Fixtures
FPL GW5 midfield transfers: is Gibbs-White worth selling Szoboszlai?
Weigh Gibbs-White’s Coventry fixture against the £0.9m upgrade from Szoboszlai, then separate Foden’s suspension from Cherki’s minutes risk.
Gibbs-White looks an appealing GW5 purchase for managers with a midfield vacancy. Selling a fit Szoboszlai to buy him takes more thought: you need another £0.9m at current prices and must give up a transfer you could save for a less optional move.
Start by checking who needs to leave your squad. Foden’s suspension puts him ahead of a playable midfielder on the sale list. Cherki owners can take a different approach and hold for Sunderland at home, while accepting some uncertainty over his minutes.
Gibbs-White offers an immediate fixture gain
At £7.9m, Gibbs-White faces Coventry at home in GW5. He has played all 360 league minutes and ranks first in the current penalty order. For a midfielder you need to replace, that combination makes him a strong candidate if you can afford him.
His 0.65 expected goal involvements per 90 minutes, or xGI/90, compares with Szoboszlai’s 0.52 across the same 360-minute sample. Both figures describe 2026/27 performance to date. Neither predicts their next score, and four matches give us limited evidence for a lasting gap.
Look beyond Coventry before committing the extra money. Forest visit Crystal Palace in GW6 and host Arsenal in GW7. You should feel comfortable holding Gibbs-White through that sequence, rather than needing another transfer as soon as the standout home fixture ends.
Szoboszlai owners can keep the transfer
Szoboszlai costs £7.0m and has also played every league minute. He leads Liverpool’s current penalty, direct-free-kick and corner/indirect-free-kick orders. Managers can still expect competition for those duties, but the current hierarchy gives owners reasons to retain him beyond his latest score.
Liverpool visit Bournemouth in GW5, host Manchester City in GW6 and travel to Brentford in GW7. You may prefer Gibbs-White’s immediate fixture, yet that preference alone does not establish that the switch deserves your next transfer.
If your XI works and you have little transfer flexibility, holding Szoboszlai is reasonable. With spare transfers, the £0.9m available and no urgent repair, you can justify the move for the Coventry opportunity.
Before deciding, map the next few Gameweeks in We Play FPL. The planner lets you compare future squad drafts and transfer sequences, so you can see whether spending the extra money now prevents a move you want later.
Foden needs a replacement; Cherki can wait
Foden’s current suspension flag rules him out of GW5. His £7.0m price means a move to Gibbs-White needs the same extra £0.9m, but here you would replace an unavailable player. That is a stronger reason to use the transfer than frustration with Szoboszlai.
Foden has recorded 1.03 xGI/90 over 217 minutes. Those attacking numbers offer no GW5 benefit while he cannot play. Check the suspension status again before confirming a replacement, without assuming an immediate return to the starting XI once he becomes available.
Cherki costs £7.8m and has started City’s last three league matches. He played 45 minutes in GW4, when City lost Foden to a red card after 22 minutes. Treat that unusual match context with care before judging Cherki’s next start.
His 0.82 xGI/90 over 218 minutes supports patience for Sunderland at home. Foden’s absence could improve Cherki’s opportunity, although it guarantees neither a start nor a full match. Holding him for GW5 is a reasonable call; reassess after the next game, with Liverpool away to follow.
GW4 remains in progress as of 14 September. The GW5 deadline is 18 September at 17:30 UTC. Review the remaining matches, midweek selection and late team news before committing: Foden owners have a concrete availability problem, while Szoboszlai and Cherki owners have room to wait.
Differentials
GW9 budget midfield: Tonali, Enciso or Rudoni?
Tonali offers playing time and defensive contributions, Enciso more attacking involvement, and Rudoni a saving. Match the choice to your planned starts.
