Question 1

Who has the stronger DEFCON rate: Charles or Mac Allister?

Accepted Answer

Barely anything in it. Charles averages 11.62 defensive contribution actions per 90 and Mac Allister averages 10.81 - a gap of 0.81 that is inside the natural noise of any per-90 metric. On the workload alone this is a coin toss and the decision should rest on fixture, price and attacking output rather than DEFCON.

Question 2

How do the raw defensive workloads of Charles and Mac Allister compare?

Accepted Answer

Charles has logged 42 combined clearances, blocks, interceptions and tackles across 643 minutes (5.9 per 90). Mac Allister has logged 37 across 666 minutes (5.0 per 90). Charles earned the +2pt DEFCON bonus in 2 of 9 appearances this season; Mac Allister earned the +2pt DEFCON bonus in 1 of 9 appearances this season. Higher raw counts reflect a higher defensive workload; higher per-90 rates reflect efficiency at sustaining that workload.

Question 3

Does the Gameweek 10 fixture change the DEFCON case?

Accepted Answer

Charles is at home to Newcastle (FDR 3) and Mac Allister is away at Crystal Palace (FDR 3) in Gameweek 10. DEFCON output is action-based rather than result-based, so a tough fixture does not shrink the base rate the way it might reduce a clean sheet probability. That said, both players are more likely to see defensive volume in tougher matches - the DEFCON case can actually be marginally stronger against stronger opposition.

Question 4

Which midfielder should I pick for Gameweek 10 on DEFCON grounds?

Accepted Answer

The DEFCON workloads are too close to call. Both Charles and Mac Allister deliver similar defensive contribution rates, so the pick should come down to price, fixtures and attacking output rather than DEFCON. On the defensive contributions alone this is a genuine coin toss.

Shea Charles vs Alexis Mac Allister DEFCON: Fantasy Premier League Gameweek 10

Shea Charles vs Alexis Mac Allister: DEFCON Analysis

Charles vs Mac Allister Gameweek 10

Charles has the better DEFCON rate and is £0.4m cheaper - is it a no-brainer for your squad?