DemoA full scouting report, generated for a randomly drawn under-23 player of the Turkish Süper Lig. Every sentence is a rule over the numbers.Subscription · a report like this on any player →
Scouting report · recruitment · demo
Baran Gezek
Tempo controller · Eyupspor · Süper Lig 2025/26 · compared with 138 Süper Lig midfielders on 900+ minutes
–Psychologicalnot visible in event data: needs live scouting
Age20–21 (born 2005)
PositionCentral midfielder (left of centre)
ClubEyupspor
Availability17/34 matches, 15 starts
Minutes1,461 (48% of the league season)
Discipline15 fouls
Contract · valuenot in our data
Height · footnot in our data
VVision AI Scoutcurrent level D · monitor
Executive summaryTempo controller, 20–21, at Eyupspor. His standout numbers among 138 Süper Lig midfielders: interceptions, defensive actions, pass completion. The team's phases go about the same with him and without him: his value is in his own actions, not in lifting the team's moves. The weakest area is chance creation & goal threat (17th percentile on average).
→
VerdictCurrent level: D (below the league standard, graded on passing & progression, carrying & dribbling, defending). Potential: development years ahead: the level can still rise a lot. Recommendation: MONITOR: a development profile: his defending is already above the league standard, the rest is not yet. Weaker fit: second ball play. Confidence: medium: 17 matches, 1,461 minutes.
Evidence · 17 matches · 1,461 minutes · percentiles vs 138 Süper Lig midfielders (900+ min) · team phases with vs without him, 3+ actions
Strengths and weaknesses, with the evidence
Strengths
Interceptions: 1.54 per 90, 96th percentile (median 0.66)
Defensive actions: 14.6 per 90, 90th percentile (median 10.3)
Ball recoveries: 4.37 per 90, 67th percentile (median 3.84)
Ball security: 15.8 losses per 100 touches, the team 20.6
Wins his duels: 80% of 265 defensive actions won (15.6 a match)
Weaknesses & limits
Zone 14 entries: 0.06 per 90, 0th percentile
Shot-creating actions: 0.99 per 90, 2nd percentile
Box entries (passes): 0.37 per 90, 7th percentile
Final third impact: final third phases through him end in a shot 18% of the time, 23% without him (44 phases)
Long passing: 10 of 33 long balls kept the move going (30%)
Costly losses: 12.6% of his losses lead to an opponent shot (team 8.9%); 11 of those 17 were central
Data snapshot: percentiles vs his position
Each bar is where he ranks among 138 Süper Lig midfielders on 900+ minutes in 2025/26 (0 = lowest, 100 = highest; the white tick is the median). Red = elite (85+), gold = above average (60+). Values per 90 minutes unless stated. Grades are the group averages: A 85+, B 70+, C 50+, D below. ★ = the groups his current level is graded on. A rate on low volume is marked and never counted as a strength.
Passing & progression Davg 28th ★ his role
Passes
4934.4 /90
Pass completion
7384%
Progressive passes
91.48 /90
Line-breaking passes
150.62 /90
Final-third entries
362.09 /90
Zone 14 entries
00.06 /90
Threat added by passing (xT)
170.05 /90
Chance creation & goal threat Davg 17th
Box entries (passes)
70.37 /90
Shot-creating actions
20.99 /90
Expected assists (xA)
520.07 /90
Expected goals (xG)
70.03 /90
Carrying & dribbling Davg 35th ★ his role
Carries
217.89 /90
Progressive carries
262.46 /90
Carry distance (m)
1461.5 /90
Take-ons completed
190.37 /90
Take-on success (low volume)
9767%
Defending Cavg 68th ★ his role
Defensive actions
9014.6 /90
Defensive actions, final third
190.99 /90
Ball recoveries
674.37 /90
Interceptions
961.54 /90
Role and system fit
Roles he fits
How closely his style matches each role (0–100).
Tempo controller
59
Deep-lying playmaker
53
Ball-winning 6
49
Systems he suits
no possession type clears the threshold (3+ points, 40+ possessions)
Systems he doesn't add to
second ball (7% with him, 8% without)
How he differs from Eyupspor
Style scores, his against the team's minutes-weighted average: the four biggest differences.
Crossing: 4 against the Eyupspor average of 49 (-45)
Receiving zones: 9 against the Eyupspor average of 41 (-32)
Final-third threat: 20 against the Eyupspor average of 45 (-26)
Through-balls: 25 against the Eyupspor average of 48 (-23)
VVision AI Scout
What the data saysThe roles that fit best: Tempo controller (59), Deep-lying playmaker (53), Ball-winning 6 (49). No type of possession clearly improves with him. They end in a shot less often when they are second ball.
→
What it means for recruitmentFit is decided by the role more than the system: look for a team that needs a tempo controller. Weaker fit: a side built on second ball play.
