Chip Strategy
FPL GW4 transfers and captaincy: Palmer, João Pedro or Isak?
Palmer leads our early captaincy call, but João Pedro offers a cheaper route. Assess Isak, Rogers and the defensive upgrades, then plan the budget-forward moves for GW5.
Palmer gets our early GW4 captaincy lean, but João Pedro owners already have a credible route into Chelsea’s home fixture against Hull. Before spending £1.9m more to reach Palmer, check which other position you could improve with that money.
The same budget question runs through this week’s transfers. Isak offers strong goal threat for Fulham at home. Rogers looks worth the extra over Gakpo for a new midfield purchase. Further down the price list, Barry and Wissa give managers reasons to plan for GW5 rather than force a move now.
All prices and statistics below reflect the 8 September check. Expected goals (xG), expected assists (xA), expected goal involvement (xGI) and expected goals conceded (xGC) describe the first three Gameweeks of 2026/27. Per-90 rates use each player’s minutes on the pitch; they are small-sample performance measures, not forecasts.
Palmer or João Pedro for the armband?
Palmer costs £9.6m and leads Chelsea’s current penalty order. As a midfielder, he earns five points per goal and one point for a qualifying clean sheet. João Pedro, a £7.7m forward, earns four per goal and no clean-sheet point. Those scoring routes give Palmer our initial edge for Hull at home.
João Pedro has the stronger early attacking numbers: 0.63 xG/90 and 0.68 xGI/90 across 270 minutes, against Palmer’s 0.36 and 0.48 across 262 minutes. He belongs in the captaincy conversation on his own merits. Managers without a Chelsea attacker should consider him as their first entry; managers who own him can captain him without restructuring their midfield to buy Palmer.
Treat Palmer’s penalty priority as a current ranking, with fitness and expected minutes still to check before the deadline. You can compare the pair’s statistics and upcoming fixtures in We Play FPL while deciding whether the extra spend improves your whole squad.
Buy Isak for his chances, with the next fixtures in mind
Isak has generated 0.85 xG/90 and 0.87 xGI/90 across 243 minutes. At £9.1m, he is a strong candidate for a forward slot that needs attention before Liverpool host Fulham.
His current penalty-order ranking is second, behind Szoboszlai. Avoid valuing him as a first-choice penalty taker. His early chance generation supports the purchase without that assumption, although three matches cannot establish the rate he will sustain.
Liverpool then visit Bournemouth in GW5 and host Manchester City in GW6. Buy Isak with that holding period in mind. A manager who already has a healthy forward with useful fixtures has less reason to force the transfer for one home match.
Rogers has the edge over Gakpo for a new purchase
Rogers costs £7.6m, £0.4m more than Gakpo. His first 257 minutes have produced 0.41 xG/90 and 0.40 xA/90, giving him 0.81 xGI/90. Gakpo has 0.13 xG/90 and 0.43 xA/90 across 250 minutes, for 0.56 xGI/90.
Paying the extra for Rogers is our preference when buying a midfielder. He has combined goal threat with creativity, while Gakpo’s early output has leaned towards assists. Chelsea also follow Hull at home with Brentford away and Bournemouth at home.
Gakpo remains a useful £7.2m option for Fulham at home. Existing owners do not need to spend a transfer on a sideways move just because Rogers leads a new-purchase comparison. Keep the Liverpool fixtures and Gakpo’s expected minutes in the decision.
Barry and Wissa reward planning for GW5
Barry belongs on the budget-forward shortlist at £5.6m. He has started three matches and recorded 0.88 xG/90 and 0.92 xGI/90 across 237 minutes. Everton face Spurs away in GW4, then Ipswich at home and Hull away in GW5–6. Those later fixtures make him worth planning around, with his share of the available minutes an ongoing consideration.
Wissa costs £6.2m and has 0.49 xGI/90 across 261 minutes. Newcastle visit Leeds in GW4 before hosting Hull and travelling to Coventry. If your current forward can cover this week, GW5 looks the cleaner entry. Wissa also sits second in the current penalty order, so his price should not include assumed first-choice penalties.
Map both routes over several Gameweeks before committing. The We Play FPL planner on iOS lets you test future transfers and line-ups, which helps you see whether waiting a week creates a better squad.
