Question 1

Who has the stronger DEFCON rate: Timber or Ampadu?

Accepted Answer

Barely anything in it. Timber averages 12.15 defensive contribution actions per 90 and Ampadu averages 11.50 - a gap of 0.65 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 Timber and Ampadu compare?

Accepted Answer

Timber has logged 13 combined clearances, blocks, interceptions and tackles across 163 minutes (7.2 per 90). Ampadu has logged 28 across 360 minutes (7.0 per 90). Timber earned the +2pt DEFCON bonus in 1 of 2 appearances this season; Ampadu earned the +2pt DEFCON bonus in 2 of 4 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 6 fixture change the DEFCON case?

Accepted Answer

Timber is at home to Nott'm Forest (FDR 3) and Ampadu is away at Arsenal (FDR 5) in Gameweek 6. 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 6 on DEFCON grounds?

Accepted Answer

The DEFCON workloads are too close to call. Both Timber and Ampadu 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.

Quinten Timber vs Ethan Ampadu DEFCON: Fantasy Premier League Gameweek 6

Quinten Timber vs Ethan Ampadu: DEFCON Analysis

Timber vs Ampadu Gameweek 6

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