Question 1

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

Accepted Answer

Palacios is the stronger DEFCON profile at 15.73 actions per 90 against 10.81 for Mac Allister - a gap of 4.92 per 90. Over a 38-match season that difference works out to roughly 187 extra defensive contribution actions before any attacking upside is factored in.

Question 2

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

Accepted Answer

Palacios has logged 41 combined clearances, blocks, interceptions and tackles across 572 minutes (6.5 per 90). Mac Allister has logged 37 across 666 minutes (5.0 per 90). Palacios earned the +2pt DEFCON bonus in 5 of 8 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

Palacios is at home to Bournemouth (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

Palacios has the DEFCON edge at 15.73 per 90 versus 10.81. That advantage costs £0.4m if Palacios is dearer - work out whether the edge is worth the outlay in your specific squad. On DEFCON grounds alone Palacios is the better profile, but £0.4m spent elsewhere may return more depending on where you are stretched.

Exequiel Palacios vs Alexis Mac Allister DEFCON: Fantasy Premier League Gameweek 10

Exequiel Palacios vs Alexis Mac Allister: DEFCON Analysis

Palacios vs Mac Allister Gameweek 10

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