Choose defensive upgrades for the slot you need
A second Arsenal defensive slot deserves consideration. Raya has 0.31 xGC/90 across all 270 minutes, with 0.92 total expected goals conceded. Arsenal visit Sunderland and Brighton before hosting Leeds. That early record supports the double-up, while a third defender or goalkeeper would consume your final Arsenal place and increase dependence on the same clean sheet.
Calafiori offers an attacking route at £5.7m: 0.43 xGI/90 and 0.25 xGC/90 across 236 minutes. His 3.43 defensive contributions per 90 do not support buying him for contribution points. The case rests on attacking involvement and Arsenal’s defensive prospects, with fewer minutes than Raya in the sample.
For a new Everton purchase, Branthwaite has the value edge over Tarkowski. He costs £5.5m against £6.0m, and both have played 270 minutes with identical early rates: 10.33 defensive contributions per 90, 1.60 xGC/90 and 0.07 xGI/90. Existing Tarkowski owners have less to gain from spending a transfer on the switch.
De Cuyper is a different kind of £4.8m purchase. His 0.71 xGI/90 across 243 minutes makes Coventry away in GW4 appealing, but his 2.08 xGC/90 warns against relying on defensive returns. Arsenal at home follows in GW5. Buy for the attacking upside only if your bench can cover the tougher fixtures.
Check contribution payouts before buying the average
Scott and Stach show why a healthy contribution rate does not guarantee two extra points each week. Scott has 12.52 defensive contributions per 90 across 266 minutes; Stach has 12.67 across 270. Both cost £6.0m and have 0.21 xGI/90.
Their match totals differ. Scott recorded 11, 15 and 11 contributions, reaching the midfielder threshold of 12 once. Stach recorded 16, 16 and 6, reaching it twice. Keep Scott on the longer-term watchlist, but assess match-by-match consistency before treating his average as a dependable payout.
Keep the three-match sample in perspective
Haaland’s £15.5m price puts pressure on the rest of a squad, yet his 0.99 xGI/90 across 270 minutes still supports keeping the premium slot. A plan without him needs identifiable upgrades elsewhere to justify the sacrifice.
Thiago offers another reason to look beyond recent scores. He has no goals but 2.30 xG across 262 minutes, including a missed penalty, and 0.82 xGI/90. The blanks have hurt owners. They do not, on their own, prove that he has stopped getting chances. Weigh his fixtures and replacement options before selling.
For GW4, start with the position that needs the transfer. Consider Chelsea for the attacking upgrade and armband, assess Isak over his next three fixtures, and let a serviceable squad wait for the GW5 budget-forward entries. Recheck fitness, likely starts and penalty rankings before the deadline on 12 September at 12:30 UTC.
Chip Strategy
GW10 captaincy: Haaland or Gabriel for the armband?
Haaland leads our GW10 captaincy picks, with Gabriel at home to Hull the alternative. Compare their scoring routes and check Calafiori’s workload.
Haaland gets our GW10 captaincy vote away to Forest. Gabriel is a credible alternative at home to Hull for managers willing to back Arsenal’s clean-sheet prospects and his attacking threat. Choose between those routes after checking selection news, with Haaland our first choice if you own both.
Gabriel’s home fixture deserves consideration. His season-long playing time and several ways to score make him more than a punt on a header. The trade-off is the weight you place on a defender’s clean sheet against Haaland’s stronger attacking involvement.
Haaland offers the stronger attacking case
Haaland averages 88.8 min/match and records 0.74 xG/90, with 0.84 xGI/90 once expected assists are included. At £15.8m, he takes a large share of the squad budget, but owners can captain him without spending a transfer or changing their team structure.
Manchester City visit Forest in GW10. The away venue gives Gabriel’s home match some appeal, though choosing Haaland still means backing the player with the more substantial attacking record in this comparison. His goal threat is the main reason for our preference.
These rates describe season-to-date performances. A 0.84 xGI/90 figure is neither a GW10 points prediction nor a promise of a goal involvement. Use it to judge the attacking case, then check whether new fitness or selection information changes your confidence before the deadline.
Gabriel gives you a different route to returns
Gabriel costs £8.0m and averages 90.0 min/match. He has 0.80 xGC/90 and 0.19 xGI/90, including 0.16 xG/90. Against Hull at home, managers can back the combination of defensive returns and his threat from set pieces.