Evidence · possession types: a possession counts as his when he touches the ball in it; 40+ possessions and a 3-point gap needed
The tactical layer: how his team plays with him
Vision AI's own view, not available from season stats: each phase of Eyupspor's play, with him (red) and without him (grey), phases of 3+ actions.
with Gezekwithout
Build-up reach the final third · in 25% of them neutral
11%
12%
Progression reach the final third · in 29% of them neutral
26%
26%
Final third end in a shot · in 15% of them weak spot
18%
23%
Transition reach the box · in 13% of them small sample
9%
13%
Where he takes the ballsteel = build-up · red = progression · gold = final thirdBall losses · 13515.8 per 100 touches (team 20.6) · red = led to a shot
Defensive actions · 26580% won · 37 high up · faded = lost
high up (opponent's final 40%)deeper
How he wins the ball
BallRecovery
71
Clearance
51
Tackle
36
Interception
25
Aerial
22
Challenge
19
Foul
15
BlockedPass
13
Save
13
15.6 defensive actions a match. Percentiles among 138 Süper Lig midfielders: defensive actions 90th, interceptions 96th, ball recoveries 67th. "Save" = a shot he blocked.
Tactical details: how he plays
The fine detail behind the profile, from every Eyupspor sequence he was part of.
Where he plays, phase by phaseshading = share of his touches per zone
His passing connections
Completed passes to and from each team-mate.
Passes to
Umut Meras
65
Bedirhan Özyurt
53
Jankat Yilmaz
44
Taskin Ilter
40
Lenny Pintor
32
Mateusz Legowski
28
Receives from
Umut Meras
64
Taskin Ilter
46
Jankat Yilmaz
43
Umut Bozok
39
Talha Ülvan
31
Jérôme Onguéné
23
VVision AI Scout
Where he playsHis average position: 25 up the pitch in build-up (deep, in his own third), 47 in progression (around halfway) and 70 in the final third (0 = his own goal line, 100 = the opponent's); in every phase he is left of centre (channel 55–59 out of 100, 50 = the middle).
→
What it means for recruitmentA full-length midfielder: he covers the route from the first pass to the edge of the box, so he needs a partner who holds the position he leaves.
Evidence · 855 touches
VVision AI Scout
His connectionsHis passes go most often to Umut Meras (65), Bedirhan Özyurt (53), Jankat Yilmaz (44); he gets the ball most from Umut Meras (64), Taskin Ilter (46), Jankat Yilmaz (43).
→
What it means for recruitmentHis passing is spread across the team rather than tied to one partner: his output should travel to a new team.
His passingIn midfield his passing is 38% forward, 28% sideways and 34% backward, 87% completed; his forward passes there find a team-mate 79% of the time. In the final third 32% go forward and 86% are completed.
→
What it means for recruitmentA safe circulator: most of his midfield passes go sideways or back. He keeps the ball for the team; the forward pass has to come from someone else.
Evidence · 559 passes
His role in combinations
Does he start the move, link it, or finish it?
Third-man combination
57%43%
65
Counter-press regain
38%15%46%
39
Pass rotation
90%
20
Passing triangle
38%50%12%
16
One-two
38%62%
8
Underlap
83%17%
6
starts itlinks itfinishes it
By the score
Progression phases (3+ actions), when his team is winning, level or losing.
winning26%of progression phases through him (82)reach the final third: 38% with him, 28% without
drawing30%of progression phases through him (282)reach the final third: 19% with him, 25% without
losing30%of progression phases through him (294)reach the final third: 30% with him, 26% without
VVision AI Scout
In combinationsHe is part of third-man combination 65 times; counter-press regain 39 times; pass rotation 20 times. Across all combinations he starts 68, links 33 and finishes 53.
→
What it means for recruitmentHe sets combinations up rather than finishing them: pair him with runners and a third man who arrives.
Evidence · combinations found by the Vision AI pattern engine
VVision AI Scoutbest when winning
By the scorewinning: 38% with him, 28% without (26% of phases through him); drawing: 19% with him, 25% without (30% of phases through him); losing: 30% with him, 26% without (30% of phases through him).
→
What it means for recruitmentHis edge is largest when his team is winning and smallest when drawing.
Evidence · 658 progression phases; a game state needs 40+
87attacks started by his ball-wins (5.1 a match)
24%of them reach the final third
15%of all ball-wins: he is in the first three touches
28%then reach the final third (21% without him)
VVision AI Scoutstrength
After the ball is wonHis 87 ball-wins started attacks (5.1 a match, 12 of them high up): 24% of those attacks reached the final third and 3% ended in a shot. After any ball-win, he is among the first three touches 15% of the time, and then 28% of those attacks reach the final third (21% without him) and 3% end in a shot (2%).
→
What it means for recruitmentHe turns a regain into an attack: attacks after a ball-win reach the final third more often when he is in the first three touches. In a pressing team, put him where the ball is won.
Evidence · 1357 attacks after a ball-win
Consistency and big games
Forward passes (15+ m or into the final third) per 90, every league match he played 60+ minutes, in date order. Red = against a top-half side.
