العربيةSeasonThis season · 2026All seasons
Building the full report
Combining every season — this one is larger, give it a moment.
VISION AI ← BACK TO SEARCH
Player Intelligence Report · Egyptian Premier League 2026

Kahraba

Arab Contractors FC
Defensive full-back FB
8.6 defensive actions/90 · low final-third share 21%
full-backoverlapping full-backprogressioncrossing
262
minutes
3 apps
64%
pass completion
84 passes
16
progressive passes
5.5/90
10
final-3rd entries
3.4/90
2
box entries
0.69/90
25
defensive actions
8.6/90
7
tackles + interceptions
33% tackle win
0
dribbles
0% won
Thin sample this season. Kahraba has played 3 matches (262 min) so far, so sections that need a bigger sample to say anything reliable are not shown here — they are missing on purpose, not broken. See all seasons combined →
Part 1

Overview

The headline read on him, and how he compares to his peers.
01

What Patterns Define Him?

His repeatable signature. A step only appears if its reliability score (sample size × match coverage) reaches at least Medium confidence — pattern mining, not anecdotes.

RECEIVE
Right Wing, Middle third — wide or inverted — mostly in the middle third (46% of his 84 passes)
64% completion · 84× in 3/3 matches
PROGRESS
carry or combine up the flank
5.5 prog/90 · 16× in 3/3 matches
DELIVER
cross or cut-back into the box
0 key passes · 2× in 2/3 matches
DEFEND
1v1 and cover on his side
25 def actions · lost 30% deep · 25× in 3/3 matches
Signature: Receive → Progress → Deliver → Defend — the only steps proven repeatable this season (4 of 5 in the full pattern). Not enough evidence yet for the rest of the chain below.
Not a pattern: dribble — 0× (insufficient confidence, hidden — not enough evidence yet) — omitted from the signature rather than presented as one.
Part 2

In Possession

What he does with the ball — build-up, progression, creation, carrying and finishing.
02

Crosses & Cutbacks

6 crosses (2.06/90, 2 completed) and 1 cutbacks (0.34/90, 0 completed) — two separate wide-delivery patterns into the box, each its own map with a completed/failed filter. Neither is a tagged event on this data source, so both are inferred from pass geometry — the intended end point of a failed attempt is still real data (an interception doesn’t erase where the ball was aimed): a cross is a pass aimed into the box starting from a wide channel; a cutback starts almost on the byline but is squared back rather than driven forward, aimed centrally around the box. The completed-cross count was checked against this platform’s own real match-level cross totals and lands within about 1 cross of the true count.

Crosses — close-up on the final third
VISION AI
Cutbacks — close-up on the final third
VISION AI
completedfailed (dashed)close-up on the box — attacking ↑ toward goal
03

Tactical patterns — how his football actually looks

Three clustered sequence diagrams from his own event data — his three busiest routes: the way he progresses, the pattern behind his chances, and where a turnover turns dangerous.

own goal left, attacking
How does he progress the ball forward?
His most common route for progressing play: he switches it out from the right hs to the right wing, advancing it forward in the defensive third — 2 passes worth 0.36 xT.
Where does he lose the ball most?
This is a RATE, not a raw count — the share of his touches in each zone that end in a turnover, so a zone he simply plays in more often doesn't automatically look riskier. His weakest zone is the right wing in the final third: 70% of his 10 touches there are lost (7 times).
50%6/12 lost20%2/10 lost3 touches · too few1 touch · too few1 touch · too few27%6/22 lost23%3/13 lost2 touches · too few0 touches · too few2 touches · too few70%7/10 lost4 touches · too few1 touch · too few0 touches · too few3 touches · too fewRWRHSCLHSLWDEFMIDATTVISION AI
04

How does he create chances?

0 key passes (0.00/90), 0 of them assists — where his chance creation specifically comes from, 18 zones (6×3), showing his share of key passes originating there.

Chance creation — key pass origin zone share
Filter:
VISION AI
chance creation (0)assist (0)% of the selected group's key passes originating in each zone
05

How dangerous are his carries?

Real ball-carries

34 tracked carries (11.7/90, 4 progressive, 281m total) — the ball moving with his touches, a different signal from dribbles below (beating an opponent 1v1). even a player who rarely dribbles past a man can still carry the ball forward constantly in build-up; this is that.