His 9.00 DefCon/90 adds context to the defensive case. It measures defensive contributions per 90 minutes; it does not guarantee contribution points in this match. The same caution applies to clean sheets: xGC/90 measures expected goals conceded while he is on the pitch, rather than the chance of shutting out Hull.
Gabriel’s attacking rate sits below Haaland’s. That does not settle the captaincy by itself because defenders have other scoring routes, but it explains what you accept by choosing him. You put more weight on Arsenal keeping a clean sheet and on Gabriel adding another return.
For a manager who owns Gabriel without Haaland, he is a defensible captaincy option. For an owner of both, we lean Haaland unless fresh team news changes the assessment. Keep a purchase decision separate from the armband: Gabriel’s captaincy appeal this week alone does not justify spending a transfer and £8.0m.
Check Calafiori’s workload before choosing another Arsenal captain
Calafiori shares the Hull home fixture and costs £5.9m. He records a higher attacking-involvement rate than Gabriel at 0.29 xGI/90, alongside 0.85 xGC/90 and 4.64 DefCon/90. His average playing time is lower at 77.7 min/match.
That combination makes a selection check important. Reassess his workload after the midweek match and the available information about his next start. A good fixture gives little protection from reduced playing time, and a short appearance can leave you relying on the captain you chose rather than your vice-captain.
We prefer Gabriel within this Arsenal captaincy comparison unless team news gives a reason to change. Calafiori’s stronger xGI/90 alone is insufficient to move him ahead when Gabriel has the longer played average and stronger defensive-contribution rate. Neither historical average guarantees a start this weekend.
Make the call with the players you own
You can test captains and future line-ups in the We Play FPL planner before changing your live squad. Compare the armband choices within your current team, then consider transfers as a separate decision. A captaincy change costs no transfer; buying a player for one attractive fixture can affect several later weeks.
Our order is Haaland first, Gabriel the alternative, with Calafiori requiring a closer workload and selection check. Recheck availability before the GW10 deadline on 6 November at 18:30 UTC and choose a vice-captain you expect to play.
Chip Strategy
GW10 defenders: Silva or Vušković for a deeper squad?
Silva edges Vušković for a new defender purchase. Compare their rates and planned starts, then build defensive depth without forcing five at the back.
Silva gets our vote over Vušković for a new defender around £5m in GW10. At £5.1m, he costs £0.1m less and combines a lower xGC/90 with stronger attacking involvement and defensive contribution rates. The gap is small enough that your intended starts should decide a close call.
First, check whether you need another defender. You can build a squad with five usable options and choose four or five at the back when their fixtures justify it. You can also leave two on the bench when your attackers offer more. Spend a transfer on a defender you expect to start in a specific week, rather than buying one to complete a preferred formation.
Silva has the stronger balance of rates
Silva averages 90.0 min/match for Bournemouth. His 1.11 xGC/90 sits below Vušković’s 1.44, while his 0.18 xGI/90 edges the Brighton defender’s 0.16. He also leads on DefCon/90, 10.33 to 9.60.
Those differences support the buying preference, but none promises a return. xGC/90 describes expected goals conceded during the player’s time on the pitch; it does not rank an entire defence or predict the next clean sheet. xGI/90 describes expected goal involvement to date. DefCon/90 measures defensive contributions per 90 minutes, so a higher rate does not guarantee contribution points in a particular match.
Vušković costs £5.2m and averages 88.6 min/match. Both offer substantial playing time on their season averages, though managers still need to check selection news before the deadline. Silva has three yellow cards to monitor; Vušković has none.
For a fresh purchase with no fixture-specific reason to choose otherwise, we lean Silva. For an existing Vušković owner, the small rate differences give little reason to spend a transfer switching between the two.
Choose the weeks you need the extra starter
Bournemouth visit Ipswich in GW10, host Forest in GW11 and travel to Fulham in GW12. Brighton host Brentford, visit Hull and host Newcastle across the same three Gameweeks.
A manager who needs a home starter this week may prefer Vušković. A manager buying across the whole period may accept Silva’s opening away match for his combination of price and performance rates. Neither choice requires starting the new defender in all three fixtures.