Pick your cheapest playable midfielder around the job he needs to do. At £5.3m, Sandro Tonali offers a strong playing-time record and more defensive contributions than Julio Enciso or Jack Rudoni. Enciso gives you more attacking involvement for another £0.2m. Rudoni costs £4.9m, with a shorter average appearance to weigh against the saving.
We would consider Tonali for a slot that needs dependable playing time, Enciso when attacking returns take priority, and Rudoni when the extra cash improves another starter. Each choice involves a compromise. Decide your planned starts before spending a transfer on a small price difference.
Tonali: playing time with a defensive contribution caveat
Tonali has averaged 87.1 minutes per match for Spurs. His 10.07 defensive contributions per 90 minutes, or DefCon/90, exceed Enciso’s 6.84 and Rudoni’s 7.95. He has the strongest case of the three if you want playing time and a route to extra points through defensive work.
Keep your expectations measured. Across his last six league matches, Tonali recorded 12, 11, 11, nine, 15 and 12 defensive contributions. Those near misses show why you should allow for matches without a defensive contribution return. A season average cannot tell you which side of the scoring threshold he will finish on in a particular fixture.
He also has the lowest attacking involvement rate in this comparison: 0.21 expected goal involvements per 90 minutes, or xGI/90. You accept less attacking threat in exchange for his playing-time record and defensive contribution rate.
Spurs host Crystal Palace in GW9, visit Leeds in GW10 and host Ipswich Town in GW11. Tonali fits a plan that needs cover across those weeks, provided the final team news supports his selection. His average playing time describes his record so far; it guarantees no future start.
Enciso: pay £0.2m for more attacking involvement
Enciso costs £5.5m and has averaged 80.6 minutes per match for Ipswich Town. At 0.46 xGI/90, he has offered more than twice Tonali’s attacking involvement rate. You pay £0.2m extra for that route to returns while accepting a lower defensive contribution rate and less playing time per appearance.
His immediate fixtures are Hull City away in GW9 and Bournemouth at home in GW10, followed by Spurs away in GW11. Check whether you need him for that third fixture before treating him as a purchase for the whole run.
We would lean towards Enciso over Tonali if the £0.2m leaves your other plans intact and you want attacking potential from this midfield slot. Expected goal involvements measure season-to-date performance, so avoid reading 0.46 as a forecast for the next match.
Rudoni: the saving comes with a playing-time trade-off
Rudoni costs £0.4m less than Tonali and £0.6m less than Enciso. He has averaged 69.4 minutes per match for Coventry City, alongside 0.52 xGI/90 and 7.95 DefCon/90.
His attacking involvement rate leads this group, but he has played fewer minutes per appearance. Compare the time you expect him to spend on the pitch as well as his per-90 threat. Do not add a permanent penalty role to his buying case while that role remains uncertain.
Coventry host Sunderland in GW9, visit Everton in GW10 and host Crystal Palace in GW11. Rudoni makes sense when you can use those home fixtures and spend the saving on another starter. A cheap substitute you seldom select may be enough; a midfielder you need for several consecutive starts deserves a closer look at playing time.
Choose the slot before making the transfer
All three have the official FPL midfielder classification and current available status. Availability alone confirms no place in the starting XI. Recheck the team news before the GW9 deadline.
Map out the starts you need and compare the midfield options in We Play FPL, where you can review player statistics and upcoming fixtures side by side. Use that comparison to test whether the saving improves your intended XI.
Our preference depends on the squad: Tonali for his playing-time record and defensive work, Enciso for more attacking involvement at a modest extra cost, or Rudoni to release money for a specific upgrade elsewhere. Keep your current enabler if a sideways move leaves the rest of your team no better off.
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.
Differentials
GW9 cheap forwards: Evanilson, Calvert-Lewin, Jackson or Barry?
Evanilson gets our vote for regular starts. Calvert-Lewin and Barry suit planned rotation, while Jackson offers Villa’s six-match run at a higher price.