2/15matches below half his usual output: a reliable level
33%of progression phases through him v the top half (9 matches)
31%v the bottom half (6 matches)
20.1losses per 100 touches v the top half (bottom half 13.2)
VVision AI Scoutwatch v top sides
What the data saysAgainst top-half opponents 33% of progression phases go through him, against the bottom half 31%; he loses the ball 20.1 times per 100 touches against the top half and 13.2 against the bottom half. 2 of 15 full matches fell below half his usual output.
→
What it means for recruitmentHis ball security drops against the better sides: the step up in level is the open question, and the thing to watch live.
Evidence · 15 matches of 60+ minutes, split by the opponent’s final league position
Physical, availability and risk
Age low20–21: development years ahead: the level can still rise a lot.
Availability medium17 of 34 league matches, 48% of the minutes. Why he missed the rest (injury or rotation) is not in our data: check the medical record.
Durability proxy lowHis touch rate holds late in matches: 46 per 90 before the hour, 46 after (matches he started and finished). No tracking data, so no running numbers.
Discipline low15 fouls in 1,461 minutes (0.92 per 90).
Injury history not in dataEvent data does not record injuries: add from medical sources.
Contract & price not in dataNot in our data: add from the market.
Comparable players
The closest style matches among Süper Lig midfielders, and what drives each match. A style comparison, not a quality ranking.
Melih KabasakalGaziantep FK · 77% style match
Driven by: receiving zones (13%), final-third threat (12%), box threat (11%). Different mechanism — Gezek more via territory (wide vs central), passing directness; Kabasakal more via crossing, retention.
ShowKocaelispor · 72% style match
Driven by: crossing (28%), receiving zones (15%), final-third threat (10%). Different mechanism — Gezek more via ball-winning, territory (wide vs central); Show more via passing directness, through-balls.
Ogün ÖzçiçekGaziantep FK · 65% style match
Driven by: box threat (18%), through-balls (13%), receiving zones (11%). Different mechanism — Gezek more via territory (wide vs central), ball-winning; Özçiçek more via crossing, receiving zones.
Jesper CeesayAntalyaspor · 63% style match
Driven by: crossing (19%), final-third threat (14%), receiving zones (12%). Different mechanism — Gezek more via territory (wide vs central), dribbling; Ceesay more via passing directness, crossing.
Tom Dele-BashiruGenclerbirligi · 59% style match
Driven by: crossing (25%), final-third threat (12%), through-balls (9%). Different mechanism — Gezek more via territory (wide vs central), ball-winning; Dele-Bashiru more via receiving zones, crossing.
Taras StepanenkoEyupspor · 49% style match
Driven by: receiving zones (19%), final-third threat (14%), box threat (12%). Different mechanism — Gezek more via dribbling, press resistance; Stepanenko more via crossing.
The evidence: moves that went through him
The most dangerous moves (5 to 15 actions) he played a part in. The ball's route action by action: his actions in red, the team-mates' in steel, carries dotted, the shot as a star.
2026-02-08 · v Istanbul Basaksehir · 38′Short spell · 8 actions, 3 by Gezek · 0.15 xG2026-01-31 · v Alanyaspor · 84′Counter-attack · 11 actions, 3 by Gezek · 0.13 xG2026-03-18 · v Trabzonspor · 57′Counter-attack · 12 actions, 3 by Gezek · 0.13 xG
Final recommendation
VVision AI Scoutmonitor
SummaryTempo controller, 20–21, at Eyupspor. His standout numbers among 138 Süper Lig midfielders: interceptions, defensive actions, pass completion. The team's phases go about the same with him and without him: his value is in his own actions, not in lifting the team's moves. The weakest area is chance creation & goal threat (17th percentile on average).
→
RecommendationCurrent level: D (below the league standard, graded on passing & progression, carrying & dribbling, defending). Potential: development years ahead: the level can still rise a lot. Recommendation: MONITOR: a development profile: his defending is already above the league standard, the rest is not yet. Weaker fit: second ball play. Confidence: medium: 17 matches, 1,461 minutes. What would change it: progress in passing & progression, the weakest area his role needs (now 28th percentile on average), or a medical record that explains the 17 missed matches.
Evidence · grades are rules over the numbers in this report; the psychological corner and true physical data need live scouting
How this was built: per-90 percentiles from the season's event data against 138 Süper Lig midfielders with 900+ minutes (2025/26 only).
The tactical layer rebuilds every Eyupspor match into sequences and phases (Vision AI tactical engine) and compares the team's play with and without him, phases of 3+ actions.
Style roles and comparables come from Vision AI's style model (position-relative style scores; note: it spans his recent seasons). Grades: A = 85th percentile or higher on average, B 70+, C 50+, D below; the current level averages the groups his role needs. Every sentence is generated by a rule over these numbers.
Not in our data: contract, market value, injury history, height, preferred foot, running data.
Subscribe