Write down your likely XI for each week before buying. If both players would spend most of that period on your bench, keep the transfer for a clearer improvement. If one fills a specific gap, judge him against the player who would otherwise start in your team.
You can test future line-ups in the We Play FPL planner to compare those starts before changing your live squad. Use that plan to check whether a fourth defender improves your XI and whether the fifth offers cover you will use.
Build the bench through available transfers
Five playable defenders give you more choices after an injury or a difficult fixture. You still need enough money in attack. Avoid a hit whose only purpose is to impose four or five at the back, and keep a healthy starter if the replacement would spend the next week on the bench.
Defensive contributions add another scoring route, but managers should assess them alongside clean-sheet potential and attacking involvement. Buying the highest DefCon/90 alone can leave you paying for a player whose fixtures or playing time do not fit your squad.
Use the next free transfer to fix the weakest planned start. Silva is our first look if that means buying a defender around £5m; Vušković remains a close alternative when Brighton’s fixtures better match your needs. Recheck availability before the GW10 deadline on 6 November at 18:30 UTC, then choose the XI from the players you own.
Chip Strategy
GW9 Liverpool defence: Jacquet, Araujo or Van Dijk?
Jacquet offers Liverpool defensive value at £5.1m; Van Dijk has the stronger playing-time record. Compare the price tiers and plan your starts from GW10.
Jeremy Jacquet is our first Liverpool defender to consider if you want to keep the cost down. At £5.1m, he costs £0.3m less than Ronald Araujo and £1.3m less than Virgil van Dijk. His playing-time record and defensive contribution rate make that saving worth taking seriously.
For a new purchase, we would reassess after Arsenal at home in GW9. You can then decide whether Liverpool’s GW10–14 fixtures suit the weeks you need a defender. Van Dijk offers the stronger playing-time record if you have room for £6.4m; Araujo needs a clearer reason for the extra spend over Jacquet.
Jacquet offers the cheaper route
Jacquet has averaged 85.3 minutes per match, with 9.37 defensive contributions per 90. Araujo has averaged 61.6 minutes per match and 7.85 defensive contributions per 90. Neither average promises a future start, but Jacquet has given owners more playing time so far.
The attacking numbers offer little reason to pay up for Araujo. Jacquet has 0.07 expected goal involvements per 90 (xGI/90), compared with Araujo’s 0.02. Both rates are low, so we would buy either for the defensive role and budget fit rather than an expectation of regular attacking returns.
Araujo has the lower expected goals conceded rate: 0.97 xGC/90 against Jacquet’s 1.16. That deserves a place in the comparison, but the players have spent different amounts of time on the pitch. We would not treat it as proof that choosing Araujo gives you a better chance of a clean sheet in the next match.
Our lean is Jacquet when choosing between the two at current prices. Fresh selection news could change that call. Paying another £0.3m makes more sense if you can identify a role or playing-time advantage that the current record does not show.
Van Dijk costs £1.3m more for a stronger minutes record
Van Dijk has averaged 90.0 minutes per match. That is the strongest record of the three, alongside 9.75 defensive contributions per 90. His 1.20 xGC/90 and 0.05 xGI/90 do not establish a large expected-performance advantage over Jacquet.
At £6.4m, we would choose Van Dijk when you can afford the premium and place a high value on his playing-time record. You still need to check availability and selection news; a historical average cannot guarantee his next start.
For a tighter budget, Jacquet leaves £1.3m available elsewhere. Compare what you gain from that saving with the extra playing-time confidence you want from Van Dijk before committing to either player.
Plan the starts from GW10
Liverpool’s schedule after Arsenal includes three away matches in five:
- GW10: Crystal Palace away.
- GW11: Man Utd at home.
- GW12: Everton away.
- GW13: Sunderland at home.
- GW14: Chelsea away.
You need a plan for that whole stretch. A lower price helps, but you may still want another defender available for selected away fixtures. You can compare Liverpool’s defensive options in We Play FPL using player statistics and upcoming fixtures, then map out the starts in the planner.
We would shortlist Jacquet for value and Van Dijk for the stronger playing-time record, then revisit the choice after GW9 with fresh team news. Araujo’s lower xGC/90 merits attention, but his shorter average appearances and higher price leave us preferring Jacquet for the cheaper slot. These season-to-date rates describe past performance; they do not predict clean sheets or attacking returns.
