
If a defender has a credible additional route to points, keeping him through one difficult fixture might be acceptable.
If that decision saves a free transfer, the transfer can be used elsewhere.
And if another position offers a greater opportunity for improvement, the supposedly obvious defensive move might not be the optimal one.
The cost of waiting in attack
Dominic Calvert-Lewin (£6.1m) has been testing my patience. I have kept him while waiting for attacking returns, but his recent shooting involvement has given me increasingly little encouragement. There is a point at which patience stops being a strategy and starts becoming a habit.
We often discuss whether a player deserves another chance. But perhaps the more useful question is whether the evidence supporting that chance has improved. A striker can score from a single opportunity, of course. Calvert-Lewin could easily deliver the moment I decide to sell him.
But I cannot build my transfer strategy around the fear of being punished by a player I no longer find convincing.
Thierno Barry (£5.6m) is one alternative I am considering. Everton’s home fixture against Coventry City offers an immediate opportunity, while his attacking involvement makes him worth examining beyond one match. The decision still requires an assessment of his expected minutes, the quality of his chances and whether his role offers sustainable potential. I have not made the transfer.
But I am beginning to think that replacing Calvert-Lewin could improve my squad more than replacing a Hull defender this week.
The international break is approaching. I can reassess my defensive options afterwards, with more information about injuries, selection and future fixtures. That does not mean I have solved my defensive problems. It means I might have identified a more urgent one.
And DefCon is part of the reason I can afford to make that distinction.
Different isn’t the same as reckless
There is another element to this decision that I find important. I enjoy making a move that is different from the obvious choice. But being different is not, in itself, a strategy. Rejecting a popular player simply because everyone else wants him is no more rational than buying him without examining the numbers.
The aim should be to find an alternative that makes sense. That is why I am not dismissing Konsa, van Hecke or Silva. Each has a legitimate case. I am questioning whether any of them needs to become my transfer this week.
Sometimes the best decision is the popular one. Sometimes it is the less obvious one.
And sometimes it is doing nothing in one position because the statistics suggest that the problem can wait. The important thing is understanding why.
Friday nights, Italian cities and other signs
Naturally, there is still an irrational side to all this. I have an unwritten rule that I enjoy owning at least one player involved in the opening fixture of every Gameweek. Everton are on Friday. So yes, Barry has an additional attraction that has absolutely nothing to do with expected goals. I know perfectly well that a Friday goal is worth the same as a Sunday goal.
But FPL is also supposed to be enjoyable, and having someone involved in the first match makes the Gameweek feel properly underway.
Then there is Silva. He has appeared in the main photographs of my first two Fantasy Football Scout articles, wearing his number 14 shirt. If I believed in signs, perhaps that would be enough to make him my next transfer.
Except that the first thing I saw on Facebook this morning was a post about Bari, the Italian city.
Apparently, even the universe cannot agree on my transfer.
Meanwhile, Emil almost revealed his captaincy choice to me before changing his mind. He said he did not want to influence my decision.
Very thoughtful. Or perhaps he had another reason for keeping it secret.
Either way, the captaincy dilemma will have to wait. I still have a transfer decision to make.
The game behind the game
The most interesting thing about DefCon is not simply that defenders can earn another two points. It is what those points reveal about how we evaluate players. We notice goals, assists, clean sheets and spectacular Gameweeks because they are immediate and visible.
Defensive contributions arrive quietly. Two points here. Two points there. 10 points after five successful matches. 40 after 20. Last season showed that those small returns can accumulate into something substantial.
And yet their real value may extend beyond the points themselves. They can influence which defenders we buy, which fixtures we fear, which players we keep and where we decide to spend our limited transfers.
My Hull defenders have made me reconsider the urgency of fixing my defence.
The Konsa versus Van Hecke debate has reminded me to examine how points are earned rather than simply how many have been collected. And the possibility of replacing Calvert-Lewin with Barry has forced me to ask a broader question about opportunity cost.
What if the most obvious weakness in our squad is not the one we should fix first?
I still have not decided what to do but I am increasingly convinced that good FPL management involves more than identifying attractive players. It involves recognising which sources of points are sustainable, which risks are acceptable and which problems can wait.
Perhaps the biggest differential in FPL isn’t the player nobody owns. It’s the points nobody notices.
So, when choosing your next defender, how much weight do you give to DefCon? And would a consistent defensive contribution record persuade you to keep a player through a difficult fixture rather than spend a free transfer replacing him?