26%24%26%21%3%VISION AI
progressivelateral/short% of his 34 carries originating in each zone · own goal left, attacking
Every carry, exact path — median 6m, longest 22m
By zone — where the carry started → where it ended
4Outside → Inside
12Inside → Inside
12Outside → Outside
6Inside → Outside
VISION AI
First (18)Second (16)grouped by carry pattern (start + end position), largest group first
startendown goal left, attacking →

Beaten in the tackle

How often an attacker gets past him in a 1v1 defensive duel — the closest signal the data has to "dribbled past" (no attacker-beat-defender field exists directly, so this counts tackles he attempted and lost).

3
tackle duels
1
won
2
beaten · 67%
VISION AI
brighter band = more tackle duels · own goal left, attacking
INSIDE 33%
OUTSIDE 67%
Tackle-duel location — 1 inside · 2 outside
Right Wing
2 · 67%
Right Half-Space
1 · 33%
Central
0 · 0%
Left Half-Space
0 · 0%
Left Wing
0 · 0%
Vision AI beaten in 2 of 3 tackle duels (67% loss rate) — a solid 1v1 defensive record.
Every tackle duel, exact location
VISION AI
wonlost — dribbled pastown goal left, attacking

He attempted only 0 dribbles of his own all season — dribbling is not part of this role; his ball-carrying is covered above, his defending against the dribble below.

06

How does he progress play?

How much he drives the ball forward. Progressive = completed pass advancing ≥15 toward goal.

16
progressive · 5.5/90
10
final-third entries · 3.4/90
2
box entries · 0.69/90
14
progression index /90
Progression index: one composite number — progressive passes + progressive carries + 2% of total distance progressed + 8× positive xT added, all per 90. Weights VOLUME and THREAT together rather than counting progressive actions alone.
07

Where does he become vulnerable?

30 times he gave the ball away. For a defender the danger is where — a loss in his own third can turn into a chance against; higher up it costs little.

11
attacking third (cheap)
10
middle third
9
own third (dangerous)
Vision AI 37% of losses are in the attacking third — a notable share happen deeper, which invites transitions.
Mistake danger (proxy): 3.69 danger-index/90 · 0.358 avg/turnover. Weights each loss by threat conceded at that location. True xT-conceded needs the opponent possession model; positional proxy.
08

Preferred Progression Routes — xT-weighted

His progressive passes as zone→zone routes, weighted by expected threat (xT) added — arrow width and the number are the total xT generated on each route, not just how often he plays it. This is where he actually moves the needle.

0.360.340.330.290.170.13VISION AI
own goal left, attacking
Highest-value routes (xT)
0.36
Right Half-Space Def third → Right Wing Att third
2 passes
0.34
Right Wing Mid third → Right Half-Space Att third
1 passes
0.33
Right Half-Space Mid third → Right Half-Space Att third
2 passes
0.29
Right Wing Mid third → Right Wing Att third
2 passes
0.17
Central Def third → Right Half-Space Mid third
2 passes
0.13
Right Half-Space Mid third → Right Wing Att third
1 passes
Part 3

Out of Possession

Where and how he defends and presses.
09

How & where does he defend?

25 defensive actions across the season (8.6/90). Where he wins the ball, and how — the core question for a defender. Aerial duels are not in the event feed, so aerial dominance is not measured here.

VISION AI
click a card to isolate that action type · own goal left, attacking
3
tackles · 33% won
4
interceptions · 1.4/90
12
recoveries · 4.1/90
5
clearances · 1.7/90
1
blocks
26
avg action height
2
won high (att 3rd)
2
middle third
21
own third
Vision AI A deep-defending defender. He wins the ball mainly by stepping in — tackles, interceptions & recoveries outweigh clearances. 19 proactive ball-wins (6.5/90), tackle success 33%. He defends deep, protecting his box — a last-line stopper.
Part 4

Team Context

How much of the team's output runs through him, and what changes when he isn't on the pitch.
10

Impact on the Team

Arab Contractors FC's output per match with Kahraba (3 matches) versus without him (16 matches). Insufficient evidence — the without-sample is only 16 matches; treat every Δ below as noise until more games exist. What his own defending should move — goals conceded and results — leads; attacking output (largely out of a defender's hands) is shown after, for context. A proper on-off model needs many more minutes.