Evanilson is our GW9 pick if you need a forward to start through the next fixture run. At £6.2m, he costs £0.1m more than Dominic Calvert-Lewin and £0.5m less than Nicolas Jackson. Calvert-Lewin suits a squad with cover for difficult away matches, Jackson deserves consideration over six Gameweeks, and Thierno Barry offers the cheapest route at £5.6m.
Choose the role before making the transfer. You can accept a difficult fixture on a rotating third forward. You have less room for one when you need him in your XI each week.
Evanilson: our first choice for regular starts
Bournemouth face Leeds at home in GW9, Ipswich away in GW10 and Nott’m Forest at home in GW11. Evanilson gives you a route through those three matches without planning an immediate benching or another transfer.
He has started eight league matches and averages 84.8 minutes per match. His 0.41 xG/90 and 0.13 xA/90 produce 0.54 expected goal involvements per 90. Those season-to-date measures describe the chances he has had and created; they do not promise future returns.
We prefer him to Jackson when the extra £0.5m matters and you want a forward for the next three deadlines. Bournemouth then visit Fulham before hosting Brighton and Hull in GW13–14, so you can also consider a longer hold.
His selection record supports the purchase, but competition can change. Check the team news before treating eight starts as a guarantee of the ninth.
Calvert-Lewin: plan the bench before buying
At £6.1m, Calvert-Lewin has averaged 85.4 minutes per match and produced 0.47 xG/90 alongside 0.02 xA/90. He also has first penalty priority. You can make a sound case for him when you can choose his starts.
Leeds visit Bournemouth in GW9 and host Spurs in GW10. The matches that demand planning are Chelsea away in GW11 and Man City away in GW13. Between them, Leeds host Coventry in GW12, with Ipswich at home in GW14.
Name the player who would replace Calvert-Lewin in your XI for those two away trips. If that player has a good fixture and a dependable role, the rotation can work. If you would have to start a doubtful substitute or spend another transfer, the £0.1m saving against Evanilson offers little comfort.
You can test those GW11 and GW13 line-ups in the We Play FPL planner before confirming the move. Planning future squad drafts and transfers helps you judge whether you have enough cover.
Jackson: consider the full Villa run
Jackson costs £6.7m. Villa host Fulham in GW9, visit Man Utd in GW10, then face Sunderland at home, Ipswich away, Everton at home and Crystal Palace at home through GW14.
For a manager planning six Gameweeks of starts, that run makes him a credible alternative. The cost is the £0.5m premium over Evanilson. Jackson averages 78.1 minutes per match, with 0.30 xG/90 and 0.14 xA/90. His 0.44 xGI/90 trails Evanilson’s 0.54, so the extra spend depends on how you value Villa’s fixtures and Jackson’s role.
He sits second in the penalty order. Make the purchase on his open-play prospects and fixture run rather than assuming penalty returns.
Barry: the lowest-cost rotation option
Barry costs £5.6m, saving £0.6m against Evanilson. He has started eight matches, averages 85.3 minutes per match and has produced 0.67 xG/90 plus 0.02 xA/90. His 0.69 xGI/90 leads this group, though you should read it alongside the fixtures rather than turn it into a scoring forecast.
Everton visit Newcastle in GW9 and host Coventry in GW10. Brentford away, Liverpool at home and Villa away follow before Fulham at home in GW14.
We favour Barry when you want a playing third forward and can pick his starts. Coventry and Fulham at home offer two clear uses. Buying him for six automatic starts would require more confidence in the difficult matches between them.
Pick the forward your XI needs
For regular use from GW9, Evanilson gets our vote. Choose Calvert-Lewin when you can cover Chelsea and Man City away. Consider Jackson when you can afford £6.7m and want Villa’s six-match run. Barry suits a lower-cost third-forward spot with planned rotation.
Before committing, check the latest selection news and your intended XI for GW11 and GW13. A forward who fits those line-ups will serve your squad better than one chosen on price or the latest return alone.