WITH (3)
WITHOUT (16)
Δ
goals against /match
1.67
0.00
+1.67
points /match
0.33
0.19
+0.15
goals for /match
1.00
1.00
+0.00
xG for /match
0.58
0.00
+0.58
11

His Share of the Team

Of everything Arab Contractors FC produced this season, the categories where the biggest share ran through Kahraba specifically — his share of the team total, not a per-90 rate.

category
share
him / team
box entries
10%
23 / 222
expected assists (xA)
10%
1.7 / 16.9
interceptions
10%
24 / 246
Part 5

Recruitment

Style profile, closest comparables, and the summary verdict.
12

Playing-Style Profile

Not raw event counts — football style scores: weighted models scored 0–100 against the 151 full-backs in the league (min 450 min). This is what separates players who post similar numbers but play differently. Proxy dimensions are inferred from on-ball data; true off-ball running / under-pressure context is not measured.

Overlapping full-back47%Inverted full-back24%
Why Overlapping full-back 47%: a weighted blend of final-third threat 52 (weight 25%) + dribbling 65 (weight 20%) + transition 50 (weight 25%) + crossing 38 (weight 30%). The score reflects how distinctively his profile SHAPE matches this archetype vs his peers.
Elite
passing directness
Strong
Average
dribbling, ball-winning, territory (wide vs central), final-third threat, transition, line-breaking, defensive aggression, progression, press resistance, creativity, carrying
Weak
receiving zones, crossing, through-balls, box threat, retention, build-up
Unknown
aerial ability, marking, off-ball running — not in event data
Passing directness
93
Dribbling
65
Ball-winning
56
Territory (wide vs central)
52
Final-third threat
52
Transition ~proxy
50
Line-breaking
50
Defensive aggression
48
Progression
47
Press resistance ~proxy
47
Creativity
44
Carrying
44
Receiving zones
38
Crossing
38
Through-balls ~proxy
36
Box threat
31
Retention
26
Build-up
23
13

Similar Players — in style space

Closest comparables measured on the style scores above, within the same position family — so it separates how players are alike, not just how much they touch the ball. Each line explains the shared strength and the divergent mechanism. Scope: pooled across the Premier League, La Liga and the Egyptian Premier League, percentiled within each player's own league before comparing — a match from another league is marked with its league name.

Style, not quality: a high match here means two players tend to produce the ball in similar ways — it is not a ranking, a scouting recommendation, or a claim that they are equally good.

Mohamed El Deghemy Haras El Hodoud
72%
Driven by: passing directness (28%), crossing (16%), build-up (13%). Different mechanism — Kahraba more via final-third threat, crossing.
Aaron Wan-Bissaka Aston Villa · Premier League
72%
Driven by: build-up (31%), passing directness (26%), box threat (15%). Different mechanism — Kahraba more via defensive aggression, line-breaking; Wan-Bissaka more via crossing, territory (wide vs central).
Diego Rico Getafe · La Liga
63%
Driven by: build-up (32%), passing directness (27%), retention (20%). Different mechanism — Kahraba more via dribbling, carrying; Rico more via defensive aggression, line-breaking.
Ola Aina Nottingham Forest · Premier League
62%
Driven by: passing directness (43%), build-up (13%), retention (13%). Different mechanism — Aina more via through-balls, build-up.
Mohab Samy Canal SC
60%
Driven by: build-up (19%), passing directness (14%), retention (14%). Different mechanism — Kahraba more via dribbling, creativity; Samy more via territory (wide vs central).
Kiko Femenia Getafe · La Liga
57%
Driven by: build-up (31%), passing directness (16%), retention (15%). Different mechanism — Kahraba more via dribbling, line-breaking; Femenia more via territory (wide vs central).
14

Summary

Kahraba is an overlapping full-back: 5.5 progressive passes and 2 box entries, delivering 0 key passes. Inverted full-back. [1v1 recovery pace and off-ball overlap timing need tracking.]

Based on 3 matches (262 minutes) — an early read, treat with caution until more minutes are logged. He profiles as an overlapping full-back — best used in a system built around that identity. His biggest room for growth is crossing — even a modest improvement there would meaningfully lift his overall overlapping full-back profile.
✨ This report is interactive

Click any stat card to filter its map, hover a dot for the exact match, and use the dropdowns to slice passes zone-to-zone. Nothing here is static.